BRILLIANT!.
Thank you. You read my mind.
Pex

Well, you're certainly spot-on about the media throwing out selected sound bites; they can make anything come out the way they want it to sound. And as I mentioned in another thread, I was always under the impression that when someone was tried and the verdict was 'not guilty', that meant 'not guilty' and not 'not proven', a whole 'nother matter.

So if we're supposed to blindly follow the oppinions of the jury, what am I supposed to think when one of them says Jackson was innocent of this crime, but in his oppinion he is guilty of molesting other kids.

Does that mean the media is allowed to label him a molester for his actions in 1993?

Sure the media judges people based on half-truths and hearsay. And sometimes this targetting of individuals is pursued for creating profits alone.

But the entire media does not fall into the tabloid and fox news realm. Some of it is honestly just trying to portray public sentiment.

In any legal proceeding their is going to be questioning by one side or another. Verdicts are not absolute judgements. This is why we have the appeals process. Were you pointing your finger 30 years ago at Bob Dylan and Liberal media when they protested Ruben Carters arrest.

As you said, it is impossible to know outright if Jackson is guilty or innocent. But innocent people get convicted and guilty people go free every day, and our only defence against injustice is honest questioning of the system. Unfortunately we must accept the tabloid extreme along with the freedom to question, but if that's the price of free speech, then it's i'll gladly pay it.

Jeremy, I understand the point and appreciate the energy but I agree wih td that you are conflating the media into a monolithic purveyor of sensationalism, and it just isn't.

Also, juries can be perfectly correct to find a defendant "not guilty" based upon reasonable doubt, but that doesn't necessarily mean the defendant didn't do it, it just means guilt wasn't sufficiently proved. This is fine because we have chosen as a society to favor the defendant and innocent, but this shouldn't preclude people -- and the media -- from talking about whether or not someone "really" did it or not. And hell yes OJ did.

I have no problem with the jury finding MJ not guilty but that doesn't mean I think he's innocent.

Righto. MJ remains an innocent man in the eyes of the law, as he should, whether or not he actually did the things he was accused of.

Legal innocence does not necessarily imply or prove factual innocence.

Yes, and factual innocence unless you witnessed the molestation means diddly squot.

The point of the matter is, the court system is the system we have chosen to deal with criminal issues such as these since God knows when.

Unless one of us was in the room, our so called factual innocence opinions, are just that..opinions. The juror members who think he might have pawed the 93 boy....have their opinions too. They are certainly better people than the likes of Eric because they were able to distinguish b/w those opinions that were not necessarily challenged by the defense because THAT was not the case at hand, they were able to distingush from that matter to the matter at hand, where they found NO evidence that convinced them that MJ pawed Gavin Arvizo.

As I kept reminding all of you through out the Trial and keep reminding you now..THAT was the case. Gavin Arvizo. It was not a case about the life and times of MJ. Gavin said MJ molested him. 12 objective Jurors have said there is no convincing evidence to prove that, that is the case. Simple. Whatever you think of chandler or francia is downright irrelevant.

All this anger you direct towards MJ, you should direct towards the parents of the alleged prior victims, and the alleged victims themselves, who did not feel violated enough to seek justice in a criminal court so as to prevent this man who the likes of Eric think dangerous to children, from molesting another child.

The one that took him to Court, he showed up for. EVERY DAY. MJ showed up and arrived to hear his fate. He was found innocent of the 10 charges.

Yes, and factual innocence unless you witnessed the molestation means diddly squot.

So if there's no witness to a crime, it didn't happen? Is that like, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it ...?

3 out of 12 does not constitute "The jury" but a clear and shar minority within the jury.

Are you all delusional ?

(CBS) Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.


You had to see it to believe it. You had to be here in central California, in this nondescript little conservative town nestled in one of the most beautiful parts of the country, inside a Santa Barbara County courthouse. You had to watch Michael Jackson, and his accuser and prosecutors and defense lawyers and judge to truly understand how and why the King of Pop finds himself today in the position he is in.

You had to see how much paler he looks in person even than he appears on television. You had to see his entourage and the ghastly, ghostly way he walked into and out of court each day. You had to see his fans, the zealots who sacrificed the responsibilities in their own lives to come by day after day to lend support to the molestation and conspiracy defendant. And you had to see the parade of witnesses, so many of them sleazy or creepy or just downright odd who paraded in front of jurors for three long months.

You had to see what a punk the alleged victim seemed like on the witness stand and how shaky the core of his testimony was. You had to see how delusional his mother seemed in court and how much her testimony lacked in credibility and candor. You had to see how futilely prosecutors tried to convince jurors that it is a crime for a famous person, a target, to undertake good public relations or swift damage control. You had to see the evidence that piled up proving that the accusing family had a history of setting up and then hitting celebrities for payoffs.

You had to see how defense attorneys ran rings around prosecutors inside and out of court. You had to count how many times prosecution witnesses testified to facts that helped Jackson. You had to note how often both prosecution and defense witnesses told jurors that they had not been interviewed by law enforcement officials prior to the start of the case. You had notice how many times Santa Barbara Country District Attorney Tom Sneddon slumped down into his chair and pouted when a court ruling would go against him. And you had to notice how intently jurors were watching and listening to lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau when he delivered his closing argument last week.

But you also had to see and hear about the many crazy things Jackson did and said over the past few years. You had to hear the sick things that some of the witnesses accused Jackson of doing to those little boys. You had to look at the covers and titles of those adult magazines and books found in Jackson's Neverland home. You had to hear the similarities in the alleged seduction stories told by witnesses. You had to learn in detail from the prosecution's evidence about the ways in which Jackson's entourage often acted like racketeers.

You had to close your eyes and just listen to the words spoken in court and ask yourself, based upon all those words, which version of events was the truth. Was Jackson predator or prey? Was he a serial child molester as prosecutors claimed or was the victim of a family of grifters who knew and easy mark when they saw one? Was he lying or were his alleged victim and his mother lying? And in the end you had to try to figure out on your own whether both stories could be true: whether Jackson could initially have been this family's mark but they could have ended up instead as his victims.

If you did not see these things, you no doubt will have a more difficult time this morning understanding what happened here yesterday. This is not a difficult result to analyze or explain. Jackson's jury acquitted him of molestation because the evidence simply wasn't strong enough, on all levels and in any way, to support the felony convictions sought by prosecutors. He was acquitted because the witnesses against him were among the worst I have ever seen in a court. He was acquitted because the evidence against him was too unclear, too unfocused and too susceptible of having a benign interpretation.

Even though he is a freak, even though neither you nor I would ever let our children near him, Jackson is free today because it is not against the law to sleep in a bed with young boys. If you are angry with these jurors don't be. Rest assured that as a group they were perfectly willing, perhaps even a little eager, to send the King of Pop off to jail until he'd be eligible for Social Security. Take it as a testament to the monumental weakness of the evidence against Jackson that this did not occur. Or, to put it another way, the case against Jackson was so bad that even you would have acquitted him based solely upon the evidence. Yes, it was that bad.

That was an exellent piece Nick. It sums things up quite nicely. We, as the armchair quarterbacks we are saw none of those things.

To clarify things a bit, I did not intend to say that the media projects thir opinions maliciously. I see that many of the talking heads project their opinions because they believe they are right. Some are worse than others, and some do it with complete unintention.

One in particular that comes to my mind is Greta Van Sustren. She could give you the straight scoop directly off the queue card and have no extra words to say about something. But the look in her eye and how she grits her teeth (yes, she grits her teeth when she says something she doesn't agree with) will tell you her opinion.

The key point I'm trying to get across is not that the media is trying to push their agenda. We can debate that until the cows come home..and still later until the cows evolve! I'm saying that we, as consumers of the media, need to stop suckling off of their opinions and realize an opinion of a reporter is still, quite simply, an opinion. (Okay, that was a few too many opinions in a sentence.)

(As things go, I was in South Korea when the whole O.J. trial went down and don't even have an opinion about it...Eric.)

BHW, in a case like this with no physical evidence. When it's a he said, he said or she said, with no forensics, and the accuser is a proven liar, whatever your opinion is, on "factual innocence". does mean diddly squot.

Why? You have nothing to base that opinion on, other than your perception of the character of the accused. You were not present during the crime.

I will explain it with your example...If a Tree falls in the Forest and you are accused of cutting it down because some of us feel you hate trees and have been accused by the treehuggers.com of cutting trees in your past, and WE ALL know you spend lots of time in the forest and around trees. BHW, without any evidence of you physically being present in that particular forest, or your finger prints on the chain saw, or a witness seeing you cutting down the tree, it would be extremely unintelligent and illogical for you to be found guilty of cutting down that tree solely on the words of three journey men farmers who are known to wander the land accusing tree haters of cutting down trees, who have enjoyed your wealth and are bitter that you are over them, and are proven liars under oath.

Hell, most of the time, if a COP didn't directly witness it (and isn't willing to do the paperwork involved), it isn't a crime, so to speak. There have even been cases where the crime was videotaped, and the DA's office didn't want to prosecute! Sometimes I get so frustrated & disgusted w/the legal system I think a touch of nice, immediate, direct vigilatism could be a good thing.

brilliant thank you

lol...this post by this author must be a bloody joke, right? Oye, Bloke...I highly suggest you try out for...umm...The Last Comic (NOT) Standing? Ha! I suggest YOU get your facts straight, mate. "Mission Accomplished", my arse.

No comment on your article man. Why do you bother, if you dont like our court system then move to a different country or even go to a communist country. The court found him innocent mayb because the evidence wasnt solid to prove him wrong. He done alot of great things such as charity. Yes he is weird but seriously why do you hate him, is it cause hes richer and mroe famous then you. Famous people always have haters because haters are the people who are jealous because they are more wealthier and more talented than you. If you dislike our country, no one if forcing you to stay, move. And get rid of the court system? hope your being sarcastic cause if your not educated, the Judicial branch is the checks and balances of the government. Go to school learn about our governemnt system. I do not think our government is corrupt, if you think so then like i said go to some other country like mexico who has a corrupted government. Please, your lucky this country you have the freedom of speech. If this was in the cold war, you would be in jail for talking about our government being corrupted -_-".