Michael Jackson was found not guilty on all counts (see coverage of the trial here).
Is he redeemed? Does his career have a future? Does "not guilty" mean "innocent"? Is he a victim or a predator? And what role did the media play in this appassionata? All this and more discussed below:
Roberts made fun of Jacko in 80's memo
John Roberts' legal resume is so impeccable that it is almost superhuman. He went to college at Harvard, graduating summa cum laude, and stayed for law school, graduating magna cum laude. After law school, he clerked for...
Posted to Politics by Thad Anderson on August 16, 2005 03:19 PM
Jackson Jurors Recant - Mesereau Retorts
Three of the jurors who found Michael Jackson not guilty on all charges brought against him in a dramatic June 13 verdict have now stated they believe the erstwhile King of Pop molested Gavin Arviso, his accuser in the case....
Posted to Culture by Eric Olsen on August 10, 2005 08:57 AM
Jackson Jurors Should Be Jailed
I am outraged at the unethical, lying and scheming jurors Eleanor Cook who...
Posted to Culture by Stacy L Harp on August 9, 2005 11:56 PM
True Crime Update: Missing Cruise Ship Passenger, Gricar and That Wacky Jackson Jury
The Jackson Jury, George Smith IV and the most heinous crime of the week.
Posted to Culture by Patfish on August 9, 2005 06:25 AM
Cal Supreme Court Upholds Secrecy in Michael Jackson Trial
Our judicial system is a delicate balancing act between the rights of the defendant (with an eye toward protecting the innocent accused), the victim (justice), and society as a whole (sequestering and/or rehabilitating the dangerous, letting it be known that...
Posted to Culture by Eric Olsen on August 2, 2005 12:47 PM
Michael Jackson: The Public Has, Um, Spoken
The sense I get is that the general public is okay with the Michael Jackson "not guilty" verdict, not necessarily because they don't think he did anything wrong, but because our system favors the accused and given the demonstrably variable...
Posted to Music by Eric Olsen on July 30, 2005 11:09 AM
The Fly on the Wall Lands at a Jackson Family Confab
The Fly on the Wall Lands in the Middle of a Jackson Family Planning Meeting. The Victory Tour Begins.
Posted to Culture by Patfish on June 29, 2005 05:36 AM
Michael Jackson Speaks
Well, Jackson types anyway, with his first public message since his acquittal on child molestation and conspiracy charges June 13: "Without God, my children, my family and you, my fans, I could not have made...
Posted to Culture by Eric Olsen on June 28, 2005 03:22 PM
Article comments
1 - q
I find it interesting that his innocence relys completely on the fact that the Arvisos were only there to rake in as much cash from him as they could get. Yet, they have repeatedly stated that there was no motivation for his money.
MJ would most likely be found guilty in a civil case as the burdon of proof is far less, the jury only needs to have 3/4 members agree (or 9 of 12) and MJ would be forced to the stand in which the prosecution would tear him up and spit him out. - - take heed fans, remember OJ? - -
So here's the kicker! If there is no civil case, this means that the MJ defense was all smoke and mirrors about a greedy family that really had only one objective....to expose MJ for the acts of molestation that really WERE committed.
If there is a civil case MJ will most likely be found at some degree of guilt. It's a no win for wacko!!
something to ponder
2 - Eric Olsen
interesting points q - but what about the mother swearing there wouldn't be a suit? She would have to come up with a "reason" for her change of heart.
3 - q
Yes, this is where the confusion lies.
If the mom really was this so-called "grifter" then she would never have made the statement about not wanting "the devils money" and a civil case would have been filed before the criminal case was finished. I really don't think it was ever about the moms fabricated, quick, get-rich devised plan at all. Otherwise, the money would be right there for the taking.
Sneddon knew MJ's history and was frustrated at how he paid a huge (25 million) get out of jail - free settlement in '93 and figured this would be his only shot at a redeemed conviction. He felt that Jackson had continually molested young boys and it was his duty to prosecute. Sneddon has only lost 5 cases in 37 years, which clearly shows that as the District Attorney, he only seeks justice when there is due cause.
4 - q
The mother could always use for a "reason" is that her family were accused to be "liars" and the only way to prove that they were telling the truth would be in a civil case. She could even state that before any judgement is awarded, that all of the amount after legal fees would be donated to a charity for cancer research. Like the OJ case, this would also be the only way for MJ to "pay" (literally) for the crimes committed.
5 - Eric Olsen
q, more good points - the more Mesereau brags about showing them to be liars, the more justification she has, to "protect the family name" or whatever
6 - me
dat crazy niggaz nose gon fall
7 - Mihos
Janet A. was likely paid a large sum of money to help plant evidence in Neverland.
She didn't need Jackson's money, she needed
the instigators.
8 - Eric Olsen
paid by whom?
9 - Timo
Well Janet.A is fucked!!!!!!!
what's she doing now?......oh yeah shes on trial for fraud,i don't no the exact charges but its all down to one thing again........MONEY!!!!