Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 At Motown: A Long Long Time Ago
With a resolution of the Michael Jackson trial in his favor, the speculators are speculating on how he might revive his once majestic career, which began as a tyke performing with his brothers in the Jackson 5. There are even...
Posted to Music by Eric Olsen on June 15, 2005 04:48 PM
Blame America First
For the past few days I've been cut off from civilization, and I seemed to have missed Michael Jackson's acquittal. Actually, I wouldn't say I missed it; I didn't really follow the trial at all when it was going on....
Posted to Culture by Elyas Bakhtiari on June 15, 2005 04:13 PM
Thoughts on Michael Jackson
Would I push past it to remain in healthy contact with the real world?
Posted to Music by Mark Saleski on June 15, 2005 10:36 AM
Michael Jackson and The American Dream
Not since Howard Hughes has America had a stranger celebrity millionaire.
Posted to Culture by gypsyman on June 15, 2005 06:17 AM
Michael Jackson - Guilty Until Proven Innocent
FLAME WARNING. What the hell country is this? Should we just get rid of the court system and go back to public lynching? What is the standard for this crap now? Does it mean that if the MSM convicts you of...
Posted to Culture by Jeremy H. Bol on June 15, 2005 02:19 AM
Michael Jackson Did His Part, Now Who Will Step Up Next?
Michael Jackson took one for the team. And by team, I mean the military-industrial-media-infotainment complex, the sinister (but entertaining!) organization that aims to infiltrate the brains of the Western World with images so delightful and fluffy and exuberant and wonderful that...
Posted to Culture by Eric Berlin on June 14, 2005 06:57 PM
Michael Jackson After the Verdict: Monumental Self-Regard and Indirect Reassurances
Once the dramatic moment passed when the jury announced that Michael Jackson was not guilty of the charges against him, the curious — I among them — have been waiting to see what clues he and his would be...
Posted to Culture by Eric Olsen on June 14, 2005 02:09 PM
What price: Wealth
Compare the case of Michael Jackson, just acquitted on charges of child molesting with the many Catholic priests who molested children in their charge. I have paid as little attention to this case as is possible in a world where...
Posted to Culture by Barbara Payne on June 14, 2005 07:18 AM
Jackson Not Guilty, but News Media Sure Is
I made the mistake of turning on my television this afternoon, to find the news networks had pre-empted regularly scheduled programming to bring us a "breaking news" story. Michael Jackson was found Not Guilty on all charges. We saw a stiff-limbed Jackson...
Posted to Culture by Pete Petrisko on June 13, 2005 11:29 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!!!!