Blogcritics On Michael Jackson - After the Verdict - Page 4

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - q

  Jun 16, 2005 at 5:28 pm

  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

  Jun 17, 2005 at 2:36 pm

  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

  Jun 17, 2005 at 3:41 pm

  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

  Jun 18, 2005 at 2:06 pm

  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

  Jun 18, 2005 at 2:22 pm

  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

  Jun 29, 2005 at 3:59 am

  dat crazy niggaz nose gon fall

• 7 - Mihos

  Aug 03, 2005 at 9:59 pm

  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

  Aug 03, 2005 at 10:02 pm

  paid by whom?

• 9 - Timo

  Apr 19, 2006 at 4:24 am

  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!!!!