Count 1 - not guilty
Count 2 - not guilty
Count 3 - not guilty
Count 4 - not guilty
Count 5 - not guilty
Count 6 - not guilty
Count 7 - not guilty
lesser offense - not guilty
Count 8 - not guilty
lesser offense - not guilty
Count 9 - not guilty
lesser offense - not guilty
Count 10 - not guilty
less offense - not guilty
More here, and full Jackson coverage here
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
1 - DrPat
Thanks, Eric - I could not believe that my regular station refused to break into Dr. Laura's program to announce that a verdict had been reached, let alone to read them!
2 - wallybangs
No surprise. The California DA did a terrible job. He who has the better lawyers usually wins which is why so many poor folks go to jail and rich people walk, regardless of guilt or innocence. I guess Michael Jackson will beat it to Europe now where he can live his eccentric life in peace.
3 - The Theory
and good riddance. The whole trial was in shambles from the begining. The jury realized, rightly, that nothing had been proved beyond weak acusations that seemed to crumble from the begining.
I don't know whether Jackson is a ped or not, but there is no way anyone should go to jail after a trial like that.
4 - MJ's biggest fan
I knew he wasn't guilty, I just knew it. Now I'm going to let him celebrate. This Friday I will bring my 10 year old son to Neverland and let him spend the weekend there. When I drop off my boy, I'm also going to give MJ a couple of bottles of wine to continue his celebration. This proves it. Now I can trust him.
5 - verdict is BS
yeah, this proves it alright. It proves that as long as your a celebrity that you can get away with anything out in Ca. ....Next to walk - Phil Spector (because of coarse Lana went into his house, found his gun and blew her brains out. Phil's a celebrity, he wouldn't hurt anyone right?)
6 - Silas Kain
The verdict isn't BS. The prosecution didn't build a strong case. Just watched the jurors' press conference and I was amazed at how much more intelligent these people were over the OJ jurors. Regardless of the outcome, there were really no winners in this case. Everyone paid a price, especially the over burdened taxpayers of the state of California.
7 - Marc
Note to MJ's biggest fan:
Make sure you give your kid a dildo and have him take his pet hamster also.
Hate to see him arrive unprepared.
8 - Mark Harrington
I see we have the ussual MJ Haters. He has been found not guilty, period. That is the end of it. If he is a pedo, more things will come to light and he will go down eventually.
However I dont believe that he has done anything wrong other than being an eccentric human being (which is no crime).
Eric, do you have any comments, it seems the fans were right to beleive in MJ?
9 - sandra smallson
I told you so! I am extremely satisfied. I am also delighted.
This has nothing to do with the people who have the better lawyers win. MATLOCK could have won this case for MJ. The case was a mess. The boy was a liar, a proven liar as was his entire family. Whatever your thoughts on MJ, you can not send a man to jail on the words of proven liars. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE to show that MJ touched that boy. Just the boy's word. The boy is a liar. So what part of "NOT GUILTY" are some of you finding difficult?! Deal with the facts and not your narrow minded views.
I can not abide wasting emotion but I have to say I was hyperventilating yesterday as I waited for the verdict. Having a panic attack almost and I haven’t had that in months. I was terrified because let’s face it.. America did everything to put MJ in jail. The jury was not sequestered in such a high profile case where even going in it was almost impossible to believe that any of the jurors had no pre-conceived belief about MJ as a person. The jury was all white and conservative white to boot. The Judge as I stated numerous times was biased. He allowed in all sorts of things and I hear was visibly disappointed when he said to MJ, you are free, your bail is exonerated..apparently he said it as he was standing to leave. THAT is not common practice. The Judge often looks at the defendant to pass on the instructions. He never spared MJ even one glance. We had a Prosecution team who refused to look at the case before them but chose to use their own beliefs about weirdness of MJ to prosecute a case that no discerning Prosecutr would have brought to Trial. Not with the witnesses they had and especially not with THOSE wiotnesses when you have no physical evidence.
I was certain from the start and the mind boggled that others seemed to think otherwise. MJ had this boy to himself for a while and did nothing. When was he supposed to do something? After he had sent them away and only called them back for the documentary because they had told him that he was a big part of Gavin’s cancer being in remission. MJ being as naïve as possible brought them back cos he thought it would be good publicity and show how he truly loved children. Little did he know that by this time, the family were bitter at having been discarded and plotted their revenge.
It has come to nothing now. The media trued, the prosecution tried, the judge tried, BUT the TRUTH prevailed in the end. NOT GUILTY. GUILTLESS which means he is innocent. TYou can all argue about this does not mean he is innocent but if that is the case then nobody since the beginning of the criminal justice system who has ever been fopund not guilty is innocent. We can not make the difference in the verdict only for MJ. The opposite of guilt is innocence so if you are not guilty, then on the basis of the facts before 12 jurors, he has been found innocent. He is not a child molester, or kidnapper or whatever else. The Jurors have impressed me immensely. I worried if they would LISTEN and apply the facts of THIS case, but the y showed me that they can.
Jordan chandler’s case was never brought to trial. It would have been pretty daft to convict him of a case that never stood up to cross examination. Expect gavin to quarrel with his mother now just like Jordan hasn’t spoken to his mother for 11 years. MJ is weird, strange and does inappropriate things BUT he is not a pedophile and unless you can prove otherwise, let the man be. The one case that has come to court, MJ has won. Jordan clearly didn’t feel that violated to bring his own case to Court. I can not imagine if I was raped or indecently assaulted that there is any amount of money in this world that can prevent me from wanting to see the rapist punished. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY ONEARTH. Perhaps after the rapist is in jail, I might go for the civil case if I am destitute but tio say I would take money as a settlement? NEVER! Which is why I have doubts about chandler as well. Especially about his mother too. Taking money from the man who has molested your young son. She could have got that money after a criminal trial too but they took the money and ran. MJ paid them off because he could..the so called victims have no excuse for taking the money.
I am ecstatic with this verdict and I know it will not change the narrow minds of those of you who feel weird equals pedophile but make no mistake about it, Justice has been served.
10 - Eric Olsen
Mark, fans were right to believe he would be found "not guilty," yes indeed
11 - Mark Harrington
Eric, 'not guilty', by definition of the US legal system means that Michael Jackson is to be considered innocent.
Check the following facts about the MJ case:
In the entire state of California in 2002 (the last year for which statistics are available), there were 236,471 felony charge dispositions and just 766 acquittals--about three-tenths of 1% of all cases, according to the California Attorney General's office. Statewide, there were also about 40,000 dismissals, where either the judge or the district attorney decides the case should be thrown out. The overall conviction rate is about 83%.
In Santa Barbara County, where Jackson was prosecuted, the district attorney wins even more consistently, about 87% of the time. In 2002, there were just three acquittals out of 2,407 felony cases.
Assuming that between 5% and 10% of the felony cases go to trial (with the rest resolved by plea bargain) the overall statewide post-trial acquittal rate is between 3% and 6%. In Santa Barbara, the rate is between 1.3% and 2.6%. These are odd ducks, even when the King of Pop is not involved.
Eugene Volokh, also a UCLA law professor, points out that prosecutors should be expected to win almost all of the time because they get to pick their cases. "A prosecutor shouldn't go to trial with a case where he thinks there is only a 50% chance of conviction, because if he thinks the odds [are that low], they must think there is some chance for reasonable doubt."
While a prosecutor can't pick and choose every time in alleged sex crimes--although where someone is murdered, for instance, there should be a strong urge to bring a case--there is ample discretion, which state statistics demonstrate. Over the last ten years, the number of felony arrests per 100,000 people in Santa Barbara County has fallen from 1,636 in 1994, to 925 in 2003, the last year for which statistics are available. Most categories of crime--violent offenses, property offenses, drug offenses--track the overall trend.
But the numbers of felony arrests for sex offenses, including lewd or lascivious conduct--the main charge against Jackson--jumped up and down with a logic of their own. In 1999, there were 94 charges; in 2000, there were 116, even as the overall crime rate held fairly steady.
THE IMPORTANT BIT:
Then in 2003, as the county was ginning up its investigation of Jackson, the number of felony sex offense arrests fell almost by half (from 110 in 2002, to just 60).
All this suggests that District Attorney Tom Sneddon had a choice, despite his denials. "We don't select victims of crimes, and we don't select the family. We try to make a conscientious decision and go forward," Sneddon said after the verdict was announced, adding his refusal to apologize.
But can anyone imagine a case like this going forward if Jackson were not the defendant?
Interesting commentry woudn't you say Eric.
12 - Eric Olsen
I would argue the opposite: in a high profile case like this he had no choice but to pursue it. To do otherwise would be to say "we don't take these kinds of crimes seriously"
13 - nick
It is not about taking the crime seriously or not it is about having a minimum of common sense.
Imagine that : Gavin did not know what an erection was! At 13! He had never heard about masturbation!
Who are we kidding here ?
14 - not starstruck
nick, when I was 13 I hadn't went through sex-ed in school yet and I was also unfamiliar with those adult sounding terms. The words more commonly used were 'hard on' and 'beating off' so give the molestation victim a break here.
Now, lets see....you have a poor 13 year old nobody with a mom who's been physically/verbally abused by her spouse for 15 years from the ghetto's of LA taking on arguably the biggest superstar in the history of the universe.....uh, no-brainer what the verdict would be.
Without a high-res video of MJ with his hand down the pants of Gavin "beating it" showing the jury "he's bad", well of coarse he's going to walk.
Juror #1 admitted that he thought MJ had molested young boys, but that there wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Some of the other jurors also said how they didn't like the eccentric way that Janet Arviso spoke and shook her finger at them in court. Those are the reasons for the verdict!
George Lopez was quoted saying "If I ever decide to be criminal, I'll just move to Santa Maria."
So get off your high horse all you MJ fans!.....just because he's not behind bars DOES NOT mean that he isn't a molester.
15 - Took
Not guilty DOES NOT mean innocent. Not guilty means that there was insufficient evidence to convict of a crime.
16 - he did it
I agree.....without forensic evidence in a sex-crime offense, especially in a high-profile case, with one of the best defense lawyers in the world, reasonable doubt will always be there. No matter the circumstance, this was a tough case to prove. Because MJ was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean he is innocent. It only shows that there simply was not enough evidence (in these jurors minds) to find him unequivocally guilty.
17 - he did it
let me clarify from above and swap the two words because this is what I really meant:
Because MJ was NOT FOUND guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean he is innocent.
18 - Leanne
YES!!!! I knew all along that Michael was not guilty at all!! I really blame Gavin, his blimped-faced mother with no lids on her eyes and his younger brother for all this because she trained both her sons to lie to court and police for nothing and I really do hope for the better, if they go to court and prove guilty, get the death penalty or recieve over 60 or 70 years behind bars... The mother should get 60 years behind bars, Gavin recieves 70 years behind bars and the youngest son recieves 80 years behind bars and apologise to Michael Jackson for lying and pay him over $30,000 because if they don't... it'S GOODBYE FOREVA!!!!!!!!!! (in prison)
19 - Phillip Winn
Leanne, thanks for demonstrating why exactly Michael is free today. Nine jurors let their dislike of a (blimp-faced?) woman cloud their judgment, and they managed to convince three others to rationalize away what they knew to be true.
But hey, you go on believing that Michael is "not guilty at all," even though jurors have been quoted as disagreeing with you. It'll make you feel better. I just hope you never sit on a jury.
20 - Nancy
It wasn't her looks; it was her past record of legal involvements plus her behavior on the stand. She convicted (or lost the case) all by herself.
21 - sandra smallson
Phillip, don't play naive. You know better than that. Don't let your anger at the verdict overtake your common sense. The Jurors certainly did not like the mother. They found her not credible. They ALSO found Gavin not credible and thought he was acting most times...or did you conveniently forget to listen to them when they said that?
They found the children to be actors, they found the mother to be an opportunist and they believed that the entire family wanted to be close to MJ..taking that into consideration with the lack of physical evidence, they retained his presumption of INNOCENCE:)
...We must thank God that YOU were not on the Jury because how you can advocate a verdict of guilty in a case where the accuser and his family are PROVEN liars under oath, is beyond human comprehension. So, a man, should be sent to prison for 20 years on the words of proven liars and cheats and opportunists? Why? because you and your ilk feel he certainly did it in 1993? A case that NEVER stood the test of cross examination because the alleged victim clearly did not feel violated enough to insist on a criminal trial?
Who are you kidding?! LISTEN..PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. He was NOT proven guilty, so we have every right to pronounce him innocent. It is those of you running around in a state of despair trying to explain the difference b/w Not Guilty and innocent that need to calm down.
It is you and your ilk that need to be advised, if it gets you through the night to think, not guilty does not mean innocent..then sweet dreams. Do not let the bed bugs bite.
I could not care less if juror number 1 thinks Mj may have molested other boys. More than half of America think that already. However, it just shows how the prosecution had NO evidence and how all their witnesses lacked ANY credibility whatsoever, including the accuser, that even with that mindset, they were unable to find MJ guilty on ANY charge.
Justice was done. Snap out of it. Go find another celebrity to bring down. It's a hobby in America, seems like.
22 - mel
I totally totally agree with all you have said Sandra, Im gonna be brief but i also agree tha tthe judge was very biased, the amout of times that Thomas messereau objected and he still allowed the remark was blood ridiculous....I thought it was just me but u saw that also. I soooooooo excited as I heard those not guilty counts being read out. That lorna x who read out the counts, I now just love the sound of her voice purely because she read out all the not guilty counts!! Dam If mj has a party I would travel from london england to be there!!!
23 - get him help!
dream on MJ queens Mel, Sandra and Nancy!
You know down in your hearts that your Idol is a sick pervert. If this trial were about the other victims, he'd be behind bars. Juror members concluded that. 1/4 of them had to be persuaded by the others to render this verdict. Mesereau argued that the accuser and his mother made up the allegations against Jackson to get money. So where is the civil case? Mark Geragos dug up all the dirt on this family before Jacko diddled this boy. Your idol knew of their crediblity problems and he took advantage of it.....The Freak needs help!
24 - get him help!
Leanne (the other MJ queen)
Yeah, you knew it all along. Your Idol just keeps a boatload of Porn in his room and sleeps with little boys until they become teenagers. . . the Perv needs help!
25 - Tom
Wow just reading this there was zero child porn. What they found was adult, heterosexual, S&M pornography. Wrap your brain around that.