Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
And he's been found not guilty on all charges. Comments?
Posted: 22:19 Jun 13 2005
Michael Jackson cleared of all 10 charges
The jury went out to deliberate verdicts for ten different charges on Michael Jackson on June 3rd and according to the BBC news website are now back with their decision.
Many different permutations of sentences have been looked at for the singer, the maximum of which would be over 18 years if found guilty on all ten accounts. Sentencing, however, won't be known for over a month after the verdict is heard.
The article can be found here with useful links to sentencing and guides down the right of the page.
(Edited by lil_miss 13/06/2005 22:24)
Many different permutations of sentences have been looked at for the singer, the maximum of which would be over 18 years if found guilty on all ten accounts. Sentencing, however, won't be known for over a month after the verdict is heard.
The article can be found here with useful links to sentencing and guides down the right of the page.
(Edited by lil_miss 13/06/2005 22:24)
17 Replies and 2170 Views in Total.
Gobsmacked! I thought he was going down (so to speak)
by Milky
And he's been found not guilty on all charges. Comments?
Posted: 22:20 Jun 13 2005 
In all honesty I thought he would be aquitted of the big charges and maybe given something like a suspended sentence or massive fine on the smaller charges...
Posted: 22:24 Jun 13 2005 
I'm surprised too, but without having been at the trial we can't know whether it's the right decision.
I think Jackson is obviously mentally unstable, but the Arvizo's are very dodgy, the mother especially.
They say he's innocent, good for him.
Now hopefully he can miraculously return to full mental health and produce an amazing album of his 80s/90s quality. I wish.
I think Jackson is obviously mentally unstable, but the Arvizo's are very dodgy, the mother especially.
They say he's innocent, good for him.
Now hopefully he can miraculously return to full mental health and produce an amazing album of his 80s/90s quality. I wish.
Posted: 22:29 Jun 13 2005 
Read some of the jury's statement this morning. The first thing they decided was that to judge him as "Michael Jackson - Superstar" would be the wrong thing to do so they made a concious decision to think of him as just another person.
by Miss Corrupt
If he wasn't famous, he'd have gone to prison.
They said that the evidence presented was pretty weak and that there was no smoking gun which they could be 100% certain meant he did something.
Do I think he did it....perhaps..but if the prosecution wanted to get him they needed more credible evidence. In my mind they lost this case when the mother went on the stand as she came across as in it for the money.
Posted: 09:40 Jun 14 2005 She's one crazy bird
by Milky
In my mind they lost this case when the mother went on the stand as she came across as in it for the money.
Posted: 09:50 Jun 14 2005 I agree. I really believe he did a few of those charges, didn't he admit to having children in his bed in the Martin Bashir documentary?
by Miss Corrupt
If he wasn't famous, he'd have gone to prison.
And that woman who released doves when he was found not guilty, was a complete fruitcake
Posted: 12:05 Jun 15 2005 
Yeah, just a little bit Lizzie... a complete and utter fruitloop.
A couple of the jurors said later that they believed Jackson has molested boys but that there wasn't enough evidence in this case to convict him.
A couple of the jurors said later that they believed Jackson has molested boys but that there wasn't enough evidence in this case to convict him.
Posted: 12:54 Jun 15 2005 The thing that got me it really turned into a media circus, people gave up their jobs and moved countries "to be with Michael". There are some scary people in this world
by Keenangel
Yeah, just a little bit Lizzie... a complete and utter fruitloop.
A couple of the jurors said later that they believed Jackson has molested boys but that there wasn't enough evidence in this case to convict him.
Posted: 14:12 Jun 15 2005 Yeah he did but it's not against the law. It's friggin strange but it's not against the law...
by lizzieslayer
(quotes)
I agree. I really believe he did a few of those charges, didn't he admit to having children in his bed in the Martin Bashir documentary?
Posted: 14:59 Jun 15 2005 
Let's not also forget the standard of proof for a criminal trial: 'satisfied so you're sure' or 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
While a few of the jurors may have thought Jacko probably did get up to no good and did do some of what was alleged, based on the evidence they heard they just weren't sure of it. And, unfortunately, the Defence managed to muddy the waters enough, with the whole 'Alvizos being gold diggers' claim, that the jury just weren't satisfied to that high level required.
Remeber OJ's trial? He was acquitted at a criminal trial. But when he was prosecuted in a civil trial brought by his wife's family, he was convicted because the standard of proof at a civil trial is the lower 'on the balance of probabilities'. In other words, thinking he 'probably' murdered his wife was enough.
Still, coming back to Jacko, there's a big difference between a jury finding someone 'not guilty' of an offence to declaring them 'innocent' of it.
(Edited by Whistler 15/06/2005 21:01)
While a few of the jurors may have thought Jacko probably did get up to no good and did do some of what was alleged, based on the evidence they heard they just weren't sure of it. And, unfortunately, the Defence managed to muddy the waters enough, with the whole 'Alvizos being gold diggers' claim, that the jury just weren't satisfied to that high level required.
Remeber OJ's trial? He was acquitted at a criminal trial. But when he was prosecuted in a civil trial brought by his wife's family, he was convicted because the standard of proof at a civil trial is the lower 'on the balance of probabilities'. In other words, thinking he 'probably' murdered his wife was enough.
Still, coming back to Jacko, there's a big difference between a jury finding someone 'not guilty' of an offence to declaring them 'innocent' of it.
(Edited by Whistler 15/06/2005 21:01)
Posted: 20:56 Jun 15 2005 
GOBSMACKED...although yes there is that "beyond reasonable doubt" point.....i think that he did do something..but proving it is another matter
be a case of wait and see if he is stupid enough to continue having kids at Neverland
...although yes there is that "beyond reasonable doubt" point.....i think that he did do something..but proving it is another matterbe a case of wait and see if he is stupid enough to continue having kids at Neverland
Posted: 17:45 Jun 16 2005
Press reports from America are claiming that Michael Jackson has died at his Neverland home. Sources close to the family say that his body is to be melted down and turned into toys because they feel it's the kid's turn to play around with him for a change.
Posted: 22:55 Jun 18 2005