Michael Jackson Verdict

[Krista]

Its coming up in 10 min. 1:45 pacific, and 4:45 eastern.

[kwanluv]

Not Guilty on all counts

[MKGrace]

Not guilty on all counts, even the lesser ones. Smells fishy to me, but I didn't follow the trial closely so I don't have an educated opinion one way or the other. It does feel like there is no justice for the rich.

[lavender]

Well it was a shoddy case. I don't know why they went through this based on that crazy mom and son. Their testimony was terrible and not credible at all.

I wouldn't be able to convict based on THIS case. In the beginning I just knew they had a case this time. After time went by I said there's no way they can convict on this evidence. They picked the wrong case to try MJ.

[Krista]

yeah I agree, it was really not a good case to convict him of it, with.

Im not sure he's truly innocent, but there was no credibility with the people charging him

[IzzyS]

Bleah! Any parent that allows his/her children to sleep with that crazy nut has to be sick. JMHO.

[handlem9z]

Michael Jackson + Sleeping with Young Boys = FREAK

The case was weak and had too many holes in it to convict.

[ScoobertDieu]

People from the jury are speaking out, and they said the mother of the boy wouldn't stop staring at the jury. Freaked them out. And, the mother snapped her fingers at the jury, which they didn't like either. The mother may've lost the case for the prosecution.

[JerryStopher]

The Anglo-American system of common jurisprudence won't work atall if we don't believe in it. Me, I believe in it. If the jury did not find him guilty, then: he is innocent.

Now, if he had been charged with being weird, he might have been convicted. But being weird is not a crime in California.

[Krista]

He's innocent in a court, but courts are not error proof.

[scheherazade]

Actually, no court can declare someone innocent. They're either guilty or not guilty -- but never "innocent." Just because a man isn't convicted, doesn't mean necessarily that they didn't do whatever he is charged with -- the prosecution just doesn't always prove their case. Semantics, but an important distinction.

I'm just sad that we won't get the Diane Sawyers special of Jackson in his tidy, yet colorful jail cell. Sigh.....

[Emerald2000]

I don't know...although he's "not guilty" I still doubt he's innocent.

[GoldenMichelle]

well in essence they are proving him innocent....innocent until proven guilty...he wasn't proven guilty so therefore he's innocent.

At least that's the way its suppossed to work.

I have mixed feelings on the case none of which I really feel like going into right now, but as I didn't really follow the proceedings closely for now I'll assume the jury knows what they are doing...after all they were there, not me.

[COMPROF]

Actually, its way more than semantics... a finding of not guilty is a finding that the state did not make its case. It is not and cannot ever be a finding of innocent... juries are not the judges of innocence.
My problem with their finding is the in the alcohol verdict, where there was plenty of evidence, and that taints the other finding of insufficient evidence... and in the court of public opinion many found him guilty long ago... Mr. Jackson, who makes his living off the rest of us, will just have to live with that.

[SkateWorlds1]

Many people wrongly convicted have been found and declared "innocent" as opposed to not guilty through DNA testing. This was not the case in this trial. I approve of the verdict. The mother had tried this before with JC Penny. I hate Nancy Grace so I took particular pleasure in seeing her great dismay on her nightly newscast. :rollin

[JerryStopher]

GoldenMichelle said ... well in essence they are proving him innocent....innocent until proven guilty...he wasn't proven guilty so therefore he's innocent. I would nitpick on one word: you said "until." I think it's "innocent unless proven guilty." And in this case, Jackson was not proven guilty, therefore, he is innocent. That's the American way.

Those who say it's not so are incorrect. With the presumption of innocence, the way it works is as GoldenMichelle suggests: if the accused is not proven guilty, he remains innocent.

Michael Jackson is only guilty of being weird, which, as I think I mentioned before, is no crime in California.

[Krista]

If it was a crime to be weird in california, then they'd have to make the whole state a prison *grins and runs from anyone living in California* with the exception of Michelle and her family of course :D

ok Im j/k :P

[tongueincheek]

If the jury did not find him guilty, then: he is innocent.Those who say it's not so are incorrect. With the presumption of innocence, the way it works is as GoldenMichelle suggests: if the accused is not proven guilty, he remains innocent. If only these were true statements. But they are not. Just because a man isn't convicted, doesn't mean necessarily that they didn't do whatever he is charged with -- the prosecution just doesn't always prove their case. Semantics, but an important distinction. Scheherazade is correct. Take the case of Mel Ignatow (http://www.kypost.com/opinion/weath093097.html), a murderer/rapist/sexual sadist who was found not guilty by a jury. Not long after his trial, photographic evidence was found in a house he used to own, and he ultimately confessed to the crime. So although he was found "not guilty/innocent" of the crime, he is indeed guilty.

More on Mel Ignatow (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/25/48hours/murder/main325643.shtml)

[manskater]

I think it is very interesting that some of the jurors have stated their personal belief was that MJ may have molested some children but there was too much reasonable doubt in this particular case. I can understand the jurors quandry. They have to make a verdict on the case in front of them and the mother and boy just made the case a bit strange.

I did find disheartening that Mesereau stated on CNN this morning when asked whether MJ will continue having sleepovers with little boys , that MJ will continue to do what he does in his home and that he will just be more careful who he lets into his life. Doesn't sound encouraging to me that MJ will be changing his behavior. It just seems that he will be more careful not to get caught in any uncompromising positions. :x

[Shiprock]

Had to laugh about the Nancy Grace reference. Use to like Headlines News when it was all about just news but stop watching when they change their format.

ITA: with Jerry Stopher that you're innocent until proven guilty and its the American Way.:CH

[Delilah's Mom]

I personally think the jury got it right with THIS case (except for the alcohol part) given the evidence. Having said that, I don't think he's innocent. I believe he has molested boys in the past, and may well have molested this young boy too. Too bad the DA didn't stick to what he might have been able to prove & decided to put in the conspiracy charges, thus requiring the crazy mom to testify.

[SkateWorlds1]

They discussed the coke cans on the airplane this morning and the lawyers said that even though the flight attendent was there and testified, she did not actually see Micheal pouring wine and giving it directly to a child. This whole case was a 4 million dollar waste of the tax payers money of Santa Maria and county. The DA's cocky attitude did not help matters either and probably influenced the jury along with the mother pointing her finger at them.

[RA5CViggie]

I hate Nancy Grace so I took particular pleasure in seeing her great dismay on her nightly newscast.
(sniggering) She looked as if she really wanted to kill someone. I could almost hear her seething through my TV.

[IzzyS]

I understand the verdict, although I don't agree with it, but one of the great things about it was that it bugged Nancy Grace. Ugh! I simply detest that woman! Even when I agree with her on a case, I still detest her. Her facts are *always* wrong, and the way she treats her guests I'm surprised any of them ever return.

There was a terrific article about her in the L.A. Times recently, mostly talking about how she is popular and brings in a lot of viewers, so CNN and Court TV ignore her stupidity in exchange for increasing numbers. Blech! Nothing like dumbing down television to make money, IMO.

[SkateWorlds1]

:p It was funny to see her after the verdict. I thought she was going to explode! (extra snicker)

[GinnySmith]

The verdict does not prove MJ to be innocent. It only means the prosecution failed to prove that MJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[vanhs]

tru dat, i hate nancy too. she thinks everyone is guilty unless proven innocent and she thinks she knows EVERYTHING! She looks like a Rino w/a bad attitude.

[RA5CViggie]

The verdict does not prove MJ to be innocent. It only means the prosecution failed to prove that MJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or maybe it means that the prosecution couldn't prove him guilty because he isn't. For my own peace of mind, I'd prefer to believe that over believing that Tom Sneddon is such a piss poor D.A. that after twelve years, about a hundred investigators, and who knows how much money, the best he could do for evidence of child molestation was a bunch of heterosexual and legal albeit dirty magazines. If Michael Jackson truly is a child molestor and Sneddon just f'ed up the case, he should be pistol-whipped and then shot in the face for blowing it for those children.

[attyfan]

Remember OJ? The D.A. there couldn't prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, either, but a civil jury found that it was still highly likely that OJ did do it (to get punitive damages, OJ's guilt had to be proven by clear and convincing evidence -- stronger than the "more probable than not" that is required in most civil cases, but still weaker than the standard to convict of a crime). I think that Sneddon does deserve a pistol whipping -- if he didn't have the conspiracy and false imprisonment charges, he could have kept mama off of the stand. I feel sorry for the kid, though -- he is (IMO) definitely a victim of abuse, the only debate being the identity of the abuser (MJ or from mama (or both -- she exploited his cancer for her benefit, and the cancer was real, so her attempts to exploit the alleged molestation could mean that it, too, was real))