| Author |
Message |
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
 Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:25 pm Micheal Jackson: Not Guilty on all counts |
|
MJ was found NOT GIULTY on all counts this afternoon as the verdict was read. I saw this on CNN as I watched it on tv
Also, from msnbc....
| MSNBC.com wrote: |
Jackson not guilty on all counts
Singer acquitted in alleged child molestation case
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC
Updated: 5:27 p.m. ET June 13, 2005
Michael Jackson was found not guilty Monday on all counts in his trial on child molestation charges, concluding a two-year legal saga for one of the world's most well-known pop stars.
The courtroom sat silently as Judge Rodney Melville opened the jury envelopes one by one and silently read the verdict forms to himself before allowing the court clerk to read the verdict out loud. Lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau Jr. patted Jackson on the shoulder after the verdict was read. Two jurors dabbed their eyes with tissues.
Outside the courthouse, fans shouted and wept with joy over Jackson's acquittal.
Jackson, 46, was indicted on 10 counts for allegedly molesting a then-13-year-old cancer patient, serving him wine and then conspiring to hold him and his family captive. The charges against him included four allegations of molestation, one of attempted molestation, four of serving alcohol to a minor and one for conspiracy.
The singer could have faced nearly 20 years in prison if convicted on all charges. Instead, he will go free Monday afternoon.
Jurors deliberated for seven days before reaching their decision, and last Friday asked for a readback of testimony from Jackson's accuser, now 15. The jury of eight women and four men ranged in age from 21 to 79; eight are parents and six acknowledged they were fans of Jackson's music.
Two were Hispanic, one was Asian and the rest were white. Jackson supporters had protested that no black jurors were chosen for the trial.
Amid concerns about unrest after the verdict and worries about the singer's health, nine uniformed deputies stood in the back of a packed courtroom late Monday.
The verdict came after 14 weeks of testimony, as dozens of witnesses described the intricate and often unsettling details of life at Jackson's Neverland ranch.
Prosecutors argued that the singer molested the boy, now 15, in late February or early March 2003, shortly after the airing of a documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson." On that program, viewed worldwide by an audience of millions, the accuser held hands with Jackson, and the singer confessed that he allowed young boys to sleep in his bed � but insisted it was an innocent, loving act.
Jackson's handlers viewed the documentary as a P.R. nightmare, according to testimony, and worked to prepare a so-called "rebuttal" video to counter the details revealed in the British-produced film, which was seen by many at the time as a confirmation of longtime suspicions about Jackson's relationships with children.
Mother on the stand
Prosecutors alleged that Jackson and his associates conspired to hold the accuser and his family in their custody so they could help stem the flood of negative publicity.
Testimony revealed that the accuser and his family stayed at Neverland in the weeks following the documentary, and taped an interview offering warm praise for the singer � an interview the mother claimed was scripted.
They also stayed with Jackson during a trip to Miami and accompanied the pop star on his private jet back to California, a trip during which the accuser's mother claimed she saw Jackson licking her son's head.
The mother spent several days on the stand, offering testimony that was always dramatic, sometimes bizarre and occasionally incoherent. She described her last stay at Neverland as tense and scary, but never quite explained why she didn't called police or other authorities.
At first, she said, Jackson's aides tenderly offered to help her family from the barrage of media interest. Jurors heard a tape of associate Frank Tyson, whom prosecutors called an unindicted co-conspirator, telling her, �Let us take care of you. Let us protect you.� But she insisted that Jackson's associates, whom she called �killers� on the stand, eventually turned on her: holding her a virtual captive for weeks and plotting to take her family on a one-way trip to Brazil.
Yet testimony detailed that she could leave Neverland to shop and run errands.
The mother faced her own legal scrutiny during the trial, and Mesereau frequently underscored her credibility problems with jurors. She was forced to acknowledge she lied under oath in a 2001 lawsuit against JC Penney, and she took the Fifth over allegations that she committed welfare fraud. A welfare worker testified she had.
Other witnesses, including her former sister-in-law, portrayed the accuser's family as vindictive and money-hungry, the mother as a grifter who pleaded for help � often invoking her family's misfortunes � and always asked for more.
TV host Jay Leno told jurors how he grew suspicious when the accuser called him repeatedly, saying Leno was his hero.
Celebrities on the stand
Leno was just one of a handful of big-name entertainers who made their way to the Santa Maria courthouse, though most celebrities named on a star-studded witness list � everyone from Quincy Jones to Elizabeth Taylor � were never called as a confident defense surprised observers with a streamlined case that shaved the trial's length by a month or more.
Comedians Chris Tucker and George Lopez took the stand to describe their interactions with the accuser. Talk show host Larry King appeared in court, but Melville ruled his testimony irrelevant. Most notably, actor Macaulay Culkin � a longtime Jackson friend � took the stand to firmly deny that Jackson had ever molested him.
Other young men who had long been considered possible victims of Jackson also appeared. The now-grown son of Jackson's former maid described for jurors how Jackson turned a 1990 tickling episode into a fondling incident. The mother of a boy who received millions from Jackson in a settlement over 1993 molestation claims that nearly derailed his career said Jackson had begged to sleep with her son: �He said, �You don�t trust me. We�re a family. Why won�t you allow him to be in my bedroom?��
Yet dancer Wade Robson, another longtime Jackson pal who faced molestation rumors, flatly denied any inappropriate touching by the pop star.
Lurid testimony
At times, testimony in the Santa Maria courtroom was lurid and unsettling. Investigators described finding smut in Jackson's bedroom, magazines like Hustler Barely Legal, with both the singer's and accuser's fingerprints.
The accuser's brother described sexually charged Web-browsing sessions during which Jackson allegedly showed the boys images of nude women while cracking jokes. In one jaw-dropping moment, the boy recalled Jackson pointing to an image of a woman�s breasts and quipping, �Got milk?�
A former Jackson security guard claimed he had seen the singer fondle and perform oral sex on another boy who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson. Another former employee claimed he saw Jackson put his hands down Culkin's pants.
Some of the most gripping testimony came from the accuser himself, who described how a man he once considered his �best friend ever� allegedly molested him twice.
Yet Mesereau and his team carefully poked holes in the credibility of the accuser and many other witnesses � noting, for example, that several former employees who testified lost a lawsuit against Jackson and were ordered to pay the singer $1.4 million.
Holes in the case
The veteran defense lawyer even got the accuser to contradict himself in front of jurors, and caught the accuser's brother in a lie involving an adult magazine that he claimed the singer showed him. Time and again, the defense team found effective weak spots in Sneddon's witnesses and presented their own witnesses to cast doubt on key details.
Prosecutors were also stung when one of their most high-profile witnesses, Jackson's ex-wife Debbie Rowe, described the singer as a "great father" and attacked his aides. Called by prosecutors to describe a taped interview about Jackson as "scripted," she shocked the courtroom by saying just the opposite.
Her testimony backed up frequent suspicions that Jackson's interest in her was hardly romantic � �We never shared a home," she said � but did nothing to help the prosecution and left many with the impression that Sneddon's case had serious flaws.
The verdict ends a legal battle that has lingered for nearly two years, and in some ways for more than a decade. Santa Barbara County authorities first raided Neverland in November 2003. Jackson was booked two days later, and indicted in April 2004.
But Sneddon first tried to prosecute Jackson 10 years earlier over the 1993 allegations. The accuser in that case backed out and charges were never filed, but the singer's associates claimed the district attorney had a vendetta against Jackson.
In a 1995 song, "D.S.," the pop legend even presumptively referenced Sneddon, calling him a "cold man."
|
|
|
|
Alucard
Vampire
Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 2780
Location: Caaaaaanada
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:55 pm |
|
I still think he's guilty.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
Of Course he is. Celebrities get by with murder in my opinion.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:54 pm |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | Of Course he is. Celebrities get by with murder in my opinion. |
I am NOT going to say it's that--no way, no how. The thing is, the prosecution didn't put up that good of a trial. There was little evidence and enough reasonable doubt. Because of the reasonable doubt, he HAD to be aquitted. that's how the system works--reasonable doubt, aquittal. While I may disagree with it or not, I respect the jury's decision and think that it looks like they made the right decision with the reasonable doubt. I think he did SOMETHING, but I don't know if he was guilty on all 10 counts, even one of them. I just don't know, so I have to trust in the jury and trust in the system. I do NOT think that it was because he was a celebrity, however.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:16 pm |
|
I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:17 pm |
|
I don't know enough about the case to comment. It's way to intricate and twisted by the media to know what is what.
|
|
|
Alpha6006
Commander
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 410
Location: At Co-ordinates 22.24.1224.
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:26 pm |
|
MJ might be cleared of all accounts of child molestation....but I think this whole case has damaged his image so much it could make his life worst in a way
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
Well, yeah. When you've already been TWICE accused of molestation of kids and then you SLEEP in bed with another kid...he should've known that this would happen.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:30 pm |
|
I find it silly that people waste time forming opinions over this. One, they don't have all the facts, two, they weren't at the trial, and three, like Jeremy said, the media has gotten involved.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:31 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I find it silly that people waste time forming opinions over this. One, they don't have all the facts, two, they weren't at the trial, and three, like Jeremy said, the media has gotten involved. |
That's exactly why I said that we have to have faith in the justice system--that there was enough reasonable doubt for an acquital, by their knowledge, and since we don't know enough about the case for ourselves, we have to trust that they made the right decision.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
I find this whole thing amusing. I'm sure most of you have no clue as to why, so, I won't elaborate, 
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:19 pm |
|
He may have not acutally molested them, but, he was DEFINATELY inappropiate with them
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:10 pm |
|
Yay for Michael! Personally I think he's innocent.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:49 pm |
|
Jackson never admitted to sleeping in the same bed as kids. He said he sleeps in the same room, on the floor next to the bed. It's still asinine, but in terms of innocence, it's a world of difference.
There are too many misconceptions about him. The only reason that this accusation occured was because one grifter tried to pull it off in the early '90s and got his money, then another grifter decided that, given his circumstances, he could build off of the perception of guilt that the earlier settlement made, and get money off of him as well. It didn't work.
Jackson is innocent, too innocent. I am no fan of his, but I honestly beleive that there is no bad bone in his body, I think he always means well, and just doesn't understand the real world enough to offer solutions that work in it. He thinks he's a child, he dosen't understand that bad things can happen when he plays with "other" children.
He has psychiatric issues, and I think it would be in his best interest to commit himself to some institution.
I think the only real criminal in this case is the grifter making the accusations (not the first time). I don't think its right that you can say the kinds of things he said, then get off with no puniishment. I say, that with a history like that families', It's time for a slander/libel lawsuit.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:26 am |
|
Personally, from what I've seen, he's too much of a child himself. He needs major help, but I don't think he's harming any children, more that he thinks himself one of them. I could be wildly wrong though, that's just what I've seen, and since that's through TV, internet and newspaper reports... 
|
|
|
Joey
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jul 2001
Posts: 4708
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:34 am |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
yea i mean their are the witnesses that testifed, i mean how could they not vote guilty?
unless he bought the jury off
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:58 am |
|
He's so weird but on the other hand he's famous and people could just be going after his money. Only they know the truth.
|
|
|
nadia
cookie
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 8560
Location: Australia
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:11 am |
|
Omg, when I heard about today, I was so shocked and angry that he was found not guilty! I totaly think that he is gulity! I don't wanna sound horrible or any thing but the first thing I thought of when the jury said he was not guilty I thought " I wonder how much they were paid to say that!"
I hope that dosn't sound horrible but thats what I thought!
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:37 am |
|
| harrykim234 wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
yea i mean their are the witnesses that testifed, i mean how could they not vote guilty? unless he bought the jury off |
Because the jury believed that the witnesses were lying? But of course everyone tells the truth and so obviously they were right. It doesn't mean that it's true (not saying it's not) but the jury believed that there was too much evidence that it was to try and get money off him. As for being paid off, it would be obvious people would assume this would happen, so there would have been a lot of things checking up. I don't think he has much money though, doesn't he have big debts?
|
|
|
Otter
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 12895
Location: England
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:53 am |
|
I realy aint suprised by this outcome although getting off scotfree's a dream result for Jackson.
-------signature-------
Yeah, We'll Stay Forever This Way..
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:24 am |
|
I really have no idea. I watched CNN last night to see the verdict, and, oh well, I just don't have enough information about this case to form an opinion. Really, who does, besides the court?  
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
The Delta Flyer
Commodore
Joined: 08 Apr 2002
Posts: 2163
Location: East Yorkshire
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
I'm surprised he was found Not Guilty of all ten Counts.
I don't know if he did it or not but regardless, he's surely got psychological problems that he needs to sort out if he's to salvage anything of his reputation - Regardless of the verdict, he's still going to be associated with the allegations for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | harrykim234 wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
yea i mean their are the witnesses that testifed, i mean how could they not vote guilty? unless he bought the jury off |
Because the jury believed that the witnesses were lying? But of course everyone tells the truth and so obviously they were right. It doesn't mean that it's true (not saying it's not) but the jury believed that there was too much evidence that it was to try and get money off him. As for being paid off, it would be obvious people would assume this would happen, so there would have been a lot of things checking up. I don't think he has much money though, doesn't he have big debts? |
Nah, they could have believed the witnesses, but there has to be proof.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | harrykim234 wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
yea i mean their are the witnesses that testifed, i mean how could they not vote guilty? unless he bought the jury off |
Because the jury believed that the witnesses were lying? But of course everyone tells the truth and so obviously they were right. It doesn't mean that it's true (not saying it's not) but the jury believed that there was too much evidence that it was to try and get money off him. As for being paid off, it would be obvious people would assume this would happen, so there would have been a lot of things checking up. I don't think he has much money though, doesn't he have big debts? |
Nah, they could have believed the witnesses, but there has to be proof. |
Yes, agreed there. There was too much reasonable doubt. Now, I think that SOMETHING happened, and that the witnesses were telling the truth--most of them, anyway, to some extent--but that there was too little evidence that left too much reasonable doubt. In this system, you can't convict someone with so much reasonable doubt.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Joey
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jul 2001
Posts: 4708
|
| Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:50 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: | | harrykim234 wrote: | | Theresa wrote: | | I, too, think he was guilty. At least of some of it. There's liking to spend time with children, then there's Michael Jackson... |
yea i mean their are the witnesses that testifed, i mean how could they not vote guilty? unless he bought the jury off |
Because the jury believed that the witnesses were lying? But of course everyone tells the truth and so obviously they were right. It doesn't mean that it's true (not saying it's not) but the jury believed that there was too much evidence that it was to try and get money off him. As for being paid off, it would be obvious people would assume this would happen, so there would have been a lot of things checking up. I don't think he has much money though, doesn't he have big debts? |
Nah, they could have believed the witnesses, but there has to be proof. |
Yes, agreed there. There was too much reasonable doubt. Now, I think that SOMETHING happened, and that the witnesses were telling the truth--most of them, anyway, to some extent--but that there was too little evidence that left too much reasonable doubt. In this system, you can't convict someone with so much reasonable doubt. |
so what i mean if their is a camera and 100 people see me rob a bank and they all testify, that means that their is too much evidance?
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
