jazzbo Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 I don't know why YOU feel like you were played for a chump unless you have condemned him for extralegal reasons and feel cheated. I personally have nowhere near enough information to condemn him, and I'm going to assume he is not the huge pervert you seem to think he is. Weird, yes. Very. It's not been proven that he is guilty of any of the charges raised against him in our system. And looking at what I can of THIS trial if I were on that jury I would have been unconvinced of his guilt as well. And that's the thing with this system: you have to be CONVINCED of guilt, innocence is presumed otherwise. That is what I want for me, my family, my friends, anyone. Not a court of public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 And that's the thing with this system: you have to be CONVINCED of guilt, innocence is presumed otherwise. That is what I want for me, my family, my friends, anyone. Not a court of public opinion. ← Good old Anglo-Saxon founding principle of common law, goes back over 1500 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 And that's the thing with this system: you have to be CONVINCED of guilt, innocence is presumed otherwise. That is what I want for me, my family, my friends, anyone. Not a court of public opinion. ← Good old Anglo-Saxon founding principle of common law, goes back over 1500 years. ← You, Mr. Sidney [ ], are the genuine WASP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 And that's the thing with this system: you have to be CONVINCED of guilt, innocence is presumed otherwise. That is what I want for me, my family, my friends, anyone. Not a court of public opinion. ← Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. These are principles which ensure our countries have fair and just hearings for all and I for one would not want to see that change (although these basic principles seem to be slowly eroding in both our countries). But did that happen here? For those principles to work they have to work both ways. The entire trial was flawed, yes, but those flaws reflect the flaws of the system. Sneddon botched the case. Hasty, ill-concieved and half assed. Jackson should have been required to testify. Is it unreasonable to expect that a 46 year old man who sleeps with young boys should be asked to explain such behaviour? And if the judge feels that previous allegations establish a pattern of behaviour, why couldn't Jordy Chandler be supoenaed to testify? Would his views on Jackson be any less valid than Chris Rock's? Yes, we'd all want fair and just trials for ourselves, our families & friends. But I'd also like to think that if I had a genuine grievance that the system could mount a prosecution a little more effectively that the Three Stooges effort we saw. Allowing a serious allegation such as the sexual molestation of a minor to become the side business in a battle of snide innuendo designed to discredit your opponent serves neither side nor the public interest. Sure, Janet Arvizo is mad as a bag of snakes. Is that really more of an issue than paedophilia? When the *jurors* come away saying (to quote Ray Hultman) "Michael Jackson probably molested boys... But on this one he has dodged the bullet" you have to wonder if the system, good though it may be, failed. A system where people 'dodge bullets' fails not just the accuser but all of us. Whether you think the right verdict was reached or not, no one comes out of this untarnished. Especially the justice system. We'll see if they do any better next time. Give it a couple of years. And hopefully Saddam will be tried outside of California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Oh, and see if this ain't the icing on the cake! http://mjjsource.com/ You won't be able to watch it and keep your lunch down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) "Jackson should have been required to testify." The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case. A defendant can't be forced to testify. I think he's a child molester, but the prosecution offered up a very weak case and he had to be acquitted. Edited June 16, 2005 by PHILLYQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Jackson should have been required to testify. Is it unreasonable to expect that a 46 year old man who sleeps with young boys should be asked to explain such behaviour? While I don't disagree with some of your other points, it's a fundamental right of our legal system that the accused doesn't have to take the stand and incriminate himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Yeah, and what PhillyQ said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 And that's the thing with this system: you have to be CONVINCED of guilt, innocence is presumed otherwise. That is what I want for me, my family, my friends, anyone. Not a court of public opinion. ← Jackson should have been required to testify. Is it unreasonable to expect that a 46 year old man who sleeps with young boys should be asked to explain such behaviour? ← This is a joke, right? Or are you just completely unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Well, seeing as he's from England... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzypaul Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Oh, and see if this ain't the icing on the cake! http://mjjsource.com/ You won't be able to watch it and keep your lunch down! ← Yeah, but I can listen to the clips from Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad and jam. Say what you will, but the man's best music is absolutely timeless. Thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 This is a joke, right? Or are you just completely unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights? ← Alright you got me... that remark was leaning towards facetious. However, the law of habeas corpus is not universal. The European corpus juris legal system doesn't grant many of the same rights that US citizens would take for granted. Here in the UK (where we don't have a Bill of Rights, thanks for asking) our government, eager to cozy up to Europe, has been making noises about introducing the corpus juris system, or elements of it (by the back door, like all their Euro legislation). Not a system I would want to see I'll grant you, but I don't think it's entirely unfair to speculate how Jackson would have fared under that system, however flippantly I might have worded it. I stand by the rest of it though. I really feel like I've spent waaaaay too much time talking about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Well, seeing as he's from England... ← Yeah, we don't have that wacky constitution thing you guys have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosco Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Yeah, but I can listen to the clips from Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad and jam. Say what you will, but the man's best music is absolutely timeless. Thanks for the link. ← Oh yeah, Off the Wall's still a great pop album; some of the Jackson's stuff too. Possibly not as timeless as the fall of the Berlin Wall, but... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 19, 2005 Report Share Posted June 19, 2005 what about mike wearing that lipstick to the verdict??? lipstick is very popular with the brothers in the pen ss1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trane_fanatic Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 2 former Michael Jackson jurors regret verdict... and 1 more expresses doubt. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8894410/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal Singer's lawyer ridicules comments, says it's ‘time to move on’ Updated: 9:23 a.m. ET Aug. 9, 2005 LOS ANGELES (AP) - Two jurors in the Michael Jackson trial say they now regret voting to acquit the singer of child molestation charges. Jackson's defense attorney ridiculed the two, who spoke exclusively with MSNBC's Rita Cosby, saying it was “time to move on” from the case. “The bottom line is it makes no difference what they’re saying,” Tom Mesereau told The Associated Press, pointing out the jurors announced their turnaround Monday as they began publicizing book deals. “Twelve people deliberated and out of that process justice is supposed to result. Now, two months later, these jurors are changing their tunes. They clearly like being on TV,” Mesereau said. “I’m very suspicious.” Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman revealed in a televised interview that they believed the singer’s young accuser was sexually assaulted. “No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson’s toy,” Cook said on MSNBC’s “Rita Cosby: Live and Direct.” Their comments will have no bearing on the verdict, which prosecutors cannot appeal. Threat from jury foreman? Cook and Hultman said they agreed to go along with the other jurors when it became apparent that they would never convict the pop star. The two denied being motivated by money and tried to explain why they were coming forward now. “There were a lot of people that were interested in this case from day one. People expect to know what’s going on with their justice system and how things work,” Hultman said. Added Cook: “I’m speaking out now because I believe it’s never too late to tell the truth.” Cook and Hultman also alleged that jury foreman Paul Rodriguez threatened to have them kicked off the jury. “He said if I could not change my mind or go with the group, or be more understanding, that he would have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff would notify the judge, and the judge would have me removed,” Cook said in a transcript provided by MSNBC. Hultman said he also felt threatened and didn’t want to get kicked off the trial. A call to Rodriguez was not returned. A jury foreman cannot remove other jurors just for disagreeing. Cosby asked Cook if the other jurors will be angry with her. “They can be as angry as they want to. They ought to be ashamed. They’re the ones that let a pedophile go,” responded Cook, 79. Upset at other jurors Hultman, 62, told Cosby he was upset with the way other jurors approached the case: “The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn’t take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there.” The New York Daily News first reported Aug. 4 that Hultman and Cook planned books and believed Jackson was guilty. Hultman has said that when jurors took an anonymous poll early in their deliberations he was one of three jurors who voted for conviction. On June 13, the jurors unanimously acquitted Jackson of all charges, which alleged that he molested a 13-year-old boy, plied the boy with wine and conspired to hold him and his family captive so they would make a video rebutting a damaging television documentary. Cook told Cosby: “The air reeked of hatred and people were angry and I had never been in an atmosphere like that before.” In June, Hultman told the AP about the verdict: “That’s not to say he’s an innocent man. He’s just not guilty of the crimes he’s been charged with.” During an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with five other jurors in June, Cook was one of three who raised their hands when asked if they thought Jackson may have molested other children but not the 13-year-old boy. “We had our suspicions, but we couldn’t judge on that because it wasn’t what we were there to do,” she said at the time. Hultman’s book will be called “The Deliberator” and Cook’s is “Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird,” said Larry Garrison, a producer who is working with both on their separate books and a combined television movie. Part of the profits from their book sales will go to charity, he said. © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trane_fanatic Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Katarina Carls changed vote to not guilty citing reasonable doubt The Associated Press Updated: 1:22 p.m. ET Aug. 10, 2005 LOS ANGELES - One of three jurors who initially wanted to convict Michael Jackson said she believes the entertainer is a child molester but joined in the unanimous verdict exonerating him because she believed there was reasonable doubt in this case. Two Jackson jurors, Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, said Monday as they began publicizing book deals that they believe Jackson molested his 15-year-old accuser and now regret finding him not guilty in the June verdict. They said on the new MSNBC show "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct," that they went along with the other panelists because the jury foreman threatened to have them removed. Appearing on the show Tuesday, Juror Katarina Carls said she initially agreed with Cook and Hultman that Jackson was guilty, but decided she could not convict because of jury instructions that he must be acquitted if there was reasonable doubt. She said it was possible that Jackson's accuser was lying. "I kept asking myself, is there any slight possibility that this boy might lie at all? And my answer was yes," she said. Cook and Hultman's reversals have no effect on the verdict, which cannot be appealed. Two jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal Jackson's lawyer, Tom Mesereau, has ridiculed their accounts, saying they may be seeking fame and fortune. Another juror appearing on the show Tuesday, Mike Stevens, disputed Cook's claim that she was intimidated into going along. He said Cook told another juror at one point that she couldn't be swayed. "She said, 'Honey, I'm 79 years old. I can do whatever I want to do,'" Stevens said. "And so how can she say that she felt threatened when she came up with a comment like that?" Stevens said foreman Paul Rodriguez did not threaten to remove Cook for holding out, but rather for giving personal opinions. "What I heard why that was said was because she kept making remarks ... involving her own opinion and the way her heart felt," Stevens said. "You're supposed to follow what the law says and what the evidence shows, not what your heart feels. Am I right?" Rodriguez did not return calls for comment. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted August 10, 2005 Report Share Posted August 10, 2005 Sorry, I do not see any "white hats" in this whole story. People compromised their children and ............................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownian Motion Posted August 24, 2005 Report Share Posted August 24, 2005 Jackson witness on fraud charge The mother of the teenage boy at the centre of a sex abuse trial against Michael Jackson has been charged with making false social security claims. Los Angeles prosecutors accuse Janet Arvizo of fraudulently collecting almost $19,000 (£10,500) in benefits. She was a key prosecution witness in the case, which saw Mr Jackson being acquitted of all charges. Evidence of her alleged benefit fraud was presented during the trial by Mr Jackson's defence lawyers. Refusal to speak They said she had claimed to be poor, despite having collected about $150,000 in a legal action against a department store. Ms Arvizo, mother of 15-year-old Gavin, refused to testify about her financial situation during the sex abuse trial on the grounds that she might incriminate herself. "These charges are the result of a very careful investigation of allegations that she basically lied to receive aid," Los Angeles District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said. "We felt the evidence was sufficient to file these counts," she added. Ms Arvizo, whose married name is Mrs Jackson, could face five years in jail if prosecuted. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/ente...ent/4179024.stm Published: 2005/08/24 01:42:35 GMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.