Michael Jackson dead?

[Robbo]

Matt, I think the vast majority of people, if asked to decide one way or the other with respect to guilt of both parties ... I know (not speculate) exactly which way people would choose ....

jackson categorically stated in that 60 minute interview that he saw no reason why a child could not share a bed with a 45 year old man ....... and I for one, wouldn't donate 20 million bucks into the clammy little paws of some man who stated I had abused his son if I hadn't done so ..

There is a myriad of testimonial evidence against jackson, jackson's own behavior set bears all the hallmarks of a displaced personality and as already stated, he sees no wrong in sharing beds with minors .. a convenient stance it seems bearing in mind his predicament at the time.

Both jackson and glitter are kiddy-fiddlers and anybody who thinks otherwise should well take a time out and consider leaving their own kids with people who have similar amounts of evidence stacked against them ..nobody in their right minds would consider such a situation.

Matt, you are from being a stupid guy, nobody can talk absolutes as you suggest, there are no such things as absolutes in cases such as these but it is on the balance of evidence people have to make their minds up.
You have if you wish, the same amount of evidence as I possess with your intellect/emotional predispositions/bias/whatever then affecting your final decision concerning their guilt.

In my head they are guilty as hell, if you differ, then that is of course, your call mate.
But if it looks like a paedo, walks like a paedo and quacks like a........ I'm sure you know how that one goes Matt.

 

[Matski]

All fair points mate. I'm simply reasoning that there is some logical, legal basis for people being convinced of his innocence (right or wrong in reality) and continuing to revere him - his case is different to Glitter, unique in fact for reasons we all know.

If you want a personal opinion, I'm still not 100% either way and I wouldn't have left kids with the guy for any money, but I do believe that any such reasoning should be free of emotional 'predispositions/bias/whatever' and based purely on tangible evidence.

When you hear people speak about Jackson, they have often made a decision based on a few things they have heard, seen on TV, that documentary etc. Conversely, a jury heard ALL of the evidence, at least all of the "best gear" a prosecution could map out and they still found reasonable doubt. Now, without emotion, that may well resonate in the mind of someone who has not heard the same evidence themselves and accepts that their decision is not based on that same evidence. With emotion, it could sway them to believe he was cleaner than John Paul II.

I guess I feel that the result of that case should 'weigh in' more, given the process used to reach the outcome. I realise that my argument is based on too much faith in the legal system, the American legal system at that. I just refuse to burn the guy completely.

 

[Biscuit]

jacko,s not dead they just call him latoya now

 

[Robbo]

Matt, I have a lot more faith in the UK legal system than I can ever have in the American; Saying that, I don't think the US system is any more flawed than the UK's in terms of legal rigour but I'm afraid their attorneys are devoid of any moral substance, and coupled with this, the American public, as is evidenced by a lot of the people inhabiting the jurys in high-profile cases, seem to value race higher than any justice requirement.

It is an insane set of values that has seen innocent verdicts for OJ and Rodney King's assailants polarise the American public, and I would include jackson's innocent verdict also.
They may not have had enough evidence to satisfy what each of those jurors required personally, and even if the evidence had, I doubt he woulda got a guilty verdict anyway, such is the importance of celebrity in the US.

In short, some verdicts in the US do not decide on what's right or what's wrong, or who's guilty and who's innocent, high-profile cases that are inextricably linked to race and / or celebrity will always be subject to the vagaries of their jury's socio/cultural bias.

 

[Matski]

Well I have to concede that Pete, yes. It's the nature of trial by jury/trial by media.

At least the US have got the sentencing part right when they do get nailed. We send them on a break to Butlins (a form of torture I guess, but not enough) then let them go.

 

[Buddha 3]

Trial by jury sucks. You have untrained individuals, with no clue about the law and cunning lawyers that manage to ask questions with double, sometimes triple negatives in them, making it almost impossible to understand, let alone answer.

I'm happy with the system in this country. Cases are judged by three judges, not by a jury. At least in theory they should know what they are talking about.

 

[Robbo]

Well I have to concede that Pete, yes. It's the nature of trial by jury/trial by media.

At least the US have got the sentencing part right when they do get nailed. We send them on a break to Butlins (a form of torture I guess, but not enough) then let them go.

That ... I have no problem in conceding; I would love to be in charge of sentencing a few of these scumbags who inhabit our newspapers but maybes I would overreact and end up hanging far too many.

Mind you, for all the harshness of the Yank system, that 3 strike rule went a bit too far maybes, I mean, doing a life sentence for getting caught burglarising 3 times seems a little tough to me but hey, I bet it deterred a few would-be 3rd time burglars.

 

[Robbo]

Trial by jury sucks. You have untrained individuals, with no clue about the law and cunning lawyers that manage to ask questions with double, sometimes triple negatives in them, making it almost impossible to understand, let alone answer.

I'm happy with the system in this country. Cases are judged by three judges, not by a jury. At least in theory they should know what they are talking about.

That makes a lot more sense, and if OJ or Rodney King's assailants had been tried by judges instead of a jury then I am 100% sure they would have been handed out a guilty verdict.
As for what would have happened to jackson had he been tried by a panel of judges?
Hmmmm......I haven't seen the array of evidence against jackson at that trial but bottom line is, would you leave your kids with him?
Nahhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!


I have been to court many times and seen the jury procedure in action; and the whole idea of convincing the jury beyond reasonable doubt is in some part flawed.
The civil courts rely on a balance of evidence and for the vast majority of criminal court cases, this is wholly appropriate.
Unfortunately, there is a flawed philosophy with many judicial systems that seem to predicate the idea of rightful process with a panel of 'normal' people as decision makers.

This system relies heavily on the fact people won't be biased or unduly influenced and the times in which we live, where every detail of every person seems available to all, I doubt there are too many completely independent decisions being made in our courts.