Michael Jackson Verdict Poll

[KoKo]

Just wanted to know what DU'ers think about this:

[davidinalameda]

1. other

Billie Jean was not his lover

[KoKo]

6. dwickham...can always count on you to see the "interesting quirky" take

:D...

[KoKo]

16. 17.

[ET Awful]

2. I'm not 100% convinced that he is entirely innocent, but I am convinced

that the trial was fair and that the jury arrived at the only possible verdict given the evidence with which they were presented.

Given lying witnesses and faulty evidence, there is no way to legitimately arrive at any other verdict. The prosecution left reasonable doubt as to guilt, and if reasonable doubt remains, you cannot find a defendant guilty.

[KoKo]

7. Kinda with you....I'm not sure..but accept the jury verdict since I didn't

watch any of it. Only stuff I saw was when I tried to "channel surf" about "LBN about Dems" and the MJ stuff was on 24/7.

I have to hope that the jury did it's job here and that there weren't any Johnny Cochran's who could grandstand like in the O.J. trial.

I think O.J. was guilty...but I just don't know about Jackson..that's why I did a poll. Just to see what other DU'ers thought about it. :shrug:

[misanthrope]

3. How 'bout...

..."They're all guilty. The family is a bunch of grifters who zeroed in on MJ because he's a pedophile."

[DebJ]

4. how can any of us have an opinion when we didn't hear the

evidence?

[KoKo]

10. You know...that interesting. I never watched it and only saw "clips"

because I don't watch Cables..(I still pay for my cable I rarely watch, too. :-() but it seems it's been going on over a year or something while the Chimp has gotten a pass. So, I'm glad it's over...but don't know what I would think if I was a Juror.

One side of me says he was "railroaded" just to keep Dem/Iraq/Bush Crimes off the air...but that's my DU :tinfoilhat: side.

I don't really know what to think about it...:shrug:

[truth_is_extreme]

5. this was a racist vendetta

against an innocent man. Only an insane person would believe Jackson would harm a child after being civilly sued for the same reason in the past.

This was a scheme by a con-mother and her con-son, aided and abetted by a vindictive prosecution.

[CarefullyLiberal]

9. "Racist vendetta"

Now that's funny!

-Fergus

[ET Awful]

13. Nonsense. Race had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Money had a lot to do with the motivations of the accusers mother. Race wasn't a factor, otherwise how do you explain the verdict from a white jury?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[truth_is_extreme]

14. I was referring

to the prosecution being racist, not the jurors. There are a lot of us white people who are not racist and for that Michael should be thankful in this case.

I just hope he sues the last penny out of that corrupt mother.

[ET Awful]

22. WHAT? Now you say the prosecutors were racist?

Bullshit.

[truth_is_extreme]

25. Racist

with a capitol R as in Racist PIG.

[ET Awful]

30. Baloney

with a capital B.

Race had nothing at all to do with any of it.

Here's a little hint - when a black man is prosecuted for a crime, it isn't automatically a racist prosecuter with a hatred for black folks.

You can sit there and scream racism all you like, but until you present evidence, it remains pure BS.

[AntiCoup2K4]

27. What is "racist" about realizing that a man in his late 40's......

....sleeping with children is fucking WRONG. Does that in and of itself prove that he fucked the kids? No, but using "Jesus juice" to get them drunk certainly makes it more likely.

Guilty or not guilty (and let's face it, he BOUGHT the verdict) he's still one sick disturbed motherfucker.

[truth_is_extreme]

37. indeed, coming from your mouth

it all sounds dirty. Sharing a bed with someone is not WRONG, unless of course you are looking at it from the perspective of "one sick disturbed motherfucker".

[misanthrope]

38. Or...

..only a person with strongly irresistible urges would continue this type of behavior after being civilly sued for the same reason in the past.

Tell me, where are all the little girls who have shared Jackson's inner sanctum in such a manner as all these little boys?

[H2O Man]

8. The choices should be guilty or not guilty.

Innocent isn't a choice for the jury. One might believe he should not have been convicted, because the prosecutor did not meet the burden of proof. Innocent isn't involved in the trial, and although the public can assume he is innocent, a lot of people likely fit the "not guilty" rather than innocent point of view.

I'm watching a few moments of the press conference with the jury. I am not favorably impressed.

[BooScout]

11. Maybe so.........

But in this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty so you could conclude that therefore he is innocent of the charges. 12 of his peers heard unbiased and un-media tainted evidence and came to the conclusion that he was not guilty of the charges. That's good enough for me.


The jury did not want to speak with the media. The judge had to convince them to do so. It's refreshing to see someone not want to jump into the middle of a media circus for a change IMHO.

[H2O Man]

12. Sorry.

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to courtroom procedure, and in no way applies to a legal verdict. A person is found guilty or not guilty, but not innocent. While a person may want to think a defendant is found "innocent," they err.

One of the people in the jury box had already made a deal for a book. Refreshing, indeed.

[BooScout]

17. Ahhhhhhhhhh

The not so great arguement that's always put forth when the side you assume is guilty and is found to be not guilty.

But when you study Constitutional Law you find out where the presumption of innocence until proven guilty actually comes from and it is a right guaranteed to us all the last time I checked (except for those Bush calls Enemy Combatents). The Contsitution states that we "shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". That basically means you are entitled to a fair trail. While innocent until proven guilty is not actually stated the intent is quite clear.

Presumtion of innocence predates the Constitution by more than several centuries. Our justice system is based on it. Please don't quibble about idiosyncarcies of definitions. While you may think innocence is irrelevant it still hangs on...........technically or not.

[H2O Man]

20. You have a shallow understanding

that is simply wrong. Do you know of a single case where a citizen is charged with having a strong opinion about a suspect's guilt or innocents? Of course not. A court, however, is bound to keep a person who has made up their mind outside the court, from serving as a juror.

Also, to correct another shallow belief on your part, I have no opinion on the Jackson case. I didn't follow it closely. I have, however, expressed the exact same opinion on this issue many times before. And I can quote a good source: Vince Bugliosi, in his book "The Betrayal of America," covers this in detail. Note that it has nothing to do with the case his book is about; it merely clears up one of the common misconceptions that ignorant people have about the law.

Now, where in the US Constitution do you find a sentence that supports your belief?

[BooScout]

23. I'm Shallow & Ignorant/

Geeeeeeeee.......when someone disagrees with you, you seem to result to insults & flaming. :eyes:

Check out the 5th Ammendment. While it doesn't state "innocent until proven guilty" it s based on the concept of it as is our entire Crimnal Justice system. It's a concept learned about and taught in any Law School in this country.

Pray tell. Where did you get your law degree to so quickly recognize my ignorance of the law and make you an expert?

[H2O Man]

24. The 5th Ammendment .....

does it occure to you that the 5th is a legal protection that comes into play in court? What do you think the students in law school are preparing for?

I'm not "flaming" you. I am able to back up the position I took. I am not obligated to treat something that is inaccurate as if it is of equal merit to that which is correct.

[BooScout]

36. Did you read the part about the Constitution? & the 5th Amendment?

I explained my point but you failed to read and/or understand it I guess. I never said the phrase was actually in the Constitution, you must actually research the meaning and intent of the 5th Amendment to understand how Presumption of Innocence enters into American Law.

The phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" or "presumption of innocence" is a fundamental principal of common law, not just ours, but the French, the British, the Romans, and so forth. If you want to know when it formally entered US Law then I suggest you look up the US Supreme Court case of Coffin vs. the United States.

Innocent until proven guilty whether you like it or not is a presumption of law. The presumption of "Innocent until proven guilty" gives the Judge and/or Jury a place to start. In a criminal case where a defendant has his/her day in court, a fair trial, etc. (ie due process of law - see 5th Amendment - US Constitution) the court allows for the prosecution to rebut the presumption by presenting evidence. The prosecution has the "burden of proof" and the burden of proof must be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

When any criminal trial starts, there is no evidence yet entered into the record. The Judge and/or Jury must at that time approach the case with the idea that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since at the beginning there is no evidence yet presented we must presume (aha the presumption part) that the defendant must be innocent (until proven guilty).

There, now I explained it as best I can to you. Now let's not quibble over the words guilty, not guilty or presumption of innocence. While innocent is not an actual verdict it does hold a substantial place in our law.

BTW, to flame when in context as used on the web means to use a derogatory comment which is often rude or crude. To call my position shallow and ignorant because you didn't either understand it or agree with it is rude.

[KoKo]

15. Yes.....I think we are gradually losing "Innocent until Proven Guilty"

in the Bush years...Abu Graeb, Gitmo, Torture Planes, and the unknown, un-named prisons all over the world we don't even know about.

So...in this context..who's to know who is guilty or innocent, when the MEDIA/ROMAN Circuses control the viewing.

Maybe if one had been "glued to the TV" during the whole MJ Trial one could have had a strong opinion. Since I wasn't ...how do I know.

I just know it was a "Media Circus" and I think the Right Wing Fundies were behind it egging it on to go after him. But, what if he really is guilty? :shrug: I don't know...I have to trust the jury...but how can we even do that in these dark times. Maybe Disney bought off the Jury and Michael will write a book to pay for his trial?

Or, maybe Michael is truly innocent and is just a freaky person that folks always want to go after. :shrug:

I don't know any more about much of stuff we see.

[H2O Man]

18. There is nothing about

innocent until proven guilty that applies outside of court. The press may use a couple fine words, such as "accused ____" or "alleged ____," but these are merely fine words .... and their only goal is to protect the media in case a civil suit is filed.

The issue involving the denial of basic constitutional rights to those who are charged, or in many cases not even charged with a crime, is troubling. And it is worthy of in depth discussion. However, it is distinct from the Jackson case, or the OJ case, or any other criminal case you read about in the paper.

There is no obligation for any citizen to not form an opinion on a person's guilt, even before the "person of interest" is ever charged with a crime. The court is bound to keep those who have reached a conclusion from serving on a jury. And the court is bound to follow all the procedures as outlined by law. That is all that innocent until proven guilty means.

[Geek_Girl]

32. But in this Country

a man is innocent until proved guilty therefore, like it or not, MJ is innocent.

[KoKo]

35. You are probably correct. But since he was aquitted...and many of us

in our minds are thinking "innocent or guilty" or "other," I tried to post what I thought sort of covered what many of us might be thinking.

I could have narrowed it down, but since I'm not sure what I feel I tried to give more options, and was curious about what other DU'ers were thinking :shrug:

[KoKo]

19. Kick...for poll so many of us don't know what to think....

:shrug:

[Piperay]

21. I defer to the jury

they followed the case and I didn't so I think they came to the correct verdict.

[kevinam]

26. Not Sure...

I will accept the verdict. I didn't have the time, or the interest in watching the case unfold. Even if I did, and thought he was guilty as hell, it still doesn't matter. Our criminal justice system has issues, but it is what we have. Without having direct access to the evidence, it is difficult to decide what is a fact from the trial and what is the rumor mill. Therefore, I just accept it to the people that know better then me, the jury. Same thing with OJ, Peterson, Blake, and all the other trials cnn tells me I am supposed to care about.

Kevin.

[KoKo]

28. I think lot's of us are "Not Sure.."

It's hard to know unless you were on the jury. I don't like alot of what Jackson has done "dangling baby off Paris Hotel Rail while laughing for the cameras" and he is very, very strange looking and acting with the surrogate wife and the children who come from where...

But, who knows. On the basis of whatever could be thrown at him...he got the jury to agree he wasn't guilty.

I don't know.... like to read the replies of other DU'ers since I just don't know. :shrug:

[mvd]

29. Not sure

I agree with the verdict, and I don't trust the victim's family, who have tried to get money out of multiple celebs. I doubt many DAs would have taken on this case - especially for that amount of money. Michael obviously has a problem when it comes to children, but when it comes to this case, I do not think things were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If his settlements indicate he has performed lewd acts before, they still aren't this particular case.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

31. I think we should rename the DSM to the Michael Jackson Memo

Maybe then we could get some msm attention...

[B Calm]

33. Right-Wingers will say the verdict proves Michael was right with GOD...

[Bluebear]

34. They're already saying that n*****s and q****rs get off easy

Especially in "librul California", at least that is what I am reading on their sites today.