NOT GUILTY

[M. Brown]

Just to let everyone know...Michael Jackson was found Not Guilty on ALL counts.

[ironchapman]

Yeah...I was surprised he wasn't taken in on at least one account.

[RiversideGator]

This is a joke. This just goes to show you that there's nothing dumber than a California jury.

[ZachariahDaMan]

I thought it was absolutely rediculous also. I thought he would at least be found guilt on one count. That goes to show what a celebrity can get away with.

[M. Brown]

I couldnt see anything buy lies from the mother and her kids. And even if He molest the kids(which he didnt) not only he should have been thrown in jail but the mother thrown in jail for using her kids to get money by being molested.

[bobliocatt]

Well it was kind of strange to see that he wasn't found guilty of any count, especially giving the kids alcoholic beverages.....I meant Jesus Juice.

[RiversideGator]

None of us were there, so we cannot say with certainty what did happen. But, you have him (a 40+ year old man) admitting that he has boys sleep in bed with him on a TV program and you have at least one victim coming forward and testifying that Jackson molested him. This is alone enough to convict. He also set his house up as a playpen to attract kids. He is the classic child molester, except one with the financial ability to create his own theme park and hire a barrage of lawyers. As a lawyer, I think this is another blow to the jury system when these average Californians, yet again, let a guilty celebrity walk (see OJ and that Baretta guy). In Jacksonville, this guy would have gotten the death penalty. Add to this the fact that is your average person is not very intelligent and they see these CSI shows and think that all cases are just cut and dry scientifically and they also are very gullible when it comes to defense lawyer lies. Oh well, at least the guy is probably broke now.

[monsoon]

In listening to the jury, they were charged with judging MJ against the crimes as accused by the prosecutor. Their decision based on the facts presented, was that the prosecutor did not prove that MJ broke the law, as charged, beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecutor did a horrible job in presenting the case by dragging in conspiracy theories that greatly muddled up the case. He should have stuck to the molestation and alcohol charges.

All of us here can only hope that if we are ever put in front a jury, that they would forget our personal opinions and do what they were charged to do.

[Cotuit]

In listening to the jury, they were charged with judging MJ against the crimes as accused by the prosecutor.  Their decision based on the facts presented, was that the prosecutor did not prove that MJ broke the law, as charged, beyond reasonable doubt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, I don't think it is the juries in California that are the problem, it's the prosecutors. They should worry less about trying to spin trials off into their own CourtTV shows, and actually do some work on their cases. Maybe it's the California prosecutors that watch too much CSI.

[M. Brown]

But you cannot say that the mother was not at fault. Its my understaning that she did the same thing to JCPennys. MJ is an good target with alot of money. I do agree that the dude is crazy, but I don't want him to go to jail for somebody trying to rob him of his money. I know he shouldn't have been sleeping with little boys as well.

[Cotuit]

There's likely to be a civil trial now where rightly or wrongly, he will likely be robbed of his money. The mom being a scumbag has nothing to do with Jackson's guilt. The accuser was the boy featured in the ABC documentary which Jackson was practically making out with on the couch. If that's how he acts on national television, I hate to see what he does in bed at night after a few Jesus Juices.

[Spartan]

I am glad that this is all over with. I agree with M Brown. You won't convince me that the mother was not out for money. I think that the jurors shoul dbe commended for doing the right thing.

You also won't convince me that MJ is not doing weird stuff with kids. But then, what kind of parent would let their kid go to Neverland with him to begin with?

[Cotuit]

You also won't convince me that MJ is not doing weird stuff with kids. But then, what kind of parent would let their kid go to Neverland with him to begin with?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Jackson should be found not guilty because it is the parent's fault for bringing the kids to Neverland in the first place? The mother, like her or not, was not the one on trial. What she may or may not have done, or how good or bad of a mother she was has no bearing on the crimes that Mr. Jackson was accused of.

[Spartan]

So Jackson should be found not guilty because it is the parent's fault for bringing the kids to Neverland in the first place? The mother, like her or not, was not the one on trial. What she may or may not have done, or how good or bad of a mother she was has no bearing on the crimes that Mr. Jackson was accused of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe she was using her child as leverage to get his money. I think her poor parenting and her history of lawsuits should be a factor too. I realize that the mother was not on trial, but I think she should be.

Why would you throw your child into a snake pit, only to sue the owner for having a snake pit? Has anyone read the Stella awards ?

[ironchapman]

Some one on ATL's local country station just requested that the DJ's play Brad Paisley's "Celebrity" to commemorate the event.

[Spartan]

hah!

CBS dumped its regular programming for even more usless drivel about Michael. Wouldn't be suprised of NBC did too. I stopped caring

[waccamatt]

The jury had alot more information than we do, so I have to defer to their judgment. I think it's very condescending and arrogant to assume that juries don't know anything. That being said, what kind of idiot parents would let their kids stay at the house of a stranger, not to mention one as cuckoo as Michael Jackson? That woman is an unfit mother.

[RiversideGator]

If you had ever seen a jury pool, you would not have such respect for their verdict. Lawyers make millions off of conning these people (I know, I am one).

As to Michael Jackson, just because the mother was a freak, bad mother and possible shake down artist doesnt mean that he didnt do what he was accused of. According to the AP, other witnesses testified as follows:

A parade of servants and other Neverland staff members described seeing Jackson grope or otherwise molest boys, with a one-time security guard saying he saw the singer shower with and perform oral sex on a boy who later received a settlement with Jackson.

See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050613/D8AN10UO0.html

Of course, Jackson's defense to every accusation is "they were out to get my money". And thus, no matter how many victims come forward, they are all lying and he is always telling the truth. Of course, no other child molester is rich enough to use alleged extortion as a defense b/c they dont have his resources. He has used his money to prey on children who are drawn to him through desperate circumstances (i.e. cancer victim or fame seeking parents). At what point do y'all come to your senses and realize that this guy really is a pedophile monster??

[StevenRocks]

We all know that Michael Jackson has mangled his face, we all know that his skin color has changed. We all know that he's generally a weird dude. None of this is up for debate.

But none of that has anything to do with the case as it pertains to whether he molested those kids, though everyone wants to make it that way because they're mad that the 5 year old black boy with an Afro was replaced by a 46 year old white woman with a plastic surgery fetish.

How a person looks doesn't make them a criminal. Criminal acts make people criminals. And the proof of crimnal acts beyond a reasonable doubt was not strong enough to convict in this case. There was almost no defense and the prosecution still could not come up with enough evidence to convict him.

That mother of the accuser is an oppurtunist and will probably trump up a civil suit just for the money.

If Michael Jackson bears blame for what may or may not have happend, then she's guilty, too. Why in the name of good sense and reason would anyone leave their kids with a man that looks and acts like that off in the woods of Neverland? Does the concept of foreshadowing not exist when it comes to situations like that?

I personally don't think Michel Jackson is a child molester. He may be a homosexual, and he is a wimp and a mark for paying the first kid instead of going to trial, but I can't see a man doing that to kids that cares so deeply for them. I just can't.

[monsoon]

I really believe the did something inappropriate with those children based on their testimony. However, as I said earlier, the prosecuter did a terrible job at presenting evidence that would prove it and the jurers are obligated to judge the case on just that evidence and nothing else. He should have stuck to the children' molestation case and not let it get turned into a referendum on the mother by dragging in conspiracy kidnapping theories.