Michael Jackson Dies from Cardiac Arrest

[The Lone Gunman]

MJ was found not guilty as charged.

Not even the most sleezy of tabloid journalists could dig up any evidence that stuck, so not likely that there is any IMV.

I believe that MJ paid of the other side as he wasn't mentally up to appearing in court himself.

PZZ

The Bashir interview suggests that there certainly was "innapropriate" behaviour. MJ admitted to a number of things that I find disturbing even though MJ felt they were completely innocent.

Baggy: The child in a mans body is a bloody good act if it is an act. The guy comes across as an innocent, confused by the world he lives in. He is disturbed in some way.

I keep saying is when I mean was.

[Cyberman]

The Bashir interview suggests that there certainly was "innapropriate" behaviour. MJ admitted to a number of things that I find disturbing even though MJ felt they were completely innocent.

Baggy: The child in a mans body is a bloody good act if it is an act. The guy comes across as an innocent, confused by the world he lives in. He is disturbed in some way.

I keep saying is when I mean was.

I think you have to balance this with the fact that Jackson clearly had no normal childhood and was a victim of abuse himself by his father. If he had committed any really bad offences against children he would have been convicted.

[The Lone Gunman]

I think you have to balance this with the fact that Jackson clearly had no normal childhood and was a victim of abuse himself by his father. If he had committed any really bad offences against children he would have been convicted.

I kind of sympathise with PM on this one.
It is notoriously difficult to get a conviction in the states against anyone who can afford a good lawyer.
Kids do not make reliable witnesses etc.
The noteable thing with MJ (I may have forgoten something) was that there did not appear to be legal manouverings as with the OJ racism stuff. MJ stuck with a flat denial and suggestion that it was all innocent. 3 month trial, tonnes of evidence and a couple of hundred witnesses and it all came out to not guilty.

[Cyberman]

I kind of sympathise with PM on this one.
It is notoriously difficult to get a conviction in the states against anyone who can afford a good lawyer.
Kids do not make reliable witnesses etc.
The noteable thing with MJ (I may have forgoten something) was that there did not appear to be legal manouverings as with the OJ racism stuff. MJ stuck with a flat denial and suggestion that it was all innocent. 3 month trial, tonnes of evidence and a couple of hundred witnesses and it all came out to not guilty.

Phil Spector was found guilty of murder despite having a fortune to back him up, so that argument does not stand up fully to scrutiny.

[centurian]

That is entirely your opinion to hold, however were you to accuse him of being such, or even express such an opinion in the accusative then that would be wrong and possibly actionable.

Quite, which I why I qualified my statement somewhat

However a not guilty verdict does not mean an automatic victory against any libel claims, because a libel claim would be on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt - the main reason why OJ lost his wrongful death lawsuit.

The point I am making is that we must respect a not guilty verdict in terms of criminal sanctions, yes absolutely. We cannot take the law into our own hands in the form of a lynch mob.

But that doesn't mean we have to keep buying his records if we find the allegations distasteful (proven or not) - nor does it mean we have to praise him.

[OwlHoot]

.. However a not guilty verdict does not mean an automatic victory against any libel claims, because a libel claim would be on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt - the main reason why OJ lost his wrongful death lawsuit.

The point I am making is that we must respect a not guilty verdict in terms of criminal sanctions, yes absolutely. We cannot take the law into our own hands in the form of a lynch mob. ...

We should also respect a not guilty verdict subsequently in the civil courts, in that it should render someone immune from suit where the case relies solely on them being involved in the crime of which they were acquitted (unless they have admitted or are known to have some other connection, such as a proved member of the IRA Army Council being sued for injuries sustained in a bombing even if they were not directly involved in it).

This "balance of probabilities" business is a sinister development IMHO, just asking to be extended and misused, and the same goes for Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002.

[centurian]

We should also respect a not guilty verdict subsequently in the civil courts, in that it should render someone immune from suit where the case relies solely on them being involved in the crime of which they were acquitted (unless they have admitted or are known to have some other connection, such as a proved member of the IRA Army Council being sued for injuries sustained in a bombing even if they were not directly involved in it).

This "balance of probabilities" business is a sinister development IMHO, just asking to be extended and misused, and the same goes for Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002.

Now that is where I disagree. A criminal trial is often about the State applying sanctions to an individual and declaring them a criminal. These sanctions can be loss of liberty and in some counties, loss of life. For this, the State must be damn sure, hence the "beyond reasonable doubt" level of proof.

Getting a not guilty verdict simply means there is insufficient proof to meet this very, very high standard - it does not mean they did not do it (as has been stated many times).

But a civil case is simply about claiming damages from a person if you have suffered as a result of their actions. If someone has caused you harm, why shouldn't you be able to make a claim against them under the balance of probability rules that apply in all civil cases. The fact that the State couldn't meet their "beyond reasonable doubt" level for criminal purposes isn't your problem.


The two shouldn't be mixed up. They are different courts for different purposes.

However, I do admit that the Proceeds of Crime act does muddy the water a bit because it is an action by the State.

[bassy]

Dont think we'll ever really know the truth about the MJ kiddie stuff - probably there wasnt complete proof but in cases like this often juries are swayed by celebrity etc and some of the jurors spoke after the trial and said they were never completely sure of his innocence but the main point was that they were not completely sure of his guilt either so the 'was he or wasnt he' view still prevails. Thing is a lot of people will always wonder what the truth was and we will all have personal opinions. Personally I think that there was probably a grain of truth in the accusations.

And for the earlier argument re the OJ civil case here is a link to usa today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns218.htm - interesting really that OJ was convicted last year on a completely unrelated matter including kidnapping, robbery etc and sentenced to 9 years.

[BrilloPad]

Dont think we'll ever really know the truth about the MJ kiddie stuff

Who knows the whole truth about anything? IMO there is enough evidence to suggest his actions were at minimum criminally inappropriate. If poor he would have gone prison.