Brenda Ann wrote:


"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child
molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated,
CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured
that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the
public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted.

There's a good reason that juries are required to believe that somebody
did a crime without a reasonable doubt before convicting, and that's to
avoid convictions over hearsay. Many people, most of them ordinary
citizens, have gotten off because the defense was able to show the
slightest hint of reasonable doubt. "He's weird, therefore he's guilty"
is NOT admissible evidence. Add to that the fact that the family has had
cases thrown out of court before on suspicion of fraud, and the defense
argument that the mother wants to frame Michael for whatever reason
holds a lot of water.

We can armchair psychoanalyze Michael until the cows come home, but he
seems to me to have always identified more with kids rather than with
adults because of his childhood traumas and the fact that he never had a
carefree childhood-he started performing at the age of 5, and was
whipped with a belt by his father if his performance on a particular
night fell short of dad's standards. All the Peter Pan murals and the
odd behavior around kids can be traced back to the fact that he never
really WAS a kid. If he did it, I doubt that he views it as hurting a
child, he views it as legit affection, and he can't tell the difference
because he's emotionally stunted. He's one sad sack in any case.

Back to the BBC: I just finished listening to The World Today, and most
of the broadcast was about Michael Jackson. Just goes to show you that
he remains MUCH more popular in Europe than in America. One commentator
noted that Michael could probably make good money touring Eastern
Europe, where his popularity never really waned. Also, European media
doesn't have many of the constraints that American media does
surrounding such cases; the BBC has openly mentioned the accuser's name
on shortwave many times, while American media is forbidden from doing
so.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----