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 =----

In article .com, says...


That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..

You mean 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'beyond a reasonable
doubt'? That sort of justice?

Thank God we've got that, for all its flaws, instead of mob
justice.

FW

.... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans...
they ain't got NO rights...

John
"m II" wrote in message
news:Hkrre.62936$tt5.56979@edtnps90...
Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.

Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have
justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike

m II wrote:
Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.



Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice
or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike


Well Mike....let's put you out in the field with the soldiers; and some
radical extremist are leveling AK-47, RPG, and other heavy Chinese made
mortars at your men and yourself....welcome to war! Would the USA
declaring war on Afghanistan induced you to voluntairly enlist to
defend your country...probably not, as a former "patriotic, politically
correct" group did after Pearl Harbor....we went to war on a bare
majority vote.

Second, would you prefer that we killed them all in the field, or in a
sealed semi-trailer as the locals did when they captured them??? Or
better yet, try sorting out the local population from the foreign
fighters there....we at least stopped them from bashing in the heads of
the people in the stadiums, and other "civilized" behavior.
Bottom-line...war declared or otherwise is all about kill or be killed.
It is easy to sit back and preach "legality" but if you lived and
worked overseas like I and other Americans do for the government or
industry under the US State Department guise, you would know that we
have little to no rights.

Third, to gather intelligence from these disparate anarchists groups
takes time....and after some have given up the truth or have been
verified as standbyers, we have released them to their parent
countries. The ones left in "Gitmo" are there for good reasons...in our
jail system we have parole boards...most time the hardened criminals
stay put unlike the European prison model that "rehabs" them and
forgives their crime completely (most of the police in Italy have been
minor criminals...try that in the USA,,,once convicted, always a
criminal).

Since these "foreign fighters" were not under their parent countries
command, they are caught between the international criminal code...or
if under the Afghan government's control (Taliban at the time), then
they are prisoners of war, or war criminals. The fact is that the
Taliban government kept their status secret as their means of external
support...therefore they are in limbo. Now maybe we could release them
under and work-release program in your town, and you could babysit them
until they start killing Americans again!!!

If you and others feel guilty about Gitmo, then feel guilty for
re-electing a President who blew-off intel reports, and who's only
reaction to terrorists' actions was a few miserably targeted cruise
missiles (we got a pharamaceutical factory, but missed Bin Laden's bank
in he Sudan).

Joe (I've been and am there!!!)

"Brenda Ann" wrote:



Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn,
I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they
brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on
that one, since simple posession is a felony)


To clarify, they found adult porn with the accuser's fingerprints on
it.

I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate
Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity
with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not
having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see,
and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

"John Smith" wrote:

... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans...
they ain't got NO rights...

The 14th amendment says otherwise... "Equal protection under the law."
and there is case law and Supreme Court rulings to back that up.

....know your constitution... some day, it may save *your* sorry ass.

John
"m II" wrote in message
news:Hkrre.62936$tt5.56979@edtnps90...
Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.

Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have
justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike

" wrote:



m II wrote:
Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.



Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice
or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike


Well Mike....let's put you out in the field with the soldiers; and some
radical extremist are leveling AK-47, RPG, and other heavy Chinese made
mortars at your men and yourself....welcome to war! Would the USA
declaring war on Afghanistan induced you to voluntairly enlist to
defend your country...probably not, as a former "patriotic, politically
correct" group did after Pearl Harbor....we went to war on a bare
majority vote.

Second, would you prefer that we killed them all in the field, or in a
sealed semi-trailer as the locals did when they captured them??? Or
better yet, try sorting out the local population from the foreign
fighters there....we at least stopped them from bashing in the heads of
the people in the stadiums, and other "civilized" behavior.
Bottom-line...war declared or otherwise is all about kill or be killed.
It is easy to sit back and preach "legality" but if you lived and
worked overseas like I and other Americans do for the government or
industry under the US State Department guise, you would know that we
have little to no rights.

Third, to gather intelligence from these disparate anarchists groups
takes time....and after some have given up the truth or have been
verified as standbyers, we have released them to their parent
countries. The ones left in "Gitmo" are there for good reasons...in our
jail system we have parole boards...most time the hardened criminals
stay put unlike the European prison model that "rehabs" them and
forgives their crime completely (most of the police in Italy have been
minor criminals...try that in the USA,,,once convicted, always a
criminal).

Since these "foreign fighters" were not under their parent countries
command, they are caught between the international criminal code...or
if under the Afghan government's control (Taliban at the time), then
they are prisoners of war, or war criminals. The fact is that the
Taliban government kept their status secret as their means of external
support...therefore they are in limbo. Now maybe we could release them
under and work-release program in your town, and you could babysit them
until they start killing Americans again!!!

If you and others feel guilty about Gitmo, then feel guilty for
re-electing a President who blew-off intel reports, and who's only
reaction to terrorists' actions was a few miserably targeted cruise
missiles (we got a pharamaceutical factory, but missed Bin Laden's bank
in he Sudan).

Joe (I've been and am there!!!)

Joe,

First off, thanks for being there.

Second off, mII is a canadian bomb thrower. He really needs to get a
life since what he has now is only just an obsessive hatred of the
U.S. He didn't vote for anyone here.

Third... I, for one, am NOT disputing the needs to defend yourself on
a battlefield, and am frankly appalled that lawyers are consulted
whenever missions are planned back here in the Five Sided Funny Farm.

But Gitmo is a disaster. We should treat them as POWs, even if they
don't wear a uniform or fight under a western-style nation-state.
Alternatively, the Geneva Convention says that spies -- that is,
soldiers in civilian clothes -- may be summarily executed.

Personally, I thought the last election was one of the worst set of
choices since, well, Gore and Bush. Even Mondale/Reagan wasn't this
bad.

Now, whatever you may think of my rambling opinions, stay safe and
keep your head down.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

In article .com, says...



I think the new phrase will be
" Overwhelming preponderance of evidence.."

- Figure if he had been your " Average " Child Molester, he would be
behind bars..

If he'd been average, I'm not sure he'd have been prosecuted with
a case that weak...

May he fall in love with his Chimpanzee...

Did he ever succeed in buying the skeleton of the Elephant
Man?

FW

"Brian Hill" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brenda Ann" wrote:
I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate
Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity
with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not
having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see,
and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert


Wouldn't he have had child porn too?

B.H.


Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of
mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brian Hill" wrote:


"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brenda Ann" wrote:
I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate
Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity
with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not
having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see,
and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert


Wouldn't he have had child porn too?

B.H.


Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of
mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate.



That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have
had at least one article of child porn?

B.H.