Comments on: Not Guilty, Nobody Cares

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:15:08 +0000

The fact is Boylove is real and it will never stop from existing. Absolutely nobody can alter such a prestigious love form. No F.B.I or Jury. America is the way it is because of people who swear they can change somebody by oppresion. You are only blind. Don't judge what you don't understand!!

By: Neo

Neo — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:58:14 +0000

On a day when I found myself in agreement with Gerado Rivera, I saw a jury comeback with a verdict that simply said .. close but no cigar.

Michael Jackson may still be all those terrible things that were said about him, but the hapless DA, who started his search of the Neverland home of Michael Jackson on the day of Jackson's latest album release, was in this purely for personal reasons and lost sight of the law's requirements for a conviction.
We should all hope that the 1018 provisions for showing a fishing expedition of previous near-misses will die with this DA's career, but that won't be soon enough.

By: Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis)

Danny Carlton (aka Jack Lewis) — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:06:23 +0000

Jacko got away with it again

The Jury: ?We thought the kids mother was a real bee-yach, so we just gave him this one...besides it seems...

By: LJD

LJD — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:20:52 +0000

Meanwhile back here on Earth....
Michael was not convicted of THESE charges, very likely due to the DA bungling the case in some personal vendetta (and the victim's twisted mother). That does not absolve the King of Tot of ever having molested a child. And yes, I believe he is capable of such, based on HIS OWN words. The comments by the jury who weighed his case are fairly convincing as well.

BUT, this case is not about guilt, innocence, or celebrity. It's all about cash. Good money and good lawyers and you will walk every time. Often, the average Joe Citizen gets his crappy public defender, and goes to the slammer, regardless of guilt or innocence. In addition, high profile cases seem to guarantee conviction, because of the lynch-mob mentality in this country. Scott Petersen is one thing, but what about the destruction Richard Jewel's life in the media?

By: bRight & Early » Not guilty by reason of celebrity

bRight & Early » Not guilty by reason of celebrity — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:05:08 +0000

[...] unts for a lot. UPDATE: I also have to agree with Outside the Beltway’s post “Not Guilty, Nobody Cares” particularly this comment: “famous people in America simply [...]

By: The Limey

The Limey — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:57:20 +0000

Were you on the jury? Did you see all the evidence that they did? No, didn't think so.

So on what basis can you make the claim that he only got off because of his celebrity?

By: markus

markus — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:11:57 +0000

While I consider Jackson a creepy sicko I do believe that on the charges brought in this trial he actually was innocent. That he might have been convicted were he not famous thus in my book indicates not so much a failure with the present case or celebrity cases in general, but rather a failure in those other cases, where bad witnesses changing their story is not sufficient for the jury to find reasonable doubt. Then again, I'm with Mark Twain as far as juries are concerned.

By: werejustabunchofidiots

werejustabunchofidiots — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 04:46:24 +0000

It sounds like the author of this article was salivating for a conviction. How does he know Jackson is not innocent or innocent? Umm, let me see
who should I tar and feather today because I have a bias against them, or who should I set scot free just because I they have the same views as me. Give it a break and wait for jury duty, until then give it a break with your accusations of innocence or guilt unless you have material facts that the court should have seen. If you didn't provide those material facts than shame on you.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:13:36 +0000

Makes me wonder if OJ overpaid for Johnnie.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 03:00:24 +0000

You mean with prosecution witnesses who constantly changed their stories and had received money from tabloids to make thier accustations, they couldn't get a jury to find Michael guilty?

I followed the case, and I think there's a significant amount of reasonable doubt regarding Michael's guilt.

By: jwbrown1969

jwbrown1969 — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:22:54 +0000

He got off that all there is to it. If (when) he does it again, it will be even harder to get him. He can pretty much do it with impunity. Do not think he will stop because he wonât. Moreover, donât think he will not be able to get stupid parents to leave their kids with him because he will.

By: Sophia

Sophia — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:48:40 +0000

I'm really tired hearing the excuse "he got off because of his celebrity". With the same logic all accused celebrities so far and those that will be accused in the future are guilty and they will "get off". So, what's the point of a trial? Put them to jail without one.