Michael Jackson

  • Thread starter Thread starter Griffin
  • Start date Start date
G

Griffin

Guest
I think that was the right result but I do think that he is mentally ill and that he needs help. Hopefully somebody will be able to talk some sense into him now, that it's not acceptable to behave the way he does around young boys.
 
Agree with you there - nor is it ideal to hang your baby out of the window!

Can't imagine he would have coped with prison in any case.
 
I'm with Griffin, too. It had all the hallmarks of yet another family out to extort money from him, and to exploit their own kid. But he should seek some sort of help for whatever drives him to want to be seen as a permanent child himself, and why he wants to be surrounded by other people's young boys in particular, when he has his own children to love. It's a darn curious situation, that's for sure.
 
He may have been found not guilty, and from what I've heard, a correct verdict, but I still wont be inviting him around to do the babysitting on Friday night.
 
I really do feel sorry for the man. He's never had a 'normal' life and has no idea what 'normal' behaviour is and there seems to be nobody around him to spell it out to him :( Going in and out of court last night he looked dreadful, not at all well.
 
Anyone who's ever been the subject of wrongful, malicious accusations will know how it feels to be vindicated and cleared. Celebration comes way down the list of feelings.
 
After watching the press conference with the jury members last night I am even more convinced that the jury system as it is in this country should be reviewed in great detail.

I know America has different ways of doing things, but the idea of a jury is still the same.

One of the jury members, when asked why she did not find Janet Arvizo credible, replied "She snapped her fingers at me! Don't you snap your fingers at me, dear". :what:

I wouldn't go so far as to say juries should be abolished and the decisions should be left to judges, but the way in which a jury arrives at a decision should be allowed monitoring so it can be seen that the decision arrived at was done so with merit.
 
Originally posted by Phil Waters@Jun 14 2005, 10:48 AM
After watching the press conference with the jury members last night I am even more convinced that the jury system as it is in this country should be reviewed in great detail.

I know America has different ways of doing things, but the idea of a jury is still the same.

One of the jury members, when asked why she did not find Janet Arvizo credible, replied "She snapped her fingers at me! Don't you snap your fingers at me, dear". :what:

I wouldn't go so far as to say juries should be abolished and the decisions should be left to judges, but the way in which a jury arrives at a decision should be allowed monitoring so it can be seen that the decision arrived at was done so with merit.
Click to expand...
If Ardross was wrongly accused of child abuse he'd rather his fate lay in the hands of such eejits than have a verdict based on polygraph tests given to him and his accusers.
icon_eek.gif
 
Maybe one of the lawyers here could give an opinion on this - on the evidence presented, would the CPS have proceeded with this case in the UK? It looked a terribly weak case to my untrained eyes.
 
One night, a woman was on her way home from a nightclub. She was quite near her house when a man grabbed her from behind, dragged her into a nearby park and raped her. Her cries were heard by neighbours living in nearby flats, enough so that one of the residents looked out of her window and upon seeing "some sort of attack", shouted "What's going on down there? I'm calling the police." At this point, the rapist fled.

About 10 minutes later, the police had arrived and the woman was being comforted. At this point, a man, who had just gotten out of a taxi, walked past and was stopped by the police and asked where he'd been.

The man told the police to piss off and was arrested.

The next day he was charged with the rape of the girl as the girl's description of her attacker was similar to the appearance of the man.

The victim, who was admittedly drunk beyond belief when she was attacked, could not positively identify the arrested man but the police held him anyway as "it was probably him".

The Procurator Fiscal (the CPS and DPP version in Scotland) took various items for forensic examination and these included a jacket worn by the victim when she was attacked. Upon initial examination there were found to be semen stains on the jacket. The DNA of the accused was taken and compared with the DNA of the semen.

The result came back negative with a note specifying that the chances of the accused being the person who had deposited the semen on her jacket was roughly 70,000,000/1 (70 million to one).

The accused was convicted of rape and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Why?

Because the Procurator Fiscal decided that they would proceed with the case, even without any forensic evidence AND in the face of conflicting forensic evidence strong enough to raise serious doubt as to the man's guilt.

When the victim was asked if she could explain semen stains on her jacket, she replied ,"I bought the jacket at a car boot sale and hadn't washed it since I bought it."

The man is currently awaiting news of an appeal against conviction.

So, to answer your question, I think the Procurator Fiscal would have gone after Michael Jackson even if he had produced evidence that he had been living in Japan for the past 25 years.
 
Back
Top