Michael Jackson, veto?

[InkyPinkyPonky95]

It's up to you to decide whether you think MJ is a pedo or not, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusion... but I think he was guilty and it's kind of ruined his music for me.

I won't storm out of a restaurant if one of his songs comes on! but I won't play his music myself because I can't separate his music from how disgusted I am by him.

That being said, for those that do believe he is guilty do you now veto playing his music? Has it ruined his music for you too? Or have you found a way to compartmentalise your feelings about it?

Side note: I understand not everyone thinks he's guilty, that's fine! Completely up to you to decide what you think. Not here to judge, just to hear other people's feelings.

"In the transcripts is, amongst other things, unchallenged testimony that:

Michael Jackson shared a bed with a pre-teen Brett Barnes for more than 460 nights over a 2 year period;
Michael Jackson begged June Chandler for over 30 minutes to sleep with her son;
Michael Jackson had huge quantities of porn strewn throughout Neverland ready for boys to “discover”;
Michael Jackson called up compliant mothers asking them to deliver young boys to his bedroom, often in the middle of the night;
Plus many more examples of his pedophilic behaviour.
www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/ "

This is the interview I was talking about where the Jackson team said they decided to settle after learning the descriptions matched:

Anyone who really believes he was innocent is delusional.

@Cokie3

I’m finding your posts really hard to read because of your use of random capitals, like in a cheap tabloid. It’s a shame because I’m sure you have made some interesting points.

However I have to say about this:

Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

Why did the jurors return a verdict they didn’t agree with? Why would they exonerate a guilty man?

I’m surprised they didn’t face some kind of charge themselves, not only for returning a verdict that they admit contradicted the evidence they were presented with in court, but also discussing it in public after the trial.

[quote FamilyOfAliens]**@Cokie3

I’m finding your posts really hard to read because of your use of random capitals, like in a cheap tabloid. It’s a shame because I’m sure you have made some interesting points.

However I have to say about this:

Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

Why did the jurors return a verdict they didn’t agree with? Why would they exonerate a guilty man?

I’m surprised they didn’t face some kind of charge themselves, not only for returning a verdict that they admit contradicted the evidence they were presented with in court, but also discussing it in public after the trial.[/quote]
Yes, I would like to know this too. Very strange behaviour from the jurors if true.

@Cokie3 I would like to reply to some of your other points but I can feel your tone getting a bit aggressive and patronising so I’m not sure I will continue

I think what IS clear is that your mind is made up, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

[quote FamilyOfAliens]@Cokie3

I’m finding your posts really hard to read because of your use of random capitals, like in a cheap tabloid. It’s a shame because I’m sure you have made some interesting points.

However I have to say about this:

Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

Why did the jurors return a verdict they didn’t agree with? Why would they exonerate a guilty man?

I’m surprised they didn’t face some kind of charge themselves, not only for returning a verdict that they admit contradicted the evidence they were presented with in court, but also discussing it in public after the trial.[/quote]
You don't seem to understand that Not Guilty does not equal Innocent. They are two entirely different things. This is basic primary school level legal studies. Not Guilty simply means the jury feel there is not enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt to convict. It does not mean they found him 'innocent' per se.

I'm surprised this still has to be explained. No one can be found 'innocent' in law. It is not even a legal possibility. You are either Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or Not Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There is no such thing as 'found Innocent'.

@lunasunshine Oh the irony! I have corrected your lies, given links to information, and you clearly refuse to look into it and do some research because as a blinkered one-eyed fan, you have made up your mind and will not even consider facts, evidence or research that will counter your closed fan mindset. You have made up your mind and refuse to see any information that could counter that. Fans are so brainwashed and closed minded. Anything or anyone that challenges their starry-eyed brainwashed cult fan mindset is dismissed. Always happens when facts are presented.

I think what IS clear is that your mind is made up, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Agree. If the jurors came out of the court room believing MJ was guilty, then that must have been because they heard evidence to support that verdict. Because their job isn’t to share their opinion about guilt or innocence regardless of the evidence. It’s to examine the evidence and return a verdict based on it.

So to then return a verdict that contradicts the evidence they must to have heard in court (otherwise, on what basis would they say they “believed” he was guilty”?) means they didn’t do their job properly and could have been in contempt of court.

I didn’t post anything about being “found innocent”. I know this isn’t a legal term. You must be confusing me with another poster.

Also:

This is basic primary school level legal studies.

You must not be based in the UK as here, the primary school National Curriculum doesn’t include “legal studies”.

[quote FamilyOfAliens]@Cokie3

I’m finding your posts really hard to read because of your use of random capitals, like in a cheap tabloid. It’s a shame because I’m sure you have made some interesting points.

However I have to say about this:

Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

Why did the jurors return a verdict they didn’t agree with? Why would they exonerate a guilty man?

I’m surprised they didn’t face some kind of charge themselves, not only for returning a verdict that they admit contradicted the evidence they were presented with in court, but also discussing it in public after the trial.[/quote]
@FamilyOfAliens @lunasunshine

That this even has to be explained says a lot regarding people defending Jackson and perhaps explains the education level and the reasoning. I do find that it is normally those who defend Jackson who have no understanding what what the legal term Not Guilty is, and they seem to genuinely believe it means innocent. I'm not a lawyer but even I knew as a kid that Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.

www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

english.stackexchange.com/questions/32989/is-there-a-difference-between-innocent-and-not-guilty

"“Not Guilty” is Not the Same as “Innocent”

A common misconception related to the discussion of “acquittal vs. not guilty” is the difference between being innocent and a verdict of not guilty. Being found not guilty of a crime or being acquitted does not mean that the court or jury believes you are innocent of the crime. It simply means that the prosecution either did not have enough evidence to support their charges or that they did not present their evidence in a compelling enough way to convince the jury. For example, a person who shoots and kills someone who enters their property to commit a crime, while not innocent of the shooting, can be found not guilty based upon self-defense and defense of property."
www.puglisilaw.com/2019/10/18/does-acquittal-mean-not-guilty/

Did you ever listen to the tapes of Jordan Chandler’s father.. and the strange stuff surrounding him? Have little Google if you’ve got a spare few minutes..

Haven’t read all of your posts as it’s not relevant to what I posted. As I said, I didn’t post anything about MJ being “found innocent”. Though I did quote your posts where you patronise other people about it.

I’m not defending MJ either. Again, maybe you’re confusing me with another poster.

@FamilyOfAliens

I didn’t post anything about being “found innocent”. I know this isn’t a legal term. You must be confusing me with another poster.

Also:

This is basic primary school level legal studies.

You must not be based in the UK as here, the primary school National Curriculum doesn’t include “legal studies”.

Then why are you suggesting the jurors didn't do their job? They did. To suggest they didn't, means you don't understand the indictment, because if you know it wasn't a legal term, why are you questioning the jurors?

The case was tried in America. We are talking about an American case, and American law. UK is irrelevant in this context.

^^ That was in response to @Cokie3’s last post.

@FamilyOfAliens

I think what IS clear is that your mind is made up, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Agree. If the jurors came out of the court room believing MJ was guilty, then that must have been because they heard evidence to support that verdict. Because their job isn’t to share their opinion about guilt or innocence regardless of the evidence. It’s to examine the evidence and return a verdict based on it.

So to then return a verdict that contradicts the evidence they must to have heard in court (otherwise, on what basis would they say they “believed” he was guilty”?) means they didn’t do their job properly and could have been in contempt of court.

This clearly shows that you don't understand what the jurors job is, because you don't understand how they ruled. How you can assume they would be in 'contempt of court' (what for?) is beyond me. You don't seem to understand the legal system nor what a jury is for.

@Tdaadfb100

Did you ever listen to the tapes of Jordan Chandler’s father.. and the strange stuff surrounding him? Have little Google if you’ve got a spare few minutes..

Those tapes were found to be faked/spliced together.

@Cokie3

Wow, you clearly know a lot about me.

You're quibbling over legal definitions/words but the point still stands - there was not enough evidence to convict him of a crime. You even said it yourself in bold above.

Then why are you suggesting the jurors didn't do their job? They did. To suggest they didn't, means you don't understand the indictment, because if you know it wasn't a legal term, why are you questioning the jurors?

It was you who said the jurors returned a different verdict to the one they subsequently said should have been returned. If they believed the evidence pointed to guilt, then that’s the verdict they should have returned.

And my comment about the UK was because you berated posters because you believe they think there’s a verdict of “innocent” and described not knowing that as “basic primary school level legal studies”. I pointed out there’s no such thing. It’s irrelevant that the trial took place in the US

[quote lunasunshine]@Cokie3

Wow, you clearly know a lot about me.

You're quibbling over legal definitions/words but the point still stands - there was not enough evidence to convict him of a crime. You even said it yourself in bold above.[/quote]
You said he was "found Innocent".

I simply showed that he wasn't. Because there is no such thing as 'found innocent'. Being found Not Guilty does not mean he was found Innocent.

@FamilyOfAliens

Then why are you suggesting the jurors didn't do their job? They did. To suggest they didn't, means you don't understand the indictment, because if you know it wasn't a legal term, why are you questioning the jurors?

It was you who said the jurors returned a different verdict to the one they subsequently said should have been returned. If they believed the evidence pointed to guilt, then that’s the verdict they should have returned.

And my comment about the UK was because you berated posters because you believe they think there’s a verdict of “innocent” and described not knowing that as “basic primary school level legal studies”. I pointed out there’s no such thing. It’s irrelevant that the trial took place in the US

You clearly did not comprehend what I said. I said they believed he was Guilty, but had no choice to return a Not Guilty verdict, because legally they needed to be satisfied beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Is there some reason you cannot understand that?

And it is 'irrelevant that the trial took place in the US'? Say what?
We are talking about a legal trial. Of an American man......in an American court of law. Brought by.......American plaintiffs and prosecutors. The UK is irrelevant. Regardless, the system of Guilty vs Not Guilty is the same in the UK. It is the same as America. So there is no difference between UK and America vis Innocent.

@Cokie3

It was you who posted this:

They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

So if the jurors, whose job it is to return a verdict based on the evidence, return a verdict of not guilty, on what basis would they then go public with their “belief” that he was guilty? Not on the evidence, as they had already found him not guilty. So it must have been personal opinion, which I think we can all agree carries no weight in a court of law in determining guilt or innocence.

And it is 'irrelevant that the trial took place in the US'? Say what?

Please read my posts more carefully.

You posted that knowing there is not such a verdict as “innocent” is “basic primary school level legal studies”.

I pointed out to you that in the UK, there is no “legal studies” in the national curriculum, so referring to something non-existent is nonsense.

[quote FamilyOfAliens]@Cokie3

It was you who posted this:

They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

So if the jurors, whose job it is to return a verdict based on the evidence, return a verdict of not guilty, on what basis would they then go public with their “belief” that he was guilty? Not on the evidence, as they had already found him not guilty. So it must have been personal opinion, which I think we can all agree carries no weight in a court of law in determining guilt or innocence.[/quote]
How do you not understand that jurors must convict on evidence, and not on their feelings? How is it that this basic concept needs explaining? That jurors can say in their personal opinion they felt he was guilty, but they could not say beyond Reasonable Doubt? How is it that this needs explaining to you?

@Cokie3 Sorry to burst your bubble, but MJ didn't go to hell, he just went back to the bottom of the food chain. His body is in the ground somewhere, making the flowers prettier. He's fertilizer now.

I have no doubt that he molested children. Never was a fan,not my thing at all really.
But I do raise an eyebrow when he is played.