Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Celebrities just aren't allowed to be convicted for something like that in America

    No, not a fair trial...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hell no, i bet they payed most of his witnesses off, especially his ex wife who was supposed to give him a bad ...thingy...(can't think of the word)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But does his superstar status make everything fair, as its a unique case?

    Motherless Child
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I say fair.

    He does have superstar status, but as well as being seen by some as (in one extreme) some sort of Jesus, he is also seen (in another) as a serial paedophile anyway already. It's strange how things work because he's not the same as the hypothetical man from Leeds, and surely it would be more wrong to treat him as something he wasn't from the start.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    god no, why should his superstar status matter in the first place, he's a human being, he should be subject to the same laws and rights as the rest of us.

    I think he should have gone down and shown celebrities that they aren't so untouchable
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    the fact that be bought his way out of a similar case over 10 years ago really does suggest that perhaps the verdict was not reached on suitable grounds
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scubar)
    god no, why should his superstar status matter in the first place, he's a human being, he should be subject to the same laws and rights as the rest of us.

    I think he should have gone down and shown celebrities that they aren't so untouchable

    That's a pretty stupid reason to put somebody in jail though. I think the evidence must have been weighed up pretty naturally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As far as I am aware, the defence used a special case in the law that says that if the accuser had lied about anything in any one allegation, then all allegations had to be declared not guilty. I have a feeling that this is why they all came to a not guilty verdict on all counts. The jury were probably convinced that they had lied about one thing somewhere, and so regardless of what they thought about the other cases, they had to declare jackson not guilty.

    At least thats my understanding of why he got off so easily!
    Offline

    11
    If anything, I thought it was biased the other way. The entire media seemed to be out to get him.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    no it not there is a jury if they like him they will find him inosont if they dont like him they will find him gilty

    but i think that when he was young so mush presher was put on him by his farther and others that he cracked and whent loppy/ had a nevouse brack down and hasent recoverd from it thand thay whyi think that he still got a mind of a chiled so he acting like a chiled so he has no i idea what he is doing he just wont to play like a chiled because he has a brain like one so he has no idea what he doing.

    so has he got no control of his actions or his mind if the jorey like him they will find him inosont if they dont like him they will find him gilty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    as if, he bought most of his witnesses and the evidence they gave was weighed up,somethings not right about the trial, even after he admitted to one of the charges and found not guilty for it

    does that seem like a fair trial to you

    the thing about showing celebrities, thats just my personal feeling, i think he should have been found guilty of at least one of the charges
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by esx77)
    the fact that be bought his way out of a similar case over 10 years ago really does suggest that perhaps the verdict was not reached on suitable grounds

    Settling a case privately isn't the same as paying off the jury.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spenceman_)
    It's strange how things work because he's not the same as the hypothetical man from Leeds, and surely it would be more wrong to treat him as something he wasn't from the start.
    Maybe not the same in character, but as far as reasons for trial - is it really that different?

    Motherless Child
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spenceman_)
    Settling a case privately isn't the same as paying off the jury.
    lol I wasn't suggesting that!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scubar)
    god no, why should his superstar status matter in the first place, he's a human being, he should be subject to the same laws and rights as the rest of us.

    I think he should have gone down and shown celebrities that they aren't so untouchable
    But do you not think the parents felt that because Jackson is known world wide, their kids would be safe with him?

    If I had kids who had an interest in Jackson, then yeah, I'd let them go round and sleep in the same room, but not in the same bed. It's not as important that I view his love of children as genuine, but I don't think he is stupid enough to touch children, as it risks everything he has worked for.

    Maybe if I did actually have kids it would be different, but I can only imagine how I'd view it.

    Motherless Child
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2 + 2 = 5)
    If anything, I thought it was biased the other way. The entire media seemed to be out to get him.
    Did you see the Sky reconstructions? When I watched it, I thought they were extremely biased in favour of Jackson. Thats my perception of it though.

    Maybe Jackson didn't arrange an out of court settlement because he wanted to show the world he was innocent? Maybe he had had enough of people scamming him for his money, and wanted to settle it the fair way? It's a long shot because I think the opposition had a fairly strong case, but why shouldn't he put up a fight?

    Motherless Child
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    at the moment, my personal view is that he needs to see a psychiatrist, while it might not have been a fair trial, there is no point grumbling about it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the_sand_man)
    no it not there is a jury if they like him they will find him inosont if they dont like him they will find him gilty
    Yeah that's pretty much what happens most of the time, the jury decide beforehand and the evidence rarely influences their opinion...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    there is no way that they could have found a jury that wasn't influenced one way or another by michael jackson
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the_sand_man)
    no it not there is a jury if they like him they will find him inosont if they dont like him they will find him gilty

    but i think that when he was young so mush presher was put on him by his farther and others that he cracked and whent loppy/ had a nevouse brack down and hasent recoverd from it thand thay whyi think that he still got a mind of a chiled so he acting like a chiled so he has no i idea what he is doing he just wont to play like a chiled because he has a brain like one so he has no idea what he doing.

    so has he got no control of his actions or his mind if the jorey like him they will find him inosont if they dont like him they will find him gilty

    For an oxford lad, you're pretty sloppy Maybe I could get in next year? :p:

    I don't think it's a case of the jury "liking him" that decides their outcome. From what the jury said in the press conference, I think they analysed it all fairly well, and reached a conclusion which reflects the main points of the trial, in favour of Jackson.

    Motherless Child
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,816

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.