If the child fits, you must acquit!

Justice comes to those who can afford it.

Having sleepovers with little boys and sleeping in the same bed and having this "i wanna be a little white girl" sexual fantasy of his and his "responsible" parenting and everything makes me wonder why the hell the social services didn't show up to his door and take the kids away. I don't think he even realizes what's going on around him. Obviously his kids and others should be taken away and he should be placed in a looney bin.

It doesn't matter.
These societies are flawed. This creates flawed people.
Argueing about them has not solved the problem. Pathetic excuses to waste time.

That does not mean we should not attempt to find a better system (perhaps of democracy).
"Meh. It works for now," only applies to programming.

As far as I'm concerned, both parties are guilty... At the time of the alleged incident, M.J.'s previous child molestation allegations were well known and yet these twisted parents persisted in encouraging their child to sleep over at Michael Jackson's house...

M.J.'s just a little on the strange side but so are this kids parents. The end result of this case was it cost a bunch of weirdos a lot of money and no one but the lawyers benefited. Perhaps this is the best we can hope for in contemporary America.

He could. But the judge would laugh him out of court.

How do you know he wasn't in the "position"

Now it seems that under normal situations if he was so bloody rich he wouldn't be allowed to have kids. Child services would let it. I also find it funny how much lawyers make. They're always the winners. No wonder these cases are so long and drawn out.

They're all guilty - of "Attempted misapropriated temporal fiduciary misconduct"

-Trying to steal my time and waste it

I was round at MJ's last night. I suggested we get a DVD, "what should I get" I asked Micheal.

"Get aladin" he replied. Disgusting.

Could you elaborate on this? It seems to me that it would help his case, as it goes to show that the allegations against him were found to be unfounded in a court of law, supporting the requirement that the things said about him were false. (As far as I know, you can't be sued for defamation if the things you said are clearly true - can you? That would seem to go against every principle of free journalism out there!)

A finding of "not guilty" means nothing more than that the prosecution failed to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. so that they were sure) that the defendant had done the alleged crimes. In some cases they may even have failed to adduce sufficient evidence for the jury to be able to find that the defendant was guilty and the jury may be directed by the judge to return a not guilty verdict. For example, the defendant is charged with actual bodily harm and on the day of the trial the complainant is unable to remember what effect an attack by the defendant had. ABH requires some harm such as reddening, swelling or bruising so as a matter of law the prosecution hasn't made a case.

From another point of view, while the prosecution adduces all their evidence all the defendant must do is tear a sufficient hole in it to built a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. For example, if the main prosecution witness stands up and says they are 75% certain the defendant did the crime then they should rightly be acquitted.

This is the way things work because the criminal justice system strongly favours having to release people that did crimes through lack of evidence to locking up innocent people.

In a civil court the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but instead the judge must decide who they believe is more likely to be telling the truth. So every time one party adduces some evidence, the other party must destroy it so that it appears more likely to be untrue than true. The mere fact of a 'not guilty' verdict for Michael Jackson does not establish that he has already done this. Conversely, a 'guilty' verdict would indicate that he had been unable to even raise reasonable doubt so could be used against him.

To continue the earlier example, if the judge believes that one party has a 75% chance of being the truthful one then that party wins.

(Note: in England & Wales juries are not normally involved in civil cases. However they are usually involved in defamation cases, so perhaps substitute jury for judge in most of my comments on civil cases).

The law is, in my opinion, a little strange on this.

The claimant would start a defamation case and need only establish that the defendant communicated a statement to a third party that was likely to lower their standing in right thinking society or open them to ridicule. Once they've done that, they've established defamation.

At this point the defendant can claim the legal defence of 'truth' and must prove that (beyond reasonable doubt) themselves. Alternatively for cases such as this there is a 'fair comment' defence that involves establishing that the public have a suitable interest in the matter and that the things reported were a fair commentary on the events. This would protect journalists who watched the trial and wrote articles saying things like "I believe Mr Jackson is guilty".

That's what I thought. I agree with you. They're going to make a pretty penny out of this and I'm sure they knew that at the time.

It calms me to think that instead of a jury finland uses a board of variable number of people with all having at least a lawyer's degree and a signed NDA.

He's obviously a nutjob and child services should keep that dude away from his and others kids. You know those people who take children away from abusive/screwed up parents. Simply put they don't let kids live in a crazy or hostile environment. Jacko is wacko. I think that baby dangling or hear about the "sleepovers" alcohol and porn should be enough of a reason in any country. Making his kids wear masks and all that other shit just puts him over the top. If he wasn't rich, i guarantee you that he wouldn't still have the kids.