Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Micheal Jackson dies


Recommended Posts

  • Members



Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.


Kind: I completely agree (I'm a fellow member of the bar myself). Sometimes its cheaper to settle a case than to defend it. I do remember the Jackson case and the child's mother's credibility was attacked due to the previous extortion attempt you mentioned. They were after money, plain and simple. Twelve people who heard all the facts, saw all the evidence and heard each witness unanimously found him not guilty. The State chose not to appeal. Who are we to question them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Administrators

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)


I'll take some time when I have it to go through and let you know what I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators




Very true....I believe they got it right in this case, wrong in the case of OJ.


I agree with you in regards to OJ. My brother lived near there then, and he said that everyone around there knew he was guilty. Am not too sure about MJ, though. I would love to be completely wrong, but...let me know what you think after reading the page and the accompanying article.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Mom of that boy wanted Money and was overly Jealous of Michael that is why she lied and had her son lie about Michael touching him. he had three children right now have they complained of him touching them improper?
Also Cnn on thier website in about an hour will have a briefing of somewhat of his health. There is talks that he might've needed a lung transplant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The Mom of that boy wanted Money and was overly Jealous of Michael that is why she lied and had her son lie about Michael touching him. he had three children right now have they complained of him touching them improper?
Also Cnn on thier website in about an hour will have a briefing of somewhat of his health. There is talks that he might've needed a lung transplant.


It's quite possible and probable that the mom was after money. So, perhaps the dad in the earlier case (1993). And all the other families...

I hadn't heard about the lung thing. From what I've heard they are thinking it might be a reaction to the Demoral he was given just before he died. I suppose we'll know soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There isn't a shred of evidence he was saved and an abundance of evidence to suggest he wasn't.

Folks should look at this and realize the fact they can die at any time and really consider the state of their soul and their eternal destination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)


Happy: I read the articles you posted. The article by McClish is absurd. I don't think he would ever be used as an expert in a criminal case to prove the defendant was lieing, and in fact, I researched it and he has never been qualified as an expert in any proceeding in the U.S. As far as his educational pedigree, he's a former U.S. Marshall. He does not hold a medical degree or any form of Ph. D. He is basically saying that we know Michael Jackson is a child molester because Michael Jackson has never specifically said "I am not a child molester" on television or in a printed interview. It's really silly. It also assumes, for no reason other than its convenience, that Mr. Jackson has never said those exact words in a non-public forum.

The Dateline article is interesting, but only really suggests that there are more that have extorted Mr. Jackson than we originally thought. I would also question how much money the house keeper was paid for her interviews, and to whom the interviews were originally given. To compound it all, even she doesn't present any proof of anything. Just more suspicion, this time from someone unrelated to the victim that had a close relationship with him.

In the end we are left with two people that made serious allegations, both of whom were paid millions to settle/prevent any lawsuits and a twelve person jury who actually saw the evidence (as opposed to you and I, who can only merely speculate) and unanimously found him not guilty. If it I were in his shoes, I'd ask what else I have to do to prove my innocence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")


That thing you call "doubt" is a personal conviction that he is not guilty. That's why our legal standard in criminal cases is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

You give out millions of dollars to settle cases because it is cheaper than defending them. Would you rather pay $25 million and not have to deal with the whole thing, or go through a year long televised trial that costs you $40 million in legal fees. It makes economic sense and prevents the other party from lieing about you anymore (assuming you are innocent of course). And those are civil suits, not criminal. The issue is not guilt or innocence, but liability. You can't buy your way out of prosecution.

As to Mr. McClish, I might be able to give him more credit if he was a psychiatrist, maybe even a psychologists. Plus, the article is so poorly written. That's what prompted me to research his academic background.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators



That thing you call "doubt" is a personal conviction that he is not guilty. That's why our legal standard in criminal cases is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

You give out millions of dollars to settle cases because it is cheaper than defending them. Would you rather pay $25 million and not have to deal with the whole thing, or go through a year long televised trial that costs you $40 million in legal fees. It makes economic sense and prevents the other party from lieing about you anymore (assuming you are innocent of course). And those are civil suits, not criminal. The issue is not guilt or innocence, but liability. You can't buy your way out of prosecution.

As to Mr. McClish, I might be able to give him more credit if he was a psychiatrist, maybe even a psychologists. Plus, the article is so poorly written. That's what prompted me to research his academic background.

Oh - I know it's a personal doubt...If I'm not guilty of something, I'm not going to pay off the accusers. That just isn't me. Of course, I'm not a celebrity, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")


I just read the link. I must say, his conclusions are very far fetched. He is not doing anything but picking apart and over analyzing peoples sentences. There is no comment into the psychology involved, the evidnece or lack thereof, and there is no comment on the testimony of the accusers. So, I don't give this a lot of credibility.

One or two people making baseless accusations can ruin someone's life. That is why it is important for a pastor to NEVER meet behind closed doors with a woman, and now a child. Someone ALWAYS should be there so no allegations can be made.

Jackson was very foolish to have sleepovers with 12 year old boys. However, given his child like behavior, and his mental problems to cause it, I do not believe the accusations were true. The accusers were not credible, and the evidence was contradictory, and ALL of the jurors agreed.

As to paying off the first accuser, he did so thinking he would get rid of a problem, and instead created a new one by brining forth a second accuser. I have seen large settlments for baseless claims because the media coverage and a public trial would hurt even more, even if innocent or not at fault. That is a calculated risk. It is interesting that after he paid the first family off, they refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation after that, which in my mind shows they were out for the money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.


Kind - It's your choice to defend him. If possible would you take his case before God? With what evidence and testimony you're giving could you defend him before God? Do you think the prosecution would present any witnesses you would prefer were not there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...