Jackson Acquitted

that we can't make pedophile jokes about mj any more?

come on, we need the real issue addressed, not the legal stuff.

Michael Jackson is strange. I wouldn't want to be his kid. Who knows what could happen. Maybe people are trying to get his money but I just can't agree that all of the boys are lying about his sexuality.

Was there ever any DNA testing done for these cases??

That would have been a quick case to resolve though!

I heard on the radio this morning that MJ is $250 million in debt. Now, lawyers are expensive, but think how much money he generated in the 80's. At one point they said he was a B-B-B-Billionaire. How on earth can anyone piss away that kind of cash?? I also read yesterday that Mike Tyson earned over $300 million in his career and is now millions in debt. It's amazing how much the hangers-on can bleed a person dry.

There were people outside the court house on vigil for weeks. Most people's interest in this case was based on the salicious nature of the case, and they probably bought a lot of People magazines. But to put your whole life on hold to stand there and scream when this freak walked by is pretty weird.

Imagine if Michael had to do hard time in the California prison system. He seems a little too frail to handle that.

The only real thing Jackson had to worry about was the FACT that he had been accused before, paid the kid off and then proceeded to allow himself to be placed in the exact same position.

This shows a compulsive nature towards kids.

Also, if he WAS going to go after kids, the best targets ARE people like this because who would believe them?

But then the prosocution started trying to paint him as a bad and weird guy so lock him up. They threw uncredible accusations, which took away from anything of merit the case DID have.

I can't believe they didn't at least get him for providing the booze to minors.

I think he is the weirdest, scariest person to have ever been made a star. Back when he was black, at least he had some talent. Everyone was talking about that cute little Michael Jackson. Then he decided to change his skin, nose, voice, hang out with chimps and kids. I don't really know if he was innocent or not , but I don't really care. I think in any case, a parent that puts their son in the hands of MJ is nutty in the first place. There's a good idea. I think they set him up, but I don't think he is truly innocent of all charges. He's weird and should be made fun of. He had talent and now he has tabloids.

Hopefully no one will ever want to say the same about you, one day...

What's the poor bastard ever done to you? He was innocent until proven guilty and now he's just innocent.

I was gonna say it, but I hit my one flame war quota in another thread :)

And I agree...I hope you, ITgirli, never have the same accusation made of you. You'd then find out all the pains it puts you through personally and professionally, in addition to everything else in life you have to deal with.

I won't say MJ is the messiah, but I won't condemn him for something that hasn't been proven. Not that it couldn't, but he is innocent until *proven* guilty under law. I can just say...his actions are questionable.

Michael Jackson AND the accusers claim they don't actually share the same bed at all. HE sleeps on the floor and the children sleep in his bed, therefore he's sharing his bed.

The only time the kids claimed they shared the bed WIH Michael was when he was accused of touching them, which we MUST be fair about as he was acquitted of such claims against him. When he says he shares his bed with the boys, the buys share the bed and he actually sleeps on the floor, not on every occasion either, he apparently has a sheep bed he sleeps in when he has his little friends for a sleepover.

I am honestly beginning to think it really is as innocent as he claims since he's brushed off so many similar charges by these parents and it's not JUST good lawyers, they had a strong DA on their side too.

I am not saying MJ is a completely normal person, if there IS such a thing, but that the claims and wierdo/sicko charges have never stood up to any scrutiny and questioning, we can't condemn a man who is not found guilty by trial accusations are VERY damning, far too often we hold these accusations against the accused even when they are found false.

I've been dragged to court and charge dwith the most absurd issues, regarding music, assault etc. You always appear uilty to some even when you're really very innocent, because charges appear to be
so final. But they aer just claims for investigation, in this case, false claims.

Parents ill leave kids with such a HUGE pop star because...well he IS a huge pop star, everyone feels they know him so well.

In THIS case, the parents plotted against him, and that explains a lot of the actions they APPARENTLY allowed.

As for scouting, it has been quite a while since I was a leader and yes, sometimes you would share tents with each other, comletely innocently of course. These days parents woudld not allow as much, which is really kinda dumb in most cases.

Completely clothed children wrapped in sleeping bags sharing a tent with 5 or 6 other people is not such an odd experience when on a camping trip.

It's not like they were invited to go to the woods and sleep in your tent with you, they are part of a group of campers, when camping this in a completely normal thing for several males or females sharing sleepng quarters.

Children can be 'touched' by other children they sleep with too, just because a guy is an adult it does not make it any more dangerous to share a tent.

is who I was refering to.

Anyone who stands up and says they saw a little boy get molested and went about their day business as usual is a criminal.

Also EVERY parent that allowed their children to sleep in the same bed with MJ should have the child protect agency come down on them HARD for KNOWINGLY placing their kids in a potentially harmful situation.

In both of our legal systems, the guy is legally innocent of any crimes. He might be a mad, sad individual with a detachable face but innocent is the one thing he is.

The prosecutor has been trying to "get" Jackson for years - vendetta is pretty close - and has failed but he has slung a [b]lot[/b] of mud. Unfortunately, mud sticks and there will be many, many people taking your slant on it. Me, I don't have any kids but, if I did, I'd reckon it to be one of the safest places on Earth for them at the moment! Not that the poor guy is ever going to let anyone in ever again.

Just my take on it.

Neil

I stopped eating branches and talking to trees...so I thought I was doing better, but now your comment has taken me back a few steps..

Now excuse me...I'm gonna try and catch my shadow for a few hours.

;)

I said something similar before and a war like thread ensued encompassing many dozens of posts of flaming....lol.

(It is interesting how intense we get over the most silly topics on this board though)

lol

that doesn't mean you didn't do it, just not in the eyes of the law. Another rich white man bought his way out of the justice system.

BOTH side spent money trying to counter the other.

In the end, no matter what court you are in, the testimony from the prosecution was deemed incredible. And the more the jurors speak out about it, as they tour around addressing the various media sources with their answers, the more ridiculous her whole testimony was.

SHE was the one who said he had given them alocohol, the kids didn't even say as much in court, as they did in front of cameras leading up to the case. (Who goes in front of the press BEFORE a case?)

I agree he probably IS sick or needs treatment of some sort, he missed his childhood and his attraction to children is not necessarily healthy and should be addressed.

BUT he clearly didn't molest the boy as accused, therefore he is CLEARLY innocent of the charges no matter WHO's court room he is in or WHO's lawyer is representing the sides. Anyone would have surfaced the evidence shown.

OJ was another story, as was Robert Blake AND Martha Stewart, who was different from them again.

"Would you let your kids stay there for the weekend? If he is innocent, why not? Not my boys."

That's completely irrelevant. You can't convict someone because you wouldn't trust him with your kids.

Jay Leno AND Chris Rock BOTH catered to this family too, trips, shopping, days out etc. The family was using their sick son to plie(extort) money from celebrity's who help people like this all the time.

Certainly MJ is NOT healthy in my mind either, but he CLEARLY didn't molest THESE children. Their storys don't match, they changed several times throughout the defense. The MOTHER is completely incredible in every sense of the word, has won a similar case in the past and is a complete fraud.

He was not being tried on his mental state, it was a VERY serious charge of child molestation, and the cards don't stack up.

Regardless of the lawyers involed, regrdless of money, anyone else would have found a similar result. The Prosecution was no slacker DA either.

Perhaps this will scare him into avoiding such contact in future, they said he has already agreed to this concept too. One good thing, he has formed a new bond with his father, which is a positive and VEY healing experience if he does have these deep rooted troubles. This is FAR more effective a plan so far, than incarcerating him would have been.

The WINE was something the kids agreed with BEFORE the court, but the jurors have since said it was the MOTHER who said they were given wine and she wasn't even present at the time. The kids and witnesses did NOT attest to this in court. She's a con! Fce it, once a con always a con.

There were ten charges against him,

Count 1: Conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion between 1 February and 31 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 2: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 3: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 4: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 5: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 6: Attempt to commit a lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 7: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 8: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 9: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

Count 10: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.

So he was being charged with child molestation, the alcohol charges were to support those charges, you ALWAYS push for the felony, in this case it was by relating charges, not applying them individually as a crime.

IF he was found innocent of molestation, then leading charges must also be false in this case, if there's no felony, he didn't use something to assist in the commission of commit a felony, it wasn't committed so there's nothing to assist.

"Judge Rodney Melville said they could decide Mr Jackson gave teenager Gavin Arvizo alcohol (based on the heresay of a parent) but did not abuse him, a lesser charge with a penalty of up to a year in prison."

They went for the BIG money, they lied they lost.

Every time something hits mass media, people start quoting the jokes of late night TV hosts.

Now ALL TV hosts including Letterman will use this NEWS for a laugh in their monologue.

IN actuality, while both Letterman and Leno both have made MJ jokes in their recent monologues, BOTH are very close friends AND supporters that he is an innocent man. In fact Leno even testified for him.

So we have gone from the, 'FLIP-FLOP' rhetoric to "Another rich white man bought his way out of the justice system."?

Legal Aid would have shown the incredilbe testimony of the prosecution. Magazines they apprently were shown that didn't even exist in print when they were supposedly shown to them, only the MOTHER claims he plied them with wine. She's done the same thing before against JC Penny and won over $150K. She was in a spa(that MJ paid for) while she was allegedly being held hostage, her kids were undergoing orthodontal surgery at the same time, again courtesy of MJ. Her STORY had so many holes in it, he could have represented himself and won.

Rich and lawyers don't count in this one.

Michael Jackson did not claim to be a good singer, but since being a child he has been a good singer. He never claimed to be a good writer, but he DID write a lot more of his music than most pop stars. And he COULD dance like a son of a bitch, HE was the coreographer you speak of.

He was a VERY multi-talented 'performer'. Musical perfection has been drilled into him since he was a toddler, he was pushed, trained by the best and was a worldwide success for decades.

NO I don't care for MJ as much as Judas Priest, but I cannot discount talent where it does actually exist.

Perhaps he's not a musician, but Bob Dylan's not a performer either, Steve Ray Vaughn played a great guitar (though some of his biggest hits are rehashed blues covers thet HE didn't write either, and while he was amazing to watch play, he was not much of a performer).

Talent comes in many forms, and MJ did provide some of the best talent of his musical genre and era, he has inspired and created so many other talented performers, nobody can deny that.

They say (don't ask me who they are though) it's better to fess up to your own errors then to pretend you never made them...

From a Legal Dictionary:

innocent
adj. without guilt (not guilty). Usually the plea which an accused criminal defendant gives to the court at the time of his/her first appearance (or after a continued appearance). Such pleas often disturb the public in cases in which guilt seems obvious from the start. However, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the innocent plea gives defense lawyers an opportunity to investigate, find extenuating circumstances, develop reasons punishment should be lenient, bargain with the District Attorney, and let the memories of witnesses fade.

My confusion on terms...was to say just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, therefore doesn't mean he didn't "SIN", however the law doesn't hold us accountable for being sinful. (Prostitutes aren't locked up because they are sinful, they are locked up for breaking laws, same for killing someone, same for dealing crack, etc.).

I knew Neil was gonna be all over that after I collected my thoughts so I wanted to come back and make this post.

For the record, IMHO he is still NOT INNOCENT!!! :)

I don't like much of his music and I think he's probably one of the world's saddest people in every sense but I still don't think that he's a paedophile in the way that some people are still painting him. More to the point, neither did the jury.

I think that people have to produce some proof or leave him alone.

I think the jurors found that the government's case wasn't sufficient in this trial to convict him. However, here's a quote from one juror after the trial:

"I think that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys," juror Raymond Hultman said. "But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges in this case."
- http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-jury14jun14,0,455662.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

It is refreshing that a juror can stay impartial like that, but still hold his personal opinion.

Gives me a little faith that not only morons are getting appointed to juries.

BTW, I think he's touched kids improperly too. But, they didn't have a good case. That's been evident from the start.

Of course if I were the DA...when Leno and all those other stars (beside McCauley Culkin and other child stars) got on the stand...I'd have been asking "Mr. Leno...would you please tell us how many times you've spent the night in Mr. Jackson's sleeping quarters while young children were present?"

That would have shot down his ability to define MJ's bedroom mannerisms with children.

I no longer have the hear The Wiggles, Sesame Street CD's, the Camp Muckalucka CD, the Bananaphone CD, Bananas-in-Pajamas, etc.

For a few years there, Yanni or Kenny G would have been a relief! Thank God the Teletubbies never put out a CD

Have you seen the press release about Live8?

Pink Floyd WITH Roger Waters reunited?

What's with all these guys finally getting together again?!?

Halford rejoined Priest, Waters to Floyd, is the Earth finally righting itself on it's axis?

Will PF actually STAY together after Live8?

Is it possible that the Iraq war has created enough important material that Waters will write again with Floyd? Even though that political war infatuation was a huge part of them slitting to begin with, it may just be that they need to do a new one together due to it's importance. WILL PF possibly write a new album for next year? Then tour? Then Led Zeppelin will be resurrected and John Bonham will be found alive on a deserted island, hanging out with Bonn Scott and Randy Rhoades?

I like the way the political BS of the last few years has brought so many musicians back together in protest.

By that analogy, NOBODY is innocent, NOBODY is free of sin. But even God will forgive our sins I am told and MIchael being a very religious man, well, he's a piece of cake.

He wasn't questioned nor gave an opinion regarding Michael Jacksons bedroom antics.

He was brought in because he too was exploited by the same family. The mother wasn't credible, THAT was the problem. A liar can't point a finger at a cheat.

I would remove that one as drumming is the absolute root of all music as it was a form of communication that became a form of celebration.

and if that was the case, he could have been put on the stand as a character witness as well. Someone just didn't have the balls to open that line of questioning.

The whole trial was a pile of crap. There was no solid basis for a case to begin with. The DA should be held accountable for that. And if the kid was molested, the mom should be jailed for putting her child in jeopardy.

He may not have been found guilty under of the charges in the eyes of the court, but the fact the mother is a gold-digging liar doesn't make him innocent of the allegation...it just means there was not enough credible evidence to established an illegal action happened.

An allegation can be true, but not provable in court. Thousands of other crimes end up that way as well, including robberies and rapes.

after the trial and verdict, it was not proven beynd a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

therefore he did not commit the crimes he was charged with.

as far as innocent goes, if you are old enough to roll over in your crib, you are almost old enough to "sin" therefore, by the time you get into school you are no longer "innocent"
( tossed legal definition aside there )

legally, mj is innocent of the crimes he was charged with, that does not mean mj is completely innocent. ( read above paragraph )

the verdict only means that mj did not do what he was charged with.
wacko jacko is probably guilty of wrong actions with children, but not in this case.
funny thing is, that if he was gay, as old rumours once suggested, then thousands of people could easily say that they doubt he is guilty of ever wrongly interacting with a child.

legal records show that 99.99995% of all pedophiles are straight men. gay men are far more interested in MEN not boys, not anyone with any femininity in thier appearance or mannerisms. to quote a number of gay friends:
"he is such a good looking guy, but as soon as he opens his mouth he ruins it... taffeta pours out."

meaning he talks with a lisp / flambouantly gay.
( like mj does )

the not guilty verdict will cause those fans in philly to be out in droves in support of him.

it's a possibility.

I heard 78% were men...22% were women.

Maybe it's 99.99995% of male pedophiles are straight...I can believe that.

But take it from me...not all child molesters are male.

I've seen it happen here to friends.
falsly accused of child abuse.
that one charge is the exact opposite of legal code

guilty until proven innocent.

if anyone ever makes such a complaint against you kiss your rights goodby, you are a convicted felon until after the court says otherwise, yet society will always assume you bought the trial somehow and are guilty.
your life, and livelyhood, are destroyed.

after having seen it happen here, I won't get into saying that mj should have been convicted, I have seen the damage it does to people.

that's what meant.
99.99995% of then mean convicted of pedophilia are straight.

slightly ot:
I've heard of cases where straight men rape another man.
( post operative female to male transsexuals )
legally male, with both sets of "plumbing".
the most common reason being given being that he was born female he will always be female.

"It doesn't make him an innocent man, it makes him innocent of these specific allegations."

As far as the court is concerned, which is as far as it goes really, he did not commit the crime as accused.

This does not make him an innocent MAN though, it makes him innocent of the charges upon him in this specific instance.

are fascinating... well, at least, TRUE African drum circles are a joy to the senses. You can actually FEEL the music.

My SIL who is a performer in New York, spent some time in Africa studying drums. She learned a LOT and gained a great deal of respect for the art.

Our native indians have some really cool dancing and music performances too. It was actually one of the biggest draws at the annual PNE in Vancouver a few years ago.

back in the Billie Jean days when he was still black - even Smooth Criminal was good - most of the stuff since then. . . not so impressive. I used to be a fan, but all the crotch grabs got to me.

and you said:

"But they DID think he was not guitly on THESE accounts..."

accounts...maybe you meant charges...or counts of the indictment.

He can be found not guilty of charges either by lack of evidence or evidence not supporting the charges brought against him.

However, it does not mean that the specific account (or more accurately, incident) for which charges were filed did not occur. It can occur and he can be guilty of committing the crime, but the jury (as in this case) did not find sufficient, plausible, corroborative evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of charges filed against him.

Not guilty simply means the jury did not find enough substantive evidence to convict on the charges brought against him.

If he is found innocent, it usually means other evidence is introduced that proves he is not involved and charges are dropped by the prosecutor.

But I understand how law works, it's actually been a major part of my life and I've probably spent more time in a courtroom than you have in a server room.

I did mean accounts, counts would be related to the charges themselves, accounts would be focused on the actions that ledad to the charges in question. Same thing different smell for the most part.

You seem to be missing the key issue. Regardless of what actually happened, regardless of what you think MAY have happened, regardless of what he was accused of. He was acquitted, acquittal means he wasn't found guilty as charged. NOT being guilty as charged means LEGALLY you are innocent, 'LEGALLY BLAMELESS' and legally works here because we are discussing law, right?

Innocent until proven guilty, means that if you are not PROVEN guilty then you are innocent. Yet as a SOCIETY, people will still condemn him, as many have done here, and will deem him guilty, in their minds, possibly even in HIS or God's mind but we cannot prove that.

I don't think he's an innocent MAN, I THINK he has problems that need professional attention. I THINK he probably IS a pedophile, it's in his actons, BUT, and that's where everything changes, here we are discussing a specific case, not the credibility of the defense. He WAS found NOT GUILTY on all of the charges imposed on him. This wasn't due to a LACK of evidence, but the incredibilty of the evidence that WAS presented.

The prosecution had REAMS AND REAMS of evidence, PILES of photos, and (as Arlo said)
"And then the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one", they had testimony after testimony, witness after witness took the stand for months, and the jury took ALL of that evidence including the "twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one", and found him NOT guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

Seeing as we are speaking of law here, not morals personal belief, or even what he MAY have done, he is therefore INNOCENT STILL as he was NOT proven guilty.

We don't have a judgement that is, "NOT GUILTY...but he probably DID do it anyway and they just didn't prove it."

He is innocent as charged.

As for his defense being high priced lawyers that won a case due to the money, that's more complete BS, the defense did not outtalk the prosecution in this one, as in OJ's case. The prosecution simply failed to make a credible case.

It's like me saying you post too much. Unless I can prove you DO post too much, then you aren't winning the argument by saying you DON'T, I am merely losing it by not proving you DO. Therefore it's not your fancy defense, it's my poor accusation.

One thing abou tlaw, it's black & white, that's the way it is designed to be and that's the only way it is effective.

Not found Guilty = Still found innocent.

Well...I'm glad you've been in courts more than I've been in a server room.

I've spent about 15 years in and out of server/machine rooms. Glad you've been in and out of court that much. Either you're as legally harassed as MJ...or, you have led a wild life.

As for what the argument entails...it's this:

saying "he's innocent..." is very different than "he's innocent LEGALLY...". one is absolute, the other is caveated.

I won't give you another "101" on legal terms since you seem to think I'm patronizing you with it. But, there is a huge difference between a "count" and an "account" as well.

As for me posting too much...you can think what you want. Just remember...Mr. 10,000 posts...shouldn't complain about someone's dirty laundry til you clean your own :)

Calm down...deep breath...deep chug from a pint...relax... :)

BTW...I absolutely disagree...the law does not have to be black and white to work. It's not black and white now, for that matter. Judges still have discretion. That's what makes appellate courts overturn lower courts, etc. Black and white, no non-sense, rigidly-defined law would not allow for discretion.

hmmm...drum circles...I've never seen Indians have a drum circles.

BTW, I'm my own reference. I'm Cherokee. Former Senior Programmer for The Chickasaw Nation.

I've been to Red Earth, the biggest "Native American" tribal dance and drum festival in the world, better than 10 times, as well as the local Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole tribal festivals in Oklahoma.

Usually, the tribal drummers sit to one side of the dance...and the dance goes in a circle around a fire or a spiritual symbol.

Anyway...that's the injun perspective.

donada gohvi :)

And if you want my bona fides, I have taken university law courses (Canadian law, but both Canada and US base their legal systems on British Common law), testified in a felony case for the defense, have a brother who was a cop, wife worked in the largest law firm in the country, groomsman at my wedding is one of Canada's constitutional experts and so on.

JCK, you seem to be missing the definition.

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a key phrase in all of our legal systems. The "reasonable" comes from the reasonable man theory - reasonable meaning to a certain extent common sense, common man. Thus the onus, the burden of proof is on the prosecution - always. A jury can be swayed by a powerful orator on either side, but hopefully between the judges charge to the jury, where he explains the duty of coming up with a verdict and outlines the legal questions they have to decide, it becomes less about passion and gut feel and more about the rules of law and evidence.

What this one came down to is the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. Once the defense established that extortion was a pattern they had followed, it wasn't hard to plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of the jurors. Many of them may think he was guilty, if not in that specific instance, but in another one. But if both the prosecutors witnesses and the defences witnesses are not credible, and there is a lack of hard evidence, the defense wins. Because the defense gets the benefit of the doubt. The onus is higher for the prosecution, as it should be.

James

Poor, poor MJ. I know Philly, and I don't think he should go there.

You mean there is more than one formerly black child singing sensation that lost his pigment and his nose who lives with a chimp? wow! Where do they find these people?

Having corporate lawyers in my family has had me spending COUNTLESS hours, DAYS, watching trials and bouncing from room to room throughout the day to sit in on various cases for over 20 years.

In the music industry, it is 80% legal BS, 20% music. I spend a great deal of time, building cases, gathering evidence and sitting in courtrrom over IP, distribution license, graphics isues etc. etc. That list is endless.

I stand corrected though, a judge uses discretion as BASED ON THE LAW. Sometimes judges FEEL they should do or act on something but often the law prevents it. The law has set out strict rules.

Sentence, from a judge can be varied, 5-10 years for example is up to the court's discretion and again is usually based on judgements passed on similar past cases that are reviwed.

JUDGEMENT, is A or B, Guilty or NOT guilty.
YOu are either found to have done it or you weren't foun dto do it. There's no grey area. The JUDGES job is to take the resulting verdict and decide on the penalty imposed. They jury will suggest sentence but ultimately it is left up to the judge. In this case, the judge doesn't just use his discretion that much at all, he reads back through MANY similar cases, often taking weeks to reach a decision. He bases HIS decision on those passed before.

When he FAILS to reach a reasonable judgement, the sentence is often appealed and another judge will eventually see the case.

Acquittal: The state of being found or proved not guilty.

Not guilty: declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless

Yet people are trying to say he is still to blame?
Perhaps from the minisclue amount of information we actually know about his real life, we can say it is odd and he's a wierdo and that he PROBABLY isn't as innocent as he is portrayed.

As far as law goes, it's A or B. He's NOT guilty, therefore he is innocent of the crimes he has been accused of.

Law really works quite differently in reality than in text. For example, police cannot search your person when they pull you over on the street, including emptying your pockets etc. UNTIL you are placed under arrest, they are ONLY allowed to request sufficient identification in order to check you out on the computer.

In REALITY, the cops will pull you over, rifle through your pockets and throw everything on the hood of their car, BEFORE or while asking you for ID, running your name etc. If you aren't arrested they just tell you to leave, no apologies, no patience, just GET UP AND GO. That's why they always say they are putting people in handcuffs for their own safety, it's a way of getting around falsely detaining someone if they THINK their safety may be in jeopardy. I'm 5'8" (and a hair), HE's 6'2" and armed as well as backed up by another partner.

This is against constitutional law in Canada, yet it is a daily and very common practice. Sure you can contest it an complain about illegal search and blah blah blah, but it doesn't get you anywhere without a good lawyer and a lot of money.

So what we THINK should happen and what actually happens are not the same, no matter what the constitution or law books actually say.

That claims you and I are peers I suppose.

But that's okay, I don't mind mingling with the riff raff once in a while, it lets me see how the others think.

;)

My point is this:

Saying a guy is innocent and saying he's *legally* innocent are two totally different things.

He can be found not guilty of the charges...he's innocent under the law of the charges, but may not be innocent of the act which was alleged and which he was charged for in accordance with the law according to the prosecutor.

Being innocent *under the law* does not mean you are *innocent of having committed the act*.

Innocence under the law is simply that you either have not been charged, charged and not tried, or you have been tried and found not guilty either by lack of evidence or evidence which does not stand on its own (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the basis for this).

BTW, I have little admiration for most lawyers...so...it doesn't impress me much. However if you care to know, I have 3 close relatives that are attorneys...but, I prefer to read on the California court websites for Jury instructions and procedures as defined by the State of California and District Courts of Santa Barbara County, California.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/
http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/court_rules_toc.htm

As for the basis of the discussion, I thought it was truly about the entirety of the case from all aspects...not just the legal point of view.

If that's the case, I can sum it up in few words: The DA should never have brought it to trial...his case sucked.

There...discussion summed. We can all go drink a beer now and talk about boobs and butts. ]:)

Man you'll nitpick anything won't you!

Well when say, 8 or 10 drummers play a drum and a cermonial dance either takes place at the same time, or shortly after the drumming then it is seen as a drum crivle by most NON-Cherokee indians. Men or women sitting in a circle and banging a drum, can often be misinterpreted as a drum circle, my bad.

I think the point was the same though. Either way, no matter what we may call it, including skin diving, its a ceremonial dance/drumming that I find very cool to watch, and not the most boring thing at all.

Even though the COURTS decided he isn't guity, I personally think he's guilty of the crimes and isn't as innocent as he is portrayed.

Then you MAY even want to add, though I have no evidence or proof whatsoever to substantiate my feelings, other than the picture the media has painted of him, this is my gut feeling about him.

Such an opinion would never be contested, it is uncontestable. It is YOUR gut feeling, how can it be argued?

EDIT (hit submit by accident): What I read was that even though he was acquitted, he is guilty and had a high priced defense that got him off. Which is not it at all, they had a top DA that didn't do HIS job, it wasn't much of a case for the defense. As I said before, Legal Aid could have defended that one.

Well very nice of you to represent yourself as the font of all knowledge. Personally I have witnessed drum circles at native canadian events. But I guess you have done an exhaustive study so I must have been smoking something.

James

James:

I have witnessed not just Cherokee. Red Earth includes representatives of tribes from not only the USA, but Canada as well. I've never seen the drummers sit in a circle and play from any nation. They never formed a circle inside or outside of the dancers for which they played.

I'm stating to you what I know and have seen outside of my own people, with concern to other Indian nations ceremonial practices.

Christ man, get a grip. Sorry I'm not agreeing with you.

Oz:
yes...it's beautiful...You should have heard Ms. Walker, a 104 year old Chickasaw woman telling stories to people in a tent on the festival grounds in both English and the Native Chickasaw tongue as well. Something not many people will ever get to see again.

I am not disputing that you have seen more native dancing than I probably ever will. But I have seen with my own two eyes on more than one occasion a circle of Native drummers around a large drum, at the Six Nations reserve for the Oshwekan fair, something I have attended many many times. I grew up 2 miles from the largest reserve in Canada, went to school with students from the reserve, watched much lacrosse, etc.

I don't doubt you that it may not be the normal practise. But you asserted it doesn't happen in your experience. The world is a very big place (TWIAVBP - one of my favorite alt.folklore.urban) and you might consider that before you thrown around absolutes and cursing me before god.

James

If they are male and they molest little boys, technically they are gay.

If they molest a CHILD they are sick.

Adding the extra part of gay vs straight really doesn't belong in the conversation because it doesn't make it worse or lessen it.

Molesting little boys doesn't actually mean they are gay. The molester may consider themselves "straight" and have "normal" adult physical relationships. Children under the age of 12 are physically similar except in genitalia. There are a LOT of cases of molesters going after both, it's the innocence that "turns them on" not the sex of the child.

Please drop him off in Camden after dark.

The world will thank you.