Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Jackson Jurrors have reached Verdict


Ashley-Star*Child

Recommended Posts

How come also he is allowed to have Child pornography removed from his house and there are no charges for him possessing that? We know this does not apply to any one else has people are charged for it all the time.

674576[/snapback]

I thought that child porn is a Federal crime. How did MJ slip from that noose?

Damn, something is seriously wrong with this whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 432
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Commander CMG

    28

  • Ashley-Star*Child

    23

  • ForRizzle

    22

  • pallidin

    21

It wasn't child porn, it was legal adult porn bought from a local shop. They established that within the first week of the trial, didn't you watch the reconstruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Jackson cleared of abuse

Singer Michael Jackson has been found not guilty of all charges at the end of his four-month child abuse trial.

There were cheers from fans outside the court as the verdicts were read. The singer had strenuously denied molesting 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo.

He was also cleared of giving the boy, now 15, alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family.

The star left the court in Santa Maria, California, without speaking to the many fans gathered at the entrance.

But his lawyer Thomas Mesereau said: "Justice was served. Michael Jackson is innocent."

The BBC's Peter Bowes in Santa Maria said Mr Jackson held a tissue up to his face and showed "muted emotion" as the verdicts were read.

Judge Rodney Melville told the singer before he left: "Bail has been exonerated, you are free to go."

He also read a statement from the jury saying: "We the jury feel the weight of the world's eyes upon us."

They asked to be allowed to return to "our private lives as anonymously as we came", he added.

In a later press conference, one unnamed jury member said: "We all just looked at the evidence and pretty much agreed."

Another said the eight women and four men "had to look at him like any other individual, not just a celebrity".

The verdicts on the 10 charges were reached after about 30 hours of deliberations over the last week.

The BBC's Daniella Relph said the jury found him not guilty because they "did not believe Gavin Arvizo and did not trust his family".

She said there was "complete hysteria" outside court after the verdicts, with the star's music pumping out.

Hundreds of reporters and supporters gathered for the verdicts, with scores of fans bursting into tears as the decisions were relayed on loudspeakers.

Mr Jackson waved to fans as he left the Santa Maria courthouse surrounded by minders and family members.

He walked straight to his car with little emotion and without the expected statement to the waiting fans and media.

Mr Jackson was in court with family members including father Joe, mother Katherine and sisters LaToya and Janet.

Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who led the case against Jackson, said he would accept the decision. "We did the right thing for the right reasons," he said.

He was "not going to look back and apologise for what we've done", he told reporters. "We've done a very conscientious and thorough job."

Mr Jackson's former wife Debbie Rowe, who defended the star in court, said she was "overjoyed that the justice system really works".

Fan Tara Bardella, 19, who came from Arizona two weeks ago to wait for the verdicts, said: "This proves that justice can prevail in America."

Raffles Vanexel, 29, from Amsterdam, said: "I cried as a little baby, it was the most beautiful day of my life.

"America is celebrating, this is a party and Michael Jackson is going to comeback with something incredible."

Mr Jackson's trial began in February and the jury retired on 3 June. More than 100 witnesses took the stand, including Gavin Arvizo and his mother Janet.

The trial was sparked after British journalist Martin Bashir made a documentary in which Jackson admitted sharing his bed with children.

Gavin told the court the singer had put his hands down his trousers and fondled him at Neverland.

The star could have been jailed for more than 18 years if convicted on all charges.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/ente...sic/4604027.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star's prosecutor accepts verdict

Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who led the case against Michael Jackson, has said he accepts the jury's decision to acquit the star.

"In 37 years, I've never quarrelled with a jury's verdict," he told a news conference after the star was cleared of all 10 charges.

Mr Sneddon said his team had done "a very concientious and thorough job".

"We're not going to look back and apologise for what we've done," he told reporters at the California courthouse.

He rejected suggestions that he had pursued a vendetta against Mr Jackson in taking on the case.

Mr Sneddon led a previous, inconclusive investigation into abuse allegations against the star.

"My past history with Mr Jackson has absolutely, unequivocally, nothing to do with the evaluation of this case," he said.

'We did the right thing'

Mr Sneddon said he stood by the court testimony of members of the Arvizo family, who made the allegations against the pop star, even though he acknowledged there had been "some surprises".

And he said he had no regrets about the way he built the case and the charges filed against Mr Jackson.

"We did the right thing for the right reasons," he insisted.

He said he would be prepared to launch a fresh investigation if new allegations emerged implicating Mr Jackson.

"We would review it like every other case we review in our office, just like we reviewed this one," he said.

"I probably would not shy away from it if another case came forward."

Beyond the trial, he said it was business as usual for himself and his team.

"We go back to work," he said. "I have an office to run. We are professionals, and we will continue to act as professionals."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/ente...ent/4090154.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't CHILD pornogrpahy. It was legal 'adult materials'. Would you charge someone for having Hustler in their room is they are over the age of 21? I think there are many people who would be guilty of that.

And there was NO evidence. That alarm is just one example. The kid didn't even know about it.

Anyway, on another note, Michael didn't look too well when he came out, he still seemed shell-shocked, waved to fans, but quite frankly, just wanted to go home. Gavin Arvizo was one of those fans once upon a time.

674591[/snapback]

OK but they found finger prints of Jack and the 13 year old on the NORMAL PORNO mags... there are not many 21 year olds guilty of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jackson verdict greeted with joy

The acquittal of Michael Jackson on child molestation and conspiracy charges has been met with delight from his supporters.

UK-based psychic Uri Geller, a friend for a number of years, was "so pleased" at the California jury's verdict.

"I always said I want to believe that he's not guilty, and he's not guilty," Mr Geller said.

"I'm trembling, this is so important, he did not let down his fans and all the people that love him."

Mr Geller helped set up Jackson's 2003 television interview with British journalist Martin Bashir, in which the singer said he sometimes shared a bed with children.

'Crushed'

He told BBC News 24 that Mr Jackson had been "crushed" during the trial.

"But he believed in the truth, so did his friends and family. He managed to dip into the positive consciousness of the people who loved him. He fed himself on that positivity," he added.

"That's why he survived. And he's going to come back."

Asked what his advice to the singer would be, he replied: "Grow up, get out there, do what you do well. He's a musical genius - everybody knows that."

Liam Cassidy, of the UK-based Michael Jackson Worldwide Fan Club, said he was "ecstatic" at the verdict.

"It's amazing, it's great news. It's the best result and it's the only result that we should and could have had. This is a vindication for Michael but also a vindication for the fans who have stood by him," he said.

Mr Cassidy, of Greenwich, south-east London, edits the club's magazine. He added: "From the very start we have said nothing about the whole thing. The trial, the allegations, everything about it was a farce."

He said the fan club was hoping to organise a victory party in London to be held in the next few weeks, to link up with other clubs around the world.

Comeback attempt

UK music writer Paul Morley said he expected the singer would attempt a comeback.

He told BBC Two's Newsnight: "Already you can feel the forces changing slightly. Can he use this? Can his advisors use this as some kind of catapult back to reclaiming some of his legendary status?

"It's all about now, managing his image and sorting out his debts. Can he actually manufacture the kind of comeback that's never really been seen in showbusiness history?

"It would be quite extraordinary."

Mr Morley added: "You wouldn't put it past him - because he has previously had the kind of mental strength to do all sorts of things.

"He recovered from being a child star, which is an unusual thing, and made some of the most successful music in the world."

Fan Kent Vilhemsson, 21, returned home to Skovde, Sweden, on Monday after waiting outside Santa Barbara Superior Court for two weeks.

"The minutes before the verdict were the most nervous moments of my life," he said.

"Now, these are the happiest moments of my life. Now we're going to party."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/ente...sic/4090130.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't CHILD pornogrpahy. It was legal 'adult materials'. Would you charge someone for having Hustler in their room is they are over the age of 21? I think there are many people who would be guilty of that.

And there was NO evidence. That alarm is just one example. The kid didn't even know about it.

Anyway, on another note, Michael didn't look too well when he came out, he still seemed shell-shocked, waved to fans, but quite frankly, just wanted to go home. Gavin Arvizo was one of those fans once upon a time.

674591[/snapback]

"Legal" adult materials? OK. If that is the case, than certainly child porn is not an issue if none were found.

Alarm? That seems very suspicious to me. Why would someone have an alarm for their bedroom's approach with minor's inside? Hmmm... What is the purpose of such an alarm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but they found finger prints of Jack and the 13 year old on the NORMAL PORNO mags... there are not many 21 year olds guilty of that?

Dude, plenty of teenagers look at porn huh.gif

Plus, one of the maids testifed that the children had porn in their room, who says it was ever Jacksons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there was NO evidence. That alarm is just one example. The kid didn't even know about it.

I was referring to the original case when I quoted the detective's statement about lots of evidence.

To be honest, I didn't really keep up with the current trial, so I was not commenting on it.

And what difference does it make if the kid didn't know about the alarm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but they found finger prints of Jack and the 13 year old on the NORMAL PORNO mags... there are not many 21 year olds guilty of that?

Dude, plenty of teenagers look at porn huh.gif

Plus, one of the maids testifed that the children had porn in their room, who says it was ever Jacksons?

674645[/snapback]

Not sat with a 46 year old man they don't?

SANTA BARBARA - Fingerprints belonging to both Michael Jackson and the boy accusing him of child molestation were found on pornographic magazines seized from Jackson's Neverland ranch last year, the Santa Barbara News-Press reported

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but they found finger prints of Jack and the 13 year old on the NORMAL PORNO mags... there are not many 21 year olds guilty of that?

Dude, plenty of teenagers look at porn huh.gif

Plus, one of the maids testifed that the children had porn in their room, who says it was ever Jacksons?

674645[/snapback]

What do you think? Were the porn mags brought-in by the children or provided by MJ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talon obviously finds it acceptable if this he had a child to share beds and read porn together.

On that note I have work to do.. cya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because the both there fingerprints were on it that means they MUST have looked at it together right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, as Talon said, and they had also gone through alot of his personal belongings in his room, therefore putting fingerprints on them. On top of all that, the sealing on the evidence of those magaiznes had been tampered with (the seal had been broken) many months AFTER it had ben collected.

Now, as for the alarm. It's his room, technically, he can have one if he wants. His own staff have been found to steal from his house, he has valuables in his room, and it's no different to you putting a lock on your door. I have color CCTV all throughout my home inside and out, are you going to question my reasons? It's for security purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sat with a 46 year old man they don't?

But that didn't happen. The prosecution with all their resources didn't manage to prove it was the case.

Edited by Talon S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because the both there fingerprints were on it that means they MUST have looked at it together right?

674662[/snapback]

Not at all, but it does prove that they both handled the same magazine. So, who provided that material?

Do children walking into NeverLand have porn mags under their arm? Come on, let's get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Profile: The Arvizo family

By Matthew Davis

BBC News, Washington

The credibility of 15-year-old cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo and his mother Janet was key to the case against Michael Jackson, who has been acquitted of child abuse and abduction charges by a California court.

The defence sought to portray the boy and his family as dishonest gold-diggers who saw Mr Jackson as a celebrity fall guy to be milked for cash.

Janet Arvizo proved to be a loose cannon and one of the most explosive witnesses in the case with her erratic courtroom outbursts.

The many faces of her son - downcast and ghostly in a police interview, or fresh-faced and confident in documentary footage - gave the jurors a compelling dilemma.

But what emerged above all was a sad picture of a family fragmented, and of a teenage boy - still with serious health problems - laying himself open in a case seen all over the world.

Father assaulted mother

Gavin Arvizo comes from a troubled background.

His mother remarried in 2004 - to US Army Major Jay Jackson - following an acrimonious divorce from her previous husband, 37-year-old lorry driver David Arvizo.

Mr Arvizo lost custody of the teenager, his younger brother and older sister after admitting an assault on Janet Arvizo.

The trial heard how the father was persistent in begging celebrities for money after Gavin was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2000, which required the boy's spleen and left kidney to be removed.

It was in that year that Gavin first met Michael Jackson, introduced to the star by Jamie Masada, owner of The Laugh Factory in Hollywood.

'Jesus juice'

Gavin claimed the abuse started after his appearance with Mr Jackson in the British documentary by Martin Bashir - filmed in 2002 and aired in 2003.

He said it was after the interview that Mr Jackson started serving him and his younger brother wine, which he claimed the singer called "Jesus juice", and began making sexual advances.

But defence lawyers were able to put a number of dents in Gavin's credibility as a witness.

It emerged that the boy, and his younger brother and older sister, had taken acting lessons ahead of a 2001 lawsuit against US retailer JC Penney.

The boy himself said Mr Jackson broke his heart by rejecting him as a friend, and defence lawyers suggested the accusations were a case of revenge.

In separate interviews with a social worker and a teacher after the airing of the Bashir documentary, Gavin denied he had been molested by Mr Jackson.

Prosecutors said this was because he wanted to put an end to the teasing he was enduring in the wake of the film.

The low, downcast demeanour of the boy in a powerful video shown at the very end of the case, in which he haltingly described the alleged abuse, was a powerful boost to his case.

'Are you Catwoman?'

From the outset of the trial, Janet Arvizo proved to be a mercurial character.

She rarely gave a straight answer to any of the defence's questions thrown at her in court, often replying using a repetitive array of words and phrases.

Among her favourites were "It's burned inside my memory" and "Money doesn't buy happiness".

At times she drew laughter from the courtroom - often directed at her - as in the time she tried to explain she was acting in the so-called rebuttal video.

"You are not going to call Halle Berry and say, 'Are you Catwoman?'," she said in response to questioning.

She was accused of exploiting her cancer-stricken son for money. Defence witnesses said she had concealed sources of income while receiving welfare cheques.

It was also suggested that she spent $7,000 (£3,800) shopping and dining out at the same time as she alleged Mr Jackson kept her and her family captive.

Now their claims about Mr Jackson's behaviour have been rejected by a jury, their motives for making the allegations against the singer will come under close scrutiny in the coming weeks.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/ente...sic/4584531.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am was trying to go... OK is it acceptable for a 46 year old manb to invite children to sleep with him at his place... we know this is true he admits to that all the children sleep in his room.

Regardless to if the read the magazines at the same time... why would a 46 year old man give a hard core mag to a 13 year old on a sleep over... even if they did not share the same room why would Jackson knock on next door and ask if the child would like to read his magazine.

Would you feel sfa ehaving your son sleeping over at the never never get anything on me ranch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a pathetic justice system we have, If u are rich or famous you can molest children and kill people and get away with it if u have enough money how sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talon obviously finds it acceptable if this he had a child to share beds and read porn together.

I prefer if you show maturity and refain from making agressive personaal attacks like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a pathetic justice system we have, If u are rich or famous you can molest children and kill people and get away with it if u have enough money how sick.

674679[/snapback]

Hey it is the same in the UK... rich, famous or professional sports personality your home free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talon obviously finds it acceptable if this he had a child to share beds and read porn together.

I prefer if you show maturity and refain from making agressive personaal attacks like this

674680[/snapback]

It is a mature question, Jacko admits to this and you are defending his non sexual acts agianst children, therefore you have no problems leaving your child with him... or as your attitude changed now? This is not a personal attack but you know he is innocent so what is the problem?

Edited by XSAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OJ

Robert Blake

Michael Jackson

While the less privleged are in jail! many because they could not afford legal help and were talked into plea bargains by Public Defenders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.