Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson/Archive 1

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 6 Feb 2005 and 15 Jun 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:2005 trial of Michael Jackson/Archive02. Thank you. Alensha 00:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Considering there was no evidence for him having comitted any crimes (if there were any crimes, the parents who were allegedly "bribed" into shutting up didn't exactly help their karma by remaining silent until now -- otherwise they are just sensationalism exploiters), there's nothing wrong with the whole issue. Also, being pedophile is NOT A CRIME. We don't put people into death camps for what gives them hard-ons anymore. Nobody cares whether Jackson is a pedophile -- unless he is pedophile and acts that pedophilia out in a country where it is considered a crime (IIRC some countries don't consider child molestation a crime if it occured with the child's consent and thus isn't "molestation", but that concept is disputed for various good reasons).

Funny how some people get all worked up about issues that don't affect them just so they can point at a celebrity and say "Bad human". --Ashmodai 14:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The accusers name shouldn't be in here. I removed it.

Out of curiosity, why on earth not? His name is part of every non-US story I've heard of read about this case, it's about as much of a secret as Jordy Chandler's name. BBC even airs pictures of him and his mother many times daily and shows clips from the documentary he was in.

I respect the feeling of wanting to protect the innocent, but it's ludicrous to think changing a wiki entry is going to somehow erase the memory of his name and face from everyone's collective memory, especially since most news outlets (again, excluding those in the US) will CONTINUE to make this information public. Wiki just seems like it's behind. Well, either that or 100% tailored to the American market, which I didn't think was the point.

I put it back in again. Pictures of the DA carrying a file with Arvizo's name have been published in magazines. It serves no purpose to try to construct a memory hole about this.

Sorry

I made a bad revert [1], I'm not sure what happened there, sorry. func(talk) 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

thanks be to God he was found not guilty!!! I always knew he's innocent!!! Alensha 21:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • GO PEDDLE YOUR RELIGIOUS RHETORIC SOMWHERE ELSE

I was very certain they'd get him on the alcohol charges, as there was solid proof he got the boy(s) drunk. --Beau99 21:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

imagine if...

... if it was you on trial. A cancer survivor accuses you of mollesting him. Many members of your entourage testify you touched boys in a sexual way. You are found to stash up gay porn around the house where your young guest sleep. You actually go on telly and admit you are sleeping with them. It's pretty much proven you gave them alcohol. Would you go away a free man? I don't think so. Keep up the good work America.

Settle down there killer. Whether or not Jackson is a pedophile isn't what this trial is concerned with. Did he commit conspiracy to imprison and molest those boys whose family is accusing him? Can the prosecution prove that it was Michael Jackson that gave the boys alcohol, and not the boys stealing the alcohol themselves? It is the fault of the prosecution coupled with the lies that were unraveled by certain parties that has made Jackson a free man. Clearly there is smoke, but where is the fire? — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 22:37, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well said, although it always strikes me as strange when there is more wisdom to be found on the talk page than in the article. Agentsoo 23:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex, I understand you have your own opinion, but why the "Settle down there killer." comment? Sounds a bit rude to me. I'm entitled to my opinion just like you do. And you forget to mention that Hultman, one of the juror, said after the verdict that he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys." - they just couldn't nail him on the charges brought against him during that particular trial.

Exactly, and that's how trials work. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, but I don't have to explain law to you, I'm sure you can just look it up here on wikipedia. Also, your "keep up the good work America" comment was dripping with sarcasm. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 20:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nudnik

My POV: Jacko is a nudnik, as he got us all whining over another Dumb Celebrity Trial (TM). :) 165.230.149.169 22:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it really still ongoing

Since the trial is over now, maybe we should remove the ongoing event template. Frenchman113 of the 1337 22:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

When the media stops talking about it. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't over until the final appeal is refused. Kainaw 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is very difficult for prosecutors to appeal jury acquittals, let alone a 10-count acquittal. If there were appealable rulings on motions, they would have been made over the course of the trial, not now that it is over. --mtz206 03:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

After a not guilty verdict there are no appeals. Neutrality^talk 03:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The verdict

He was acquitted, and so he is innocent.--Wiglaf 07:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not guilty != innocent.--thehunter 13:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I make no comment on the case. However, I do make the comment that the talk page is not a forum of whether we think the man did it or not. It is to discuss the article and speculation will not help this article any. I also advise that speculating on a public forum may be libel, though I realise that a) on Wikipedia, most of us are usually anonymous, and b) I doubt the Jackson camp would sue anyone for speculating on the Internet. One thing speculation may do, however, is make you look very bad in the eyes of your peers. Just a warning. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you're missing is that he was found NOT GUILTY, which effectively makes him, well, not guilty. Why do you think your judgement is above the jury's? - Quirk 08:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't turn this talk page into a forum

User:Ta bu shi da yu is right. There are zillions of places on the internet where you can share your theories. I'd love to defend Mike wherever I can but Wikipedia is not the right place for that (and I would seem like User:Everyking :-P

I suggest that we archive this page and put a warning on the top that any comments not relevant to the article will be deleted.

Alensha 13:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead and do it. --Csnewton 13:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. While it shouldn't be a free-for-all flamefest, the article doesn't mention anything about the current media coverage and public opinion that MJ 'got away with it'. He couldn't be found guilty of the charges brought against him in this trial, but 2 jurors have now come forward and stated they believed he did molest boys. Not guilty != innocent. I understand the NPOV requirement, but if you were really NPOV you would mention all opinions, not just the jury's verdict.(adidas)

If you want a place to discuss public opinion on the subject, go find a Usenet group. The purpose of the Talk page is to discuss the accuracy/status of the encyclopedic article which is about the trial, not everyone's potential opinion of the case. This talk page is not a soapbox. See Talk etiquette --mtz206 15:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, and I've read the etiquette page. But I've also read the OJ simpson page and 3/4 of the article is one big discussion of how many people thought he was in fact guilty. Yet OJ, like MJ, was proven innocent. I don't think we should have double standards. I use wikipedia to teach my kids and would like to see the same NPOV everywhere. (adidas)