News8 mins ago
Share a bed in the USA. Is it OK?
Does it mean that any male in the USA can give a child alcohol and share a bed with that child without fear of charges? Now that Michael Jackson has bean cleared of all charges.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tanyavee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes tanyavee it�s an open door for every pervert in the USA. The US law system is a joke look at the OJ case! If you have loads of money you can buy off a few kids then when you go to court get a load of Celebrities to misguidedly speak up for you and then you are free go to carry on as before no one will dare take MJ to court again he�s free to do as he wants!!
what made me laugh was one of the jurors saying "i didnt like one of the kids mothers snapping her fingers at me" eh? what has that got to do with anything? oh the man is not guilty because that witness snapped her fingers, only in amercia only in amercia and that country has the death penalty? imagine your life in the hands of that hill billy jury.
Personally, I think the correct verdict was given. Maybe Michael Jackson is a child abuser, but based on this specific case, there just wasn't enough evidence. The prosecution's case was very weak. MJ was not proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe that it is better to acquit a few guilty people than to incarcerate one innocent person. If he is guilty and continues this behaviour, hopefully someone else with a better case will take him to court again.
MJ wasn't found to be innocent. The jurors explained that the evidence presented left just enough doubt for them not to be sure of his guilt. That's what trial by jury is all about.......the prosecution has to prove its case.
He may not have been convicted but he has been shown to be a highly disturbed person, now very much in debt and with a career that's gone down the proverbial plughole. I think he would be well advised to lay low for a long time.
He may not have been convicted but he has been shown to be a highly disturbed person, now very much in debt and with a career that's gone down the proverbial plughole. I think he would be well advised to lay low for a long time.
part of the jury's job is to evaluate witnesses. If jurors think a witness is trying to intimidate them, eg by snapping her fingers, they are entitled to wonder why, and to draw conclusions about whether she is telling the truth. See here for an American analysis of the result. The jurors said afterwards they weren't sure he wasn't a child molester (who can be sure anyone isn't a child molester?) but they'd heard the evidence on both sides on the particular cases before them and decided there wasn't enough to convict him. That is also their job and as far as I can see they did it fairly, and just as a British jury would have done.
Totally agree jno. He was found NOT guilty, end of story! He would have been cleared in any country based on the evidence (or lack of it) given in court.
How would all you people feel if you were wrongly accused of such unspeakable crimes? He was cleared so give the guy a break, let him get on with his life without all this constant speculation and allegations from all you people who THINK you know what really happened.
Can't you just get on with your own lives?!
[edited by AnswerBank]. The verdicts in the Michael Jackson case mean that he was accused of crimes, and found not guilty. If the question was logical, then it would mean that an acquittal on any charge in any criminal trial will make the law describing that charge null and void.
by the way, newtron: the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
No Lilly I wouldn't let MJ baby sit my children, nor would I let Tony & Cherie Blair, Mr & Mrs Alan Titchmarsh, or nice old Mr & Mrs Smith down the road. If you read my post you will see that I wasn't saying that letting children stay around the house of a single 44 year old stranger was right, on the contrary, it isn't. But that has nothing to do with alleged child abuse, just simple parenting skills & nouse, of which I have neither!
As for being a misguided MJ fan, perhaps...although I wasn't at the court, I don't have any of his albums and Earthsong was really really really crap. He should be back in court for writing and singing that.
Bernardo I think your reply is very rude to tanyavee how do you know this is not a serious question I think it is and will treat it as so I cannot imagine it was posted as a joke? I for one take this question very seriously even if you don�t. I don�t think this is the end how many more innocent children are waiting to tell the truth and why did he pay off other kids? A lot of his so called fans cannot see past their CD collections.
I was not intending to be rude, and I regret if you have interpreted it that way. I merely pointed out the illogicality of the question, which seems to be implying that an acquittal of a criminal charge in a trial is equivalent to being a licence for the commission of further crimes by others. It's like saying
Does it mean that anyone in the USA can kill someone without fear of charges? Now that OJ Simpson has bean cleared of all charges.
When someone is found not guilty of a specific crime, it does not mean that the crime itself (in general) disappears from the statute books. All it means is that Michael Jackson was found not guilty in this specific case, just as OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his specific case.
