Michael Jackson

[georgit79]

Ok, so he was declared innocent. So isn't it a bit strange that so many of the jurors are now selling their stories and saying, "I thought he was guilty all along". Can they do this?

[butter1]

I think they are pratts to be honest and just out to make money.  Why find him not guilty in the first place if really they thought he did it??  Pathetic.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I believe that they can do this perfectly legally in the US. In the UK, they would not be allowed to do so.

[Hammer]

He wasn't 'innocent' he was 'not guilty'. A subtle difference, but a difference none the less.

[bazwillrun]

And , as was stated at the time of the case , they made their minds up based on the evidence for that particular case and instance. the fact that a few of the jurors thought he probably  had molested/interfered with young boys in the past had nothing to do with the evidence in this particular case

[jimmer]

hammer, have you never heard of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty?



jim

[Hammer]

jimmer, I know what you mean, but the point I was making was that the jury are asked "Is this man guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?". If they are only 90% sure that he is guilty, that is enough doubt for them to say no.

They can have a gut feeling that he is guilty, but without being absolutely certain, they must err on the side of caution.

If the jury were asked "Is this man innocent beyond all reasonable doubt?" then they would probably have said no, but that's not how the courts work.

[january_bug]

Indeed, Hammer. 

One is presumed innocent, but it only proven "not guilty".  An interesting though really. 

As we all know, the case was about one particular boy.  The chances are that the jurors found him "not guilty" in that case, but in selling their stories (hmmm, not sure I agree with that, but it's the 'Land of the Free' and everything has a price, haha) they may have told reporters that they thought he was guilty of something and that has been twisted.  After all, it's the job of a journalist to twist words into a story that sells papers. 

I'm very glad that jury room secrecy is more binding in the UK, I think the behaviour of the jurors is utterly inappropriate and in this case appears to be undermining the entire US justice system.  Although in all fairness, that system undermines itself on a daily basis without much outside assistance!

[jimmer]

Well, no, not at all. The jury did not find MJ guilty of the crimes he was accused of therefore he is innocent of those crimes in the eyes of the law The jury must have decided that the prosecution did not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. Or in other words: on the balance of evidence, the state did not prove its case. If the courts started with the presumption of guilt America would not be a democracy.

 

jim

[january_bug]

jim - "No, not at all" - who is that statement addressed to? :-)

[jimmer]

oh sorry, its aimed at hammer really but also a little bit to you January. "Not guilty", in law, is the same as innocent. Presumably because of the whatever amendment, jurors in the US can write about what they like after the case but their claims can only be their opinion which is no more or less valid than yours or mine.

 

jim

[Hammer]

Jim, I agree with eveything you've said, but maybe I'm not explaining myself properly.

In law, not guilty = innocent, but in the minds of the jurors, this is not necessarily the case.

Imagine a line, at one end is 'definately guilty' and at the other is 'definately innocent'. In the middle is a huge grey area which is not 'innocent' but it is 'not guilty'. This is the subtle difference I am talking about.

[jimmer]

ok i don't want to get bogged down so i'll put it another way. The fact that some jury members are writting tell all books is no indication as to the guilt or otherwise of MJ. Whatever they choose to say now does not alter the fact that they found him innocent. Saying that they found him mostly guilty does not wash. They either had the evidence to convict him or they did not. What they are doing with their books is a disgrace and should not be allowed. There's a lot to be said about justice and whether money can buy someone a not guilty verdict but thats a whole other topic. All in all this whole sorry mess has all seemed to revolve around money except perhaps for the DA office. I certainly would never of let my kids (if i had any) go anywhere near neverland and the arviso (sp) family didn't seem to help the case for the prosecution. So the books are just irrelevant pap

 

jim :.)

[january_bug]

I really think there's a definition problem here.  In common parlance not guilty = innocent.  But in law they are NOT the same!  A person is NEVER proven to be innocent.  They are proven guilty or not guilty on the evidence.  The fact that it is not guilty, rather than innocent is very significant, as that is what allows for appeals and retrials. 

I realise this just started as something about MJJ, but it is important to know the difference and to note it in a debate/discussion like this.  I have always interpreted the two terms differently in technical legal language and that's why I'm making the point.  It's a point of interpretation mind you, but I believe my logic to be sound. 

The effect is almost the same, but the legal consequences of the choice of phrase are significant, hence why the phrase is specifically "not guilty" rather than "innocent".  To me it's about the availability of retrail. 

Disclaimer: I'm basis this on a knowledge of the UK system (well England and Wales) rather than the US. :-)

[january_bug]

Typo - reTRIAL not retrail!  Durrr!

[bazwillrun]

if you recall, after the trial, the jurors that were interviewed, said that the prosecution did not prove their case sufficiently, they did not say that they thought he was innocent, far from it 

[Peter Pedant]

I cant remember...

did the judge say, after he found not guilty, Mr Jackson, you walk from this court without a stain on your character ?

Not guilty means he can go around saying that he didnt do it... The Scots have a gap verdict - Not Proven which doesnt work very well and therefore isnt followed elsewhere

[El D]

I think that while accepting your point january not guilty must mean innocent. To believe otherwise is to believe that an accusation = lack of proof for guilty verdict. While the terminology may differ, to believe this I think undermines the legal system. We must be innocent until proven guilty. We cannot assume guilt from an accusation and then claim lack of proof. It's dangerously easy.

[jno]

january, I don't think there are many retrials for people found not guilty; that's called double jeopardy and has mostly been abhorred by British justice, though I daresay the government will come up with some wheeze whereby suspected terrorists can be tried over and over again until the government gets the result it wants. Appeals and retrials are almost invariably for people found guilty.

As for MJ - yes georgit, very odd. They may find that having once found him not guilty makes it harder to sll their stories than they expected; it's not as if they actually know MJ any better than the man in the street, and just writing 'I always had my doubts about him' isn't necessarily going to interest everyone.

[january_bug]

Most famous retrial I can think of - Saun Jenkins, father of Billy Jo Jenkins.  You can also have retrials if significant new evidence arises.  If the person was "innocent" rather than "not guilty", it would simply be an appeal.  So they do happen. 

I personally would love to read more about the Scottish system because I've always thought that it was a great idea to have "not proven". 

I'm bowing out before I cause a row, my point was merely that the choice of terminology, as with many, if not all, legal terms, was specific for a reason.  It might equate to the same thing in common parlance, but lawyers tend to choose their words carefully, even if they don't always get them right.

Anyway, sorry to have caused a problem, I don't mean to arrive and P people off! :-)

[january_bug]

PS - jno - I understand double jeopardy, I've studied law, twice! ;-)