in article 1118801437.410753.132460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, etaka at
etaka@yahoo.com wrote on 6/15/05 11:10 AM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>>> How so? Under the US legal system, are any of them actually surprised
>>> by the verdict?
>> 
>> Yes, some were. Some thought the "trial by media" made an acquittal
>> unlikely.
> 
> I don't like Michael Jackson as a person and I would not leave him with
> anybody's children, but from what little I heard particularly about the
> mother or how they lived at Neverland, I'd still have to acquit, same
> as in the OJ trial.

I don't particularly like Michael Jackson either, but it appears that the
media had a particularly strong lynch mentality on this case.

>>> Do you think this defense or one against the earlier boy cost more or
>>> it would have been necessary to defend a case like this? You don't
>>> believe the future prospects or financial situations of the two
>>> entertainers are different? Was Arbuckle at any time a billionaire on
>>> paper?
>> 
>> I think that the defense would have cost more to his career than the
>> out-of-court settlement.
> 
> What do you think about this past one? If this family could have been
> bought, why the difference?

I don't know the fact sufficiently to guess. I really didn't follow the
trial that much.
> 
>>> Since you are talking about lawyers, do you mean "innocent" by, it
>>> cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that one
>>> has done what they are charged with, or by "innocent" do you mean, they
>>> actually did NOT DO what they are accused of?
>> 
>> I meant "innocent" (did not do the crime). When the guilt of one cannot be
>> proved by reasonable doubt, the verdict is "not guilty," not "innocent."
> 
> I believe this is the first time you've recognized there was a
> difference.

No, this is the first time you paid attention to what I said. Usually you
decide in advance what I believe, and then refuse to believe that I don't
believe what you decided I believe.
 
> So would you put your money on Jackson not being a molester, and he
> simply has odd reading habits and a poor choice of houseguests?

I don't know whether he is or is not. Having said that, you reverted to your
bad habits of refusing to believe it.

>> I don't know if he is a child molester or not, and I doubt if you know for
>> sure either (unless you have a source of private information that you
>> haven't shared with the group).
> 
> Have you perused the Smoking Gun Archive to see the previous boy's
> statement? Are all the boys who've come forward to accuse Jackson just
> liars out to harm him? Shouldn't they and their families be stopped and
> punished? Can't Jackson afford to have security systems set up in his
> own home to record all aspects of just how innocent his interaction
> with his private houseguests are? Wouldn't living with some hidden
> X10.com cameras and data which only he had access to (but later use to
> prove his innocence and expose accusers' lies) be cheaper and safer
> than the tens of millions he's lost and hundreds of millions he will
> continue to lose?

No, I haven't perused that archive. As I said before, I didn't really follow
the case that much. You, on the other hand, seem to love that type of thing.
Is that because you are interested in pedophilia? Is that interest merely
academic or are you a practitioner?

> 
>> I do know that the media has "convicted" a
>> lot of innocent people, including the guard at the Olympics bombing case.
> 
> And the media is also what revealed the considerable problems with the
> prosecution's case and the accuser's mother and her past, allowing
> people to understand how Jackson can go free, same as with the problems
> in the OJ story and one detective in particular.
> 
> Is this "I don't know" approach convenient for you? It certainly is
> convenient for many Japanese when anything remotely controversial (and
> potentially disadvantageous to them or Japan as when talking about
> history - but watch the confused looks when I reveal I don't know
> Hiroshima was bombed or hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed
> during the war either) comes up. Did Jackson just have the misfortune
> of frequently being victimized by liars (usually boys or their
> families) who want his money or influence, yet separately came up with
> a fairly consistent pattern of accusations?

Eric,

It is not a character flaw to admit ignorance of a subject. Instead, it is a
character flaw to do what you do, which is to have firm beliefs about
everything despite ignorance on the matter.

So if I don't follow your lynch mentality about MJ, that is supposed to mean
that I am a supporting Japanese claim that they did no war crimes? Boy, you
are weird. Get mental help.

> So would you allow young boys in your care to sleep over at Michael's
> because you don't know he's a molester any more than parents of your
> children's friends who invite them over?

I wouldn't allow young boys in my care to sleep over with you either,
especially in light of your admitted criminal record.