Home > Reference Group > Discussion Board

We may never know. The fact that he paid off Jordan Chandler for such a huge amount does weigh against him. And the court acquittal did seem to be in sympathy for an ailing hero in the face of some strong evidence. It is always difficult to separate the genius of the man musically with the person who lies behind. I think his death was caused by the proscription drugs and the fact he was pushing his body so hard for the concerts in London.

Post #10 says sometimes "you get the justice you can afford." This view may seem cynical, but I think he's exactly right, frequently. A battery of high-paid defense attorneys can overwhelm publicly-funded DA's. On the other hand, the power of the state when leveled against a single individual can be enormous, which accounts for the presence of so many legal restrictions in prosecuting a defendant.

When Jackson, Simpson, or anybody else is found "not guilty," the verdict does not mean that person's innocence was proved. It means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt. There's a big difference, although it is frequently confused by the public at large. But here it gets tricky. Since a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty, then a "not guilty" verdict says he was presumed innocent and still is. So, Jackson and Simpson were both presumed innocent in the legal sense to begin with and did not lose that presumption at trial.

Now it gets even trickier. Does being legally "innocent" mean the defendant actually didn't do what he was accused of doing? This is two separate issues. For anyone who really didn't do what he is accused of doing, it becomes a nightmare since it is impossible to prove a negative. Doubt will always persist, and these defendants will always have critics and supporters, reading the evidence as they see it, regardless of how a jury saw it.

In reply to #12:  Good summary of a complicated legal and moral issue.

No one can ever truly know whether Michael Jackson actually molested the children involved.  Such is the case when such vast sums of money are involved.  However, again in my opinion, I don't think he did molest those children.  I think he was someone who never experienced his own childhood and tried to gain some of that childlike innocence in his (albeit skewed) relationships later in life.  This saddens me.  What saddens me more is how even that small glimpse of the innocence of childhood was ripped away by these allegations.  Then again, if molestation truly was involved, then those glimpses of childhood SHOULD have been ripped away.  A vicious circle.

As for the cause of death, this seems to change every day in the news, but last I heard, Michael Jackson was actually hooked up via IV to an intense, hospital-grade sedative that he should have never been allowed to take (possibly administered by his private doctor or possibly self-administered).  This dangerous drug in combination to the other drugs in his system caused his heart to stop.  Some accounts say that his personal physician was with Michael at the time and tried to revive him.  Other accounts say that no one was with Michael at the time and his personal physician, in finding Michael dead, only pretended to revive him.  Either way, no one got to Jackson in time. 

Buddy Holly, Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and more.  *sigh*  All taken before their time.