Talk:People v. Jackson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Please add only comments relevant to the article.

Because it started to turn into a message board, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (6 Feb 2005 to 15 Jun 2005):

---

Contents 1 Revert of post-jury comments 2 Jordan Chandler not testifying 3 Accuser's Mom 4 Two books of nude boys 5 "Many children" not "several chldren" 6 9 Others 7 Allegations of juror misconduct 8 Neutrality dispute? 9 The title of the article should be changed! 10 This Article Needs More Sources Cited 11 'Jackson's finances'

[edit] Revert of post-jury comments

I added the reaction of the jurors after the verdict because it is important to the case, and there is a link to the story. If someone thinks that it is POV, fine, change the wording, but I don't want some extreme Jackson fans trying to cover up any suggestion that he might actually be guilty. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 06:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent contribution.

I have added a link to a list of jurors, which gives much more information on them, than can fit on this page.

[edit] Jordan Chandler not testifying

It says under the 1108 section, that Jordan Chandler fled the country to avoid testifying. However, Tom Sneddon, said that the he promised not to supboena the boy, against his will. There's no confirmation the DA would force the boy to testify. No subpoena was issued, to my knowledge. There would be a record of it, if there was. So, this should probably be removed. I won't touch this unless I see proof one way or the other.

[edit] Accuser's Mom

There should be a large sub-section for the accuser's mom. I don't see why Chris Carter gets the biggest sub-section, and he wasn't even called as a witness.

--rob 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)

I added this section. I tried to avoid repeating what was said elsewhere, by only discussing her demeanor/behaviour on stand. The substance of her allegations is discussed throughout this whole article. I tried to be balanced, but I think both sides in the case, agree her behaviour in the witness stand, hurt the prosecution in the minds of jurors. The only part that is debated, is whether it should have such an effect. So, I guess my comments could be seen as bias against the mom, but neutral towards Michael Jackson, who is the subject of the article. Please feel free to make this article more balance if needed. --rob 2 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

[edit] Two books of nude boys

I added to the 1108 evidence to mention the two books of nude boys. Note, this is completely seperate from the adult porngraphy material, which is in another part of the article. These two books were seized in 1993, hence belong in the 1108 area. What the books represent, if anything, is controversial, so I tried prefacing any characterization to either the prosecution or the defense. Also, I found a lot of media reports seem to mix up the two books. So, if anybody edits this, you should be careful about saying which book had which inscription, or which was shown to Robson. --rob 1 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

[edit] "Many children" not "several chldren"

I changed "Several children" to "many children", which is the exact words MJ used in the Bashir Interview. I also put the words in quotes, so it's clear that this isn't a judgement/interpretation. The sentence I changed, already has the appropriate footnote, which links to the text of the Bashir interview. MJ and the defense, has never denied he has had many children in his bed, he merely refutes that they were all boys, or that anything was sexual.--rob 1 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Side note: I also put the word "claimed" when saying MJ let his friends, like Gibb, sleep with MJ's kids. Gibb and the children, have never confirmed this. So, for now, it is merely a claim. --rob 1 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

[edit] 9 Others

Somebody (84.204.110.34), referred to 9 other jurors as disagreeing with the three who criticized MJ. However three jurors have not talked to the press. That only leaves six "other" jurors. Only two or three of those have said clearly they thought MJ was innocent of all prior accusations. For a breakdown of the jurors, see List_of_jurors_in_the_2005_Michael_Jackson_trial.

[edit] Allegations of juror misconduct

If nobody beats me to it (and I welcome others to go ahead of me), I plan to add allegations of substantial juror misconduct, which are now being reported by the New York Daily News:

http://www.nydailynews.com/08-05-2005/front/story/334708p-285846c.html

There is also more information about jurors writing books, discussing their beleif in his guilt. Some of this information belongs here, and information specific to individual jurors may belong with their profiles in List of jurors in the 2005 Michael Jackson trial (to avoid drowing this article in details). --rob 00:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added some information to this article. A more NPOV will come when MJ's people, and pro-MJ jurors, have a chance to respond to these allegations. Note; I'm actually being generous using the word "allegations", since Cook actually admitted to breaking the rules during juror deliberations. --rob 03:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

As an uninvolved party(I just came here looking for information for a report I'm writing), I'm requesting that the people who added the neutrality dispute tag(and anyone else who knows why it's there) to please give a short synopisis of what the issues are, here. That way any other readers will be able to understand the issues disputed without having to wade through the archived talk page(s). Thanks! JesseW 01:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the history, the notice was added by Howabout1 on 13:51, 24 July 2005 to replace the following notice: "CONTROBVERSIAL TOPIC: Please make your edits neutral" (added by 68.89.46.138 on 13:49, 24 July 2005). In my opinion, Howabout1 misunderstood the notice added by the annon - it was a {{controversial3}} that was warented(and is now on this talk page) rather than a {{pov}} notice; the annon didn't dispute anything, e just wanted people to know the subject was controversial. Therefore, I have removed the notice. Thanks for all your work, people! JesseW 01:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The title of the article should be changed!

Why isn't the proper name of the trial being used for this article as with other articles? Other articles use the proper trial names, but this one does not. It should be entitled The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson. Anyone disagree? Stiles 00:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I posted the above message a while back. Out of respect for other editors, I will again mention this. If no one opposes what I have said, I will change the title of this article. If anyone has a serious problem with what I brought up, I would have expected a reply. I'll wait some more time before changing the title. Stiles 03:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw your comment a few days ago but was too busy to reply. I agree that the article should be moved, but I disagree with the suggested title. No attorney would regularly use the full name of any case as it appears on the caption page of the original complaint, because in most cases it's a mouthful to say. The correct way to describe the case would be simply People v. Jackson. --Coolcaesar 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. If anything, I would suggest The People of California v. Michael Jackson (or maybe even State of California v. Michael Jackson or just California v. Michael Jackson). That tells us both the state and the particular person. Does this sound fair? Stiles 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• The name change is done. I've allowed plenty of time for people to voice their opinions, but it didn't seem many people were interested. In any case, I don't expect opposition to this, because like I said, there was time to discuss the matter. The title was succesfully changed to California v. Michael Jackson to clarify the state and the defendant. Stiles 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again I was too busy to respond until today. California v. Michael Jackson makes no sense, because the first name is traditionally not included in the short name unless the case is between two members of the same family. And the state name is not included until the case is appealed out of the state courts and into the federal system. Thus, the Miranda case was People v. Miranda in Arizona and Miranda v. Arizona when it went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since Jackson was acquitted, his case will never go up on appeal, so the correct name is People v. Jackson. Please go to a library and read a copy of the Bluebook to learn how to name cases properly. But since I have my hands full figuring out how to rewrite the mess at Freeway, I'm not going to continue contesting this issue. --Coolcaesar 20:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am familar with the Bluebook, but rather than looking at this from a legal perspective, we're merely concerned with creating an appropriate title for Wikipedia. The Bluebook rules are neither binding nor always followed. What is more important here is that we could correctly identify both the state and the defendant. People v. Jackson does not tell anyone about the state, and who the particular defedant is. In a case like this, it is especially important to point out the defendant, because that is the primary reason people read about this case.

• I understand where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree for the above mentioned reasons. Stiles 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed the title to People v. Jackson because it makes more sense. I now realize California v. Jackson would only cause confusion.

[edit] This Article Needs More Sources Cited

Can we work on getting some more sources cited in this article? The trial wasn't that long ago, yet almost every statement made in the article appears unsourced. heavensblade23 19:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Jackson's finances'

I deleted the phrase: "Defense argued that $7 million, which television paid for the rebuttal documantary would no way influence situation with loan, so there was never sense to commit crime for those money." as it is not gramatically proper, and it's unclear enough that I'm afraid I'd misinterpret it were I to correct it. Resultantly, I cleaned up the grammar in the immediately following sentence. Dirtyharry2 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)