1) How do you think the media affected the outcome of this trial? 2) Do you think the public had a right to know the details of the proceedings? 3) Do you think the information that was disseminated was comprehensive and accurate? 4) Should cameras have been allowed in the courtroom? 5) Do you think the media in any way prevented a fair trial or infringed on the rights of the participants?

"1) How do you think the media affected the outcome of this trial? " So far there is not proof any serious effect. We'll have to watch what jurors says and write in the future. "2) Do you think the public had a right to know the details of the proceedings? " Yes. They had the right to know much more than they did. You can't stop details from leaking. All you can do is make sure those details are the truthful. "3) Do you think the information that was disseminated was comprehensive and accurate? " Do you mean by the media? No. But, it never was. At least, nowadays, we can't pick our sources, and compare. If you mean by the court, it was accurate, but not comprehensive. I want free public transcripts for almost all trials. "4) Should cameras have been allowed in the courtroom? " Tough call. I say let each adult witness have a choice. More importantly, make the transcripts free to the public on the web daily. Have a 24-delay, to censor confidential material. "5) Do you think the media in any way prevented a fair trial or infringed on the rights of the participants? " Nope. In general laws should be tougher on paparazzi harassing people in the public eye. Clearly, the media harassment has discouraged witnesses from both sides from coming forward. But, that's a bigger/broader issue of free speach vs privacy, that's not specific to the trial.

(1) The media did NOT affect the outcome of the trial, thank goodness. (2) yes the public had a right to know ALL THE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE HISTORY/RECORDS OF THE ACCUSERS, AND THE BACKGROUNDS OF ALL WITNESSES ON EITHER SIDE. I also think that the historical cases in regard to McCauley Culkin should have included the Jordan Chandler case, and the other boy whose parents were paid in a settlement. (3)The information in regard to the charges made against Jackson, was systematically overturned by countering evidence or testimonies of witnesses for the defence. Accusations , without the benefit of evidence, is not admissable, in my opinion. (4) If cameras had been allowed in the room, it would have turned into a media circus, like OJ simmpson's trial. No, cameras are what the media use, to draw get ratings, and no doubt, the media would have benefitted tenfold from the courtroom drama. No, a courtroom is no place for the media circus, even when it is already in town. (5) The media not only prevented a fair trial for Michael Jackson, but continues to suggest, undermine and persecute a man who was found NOT GUILTY, by 12 members of a jury. If you read the news articles being presented after the verdict, you would swear that Gavin Arviso was telling the truth, even after his family were shown to have lied about some serious allegations.

aslanthebrave: I agree with you 100%.

Thanks for sharing your point of view, Aslanthebrave. I would like to counter with a thought to ponder: If the media were allowed greater access to the court proceedings I believe it would have led to more accurate reports of fact, rather than innuendo and speculation. I think the circus-like environment may have been created by holding the media at bay. I'd also like to mention that the rules of admissability in a courtroom are (and should be) far more stringent than the rules guiding the media. Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but take a look at your answer to question 3. Can I rephrase your comment to say that the media shouldn't publish accusations without countering those accusations with the defense claims? Since (question 5) you think the media prevented a fair trial for Michael Jackson, have you any better suggestions for how the courts should handle the media for high-profile cases in the future? ---------------------------------------------------------- MuMu_Man, I'm looking forward to your answer to these questions. In a previous post, you recommended the British system, whereby the media isn't allowed to report on court proceedings at all. I have some serious concerns about a justice system operating in secret. I'd love to hear your point of view, perhaps you can alleviate those concerns.

Since (question 5) you think the media prevented a fair trial for Michael Jackson, have you any better suggestions for how the courts should handle the media for high-profile cases in the future? ------------------------------------------------------ My 2 cents (not sense) The courts can't handle the media. The media has to become more responsible and that is not likely to happen. I don't see public boycotts on the horizon, but we could lose a lot if the courts tried to control the media any more than it should. We simply need to recognize as individuals that biases such as those of people like Nancy Grace (who seems to know who can sleep with kids...okay for uncles...etc.) and who decide who is guilty (just about everyone charged) prior to verdict. These people are supposed to explain the way the law is being carried out. They cross the line. But then, freedom brings irresponsibility. That's the trade off.

Thanks Nelbrewster. :) I don't think the issue is holding the media to a different standard. I believe strongly in freedom of the press, and sometimes that means allowing the press the freedom to espouse a point of view that I may not agree with. But I think court coverage could be more accurately provided if *the court* made information more accessible. I think that if this trial had been televised, the media circus might have been tamed, rather than inflamed. Once everyone hears what actually was said, the media has little to interpret. You get fact, instead of assumption, interpretation and supposition. I could be wrong. Who out there believes that cameras DON'T belong in the courtroom. Could you post a reasonable explanation as to why?

The court coverage of OJ Simpson's trial was probably the worst example of media involvement in judicial trials. Not only was the trial given more than the usual attention that some news items would warrant; it illustrates how the media try to influence the outcome of trials, by having experts, reporters, any-Tom-Dick-or-Harry that might have a smidgen of information, to come forward and give their "view" of the situation. Let's just remember: a person is not guilty, until they are proven guilty. As you can see, before Michael Jackson's trial, we the viewers, were virtually being told that he was guilty. And he hadn't even gone to trial. Speculators and "experts" of gossip, inuendo, and every subject on legal matters that that cat dragged home; put in their money's worth on the verdict. That isn't justice being served; that is the media getting prime time slots for advertising, while pretending to offer the world coverage of a famous trial. That is one reason why, the media should not be allowed access to the videoed sessions of high profile cases like this, until AFTER THE TRIAL IS OVER. That way, the accused or the victim, will not be EXPLOITED BY THE PRESS, on a day to day basis, as they time-slot the court proceedings in line with advertising spots that would probably cost millions of dollars for every advertising minute. If the media want to tell the world what is happening, then nothing stops them from using pen and paper. At least, the accused can have their day in court, without the parasites of spin, second-guessing the outcome while the camera is rolling. If people want to look at a courtroom, they could always watch Judge Judy.

I could accept your response if the media coverage of the OJ trial exceeded that of the MJ trial, or was less factual than that of other trials. It didn't and it wasn't. I don't know where you got the idea that the media was ready to convict either one prior to the verdict. In both cases, I found equal coverage supporting acquittal as conviction. Furthermore, our justice system has sufficient control to prevent the media from influencing the outcome of the trial. This truth is apparent in their acquittals. If, as you say, the media was a proponent of conviction, you have to admit that the media had little influence. You say the OJ trial "was probably the worst example of media involvement in judicial trials." Tell me how? Sure it got a lot of coverage and analysis. So did the MJ trial. The difference was that with the OJ trial we could see the facts for ourselves by watching the testimony. With MJ we were dependent upon the interpretation of the reporters in the courtroom. With MJ we got much more speculation and innuendo, because we didn't have as much access to actual fact. I think the position you espouse is to not allow coverage of criminal trials at all. That would be a greater tragedy. If trials were not held to public scrutiny, it would open a window to corruption. As a taxpayer and a citizen, I believe in full transpancy of the legal process.

Given the coverage of some witnesses demeanor, there is a clear benefit to having cameras. It is impossible to have objective coverage of such a subjective matter. It's fundamentally wrong for the public to form their opinion of a witness, based on how others say she behaved, without that behaviour being seen. Few people seem to realize how wildly different different people can interpret the same mannerisms, like how a person looks at another person. Since juror instructions specifically allowed jurors to consider witness demeanor, keeping us from see it, is a little like keeping secret some testimony.

abbyr3 >>> I don't know where you got the idea that the media was ready to convict either one prior to the verdict. In both cases, I found equal coverage supporting acquittal as conviction. Furthermore, our justice system has sufficient control to prevent the media from influencing the outcome of the trial. This truth is apparent in their acquittals. If, as you say, the media was a proponent of conviction, you have to admit that the media had little influence. Response: abbyr3, Michael Jackson has been the victim of media persecution for over a decade, and the reason why so many people were shocked that he got off, is because the media have waged a campaign against him. Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending you do not know what they have been doing to that man. I am not going to take you to all the news sites and hold them under your nose. You are an adult, obviously, I suggest you do a little research and let me know what you found. seriously, I have already outlined many reasons why the media led a campaign against this man, and still are trying to imply that he is guilty. The media did not have any influence over the jury, that is the point. The reason why they acquitted Michael Jackson is because the evidence was not there. The claims of being attacked and kidnapped, were not believed. The claims of molestation, were dismissed. And all ten charges, were dismissed. Since when does having cameras in the courtroom, mean that you will be watching ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS? How much for instance, footage did you see of the 12 jurors at the press conference? CBS showed 3 and half minutes of it. I looked on all the american news sites that I could find, and they did not have the whole interview. I had to go to the BBC, the British media, to see the whole 53 minutes of the interview. Why didn't the major American networks provide the whole 53 minutes? Why does the CBS 3 and a half minute segment of the interview, include the part where the jury mention the woman clicking her fingers at them? Why were comments by jurors saying that more than one piece of evidence helped with their decision? And you think they will show you all of the court proceedings of a trial? Well there is more hope that people in Iraq will turn Christian, than that ever happening. You say you believe in full transparency? Yeah, I wish they would believe in that too.

aslanthebrave wrote: "I also think that the historical cases in regard to McCauley Culkin should have included the Jordan Chandler case, and the other boy whose parents were paid in a settlement." I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here -- the allegations about the two boys with well-documented payoffs *were* included in this case -- even the 1993 case where the alleged victim refused to have anything to do with this case... Personally, I think those were really the only ones which belonged. Dragging in allegations where you've got two obvious strikes (the alleged victim has always said that nothing happened, and the accusers shopped their stories to the tabloids) seems a bit of a reach. And, of course, the 1993 accusations would have been much more substantive if the 1993 accuser had chosen to testify. The other alleged victim from that period did testify, and was one of the few remotely credible prosecution witnesses.

yes I did say that. I was referring to the 1993 incident. It might interest you to know that Jordy Chandler refuses to come forward. My point in saying that, was to bring all the claims and evidence from that first accusation, out into the open. There are legal restrictions, as far as I know, in regard to speaking about what happened in that settlement; as far as the Jackson camp are concerned. Michael Jackson and his legal team, at the time, were forbidden to speak of the settlement or what it involved by the Judge. I suggest you look up the information available on the net, to find out what that involved. it was binding on the Jackson camp. If Michael is as guilty as they claimed, then they should have no problem, telling the world about it. I guess you will have to wait and see. I have no doubt that Michael will be shown to be the victim, even in Jordy chandlers case. Time will tell, and the truth won't be hidden. it will exonerate this innocent man. you can quote me on that , too.

Hi, AslanTheBrave! I'm not sure you really read my post carefully. Here's what I wrote: "And, of course, the 1993 accusations would have been much more substantive if the 1993 accuser had chosen to testify." Here's your reply: "It might interest you to know that Jordy Chandler refuses to come forward." Um, yeah. That's what I mentioned... :) Although he refuses to come forward, allegations about him *were* included in this trial. Your original post stated: "I also think that the historical cases in regard to McCauley Culkin should have included the Jordan Chandler case, and the other boy whose parents were paid in a settlement." Unless I'm misreading your remark, it sounds like you're implying that the "historical cases" brought in did not include either the 1993 accuser or the other case (the "tickling" incident). Both of those were brought into this trial along with the Culkin allegations, etc. One of the boys chose to testify, the other refused. Personally, I don't know for certain what happened in either of the previous cases. Many cases from the 80's and early 90's were compromised by the use of suggestive interview techniques which have since been scientifically proven to actually *introduce* memories in children. Thus, ironically, both young men could now quite literally remember being abused, and it still might not have happened. Additionally, as far as I understand it, there were news reports that the 1993 story was first retrieved by his father along with a dentist using Sodium Amytol, which makes the subject highly suggestible. Until that point, only the father had made any allegations. But when a dentist gave him Sodium Amytol, suddenly the boy can now "remember" the whole thing. If it is actually true that the first memories came under the influence of Sodium Amytol, and it is in fact true that the father was present and asking leading questions, and there is no independent record of the conversations, then the boy's memories may even be real, and simultaneously false...

lincolne. i just wanted to point tis out.. evan chandler was a dentist and he was thwe one that gave jordy the sodium amytol.... it wasn't the father and a dentist..the father was the dentist....

I stand corrected -- or sit corrected, at the moment... :)