Jackson Jurors Reach Verdict

[Calgary Flames]

Wow, reminds me that if I want to commit a crime... do it in California.

[Looger]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jun 13 2005, 09:06 PM
I hope he is at least smart enough to stay far away from kids from now on.

problem is,

even since jackson's been under suspicion,

PARENTS KEEP SENDING KIDS TO HIS HOUSE

financial gain at the cost of your children, beautiful stuff.

[RougeUnderoos]

I'm kind of surprised everyone is so surprised. This seemed to me like a set-up all along and maybe the jury saw it as potentially being that way -- so I guess that's a reasonable doubt.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Calgary Flames@Jun 13 2005, 09:10 PM
Wow, reminds me that if I want to commit a crime... do it in California.

but get famous and make a bunch of money to pay for your legal team first.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Looger+Jun 13 2005, 02:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Looger @ Jun 13 2005, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Jun 13 2005, 09:06 PM
I hope he is at least smart enough to stay far away from kids from now on.

problem is,

even since jackson's been under suspicion,

PARENTS KEEP SENDING KIDS TO HIS HOUSE

financial gain at the cost of your children, beautiful stuff. [/b][/quote]
Excellent point.

I suppose that without knowing all of the details, just going to have to believe that justice was done. Nonetheless, I would be very happy if Jackson simply fell off the face of the planet after today. Just go away and never return.

[Mccree]

Originally posted by Calgary Flames@Jun 13 2005, 03:10 PM
Wow, reminds me that if I want to commit a crime... do it in California.

They just cannot put the big one away. First OJ, now Jacko. Saddam might get acquited in California.

[SinceDay1]

Maybe Jacko can help O.J. look for Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman's killer.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Mccree+Jun 13 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mccree @ Jun 13 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Calgary Flames@Jun 13 2005, 03:10 PM
Wow, reminds me that if I want to commit a crime... do it in California.

They just cannot put the big one away. First OJ, now Jacko. Saddam might get acquited in California. [/b][/quote]
This is way different than OJ, where the jury did things like ignore DNA evidence.

Here you had an accuser with questionable credibility and a wacko mother. As I said before, reasonable doubt all over this one.

And as was pointed out on CNN, this is a very conservative part of California so it's hard to chalk this up to a questionable jury.

[Frank the Tank]

The American "Justice" System never ceases to amaze...

[Cowperson]

It was Jackson's wackiness versus the mother's avarice . . . . .

A sad verdict.

Cowperson

[Bingo]

I just hope he really is innocent ... I have my doubts, but when you don't have that smoking gun, and your key family is nuts it's an uphill battle.

[transplant99]

Im satisfied with the verdict...clearly the prosecution didnt prove their case. Thats the way the system works...and yes..its still the best in the world even with all its warts.

This case was NOT like the OJ case in any way shape or form...so people shouldnt lump them all together.

I still think the guy has done some questionable things with kids however...just from that documentary the brit did with him.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Jun 13 2005, 02:21 PM
It was Jackson's wackiness versus the mother's avarice . . . . .

A sad verdict.

Cowperson

The burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If all you have is Bizzaro-he said vs. Bizzaro-she said, the justice system says advantage accused.

Would you have it another way?

[Nehkara]

I think the jury reached the right verdict here, he may have done some questionable things but I do not think he is a criminal. The holes in the prosecution's case were big enough to drive a bus through. Most definitely reasonable doubt.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know, this was more along the lines that it wasn't proven that he didn't molest the kids, but the defense muddied the waters enough to throw in reasonable doubt by attacking the mother.

In my mind its like a rape case where the defense used to be able to attack the victim based on her based life as oppossed to proving that the rapist didn't rape her.

The big difficulty for Jackson is that he's 150 million in the whole, his music career is pretty much over, and nobody is going to want to pay him that much to tell his story since he gives off the whole creepy vibe.

Also once again California has shown that thier prosecuting attornies are very poorly trained, and they really need to address that. They muffed the OJ trial, and they certainly muffed this one as well

[tjinaz]

In my mind its like a rape case where the defense used to be able to attack the victim based on her based life as oppossed to proving that the rapist didn't rape her.

I believe that is called the Kobe defense.

[kdogg]

I don't have a stance on if he is guilty or not, but it is America. People sue each other for EVERYTHING to try and make millions off of stuff that never happened.

The mother of the child was apperently a nut case. Don't quote me on this, but she tried to make money through the courts before. Doesn't that mean anything?
________
Web shows

[CaptainCrunch]

You see, I'm torn on this, I mean basically if we use the past crimes defense, it means that if her kid is murdered and they catch the killer, there's a chance that the killer will get off if they exploit her past history.

In essense in this case they put the mother on trial, and in my mind, I'm not really sold that, that should be a allowable legal defense.

The jury should be forced to look at the evidence pertaining to this case, not something that happened three five or ten years ago.

Just my two cents.

[Looger]

Originally posted by fotze@Jun 13 2005, 09:38 PM
Well the prosecution probably makes $50,000 in salary versus $1,500,500 the defense attorneys make.


It's like the Detroit Red Wings versus Thoncliff Pee wee Blazers.

good analogy, i think you've nailed it.

defense attorneys make a killing (no pun) and have become the star of the show.

public defenders and district attorneys get paid so much less than practicing firms pay, it is quite unfair.

salary cap!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jun 13 2005, 04:06 PM
You see, I'm torn on this, I mean basically if we use the past crimes defense, it means that if her kid is murdered and they catch the killer, there's a chance that the killer will get off if they exploit her past history.

I don't know about that Captain. For that to work the mother would have had to have some kids get killed in the past and they bring that up.

This woman is a con artist and it sounds like her son is recieving some training towards that particular vocation.

I don't know if Jackson did it or not and I wouldn't be surprised either way, but I have no doubts that this woman put her kids in harms way to make a buck. What reasonable person would let their kids sleep at Michael Jackson's house? Even if there was a divine proclamation for god himself that he was innocent, my kids ain't sleeping with Michael Jackson. She either expected him to molest her kids and was "banking" on it or she had plans to say he did it all along.

YOu can't put someone away, no matter how weird he is, for 20 years on the word of a couple scammers.