Mike is innocent......the jury has spoken

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rojoe67

New member
Hope the prosecution team has resume updated........... lots of taxpayer money gone.....nobody expected it did they.......



Hollywood .............. nuf said........ :barf:
 
hahaha i dont know who said it, but

Nobody hated the young, black, rich man. The old creepy white woman is what bothers me.

or SOMETHING like that. But meh, it honestly seemed like a pretty good trial, jury deliberated for a while, and there WAS reasonable doubt. While personally i think he did it, I wasnt on the jury. I respect thier decision
 
Did anyone honestly believe there was a snow ball's chance in hell that he was going to be found guilty? After all, this is America: land of the absolute fascination and obsession with the rich and famous... And what a great distraction this and other trials like it are for the powers that be. Bottom line, in terms of the trial itself is that his money and fame assured him, or rather guaranteed him that he would NOT be found guilty.

The same cannot be said in a civil suit, however.
 
i am not, nor ever have been a michael jackson fan. hes a strange bird, no doubt about that. he may or may not have molested that kid, but going on the testimony that i heard, its no surprise that he was aquitted.

the mother is a proven liar and scam artist, she had no credibility at all.


if he EVER lets another kid spend the night with him, his is one big idiot.


ok media, its over!!! move on to something else.
 
No problem with the verdict. This is America and the way our criminal court system works. How can anyone judge who was not present for the testimony? Not guilty due to reasonable doubt. Frankly, I expected a hung jury not that I was there. :)
 
I feel sorry for the victims that no one believed and still don't believe. No doubt, they'll be the future offenders in keeping with the pattern. My sympathies to the families Jackson (and now the jury) hurt. :mad:
 
A textbook example of jury nullification by victim (or victim's mother) hate.

See this a lot in rape, child molest, sexual misconduct with minor, domestic battery cases. *not saying it's right, just reporting what I see*
 
what if.......?

I put faith in the jury too......... but just for a moment let us say they found him guilty.........

Someone on the ever spending money, prosecutor team had a very red face again today.....retirement in near distance.... ;)

No African American on jury........ I can't figure why his lawyers let that go.... and it shouldn't matter but it would have....well, that is my thought. If the jury would have found him guilty what a mess that town would have blown up into tonight.....

How long before the first member of the jury is on the tube and writes a book.......??? I give it one week....

It takes these kind of cases to make you glad when you hear of a solid case and a the correct verdict and punishment too........ ;) That said I wasn't there and heck maybe this odd duck is an angel from above????

No.........for those of you asking - I'm not a racist because of the comment I made above.... but here on out I am sure a few of you will label me like it.....
 
Weak as hell case, horrible performance by the prosecution.

Every legal advisor I've seen on the news this evening has said the same thing.
 
I cant believe they didnt find Jacko guilty. But then I'm sure he could buy a pretty good defense team. -Hope it took every dime he has.
I'm just glad it wasnt any of my kids involved.... he wouldnt have a chance. :mad:
 
Weak as hell case, horrible performance by the prosecution.

Every legal advisor I've seen on the news this evening has said the same thing.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING!

Not to mention that the credibility of the mother isn't really there.
 
I have always followed the maxim that it is better to let ten guilty men walk free than to convict one innocent man.

It gets hard to do when you believe that the ten men who are walking free are actually guilty of molesting children, but it is one of the prices we pay for being imperfect.

LawDog
 
I'll second what Mike Irwin and LawDog have said.

We may each know in our hearts that he was guilty.
We may each regret the verdict.
But a jury of OUR peers looked at the evidence and it just didn't make it. Poor case; Poor prosecution witnesses; Poor prosecution.
Personally, I believe the jury was probably far more cognizant of The Law and Due Process than any onlookers calling for his blood.

As to "only the wealthy" getting off; anybody want to add up what Sneden spent getting a conviction over and above what he'd have spent on the average poor American citizen? Justice has been served by this case. I don't like the verdict, and many others here may not....but do not blame the jury. They acted on what they were given.
Rich
 
At some point in time not too terribly long ago, he could have ended up on a tree for the mere suspicion of whistling at a white woman.

I'm glad that in my America he can get a fair trial, and be judged by a jury of his peers, weirdo or not. He definitely has issues, and he may be guilty, but I am glad that a jury got to make that call, and not a bunch of Good Townspeople with ropes.
 
Well, I just listened to the press interviewing the triers-of-fact in this case; one of the questions most interesting to me was (paraphrased) "What was it that convinced you that Michael was innocent?"

Oddly enough, none seemed able to name anything that stood out as the lynch-pin of the defense's case. As the investigator for a prosecutor's office, I myself have polled jurors when we lost a case; if you don't learn from your mistakes, you never improve. Each of them could articulate something in either the defense or prosecution case, that caused them to vote for conviction or acquittal.

If I had gotten non-answers like what I heard on the radio awhile ago, I would be inclined to believe that the jurors were leaning on their opinion of the defendant, rather than the evidence as presented.

Or, they were just nuts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top