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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Finger prints on pornographic magazines were found to be both of Jackson's and of a young childs too........same magazine....."

So, what does that REALLY tell us?

It tells us that both Jackson and the boy touched the magazine at some point in the past.

What it doesn't tell us, though, is WHEN those fingerprints were deposited. Jackson could have gotten the mag, read it, and then stashed it. The boy could have then found it, read it alone, and then restashed it.


Let's put this in different terms.

You own a handgun, and it's stolen one night by a close relative, who uses it to commit a heinous crime. He subsequently puts it back in your home, and you don't know that it was missing.

Later, some freak occurrence happens that results in your gun being seized by police, tested for fingerprints AND tested ballistically.

The bullets match the heinous crime bullets, and your fingerprints are on the same gun, along with your relative's. Does that mean, though, that you were with your relative when he committed the heinous crime?
 
Mike, you really should stick to offering opinions on firearms. Your definition of the reasonable doubt standard could use some help.

The standard itself has been perverted (how appropriate) to be accepted as something beyond its original intent. Of course, this only mattered back when jurors believed that there were such things as sin, and accountability.

http://lsr.nellco.org/yale/fss/papers/1/

And with that I think I will exit this affray.
 
They should have prosecuted the kid's mother for letting him spend the night in that chamber of horrors....The fact that anyone would let their kid have pajama parties with Mike screams "ulterior motive" to me....

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.....
Click to expand...

Maybe the African Americans in that particular jury pool didn't seem as naive as the other Americans.

What it doesn't tell us, though, is WHEN those fingerprints were deposited. Jackson could have gotten the mag, read it, and then stashed it. The boy could have then found it, read it alone, and then restashed it.
Click to expand...

Or, Michael could have said "Point to the man's "thriller"".
 
Call it head in the sand or whatever -
my first reaction was
"Mike who? and What did he do?"

Frankly, I'm kind of glad it took me reading 6 posts in this thread before I found out who "Mike" was (is). :eek:
 
"Will prosecutors be gun shy about prosecuting high profile (rich) homosexual pedophiles"


what about the heterosexual pedophiles? dont forget them. or do you think theres no such thing?
 
i dont see how they could ever convict someone in a case like that. if you have NO physical evidence, which they did not, then its one persons word against another.

if someone has a vendetta against you, it would be real easy to scream "he/she molested me" and bam, you just ruined that persons life.

a kid doesnt like a school teacher, perfect example.

this family, esp. the mom is a known welfare cheat,liar, and scam artist, shes even alleged that she was sexually abused by that jc penny security guard, yea right, sure you were. theres no way in hell you can lock a man up based upon testimony alone from her or that kid, who also has previously lied under oath.
 
dirty laundry.......

Hal,

Mike as in Mike Jackson........ 6 posts to know what we were talking about? Sorry I just thought after 5 or 6 months of this crap on the news every ten minutes everyone could figure me out. Sorry ;) I am glad it's over and maybe we will get a few days without another Hollywood type in court for whatever could improve the network standings. Well, now we have to hear continued reports of a victim of abduction in Aruba..... The host on Good Morning America had a gleam in her eye while questioning the mom.... I think Don Henley (Eagles) had a real good song about the media shortly after he was in their crosshairs....... " We got the bubble headed bleach blonde comes on at five.......she can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye..........it's interesting when people die........we need dirty laundry....."
 
Did I ever claim to be a ****ing lawyer?

And please tell me where in my message I offered a "definition" of reasonable doubt?

Hint -- I DIDN'T.

I noted that the sum of many things can cause reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury -- it doesn't have to be one big surprise witness coming into court room and confessing to having an liaison

But, from the link you've provided...

"The "reasonable doubt" rule is notoriously difficult to define..."

Gee, look at that, very first sentence, and then you're bitching about my non definition?

Tell me, is it really important the entire history of reasonable doubt, especially its role in protecting the soul from damnation during the inquisition? (Wow, that's really applicable today.)

Maybe this is a better definition?

"An accused person is entitled to acquittal if, in the minds of the jury, his or her guilt has not been proved beyond a "reasonable doubt"; that state of minds of jurors in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge." http://court.nol.org/publications/glossary.htm
 
"No African American on jury"

There wasn't an African American in the defendant's chair, either...

"Or, Michael could have said "Point to the man's "thriller""."

Never said that wasn't the case. What I did say is that the prosecution can't say definitively that both sets of fingerprints were deposited at the same time. Fingerprints can be VERY roughly aged depending on the decomposition of the oils and acids, but even that isn't even remotely exact.
 
There is doubt in every prosecution. The real hard part is nailing down what is reasonable doubt. I guess some alien from space could have done it, a doubt, but hardly reasonable. The fact that the jury did not hang on any of the ten charges makes it pretty clear that in all of the testimony presented, there must have been enough doubt that all of the jurors agreed. We tend to let our personal prejudices effect our decisions, but the fact that not one juror hung and felt wacko was guilty, says alot to me. I think that the prosecution played a very weak hand in this trial. Does anyone think that Macaulay was going to tell everyone that he fooled around/was touched by wacko and jeapordize his future. The families that were bought off probably have clauses that prevent them from saying what really caused them to get hush money. Why do you think it is called hush money. I hope that the outcome, at the least, prevents the repeat of this behavior, which in my opinion is the most important thing that can happen. I think if the Mother came forward alot sooner, it would have made a big difference. This case reminds me of the finger in the chili story, because it is so easy to believe that it happend (based on many past occurrences) it is harder to believe that it didn't. A side note; it is my understanding that wacko Jacko is very much down on funds. I hope that he ends up back in low income housing, then the law of the jungle will take him out of the gene pool.
 
He may be low on funds now, but owning 100 Beatles songs means he'll never have to work again.

Think he celebrated with a 'sleep-over' last night? :barf:
 
Yep, he must have paid off the jury, in as much as they found the prosecution's case to be weak and the mother unbelievable.

I wonder if he also paid off all of the court watchers (many of them attorneys, legal scholars, or former judges) who almost to a individual found serious fault with the prosecution's case.

I did, however, hear on the CBS Radio News this morning one woman (didn't catch who she was, or whom she represented) whining about the jury disregarding the testimony of a child. I guess she wants us to believe that children can't be influenced to say something that isn't true, or that some children aren't liars of their own volition. I guess the Jackson camp must have missed paying her off. :)

I think this quote from the Washington Post says it all, though...

"The 15-year-old former cancer patient who accused Jackson "was brought up in an environment where he was taught to lie," said the foreman, identified in an interview with CNN last night as Paul Rodriguez. "It was really hard to believe anything he said."
 
"some of the jurors openly admitted they think he was a pedophile/molested children."

Wouldn't doubt it myself.

But, they weren't there to pass judgement based on what they think.
 
Charley Gibson of ABC stated as I have heard before....... Finger prints on pornographic magazines were found to be both of Jackson's and of a young childs too........same magazine..... Sorry, that just makes me ill....
Click to expand...

No one ever dusted to check, but I think ALL my dad's porno mags had MY fingerprints on them. Unless there was one stashed where I couldn't find it. And his, of course. I was never molested, though many, many, many, many women were molested in my mind. :o

If weird was a crime Micheal "eee hee!" Jackson would be public enemy number one. But evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty of child molesting. And wrongful conviction of a crime is as much a social injustice as molestation.

My brother has been accused of molesting his ex wife's kids. Supposedly he can't have a job dealing with kids- won't pass the background check- even though he's not been convicted of it. My uncle was recently accused of molesting one of the kids my aunt babysits. In both cases, this was an accusation in revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I wouldn't wish this on anyone, not even Michael Jackson, assuming he really didn't do it.
 
I believe MJ has "issues" as they say but I'm not convinced he is a pedophile. I'm not saying he's not, but I don't know that he is. My take is that due to his screwed up childhood he is emotionally retarded and is trying to recapture it in some strange way.

The sad thing is we'll never know for sure. In this day and age, all it takes is an accusation to screw up your life forever. He was stupid to have kids stay at his place without their parents. I definitely fault him for his bad judgement. Maybe he'll learn from this, maybe not.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top