Rex Kickass Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 There were ten counts. If there was real thought about guilt, he would have at least got a misdemeanor for alcohol. He is innocent. Told ya so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabroni Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) Wow, one of the jurors even acknowledged that it was ridiculous that a mother would let her child sleep with a stranger. Yet they don't punish Jackson for being the one to sleep with the child? Amazing. These jurors are idiots. I can see why they came to a not guilty verdict. Edited June 13, 2005 by Jabroni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 04:20 PM) Typical... rich guy gets off ....if it were any normal person they would have went up the river.... Ah, yes, but if it were a normal person there wouldn't be a 250+ post thread about them. I think the fact that as a culture we are so tuned into the lives of celebreties is more sad than that whether or not Jackson was found not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 losers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 www.drudgereport.com lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I wonder how many animals he has been with? Something i bet he would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I think I may be the only one who is glad Mike is free. Favorite Album Eva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(aboz56 @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 10:37 PM) I think I may be the only one who is glad Mike is free. Favorite Album Eva No WinoDJ thought he was innocent as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighHeat45 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 A little off topic, but here is a map of what neverland ranch is, if anyone didnt know and was wondering. I knew it had amusment park s***, but i didnt think it was that big.... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...y_Ranch_Map.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 What f***ing horses***. f***er should not only rot in prison but in hell as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 01:38 PM) Mer, never. And I never could because of what happened to my girlfriend. I don't think any lawyer would ever want me on his jury in that case because I'd go with the approach of guilty unless he proved himself innocent. I just think those type of people are utterly sick f***s and I'd have it in against him before enough evidence was there. I'm sure its real hard too because often times its tough evidence, but I don't think as a juror I'd be able to look at it in that situation totally independently and unbiased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I did not follow this trial at all but I knew he'd be found non guilty and my parents who did follow it thought he'd be found guilty, why?? Because it was obvious to them and the rest of the country that he was guilty, unfortunately because of who he is I knew he'd get off. Very Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I didn't sit here and read through 18 pages, but I will say this. The jury was right. Those people knew he was guilty. Listen to them. But they followed the law. Proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT was the job of the prosecution and they failed, quite miserably I might add. You may not like the jury decision, but they did the right thing by following the law. If you want to be pissed off, blame the prosecution for the way they tried the case, and blame them for centering their witness testimony around a someone who appears to be a psychopath b**** (the accuser's mother). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 06:33 AM) I didn't sit here and read through 18 pages, but I will say this. The jury was right. Those people knew he was guilty. Listen to them. But they followed the law. Proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT was the job of the prosecution and they failed, quite miserably I might add. You may not like the jury decision, but they did the right thing by following the law. If you want to be pissed off, blame the prosecution for the way they tried the case, and blame them for centering their witness testimony around a someone who appears to be a psychopath b**** (the accuser's mother). Isn't reasonable in the eyes of the beholder? Anyway, I was hoping that with all the publicity, at least he would run out of future victims. Then I saw the morons holding signs and praying for his release, and realize that their are idiot parents lining up to have their children play at Neverland Ranch and it just sickens me beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 The more I hear about the alleged victim's mom and her impression on the jury, it really doesn't surprise me that they reached that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 05:23 PM) There were ten counts. If there was real thought about guilt, he would have at least got a misdemeanor for alcohol. He is innocent. Told ya so. There were 14 actually.. and the alcohol charge was attached to intent to molest. If they convicted him on giving him alcohol they would have had to convict him on the other molestation charges. The way he was charged was all wrong... they should have been separate counts. He's guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 08:41 AM) The more I hear about the alleged victim's mom and her impression on the jury, it really doesn't surprise me that they reached that decision. That juror complaining about the mother snapping her fingers just baffles me... good grief. "She snapped her fingers at us so her son was not molested.." :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 02:00 PM) That juror complaining about the mother snapping her fingers just baffles me... good grief. "She snapped her fingers at us so her son was not molested.." :headshake That's not what she said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyho7476 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 08:58 AM) There were 14 actually.. and the alcohol charge was attached to intent to molest. If they convicted him on giving him alcohol they would have had to convict him on the other molestation charges. The way he was charged was all wrong... they should have been separate counts. He's guilty. I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson. He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it. ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 09:19 AM) That's not what she said. Uhh.. I hope not. I was being sarcastic.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 09:21 AM) I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson. He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it. ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse. Credibility killed them.. and it's a shame. I read a lot of the transcripts and the entered evidence.. IMO they had enough to fry him if not for the boys mom's issue with JC Penny. Agree with your last line completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 02:21 PM) I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson. He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it. ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse. The system worked. People forget that in a court of law, the truth is often irrelevant. Did Jackson do the things he was accused of? Irrelevant. Was he found not guilty by a jury of his peers? Yes, all that matters, end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent." No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent." No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing. Exactly...and 'found not guilty by a jury of his peers' is even more to the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 09:31 AM) One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent." No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing. A couple was talking about this at the game last night with another couple endlessly and loudly well into the 6th inning. The one guy in the one couple was pounding his chest saying that he's was innocent.. the woman that appeared to be his partner said.. "do you think OJ is innocent..?" He said no.. so she reminded him that OJ was found "not guilty". He shut up about it for the rest of the night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.