clownboots19:
Originally posted by leoboy63@Jun 15 2005, 09:02 AM
Many people are asking "How could this happen?" and blaming the celebrity status and the American justice system. But, and this is what the jury had to say, you have to remember "beyond a reasonable doubt."
There was doubt in the minds of the jurors and not enough evidence to convict him in their eyes. The prosecution dropped the ball in proving their case with the family they chose (a history of other law suits, etc.... and putting that controlling mother on the stand!.
They declared him "not guilty," but did not say he was "innocent" of the 10 counts.
[post=320848]Quoted post[/post]
-If that's the case, then every criminal offense that isn't videotaped would have reasonable doubt. Of course their's some element of reasonable doubt in a sexual assault/child molestation case, especially when the defendant pleads not guilty. They are some of the hardest cases to prove. But how manygrown men in their mid fourties do you know that sleep with boys of a certian age level? I know on thing, if I had already been accused of it, I would have stopped sleeping with little boys the first time!
-The prosecution did an excellent job prosecuting this case. How much more could they have done with what they had? AND just so you know, the prosecutor's didn't choose the family....MICHAEL JACKSON CHOSE THAT FAMILY TO VIOLATE...and the prosecutor's and police did their job by charging him! You can say all you want about history of lawsuits, but Michael Jackson paid a kid's family $20 million over a decade ago, not too mention the youth minister who testified this time, saying Michael Jackson molested him also as a child. The youth minister didn't have a shady past, but then again the jury really didn't take him into account. The jury left their brains and common sense at home. I mean, they couldn't even convict him of giving alcohol to minors. How many little boys go to a guests house and start hunting for the wine cabinet and the pornos? Not too mention the fingerprint evidence and third party witnesses that saw Wacko Jacko giving the boys alcohol. One juror (who is only 19) visited NeverLand Ranch as a kid, so he NEVER should have been on the jury! Another juror has a grandchild who was convicted of sexual assualt...hmm, probably not good for a jury in a sexual offense case, and another juror afterwords in an interview said, "What kind of mother would let that kind of thing happen to her child." HELLLO!! I thought nothing happened. Child molesters target broken home families intentionally..This verdict will likely cause future or recent victims to NOT come foward. And who can blame them?
-To anyone who thinks he is not guilty, I ask you these two questions: 1) Would you let your child spend a weekend at the Neverland Ranch alone with Michael Jackson? 2)
Would you let your child sleep with Michael Jackson?
on?