Verdict is in

[BruceSter]

I'm not a big fan of MJ, above all. I can imagine he's done all the things he's been accused of, maybe because he and his brothers and sisters have been treated very bad by his dad in their youth too - remember the reports. From that, I'd conclude he either could have abused children fully conscious of his deedsbecause he didn't know another treatment, and the whole make-up at his ranch is just a gleaming facade to lure children - or it's because he doesn't know that it this behavior is wrong.

Also, it's obvious that the prosecution did badly on this. We all have read enough Grisham novels or seen the movies made after his books to know how to build up a case, and how to improve the credibility of the witnesses. The credibility is the pivot of the trial, and the prosecutors didn't do enough to trim all their witnesses, and lend them a credible image.

Bruce

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jun 14 2005, 07:42 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jun 14 2005, 07:42 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc@Jun 13 2005, 09:56 PM
I still can&#39;t figure out why anyone would let their children spend the night at his ranch.  The parents are guilty of stupidity. 

[post=320251]Quoted post[/post]​

Who wants to take bets that there are still people who will send their children to stay with him?

[post=320405]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Were Jimmy the Greek still alive, he&#39;d have a field day with the odds, tho considering the way the whole damn thing settled, I&#39;d say even money.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Jun 14 2005, 03:42 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jun 14 2005, 03:42 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc@Jun 13 2005, 09:56 PM
I still can&#39;t figure out why anyone would let their children spend the night at his ranch.  The parents are guilty of stupidity. 

[post=320251]Quoted post[/post]​

Who wants to take bets that there are still people who will send their children to stay with him?

[post=320405]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

The sad thing is that there are many people who will. They&#39;ll be saying things like "oh, he never touched anyone...he was proven innocent." However, he&#39;s not INNOCENT, just not guilty. There is a big difference. Then there will also be the money-grubbers who see it as an opportunity to make a quick dime, so they&#39;ll pimp out their kids and let them be molested in order to make millions. It&#39;s a sick, sick world we live in.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Jun 14 2005, 10:27 AM
Then there will also be the money-grubbers who see it as an opportunity to make a quick dime, so they&#39;ll pimp out their kids and let them be molested in order to make millions.

Or even let them stay with him in hopes of gaining a big settlement by claiming something happened even when it didn&#39;t (and thereby ruining any chance of conviction on all the legitimate cases of molestation that may or may not exist).

Nothing like someone crying &#39;wolf&#39; to cause others to not be believed. So sad.

Not that I&#39;m saying he&#39;s guilty (or not guilty). I&#39;ve not followed the trial shenanigans at all. I do find it easy to imagine that it would happen, though.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by absinthium
Fast forward to the next grab bag full of children and their parents that have to live with this, that somehow find the courage to come forward, and, of course, get shot down...

Ah, America, breathe it in&#33;

You&#39;re basing everything off of speculation. I wouldn&#39;t want you part of my jury when I get caught&#33;

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Jun 14 2005, 09:27 AM
The sad thing is that there are many people who will. They&#39;ll be saying things like "oh, he never touched anyone...he was proven innocent." However, he&#39;s not INNOCENT, just not guilty. There is a big difference.

[post=320464]Quoted post[/post]​

I hope you&#39;re never wrongly accused of a heinous crime.

But if you were, I&#39;m sure you wouldn&#39;t appreciate the whisper campaign ("he&#39;s not INNOCENT, just not guilty -- there&#39;s a big difference&#33;") that continues to taint you for a crime you didn&#39;t commit.

One of the legal principles that our country was founded on -- and which lasted until the "Patriot" Act in 2001 -- was the idea that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I think that principle is a Good Thing.

I&#39;m certainly not a fan of his, but at this point I&#39;m willing to call him innocent.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Originally posted by mindseye+Jun 14 2005, 01:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Jun 14 2005, 01:40 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-prepstudinsc@Jun 14 2005, 09:27 AM
The sad thing is that there are many people who will.  They&#39;ll be saying things like "oh, he never touched anyone...he was proven innocent."  However, he&#39;s not INNOCENT, just not guilty.  There is a big difference. 

[post=320464]Quoted post[/post]​

I hope you&#39;re never wrongly accused of a heinous crime.

But if you were, I&#39;m sure you wouldn&#39;t appreciate the whisper campaign ("he&#39;s not INNOCENT, just not guilty -- there&#39;s a big difference&#33;") that continues to taint you for a crime you didn&#39;t commit.

One of the legal principles that our country was founded on -- and which lasted until the "Patriot" Act in 2001 -- was the idea that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I think that principle is a Good Thing.

I&#39;m certainly not a fan of his, but at this point I&#39;m willing to call him innocent.

[post=320506]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Just read the statements of some of the jurors:
&#39;&#39;He&#39;s just not guilty of the crimes he&#39;s been charged with,&#39;&#39; said Ray Hultman, who told The Associated Press he was one of three people on the 12-person panel who voted to acquit only after the other nine persuaded them there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer&#39;s guilt in this particular case.

Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson&#39;s allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including the son of a maid who testified that Jackson molested him during tickling session between 1987 and 1990. Another, Brett Barnes, took the stand to deny that he was molested during sleepovers at Neverland.

But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about his current accuser&#39;s credibility.

&#39;&#39;That&#39;s not to say he&#39;s an innocent man,&#39;&#39; Hultman, 62, said of Jackson.

Some jurors noted they were troubled by Jackson&#39;s admission that he allowed boys into his bed for what he characterized as innocent sleepovers.

&#39;&#39;We would hope first of all that he doesn&#39;t sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they&#39;re called down there,&#39;&#39; jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said. &#39;&#39;And he just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children.&#39;&#39;

There still is a lot of doubt in the jurors heads. The character, or lack thereof, of the mother, is what swayed the jury. Had the prosecution used some different witnesses or presented the mother in a better way, the outcome might have been different.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by mindseye@Jun 13 2005, 09:40 PM
For a white-collar peccadillo that would&#39;ve been worth &#036;40,000. So, one month for every &#036;8,000 of fraud.

Compare this to the less well-known Andrew Fastow, who was sentenced to ten years for defrauding his company out of sixty billion dollars, or a mere . . . 42 seconds for every &#036;8,000 of fraud.

And that&#39;s still 42 seconds more than Ken Lay has served.

[post=320384]Quoted post[/post]​

You&#39;ll notice the HUGE difference between a kid stealing some food and a guy stealing BILLIONS. The kid who stole food will be sentenced for a much longer term.