M.Jackson Not Guilty on all counts...

[BellyTank]

OK then...
B
T

 

[MissTayva]

OK then...
B
T

Mmmmmmm hmmmmmm... I figured that would be the outcome.

 

[jamespowers]

I figured it too and made a few bucks off of it. Anyone who lives here in California could not have been so stupid as to think a jury from that area would convict him or anyone else. Then again, I found a few suckers.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Andykev]

Second Guessers

It is easy to sit at home and watch what the news media chooses to spin at you! Until you sit in the court room jury box, listen to the evidence, and weigh what you have heard, then you cannot make a fair decision.

O.J.? Scott Peterson? Michael Jackson?

Each JURY came to their decision. Let the media SPIN, but that is how our system of jurisprudence works.

I think Michael Jackson has severe problems, and maybe he did what was alleged...but like MANY criminals, thieves, rapists, gansters, etc..in history, you have to be able to PROVE IT.

Let this rest. Justice was served.

Oh, and his career is ruined anyway.

 

[Michael Mallory]

As the saying goes, "Not Guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "Innocent." All this time I actually figured he'd cut a deal whereby he did time...but in juvie.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

And he's still a freak.

 

[BellyTank]

He's as free as a broken bird...
B
T

 

[Biltmore Bob]

He's in his own personal prison. And he's still a freak.

 

[BellyTank]

Yes- he's a freak...
B
T

 

[Feraud]

Yep, I figured he would get off. His defense team did a good job of making the witnesses against him look worse than Jackson! Sadly, that technique works in rape cases too. It also appears the prosecution did not have much evidence against him.
Let us hope he learned an expensive($$) lesson and leaves the kids alone. Everyone is better off that way.

 

[BellyTank]

Yes- it's a shame that so much money can buy the ultimate defense.
Just imagine if he was Joe Blo from down the road and had a public defender...
The outcome may have been quite different. Also a shame that the lawyer has the 'prestige' factor now.
Reminds me of the OJ trial.

Lets hope he IS notguilty and hopefully innocent and justice has been served.
B
T

 

[android]

I don't think the prosecutors ever had a strong case. But they were double damned. If they had not gone to court, everyone would have whined that they gave celebrities a break. If they went to court, they would probably lose. It was a no win situation.

Now if the witnesses had been squeaky clean, they would have stood a much better chance, but perhaps they were too excited by all the porn they found in Michael's bedroom to actually notice that the key witnesses for the prosecutions were weasels.

 

[Feraud]

I always had a feeling the Jackson might be up to some nonsense. Apparently, the accusers were not as trustworthy(or made out to be) as required to convict. Without some startling evidence, it comes down to who has the better law team. Some people might see it as a 'money buying justice' but who would not pay for better anything if they have the money? These 'celebrity cases' are hard for everyone to work on.

I was shocked when Robert Blake was found not guilty! I was sure he was going to do some hard time! [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

I was shocked when Robert Blake was found not guilty! I was sure he was going to do some hard time! [huh]

You're kidding right? That was the same case there. The dead woman was portrayed as a weasel and a grifter. Probably was a grifter for sure.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Sharon]

I feel Michael lives in his own private prison...just look how he mutilated himself. If anyone punishes him, it is himself and has been his own life sentence. I have felt sorry for him. With all his wonderful talent and all the money in the world, nothing can genuinely give him the self love and the inner security he desperately seeks. Psychologically, it is obvious that he wishes to be a child himself, maybe the childhood he never had, and be with other children. Whether or not he did what he was accused of is really not for me to judge. But I will say this much...As a Mother, I would never let my son sleep over a person's home who already had been accused of fondling children in the past. The kind of Mother who would leave her child alone to sleep over and in his bed to boot with his clouded reputation is asking for trouble or is looking to dig up gold later. So the jury had to look at who was charging him and not based on Michael's past which really isn't fair or justice. I can't even fathom if anyone of us were in that same position because this topic is unrelated to my thinking. The jury did have a lot of pressure on them and had to evaluate as best as possible and focus solely on the evidence for this case without their opinions on other cases. Now that must be hard. Michael needs to invest his money on the best psychiatrists and anyone now who insists on still letting their kids sleep over his Neverland is as guilty as him.

 

[Feraud]

You're kidding right? That was the same case there. The dead woman was portrayed as a weasel and a grifter. Probably was a grifter for sure.

Regards to all,

J

No, not kidding! I say that because I was not following the case too closely. I assumed the guy killed his wife and there was evidence to convict. Once the verdict was read, I then heard how his wife was portrayed.

They pulled the same nonsense in the O.J. case too I think. Nicole was a lesibian, drug using space alien...and that makes O.J. innocent... [huh]

 

[Richard]

"just" a public defender??????????

i'd note for the record that around my area, the publcid efenders ROUTINELY whup the d.a.'s ass. Out of the last 20 trials in my office, about 15 were defense verdicts. the DA is SUPPOSED to win their cases. it's supposed to be WEIRD when the defense wins a case. so what is going on? foolish arrogant d.a.'s are going to trial with evidence less than that which will meet reasonable doubt standards. theya re throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks. d.a.s no longer feel bound to only bring cases where they are damn sure they are going to ge a verdict of guilty. they "go for it". that's not the way it's supposed to be. and it's wrong for the publci or the d.a.'s to whine about it when they lose. if they are going to bring oevrcharged, non-righteous cases, they are going to continue to get whupped roundly in court. the last 5 felony cases I did in NM resulted in 0 felony convictions. not because i'm a great lawyer...because the d.a. was proceeding on weak cases and not making offers to make the cases go away. this is the price of electing a bunch of posers who pretend to be "tough onc rime". the downside is that many other defendnats with somewhat less winnable cases will be emboldened to take their cases to trial....

 

[BellyTank]

i'd note for the record that around my area, the publcid efenders ROUTINELY whup the d.a.'s ass.

Sorry if I offended all the publcid efenders out there... that was a contrast,
not at all intended to deride the publcid efenders at all.
I didn't say, or mean "...just a PD"
I know you're a Lawyer, so I guess that's why you're mangling my words- you are duly forgiven.

B
T

 

[android]

My Step father-in-law is a defense attorney and he loves this kind of DA behavior. It makes his life easier when the case or witnesses are weak.

It's also not true that defense attorneys are for soft on crime laws. He says if the time is easy, he's out of a job. Not many criminals would pay his prices to stay out of prison for 6 months, but they'll surely pay to stay out for 10 years.

 

[jamespowers]

i'd note for the record that around my area, the publcid efenders ROUTINELY whup the d.a.'s ass. Out of the last 20 trials in my office, about 15 were defense verdicts. the DA is SUPPOSED to win their cases. it's supposed to be WEIRD when the defense wins a case. so what is going on? foolish arrogant d.a.'s are going to trial with evidence less than that which will meet reasonable doubt standards. theya re throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks. d.a.s no longer feel bound to only bring cases where they are damn sure they are going to ge a verdict of guilty. they "go for it". that's not the way it's supposed to be. and it's wrong for the publci or the d.a.'s to whine about it when they lose. if they are going to bring oevrcharged, non-righteous cases, they are going to continue to get whupped roundly in court. the last 5 felony cases I did in NM resulted in 0 felony convictions. not because i'm a great lawyer...because the d.a. was proceeding on weak cases and not making offers to make the cases go away. this is the price of electing a bunch of posers who pretend to be "tough onc rime". the downside is that many other defendnats with somewhat less winnable cases will be emboldened to take their cases to trial....

Now this makes complete sense to me. I have seen it many times. District Attorney's in California are about as competent as ten year olds in court---in general. There are a few that I could mention but most think they are infallible. :rage:

Regards to all,

J