What will the jury declare?

Unreal....

 

And the outcome will change my life because..........

 

NOT GUILTY on ALL Counts!!!

WOW. I thought he would be found guilty of (at least) the lesser counts (8-10).

 

Frankly, I am not surprised in the least. Our society's reluctance to convict beloved media stars has been demonstrated so often in the past as to make the Jackson verdict almost predictable. I was actually surprised that Martha Stewart received jail time.

I have never been to Neverland to witness Jackson's conduct with young boys. If he did not do what we was accused of doing, then the system has worked; if he was gulty, then the system has failed. Our system of justice routinely works and routinely fails. With its many flaws (most of them sitting on judges' chairs), I still know of no superior system in the world.

The fans cheering outside the courthouse know no better than you and I what really went on between Jackson and the young men. Ultimately, either Jackson or his accusers will have a higher authority upon which to answer.

Tony

 

I find the verdict reprehensible!

Let's hope he now keeps his promise to leave the country if found not guilty.


This whole episode is such a tragedy for someone so remarkably and incredibly talented.

Where is Shakespeare when you need him?

 

And, praytell, which country would take MJ?

 

"creepy" does not necessarily equate to "felonious".

 

There is only a handfull (no pun intended) of people that really know what happened. The truth is we will never really know...just like OJ

 

Ah! I was not exactly saying that he is "felonious," nor even necessarily even "creepy." Certainly, whether factually innocent or gotten off on a technicality, he is non-felonious under the law. Creepy, on the other hand, is debatable. But be that as it may, does any country need a reason for denying entry, whether that be "feloniousness" or "creepiness" or whatsoever else? Or can entry simply be denied, without explanation?

 

I'm not surprised in the least as well, but for different reasons. Ummm, they had no case! If your star witnesses are this mother and son, then you don't bring the case to trial until you have more than they had. They're schemers of the first degree. Clearly the police must have know this.

It appears that one officer (probably with good reason) has a vendetta against Mr. Jackson. While I can understand it, you still have to prove your case with believable witnesses.



Tom Nixon

 

Hi Jimmy,

I'm surprised that you're surprised. While I share your sentiment that he likely did something to some children (but I have no proof), look at the prosecution star witnesses. It was too easy for the defense to prove that they were not particularly believable.


Tom Nixon

 

Do you really have any doubt the guy (OJ) killed his wife together with that poor guy she was with?

The success of the defense of these celebrities is the "beyond reasonable doubt" clause. Their lawyers know how to exploit it in their benefit. If they had been lower profile cases, both OJ and MJ would have been convicted. And hung.

 

Personally, I've always wondered whether Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman fell a little bit behind in their cocaine payments.

 

Hello Tom,

You're 100% correct. The star witnesses were no stars at all! Jackson will continue to sleep with young boys and a credible witness will come forth eventually, I believe.

 

Mike Tyson (who lost to a bum Saturday night) and Scott Peterson are probably wondering what went wrong with their trials!

 

Oh, we know what happened with O.J. He killed those two people. A jury may have decided the state didn't make its case sufficiently to find it beyond a reasonable doubt, but whatever was the reasonable doubt? What evidence points to any other conclusion besides the fact he killed them?

A civil court, bound by standard of "preponderance of the evidence" determined he was more likely to have caused their deaths than not. How much more wasn't measured, of course, but you might draw an inference from the award: humongous.

Conversely, Michael Jackson wasn't found innocent. He was found not guilty, defined as "beyond a reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means the government didn't prove it to a sufficient level. Their case was too weak. Whether or not he's treated as an innocent man or a child molester will be in the eye of each beholder--the law has already expressed itself.

 

Scott Peterson's problem was that he wasn't really a celebrity until AFTER his wife seemed to vanish under mysterious circumstances.

 

Fine. Proof? None.

DNA, witnesses, injuries to O.J., gloves, blood, and so much more points right to him and no one else. The DNA alone should have convicted him. The odds of someone else's blood at the scene having the same DNA footprint as O.J.'s were like 10 billion to 1.

Oh, he did it alright. But the justice system has done far worse than let that guy go.

"This trial wasn't about race; it was about fame. If O.J. drove a bus, he'd just be 'O.J. the bus-driving murderer." Chris Rock

 

Ah, but the glove didn't fit!

 

Sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to insert a tongue-in-cheek smiley. But I think the real reason the Juice got loose was Detective Mark Furman's credibility problem.