Jackson Not Guilty

[Merlin]

Why are so many people blaming the jury for failing to convict Michael Jackson? Why aren't they blaming the overzealous prosecutor for presenting a weak and flawed case?
Most sensible people know MJ was guilty as charged. The evidence was there. The trouble is, it was horribly presented.
In America, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since there were so many holes and flaws in the Jackson case, the jury was required to find him not guilty.
Not innocent, mind you, but not guilty.
Same thing happened in the Kobe Bryant trial. Some idiot screwed it up, and he walked.

Part of your quote says "Most sensible people know MJ was guilty as charged. The evidence was there. The trouble is, it was horribly presented." I interpret that to mean that you are saying that there was no sensible people on the jury. (I'm inclined to agree with that) If the evidence was there, the jury could have/should have convicted regardless how it was presented, or even if it was presented at all. Horribly presented? Not at all. Jury nullification because of star status.

 

[Nienna]

Has anyone read anything about his own kids? Is he going to keep his own kids?

 

[Adam's Apple]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050614/OPINION02/306140001/...

 

[Adam's Apple]

Faultless Nation
By Cal Thomas
June 15, 2005

Geraldo Rivera's mustache is safe. The television personality had pledged to shave it off if Michael Jackson had been found guilty of child molestation. Geraldo had nothing to fear.

Cable TV went berserk. The predictions were mostly wrong and the analysis was idiotic. One of O.J. Simpson's attorneys, Robert Shapiro, predicted on CNN that the jury would convict Jackson. Legal analyst Wendy Murphy confidently prophesied to Fox's Shepard Smith, "I think there is no question we will see convictions here."

One verdict is indisputable: Michael Jackson is a very sick man who needs help. Those who see Jackson as a cash cow are not about to get it for him. They will continue to use him for their own purposes until his fame, which has morphed into infamy, is drained of its remaining monetary value. They will then discard him like a soft drink can, leaving him to consume and to be consumed by his own "Jesus juice."

What was missing in virtually all of the commentary and analysis of the verdict was how this case reflects America's moral climate. The narcissistic generation has come full circle, from indulging children to abusing them; from setting standards to removing all taboos. Nothing is wrong any longer, because nothing is right.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas1.asp

 

[krisy]

Why are so many people blaming the jury for failing to convict Michael Jackson? Why aren't they blaming the overzealous prosecutor for presenting a weak and flawed case?
Most sensible people know MJ was guilty as charged. The evidence was there. The trouble is, it was horribly presented.
In America, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since there were so many holes and flaws in the Jackson case, the jury was required to find him not guilty.
Not innocent, mind you, but not guilty.
Same thing happened in the Kobe Bryant trial. Some idiot screwed it up, and he walked.

I have to agree with Merlin,Gab. If the evidence as there,he should have been convicted. I think blaming the prosecutor is way off. The jury has pretty much come out and said they think he did it,but didn't like his mother. One juror even said he didn't like how she snapped her fingers at him. That should have had nothing to do with it. This verdict did nothing but tell Michael Jackson that he can go on living in his fantasy world,breaking laws and doing whatever he wants and no one will do a thing about it.

I saw the prosecutor on MSNBC yesterday doing an interview with Rita Cosby(who apparently left Fox?). I would not call him overzealous at all. Since MJ's last round in 93,he said he has had many calls regarding the issue and never taken them. He had the opportunity to write a book for a million bucks...turned it down. This guy has been a prosecutor for 37 years,and he knows what he was doing. Although I believe that many prosecutors are to quick to rush something to trial,I don't believe that is the cae here. He also stated that there were not 100 search warrants. More media bull. The man was doing his job,and if this were an ordinary joe blow,everyone would have been saying "fry him,he HAS to be guilty!!!".

 

[Gabriella84]

If you know about Santa Barbara County, you know that the residents there are extremely conservative. Very few people enjoyed the Michael Jackson trial or the fan base it drew.
This is what the prosecutor was drawing on. He felt that whatever case he presented would be accepted by the jury. But he presented a case that was badly flawed. Many of his witnesses proved to be more sympathetic to MJ than the defense. His star witness, the boy's mother, alienated the jury with her behavior and inconsistent testimony.
MJ's defense, the best his money could buy, presented a much stronger case. They attacked the credibility of the witnesses, as opposed to the charges. That created the shadow of a doubt needed for acquittal.
There was no "star power" at work here. No member of the jury liked Michael Jackson. Many found him repulsive and felt he was guilty of some abuse. The trouble is, the prosecution was unable to prove it.
The Los Angeles Times has done an exhaustive series of stories and follow-ups since the verdict was announced. It is interesting reading.

 

[William Joyce]

One juror even said he didn't like how she snapped her fingers at him. That should have had nothing to do with it.

I don't know. You would be amazed at how little stuff like that can set off jurors. And they are entitled, as jurors, to use those reactions and emotions to judge a person's credibility. The judges in New York tell jurors, "whatever you use in your everyday lives to judge credibility, use here in court."

I read somewhere that the mother tried "winking" to a Hispanic on the jury to go along. He didn't like it.

 

[GotZoom]

If several jurors concluded MJ did it, but then said the evidence didn't support finding a guilty verdict on the charges, then how did they conclude he did it?

If I walk into a trial, open minded, and there is enough evidence to make me think he did it, then I will have to say guilty on the charge.

Isn't that what the trial is all about? Convince the jury he is either guilty or innocent of the charges.

How can you be on the trial, say you think he did it, but not find him guilty.

 

[Eightball]

Are you saying that the Potter planned for this pedophile to putter with pediatric penises?

No.

I probably used an illustration that didn't completly go with my post.

Let's just say, that Michael Jackson may think that he got away with something, and is now exonerated, but in the eyes of his maker(potter), M.J.(Clay) is still at the mercy of the (potter), and will ultimately answer either here on earth or later on.

The old Potter and Clay Metaphor from the bible has been used for eons to describe how man thinks he can dictate his own way, but ultimately, he's never out of the omnipotent control of God.

I think I may have mis-used M.J.'s situation, since the Potter and Clay is usually used for those that are "trying" to seek God, yet falter via their own folleys that aren't in God's best interest for them.

I doubt M.J. is seeking anything but, himself, and his own skewed gratification. He's one messed up person.

For those victims of M.J., God hasn't abandoned them, but holds something very special them. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, illustrates our makers mercy for those that suffer innocently or suffer when doing what is in God's will.

This is where many question their maker. They can't fathom how He allows children to be victims of "M.J."'s, but remember that in this fallen world, a master-plan is being worked out through all of these injustices. All will answer ultimately. Earth is just a staging(character developing) place in His scheme.

I don't say these things lightly, as I have endured many life threatening scenarios with one of my three sons, who has endured two kidney transplants. Life hasn't been fair to me as my father was a full-blown Alcoholic, but through those hard times, it has changed my attitude to finally see that I don't have the control ultimately, and the more that I just rest in God's care, and quit worrying over things, the more I'm able to be caring to those that are in need, and less a worrier.

M.J. will get his day, even if Man's courts, fail to judge rightly.

 

[William Joyce]

If several jurors concluded MJ did it, but then said the evidence didn't support finding a guilty verdict on the charges, then how did they conclude he did it?

If I walk into a trial, open minded, and there is enough evidence to make me think he did it, then I will have to say guilty on the charge.

Isn't that what the trial is all about? Convince the jury he is either guilty or innocent of the charges.

How can you be on the trial, say you think he did it, but not find him guilty.

It's tough to sift through, but the jury has to ask, on the evidence presented, was there reasonable doubt? I mean, you and I could sit here and say we think he did it. But a juror can't just go by that --- they have to weigh all the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We didn't get to see them testify, and maybe if we had, we wouldn't think the verdict was so crazy.

But that's just the legal analysis. That fruitcake should be barred from being within 100 yards of a child for the rest of his life.

 

[manu1959]

Why are so many people blaming the jury for failing to convict Michael Jackson? Why aren't they blaming the overzealous prosecutor for presenting a weak and flawed case?
Most sensible people know MJ was guilty as charged. The evidence was there. The trouble is, it was horribly presented.
In America, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Since there were so many holes and flaws in the Jackson case, the jury was required to find him not guilty.
Not innocent, mind you, but not guilty.
Same thing happened in the Kobe Bryant trial. Some idiot screwed it up, and he walked.

if "most sensible people knew he was guilty and the evidence was there" and the burden of proof is reasonable doubt (not shadow of a doubt) then there is no one to blame but the jury ..... as your own argument takes the prosecutor and the presentaion of the material out of play ....

 

[GotZoom]

It's tough to sift through, but the jury has to ask, on the evidence presented, was there reasonable doubt? I mean, you and I could sit here and say we think he did it. But a juror can't just go by that --- they have to weigh all the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We didn't get to see them testify, and maybe if we had, we wouldn't think the verdict was so crazy.

But that's just the legal analysis. That fruitcake should be barred from being within 100 yards of a child for the rest of his life.

But the juror said he was convinced MJ did it; therefore, the evidence was clear.

 

[manu1959]

But the juror said he was convinced MJ did it; therefore, the evidence was clear.

best i can figure the jury "didn't like" the mom or the prosecutor.....so they made it a popularity contest

 

[da_minataur]

Bottom line is this......many guilty ones, do get set free, because our legal system is designed to only convict when there is practically, no shadow of doubt.

Our legal system may have been designed to only convict when there is no shadow of doubt, but it has been modified to only convict when the defendant has no money.

 

[Annie]

Our legal system may have been designed to only convict when there is no shadow of doubt, but it has been modified to only convict when the defendant has no money.

Wrong, no REASONABLE DOUBT. Can't argue about the money part, mostly agree with ya there.

 

[Eightball]

Yes, Public Defenders aren't high profile/high paid lawyers, and as a result, the average "shmoe" doesn't necessarily get the defense that $$$ brings.

Never the less, many P.D.'s do a very good job for the average man/woman.

I guess we could equal the playing field and make it mandatory that all defendents of all monetary class must take the old lottery pick of Public Defenders, just like the rest of us.

I wonder what the ramifications would be?

 

[nosarcasm]

Yes, Public Defenders aren't high profile/high paid lawyers, and as a result, the average "shmoe" doesn't necessarily get the defense that $$$ brings.

Never the less, many P.D.'s do a very good job for the average man/woman.

I guess we could equal the playing field and make it mandatory that all defendents of all monetary class must take the old lottery pick of Public Defenders, just like the rest of us.

I wonder what the ramifications would be?

socialism

 

[Eightball]

socialism

I know, I know, I know.........etc. etc. etc.

I'm not advocating socialism. I was just saying that ending paid defense lawyers would probably satisfy those that can't or won't be happy with anything but what others have.

My grandfather came from a socialist country(Sweden), and he had the worst case of class envy, and also hated Jews. He was the common working man of Sweden.

Socialism is the bane of creativity, and it's more evil brother Marxism is more-so.

Many of the have-nots, will always want an equal playing field, but if that ever happens, our society will be flushable, like excrement. i.e. China, North Korea. We will all be a bunch of worker ants, or welfare ants.....with absolutely no ambitions, but to survive.

The principle of hard work to attain something better is foreign to those that preach class envy.

Personally, I think that wherever we are at, we need to start being thankfull for what we have, and stop wanting what others have(class jealousy).

 

[nosarcasm]

the biggest problem with socialism is the mentality it creates in some.

They want the government to take care of them. So they slack
of because they know in the worst case they are protected
by some government program. I lived in Germany for 30 years
so I was "privilegded" to see it with my own eyes.

Government programs lead to more government interference
with our personal life. And I do resent that a lot.

For moral reasons I support a stripped down kind of universal
medicaid program. That only old people get all the handsout
is ridicilous. That medicaid program should be limited to something
like 3% of your payroll. No Viagra and expensive stuff covered
just the basics.

But maybe my socialist upbringing it talking

But I made the personal experience that when I lived transitional
with a room mate that his lack of health insurance and his
pride killed him. He had a accident and was treated for it and owed
em 500$. When he had breathing problems he did not dare to
go to the hospital again. He died the next morning. Bloodclod
in the lungs according to the medical examiner. A 100$ treatment
would have saved his life.

I prefer we give out that kind of basic assurance to people.

 

[Johnney]

Our legal system may have been designed to only convict when there is no shadow of doubt, but it has been modified to only convict when the defendant has no money.

im going to have to agree with you for the most part. justice does prevail sometimes for the not rich person.
it just goes to show that life is like a shit sandwhich, the more bread you have the less shit you eat.