Page 1 of 1
Jurors reach verdict in Jackson trial!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted:
Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:53 pmby Ian
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jacks ... index.html
Any bets on whether or not he's guilty? I'm betting he'll get off.
Posted:
Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:38 pmby dolphinius_rex
the verdict is now in, he's not guilty for all charges.
Posted:
Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:53 pmby Ian
ARrghghghghg..
It's as bad as the damn OJ trial.
Posted:
Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:42 pmby Boba_Fett
That's just sick... someone (or more than one) got paid off big time. Sick bastard...
Posted:
Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:30 pmby dolphinius_rex
Boba_Fett wrote:That's just sick... someone (or more than one) got paid off big time. Sick bastard...
I doubt it, Jacko is in serious debt as it is.
Posted:
Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:55 pmby Spazmogen
Jackson probably had bets going in Vegas that he'd get off.
It's kind of like the whole 9/11 thing. The Al Quaida group bought millions of $ worth of call/put options knowing the market would tank after the strike. It nearly paid off for them, except a few bright eye's people in the US government caught it as it was happening. It's like paying someone to kick you in the nuts after they did it.
Posted:
Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:17 pmby jase
Now come on, the man might be perfectly innocent.
It sounds to me as if the jury had no choice really but to acquit... too much doubt about the prosecution case.
I think justice WAS done this time. It doesn't matter if Jackson did it or not, the prosecution services dropped the ball big-style.
Posted:
Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:29 amby LoneWolf
I think the most important issue in this (like the OJ trial) is the most important words you'd want to hear if you were on trial: Reasonable Doubt.
It's too bad it isn't applied fairly in all cases (there have been rape/murder trials based on circumstantial evidence where passions ran hot and generated a conviction) but I think the most important part of any murder trial is that a jury must be convinced that the person on trial is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The OJ trial didn't have enough evidence to do this, whether he was guilty or not. Apparently the same is true with the Michael Jackson trial. If I was a juror in a murder, rape, abuse, or otherwise violent crime case, I'd want all the facts in hand and I'd want a clear cut case with more than just a few circumstantial events. Without those two words, it would be far too easy for a jury to target their hatred of the crime committed against the defendant, whether he was guilty or innocent, and wrongly convict. Too often these days, people are presumed guilty by the public just because they are put on trial. My dislike of Michael Jackson aside, I think that presumption needs to end.