• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jackson Verdict Coming Right Up.

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Waiting for the verdict now. I think he walks.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unbelievable. :shock: Not Guilty on 10 counts.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Got away clean. :(
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Squawker said:
Unbelievable. :shock: Not Guilty on 10 counts.
Even the lessor alcohol charges..............unbelievable
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Has any celebrity been found guilty by a CA jury?

I sure know what lawyer to hire if I ever get in troubles...............
 

Rev.

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
530
Reaction score
55
Location
New England
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Once again a wealthy man buys his own verdict!
 

flip2

Active member
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
338
Reaction score
0
Location
Texan by Choice
I sure hope he changes. He just walked away from 18 years in prison. I really don't think he still understands the seriousness of the situation.
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah I thought he might walk, I just had that feeling. Even if he was guilty or not I thought he was walking. If he any sense he will stay way clear of children in the future, including his own. Not that he will molest them, but how can a man who thinks he's a kid be a good father?
 
S

sebastiansdreams

The problem I have with this is that he was given 10 felony charges, and he walked away from all of them clean. How improbable is that?
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Somebody who owns a book called "Sleeping with young boys" can't be not guilty...............................................
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution did not prove their case. Their one main witness was a woman with a history of lying and deception. There could've been no other verdict.

Much like the OJ Simpson case, it wasn't so much a great effort by the defense team, but a throroughly inept prosecution that allowed both OJ and....possibly M.J. to get off scot free. ( I say possibly, because I have no idea of the evidence presented in the MJ case, whereas, I've read "Outrage," by Vincent Bugliosi and it convinced me that OJ got off because the prosecution had their "heads stuck where the sun don't shine.")
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,914
Reaction score
6,029
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hoot said:
The prosecution did not prove their case. Their one main witness was a woman with a history of lying and deception. There could've been no other verdict.
What is sad, is that one of the jurors said that he probably done it. :(
 

Jack

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
flip2 said:
I sure hope he changes. He just walked away from 18 years in prison. I really don't think he still understands the seriousness of the situation.

It sickens me that people just presume he is guilty. He had a fair trail. He was found innocent by a jury. So maybe he is innocent.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As the person above said, it sickens me that everyone is presuming that he is guilty. The fact that he is not guilty by no means that he is innocent. It just means that the jury did not have the necessary quota to prove that he was guilty. We have a system where he has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The problem here is that there was. There was a whole heap of evidence, and basically, each piece of evidence had some doubt that was put upon it by the defense.

It was a brilliant case put on by Messau (spelling?) who was considered by many to be a decent but not brilliant litigator. Jackson's previous attorney had a better reputation than he did and he still won the case thanks to a great strategy. The defense realized it wasn't going to win by putting on its own case and trying to prove innocence, so they just put so much doubt that it was either going to be a deadlocked jury or a not guilty verdict.

Now, do I think it was the right decision. Yes and no. Legally, hell yes it was. The evidence just wasn't there and I believe this vendetta by the DA will now stop and he will likely be rightly kicked out of office. Morally? No. I do indeed believe that Jackson has a problem and should seek help to cure it.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
That seems to be beyond ALL doubt these days.

The prosecution did not prove their case. Their one main witness was a woman with a history of lying and deception. There could've been no other verdict.
She was not the "one" main witness, the boys who testified to his abuse were the main witnesses. The jurours just seemed to think that since they didn't like her Jackson should go free,

Much like the OJ Simpson case, it wasn't so much a great effort by the defense team,
The defense teams in both cases did an unbelievable job, and in both not one to be respected.

but a throroughly inept prosecution that allowed both OJ and....possibly M.J. to get off scot free.
You have jurours saying they think he did molest children but they still had some doubt, there again the "no doubt" versus reasonable doubt. Saying that pornographic material of young boys in the room he slept with young boys in the room with tubes of lubricant, testified to that it was used for mutual masturbation, lubicrant found on the magaiznes with the finger prints of the kids on them, just wasn't evidence to them. That testimony he showered naked with the kids just wasn't evidence to them. And the alcohol was a slam dunk, I've yet to see a reasonable explaination but a jurur on that one.

It was that mother shaking her finger at them that convinced the Jackson was innocent.
( I say possibly, because I have no idea of the evidence presented in the MJ case, whereas, I've read "Outrage," by Vincent Bugliosi and it convinced me that OJ got off because the prosecution had their "heads stuck where the sun don't shine.")
The prime reason OJ got off was because the judge let the trial get out of hand.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
That seems to be beyond ALL doubt these days.
No. Just no. You obviously didn't follow the trial at all. Almost every single witness had something against them that caused some doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt and looking at it from the outside, I saw no way for them to convict him.
She was not the "one" main witness, the boys who testified to his abuse were the main witnesses. The jurours just seemed to think that since they didn't like her Jackson should go free,
She had the most against her and the defense played that beautifully to make it seem like she was one of two main witnesses and used the fact that the jurors saw too much against her perfectly. It may not be great, but it is the legal system.
The defense teams in both cases did an unbelievable job, and in both not one to be respected.
Wait, how can they not be respected? They are doing their blipping jobs. The system wouldn't work without great lawyers who fight for their clients every step of the way. The judiciary would be a stamp for prosecutors without them.
You have jurours saying they think he did molest children but they still had some doubt, there again the "no doubt" versus reasonable doubt. Saying that pornographic material of young boys in the room he slept with young boys in the room with tubes of lubricant, testified to that it was used for mutual masturbation, lubicrant found on the magaiznes with the finger prints of the kids on them, just wasn't evidence to them. That testimony he showered naked with the kids just wasn't evidence to them. And the alcohol was a slam dunk, I've yet to see a reasonable explaination but a jurur on that one.
They don't have to give an explanation if they don't want to. There was so much reasonable doubt as to whether he molested that it is ridiculous. However, I agree with you on the alcohol, it befuddles me, but I will accept it. And if something wasn't evidence it was most likely (in the case of the showering) probably hearsay or unable to be let in-there was some legit reason for that.
It was that mother shaking her finger at them that convinced the Jackson was innocent.
Sure, listen, learn law.
The prime reason OJ got off was because the judge let the trial get out of hand.
Yes he did. At that time, the judge was newer to the court than this judge. This judge performed admirably and will probably have some things reversed, but in the end, he did a much better job than eto. But OJ's lawyer always gives great closings (may he rest in peace) and he put a lot of doubt on some very key witnesses...sound familiar?
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
I think he did it, but I do think that if the jury thought that there was reasonable doubt, they NEEDED to find him not guilty. Obviously they agonized over it--they deliberated for a long time. So actually, the system worked the way it was supposed to, just not the way many people WANTED it to.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
That seems to be beyond ALL doubt these days.


ShamMol said:
No. Just no. You obviously didn't follow the trial at all. Almost every single witness had something against them caused some dothat ubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt and looking at it from the outside, I saw no way for them to convict him.
Sometimes the obvious is not so obvious, I watched a great deal of it, the recreations and read enough of what was going on. Again the standard has moved from reasonable doubt to all doubt. He has a history of and a propensity to engage in sexual activity with young boys. So much so that he paid millions to keep one kid quiet and even after that kept up his practices.


She had the most against her and the defense played that beautifully to make it seem like she was one of two main witnesses and used the fact that the jurors saw too much against her perfectly. It may not be great, but it is the legal system.
But she wasn't on trial and she wasn't the victim was she.

Wait, how can they not be respected? They are doing their blipping jobs. The system wouldn't work without great lawyers who fight for their clients every step of the way. The judiciary would be a stamp for prosecutors without them.
Their job should be to see that justice is done, just as in the OJ case they certainly are free to twist and turn and spin and confused to get thier client off even if their client is guilty. I simply have no respect for lawyers who do use such tactics rather than the facts.

They don't have to give an explanation if they don't want to.
But they choose to so therefore thier explanations are free game for discussion.

There was so much reasonable doubt as to whether he molested that it is ridiculous.
It is so apparent that it is ridiculous. I think when ORiely pegged the juror on the homosexual magazines it showed how stretched these jurors were.
 

Fu_chick

Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
182
Reaction score
0
A defense attorney's job is to defend their client, guilty or not-it would be unethical to do anything less.
 
Top Bottom