• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

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.
 
Unbelievable. :shock: Not Guilty on 10 counts.
 
Got away clean. :(
 
Squawker said:
Unbelievable. :shock: Not Guilty on 10 counts.
Click to expand...

Even the lessor alcohol charges..............unbelievable
 
Has any celebrity been found guilty by a CA jury?

I sure know what lawyer to hire if I ever get in troubles...............
 
Once again a wealthy man buys his own verdict!
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Somebody who owns a book called "Sleeping with young boys" can't be not guilty...............................................
 
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.")
 
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.
Click to expand...

What is sad, is that one of the jurors said that he probably done it. :(
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Hoot said:
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.")
Click to expand...

The prime reason OJ got off was because the judge let the trial get out of hand.
 
Stinger said:
That seems to be beyond ALL doubt these days.
Click to expand...
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,
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Sure, listen, learn law.
The prime reason OJ got off was because the judge let the trial get out of hand.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
A defense attorney's job is to defend their client, guilty or not-it would be unethical to do anything less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom