|
Title: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: WayAbvPar on June 13, 2005, 02:32:44 PM Mike gets off (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/index.html).
Fuck. This is OJ all over again. Money turns guilt into reasonable doubt. I was really looking forward to hearing horror stories from jail about the King of Pop being forced to toss salads for survival. At least the fucker is broke. Maybe he can fight Mike Tyson on PPV so both of them can get out of debt. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Signe on June 13, 2005, 02:37:49 PM They'll get him next time. You know there will be a next time... there always is with him.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 13, 2005, 02:38:25 PM MJ is not broke. He owns a shitload of rights to Beatles music. Even after paying back loans that he's taken out against his interest, he'll still have millions to seduce little boys with over in Europe.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 13, 2005, 02:38:43 PM They'll get him next time. You know there will be a next time... there always is with him. Not in this country. He'll be leaving the US as soon as he can. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: shiznitz on June 13, 2005, 02:51:31 PM They'll get him next time. You know there will be a next time... there always is with him. Not in this country. He'll be leaving the US as soon as he can. I will believe it when I see it. I will also welcome it. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2005, 02:52:51 PM Though disappointed, I'm not at all surprised by this. He had enough money and clout to turn witness heads and keep people from dropping dime in the convincing ways. The thing that really would have made the DA's case would have been to get his handlers and sycophants, the fuckers who KNOW what went on and help him cover shit up daily, to turn state's evidence. But without them, it was a he said/it said situation.
What I find truly unbelievable is how many people still find this fucker entertaining or in anyway trustworthy? How much more shit do you need to see before you believe? Does he actually need to sodomize boys in a new video before you will buy it? Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Fabricated on June 13, 2005, 03:00:46 PM I doubted he would get nailed on anything but the alcohol charges, but they didn't even get him on that.
I can't say I'm surprised, but if he stays in the US, we will see this again. Child abuse is a pattern, and if he is really an offender, he'll do it again. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Mesozoic on June 13, 2005, 03:09:09 PM Money turns guilt into reasonable doubt. I would say that celebrity turns guilt into reasonable doubt. Most defendents are nameless sods that the jury knows in only one context: The Accused. But celebrity mimics friendship, and even the weirdest well-known person is at least a person in the eyes of a jury. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2005, 03:17:56 PM Agreed on the not surprising part. Stories I'd heard on the radio illustrated problems on the prosecutorial side time and again. i.e. The prosecutor said this witness will be here, or that witness will say such and such, yet neither ever materialized. Not just one or two times, but several a week during their case presentation. Maybe it was because Jackon's lawyers managed to wrangle some squelching, or maybe it was because the prosecutor was a dunce. Either way it was written on the wall at the end of the state's case that Jacson was going to get away with it.
Yeah, he'll move to Europe, and then all you can hope is that one of the parents takes matters into their own hands. Of course, since they're the chucklefucks putting their kids into this situation in the first place, I wouldn't bet on that either. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Pococurante on June 13, 2005, 03:25:59 PM There were a lot of reasons to suspect the family of extortion/fraud. I don't just mean some of the over the top lengths the defense went to - there were events that were in the public domain.
But that doesn't mean he's genuinely innocent either. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: jwinston2 on June 13, 2005, 03:28:53 PM (http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/2152/2179.jpg)
How did they not find him guilty? This is just sad. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Llava on June 13, 2005, 04:10:41 PM I'm not saying he's not crazy, and I'm not saying he's innocent, but with what I know (which is probably about what you all know, which is, let's be honest, not all that much) I couldn't say that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, I suspect, but we don't convict on suspicion. So unless there's some serious evidence that hasn't been put out to the public that shows Jackson as irrevocably guilty, I can't blame them for returning the verdict they did.
Mostly, I was surprised that he had straight porn. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Triforcer on June 13, 2005, 04:42:41 PM I'm not saying he's not crazy, and I'm not saying he's innocent, but with what I know (which is probably about what you all know, which is, let's be honest, not all that much) I couldn't say that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, I suspect, but we don't convict on suspicion. So unless there's some serious evidence that hasn't been put out to the public that shows Jackson as irrevocably guilty, I can't blame them for returning the verdict they did. Mostly, I was surprised that he had straight porn. I'm not. Mentally, he's a ten year old- so he fluctuates between extremely faint attraction to women and the kind of shit that would mortify a mental thirteen year old, but that you don't know is 100% wrong at 10. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Nazrat on June 13, 2005, 04:58:58 PM Mostly, I was surprised that he had straight porn. You expected him to lure little boys with goatsex? He has to use what appears to be normal to the boys not something that will shock them. That shocking part occurs later on. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Trippy on June 13, 2005, 05:13:42 PM The major problem with the prosecution's case is that they didn't have any "smoking gun" evidence a la a semen-stained piece of clothing or the like. Even in the OJ trial they had some good physical evidence (which the Defense managed to masterfully discredit). So the whole trial just seemed to be a "he said/he said" kind of thing.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Riggswolfe on June 13, 2005, 05:14:38 PM Well, I am like many. I suspect Jackson may have done it. I would never let my child sleep at his house.
But, This isn't OJ. OJ was clearly guilty by all reckoning and the Prosecution dropped the ball. That and I think people were scared of more riots. However, the accuser and his mother were about as believable as some oily snakeoil salesman. 1) There were timeline issues. Some of them very serious. Like they said he started molesting the boy after he made that documentary and had so many eyes on him. MJ would have to be totally stupid to do it then. 2) The mother has zero credibility. None. 3) Many witness issues, like disgruntled former employees saying he did it. Well, duh, sure. They're mad at him. 4) Other boys saying he never touched them, including Macauley Culkin. I'd have voted the same as the jury I think. Michael may have done it, but this trial sure didn't prove it. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Evil Elvis on June 13, 2005, 07:51:15 PM I'm really not 100% convinced he did it, but there's so many people who were around him saying it's true, it's hard to believe it's not. I don't buy that so many people are willing to lie under oath - especially with all the public scrutiny they've been under - just to enact some vendetta against him.
That said, it's fucking disgusting how naive and shallow people can be. Anyone who has or would let their child get into bed with this freak, and all the people outside the courthouse (and elsewhere) cheering on this possible child molester should be violently raped with an electric egg beater, and forced to lick the metal whips clean. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Abagadro on June 13, 2005, 08:52:25 PM If the prosecutor and civil attorney that represented the prior paid-off kid and this one hadn't made a cottage industry of going after Jackson, I would give it a bit more credence. (There was a good article a long time ago in Vanity Fair or something about how shakey and weird the first accusation was, like that the kid only made it after being put in deep hynosis by a dentist or some weird shit). Throw in that the victims family could be played in the movie version by John Cusack and Anjelica Houston and the case is starting off in a very deep hole. Always seemed like bizzare behavior, but reasonable doubt from what I read about.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: schild on June 13, 2005, 09:04:25 PM That's the real issue here. Reasonable doubt. It was there. OJ was not that way. That's really the only conversation that needs to be had on the subject.
Furthermore, I listened to HIStory earlier this week. It still kicks ass. Neh. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Kenrick on June 13, 2005, 09:11:26 PM Gay.
(there, I posted. happy schild?) Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: schild on June 13, 2005, 09:27:42 PM Well played.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 13, 2005, 10:09:39 PM In the words of my boy Chapelle, he made Thriller. 'Nuff said.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Tebonas on June 13, 2005, 11:09:55 PM I thought he would get off easy, like being sent to a mental institution for being as screwed up in the head as he is. That they play the "He was a victim himself, blablabla, understandingcakes".
The reasonable doubt disgusts me, but doesn't really surprise. Child molester cases are always a wee bit shakey in the presentation, with children repressing such experiences, feeling guilty because they think they are to blame instead of the molester, aren't sure that the "misunderstood" the intentions of the molester and it was all harmless. All the coping mechanisms of rape victims, but worse. A woman may rationalize it away, but at least she knows there was something wrong happening instead of getting told by other people that what they experienced wasn't ok. There just isn't the same belief in your accusation if you aren't sure yourself. You tend to sound phoney and staged. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Llava on June 14, 2005, 12:37:16 AM I heard some guy on CNN saying that he was surprised the jury wasn't more influenced by the fact that this had been brought up before, that they focused so much on this particular case which was, admittedly, weak.
Uh, duh? Correct me if I'm wrong, and I might be, but I thought that was the idea. If he wasn't convicted on previous charges, it seems like it would be a bad idea to focus on that and assume guilt. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 07:25:41 AM From Day 1, any sane person knew they shouldn't have brough this case to the front. This DA went with weak material from the first day and continued to screw the pooch until the final verdict. There was just nothing concrete that would satisfy the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: AOFanboi on June 14, 2005, 08:26:04 AM MJ is not broke. He owns a shitload of rights to Beatles music. I heard on the news that he doesn't: All of those rights apparently have been used as collateral for money he loaned from Sony to finance his excessive lifestyle. So if he goes broke, Sony can do what they want with that material, e.g. have Shakira sing Eleanor Rigby while dancing salsa.Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2005, 08:44:22 AM The major problem with the prosecution's case is that they didn't have any "smoking gun" evidence a la a semen-stained piece of clothing or the like. Even in the OJ trial they had some good physical evidence (which the Defense managed to masterfully discredit). So the whole trial just seemed to be a "he said/he said" kind of thing. That's the problem with a case like this. There isn't going to be. Years ago, I did my first and only turn at jury duty on a fondling case. Fondling as in, supposedly this 9-year old girl's 20-something cousin touched her inappropriately without ever actually molesting the child. There was NO physical evidence. None whatsoever. There were no eyewitness accounts. The ADA prosecuting the case was a bubba-fied young redneck who looked like he should be a mall security guard, and really bungled the case. The little girl's testimony was shaky, and lacked any details whatsoever to hang something on. The defense attorney was slick and sleazy. The case only took about 3 days of trial and deliberation before we returned a mistrial on a hung jury. About half the jury was willing to go with guilty, the other half, including me, was not. The case was totally unconvincing but in the instructions to the jury and the closing arguments, the judge and the ADA both cautioned that there would be no smoking gun in this case, no hard physical evidence you could rely on. Later, after the case was dismissed on the mistrial, I told my mom about it. Apparently, the defendent worked at her school on the janitorial staff, and she was sure he was guilty, "Because he's creepy and I could see him doing that." So maybe he was. But without an excellent DA prosecuting that kind of thing, he wasn't going to convince 12 people of it. And in the case of MJ, with tons of money, and all the weirdo association that celebrity brings, not a chance in hell he'd have been convicted without that smoking gun, like signs of rape. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 08:46:55 AM Money may not buy happiness, but it can sure as hell buy freedom.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: ClydeJr on June 14, 2005, 08:58:59 AM Jackson 'to change his lifestyle' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4091990.stm)
Quote Michael Jackson's lawyer said the singer will no longer share his bed with young boys, after the star was cleared of 10 child abuse charges. "He's not going to do that any more," lawyer Thomas Mesereau told US network NBC. "He's not going to make himself vulnerable to this any more." So he decides to stop sleeping with little boys after he is found not guilty of child molestation instead of when he was first accused years ago... Quote Civil rights activist Reverend Jesse Jackson said the singer had been "tried and convicted in the newsroom". But Rev Jackson added: "Michael must assess the implications of the conduct that got him into trouble." Translation: "Michael, you might think about cancelling that NAMBLA membership..." Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Murgos on June 14, 2005, 09:13:56 AM Quote Civil rights activist Reverend Jesse Jackson said the singer had been "tried and convicted in the newsroom". But Rev Jackson added: "Michael must assess the implications of the conduct that got him into trouble." Translation: "Michael, you might think about cancelling that NAMBLA membership..." Actually I think he was tried and convicted in the court of public perception. If he had lived a clean and somewhat normal life (for the king of pop anyway) for the last 20 years everyone would probably assume it was a setup to squeeze some cash out of MJ. But since hes a weirdo freak of the first order of his own making, well, he loses that 'benefit of the doubt' thing. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: kaid on June 14, 2005, 09:29:33 AM Its so hard to say with MJ if he did this or if he is just that damn weird. His biggest issue is almost everything he does and the way he does it appears inapropriate. Eventually if he keeps behaving like this he will be put away even if he really isn't doing anything. His behavior is creepy and way outside the norm and eventually the mob with pitchforks and torchs are going to chase him out of town.
kaid Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 14, 2005, 10:34:51 AM I'd still like to address the fucking parents in ALL 10 CASES. Who lets their little boy spend the night with a man who has a reputation for nutso and a history of molestation accusation? Someone wearing a moneyhat, that's who. Those sick fucks were basically pimping their kids, and no one wants to talk about that.
Also, Haem, while I agree with the decision you made as a juror (no evidence is no evidence), if your little girl was the one who had been "inappropriately touched", I bet you'd think it was molestation. A kid doesn't have to be penetrated to be a victim. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 10:39:43 AM I'd still like to address the fucking parents in ALL 10 CASES. Who lets their little boy spend the night with a man who has a reputation for nutso and a history of molestation accusation? Someone wearing a moneyhat, that's who. Those sick fucks were basically pimping their kids, and no one wants to talk about that. Also, Haem, while I agree with the decision you made as a juror (no evidence is no evidence), if your little girl was the one who had been "inappropriately touched", I bet you'd think it was molestation. A kid doesn't have to be penetrated to be a victim. The parents are dumb and greedy. As for, if this was your kid, agrument...I think we just assertained that normal people wouldn't put their kids in this scenario. Haemish is far from normal, but he's semi-sane. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 14, 2005, 10:43:04 AM Edit: I was referring to the 9 year old girl who got touched by her 20-year old cousin. Most people wouldn't question that until something bad happens.
I bet even some people who thought MJ was innocent wouldn't put their children in that situation! Hey, Paelos, haven't posted near you in awhile. How you doin'? Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 10:46:41 AM I quit my job, started contributing here, and boycotted the Politics forum.
How you doin'? Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 14, 2005, 10:51:23 AM Eerily stunned by coincidence. I'm leaving my job at the end of the week and will start contributing too (so I can justify to myself playing for 8 hours straight).
Speaking of which, I need to start an Ohmygah! Kirby's Canvas Curse! thread. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 14, 2005, 10:53:44 AM I quit my job, started contributing here, and boycotted the Politics forum. How you doin'? Congratulations on being jobless! Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 11:04:57 AM I quit my job, started contributing here, and boycotted the Politics forum. How you doin'? Congratulations on being jobless! Thanks, I'm heading to Colorado to play golf and be a bum for a while. Also to write. Expect more updates on that situation as I get closer to finding an agent. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 14, 2005, 11:11:00 AM I quit my job, started contributing here, and boycotted the Politics forum. How you doin'? Congratulations on being jobless! Thanks, I'm heading to Colorado to play golf and be a bum for a while. Also to write. Expect more updates on that situation as I get closer to finding an agent. Remember, it's never too late to turn to Scientology. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 14, 2005, 11:41:18 AM Quote from: CBC Jackson 'probably' molested boys: juror (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/14/newjackson-verdict050614.html) Last Updated Tue, 14 Jun 2005 10:57:21 EDT CBC News A member of a California jury that acquitted pop star Michael Jackson of molesting a 13-year-old boy said he believes the singer "probably has molested boys," but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. "I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn," Raymond Hultman said in an interview on Larry King Live. "I mean, that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision." Jackson has admitted to having what he characterizes as innocent sleepovers with children. On Monday, a jury in California acquitted Jackson of molesting a 13-year-old boy, finding him not guilty on all 10 charges, including conspiring to keep the boy and his family on the grounds of the estate and giving alcohol to a minor. Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson's allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including two who took the stand. (One of those boys testified that Jackson had not molested him.) But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. Hultman also told the Associated Press that he was one of three people on the jury who voted to acquit only after being persuaded by the others that there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer's guilt in this particular case. "That's not to say he's an innocent man," Hultman, 62, said of Jackson. "He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with," he said, adding he had doubts about the accuser's credibility. Some jurors admitted they were bothered that Jackson would have sleepovers with children. "We would hope first of all that he doesn't sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they're called down there," said jury foreman Paul Rodriguez. Jurors said they all agreed prosecutors had simply not proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. "It was just not enough," said a woman who identified herself as Juror No. 10. "We expected probably better evidence, something that was a little more convincing. And it just wasn't there," she said. Rodriguez said jurors found the accuser's version of events inconsistent with testimony offered by other members of his family. Some jurors also said they disliked the accuser's mother and said they doubted her credibility. "I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman, who declined to give her name. Another juror said she was troubled that the accuser's mother allowed her son to sleep alone with Jackson. The verdict ends four months of arguments that cast the 46-year-old singer as either an eccentric child molester who lured children to his ranch or an innocent victim of an extortion attempt by the mother of the 13-year-old cancer survivor. If, as a juror, you think he did it, DO NOT VOTE NOT GUILTY. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: WayAbvPar on June 14, 2005, 11:48:22 AM The jury system is so broken in America it isn't funny. If you get any 'important' case that will take more than a week or two, you are left with the bottom of the barrel for potential jurors. Normal productive members of society can't take 2 months off from work to sit on a jury. Instead, we end up with the chronically underemployed, the welfare recipients, the very old and retired, etc. In many cases, they are less educated (and thus have not developed critical thinking skills), which makes them easier to sway with emotion and hyperbole.
Insert Haemish-coined obscenity in enormous red letters here. Repeat. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 14, 2005, 11:57:39 AM America is broken. Let's start over.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Evil Elvis on June 14, 2005, 12:15:28 PM Triumph outside the courthouse. (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12)
It's delicious. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2005, 12:36:08 PM Also, Haem, while I agree with the decision you made as a juror (no evidence is no evidence), if your little girl was the one who had been "inappropriately touched", I bet you'd think it was molestation. A kid doesn't have to be penetrated to be a victim. If it was my kid, relative or not, the first instinct would have been to kneecap the fucker and then call the police. Ooooops, officer, I don't know how he gots dem broken kneecaps. That said, as a juror, one has to attempt to be somewhat impartial. Frankly, I looked the guy up and down, and couldn't have said from instinct one way or the other whether he was guilty. I needed convincing, something logical, something to hang my hat on. And unfortunately, there wasn't enough. I saw the parents of the girl in the court room after, and they looked disappointed, to say the least. But in a court of law, we have to attempt to control the emotional side and let the logical side be our guide, because emotions are way too easily swayed. One of the jurors was a big guy who worked at the county prison as a guard. He deals with prisoners all day. He wanted to acquit for the same reasons, and he added that other prisoners will absolutely torture any criminals that are sent to jail on charges of assualting kids sexually. He emphasized that child molesters are as likely to get shivved as get a hot meal in prison, and that were he to knowingly sentence someone to that, he'd want to be damn sure this guy did it. He wasn't. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 14, 2005, 12:38:11 PM But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: HaemishM on June 14, 2005, 12:58:26 PM Triumph outside the courthouse. (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12) It's delicious. That was almost as good as the Star Wars geek segment. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Dren on June 14, 2005, 01:00:12 PM But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury. Have you been part of a jury before? I'm doubting it from your comments. Suspicion is not even near enough. You are directed by the judge to ONLY weigh the evidence given in the trial. People are not in court to prove their innocence. The prosecutors are there to prove his guilt. The juror that mentioned he "felt" that MJ did do something wrong did the right thing since the prosecution failed to prove it. It is easy to look at people and judge them immediately and then make them prove to you that they are fine upstanding chaps. That isn't how our system works, however. You ARE innocent until PROVEN guilty. I was on a jury for a rape case. It was all he said, she said since it was just the too of them in a car someplace. That is until she was instructed by the detective assigned to her case to tape record her conversation with the guy (he was a friend of a friend of hers.) The tape was admitted into evidence and that was THE smoking gun. We would have let the guy go until we heard that tape. He basically admitted to raping her and asked her not to go to the cops about it. That man (19 year old at the time) is still in jail after 4 years. I felt justice was served, and that he deserved everything he got. However, I found it kind of hard to be the actual one (of 12) to decide his fate. It's soooo much easier to sit in front of the TV screen and armchair quarterback it. I still get a sick feelig in my stomach when I think of it all. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 14, 2005, 01:06:51 PM Triumph outside the courthouse. (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12) It's delicious. That was almost as good as the Star Wars geek segment. Gawd that was hilarious! Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: WayAbvPar on June 14, 2005, 01:41:24 PM Triumph outside the courthouse. (http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12) It's delicious. Classic. Absolutely classic. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Azazel on June 15, 2005, 05:58:25 AM GF and I just watched it, I almost choked!
:-D Gotta love Triumph! Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: El Gallo on June 15, 2005, 09:19:53 AM It reads to me that the juror is saying "I think this guy does some bizarre but not illegal stuff, and I think that this guy probably did some illegal stuff in the past, but there's no convincing evidence that he did the particular illegal stuff he was charged with doing in this case" which makes him a better juror than I thought existed.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Abagadro on June 15, 2005, 12:21:30 PM For all the crap juries get, they are remarkably good instruments of justice. They have good bullshit detectors and generally take the job seriously. In fact, most times I think juries make better decisions than judges. You only hear about the really weird abberations (i.e. O.J.) and I don't really think this qualifies.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Yegolev on June 15, 2005, 12:31:30 PM It reads to me that the juror is saying "I think this guy does some bizarre but not illegal stuff, and I think that this guy probably did some illegal stuff in the past, but there's no convincing evidence that he did the particular illegal stuff he was charged with doing in this case" which makes him a better juror than I thought existed. You will be happy to hear that this is what went on in the room when I was jurying a murder case. A homeless person is killed, last words reportedly that "Lil Bro" did it... of course how many Lil Bros are there in the ATL? So the cops picked up the first black guy with khaki shorts and green t-shirt they find. This guy was high as a fucking kite in the mug shot. An old, overall-wearing black man on the jury wanted to put this sap in prison because "he might not have done this, but he will one day" or something along those lines. I had to point out that we were not in there to screw around with someone like that. The prosecutor had zero evidence; even the people who spoke to the victim didn't have any idea who the hell Lil Bro was. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, but we are not going to condemn someone just because we don't like how the guy looks. Shortly after that they decided to appoint me foreman. Bleh. Anyway, we went not guilty for obvious reasons. I also learned a few things about bullet wounds, that someone with an IQ of 43 could easily make detective, and sometimes even the worst public defender gets a win. I'm actually sorry I have only done the jury thing once, but not everything is a murder trial, even in Atlanta. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Riggswolfe on June 15, 2005, 11:13:01 PM I did the jury thing twice. My first one was a first degree murder case. Basically a guy was knifed to death in the part of town that most people know is drug dealer central.
So, he gets killed. Looks like a nice kid. The accused was a black kid who was a gangbanger who'd moved here from California. When you looked in his eyes you knew he did it. Or at least could do it. He had very soulless eyes. I will go to my grave believing that kid is a murdering sociopath. Frankly, he scared me. Literally scared me. I got the feeling he would kill me on a whim if we were alone together. I don't think he cared one way or the other. We let him walk. Why? No evidence. No murder weapon. No fingerprints. Nothing. There were two witnesses. One was a prisoner who got a deal to testify against the kid. Something about his testimony didn't ring true. Not one juror felt like it did. The other was a drugged out hooker who changed her testimony on the stand and was the defendant's ex girlfriend. On the stand she said she saw nothing. During a police interview she said she saw him do it. In other words, neither of them was believable. We had one guy who wanted to just say he was guilty, to hell with the lack of evidence. We almost had a fist fight in the jury room because 11 of us knew we couldn't convict. That even if we did he'd get off on an appeal. It was hot, muggy, and we all hated it and just wanted to go home. Really, until you've been on a jury, don't judge jurors. It's a shitty "job". Oh, and I think I'd have voted the same as MJ's jurors. From all I've heard the mother was not believable and there was no evidence. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Samprimary on June 16, 2005, 08:39:47 AM http://mjacksonunbreakable.ytmnd.com/
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: schild on June 16, 2005, 08:48:25 AM Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Stephen Zepp on June 16, 2005, 09:18:33 AM But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury. I like you a lot Shockeye, but quite honestly this position is morally and ethically (not to mention legally) offbase (I was going to say something stronger :P). Put yourself in any accused person's shoes: What happens if you have a beard, and one of the juror's happens to hate people with beards, and therefore thinks you are guilty. Even worse, what happens if the guy (or girl) is charismatic as hell, and convinces the jury that you should be convicted? The jury box isn't the place to make personal decisions about anything whatsoever...otherwise, other above posters are right, and "america is broken". Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Soln on June 16, 2005, 09:21:44 AM MJ is not broke. He owns a shitload of rights to Beatles music. Even after paying back loans that he's taken out against his interest, he'll still have millions to seduce little boys with over in Europe. I believe he sold those. Or I heard a story he did. Edit: I was genuinely surprised he didn't try to top himself during the whole thing. I know daddy had his staff on "suicide watch" even after the verdict. Whatever happens, I doubt this guy will be in Vegas soon. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Shockeye on June 16, 2005, 10:12:38 AM But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury. I like you a lot Shockeye, but quite honestly this position is morally and ethically (not to mention legally) offbase (I was going to say something stronger :P). Put yourself in any accused person's shoes: What happens if you have a beard, and one of the juror's happens to hate people with beards, and therefore thinks you are guilty. Even worse, what happens if the guy (or girl) is charismatic as hell, and convinces the jury that you should be convicted? The jury box isn't the place to make personal decisions about anything whatsoever...otherwise, other above posters are right, and "america is broken". I'm sure it comes from too many years watching Law & Order and following the trial from the outside, not the inside. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Stephen Zepp on June 16, 2005, 10:42:11 AM But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury. I like you a lot Shockeye, but quite honestly this position is morally and ethically (not to mention legally) offbase (I was going to say something stronger :P). Put yourself in any accused person's shoes: What happens if you have a beard, and one of the juror's happens to hate people with beards, and therefore thinks you are guilty. Even worse, what happens if the guy (or girl) is charismatic as hell, and convinces the jury that you should be convicted? The jury box isn't the place to make personal decisions about anything whatsoever...otherwise, other above posters are right, and "america is broken". I'm sure it comes from too many years watching Law & Order and following the trial from the outside, not the inside. Hehe..figured as much. If you like law authors, "Runaway Jury" by John Grisham is both worth reading, and possibly worth seeing. Prime example about why juries have to be focused on the proof of the case, not their own objectives. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: HaemishM on June 16, 2005, 11:19:03 AM Please do not ever claim that anything written by John Grisham is worthwhile. That is just a blatant lie.
Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 16, 2005, 11:25:51 AM Please do not ever claim that anything written by John Grisham is worthwhile. That is just a blatant lie. But what about that story about the small town lawyer who rises up against great adversity to save the day? Oh yeah, right, that's all of them. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Stephen Zepp on June 16, 2005, 11:39:38 AM Please do not ever claim that anything written by John Grisham is worthwhile. That is just a blatant lie. Heh..I did caveat it by saying "if you like law authors".... Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: voodoolily on June 16, 2005, 11:43:59 AM But what about that story about the small town lawyer who rises up against great adversity to save the day? John Grisham wrote Erin Brocovich? Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Paelos on June 16, 2005, 12:44:57 PM But what about that story about the small town lawyer who rises up against great adversity to save the day? John Grisham wrote Erin Brocovich? I think Lifetime wrote that movie. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Nazrat on June 16, 2005, 04:27:17 PM Actually, there was one where the lawyer worked in DC. So, they aren't all small town lawyers.
The real key to a Grisham novel is for the character to learn to hate the law so much that he quits practicing by the end of the book to do anything else. You know, like write books and chalk the lines at the Little League fields. Title: Re: Crazy pedophile innocent Post by: Ironwood on June 17, 2005, 03:02:26 AM His Painted House thingy book was Ok. At least it was a departure from the 'chewing gum for the eyes' that he usually puts out.
|