Crazy pedophile innocent

[voodoolily]

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.

[Shockeye]

I quit my job, started contributing here, and boycotted the Politics forum.

How you doin'?

Congratulations on being jobless!

[Paelos]

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.

[Shockeye]

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.

[Shockeye]

Jackson 'probably' molested boys: juror
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.

[WayAbvPar]

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.

[Paelos]

America is broken. Let's start over.

[Evil Elvis]

Triumph outside the courthouse.

It's delicious.

[HaemishM]

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.

[Shockeye]

But if you have a strong suspicion that he might've done it, you can force a mistrial as a hung jury.

[HaemishM]

Triumph outside the courthouse.

It's delicious.

That was almost as good as the Star Wars geek segment.

[Dren]

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.

[voodoolily]

Triumph outside the courthouse.

It's delicious.

That was almost as good as the Star Wars geek segment.

Gawd that was hilarious!

[WayAbvPar]

Triumph outside the courthouse.

It's delicious.

Classic. Absolutely classic.

[Azazel]

GF and I just watched it, I almost choked!
 :-D

Gotta love Triumph!

[El Gallo]

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. 

[Abagadro]

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.

[Yegolev]

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.

[Riggswolfe]

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.

[Samprimary]

http://mjacksonunbreakable.ytmnd.com/

[schild]

http://mjacksonunbreakable.ytmnd.com/

Heh.

[Stephen Zepp]

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".

[Soln]

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.

[Shockeye]

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.

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

[HaemishM]

Please do not ever claim that anything written by John Grisham is worthwhile. That is just a blatant lie.

[Paelos]

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.

[Stephen Zepp]

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"....

[voodoolily]

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?

[Paelos]

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.

[Nazrat]

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.

[Ironwood]

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.