THE VERDICT IN THE MICHAEL JACKSON CASE WILL BE READ AT 4:30 EDT!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by MBM:
What's this world coming to!
quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Good. Now, maybe CNN will cover the Iraq War...
I don't think so, but I can dream.
quote:Originally posted by MBM:
First OJ, then MJ. What's this world coming to!![]()
![]()
![]()
quote:Originally posted by jazzdog:
Is it true that it was an all white jury that set him free?
quote:Originally posted by MBM:
. . . and we always talk about the criminal justice system being biased against the black man!![]()
quote:Originally posted by Momentum:
MJ should just "Beat it".![]()
quote:Originally posted by jazzdog:
Is it true that it was an all white jury that set him free?
quote:Originally posted by chilewillow:quote:Originally posted by jazzdog:
Is it true that it was an all white jury that set him free?
Nine white, two hispanic, one asian. Eight women, four men.
quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:
I knew it! What a bunch of jackasses. Well, white folks better lock up their olive skinned young boys. They've got book deals already!!! Laughing and grinning all over the news like this is the best day of their lives, practically drooling over all the money they're going to make. Ugh! God, I hate capitalism! Anybody with money can be acquitted even against the strongest evidence, it was a given this child-molesting freak was going free with the shaky evidence against him in this case. They had a woman testify to actually seeing him pour wine into Coke cans to unsuspectingly intoxicate the little boy and these dipshits still found him not guilty of that. Is everyone a freaking moron these days?!?
R Kelly will go free, as well. Firstly because he's rich and secondly because no one gives a shit if you're raping little Black girls, not even Black folks. Especially not Black folks.
Wasn't Jesse just on the news hollering about the trial not being fair because the jury was all white? Heh.
quote:This particular case should never have been brought to trial and had little to do with guilt or innocense and everything to do with MJ.
quote:Most of the witnesses for the prosecution had serious credibility problems, including the women who testified to seeing MJ serve wine to young boys.
quote:Much of the "evidence" was hearsay,
quote:and a strong argument could be made that the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County had been after MJ since the early 1990's.
quote:Based on the totality of the evidence presented, this trial borders on malicious prosecution,
quote:Guilty or innocent, saint or sinner and again, based on the evidence presented, MJ should never have been charged. That he was charged is yet another example of the flaws in our legal system.
quote:Originally posted by chilewillow:quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:
I knew it! What a bunch of jackasses. Well, white folks better lock up their olive skinned young boys. They've got book deals already!!! Laughing and grinning all over the news like this is the best day of their lives, practically drooling over all the money they're going to make. Ugh! God, I hate capitalism! Anybody with money can be acquitted even against the strongest evidence, it was a given this child-molesting freak was going free with the shaky evidence against him in this case. They had a woman testify to actually seeing him pour wine into Coke cans to unsuspectingly intoxicate the little boy and these dipshits still found him not guilty of that. Is everyone a freaking moron these days?!?
R Kelly will go free, as well. Firstly because he's rich and secondly because no one gives a shit if you're raping little Black girls, not even Black folks. Especially not Black folks.
Wasn't Jesse just on the news hollering about the trial not being fair because the jury was all white? Heh.
This particular case should never have been brought to trial and had little to do with guilt or innocense and everything to do with MJ.
Most of the witnesses for the prosecution had serious credibility problems, including the women who testified to seeing MJ serve wine to young boys. Much of the "evidence" was hearsay, and a strong argument could be made that the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County had been after MJ since the early 1990's.
Based on the totality of the evidence presented, this trial borders on malicious prosecution, an offence actionable under California law.
Guilty or innocent, saint or sinner and again, based on the evidence presented, MJ should never have been charged. That he was charged is yet another example of the flaws in our legal system.
quote:The evidence in this case was irrelevent in the decision to charge MJ; much of it was put together after the charges were filed.
quote:"Evidence" is often not the centerpiece on which the outcome of a trial is based, much as it should be. American history is replete with examples of people convicted with little or no evidence.
quote:Only on "Law & Order" is hearsay evidence inadmissible. In a real courtroom and under the right circumstances, hearsay evidence is admitted far too often - a lame or overworked defence attorney, a judge asleep at the wheel, a judge prejudicial to a case. Again, history is replete with cases of people convicted on hearsay evidence.
quote:There was absolutely nothing "standard" about this case, unless it was the fact that a black man was standing in the docket.
quote:It was a malicious prosecution because the evidence was oh so very weak,
quote:because the "victim" had a history of lying and lied under oath,
quote:because the "victim" and his family had a monetary vested interest in the conviction of MJ,
quote:because other prosecution witnesses had a history of lying.
quote:What sexual predators do or don't do is again irrelevant to this case.
quote:What MJ did or didn't do in the 90's, the 80's, when he was a kid, is irrelevent. The judge made a judical error in allowing the tape to be admitted. Had MJ been convicted, it would have been grounds for appeal.
quote:If the trial were perfect, the only thing that would matter is the evidence presented and the veracity, the credibility of the witnesses.
quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:quote:The evidence in this case was irrelevent in the decision to charge MJ; much of it was put together after the charges were filed.
This is incorrect. Much of what was presented was simple testimony that required nothing but an interview beforehand, which they did.quote:"Evidence" is often not the centerpiece on which the outcome of a trial is based, much as it should be. American history is replete with examples of people convicted with little or no evidence.
It is also chock-full of people who are currently running the streets, guilty as sin, despite a mountain of evidence. This is the problem with juries.quote:Only on "Law & Order" is hearsay evidence inadmissible. In a real courtroom and under the right circumstances, hearsay evidence is admitted far too often - a lame or overworked defence attorney, a judge asleep at the wheel, a judge prejudicial to a case. Again, history is replete with cases of people convicted on hearsay evidence.
This is not true. You simply cannot get on the stand and talk about what someone else told you someone else said. Everyone in the courtroom would have to be braindead and in a coma while that was going on. People are frequently convicted of circumstantial evidence, but not hearsay.quote:There was absolutely nothing "standard" about this case, unless it was the fact that a black man was standing in the docket.
Please. Michael hasn't been Black for years. And I maintain this case was very standard. It is extraordinary difficult to prove a rape case and even more difficult to prove child molestation where penetration does not frequently occur, the child feels shame and is not forthcoming with information, adults have been grooming the victim into thinking certain actions are acceptable, etc. That is facts.quote:It was a malicious prosecution because the evidence was oh so very weak,
Malicious prosecution is when there is no evidence. absolutely nothing to justify the charges. Not weak evidence.quote:because the "victim" had a history of lying and lied under oath,
He's a freaking kid!!!!! Everyday he's hounded by psychotic weirdos chanting outside for a man they don't even know from a hole in the wall because they bought a couple albums. I will never understand people who would rather believe the human sideshow that is Michael Jackson over a child.quote:because the "victim" and his family had a monetary vested interest in the conviction of MJ,
They gained nothing monetarily from Michael. A civil case is not more easily won because of a criminal conviction because the standard is completely different in the two trials (see the OJ Simpson case). And if anything, they now stand to gain less money than if they would've filed a civil suit in the beginning because Michael is already broke and he has mounting legal fees. Furthermore, the family turned down a financial settlement prior to the trial.quote:because other prosecution witnesses had a history of lying.
Yes, everyone was lying except for poor wittle Michael. Poor wittle Michael who doesn't even normally speak in that fake ass "child voice" he so often uses on TV and sleeps with strange boys . Yeah, he's one you can trust.quote:What sexual predators do or don't do is again irrelevant to this case.
No, it's not. They have a pattern, which MJ fits. This is one of the ways you identify them.quote:What MJ did or didn't do in the 90's, the 80's, when he was a kid, is irrelevent. The judge made a judical error in allowing the tape to be admitted. Had MJ been convicted, it would have been grounds for appeal.
What kind of judicial error???quote:If the trial were perfect, the only thing that would matter is the evidence presented and the veracity, the credibility of the witnesses.
Indeed. Instead you had a bunch of drooling fangirls with dollar signs in their eyes who let a child molester run free without even a cursory glance at any of the evidence in front of them. If the trial were perfect, MJ would be hunched over in a jail cell someone getting "Child Molester Treatment" from other inmates.
quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:quote:The evidence in this case was irrelevent in the decision to charge MJ; much of it was put together after the charges were filed.
This is incorrect. Much of what was presented was simple testimony that required nothing but an interview beforehand, which they did.quote:"Evidence" is often not the centerpiece on which the outcome of a trial is based, much as it should be. American history is replete with examples of people convicted with little or no evidence.
It is also chock-full of people who are currently running the streets, guilty as sin, despite a mountain of evidence. This is the problem with juries.quote:Only on "Law & Order" is hearsay evidence inadmissible. In a real courtroom and under the right circumstances, hearsay evidence is admitted far too often - a lame or overworked defence attorney, a judge asleep at the wheel, a judge prejudicial to a case. Again, history is replete with cases of people convicted on hearsay evidence.
This is not true. You simply cannot get on the stand and talk about what someone else told you someone else said. Everyone in the courtroom would have to be braindead and in a coma while that was going on. People are frequently convicted of circumstantial evidence, but not hearsay.quote:There was absolutely nothing "standard" about this case, unless it was the fact that a black man was standing in the docket.
Please. Michael hasn't been Black for years. And I maintain this case was very standard. It is extraordinary difficult to prove a rape case and even more difficult to prove child molestation where penetration does not frequently occur, the child feels shame and is not forthcoming with information, adults have been grooming the victim into thinking certain actions are acceptable, etc. That is facts.quote:It was a malicious prosecution because the evidence was oh so very weak,
Malicious prosecution is when there is no evidence. absolutely nothing to justify the charges. Not weak evidence.quote:because the "victim" had a history of lying and lied under oath,
He's a freaking kid!!!!! Everyday he's hounded by psychotic weirdos chanting outside for a man they don't even know from a hole in the wall because they bought a couple albums. I will never understand people who would rather believe the human sideshow that is Michael Jackson over a child.quote:because the "victim" and his family had a monetary vested interest in the conviction of MJ,
They gained nothing monetarily from Michael. A civil case is not more easily won because of a criminal conviction because the standard is completely different in the two trials (see the OJ Simpson case). And if anything, they now stand to gain less money than if they would've filed a civil suit in the beginning because Michael is already broke and he has mounting legal fees. Furthermore, the family turned down a financial settlement prior to the trial.quote:because other prosecution witnesses had a history of lying.
Yes, everyone was lying except for poor wittle Michael. Poor wittle Michael who doesn't even normally speak in that fake ass "child voice" he so often uses on TV and sleeps with strange boys . Yeah, he's one you can trust.quote:What sexual predators do or don't do is again irrelevant to this case.
No, it's not. They have a pattern, which MJ fits. This is one of the ways you identify them.quote:What MJ did or didn't do in the 90's, the 80's, when he was a kid, is irrelevent. The judge made a judical error in allowing the tape to be admitted. Had MJ been convicted, it would have been grounds for appeal.
What kind of judicial error???quote:If the trial were perfect, the only thing that would matter is the evidence presented and the veracity, the credibility of the witnesses.
Indeed. Instead you had a bunch of drooling fangirls with dollar signs in their eyes who let a child molester run free without even a cursory glance at any of the evidence in front of them. If the trial were perfect, MJ would be hunched over in a jail cell someone getting "Child Molester Treatment" from other inmates.
quote:The possibility that MJ committed an earlier crime and escaped prosecution with his checkbook, that he held a baby over a third-floor balcony, that he had his skin lightened, his nose bobbed, his hair straightened, his personality, his voice, his music, his fans, that criminals often walk, that he has distanced himself from the Afro-American Community, what his dog had for breakfast... all are irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissable.
quote:That the primary witness for the proscecution was a kid, hounded by the press, hounded by "weirdos", hounded by his family, is also irrelevant. False testimony is not made acceptible because the witness is a child.
quote:A civil case IS always more easily won under any circustances because the standards of proof are less stringent and in some states, only require a majority verdict.
quote:MJ was convicted by the media and by our prejudicial attitudes towards him long before he ever stepped into the courtroom.
quote:Every hackneyed journalist had an opinion, most of them unfavorable to MJ. Even now they condemn the jury and the verdict. And yet none of us was there; none of these people who are so ready to send him to prison listened to the day to day testimony, looked into the eyes of the witnesses, evaluated the behavior of the court.
quote:The white community convicted him because he's black; the black community convicted him because he doesn't want to be black. Neither of these factors has anything to do with this his guilt or innocence in this specific case.
quote:Even after the verdict, everyone who wasn't there is second-guessing and condemming the verdict. In it's survey, the ubiquitous MSN reports that 58% of repondants believe the verdict was not fair. Fair? Since when did "fair" count in a courtroom or in the media?But the survey in and of itself is an injustice because it contributes to the perception that MJ was guilty and that he walked. Yet how many of the respondants attended the trail? How many respondants were influenced by a biased media? And finally, how many African American families have access to the internet and were able to vote? And MSN has the self-serving hypocrisy to display in tiny letters "Not a scientifically valid survey". Please excuse us. We're not responsible for our shabby journalism.
quote:And finally, MJ may well fit the pattern but that's all it is, a generality, a supposed image of behavior. It does not preclude his innocence.
quote:*you sure know allot not to have your azz there with the jury
quote:.....reasonable doubt gives a presumption of innocence.....not that guilt-by-accusation schit that american society postures itself to embrace whenever a rich black has a trial...........
quote:Originally posted by chilewillow:
"Reasonable doubt gives a presumption of innocence" even when the accused is a duck.
Any black man brought to trial better be prepared to prove he didn't do it because the presumption of innocence is often absent. And in afluent Santa Barbara County where MJ is an embarrassment, it has much to do with "color", skin tone not withstanding.
There were political and monetary motivation behind his indictment. That MJ was indicted on such weak evidence presented by liable witnesses is a national shame.
MJ may be odd and we don't like him because he doesn't like who he is. But that still doesn't equal guilt, despite Rubert Murdoch and FOX Network News analysis.
That he had the courage to stand trail in Santa Barbara County is to his credit. The only redeeming quality about this whole event is that the jury did the right thing. And shame on the rest of us for not seeing it the way they did.
quote:Originally posted by Frenchy:quote:*you sure know allot not to have your azz there with the jury
Is that supposed to be some kind of smartass diss because I am well-informed? Please! It's called The News. Look into it.quote:.....reasonable doubt gives a presumption of innocence.....not that guilt-by-accusation schit that american society postures itself to embrace whenever a rich black has a trial...........
It has nothing to do with Black. It's all about Rich. People are dazzled and frazzled by money and those who seemingly have it.
quote:Originally posted by Michael:
Michael Jackson, the child molester, did not associate with Black people, or even think about spending his millions in any Black community, when he was riding high.
Sincerely,
Michael Lofton