There were ten counts. If there was real thought about guilt, he would have at least got a misdemeanor for alcohol. He is innocent.

 

Told ya so.

Wow, one of the jurors even acknowledged that it was ridiculous that a mother would let her child sleep with a stranger. Yet they don't punish Jackson for being the one to sleep with the child? Amazing.

 

These jurors are idiots. I can see why they came to a not guilty verdict.

Edited June 13, 200520 yr by Jabroni

Typical... rich guy gets off ....if it were any normal person they would have went up the river....

 

Ah, yes, but if it were a normal person there wouldn't be a 250+ post thread about them.

 

I think the fact that as a culture we are so tuned into the lives of celebreties is more sad than that whether or not Jackson was found not guilty.

losers

www.drudgereport.com

 

lol

I wonder how many animals he has been with? Something i bet he would do.

 

I think I may be the only one who is glad Mike is free.

 

 

Favorite Album Eva

 

I think I may be the only one who is glad Mike is free.

 

 

Favorite Album Eva

 

No WinoDJ thought he was innocent as well.

A little off topic, but here is a map of what neverland ranch is, if anyone didnt know and was wondering. I knew it had amusment park s***, but i didnt think it was that big....

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...y_Ranch_Map.jpg

What f***ing horses***. f***er should not only rot in prison but in hell as well.

Mer, never. And I never could because of what happened to my girlfriend.

I don't think any lawyer would ever want me on his jury in that case because I'd go with the approach of guilty unless he proved himself innocent. I just think those type of people are utterly sick f***s and I'd have it in against him before enough evidence was there.

 

I'm sure its real hard too because often times its tough evidence, but I don't think as a juror I'd be able to look at it in that situation totally independently and unbiased.

I did not follow this trial at all but I knew he'd be found non guilty and my parents who did follow it thought he'd be found guilty, why?? Because it was obvious to them and the rest of the country that he was guilty, unfortunately because of who he is I knew he'd get off. Very Sad.

I didn't sit here and read through 18 pages, but I will say this.

 

The jury was right.

 

Those people knew he was guilty. Listen to them. But they followed the law. Proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT was the job of the prosecution and they failed, quite miserably I might add.

 

You may not like the jury decision, but they did the right thing by following the law. If you want to be pissed off, blame the prosecution for the way they tried the case, and blame them for centering their witness testimony around a someone who appears to be a psychopath b**** (the accuser's mother).

I didn't sit here and read through 18 pages, but I will say this.

 

The jury was right.

 

Those people knew he was guilty.  Listen to them.  But they followed the law.  Proving the case BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT was the job of the prosecution and they failed, quite miserably I might add.

 

You may not like the jury decision, but they did the right thing by following the law.  If you want to be pissed off, blame the prosecution for the way they tried the case, and blame them for centering their witness testimony around a someone who appears to be a psychopath b**** (the accuser's mother).

 

Isn't reasonable in the eyes of the beholder? Anyway, I was hoping that with all the publicity, at least he would run out of future victims. Then I saw the morons holding signs and praying for his release, and realize that their are idiot parents lining up to have their children play at Neverland Ranch and it just sickens me beyond belief.

The more I hear about the alleged victim's mom and her impression on the jury, it really doesn't surprise me that they reached that decision.

There were ten counts. If there was real thought about guilt, he would have at least got a misdemeanor for alcohol. He is innocent.

 

Told ya so.

 

 

There were 14 actually.. and the alcohol charge was attached to intent to molest. If they convicted him on giving him alcohol they would have had to convict him on the other molestation charges. The way he was charged was all wrong... they should have been separate counts.

 

He's guilty.

The more I hear about the alleged victim's mom and her impression on the jury, it really doesn't surprise me that they reached that decision.

 

 

 

That juror complaining about the mother snapping her fingers just baffles me... good grief. "She snapped her fingers at us so her son was not molested.." :headshake

That juror complaining about the mother snapping her fingers just baffles me... good grief. "She snapped her fingers at us so her son was not molested.."  :headshake

That's not what she said.

There were 14 actually.. and the alcohol charge was attached to intent to molest. If they convicted him on giving him alcohol they would have had to convict him on the other molestation charges. The way he was charged was all wrong... they should have been separate counts.

 

He's guilty.

 

I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson. He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it.

 

ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse.

That's not what she said.

 

 

Uhh.. I hope not.

 

 

I was being sarcastic..

I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson.  He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it.

 

ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse.

 

 

Credibility killed them.. and it's a shame. I read a lot of the transcripts and the entered evidence.. IMO they had enough to fry him if not for the boys mom's issue with JC Penny.

 

 

Agree with your last line completely.

I didn't follow this trial real close...but everything I heard really showed some credibility issues and a lack of hard evidence against Jackson.  He certainly seems to be up to something, but so far he's getting away with it.

 

ANd the next parent to let their kid hang out with Jackson, needs to go on trial for child abuse.

 

The system worked. People forget that in a court of law, the truth is often irrelevant. Did Jackson do the things he was accused of? Irrelevant. Was he found not guilty by a jury of his peers? Yes, all that matters, end of story.

One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent." No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing.

One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent."  No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing.

 

Exactly...and 'found not guilty by a jury of his peers' is even more to the point.

One thing that I see mis-stated often is that the jury declared Jackson "innocent."  No, he was declared not guilty - they are not the same thing.

 

 

A couple was talking about this at the game last night with another couple endlessly and loudly well into the 6th inning. The one guy in the one couple was pounding his chest saying that he's was innocent.. the woman that appeared to be his partner said.. "do you think OJ is innocent..?" He said no.. so she reminded him that OJ was found "not guilty". He shut up about it for the rest of the night.