Michael Jackson Verdict

[TheOneVader]

Tara's right, that is not proof, daveemtdave. Just because she got money from him doesn't mean that he didn't molest her child. It just meant she's an evil, evil person who doesn't deserve to have kids and is greedy.

 

[The_CEO]

I'm 17, that doesn't mean I'm an ignorant teen and don't know what's going on around me.
I'm just doing what you're doing: Voicing my views.
Quit pretending like you know what's going on inside Jackson and the family's mind.

As am I and also being a Senior - I can tell you 90 % of our WHOLE highschool, knows who MJ is.. If you didn't know who he was until last year.. You must live in a box.

 

[djmatthews]

Of course this is my opinion. However, I beleive a person is innocent until proven guilty and I also hate trial by media. Simple as that. Of course there are lots of what ifs, who's and hows and one day there could be another case.... I don't know the guy, I don't know what has gone on behind closed doors, so at this moment in time, in my opinion MJ is innocent as he has not been proven guilty.

 

[Tara Mae]

The_CEO:

No, I don't live in a box, and neither do my friends, it's just that we're more into the music of today, and MJ just isn't a part of that. And, even though 90% of your school knew who h was doesn't mean that my school does, that's your school...I live in Louisiana, and most highschool students in my parish would rather listen to Rap than oldies pop, so hence them not knowing MJ...as for me, I stick to new pop and new "rock/roll"...and plus, most of us are more interested in our studies than worrying about the people of the 80's or whatever...heck, out of my school, out of the 15 kids in my history class, I was the only one to have watched the trial. And when I say "didn't know", as I've stated before, I meant that we couldn't put a face to the voice...we've all heard "thriller" and tha'ts about it, I had no clue he was this "great king of pop"...it's not something that needs to be fussed over, me or anyone else not knowing his face to voice, get what I'm saying?

Djmatthews:
Yes, opinion, your opinion, my opinion, others opinions. Not one rules over the other. Not one is less, not one is higher. You believe he's innnocent, go ahead, no one's stopping you.
And the fact that you don't know what happened behind closed doors once again proves you don't know the truth...neither do I, just opinions, mate.

 

[GenerationX]

He was found not guilty for three key reasons:
1. He wasn't being tried on the 1993 case (which was significantly stronger against him).
2. The mother of the accuser was the worst witness ever.
3. He didn't have to take the stand.

Reverse any of the three points above, and he's headed for the Big House.

 

[Woody13]

Actually, what I meant was that you were right in that OJ's defense wasn't involved in the Jackson case.

Yes, I too think that you and I are correct on the subject. I was just wondering if I had missed someone. O.J. Simpson had a huge legal defense team including such well known attorneys as Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kardashian. He also had a bunch of rather unknown attorneys working on the case as well. I just thought The CEO might have not have been mistaken.

 

[The_CEO]

I must of mixed my men. Sorry peeps.

 

[daveemtdave]

How is that proof? That's just your word...for all we know, you could have just amde that up. I see no legal papers or documents as proof, and if you found it online, so what, you can't believe everything you read online, and if you didn't know that, shame on you.
The majority of teens in my state, and heck, the surrounding states, had no clue who he was other than "some oldies pop singer". Just because your wife's children knew it doesn't mean the whole world's children of this age group knows it.
Goodness, quite being such a hypocrite and trying toforce your view on others, as if it were the right one, it's not...actually, it may be, but we will never know who was right and who was wrong, we will never know if he was innocent or guilty. Quit pretending, I'm 17, that doesn't mean I'm an ignorant teen and don't know what's going on around me.
I'm just doing what you're doing: Voicing my views.
Quit pretending like you know what's going on inside Jackson and the family's mind.[/QUOTE


Read what the news stated. It was in the court records and to be honest Tara Mae you are not even worth answering anymore.

 

[daveemtdave]

Tara's right, that is not proof, daveemtdave. Just because she got money from him doesn't mean that he didn't molest her child. It just meant she's an evil, evil person who doesn't deserve to have kids and is greedy.

She wanted proof the family got something from MJ. I have read every court record and every news clip on this - this family = and I use that word loosely= took advantage of everyone who tried to be nice to them. A person can profit in more than monetary ways. She is an evil person, no doubt about that.

 

[Madison]

Well, yeah, I went to school dances and listened to the radio, and only once or twice did I ever hear anything involving Jackson. The local stations in my city stopped playing any MJ music during the trial...don't know why.

How could you possibly know if the radio stations stopped playing Michael Jackson's music during the trial if you and your classmates are only vaguely familiar with "Thriller"? Additionally, I know of few radio stations that play today's popular music intermingled with cuts from "people from the 80's or whatever."

And the reason I watched the trail was to keep up-to-date wih my history teacher's daily newsbits

Please ask your history teacher to stop wasting time with this trite nonsense and, instead, spend a bit more time teaching you about the tenets of the American judicial system. You certainly seem to lack respect for the findings of a jury working fully within the law. May life never find you in a position of control of the destiny of any acquitted person.

Finally,

Ain't it the truth!

I was speaking largely about your inability to form a coherent sentence. You seem oddly enthused about that.

I'm continually amused by the notion that opinions cannot be wrong and that we make such great efforts toward respecting incorrect opinions. I can believe with all my heart and soul that 9 + 1 = 15, but it will not ever be correct.

 

[miles1]

All that I have to add here is that I happened to be home when the jury came on TV (as a whole -- all of them), right after the trial, and I was very impressed with them. It gave me more confidence in their verdicts. They were asked by the media to come to at least one press conference, and in doing so it helped us to avoid the speculation as to what they were thinking. I suggest watching that (about an hour), or parts of it, if it re-run.

They grappled with everything, but at the end of the day it was the law and the evidence that they relied upon. Some felt that perhaps Michael might act inappropriately with kids, but the evidence for THIS CASE was not there; and mostly the family (and especially the mother) were NOT credible for this jury. She stared at the jury, and on several occasions snapped her fingers at them. When responding to the fact that she had been known to lie in previous cases, she (an hispanic person herself) looked directly at the jury foreman (an hispanic man) and snapped her fingers, telling him "you how our people are," implying that hispanics all lie and cheat. He said that he took offense at that, and that he thought, "No, that's not how we are."

So, in many ways the family's credibility, especially in the fact that they (including the kid) admitted or were found to have lied under oath before (in the JP Penney case), ruined it for the jurors, they said. And the prosecution did not present other credible evidence to prove wrongdoing in THIS case. The info from the 1993 allegations could not be used (as per their instructions) in proving this case; only as informational in proving a pattern. So, according to the law, since they could not prove his innocense beyond a reasonable doubt, they had to acquit him.

And I respect that. They actually did their jobs.

I see this as completely different from the O.J. case, a murder case with a mountain of CASE_SPECIFIC evidence.

Paul

I was thinking of how to say all this myself, but you've done it so eloquently I won't bother.

 

[TheOneVader]

Yes, I too think that you and I are correct on the subject. I was just wondering if I had missed someone. O.J. Simpson had a huge legal defense team including such well known attorneys as Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kardashian. He also had a bunch of rather unknown attorneys working on the case as well. I just thought The CEO might have not have been mistaken.

Don't forget Jackie Chiles. :lol:

 

[Tara Mae]

I give up, and the cheers will arise.
A 17 year old cannotpossibly have an opinion that makes sense, so obviously I'm posting for nothing here.

daveemtdave:
How can you have every record? Were you in the court room? Did you take notes?
I believe you watched every step of the way in the trial, but what you posted only seemed to be something you may hav heard...it's not direct proof. No documents, no proof.

This 17 year old is over and out, tired of her opinion being flamed because it doesn't agree with the rest.
Oh, shudder gasp, if the world lived on ony one view...I wouldn't be able to be a Pagan nor and Independent...if I cannot voice my views here...what has the world come to?
Opinions being flamed, who ever heard?

 

[Tara Mae]

How is that proof? That's just your word...for all we know, you could have just amde that up. I see no legal papers or documents as proof, and if you found it online, so what, you can't believe everything you read online, and if you didn't know that, shame on you.
The majority of teens in my state, and heck, the surrounding states, had no clue who he was other than "some oldies pop singer". Just because your wife's children knew it doesn't mean the whole world's children of this age group knows it.
Goodness, quite being such a hypocrite and trying toforce your view on others, as if it were the right one, it's not...actually, it may be, but we will never know who was right and who was wrong, we will never know if he was innocent or guilty. Quit pretending, I'm 17, that doesn't mean I'm an ignorant teen and don't know what's going on around me.
I'm just doing what you're doing: Voicing my views.
Quit pretending like you know what's going on inside Jackson and the family's mind.

Read what the news stated. It was in the court records and to be honest Tara Mae you are not even worth answering anymore.

What was in the records? His innocence? Yes, but only in writing. Not proof.
Again, you're trying to push your views, which is ridiculous. Don't be so gosh darned biased.
Good day!

 

[Woody13]

Don't forget Jackie Chiles. :lol:

Let's also not forget Skip Taft and Howard Weitzman. They represented O.J. Simpson during initial police questioning. Also, Robert Baker represented O.J. Simpson in the Goldman civil case.

 

[imagineer boy]

Everyone, leave Tara Mae alone. She has opinions too you know. No need to bash them.

 

[SIR90210]

I cannot believe you are all wasting your time caring about this whole thing!

 

[Tara Mae]

I cannot believe you are all wasting your time caring about this whole thing!

Yeah, it's true, our lives have become obsessed with this trial...what else is there in the world to worry about? Oh, wait, IRAQ! lol
I honestly was surprised I found myself so interested in the trial...and the sad thing? This trial is most likely going down in the history books...your kids will be hearing about this, so I guess it's good to have some info!

Imagineer boy:
We think alike, thanks for trying to back me up.

 

[TheOneVader]

Let's also not forget Skip Taft and Howard Weitzman. They represented O.J. Simpson during initial police questioning. Also, Robert Baker represented O.J. Simpson in the Goldman civil case.

Actually, Jackie Chiles is really just a spoof of Johnny Cochrane on Seinfeld... It was a just joke.

 

[Woody13]

Actually, Jackie Chiles is really just a spoof of Johnny Cochrane on Seinfeld... It was a just joke.

I got it the first time!:lol: But, it's not really that far out. O.J. Simpson had the so called, "Dream Team" of defense attorneys working for him. There was so much ego in that courtroom it's a wonder they could fit anyone else in there!