Verdict reached in Michael Jackson case... - Page 5

dudden22 · #61 06-13-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

That's what I meant. That the people deciding where to put the kids even considering those two is pathetic.

Oh ok, I misunderstood

Sorry

jannieC · #62 06-13-2005, 04:11 PM

For God's sake, I'm at work and don't have speakers to LISTEN to the verdict.

irishgrl · #63 06-13-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

the word of the victim is tainted - and his parents are known extorters

I mean clearly that presents a shadow of a doubt on his word.

and - if there were such a pattern, then where are the other claims. We have seen two out of how many thousands that have been there

Any lawyer worth their salt will tell you the prosecution could not have done a worse job.

As for the employees, the key witness there was directly refuted by the the alleged abused and the accuser tried to extort Jackson.

I think you just hate MJ and do not care how or why they put him in jail.

The word of the victime is NOT tainted in MY book, the video of the police interview shows to ME that this boy was embarrassed about having to talk about it, and his body language and his reticence show ME that he is NOT out for $$$. As for your claim that the employees were rebutted, I dont agree.
Granted, the one employee engaged in an extortion attempt but it doesnt negate his other testimony. Besides, I am sick of people saying MJ was a victim of money grubbers, the man used his $$$ to BUY people and PAY OFF people. He cant have it both ways. sorry, we just dont agree.......

besides. all the lawyering in the world isnt what wins or loses a case. in the end, it is up to the jury and they all have their own ideas even before being selected as a juror. In OJ's case, the inner city predominantly black jury came up with a much different answer than a predominantly white Beverly Hills Jury would have delivered (btw: OJ SHOULD have been tried in his own court district, that change of venue made all the difference in the world and his attorneys knew it. I submit that all the evidence in the world that would have proven OJ guilty would still not have brought a guilty verdict precisely because the jury members were determined NOT to let one of their heroes go down. Just my 2c.)

SuzeQuze · #64 06-13-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudden22

Oh ok, I misunderstood

Sorry

Oh no problem, I wasn't very clear. I was trying to say that the folks trying to place those kids are nuttier than the Jacksons if they want to place them with them.

skcin · #65 06-13-2005, 04:14 PM

2 not guilties so far.

estranged4life · #66 06-13-2005, 04:14 PM

that is interesting...

Count #2

Not guilty

Count #3

Not guilty

SuzeQuze · #67 06-13-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skcin

2 not guilties so far

:vomit:

Paula, your new sig pic is cool! Which show did you take that at? :drools:

strandinthewind · #68 06-13-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

The word of the victime is NOT tainted in MY book, the video of the police interview shows to ME that this boy was embarrassed about having to talk about it, and his body language and his reticence show ME that he is NOT out for $$$. As for your claim that the employees were rebutted, I dont agree.
Granted, the one employee engaged in an extortion attempt but it doesnt negate his other testimony. Besides, I am sick of people saying MJ was a victim of money grubbers, the man used his $$$ to BUY people and PAY OFF people. He cant have it both ways. sorry, we just dont agree.......

besides. all the lawyering in the world isnt what wins or loses a case. in the end, it is up to the jury and they all have their own ideas even before being selected as a juror. In OJ's case, the inner city predominantly black jury came up with a much different answer than a predominantly white Beverly Hills Jury would have delivered (btw: OJ SHOULD have been tried in his own court district, that change of venue made all the difference in the world and his attorneys knew it. I submit that all the evidence in the world that would have proven OJ guilty would still not have brought a guilty verdict precisely because the jury members were determined NOT to let one of their heroes go down. Just my 2c.)

Then again, you think Monica Lewinsky had no alterior motive and never tried to use Clinton despite suddenly getting a job, saving the semen stained dress, etc. AND Clinton never sent his cabinet out to lie for him in an effort to thwart his prosectution. I think I'll let your perception of facts in evidence rest there