Michael Jackson Verdict reached

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Dave' date='Jun 13 2005, 04:20 PM']In our dreams! 

The guy is guilty as sin!  But then again, I can't say I'm surprised they acquitted him.  I have no faith in our legal system.  I never have had any.
[right][snapback]610594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Couldn't have been said any better.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:34 PM']Couldn't have been said any better.
[right][snapback]610745[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Blame the jury then. They decieded.

I trust them over the media and their opinions that are broadcasted everywhere.

Like dUSt said, you all must know more than the jury did or have other sources than the media.

[Don John of Austria]

Um wow I guess once agian I am in the minority, I actually think he is innocent, i assure you I have no love for Child molesters but just because some one is weird, and I mean really really weird, doen't mean they molest children. Rich weird celebs have a big bullseye one there face. Anyway I should be used to it, I apparntly am the only white man in the counrty who thoough OJ didn't do it.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:37 PM']Blame the jury then. They decieded.

I trust them over the media and their opinions that are broadcasted everywhere.

Like dUSt said, you all must know more than the jury did or have other sources than the media.
[right][snapback]610751[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The last time I checked the jury is a part of the legal system. Hence, I was criticizing the jury as well as anything associated with our nation's judiciary.

Edited June 13, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:42 PM']The last time I checked the jury is a part of the legal system. Hence,  I was criticizing the jury as well as anything associated with our nation's judiciary.
[right][snapback]610762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Oh I don't think much of our legal system either, but I really don't think the man did it, I think he wants to be a kid, and that he is seriously screwed up about it, but I don't thin he molested them.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:37 PM']Um wow I guess once agian I am in the minority, I actually think he is innocent, i assure you I have no love for Child molesters but just because some one is weird, and I mean really really weird, doen't mean they molest children. Rich weird celebs have a big bullseye one there face. Anyway I should be used to it, I apparntly am the only white man in the counrty who thoough OJ didn't do it.
[right][snapback]610754[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I dont think he did it either :ph34r:

[Cam42]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:07 PM']I'm troubled and saddened by the lack of charity shown here. The man was found not guilty. Apparently those of you who insist that he's guilty of such a horrible, sickening, crime know more than the jury? Your judgement must be based on something besides what you watch in the media, no?

Charity is a virtue that we must all work on. Accusing someone in a public forum of molesting a child is hardly the act of a saint.
[right][snapback]610698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly.....thanks for supporting this position.

[theculturewarrior]

My opinion on the Michael Jackson trial and verdict: It is a matter that should have been kept in the courts. It is a matter that needed to be dealt with by the accuser and his family and the accused, and it is none of my business. God didn't give me the authority to read people's hearts and to judge people's sins, and I pity Michael Jackson, but moreso the accuser. They will both have to live with this for the rest of their lives, and I think a little respect for privacy would have alleviated the embarassment that this may cause to the accuser and his family in the future. The media today is little better than the Roman circuses. In Rome, they were pitiless, and they threw dissenters to the lions and worse. Here, they let you live, but the whole country watches, and the whole country knows your life, but only what the journalists want us to know.

Turn it off. Life is so beautiful when you just turn it off. Take your kids for a walk. Watch the sun set. Go fishing, or volunteer at your parish. At the risk of soundy preachy, it's all garbage, and I've got better things to do.

[LSW]

I had a huge argument with my father after the acquittal. He's all pissed of about the verdict cause he just knows that he's guilty and basicaly that his cash saved his butt.

Now I'm not at all a Jackson fan. I like a few of his songs and that's it. But the fact is that the jury was in there for 14 weeks and I believe that they had enough information to be able to make the right decision, alot more info than any of us had based on watching CNN.

[StMichael]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jun 13 2005, 04:25 PM']You cant say that though, you were not there, did not hear ever piece of evidence, nor were able to examine it all.
[right][snapback]610606[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A 46 year old man.
Who wears make up.
Wears a wig.
Has disfigured himself.
Has created a lair to attract and distract kids.
Who thinks of himself as Peter Pan.
Who buys children as his personal pets.
Who has admitted to having young boys sleep in his bed.
Who owns child pornography.

You've got more evidence here than many have had against our Church.

Want to commit a crime. Move to Callie.

OJ
Robert Blake
Michael Jackson

[kateri05]

think how many priests are unjustly accused on less evidence!

look i'm not saying we should vigiliante stone the man. CLEARLY he needs our prayers. and getting off isn't his fault. its our justice system and the state of CA's inability to convict famous people (ie. see past the glimmer to the horrible crimes committed). its not uncharitable to criticize a jury for what some believe to be an unjust decision. they are part of the justice system and thus open to criticism. i'm not calling them stinky poopheads, i'm saying i think they did a bad job.

to me, its just MORE evidence that too much democracy is a bad thing. who decided that 12 random people were smart enough to decide these things? they aren't trained. lol when is that person starting their catholic island?

Edited June 13, 2005 by kateri05

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Jun 13 2005, 06:38 PM']think how many priests are unjustly accused on less evidence!

look i'm not saying we should vigiliante stone the man.  CLEARLY he needs our prayers.  and getting off isn't his fault.  its our justice system and the state of CA's inability to convict famous people (ie. see past the glimmer to the horrible crimes committed).  its not uncharitable to criticize a jury for what some believe to be an unjust decision.  they are part of the justice system and thus open to criticism.  i'm not calling them stinky poopheads, i'm saying i think they did a bad job.

to me, its just MORE evidence that too much democracy is a  bad thing.  who decided that 12 random people were smart enough to decide these things?  they aren't trained.  lol when is that person starting their catholic island?
[right][snapback]610853[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh I think there should be professional jurers for sure and that our legal system needs an overhaul but I don't think that Jackson is a childmolester, just a child.

[Technicoid]

As fidei defensor has pointed out, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean innocent. Frankly, after what I've heard about the family of the accuser and many of the prosecution witnesses, I can understand why there was reasonable doubt, and I don't even have the whole story. You don't need to have the best defense money can buy when the accusers have a history of fraudulent behavior and the best witnesses have a clear reasons for wanting to get back at Jackson. The prosecution did a poor job of screening their witnesses, and they paid the price. If MJ is guilty, we've paid a high price as well.

BTW, as far as the OJ Simpson thing goes, I think there's plenty of reason to have suspicions concenring his guilt. I used to study forensics, and I remember sensing that something just didn't add up when I heard some of the initial reports. Then I read some of what [url="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/leetest.html"]Dr. Henry Lee[/url] said on the stand and in his book [i]Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzetti to O.J. Simpson[/i]. One of the most interesting points I read about was the presence in one or more of the blood samples found on Simpson's estate that had traces of a chemical only used in laboratories for preventing coagulation of blood samples. As Thoreau said, some circumstantial evidence is damning.

I'm also not convinced one way or the other about Simpson's guilt or innocence, but I'm absolutely convinced that the LA police was mishandling evidence.

Didn't the same prosecuting attorney's office bring us both of these cases? AND the Robert Blake case? Is it possible there might be a bit of blindness on their part when they prosecute these kinds of high-profile cases?

[Lounge Daddy]

So here is my rant:
I really believe Jackson is innocent – and I trust a jury trial more than a single Judge. I did not trust the press coverage. Dian Diamond from court tv proclaimed him guilty from the beginning!

The case was a joke – as the family and others took the witness stand they told conflicting stories, at least one even admitted their story was false – and the mother’s testimony completely imploded as they simply let her talk. It was a total joke.

What is not a joke is that, if found guilty – Michael Jackson would spend the rest of his life (probably) in the same prison holding Charles Manson. This would esp be a tragedy if he were in reality innocent.

So because the case couldn’t stand on it’s own, Sneddon (the prosecutor) dove waaaaay back ten years to find other accusations – who one by one admitted they had personal ulterior motives (former employees who were fired, people who owed Jackson large sums of money, etc) and most all of them later admitted to lying under oath.

Again, I trust a jury waaaaay better than I trust the mainstream media – Dian Diamond (whom all the major news coverage seemed to love turning to for the “official word” on the ongoing trial) claimed to have lewd footage of Jackson with a little boy that was later found to not be footage of Jackson at all, and the supposed “child porn book” that was found in Jackson’s possession was simply an innocent photography collection (the topic was “children at play”) by a man who is currently a respected Newsweek photojournalist. But you never saw any of this mentioned in the evening news coverage, did you?

The case against Jackson was so ridiculous, far-reaching, and laughable as witness after witness imploded on the stand that a few jurors were caught sniggering at one point while having to sit through testimony of some claiming they saw Jackson tickling a child. (“oh no, Jackson tickled me…”)
The fact is, this case hinged on the testimony of a woman and her family that has a documented history of drumming up charges against security of department stores and the like for money – that when the current charges failed to stand past accusations were brought in (which in turn would never stand or Jackson would have been tried on them 10 years ago) --- and the man running the show, Prosecutor Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr. has been after Michael Jackson for 10+ years. Jackson has been Sneddon’s “white wale.”
Michael Jackson has said if found innocent he would probably move out of the US, I don’t blame him after being hounded by prosecutor and his team of friends in the press happily painting him guilty years before any trial.
I am no fan of Jackson’s music, I am no fan, and I do think Jackson has very poor judgment, sets himself up for bad situations and also the guy is completely crazy – but I DON'T believehe is a child molester.

Btw – is Sneddon going to prosecute his own witnesses for perjury after admitting to lying under oath?

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The ones who need to be charged are the parents who are begging Michael Jackson to let their kids sleep with him. Regardless of what happens in Neverland, a grown man sleeping in the same bed with kids who aren't his own should send up red flags to any fit parent. I imagine there are many parents who have sent their kids to neverland hoping MJ would molest them just so they can get a big settlement.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 13 2005, 08:57 PM']The ones who need to be charged are the parents who are begging Michael Jackson to let their kids sleep with him.  Regardless of what happens in Neverland, a grown man sleeping in the same bed with kids who aren't his own should send up red flags to any fit parent.  I imagine there are many parents who have sent their kids to neverland hoping MJ would molest them just so they can get a big settlement.
[right][snapback]610976[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And people say I have apessemisti view of humanity. God I hope your Wrong.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Well, if nothing else I know where all you people stand.

I now know [i]exactly[/i] who I would want by my side in a fight.


Careful who you show your hand to folks.

[Old_Joe]

As someone who is interested in Forensic crime scene investigation as a possible career, I'd say pray for the people involved with the legal system that they make the good, moral decisions. It's diffcult to sort through all the evidence, conjecture, hearsay, rumors, accusations, etc. to find and stand up for the truth. Our legal system isn't perfect, but it's pretty much all we have. Some of the evidence seemed circumstantial, which is not good to use as groundwork for a case. Perhaps new evidence will come to light. At the same time, I seriously wonder about his behavior during the trial. At times, it almost seemed like he was playing for pity. IMHO, I think Michael Jackson needs to deal with his personal psychological issues in a constructive way. He has three kids. Imagine what they go through just hearing about this. Pray for the whole family.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Jun 14 2005, 01:42 AM']At the same time, I seriously wonder about his behavior during the trial.  At times, it almost seemed like he was playing for pity.  IMHO, I think Michael Jackson needs to deal with his personal psychological issues in a constructive way.  He has three kids.  Imagine what they go through just hearing about this.  Pray for the whole family.
[right][snapback]611157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True. His children need our prayers.

[Guest]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 13 2005, 05:07 PM']I'm troubled and saddened by the lack of charity shown here. The man was found not guilty. Apparently those of you who insist that he's guilty of such a horrible, sickening, crime know more than the jury? Your judgement must be based on something besides what you watch in the media, no?

Charity is a virtue that we must all work on. Accusing someone in a public forum of molesting a child is hardly the act of a saint.
[right][snapback]610698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


preach dust
i hate when people jump to conclusions about people with no proof.
Just because Jackson is a "freak" doesnt mean he's guilty of anything. And remember those that are talked about and perscuted falsely are looked upon with favor in Gods eyes. Im happy that he was found innocent. That meant that a jury selected by both the defence and prosecution found that there was not enough evidence to convict him of molesting kids. If he did it, then he will have his day in the REAL COURT when he dies but until then we owe him the respect to give him respect and not say that he is a child molester when a jury found him INNOCENT. And I dont think Mike is that bad of a guy. Ya he's a weirdo but so are alot of people and the people who are weird are usually the most unfairly treated people in life.