Posted on 06/13/2005 5:08:17 PM PDT by Jess Kitting
I hear you. I'd feel the same way.
I don't want to know any more than I already know which is that he got off with little boys.
I beleive that the jury thought that they had more to gain by acquitting Michael Jackson than by convicting him. If they would have voted for acquittal, then there would most probably be anonyous "thnk you" money showing up for each of them along with bood deals and paid interviews. They would be hereos in the eyes of Hollywood and the liberal media. On the other hand if they would have voted to convict him, they would most certainly be accused of racism, harrased by the Jackson clan and his legion of kook followers. Their lives would be a living hell if they would have convicted the "king of pop". In short, they took the money and ran!
Innocent until PROVEN guilty! That is the reason he was found NOT GUILTY!
Of all people ... we here in FReerepublic have bandied more 'righteousness' around with more credibility than all the juries since Solomon.
I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but by God, I believe what I believe and if called on to render a verdict, I'd render that verdict with the same fervor that I imagine our founding fathers argued for our representative Republic.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Even if this is true, it sounds a little too convenient, like the lefties who say the proof that Rove has designed any particular conspiracy is that there is no proof that Rove designed it. His fingerprint is the lack of fingerprints. It makes great shock talk, but it's obviously hard to prove.
I'm not sure if you saw or heard the jurors interviewed this afternoon. I did, and I don't have one reservation regarding my comments conerning them. I appreciate your input.
If we're going to agree that the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", then a strong hunch that even though the family of the alleged victim is suspect, nevertheless, Michael is the fruitiest thing ever seen on two legs doesn't meet that standard.
A whole lot of sexual battery and abuse cases just can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I know a woman who asked for a massage from a certified massage therapist late one night and then charged him with sexual battery. My personal feeling is that both the masseur and the client were jerks. He was a jerk for putting himself in the kind of situation where he had no witnesses to support him. She was a jherk for asking someone to come to her residence and touch her in an intimate way with no one nearby to protect her or serve as witness if things got out of hand (so to speak). (He was found guilty in the first trial and acquitted on appeal.)
Citizens in a republic which has the kind of jurisprudential tradition we enjoy have a responsibility to protect what is dear to them rather than hazard it on a whim and expect the governement to make them whole if things don't break their way.
There are some degrees of stupidity and venality which a free society cannot protect.
No, I didn't. Anything so handpicked as this kind of high profile jury is sure to be an amazement. I just feel that the power of a juror is something to carry with you your entire life ... I did the right and honest thing.
Something to tell your grandkids when they ask .. Pappy, what's a jury trial?
Thanks for that, Einstein.
I'm allowed to be disgusted with the collective idiocy of the liberal plantation here in Cal, Ya' know?
He never told the accusers to make false welfare claims that were fraud or to lie under oath in that JC Pennies case.
You have to be realistic at some point and see this case never should have gone to court, the accusers were dirty and had a financial agenda.
Jackson Not Guilty --- another example of the white guy getting preferential treatment.
"There was no incontrevertable evidence that he was guilty."
The family that brought the charges are not the most sympathetic people; the word "grifter" seems apt. Michael Jackson has dodged a bullet... again. Let's all just hope that he doesn't retreat back into his never-never-land bubble, and begin inappropriate behavior with minor male children... again. Short of selling the Beatles collection, he has no funding to pay off any of the equally-guilty parents lining up with their young sons outside, in the hopes of a big payoff when he does what he seems powerless not to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.