Posted on 06/13/2005 8:22:30 PM PDT by CHARLITE
After 14 weeks of trial, and seven days of deliberation, the Jackson case came down to a battle of two videos. Both videos played at the end of closing arguments showed the statement of the young accuser to the police, and the Bashir documentary outtakes that showed a side of Michael Jackson that is innocent and wistfully childlike.
In the end, the jury decided that Michael Jackson was not guilty of molestation.
Everyone knows that Michael Jackson is more than weird, he is a universe unto himself. But the jury may have leaned on a universe of innocent love and naïveté rather than a carnival fun house filled with animals, rides and a wicked perversion.
A leap of faith— or reasonable doubt?
To have completely supported Michael Jackson's innocence— like some of his fans— you just have to believe. Like Tinkerbell in Peter Pan.
But in a court of law, the test is not innocence but whether or not there is reasonable doubt. In this case, there is enough reasonable doubt. There were simply not enough hard facts to pick one side or the other and that alone meant that there is doubt. The following factors may have hurt the prosecution’s case:...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I expect his "back problems" will get better in the blink of an eye.
Looks like a random sampling from the Oprah audience to me.
Those jurors couldn't spell IQ.
Basic civics test for voting, then pick your jurors from those eligible to vote.
Of course, we 2 million will be tired of jury duty sooner than later. ;-)
Let's see; the jury sat through 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for over a month listening to both sides.
The accusor is a certificable grifter, with a record of extortion. The prosector's witnesses had a rough time making it to court, because they were under arrest in another state for theft. The witnesses stories changed hourly, and there was not a shred of evidence.
No evidence. Nada, zero, zip. The jury found that the Prosectors failed to prove guilt (that's the way justice works here; you prove guilt, not innocence). Michael was cleared on EVERY SINGLE count.
So, whom do you blame? You blame 12 people who did their civil duty, for ~$25/day for over a month. I blame the prosector for bringing this case forward without evidence, with unreliable witnesses, and a timeline that was out of touch with reality. (Kidnapped, yet went on shopping sprees and ate out at resturants?).
Amen, Hodar!
More like Springer
indeed, to paraphrase drudge, why not throw the da in jail for bungling this?
I have NO DOUBT that no kids would have been molested had MJ been sent to prison.
I have NO DOUBT that kids will be molested since MJ will remain free.
I hope the freak loses all his wealth and has to rely on live performances to make a living again.
I think this jury was a prosecutorial fantasy pick.
No black people so no racial jury nulification based on race.
All from a pool conservatives, and a more conservative area.
Snedden lost LONG before the Voi Dire even started.
The "accusor" was the kid, not his mother! The kids family wasn't on trial, Jackson was. I think the jurors lost sight of that.
I agree, the prosecution had a weak case. If you ask me, the lot of them -- defendant, plaintiff, witnesses -- ought to be taken out and horse-whipped. Dirtbags all of them.
Don't go being the responsible one, now - there's a circus under way!
Have you ever thought that maybe the defense didn't want any black people on the jury so that they could say the jurors were 'racist' if he was found guilty?
Agreed. The DA lost this one the day this family decided they wanted a large amount of Michael Jackson's money. The mother should be prosecuted for allowing her child within 100 ft of Jackson.
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.