Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
Agreed. Too many jurists are intimidated by the judge and defense attorneys.
Moreover, pedophiles like Jackson deliberately seek out children from exactly the kind of background the victim in this case represented - dysfunctional, chaotic, maybe the family are grifter, they're unappealing. That's EXACTLY what pedophiles look for. It gives them a child that is vulnerable and needy because of their background and then if they are accused of pedophilia they can simply say, "well look at this kid's background, obviously he's crazy, lying, promiscuous, - whatever". They pick these kinds of families.
No. If a child has a crappy mother, and that crappy mother is one of the key witnesses for the prosecution in the trial, then there is a very good chance that the defendent in the case will be acquitted.
I thought that too and the closer I looked, I think they were white homing pigeons.
Went to a funeral here not to long ago and they released white homing pigeons. I hope that's what they were because Doves raised in captivity would die if released.
BTW I also have an African Grey raised from and infant. Neat birds.
I sometimes think that if Snedden erred at all, it was in not producing a witness who would talk about the pattern of child molesters--how they are groomed, what kind of children they normally choose, and so on. Such experts have appeared on interview shows, but to my knowledge (I might have missed it), none appeared to testify in court. Jackson followed every step listed by these experts.
The jury opted for setting a pedophile free rather than doing their duty. They knew juror #1 wasn't going to budge and was going to vote to acquit from the get-go. Rather than stand firm on what they knew to be true (M.J. is a pedophile who molests kids), they caved rather than letting the jury be hung. I wish them insomnia for the rest of their nights....
Was there one pigeon for each juror? How appropriate.
Most children don't have a prior track record of lies in legal cases.
This case was just too dirty to sort through. Since the mother was there and an active player in the relationship and proximity of the child to MJ... She's relevant. And if she'd shown to make things up and get her kid to play along, the case has to be thrown out.
This whole trial is a circus side show.
That's total BS. It's not the child's fault that the mother is perhaps two french fries short of a happy meal. If her child was molested then that child deserves to have justice served regardless if the mother may be a fruitcake. Spare me the bullsh*t! Even a prostitute doesn't deserve to be raped!
Nancy Grace is a jack@ss. I've heard her interviewed on the radio, and she comes across as an imcompetent court reporter at best. Her problem is that she doesn't just report on these cases -- she acts as if she has a stake in the outcome. And since her prediction last week about this case was incorrect (she said Jackson would be convicted on some of the charges and acquitted on others, but that he would be convicted on the most serious charge -- the child molestation), she comes across across now as a petty, vindictive b!tch.
Yes, I agree with you. Sneddon definitely made some big mistakes, and that was one. Excellent point. Juries really do need to be educated, although this group of clowns may have been really uneducable. Truly, most of the jurors I've heard come across as absolutely cretinous.
Jackson has followed the predator manual step by step. He's a classic, text book case of a successful child molester.
We'll have to disagree on that. Child molesters typically choose that kind of child deliberately, sort of like insurance if they get caught. Jackson did so, too, in my estimation. If the truth were known, I'm betting that he investigated this family first, before he started messing with the boy, just to make sure they wouldn't be believed. He chose well, apparently. (But not for the boy...)
No, that is not possible.
He is guilty.
I am not a middle-aged white man, but a 22-year-old white man.
And MJ is GUILTY. Any sane person knows it to be true.
It is absurd to say every single accuser is just out for money.
Do you think MJ is just sleeping with those little boys with no touching occurring?
If so, you are just as bad as these jurors with no common sense.
Do you think Michael Jackson is innocent?
"Jackson molested children, but the prosecution simply didn't prove that he molested this child."
He did? Which one? Got proof?
Exactly! He knew what victim to prey on. The down and out kind that won't be believed.
Really?
Then this prosecutor is an idiot, and it's no wonder he lost the case.
Jackson is a highly intelligent, manipulative and pretty careful man in most respects. HIs business instincts have always been excellent - his pedophilia is what has tripped him up financially. It's his Achilles heel and what has been costing him so much money. But in general terms, he's a highly competent, although very sick, individual. I'm sure he thoroughly investigates all his victims beforehand.
Good point.
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.