Posted on 06/15/2005 5:57:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
"You watched a different case than I did, then. A relative sat on a jury not long ago (locally) that convicted someone for child molestation with NO physical evidence, only the children's word. (And one child was too young to even testify.) There was plenty of evidence in the Jackson case. You, like the jury, are demanding proof beyond ALL doubt, not beyond REASONABLE doubt."
Perhaps the one child who was too young to testify had a psychiatrist or psychologist testify on their behalf? Without more information, I don't know. As for "plenty of evidence in the Jackson case", I disagree. If the evidence presented, and the witnesses' testimony and history could convict MJ, then many innocent defendants could find themselves being convicted. Dangerous precedent to set, IMO.
Me either. sigh
Not really relevant in our system. He may have a tendency to commit a crime, he may have wanted to commit a crime, he may have been about to commit a crime, but the question before the court is whether in fact the defendent did commit a specific crime.
This system works well in a basically moral and law-abiding society, where crimes are clearly defined as overt hostile acts like robbery and murder.
It works less well nowadays.
Wonder if Jesus Juice has been copyrighted.?.
"I always thought there were those who were "above the law." Look at Teddy Kennedy"
Great example! And actually one of the first of the modern era. And that bloated, alcoholic, philandering, murdering, gasbag is STILL going strong. A living breathing monument to special privledge. If I missed any descriptives for him just let me know
There was plenty of evidence. The jury was star-struck.
Exactly. Most people would be convicted on a lot less evidence.
Talk about a big liar. He claims he hasn't had plastic surgery.
Dingdingding - a winner:
"It appears that the only people guilty of anything in this country are the soldiers guarding terrorists at Guantanamo."
And, of course the foul torturers at the Grab an Arab prison.
One of the jurors said that she was upset at the mother after she (the mother) snapped her fingers at the jury. The juror said that nobody snaps their finger at her! So much for rendering a decision based on the evidence!
If the step-father was famous and wealthy, all kinds of accusations would be made for money.
He claimed to be on the floor while kids were sleeping on the bed.
The maid sold a story for mega bucks and it is in her families interest to say anything for money.
What if the boy claimed his own mother molested him years before ever going to Jackson, which happened?
Where did you get that information? That wasn't part of the testimony.
I wonder if an 'ordinary' celebrity would have been convicted. Did MJ's complete wierdness give him cover? Was the fact that he was so open about his freakish behavior give him more protection?
Was from either Fox or MSNBC.
No, it wasn't. I followed the trial closely and that was never claimed by the defense. I never heard such a claim until you posted it. That is just simply a false statement.
had it been Rush Limbaugh with the same charges and evidence, would he have been convicted? Had it been any catholic priest with the same charges and evidence, would he have been convicted?
yes to both questions. that tells me all I need to know about how the justice system operates.
Then they should not have convicted Scott Peterson either. After all, the concrete could have been for some other reason, he could have been fishing in the area that Laci's body found by coincidence, he could have been set up, and he could have been having an affair like other men do and it had nothing to do with Laci's death. Why wasn't he found "not guilty"? The only thing they had was circumstantial evidence. At least with Jackson there were witnesses AND prior acts.
Jackson and his lawyers and his witnesses all admitted that he regularly shared his bed with boys. Jackson said it was "the most loving thing a person could do."
Did you see the MBLA reccomended books that Jackson kept in his bedroom? The man is certainly a pedophile. Many witnesses testified to his sexual behavior toward children. You either are in denial or ignorant of the facts. Most people convicted of molestation are convicted on much less evidence.
and that won't change. what I am saying is, "regular" people accused of this don't get to go into court and put the mother of the accuser on trial as part of their defense. and many of them do face conviction simply based on the testimony of the accuser. there are different laws for anyone the media and the popular culture deems suitable to receive it - and has such influenced the sheeple that make up these juries of.
Apples and Oranges
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.