Posted on 06/03/2005 12:26:19 PM PDT by Howlin
Bayliffs being sworn in, alternatives have been sent home!
This circus is about to be in the hands of the jury!
Bets? Predictions?
Those books never went anywhere. But we're a more coarsened society today and the MJ books might do well.
All jurors, including alternates (20 in all), now assembling in the courtroom for a 10 minute press conference.
And I can just imagine Tom Sneddon grimacing about the use of the police escorts out of the courthouse area.
I hear ya. I did manage to
keep things done around the
house during all the weeks
of this trial.....although,
I don't know how I did it! LOL!
Race aside....(but I have thoughts on that too)...if you're a celeb, you walk!!!!
I hope this jury realizes the outrage they've produced and will not have any feelgood moments from this!!!!
I truly hope they will find 'shame' again......I truly hope they realize what they've done when they look in the eyes of their children!!!!
Just got in and saw the news. While I think he's guilty as sin, I had a strong feeling that he would be found not guilty. As a lawyer, I thought there was more than enough evidence to establish reasonable doubt. From hereon in, any mother that lets her children near Michael Jackson should be brought up on child endangerment charges.
Clearly tho, Michael Jackson is not a fit father for those children-because even if he is not guility- he is letting their lives be ruined along with his... and all because he demands to sleep in the same bed with young boys AND even after being dragged thru the mud time and time again for it?
If a parent can not give up sleeping in the same bed with young boys for the peace of his family... then I doubt they will be very effective in setting boundaries for their children.
gee, is the judge gonna allow
cameras in the court room now?
(/sarcasm.)
I hear ya. Not to mention her rip-off of a department store.
"Uhm, yeah, well, we all .... found MJ guilty ... actually... but, errr.... his offer was simply too generous to refuse... so, we, the jury, decided to find him not guilty on all charges. Everyone benefits: the state of California who saves money for imprisonment, Micha-el, his attorney, and of course we too. And, don´t forget the children who´ll have a great time in Ever-again-Land errr Neverland. Thank you for your attention."
You know who I feel really sorry for? The boy at the center of the case.
How does he go forward? Other boys know what happened and his life will be miserable.
He wasn't including Jim or any Ca Freepers, he was caught up in the moment and is disgusted like the rest of us....
...and here I've been toasting the bread first. How do you keep the cinnamon from falling into the toaster? Aha, maybe a toaster oven--we don't have one of those.
Several of the jurors have
children &/or grandchildren,
one of them may encounter
a child molester one day.
A few of them have already
had encounters or close
in their families.
I don't see Americans, serving on juries, per the United States Constitution, as whores.
Sorry that you do.
Yes, you're right. We should just give celebrities a pass. Saves time and money. Seriously though, those who have pointed out on this thread how difficult these cases are, are right. Child molestors are experts at "grooming" children, and they do so with families who are not exactly straight out of "Father Knows Best." Unfortunate but true. One time I was talking to one of the judges here, and I said something about how neither side in a divorce case seemed to be too great, and he said something like, well, what do you expect, since they chose each other?
Same thing in criminal cases. Your witnesses generally aren't the cream of the community. E.g., can you testify as to burglaries you've seen or known about? I can't. But there's lots of sleazy people out there who can.
If the boy was from an upstanding family, he never would have gotten near Jackson.
Jurors on FNC right now.
I hope that boy sues mj now.
And I believe he will win.
I was not there and did not follow the minutia of the testimony and facts in evidence. Therefore I cannot answer that question. I quibble with the notion that if the family of accusers lacked credibility, that by law you MUST find the defendent not guilty. You have stated that they would need a lot of corroberation to overcome the family's lack of credibility. I don't think you balance one off from the other like that. If you found a snippet of accepted truth that nailed Jackson in your mind, I mean nailed him, even though a snippet, I believe that would be all you would need, even if you disregarded the family's testimony. Whether they searched for those snippets is something I question, for my impression is that they did not want to convict Jackson of anything. As I said, just my impression...
How can they spare the time?
10 minutes? Must not have
much to say.
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.