Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Regardless of whether you think him guilty of child molestation or not, you must surely agree that he is a miserable excuse for a human being who destroyed the innocence of other people's sons.
Naughty, naughty....and funny. I fell asleep and woke to find the jury nattering on about how they'd made 19 new friends, and wasn't that grand. Ugh.
BTW, do you think a 40-something man who admits to taking little boys to bed regularly to serve them "some cookies...a little hot milk...." is actually being truthful?
Well, she could sue my roommate, the owner of the dog, as she had no money, so she sued me.
Justice? What does the law care for justice?
I don't suppose there was anything in that Bible passage about paying $ millions in hush money and giving booze in cola cans to kids.
Another day off work and they looked at the evidence after they voted...and said the food was good, too.
I'm glad to hear you're immune to being falsely accused. What's your secret?
Your #2501 may well be THE most moronic post I've seen in seven+ years on this site - and we've had some doozies.
For 14 years I prosecuted murder, dope, theft and sex cases. I never lost a jury sex crime, either a violent act of rape or a child molestation case. So I am confident they can be won before a jury if the evidence is there.
While I do defense work now, I do not take any sex crime cases. Having spent most of my professional life prosecuting cases on behalf of raped women and molested children, I don't have the emotional energy left to represent a person accused of a sex crime. I wouldn't care if it was my brother and I knew he was innocent, I just don't have it in me.
In this case, I can believe that Jackson was guilty. Did the government prove he was guilty? Apparently not. (From what I heard of the evidence, the case sounded weak to me). But I still believe that juries find the right answer, "Did the State prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt?".
If the DA has other cases, I can't understand why he didn't bring one of them instead. Admitted perjurors DO NOT make believable witnesses.
"Next time the DA may want to find a family that aren't grifters the next time they try a case."
That is morally wrong and should never be a factor. That would create a class system in this Country and in my opinion, unAmerican.
Ltes remember that Presidential Candidate that said he didn't want to be Judgmental on Saddams' Guilt or Innocence!
Incredible, he hates Republicans, but wants to hear the Evidence on Saddam. Would have been a great candidate for this Jury. Oh Well????????
Were any of the jurors asked their reaction to the video tape of the accuser talking to police? I was watching Dimond interview Sneddon and missed the first few questions asked of jurors and frankly what I did catch was more than enough.
"If it's not Scottish..."
I like Scotland. Been there numerous times. I've seen much of Scotland. I have only fond memories from each of my visits.
Would I let my son sleep at Jackson's bed... H#ll NO !!...
The DA brought a weak case, and basically thought he could convict a freak. If I were Jackson, I'd get the hell out of Neverland, and never have a single "visitor" without digitally secured video recording of all encounters.
I'm very surprised at how many people on FR don't know how the judicial system works in this country nor understand personal feelings VS reasonable doubt.
I think 'Cowbell' for impending decisions has officially entered FR big trial lore.
I am disgusted by the jurors decision and even more disgusted with people in Times Square cheering at the verdict, reminded me of the OJ case.
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.