Posted on 06/13/2005 4:29:30 PM PDT by My Favorite Headache
I heard some of the jurors today. Very emotional people. Someone in that group "led" them right to that verdict. It was a Michael Jackson pity party.
They say Michael lost a lot of weight. I can't think of an excuse for that, can you?? Such a game player!
His celebrity and the melanometrics of the case, will preclude him from ever being tried again for anything in "The People's Republic of California".
Enjoy your japanimation. I'll stick with Hot 8.
Hope they don't forget to send them with plenty of Vaseline.
If you are found guilty in the Kingdom of the Most High, you will pray for mere "jail"...
You wrote:I'm waiting with baited breath to hear how the 23 yr old, 1993 victim's testimony wasn't "believable" by the jury as well. I hear he broke down in tears when told to relive his molestation for the courtroom.
I guess he wasn't believable either.
My Reply: I would not give him a lot of credibility after all isn't he the one who got like 20 Million or something? Now ther is a real big incentive to drop crocodile tears.
You wrote:I wish he would move to France. He could get a house in the same neighborhood as Roman Polansky.
My Reply: I think he is better suited for California. We get more than enough despots and former dictators, Michael needs to stay home and sleep in his own bed, ALONE!
Not being in the courtroom, I don't think the prosecution made the case either. I doubt if I would have voted to convict. The vast perponderance of the prosecution witnesses were not credible. I still remember Jay leno saying the kid sounded scripted. Kids can be great actors sometimes.
To deny a person's freedom, to put them in jail, it is up to the state to prove their case. They had tons of opportunity, money and resources and there were not credible witnesses to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MJ did molest this boy. Celebrat r no celebraty the prosecution did not prove their case. There was no smoking gun.
And the only "child" pornography was a book given to michael I think by the author. He inscribed it with something like, I know you never had a childhood, yadda, yadda, yadda. If there was kiddie porn around I think the jury might have taken that into account. But there wasn't any. As for adult porn I read here on FR on a different thread that 12% of all website are porn websites, so ther are an awful lot of porn consumers who are not out molesting bosy. So I don't think you can make a correlation between adult porn and pedophilia. It was a weak case and the jury would not convict and deny anyone theri freedom on such a weak case. IMHO.
Yep, I agree with you. The grifter family sunk the prosecution's case. As the prosecutor said, he couldn't pick the victim. You can't convict M.J. of being weird if it isn't against the law, and not in the charges. They had to prove the charges, and didn't.
"Now ther is a real big incentive to drop crocodile tears."
With all due respect, if I was the person who collected that kind of money, I'd have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to cry in public. Now if the kid hadn't collected yet, THAT would be a reason for theatrics.
agree with you. This case was not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and here, in America, we don't put people in jail because they're weird.
I guess that there are different standards for "shadow of doubt" here in America. Look what they did to a lot of priest with less evidence but then again they were not all rich and white.
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.