Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
the jury instructions most likely laid out exactly what the elements were for each count and they had to decide if those elements were met, by the evidence presented, not their opinion of michael jackson etc.. i didn't follow the case so closely as to know what the evidence was on each count. as far as sleeping with little boys, i don't know where that would fit in under the counts for which he as charged. someone asked why he wasn't charged with porn stuff, i have no idea. but the jurors cannot find him guilty of a crime for which he was not charged. those things were within the purview of the prosecution. they bear a fair amount of blame for this outcome, bc of their inartful charging of him. the prosecutors job is to consider what the evidence is on each count, prior to bringing the charges. if the evidence was weak, with regard to a particular charge, he should have left it out.
Well..I think there has to be some reform -- not to toss the juries, but to improve the system.
if the victim here and his family didn't have all of the stuff that they were impeached with, likely MJ would have been convicted. yes, just bc he came from a lying, thieving family, it doesn't mean that he should have been abused and his abuser should not be permitted to walk, but the lying and thieving did cast sufficient doubt so as permit of an acquittal
Oh please, toss this jury :)
I think the defense has too many challenges so they can really model a jury almost up to spec. They want to see certain types on there (or not on there). For example, I've heard that if you don't want to be picked for jury duty, wear glasses. If you seem intelligent, the defense will probably challenge you. Maybe we need to consider what "jury of peers" means as well as what "reasonable doubt" means. I pray that this Jackson jury does not represent average America.
i also understand that the prosecution did not use all of the preemptory challenges that they were allowed, so they ARE responsible in part for the makeup of that jury.
That's true, undoubtedly, but the problem is that these are the kinds of families that pedophiles pick their victims from. It's like of like organized crime cases. You don't find nuns testifying in organized crime cases. You find one set of criminals testifying against another. They're unsavory people. Does that mean that everything they're saying is either true or a lie? No - but a jury has to have the intelligence and sense of discretion and discernment to make a determination which is which. You can have unsavory witnesses who actually ARE telling the truth - juries have to be taught to understand that.
Yet, they had to give him a pass on this one.
go figure....I can't. I've tried.
The prosecution did not do a good job with this case, that is for certain. Hopefully they will all learn from it. In the meantime, Jackson will probably help the Tsunami efforts in Thailand, or maybe help some of those starving children in Africa. So many needy kids, so little time.
unfortunately with the jury system, you have to hope that people will come in with their common sense, and you can only weed out the obvious conflicted/nutty ones. again with the charging, supposedly if they had not charged him with the conspiracy charge the mother would not have been on the stand. maybe that would have made the difference, if her tainted weirdness wasn't in the mix. then they would have only had to contend with the kid himself changing his testimony. i am just saying that as much as the jury is as fault, the prosecution bears at least that much responsibility and more.
i know it is hard to understand and even more difficult to stomach, but if there was not evidence sufficient to prove that he did THIS CRIME, they were PRECLUDED FROM finding him guilty. the jury instructions lay it out clearly for them as to what has to be proved. now once i heard the jury verdict, i was so disgusted, i will not watch them, so i can't opine as to whether they were legit in their consideration of the case.
i am a lawyer, i desperately wanted him found guilty, bc i am sure he is, but i can't fault a jury for their verdict if the evidence was just not there.
Yes, the prosecution made things unnecessarily complicated and I think the over-rated the jury. THey probably thought, this is so OBVIOUS that MJ is a pedophile, how can any jury be stupid enough or morally lax enough to give him a pass? Well, goes to show you can't underestimate some folks.
Despite that, I think there was more than enough evidence there to convict Jackson of at least the minor charges. The jury just didn't want to "believe" it. There's no such thing as ultimate proof or evidence, like Moses coming down from the mountain with tablets - there's just what the jury chooses to believe. The majority choose - I believe from Day One - to believe he was innocent. The ones who KNOW he is a molester (as several jury members have admitted this) were spineless cowards who gave in to the majority. Since the burden of conviction rests on the jury, I have to give the jury more grief here. They let a pedophile go free. That's wrong, and I can't get around that. He's going to go molest more children. They could have stopped it. So...the jury has the lion's share of the blame.
This was mentioned on tv today, & there was a resounding, "NOOOO."
knowing he is a pedophile, if there is insufficient proof that he commmited THIS CRIME, does not give them the right to convict him. i am with you emotionally, i wanted him convicted, but legally, it is JUST NOT POSSIBLE without sufficient evidence.
Well, it's a sickness. The man is majorly mentally ill. He can't help himself. He'll be with kids again, but probably overseas. I don't think even he has the cajones to do it again in America, but even if he did, who would stop him? I don't think they'd bring another trial - if anything he might become more brazen now. I don't think it will be fear of the authorities that will drive him abroad, but fear of publicity as these roaches like to operate in the dark. And, I hate to say it, but others have, he's been growing his own victims in the meantime so he may never have to leave the house again.
I keep shaking my head in amazement each time they contradict the verdicts.
Not seen a more discombobulated, if not confused, jury in over 200 trials I've watched over the years.
Personally, I think the evidence--as much as can be had in a molestation case as opposed to a rape case--was there. I think the jury was just predisposed to letting him walk.
Near as I can tell, they chose to ignore what evidence there was simply because they didn't like the mother, they didn't like how she dressed, and they were ticked off that she snapped her fingers at them.
But at least they "bonded."
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.