Michael Jackson Jury Reaches Verdict

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:18 pm

MJ must be telling the truth because his nose keeps getting shorter!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:18 pm

An article that does a good job of trying to begin to explain how bizarre everything about this case turned out being. They need a flowchart to map all of the strange behavior on all sides:

http://slate.com/id/2120812/

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:24 pm

On the contrary - I've only heard and read that the DA's case was pretty weak upon having the evidence entered into the record.

I didn't follow the case. But I did at one time read that some of the key, so-called witnesses for the prosecution basically retracted their original story.

Jackson's life is so f-ed up, how is anyone suppose to know truth from fiction. The guy doesn't even live in reality. But that doesn't mean he committed the crimes he was accused of. After all, it is reasonable doubt. If it's money they are after, the victim(s) will probably file a civil case and get a few million to share with their attorneys.

Mslacat - that's an eye-opening story. The only case I sat on took longer to pick a jury forman than to return a guilty verdict. The first straw pole was unanimous. The foreman tried to "discuss" the case, but it was basically laughable. We ended up having to wait in the locked room for almost a half hour because the guard left. That just ticked us off more.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:53 pm

I've been called for jury duty 3 times & was picked once (I've also been at several trials as a professional witness because of my occupation). I fully believe in our justice system, but it's amazing how money, well paid attorneys, and the personal emotions of the jurors can definitley sway the evidence & testimony presented.

The case I sat on was very open/shut- a guy charged with collecting workers comp benefits because of a disability while working (his occupation was as a long haul truck driver). The evidence presented showed no doubt that he was guilty.

Once we began deliberations, it was obvious that all were in agreement on the facts presented, yet there were 2 elderly females & 1 male who had concerns about how the verdict would effect his future & family life because he had a wife and 13 year old daugher. After 3 hours of deliberation the 3 finally agreed to the fact to the fact that all the evidence proved he was guilty, so we took the verdict to the judge.

Following the delivery of the verdict, we were dismissed from the court room. I walked out in the hall and was hailed over by the prosecuting county attorney, whom I knew very well. His comment was "thanks for finding him guilty- this is the third time I've prosecuted him. Once for spouse abuse & once for molesting his daughter, plus he has a rap sheet a mile long". They brought the guy over for the trial from Deer Lodge where he was spending time for convictions on both previous counts, facts not allowed during the trial. I called one of the females who had concerns about effecting his family life ( I knew her from previous professional relationships), and she was shocked when I told her the rest of the story- think it made her rest much easier that night.

After OJ walked, I knew there was no way that that Jackson, who is obviously a "freak" would be convicted of any felony charges. Thought he might at least get his hands slapped with a misdemeanor charge of supplying alcohol to minors.

At any rate- I still believe in our justice system. We'll have to see what GrizLaw has to chime in.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:35 am

GOKATS wrote:I've been called for jury duty 3 times & was picked once (I've also been at several trials as a professional witness because of my occupation). I fully believe in our justice system, but it's amazing how money, well paid attorneys, and the personal emotions of the jurors can definitley sway the evidence & testimony presented.

The case I sat on was very open/shut- a guy charged with collecting workers comp benefits because of a disability while working (his occupation was as a long haul truck driver). The evidence presented showed no doubt that he was guilty.

Once we began deliberations, it was obvious that all were in agreement on the facts presented, yet there were 2 elderly females & 1 male who had concerns about how the verdict would effect his future & family life because he had a wife and 13 year old daugher. After 3 hours of deliberation the 3 finally agreed to the fact to the fact that all the evidence proved he was guilty, so we took the verdict to the judge.

Following the delivery of the verdict, we were dismissed from the court room. I walked out in the hall and was hailed over by the prosecuting county attorney, whom I knew very well. His comment was "thanks for finding him guilty- this is the third time I've prosecuted him. Once for spouse abuse & once for molesting his daughter, plus he has a rap sheet a mile long". They brought the guy over for the trial from Deer Lodge where he was spending time for convictions on both previous counts, facts not allowed during the trial. I called one of the females who had concerns about effecting his family life ( I knew her from previous professional relationships), and she was shocked when I told her the rest of the story- think it made her rest much easier that night.

After OJ walked, I knew there was no way that that Jackson, who is obviously a "freak" would be convicted of any felony charges. Thought he might at least get his hands slapped with a misdemeanor charge of supplying alcohol to minors.

At any rate- I still believe in our justice system. We'll have to see what GrizLaw has to chime in.

well i am not grizlaw but i do have my opinions about this case

1) I want to see MJ be some big dude's girlfriend in prison finally learning what the hell he put little kids through

but
2) the case against him was pretty weak in part because of jackson's attorney was good at his craft...seems like some of what the prosicution entered into as evidance was disalowed...and it also seems that the D.A. does not know his ass from a hole in the ground...should have prosicuted mj for providing a child alcohol, period, and for posession of child porn

3) i think we all agree that the family is not credible period, having the mom as a witness was a mistake, the jury hated her

and what is this about the jury having an interview, doesnt that sound weard?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:31 am

I didn't think they actually found any child porn at MJ's place. If they had, I would have to assume they would have prosecuted him for that.

I do know they found adult-based porn that he supposedly showed to the kids.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:03 am

To be perfectly honest, I have not really followed the developments in this case, partly because cases like this are always a bit of a circus, and partly because I've just been really busy lately. I would not have been shocked by any possible outcome in this case, to be honest -- my vague understanding of the facts was that the prosecutors had a case, but not an overwhelming one, and that the defense was able to cast at least some doubt on the majority of the evidence (which is, after all, what defense attorneys are supposed to do).

The one thing that always bothers me about cases like this one, though, is the public reaction that always seems to follow. Maybe MJ really did molest the kid, and if he did, then the outcome is a miscarriage of justice. However, even if that is the case, the outcome is NOT an indictment on our justice system, which is what I know certain pundits are going to claim. I can already hear Bill O'Reilly writing up his usual fiery argument: our judicial system is too soft on crime, the system is designed to protect criminals instead of victims, that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is too high a burden for prosecutors to have to prove, and that the Constitutional standard should thus be reduced to "preponderance of the evidence," as in civil cases.

That's what scares me; the attention that cases like this will always draw. The reality is, our justice system, while imperfect, does work very well. There are thousands of criminal prosecutions and thousands of civil lawsuits in this country every year, and if you were to look at all of them, you would find that the vast, vast majority of them turn out pretty much exactly as they "should." But if you ask O'Reilly and his ilk what they think of our court system, he won't want to talk about any of those cases -- all he'll want to talk about is the McDonald's coffee case, the OJ case, and now, the MJ case. And the worst part is that, because a substantial portion of this country seems to have stopped thinking for itself a long time ago, a lot of people will unquestioningly drink in every word he utters on the topic and conclude "dammit, he's right -- the sky really is falling."

EDIT: Just to address one point by Hells -- it is actually not unusual at all for jurors to talk to the press after a case is over, especially in high profile cases.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:45 am

I was shocked by the lack of intelligence of one of the jurors interviewed. It made me honestly think that an IQ test should be used. I know that there is a jury selection and that is when a lot of the weeding out happens, but really I think you should be able to select your jury from a solid core.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:34 am

didn't really follow case, but if he is into kiddie porn I'd like to gut him like a deer and set him on fire, or just run him legs spread open into a saw mill. especially since i haven't taught my english mastiff to "sick balls" just yet. with 300 pounds of pressure in his jaws all i can say is ouch!!! whole thing makes me sick! I try to help kids that have been assaulted by SA's and they are messed up for life, it's a shame that real victims will now be less likely to come forward because of a verdict like this.

-rebecca

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:01 pm

briannell wrote:didn't really follow case, but if he is into kiddie porn I'd like to gut him like a deer and set him on fire, or just run him legs spread open into a saw mill. especially since i haven't taught my english mastiff to "sick balls" just yet. with 300 pounds of pressure in his jaws all i can say is ouch!!! whole thing makes me sick! I try to help kids that have been assaulted by SA's and they are messed up for life, it's a shame that real victims will now be less likely to come forward because of a verdict like this.

-rebecca

............ threre went my lunch.......... :-&

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:11 pm

Just to be fair (if that is appropriate) to MJ, I am quite sure that they didn't find any evidence that he had kiddie porn of any kind. They found lots of porn, but it was all of the legal variety (which he allegedly showed the kids, which was part of the charges brought against him). Just possessing kiddie porn would get him convicted of a pretty serious crime.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:15 pm

what offended you? my idea of how sa's should be treated or the fact that adults prey on children? have you been with a child that has had sexual trauma? trust me when I say after volunteering with these kids the idea of any adult robbing them of their innocence and trust would make any normal person mad as hell too.

-rebecca

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:25 pm

briannell wrote:what offended you? my idea of how sa's should be treated or the fact that adults prey on children? have you been with a child that has had sexual trauma? trust me when I say after volunteering with these kids the idea of any adult robbing them of their innocence and trust would make any normal person mad as hell too.

-rebecca

It did not offend me perse'......... it was just graphic, and I actually was eating lunch!

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 pm

Mslacat was it a hotdog?

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:38 pm

i'd apologize for being graphic, but I wouldn't really mean it. however, it is good manners to apologize for anything offensive I may say, so here it goes "I'm sorry." But i'd still like to do those things to anyone involved in kiddie porn.

-rebecca

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:14 pm

Ok, how in the hell did MJ's lawyers get ahold of the OJ jury??

Seriously, folks, although it does sound like the prosecutors came up significantly short on the "big" charges, you CANNOT excuse this jury for not at least nailing MJ on serving alcohol to minors. MY GOD! There were at least a half-dozen people who testified that they SAW HIM DO IT. The fact that the jury didn't even convict on this count tells me that they went into deliberations looking for reasons to let him off; it's as if they decided that once the State couldn't meet the burden of proof on the most severe charges, they didn't see any reason to convict on the rest...

Bottom line: That sick little freak BOUGHT his way out of jail, just as he's done before. It sickens me that both he & OJ are walking around as free men when they've done the most ghastly things any human being could do to another.

What in the world is wrong with prosecutors in SoCal?

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:16 pm

E the answer to your question is: They aren't as smart as the SoCal big money def. lawyers.

Edit: Hey don't blame me you're the free market big time Republican.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Article that's timely for this thread:

http://slate.com/id/2120845/

I'm also not sure if any credible witnesses actually witnessed the alcohol to children thing (seemingly the problem with the prosecutions whole case was that every favorable witness seemed to be getting paid off by somebody for something or another), but if they could prove that piece, what kind of punishment would there be? I remember people getting busted all the time for giving alcohol to minors (Endangering the welfare of a child is how it turned up in the paper, I think), and it was like a $100 fine. I think the only way in which it would be worth the courts time to prosecute that particular act would be as part of a larger charge to molest a kid. As a standalone charge, it's just not a big deal. He wouldn't go to jail for giving a 13 year old a glass of wine.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:33 pm

jag,

For future reference, I do not consider myself a Republican, even though you will most likely see the (R) after my name when I descend upon Helena in either 2 or 4 years...

I am a conservative, fiscally, socially, or any other "-ally". The size and scope of American government at all levels is out of control. IMHO our own government is more of a threat to the future of this nation than Bin Laden, Iran, North Korea, or even China (which, btw, is more of a threat than any other outside our borders today).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a conspiricist nor a gun-toter convinced that the "black helicopters" are coming to round us all up.

Politicians & bureaucrats have decided that given enough time & money, they can fix anything and we all know that is not possible. Once our government left the bounds of essentially protecting its citizens & their rights, this desire to "fix" everything has cost us TRILLIONS of dollars and can't possibly claim enough triumphs to offset the costs.

I simply believe that the MASSIVE waste & inefficiencies of our governmental entities is eventually going to destroy the American economy and I believe that our economy is the single biggest factor behind why our nation is currently the greatest and most powerful on the planet.

The gentleman from Kalispell yields the remainder of his time...

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:39 pm

Based on what I've read, I have no doubt the jury made the correct verdict. However, the lack of "physical" evidence and the ineptness of the prosecution's case does not change the fact that Jackson is a couple cans short of a six pack and needs a full-time therapist (or two).