stevestojan Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 These are the words of a juror. She said she had "no choice to but to let him go" but that now "she feels guilty, and God has forgiven her for letting Michael go, and now she has to forgive herself". Her (Juror #5) and another male juror were just on the news (MSNBC) and stated that "Michael Jackson is a serial child molestor". Unreal.
jester43 Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 jesus christ. do you have to trade your brains in to serve on a jury??
stevestojan Posted August 15, 2005 Author Posted August 15, 2005 jesus christ. do you have to trade your brains in to serve on a jury?? 407559[/snapback] I was going to get into that, but didn't want to offend anyone who has been on a jury or those that defend doing jury duty. That's not the problem here. The problem here is this is 12 people that supposedly hadn't heard much or anything at all about MJ before this trial. How do you find 12 Americans who have a pulse that don't know about MJ and his ways.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 I was going to get into that, but didn't want to offend anyone who has been on a jury or those that defend doing jury duty. That's not the problem here. The problem here is this is 12 people that supposedly hadn't heard much or anything at all about MJ before this trial. How do you find 12 Americans who have a pulse that don't know about MJ and his ways. 407560[/snapback] I suspect someone got bought off. Most people are like sheep in a jury room. You get one strong personality and the rest will follow. How else do you explain all the verdict remorse? if MJ's people somehow got to that person, they could buy an acquittal. PTR
stevestojan Posted August 15, 2005 Author Posted August 15, 2005 Ok, two more jurors on now... Juror #9, female: I believed the boy and I believe Michael is a child molestor. I changed my vote to not guilty because I had to follow the law and the jury instructions. There is a slight possiblity he didn't do it. I do believe he did this and that he is a child molestor.
SF Bills Fan Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 These people should not be getting book deals or making money off of this.
kasper13 Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Probably should have come to that conclusion while they had the chance to convict him. Total idiots. They should do time and see if they like getting molested.
meazza Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 the only way we could be 100% sure and prove to the world that this guy is guilty is if we caught him on tape or something and that would be very difficult, its not fair that this mother!@#$er is free on the streets i cant imagine him in jail though, he'd end up being the little kid there and he'll be the one getting tucked in
stevestojan Posted August 15, 2005 Author Posted August 15, 2005 the only way we could be 100% sure and prove to the world that this guy is guilty is if we caught him on tape 407570[/snapback] exactly. sadly, some people can be convinced that if someone isn't caught red handed, we can't convict them. From now on, if a case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, we shouldn't even bother...
Tux of Borg Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 From now on, if a case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, we shouldn't even bother... 407573[/snapback] Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence. As for the Michael Jackson case... The prosecution was so gun-ho about getting Jackson, they created a weak case around a family that had no credibility. That was the reason why Michael walked.
eSJayDee Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Put yourself in the shoes of the suspect for a moment. Okay, none of us know MJ personally but let's just say based on what we see in the media (which is our only basis for opinion) that we perceive him as 'weird'. We don't know that he's a child molestor. As far as I'm concerned and from what I can see, this worked the way it was supposed to. It's a far greater injustice to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person. Okay, so most people thought he was 'probably guilty'. Apparently, either the DA et al didn't adequately do their job in proving that he did do it, or he might actually be innocent.
Mark Vader Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 jester43 Posted Yesterday, 11:37 PM jesus christ. do you have to trade your brains in to serve on a jury?? Only in California. I ought to know since I live here. It's amazing to see the mindset of some people here.
envirojeff Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Nice, well at least she's OK with God.......
RkFast Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 "There is a slight possiblity he didn't do it." Our entire justice system is based on this one comment by this juror. Whats next? You guys are going to B word about habeas corpus because it gets in the way of all those "cool" arrest scenes on "Cops?"
30dive Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 It's a far greater injustice to let a guilty person go free than to convict an innocent person.407581[/snapback] Huh! So it's OK for an innocent person to go to jail? I reall y can't comment on the Jackson case, as I really could have given two sh!ts, but with that said, I stand by the thinking: Better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Huh! So it's OK for an innocent person to go to jail? I reall y can't comment on the Jackson case, as I really could have given two sh!ts, but with that said, I stand by the thinking: Better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. 407604[/snapback] Until one of those 12 slit your throat. This isn't 1875 any more.
Fezmid Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Huh! So it's OK for an innocent person to go to jail? I reall y can't comment on the Jackson case, as I really could have given two sh!ts, but with that said, I stand by the thinking: Better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. 407604[/snapback] EXACTLY!!!!! That's actually the basis of our entire legal system. All anyone here knows about MJ is what they've seen on the news. THAT'S IT. You didn't see the trial. You weren't sitting there every day listening to testimony. You may read a few snippits on a website, but that's it. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean, "Have to catch red handed." Even from the little bits and peices I read about on websites, there seemed to be a lot of contradiction in the family's testimony. Thus, reasonable doubt. CW
buckeyemike Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 As for the Michael Jackson case... The prosecution was so gun-ho about getting Jackson, they created a weak case around a family that had no credibility. That was the reason why Michael walked. 407580[/snapback] 100% correct. The prosecutors needed to be held accountable and they were by the jury. Needless to say, that's always a good indicator on whether or not a case is strong. And this is coming from a lawyer with nearly 11 years of experience. Mike
UConn James Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 That's not the problem here. The problem here is this is 12 people that supposedly hadn't heard much or anything at all about MJ before this trial. How do you find 12 Americans who have a pulse that don't know about MJ and his ways. 407560[/snapback] Is that actually what they did; interview to get 12 people who know nothing about MJ? If so, the prosecution was as dumb as they looked, and people are bending over backward and twisting like a pretzel in the definition of a fair trial. Serving as a juror should not require that you live under a rock or never read or watch the news, just that you have an open mind based on the evidence that is presented during the trial. I'm just wondering if this (and their actual juror votes, which is pretty sick) isn't a ploy to sell their books. 'Oh! Now I think he was guilty! I was bamboozled!' Pretty much every other juror tell-all angle has been tapped.
John Adams Posted August 15, 2005 Posted August 15, 2005 Until one of those 12 slit your throat. This isn't 1875 any more. 407608[/snapback] Right. In 1875, they drowned witches and lynched balck people. Ahh, the good old days.
Recommended Posts