Jacko's innocent!!!

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 14 2005,12:29)
How? By not getting a conviction? Honestly, none of us are in a position to make a judgment in this case.

Come on Tom - did you see that interview with Jackson where he admitted letting boys in his room. But I'm basing my opinion on the jurors opinions, several which thought Jackson had molested boys.

Although I didn't follow this case real closely, the prosecutors screwed up the timeline. I listened to an interview with a child pyscologoist & apparently these victims often change their story. She felt the prosecution tried to minimize this to the detriment of making the timeline unbelievable.
You haven't heard the evidence, you have heard bits of it. That they think he did it is irrelevant - that they did not think the evidence rose to the level of proof required is what matters. the truth is, taht standard is very high, and "good" cases often result in not guilty verdicts. I see no reason to think that the prosecutors screwed up.

I agree - I haven’t heard the evidence. Don’t get me wrong - I do believe he’s innocent of the charges that were brought against him.

However, even the jury chairperson said he wanted the prosecution to provide more evidence that they could use, but they didn’t.

But I still believe I can safely say that the prosecution screwed up this case, even what I know & what the jurors themselves have said.

Hee hee hee, well, I’ll stop giving you grief about it, but I would be willing to bet that if we both looked at the whole case & examined the prosecutors’ work we’d come to the conclusion that they did a good job. :)

The prosicutions only probelm was that they were forced to rely on witnesses that virtually no one would find believable. With that kind of evidence it doesn’t matter if it’s true. It becomes the prosecution’s burdon to get the jury to believe them in spite of the fact that they might seem unreliable. A cynic would say that Micahael Jackson is a master at picking out victims based on the fact that even if they tell the truth no on will believe them. I don’t know if I’d go tht far, but I find Michael Jackon equally unbelievable. Was he guilty? No. Did he do it? Yes. But, we’ll never know exact what.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The prosicutions only probelm was that they were forced to rely on witnesses that virtually no one would find believable.


Which is why they never should have indicted the nutball in the first place. It was a waste of time and tax money.

TG

But wasting money is how alot of americans get paid their inflated saleries TG, jeesh, ya don’t want some rich lawyer standing on the curb with a work for caviar sign do ya? ???

I suspect that the only lawyers who did well in this case were Jackson’s. Prosecutors don’t make all that much money. Enough, yes, but not all that much.