Get your heaping hot portions of Crow here

[mitchtv]

If you were predicting a "guilty" in Sta Maria today.

[sniffa]

1. yeah, congrats

on seeing the tefLon moLester get off again.

[mitchtv]

4. maybe he is, but

mr Smedden didn't prove it. then again maybe he is innocent. I kept thinking of how easy it generally is to convict on anything below the belt ie the Mc Martin Preschool case. They had a weak case and a band of grifters for "victims".

[BattyDem]

10. If it were just this case, I'd agree with you.

But the fact remains that he paid $25 million to a young boy to shut him up. That's a lot of money. He could have spent that money on going to court and proving his innocence, which would have put the rumors to rest and cleared his name right then and there. Instead, he choice to silence the accuser with a bribe. Why would anyone - especially someone who makes a living in the public eye - want the label of "child molester" hanging over his head when he could easily afford to defend himself?

I used to be a big MJ fan ... I bought his albums/CDs. I saw him in concert on the "Bad" tour and he was fantastic! But after that payoff, I never looked at him the same way again. I know he's never been convicted of anything, but the man gives me the creeps. Where there's smoke, there's fire ... and there's a hell of a lot of smoke surrounding the guy.

[Floogeldy]

17. No.

You don't know why MJ paid $20 million. It could have been just to avoid the humiliation of a trial. Maybe defending the case would have cost more?

All of your rambling about "shutting him up" or "bribing him" is fantasy within your head. It is not reality. The "payoff" is within you.

Do you know how easy it would be for the prosecutor in your county to start developing some "smoke" around you?

Think about it.


}(

[BattyDem]

24. What is more humiliating then being accused of molesting a child?

Especially if you're innocent!

Part of the deal was that the kid was never to speak about the incident. $25 million to keep your mouth shut forever ... and that's not a payoff?
:eyes:

I know how easy it is to frame someone. I know a prosecutor could easily develop some "smoke" around me. But I don't sleep with children. I have never announced to the world that I sleep with children. I never paid $25 million to prevent them from talking about something. I don't have an alarm that goes off every time someone approaches my bedroom.

Look ... he's been acquitted, so what I think doesn't matter. I'm entitled to my opinion. I'm sorry if it offends you. :-)

[Floogeldy]

29. Your opinion doesn't offend me

Your uninformed conclusions and false logic do, however.

Here is a little education for you: In 99% of civil cases that are settled out of court in the USA, whether they be about car wrecks, negligence, malpractice, fraud, whatever, the settlement agreement ALWAYS specifically states that no wrongdoing is admitted by the defendant, that the settlement agreement is CONFIDENTIAL, and the parties are forbidden from talking about the settlement. This is NOT UNIQUE to any case.

BTW, child molesters do not make it a habit to announce to the world that they sleep with children.

[mitchtv]

18. well

>
Where there's smoke, there's fire ... and there's a hell of a lot of smoke surrounding the guy.
This is the attitde that consistently gets conviction. It is a power of the police state to take advantage of that attitude for wrongfull convictions on spurious charges by unreliable witness. " I think he did it", is not good enough,"Where there's smoke, there's fire ... "
doesn't hold up in court, tho, it maybe all they have, the element of vendetta is present here , too.- reasonable doubt.

[BattyDem]

31. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" works ... I think it's a good thing.

Of course I don't want innocent people going to jail. Of course I don't want a police state. Of course I don't want people convicted on public opinion. And MJ wasn't. He got a fair trial and he was acquitted. So be it.

I wasn't on the jury, so I'm not required to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" - I'm entitled to my opinion, right or wrong. However, I don't think anyone should go to prison based on my opinion, LOL! But ... I don't have to buy his CDs or support his career in any way. That's my choice.

I sincerely hope that I'm totally wrong about him and he's just an innocent victim of circumstance because that would mean that justice was truly served today. :-)

[Floogeldy]

6. Jackson didn't do it. He's not guilty.

Do you know something the jurors didn't know?

Do tell.

}(

[Lex]

22. The State didn't prove it's case so he's "Not Guilty"

which is different than whatever the objective truth is.

[Floogeldy]

30. What objective truth?

You mean, like the truth that "god" knows?

Our legal truths are determined by juries.

Embrace it.

[Lex]

32. Legal truths don't equal objective truths.

If you believe that legal truths = objective truths, then you believe the U.S. Supreme Court was correct in Bush v. Gore. Embrace it.

I abide by legal truths, I uphold legal truths; however, I am not so naive as to think that legal truths are objective truths.

[Floogeldy]

36. I didn't say that

I never said legal truths = objective truths. I'm speaking in the context of jury trials, as in the MJ case.

You raised the issue of "objective truth." I certainly never characterized the Supreme Court as anything.

Take another wild leap.

}(

[Lex]

39. You said "What objective truth" as if there is none other than legal truth

All I did was differentiate the two in my post.

Legal truths are made by the court system--both in opinions of the court, such as the US Supreme Court, or by juries, as in the MJ case.

Objective truths are the . . . objective truths about what actually
occured.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

43. I was only trying to have a conversation with you about

the difference between legal truth and objective truth and you ended up making it into an ad hominem attack.

I don't need that kind of attack from a fellow DU'er.

See ya.

[Floogeldy]

46. Bye.

[kanrok]

2. Yeah, great....let's help NAMBLA with recruiting

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. He got away with it

again.

There was such jury misbehavior, I cannot believe the prosecutors didn't ask for a mistrial. The jury members were 'way out of line in discussing the trial after hours. Shame on them.

Now, will he go back to his old ways? Predictions?

[buff2]

7. The rightwing media whore pudits can talk about it 24/7......

And the jury should just STFU?? :wtf: :shrug:

[Floogeldy]

8. What misbehavior?

Jurors and their speech are protected by the First Amendment.

Where did you go to law school?

}(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Now, now

Calm down and relax. You clearly missed the news reports about the behavior observed of some jurors when court was not in session.

They were seen and heard laughing and doing mocking imitations of a witness who had testified that Mr. Jackson had molested him when he was a child.

Jurors, you might be surprised to know, are instructed daily not to discuss the case with each other or anyone else when court recesses. To do otherwise is to invite reversible error.

I could tell you about how that works, but there are a lot of big words, and you're not wearing your truss, are you?

Your crack about where I went to law school suggests you're suffering from lack of information and insight, as well as an odd compulsion to inquire as to my education, and this explanation I've given you is simply my way of giving back to those less fortunate.

[Floogeldy]

19. Answer these questions

1. Who saw and heard jurors laughing and doing mocking imitations of a witness who had testified that Mr. Jackson had molested him when he was a child? When did this happen?

2. Who saw and heard jurors discuss the case with each other or anyone else during recess? When did this happen?

}(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. Answer this question

1. Who told you I would answer your questions?

[BattyDem]

5. Can I have fries with that crow?

You know, if someone found out that their next door neighbor was sleeping with young boys, they would go ballistic! Yet when MJ does it, people seem to think it's just fine because he didn't really have a childhood or he's a "real-life Peter Pan" or whatever ... :eyes:

I don't get it. If it's sick when the guy on your block does it, then it's sick when MJ does it ... right? :shrug:

[Floogeldy]

9. Sleeping with little boys is not illegal.

NEXT!

}(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Ah, but you're wrong

However, I've given away far too much to you already, and, as they say, pearls before swine................

[Floogeldy]

23. I'm wrong about what?

I'm wrong when I state that it is not illegal to sleep with boys?

What is your legal source for this assertion?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. As I said,

you're going to have to fill out the application, wait for our background/credit check on you, then pay the retainer, and then we might consider taking you as a client.

Your freebie ended, child. You were warned.

[BattyDem]

16. No it's not ...

But how many "normal" middle-aged men share their beds with young boys on a regular basis? The man may not touch the kid while he's sleeping, but I'd be willing to bet he touches himself.

Would you let your son sleep in the same bed with MJ? Would you let your child sleep in the same bed as your next-door neighbor who's a great guy and loves kids, but never seems to have any adult relationships?

[Floogeldy]

20. What was the evidence presented to the jury, and why didn't they convict?

You can have all of the fantasies, assumptions and beliefs that your little heart desires. I guess it makes you feel good, or better.

Fortunately for the whole rest of the country, that is not what criminal trials are about.

}(

[BattyDem]

34. I don't know ... I wasn't there.

You seem to think that I'm getting off on my "little fantasies" as you call them. I don't "desire" anything, nor do I "feel good" about any of this ... I don't "feel" anything one way or the other - I have an opinion. That's what America is about - everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion doesn't affect MJ or his legal status in any way - so what's the big f*cking deal? Why are you taking it so personally? :shrug: :eyes:

[Floogeldy]

37. Me? Personally, I have nothing to do with it.

But you seem to be taking the MJ verdict personally!

YOU'RE NANCY GRACE!

}(

[BattyDem]

41. Whatever ...

:eyes:

[mitchtv]

25. if the charge is being Abnormal,

then I guess i am guilty.I was driven from my community for being gay-the question is Do you honstly believe the accuser? I'm sorry, I just can't do that enough to send a man up for 20 on what I think isn't enough.

[BattyDem]

40. Oh geez ... I give up!

I offered an opinion, yet I keep being accused of wanting the man in jail because he's weird. I never said that ... I don't think that. I simply gave a reason for my doubts about him. That's all. Suddenly, I'm an enemy of democracy, I'm against fair trials, and I want a police state, LOL! Whatever ... :eyes:

And please don't compare my opinion with some sort of anti-gay beliefs! I would never, EVER condone discrimination based upon the fact that someone is different! That's not me ... that's not my style ... that's not the way I think.

I wasn't on the jury, so my opinion means shit to MJ and his legal status. Had I been on the jury, it's very possible that I would agree with the verdict. Who knows? Who cares? It's a hypothetical and the guy is still going to sell millions of CDs regardless of my opinion.

I've really got to stop posting in these kinds of threads - they do nothing but give me a headache and aggravate my ulcers.


On edit:
mitchtv ... Sorry for the rant - it isn't directed solely at you. I just don't understand why I'm the one being blasted when other people have the exact same opinion I do! :shrug:

[peekaloo]

12. Crow? Blech! How about some young chicken?

}(

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. Try "chicken hawk"

http://tinyurl.com/7nbo3

[donheld]

15. To bad we at DU don't believe in "trial by jury"

system any more. Guilty of whatever, if weird, i say.

[Floogeldy]

44. Thank you

Idiots think that government begins in the White House, without realizing that the same kind of SHIT can go on within a county at the hands of a fucking dumbass prosecutor who gives no more of a fuck about the Constitution than does Dick Cheney.

}(

[Lex]

21. There is no question in my mind he has molested boys before . . .

the State may not have proven it's case, but reading this sealed the deal for me thinking Jackson is a pedophile:


Psychiatric Interview with Jackson's First Accuser

[Floogeldy]

26. That's just one person

The jury in the Jackson heard 65 witnesses. They know a lot more about it than you.

You are not qualified to have a reliable, fully informed opinion. The jury is.



}(

[Lex]

27. Clearly I'm not even talking about this particular trial.

This boy, in interview I posted, I truly feel was molested by MJ, which I why I limited my opinion in my subject line.

In the verdict released today, it may be that the State didn't meet its burden of proof, so the correct verdict would be Not Guilty.

That doesn't mean that he's never molested any boys.

[Floogeldy]

33. Yes

That was not before the jury, as you obviously already know.

B-)

[mitchtv]

28. I should like to hear Oldleftielawyer's comment on that

while you sound correct, we still like to put in our .02, goodnaturedly of course do you agree?

[autorank]

35. This one's for CaliforniaPeggy...

OK, so I'm supposed to go to The Lounge to cool off, do some cyber meditation to calm my over the top reaction to the MJ verdict.

So what do I find. A gun thread above and this!

Let's see Michael Jackson is innocent is the same as Dreyfuss is guilty!

Ah, I feel better....


:hi: Peggy

[mitchtv]

38. Calm down , I certainly didn't say he was innocent

what i said was a vindictive prosecuter brought a weak case to court along with a couple of proven unreliable witness and lost, the jury did what they were supposed to.

[crispini]

45. Yep, I was predicting a guilty,

mostly because I've been paying attention to Dan Abrams, who said that he kind of thought the jury would take the "where there's smoke there's fire" chain of thought (as some posters have mentioned above.) But, they didn't go there, and they were, so I hear, quite legally correct in doing so. Anyhoo, although I have my own opinion on whether or not MJ has *ever* molested a boy (and that opinion would be "probably yes") I'm glad to see that, apparently, the jury was intelligent and paid attention to the law and wasn't just out to get the dude.

[sasquatch]

47. I don't think Nancy Grace is a DUer