The jackson verdict is FINALLY in

Ooops sorry - wrote the wrong one down - I do remember the clip with Letterman.

I don't know Martha Stewart is very famous, and rich and convicted in the US. Maybe it is California as the other three were all on trial in CA.

Here is Letterman's top ten list - Top Ten Messages Left On Michael Jackson's Answering Machine

10. "It's Tito--congratulations. Could I borrow 50 bucks?"

9. "Barbara Walters here. I'll double any interview offer and throw in a giraffe"

8. "This is the courthouse lost and found. Can you describe the nose in question?"

7. "This is your bank--curious about the 12 checks you wrote for 'jury bribes'"

6. "This is your neighbor. Could you please send someone to get your chimp out of my pool?"

5. "Happy Father's Day from the lab where we artifically inseminated your sham wife"

4. "Change your outgoing message, dude--'Thriller' was like 20 years ago"

3. It's Martha. Disregard the letter with cell-decorating tips"

2. "Tom Cruise here. I'm calling every person in America to tell them I'm in love with Katie Holmes"

1. "Hi, it's Saddam Hussein. Now how do I get one of them idiot juries?"

Some of you people ought to hang your heads in shame.

The jury listened to the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecutors did not prove their case.

That is the way the system works.

I do not know about this instance....the trial was not televised. But I followed the OJ Simpson trial very closely....and I know for a fact that I would have voted for acquital in that trial in an instant.

The prosecution was absurd. There is absolutely nol way the prosecution "proved" its case beyond a reasonable doubt....and if there was any lying done in that trial....it sure as hell was done by detectives of the LAPD.

What is it with you people?

Why must the jury be characterized as idiots?


They did their job.

They listened to the case....and made a decision.

For most of them....it appears to be a decision they wish they didn't have to make...

...but they did their job.

the jury frank was only interested in how much money they could make out of their various books

acquital was far more lucrative

yes and you can call me a cynic

I was waiting for your anti religious take on peadophilia

Steve


Oh, oh, Steve, you just stepped in it. Frank doesn't tolerate fools very well, so be forewarned.

BBB

I think Steve has a valid point.

Are there any of those jurors who haven't turned up on TV already? I'd have respect for any who haven't.

Okay...you are a cynic...a way, way, way over-the-top cynic. To the point of silliness.




I think pedophilia sucks.

I don't need a god to tell me that abusing and taking advantage of kids is something that ought to be proscribed by society....any more than I need a god to tell me that stealing, lying, and killing out to be also.

Jackson, Blake and OJ---paid juries.

Take a look at the post-acquittal finances... or just listen to the testimony.

Lash, You have no idea how the legal system in this country works. Show us direct evidence of "paid juries" in the Jackson, OJ and Blake trials.

ereer

I agree with Frank.

From what I have heard I would have voted not-guilty even though I strongly suspect he is a child-molester.

There is nothing I have seen to make me suspect that the jury didn't do a good job and make the right decision.

Acquittal is more lucrative...that's just silly.

I think they came up with their verdict--WRONG in my opinion, because of the high-profile, media-frenzy nature of the case. I think that when you are put in a fishbowl like that, and you know that the whole world is watching you, it tends to change the meaning of "reasonable doubt" to the point where it becomes "any doubt at all".

Those people must have felt the spotlight on them, the glare of the eyes of the world--and under all that pressure, I would think you might tend to overanalyze and err on the side of caution, just to make sure you don't get it wrong. If it were any regular child molestation case, reasonable doubt would have been proven, no problem.

It's his fame that got him off, and not his money, or his high-priced lawyers, or the fact that <chuckle> acquittal is more lucrative. Just like in the O.J. trial. The spectacle of it all is what caused them to be overly cautious and analytical, even when three of the jurors actually said afterwards that they believed he had molested children before!

Think about it. If this had been just some regular unknown jackass, and he showed up in court acting and looking like this freak did, and the jurors heard about his background and history with children, you know damn well that the a-hole would be going to jail the minute he walked into the courtroom wearing his goddamned pajamas.

So in conclusion, I know it's been said before, many times, many ways, but I blame the goddammed scumbag media for letting this pedophile go free.

The standard of presumed innocense would be tough to hold with this crowd. The prosecution had the burden of proof on them and failed. The jurors did their jobs cause they asked for rereading of testimony on each of the counts.
Kicky, you are right about one thing, reasonable doubt does mean that "any doubt at all" and its in favor of the defendant.
The jury was given strict instructions by the judge. Im certain they followed it to the letter.
Youre correct about the news media but like, whats is face on FOX, they mostly had Jackson doin hard time .

In the law of the state of Calif, I dont believe being a freak gives you lesser status.

CI, I'm afraid in this case, you're the naive one. If I could show evidence of it, I'd be talking in to a microphone.

If you don't believe juries can be breeched and bought, you are living in a fantasy world.

One of Letterman's "Top Ten Messages on MJ's Answering Machine": "This is your bank calling. We're concerned about the twelve checks made out to "Jurist Bribe".

In his media circus interview, minutes after his acquittal, Blake slipped about being broke and his atty hushed him. I know he could have been talking about the legitimate cost....but...why would the atty hush him...

The evidence was overwhelming (in the trial).

Alibi: "I couldn't have killed her. I was in the restaurant, getting my gun..."

US trends in new wealth...slip in store and sue-- 1980,....spill hot McDonald's coffee in lap and sue --1990....get on a high profile jury with a rich defendant --2000....the reason Peterson will burn? can't afford acquittal.....

Quote, " If I could show evidence of it, I'd be talking in to a microphone."

Nuff said.

So I can assume that this "justice" bought and paid for is a new concept to america?

Buying it so transparently...IN the building with that blind woman holding the scales on the front of the building.

New to me.

Or maybe I've been naive about it until recently.

OK so it's new to you, then can we chat about "other" forms of rigging the consequences. I once brought a case of felony child sexual abuse against a career sgt with the local police dept. He retired and moved to another community (his retirement intact) the victim was his grand-daughter. Case closed. It's not always about the money.