GStwin.com GS500 Message Forum

1:  Not Guilty (Conspiracy)
2:  Not Guilty (Lewd Act)
3:  Not Guilty (Lewd Act)
4:  Not Guilty (Lewd Act)
5:  Not Guilty (Lewd Act)
6:  Not Guilty (Attempted Lewd Act)
7:  Not Guilty (Giving Intoxicants to assist in a felony) && Not Guilty (Giving Alcohol)
8:  Not Guilty (Giving Intoxicants to assist in a felony) && Not Guilty (Giving Alcohol)
9:  Not Guilty (Giving Intoxicants to assist in a felony) && Not Guilty (Giving Alcohol)
10:  Not Guilty (Giving Intoxicants to assist in a felony) && Not Guilty (Giving Alcohol)[/list:u]Not really what I expected...

You're kidding?  Not guilty to everything?  Not that I followed it.  Another OJ trial.  Imagine the rioting if he was convicted to prison.  Imagine what would happen to "Mikey" if he went.

I'm sure he'd be in protective custody the whole time...  And probably kill himself within the first year.

But.......   He doesn't have to worry about that.

none of us where there to hear all the arguments, but cmon ng on all :bs:  , jus shows money can buy you happieness, even if it is with lil boys :dunno:

Restores your faith in the justice system..........

Quote from: jordanearlnone of us where there to hear all the arguments

Which is why I have to go with the jury...

I just wasn't expecting it...

Innocent until proven poor...  Isn't THAT what our justice system is based on?

OK, so now what?

When is the government going to reimburse him for ALL the time and money he spent defending himself?

Here is an interesting piece on jury trials and changing the system.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/243/glasfram.html

I can't honestly say I was suprised, although I was dissapointed.

I am sure that those of the jury had a lot of material to go through, and deciding which 'facts' were true and which ones were fiction must have been hell considering the ammount of crap they have to sift through.

I just find it hard to believe that he was charged with NOTHING. C'mon, you know if you had some creepy guy that held slumber parties in your neighborhood, allowed children to share his bed, etc.. you'd be hard pressed to give him an aquittal if charged with a crime like this.

I think the best defense is a super-long trial with tons of silly details and plenty of stage acting by the entire defense team, including the defendant. That seems to be the case with M.J. and O.J.

Quote from: joerockerHere is an interesting piece on jury trials and changing the system.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/243/glasfram.html

That's better than Guilty until proved Innocent...

I still gotta wonder what that will do to our legal system.

Depends on what side you're on.  

Having a "unanimous" requirement means a lot of people go free.  

Going with a majority system means more are found guilty.

But...  It's never about what REALLY happened...  It's about what you can and can't prove.

So...  Either way, guilty people will go free...  And innocent people will go to jail.

With the current method, more guilty people go free.
With the suggested method, more innocent people will go to jail.

What "side" you're on is the question. :dunno:

considering that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population (as compared to 0.63% for Russia, 0.4% for South Africa, 0.13% for Wales and 0.09% for Germany), i don't think that guilty people going free is an epidemic problem in this nation.

OK, so it's not guilty, the Jury said so and that is that. Having done jury service I can say that juries develop a momentum that can take them anywhere, also "beyond reasonable doubt" is something that people interpret for themselves in many ways. That's the system we share and we have to go with it.

What intrigues me is where does the guy go now, are the big corporations waiting in line to sign him up for sponsorship? will Sony be underwriting a tour and Album. His loyal following will be jubilant but are there enough of them to keep him at the top end of the entertainment biz?

He could, of course, starting bringing libel actions, potentially worth fortunes but that is a very expensive and high risk option. As I understand it US law is based on English "Common Law" and a libel action leaves the defendants a chance to bring all the allegations again with a much lower standard of proof required. Jackpot if he wins, anhialation if he looses. What should he do now, keep a low profile, take legal action or "Go for it" in showbiz ? ? ?

I have no idea why, but I kept up with this trial pretty well. It's not something I would have normally done, but it just happen to be getting a lot of coverage on a certain news radio station I listen to on my way home everyday.

I am absolutely 100% not surprised at all with this verdict. Not only am I not surprised, but I completely agree with it. Although I do believe Jackson has probably done something that would have made him guilty of these crimes in the past, in this particular case I feel he's completely innocent of. The case was just never there to begin with and the prosecutor's witnesses were never believable.

Listening to the jurors in all of those post trial interviews, it seems like they took a lot of time to understand the directions from the judge. In this case, I feel justice was served. More importantly, I feel like my faith in the justice system rose just a slight notch.

Quote from: Cal PriceWhat intrigues me is where does the guy go now, are the big corporations waiting in line to sign him up for sponsorship? will Sony be underwriting a tour and Album. His loyal following will be jubilant but are there enough of them to keep him at the top end of the entertainment biz?

Personally, I just don't care what so ever about what happens after all of this. :)

Quote from: joerockerYou're kidding?  Not guilty to everything?  Not that I followed it.  Another OJ trial.  Imagine the rioting if he was convicted to prison.  Imagine what would happen to "Mikey" if he went.

I actually saw a special on that, he would have been kept out of general population along with other "celebrities"

roguegeek,

So, am I right in understanding that ALL you care about is a specific point in time?  If someone murders a few people or in this case abuses many people over a LONG time frame, ALL you care about is the ONE time that he's prosicuted for?  WOW!

Criminals have it made in America as long as they can PAY.

Jurors have their hands tied.  Especially IF they truly want to know the truth.  They pretty much have to sit there, be quiet, listen to what they're told.  They can't ask their OWN questions.

Oh, well...

Quote from: joerockerALL you care about is a specific point in time?

Um...  That's ALL the law can do!

The jurors can't convict him for something for which he's not on trial...  He has to be charged with a SPECIFIC crime...  That's the way nearly ALL legal systems work.  And the ones that don't work that way usually don't have anything near a real trial.

QuotePersonally, I just don't care what so ever about what happens after all of this.

I don't either, i just know that no kid of mine would ever be around him, child molester or not he is a sick man

Quote from: RVertigo

Quote from: joerockerALL you care about is a specific point in time?

That's ALL the law can do! The jurors can't convict him for something for which he's not on trial.

Exactly my point joerocker.

Quote from: joerockerIf someone murders a few people or in this case abuses many people over a LONG time frame, ALL you care about is the ONE time that he's prosicuted for? WOW!

And where is the proof you have that says Jackson did anything?

Quote from: joerockerJurors have their hands tied. Especially IF they truly want to know the truth. They pretty much have to sit there, be quiet, listen to what they're told. They can't ask their OWN questions.

Actually, they're allowed to ask many questions (which they usually do), but not directly.

can he sue for damages and losses? courts found him not guilty of the crimes, as in he didnt do them, therefor his accusers cost him a fortune for no reason. is he entitled to reclaiming his losses?