Reaction to jackson verdict?

[Mot]

would you get drunk and sleep with him? :?

[Jand3rson]

I did say almost... :D

[AdironRider]

I guess you could say that the jury was sceptical about the kids families past with trying to con their way into money through lawsuits with their failed attempt to nail JCPenny before...

But the "jesus juice " was a dead givaway!

[bkelsey86]

i'm so calling liqour that from now on....son go fetch me the jesus juice.

[Bimmerfanatik]

but hey as long as the kids are happy you know.

come one how can that hold up in court...I mean who doesn't sleep with children? :|

You are seriously a sick fuck man. Funny, but man...sumfin ain't right in yo head. :)


Is anyone truly surprised by this? I watched it live today, I wasn't at all shocked by the verdicts. Do I think he's guilty? Maybe. I don't know for sure, and I don't care. The guy is so fucking weird, maybe he really does just sleep in the bed with kids and get them drunk and not actually touch them. I have no idea.

My point is, he was never going to be found guilty. Even OJ was a bit more of a shock than this was. I just didnt think anyone was expecting MJ to be found guilty...

[alex]

[P]rosecutors are usually people who can't cut in the private side of law, in other words they suck...

OT: Thank you for confirming my suspicions with this inside info!

[Nathan]

$10 says he bought the jury.

Unanimous? Come on....

x2

x3 there are rumors of "book" deals before the trial even started now the Prosecutor will object and appeal I give him 2 more years of trials.

I thought only the defense could apeal...?

[PeterCip]

Is he touching you?
if not, who the fuck cares?

also, the prosecution didn't have a case, only halfassed accusations.

[Digitalwave]

I am Hollywood.

[Irish1]

The Prosecutor CAN'T refile the same charges: no appeal when you're found not guilty. They COULD file different and new charges: felony reckless endangerment, simple (non-sexual) assault. But as FifeDog said , the prosecution witnesses were creepy, con artists, the jury probably wondered why the sleazy Mom kept taking her sons back to Jackson's Wonderland (?) and the jury was probably overawed by Jackson's celebrity. Children's Protective Services in Santa Barbara County investigated Jackson's home and decided not to remove his present kids. Is he guilty? My gut says YES , and I've been a Court elder and child abuse investigator for years. The Judge gave the prosecution LOTS of leeway to prove their case, including information about the unproven allegations from 13+ years ago when Jackson may have bought his way out of charges. If the result was a hung jury they could've gone back in and re-filed the counts, but the Prosecutor didn't make the case here. Not the Jury's fault, and the Judge was assertive and deliberate about the harm to kids in molest cases: he was no wimp. And STILL slimy parents will take their kids up to Jackson's ranch. :roll:

[uflnuceng]

My personal favorite thing out of all of this was the joke Conan O'Brian's dog asked...

"On a scale of 1 to 10... how old is Michael Jackson's boyfriend?"

A jem like that was worth any number of kids sucking down MJs spunk for whatever magical elixer he told them it was.

I knew he wasn't going to be found guilty. The prosecution's case was weak as shit. Did he fuck those kids? Maybe not the ones who sued him, but no doubt that he did somewhere. But I blame the parents for putting their kids in harms way.

[nando]

$10 says he bought the jury.

Unanimous? Come on....

x2

I wonder if he bought them with the $500 million debt he has, a large chunk of which is due to be paid in full by December. :roll:

for all the media frenzy, did anyone ever consider the possibility that maybe our system "worked"? I think the jurors have more of a right to decide than any of you guys.

not to say jackson isn't a little bit.. odd. :shock:

[Irish1]

I agree: the prosecution case had Semi-sized holes in it. The system did work, because the jury listened to the Judge define how MUCH evidence is necessary to prove the crimes at a level of clear and convincing, and didn't even convict on misdemeanor charges. Bought the jury off? Not with a unanimous vote of innocence. The Santa Barbara prosecutors shot themselves in the feet by managing the prosecution case poorly and having surprises in testimony from their OWN witnesses that made Jackson look like he was the victim of over-zealous prosecution. This is no OJ case where the Judge allowed bizarre courtroom theatrics. Am, I happy he got off? As a citizen, yes, because they case wasn't proven. As a parent? No way. :shock:

$10 says he bought the jury.

Unanimous? Come on....

x2

I wonder if he bought them with the $500 million debt he has, a large chunk of which is due to be paid in full by December. :roll:

for all the media frenzy, did anyone ever consider the possibility that maybe our system "worked"? I think the jurors have more of a right to decide than any of you guys.

not to say jackson isn't a little bit.. odd. :shock: