Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Do I even want to go here? Why not!


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams


  • Admin
  • 43,503 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:07:24 AM

Posted 17 June 2005 - 11:55 AM

This link says it all:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/jackson.trial/

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 frankie12

frankie12

  • Members
  • 941 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Michigan
  • Local time:07:24 AM

Posted 17 June 2005 - 10:05 PM

I thought sooner or later this topic on MJ will show up on BC and here it is. This is my stand if the mother can't keep a straight record and wouldn't act all strange in her testimony then maybe MJ might have been found guilty. I strongly believe in the United States Justice System and if a jury of 12 people say some one is not guilty then i will believe them (unless new evidence was found after the court case that would really show that he is guilty, but yet again they can not take him back to court for the same crime.). That is all I am going to say before someone gets mad at me.

#3 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:06:24 AM

Posted 18 June 2005 - 12:56 AM

Since none of us sat through the 40 days or so of testimony, although it was dutifully "covered" by all media every day ad nauseum (and to the exclusion of items surely of greater importance), I doubt we can fully understand the reasons for the verdict, except to believe that the prosecution was unable to prove its case to them beyond a reasonble doubt, which is what our great legal system would have required before incarcerating MJ for 20 years.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#4 Lanscader

Lanscader

  • Members
  • 466 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado, USA
  • Local time:05:24 AM

Posted 19 June 2005 - 11:13 PM

All I will do is (somewhat) quote David Letterman: "Michael Jackson has been found innocent today, but his plastic surgeon: guilty on all counts."

"Sir Lord Baron von Vader-han?" ~ Eddie Izzard

 


#5 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams

  • Topic Starter

  • Admin
  • 43,503 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:07:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 09:52 AM

All I will do is (somewhat) quote David Letterman: "Michael Jackson has been found innocent today, but his plastic surgeon: guilty on all counts."

It is pretty scary isnt it.

#6 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:05:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:18 AM

The part about the entire thing that bothers me is that some of the jurors were have reported to have said that they were sure he was guilty, but the evidence wasn't there. HE was found not guilty of the charges, but that in no way construes innocence.

#7 HopperG

HopperG

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:24 PM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 03:36 PM

The part about the entire thing that bothers me is that some of the jurors were have reported to have said that they were sure he was guilty


I didn't hear that, although if they had said it I'm sure an exact quote of what they said would have been something along the lines of "Oh I'm sure he was guilty, but for reasons I can't go into at the moment I can't comment on that. For the full story make sure to buy my book "Jackson: The story of one jurors fight to send an 'innocent' man to jail" in bookstores everywhere from Aug 1.

I would take anything any of them say after the fact with a pinch of salt. They all know there is a huge pile of money out there waiting for them if they play it right, and controversy sells. Just in the exact same way that leaking a story about a juror going to his party is just going to make more money for them.

I wasn't following the story at all until the verdict came out and I don't really have a solid guilty or innocent opinion. From the stories that I've heard it sounds as though the family isn't very trustworthy having tried to con people in the past. While that doesn't really prove guilt or innocence, just shows more of a 'boy who cried wolf' story than anything else. I think the most disturbing I read though, was if you assume that Jackson was guilty you then have this kid, who has gone through cancer, gone through being abused, gone through the entire ordeal of court only to have his abuser get off free, and all this before his 16th birthday. For the sake of the boy, I hope Jackson isn't guilty, otherwise I couldn't imagine what it would be like to be that kid.

#8 deerslayer

deerslayer

  • Members
  • 322 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Joanna, South Carolina
  • Local time:06:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 04:23 PM

I think the whole thing is flat ridiculous! :thumbsup:
I mean I've never been on a jury but, I think that since he, excuse me it (MJ's not a person lol), was a big shot, everyone in American, in their minds, had him guilty or not guilty even before the trial was held. Does anyone agree on that matter? :flowers:

Also, I don't know if the mother was paid to look like a idiot or what...But something was sure weird there. If i was the Judge, after MJ's trial was over i would have just held everyone over and held a sanity trial for her right there on the spot. lol

I also think that is disgusting that they drug it out for 40 days!!! And if he would have been called guilty it would still be going on! Cause then he'd appeal it and all that bleep! :@ It's stupid how far our county has gone. In the olden days the gave em a honest and fair trial and then went out and hung em in the same day!!!
lol I know thats a little radical but seriously, They took 40 days of our tax money, to call a man incocent, who might have paid his way free......
any comments
Man I knew i should have been a preacher. lol
When I was born, I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half!!!
Posted Image
signature done by EFIZZER!!!
If you're ever in the nut house, look me up.
~Deerslayer

#9 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:06:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 09:40 PM

The American trial system may seem somewhat long, until you are not in the jury box, but on trial yourself, in which case, you would appreciate the thoroughness of both sides, and a jury that takes its duty seriously enough to spend more than a day arriving at a fair and true verdict.
How many people in the world envy us this system of justice when they are subject to being lined up against a wall and shot without more than a silent whimper.
As a potential preacher, one should consider the kind of quick justice Jesus received, and perhaps rethink one's stance.
Regards,
John

Edited by jgweed, 20 June 2005 - 09:42 PM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#10 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,723 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:06:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:57 PM

The problem I see with our (US) justice system is that it is not always about truth, but about who has the better lawyer.
Derfram
~~~~~~

#11 Lanscader

Lanscader

  • Members
  • 466 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado, USA
  • Local time:05:24 AM

Posted 20 June 2005 - 11:09 PM

Just to play Devil's advocate, a better lawyer is more likley to make his/her point seem more truthful than that of the opposing side.

Edited by Lanscader, 20 June 2005 - 11:11 PM.

"Sir Lord Baron von Vader-han?" ~ Eddie Izzard

 


#12 OldTimer

OldTimer

    Malware Expert


  • Members
  • 11,092 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina
  • Local time:07:24 AM

Posted 01 July 2005 - 01:14 AM

The only thing I will say onthis subject (and i did not watch ANY of the proceedings just like I did not watch ANY of the proceedings of some of the other celebrity trials held over the last few years) is that if it had been you or me or any other 'common' person would we have gotten the same attention, time, effort and energy as these so called 'public figures' got? And would the exact same set of circumstances and facts have led to the same verdict?

You decide.

OT
I do not respond to PM's requesting help. That's what the forums are here for. Please use them so that others may benefit from your questions and the responses you receive.
OldTimer

Posted Image

#13 ~overkill~

~overkill~

  • Members
  • 51 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:24 AM

Posted 19 July 2005 - 09:17 PM

di i watch it? NO

is mj weird as *&%#? yup

do i agree with jg? again? yup

flat ridiculous? in a frickin nutshell.

mother paid? maybe, but if the things she attested to are true, and mj went down? she should be his cellmate.

think about it. If you are the type person looking for a celeb to get cash from, who else? And if you actually happen to know him personally? u would HAVE to try it! found innocent, i dont believe or disbelieve. I knew he would be found that way months before it got started




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users