| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Rosena" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2005 10:33:43 AM |
| Object: |
Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
I just had to comment on this subject because it seems to upset so many
people. The jury was not unreasonable. The problem is that it came
down to a credability question - a liars contest as it is called -
because the prosecution case rested in large part on testimony of
victim. The jury, it seems, did not find him beliveable. Also don't
forget the standard of proof. They had to believe he did it (Jackson)
beyond a reasonable doubt. High standard. For example, I tend to
believe he molests children - but in this case beyond a reasonable
doubt? I am not sure the witness convinced me to that degree. I think
Jackson is guilty, but I have doubts too. In that case, you can't
convict.
The prosecution did not put on a air-tight case. Just thoughts to
share.
Rosena
.
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 11:00:45 AM |
|
|
"Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118763223.346203.46670@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I just had to comment on this subject because it seems to upset so many
people. The jury was not unreasonable. The problem is that it came
down to a credability question - a liars contest as it is called -
because the prosecution case rested in large part on testimony of
victim. The jury, it seems, did not find him beliveable. Also don't
forget the standard of proof. They had to believe he did it (Jackson)
beyond a reasonable doubt. High standard. For example, I tend to
believe he molests children - but in this case beyond a reasonable
doubt? I am not sure the witness convinced me to that degree. I think
Jackson is guilty, but I have doubts too. In that case, you can't
convict.
They didn't have air tight proof in Peterson either but they convicted. There
was a juror on CNN this morning who said pretty much what you're saying - he
believed that Jackson has molested boys but the evidence just wasn't strong
enough.
The prosecution did not put on a air-tight case. Just thoughts to
share.
You don't need air tight to convict though. I just found the whole thing
incredibly disappointing.
Guess we'll all have to pay attention to real news now.
Jean
Rosena
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 11:32:48 AM |
|
|
Sigh, jackson swayed the jury with his deer in the headlights
attitude, running to the hospital. people felt sorry for him,
peterson really hurt his case , with the great stone face. in
conclusion people place way to much emphasis on the impression they get
from the defendent. When will we ever learn you can't tell anything
from looking at people. It is my opinion and more so every year, that
maybe you never know anybody really! jill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 02:01:25 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 08:33:43 -0700, "Rosena" <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
I just had to comment on this subject because it seems to upset so many
people. The jury was not unreasonable. The problem is that it came
down to a credability question - a liars contest as it is called -
because the prosecution case rested in large part on testimony of
victim. The jury, it seems, did not find him beliveable. Also don't
forget the standard of proof. They had to believe he did it (Jackson)
beyond a reasonable doubt. High standard. For example, I tend to
believe he molests children - but in this case beyond a reasonable
doubt? I am not sure the witness convinced me to that degree. I think
Jackson is guilty, but I have doubts too. In that case, you can't
convict.
The prosecution did not put on a air-tight case. Just thoughts to
share.
There is an unfortunate fact that has to be kept in mind. As much as we
claim to believe that justice is blind, it clearly isn't. All human beings
have emotional reactions to other people.
Although it's perfectly possible that a grifter is the victim of a crime,
it's very likely that far fewer people will listen to him. In this case it
seems that some grifters essentially rented out their child's *****.
--
Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on the issue of what to have for
lunch.
Republic: A Democracy where two hundred wolves and one hundred lambs elect
two wolves and one lamb as their representatives to vote on the issue of
what to have for lunch.
Constitutional Republic: A Republic with a Constitution guaranteeing that
lamb is not on the lunch menu. Eventually the Supreme Court rules - five
wolves to four lambs - that mutton is not the same as lamb.
Liberty: A Constitutional Republic where the lambs retain the right to keep
and bear arms.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 11:26:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:33:43 -0700, Rosena wrote:
I just had to comment on this subject because it seems to upset so many
people. The jury was not unreasonable. The problem is that it came
down to a credability question - a liars contest as it is called -
because the prosecution case rested in large part on testimony of
victim. The jury, it seems, did not find him beliveable. Also don't
forget the standard of proof. They had to believe he did it (Jackson)
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt seems to be variable depending on the depth of your
wallet.
--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 11:34:39 AM |
|
|
money is always a factor
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 01:28:21 PM |
|
|
what I meant is thats a given, thats just so obvious that you don't
even have to say it really, I got to try to get some work done
today,,,,,,,,,,,,, lazzzzzzy hazzzzy crazzzzy days of summmmmer.
jill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gufus" |
|
| Title: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 02:10:35 PM |
|
|
Hi janeohara50@msn.com,
some work done today,,,,,,,,,,,,, lazzzzzzy hazzzzy
crazzzzy days of summmmmer.
It's nice here today, 20c, Calgary AB. :)
Kevin
.... Don't drink that. That's my urine, even I don't do that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ivan Marsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 02:15:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:28:21 -0700, janeohara50 wrote:
what I meant is thats a given, thats just so obvious that you don't
even have to say it really, I got to try to get some work done
today,,,,,,,,,,,,, lazzzzzzy hazzzzy crazzzzy days of summmmmer.
jill
That's just sad...
The constitution of my country grants me the inalienable right to "EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"... it is certainly NOT a given.
--
"Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed."
Benjamin Franklin (I didn't know he was a Buddhist)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Klement" |
|
| Title: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 03:43:59 PM |
|
|
That's just sad...
The constitution of my country grants me the inalienable
right to "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"... it is certainly
NOT a given.
I Agree.
Kevin
.... History is a set of lies agreed upon by the victors
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 05:45:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:15:46 -0500, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:28:21 -0700, janeohara50 wrote:
what I meant is thats a given, thats just so obvious that you don't
even have to say it really, I got to try to get some work done
today,,,,,,,,,,,,, lazzzzzzy hazzzzy crazzzzy days of summmmmer.
jill
That's just sad...
The constitution of my country grants me the inalienable right to "EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"... it is certainly NOT a given.
Equal protection only extends so far. It supposedly protects you from
specific acts, or the inaction, of the government. But when it comes to
jury trials the concept really can't be applied. Juries are supposed to
follow the law, and for the most part they usually do, but they can also
rule completely based on their emotions.
All in all I'd rather have convicting a person be too difficult than too
easy. The system we have allows a jury to acquit a person because they,
the jury, disagrees with the law or feels that the defendant was wronged by
the government in some way.
That doesn't apply to this case, but it's a vitally important concept that
can serve to castrate the government.
--
OMEN, n. A sign that something will happen if nothing happens.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
15 Jun 2005 10:35:54 AM |
|
|
Your right Ivan its a silly post, I did not mean to belittle your
comment either, I just think your wrong in this case, although money
is always a player in this case there were other bigger reasons for the
outcome. for starters the prosecution had a lousy case, jill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 02:39:32 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
Reasonable doubt seems to be variable
depending on the depth of your wallet.
Of course it does. Not everybody can afford
a few 100K to get excellent legal defense.
Quite a few innocents have been sentenced
to the death penalty simply because they
could not afford to pay a their own lawyer.
That much said, the prosecution contributed
to this one. If several of your key witnesses are felons
and crooks, you should not be surprised if
the jury has reasonable doubt.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Contrarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
15 Jun 2005 01:24:09 PM |
|
|
Rosena <filpriros@aol.com> wrote:
I just had to comment on this subject because it seems to upset so many
people. The jury was not unreasonable.
Well, one law prof. I heard speak would say "the jury flips a coin"
--
but the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it's In... HST (1967)
when i got to the edge , i built a deck % (2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Verdict on Jackson - Reason |
14 Jun 2005 10:45:52 AM |
|
|
they trashed the crediblility of the mother. alot hinged on her
testimony and it did not go well to say the least.
Personally I believe Micheal Jackson is guilty of molesting children
although maybe not in this case. I think he is just twisted enough to
think of it as sharing the love.
He lives in a bubble. Still this experience may make him think twice
before he does it again. jill
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
