Not Guilty Verdict
 

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't enough
evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and, apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to be
ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding frenzy.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article 1755013.TBkpeNEYPk@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't enough
evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and, apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to be
ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.

I don't know -- but I DO know that the police screwed up badly, and left
the state unable to prove that he was guilty.

Remember: the verdict is NOT "innocent" -- the verdict is "not guilty",
meaning that guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means people who have done the crime sometimes go free -- but I
still prefer a standard that means the state has to PROVE guilt, instead
of just be "pretty sure".
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article 3188753.HxucGmHcQs@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article 1755013.TBkpeNEYPk@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't
enough evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and,
apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to
be ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding
frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.

I don't know -- but I DO know that the police screwed up badly, and left
the state unable to prove that he was guilty.

Remember: the verdict is NOT "innocent" -- the verdict is "not guilty",
meaning that guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means people who have done the crime sometimes go free -- but I
still prefer a standard that means the state has to PROVE guilt, instead
of just be "pretty sure".

Look it.......... If you had a 40 year old neighbor who brought young boys
into his house and they would spend the night - would you call the cops?
Uh, hey this isn't normal, grown men don't sleep with little boys - or none
that I know.

DragonLady, I don't know if you have kids or not - if you do have kids,
would you let them stay with Jackson?



I do, and I wouldn't.

So what?

We have kids spend the night in our house that we aren't related to, and
did before we had kids. I like kids.

There is, apparently, no proof that Jackson did what he is accused of
having done. That doesn't mean he didn't -- it does mean that the state
failed to meet the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.

And there is no way to know, for sure, if he did or didn't.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

There are so many folks who cannot separate the *process* from the people
involved in the process. People should be embarrassed at their ignorance.
You're absolutely correct in your statements, dragonlady. Too bad people are
too busy flying off the handle with their assumptions to understand what
you're saying.


"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article 3188753.HxucGmHcQs@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article 1755013.TBkpeNEYPk@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this
country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of
the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't
enough evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the
standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and,
apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing
to
be ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding
frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.

I don't know -- but I DO know that the police screwed up badly, and
left
the state unable to prove that he was guilty.

Remember: the verdict is NOT "innocent" -- the verdict is "not
guilty",
meaning that guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means people who have done the crime sometimes go free -- but I
still prefer a standard that means the state has to PROVE guilt,
instead
of just be "pretty sure".

Look it.......... If you had a 40 year old neighbor who brought young
boys
into his house and they would spend the night - would you call the cops?
Uh, hey this isn't normal, grown men don't sleep with little boys - or
none
that I know.

DragonLady, I don't know if you have kids or not - if you do have kids,
would you let them stay with Jackson?



I do, and I wouldn't.

So what?

We have kids spend the night in our house that we aren't related to, and
did before we had kids. I like kids.

There is, apparently, no proof that Jackson did what he is accused of
having done. That doesn't mean he didn't -- it does mean that the state
failed to meet the burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.

And there is no way to know, for sure, if he did or didn't.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.
-------------------
They all agreed. You're mischaracterizing their tears and
their sentiments. They knew there was no proof beyond greed.
Steve

Tommy wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't enough
evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and, apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to be
ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.
-------------------
Nope, the proof was there and the racially illicit jury let him go
because he was their black god. The judge SHOULD have set aside the
verdict or declared a mistrial several times, but he was a coward.
Steve

Tommy wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article 1755013.TBkpeNEYPk@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:

How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't
enough evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and,
apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to
be ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding
frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.

I don't know -- but I DO know that the police screwed up badly, and left
the state unable to prove that he was guilty.

Remember: the verdict is NOT "innocent" -- the verdict is "not guilty",
meaning that guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That means people who have done the crime sometimes go free -- but I
still prefer a standard that means the state has to PROVE guilt, instead
of just be "pretty sure".

Look it.......... If you had a 40 year old neighbor who brought young boys
into his house and they would spend the night - would you call the cops?
Uh, hey this isn't normal, grown men don't sleep with little boys - or none
that I know.
--------------------
It isn't what you see on average, but it doesn't constitute some proof
of molestation. There are some pre-sexual people who even as adults
crave being with children and being like children, rather than craving
making children like adults. And they like sleepovers with kids because
they also want to be like a child. It's rare and it's strange, but it's
not molestation.


DragonLady, I don't know if you have kids or not - if you do have kids,
would you let them stay with Jackson?
------------------------
It depends if she wanted to get rich. None of those parents knew the
difference between pre-sexuals and molestors either, they were just
greedy.
Steve

dragonlady wrote:
In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:


How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.


I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't enough
evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and, apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to be
ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding frenzy.

There was plenty of evidence - especially on the alcohol charges. His
own cousin testified to this, including employees and the kid himself.
This jury didn't do their jobs.

dragonlady wrote:

In article 1755013.TBkpeNEYPk@FreeBSD, Tommy
wrote:


dragonlady wrote:


In article . net,
greccogirl wrote:


How very sad. Those poor kids. The justice system in this country is
really screwed up. Even as the verdicts were being read some of the
jurors were crying. I hope they can live with themselves.

I wasn't in the courtroom -- and neither were you.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then there wasn't enough
evidence.

There's always the possibility that he's innocent of the charges --
though you have, apparently, decided you know the Real Truth.

And even if he really is guilty of the charges -- well, the standard in
this country is still "innocent until PROVEN guilty" -- and, apparently,
the state was unable to meet that burden. The jurors have nothing to be
ashamed of for doing their job, instead of following the feeding frenzy.

I guess you think O.J. Simpson was Innocent.


I don't know -- but I DO know that the police screwed up badly, and left
the state unable to prove that he was guilty.

LOL!! The state had enough evidence to convict TEN people in OJ's case.
The jury wouldn't have convicted him if they saw him do it.