Not Guilty Verdict

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


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

Oh, really? That is why the jurors that wanted to remain "annoyomous"
have been all over the news?

------------------
The names of jurors must be placed in the public record by LAW.
It's a public act. What you just said is dog****. They will
invariably be dogged or paid-off, one or the other, till they
accept interview. Happens every time.



That is why the head juryman said fully
1/2 of the jury voted for guilty right away but "Changed" their minds?
Right.

---------------------
That happens in every jury on the first ballot, you see where people
are headed prior to the other persuasion confronting them and requiring
them to exercise their mind and reminding them that they MUST find
agreement with the other jurors in order to render a verdict. After
they sit down and go over the evidence in an itemized fashion and
are forced to agree with others or state why not, AND do so in a manner
that won't embarrass them for their stupidity and unreasoning, then
things change, a LOT!




No. They threw what Jackson did over because they hated the mother.

-----------------------
They hated her for a good reason, she had a known history of being a
lying conniving gold-digger. Between her history of PERJURY and her
previous influence on her son they knew that nothing the two said
could EVER be believed beyond a reasonable doubt!

And that's the problem with such prosecutions where there is no
substantive evidence of an act other than heresay, no DNA or worthy
material evidence. Given decent defense it is unprosecutable.



Which is exactly what these types of molestors DO.

--------------------
That's just it, "these types" cannot be shown to include Jackson.

If he was REALLY one of those he'd have had dozens or hundreds of
other victims who could come out of the woodwork WITHOUT a lying
stage-mom with a record of lying in court!

Jackson is most likely the pre-sexual type who simply hasn't
any actual sexual drive, toward anyone! He's a case of arrested
development by his father's physical abuse, but being a childish
Peter Pan he offends and frightens macho law enforcement types and
prosecutors, who are just sure he's a "faggot" and that "faggots"
are surely all trying to "convert" little boys.



They pick
disadvantaged kids from bad families, it makes it easier.

---------------------
You mean the ones with stage-moms who take their son to a hotel
room to grill him and prompt him for the last few days prior to
the trial.



Believe me I know from personal experience.

-------------------------------
And if the person had been attractive you'd have loved it.

"Molestation" is a codeword for being creeped out by someone
who's unlucky enough to be funny-looking or older in a society
where kids hardly see other people nude, and the few they manage
to see are all perfect, young and retouched. In a society where
kids see all the adults having sex publically they would not have
much more sexual attraction to youth as to age, or to us "averages"
versus the rare and amazingly slim and elastic, a state that doesn't
last but a few years and in a very few people. And in a society
where everyone touches each other sexually it would feel quite
normal to kids raised with it. It would be no more odd than
grandpa tickling you.
Steve

Steve, I'm sick your BULL****. I'm talking about a 7 year old girl
being raped by a grown man.

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl 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.

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.

--------------------------------
You're implying that a dozen people who didn't know each other would
somehow magically agree to ignore evidence. You're a liar.
Steve

The fact that one of the jurors attended the MJ "victory" party is
pretty telling in itself.

You are so transparent, Steve. One minute you admit the OJ jury ignored
the evidence and freed a killer, but now you claim another 12 person
jury "magically" agreed to ignore the evidence. Do you see how silly
this is?

R. Steve Walz wrote:

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

No. They knew what they were doing. People don't "cry" when it is a
simple case with no proof. Even the head juror admitted on TV that six
of the jurors were solidly for "guilty" when they first adjourned.
Apparently, there was mind changing. The same head juror admitted he
thought Jackson had molested kids but couldn't find him guilty -
basically, they screwed the kid because his mother was an asshole.

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
greccogirl 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.

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.

------------------
More lies from the lie-whore.
Steve

Oh, so now you think OJ was innocent? ROTFLMAO
-----------------
I wasn't referring to OJ.
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


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

On this one Steve, you are absolutely correct.

------------
That was OJ, he did it, the DNA evidence proved it.

Jackson was not guilty by the evidence, because the evidence was
nothing but heresay by people with a history of lying for gain,
and the jury saw through that in that such so-called evidence
could NEVER be beyond a reasonable doubt. You just can't convict
someone on vicious rumors alone, and that was all they had.
Steve

There was PLENTY of evidence on the alcohol and porn alone.
-------------------
No, no one ever "proved" he gave a kid alcohol, it was all opinion.
And notably these "opinions" were given by people with notable
ulterior motives. There was evidence he had porn, but so do most
people, and he did NOT have "kiddie porn", and again only by the
kid with LOTS OF MONEY to gain, nor did they "prove" he showed
porn to kids. Testimony is not evidence, it is opinion and
must be evaluated for motive and previous history of untruth.


The jury
didn't do their jobs at the very least in those two. MJ's own COUSIN
testified to this.
------------------------
His cousin has problems and personal motives. Nonsense. More ulterior
opinion.

The jury has the sole responsibility to determine WHAT, if anything,
given them as testimony or evidence, is factual. That IS the job of
every jury! It is VERY VERY HARD to get 12 strangers to agree to lie
about what they believe about the testimony and evidence presented to
them. VERY hard! They had good reason to disbelieve, and that
constitutes the entire meaning of "reasonable doubt", which was
introduced in law to prevent "opinion" from becoming the horror of
punishment doled out by whimsy.

If juries were to merely guess who is guilty and who is not, they
would find virtually everyone who was less than attractive to be
guilty, and they would free all the pretty people, regardless of
who was actually the criminal. You base most of your opinion on
some private emotional "creep-you-out" test that is totally invalid
and evidenciary of your internal neuroses, and not Jackson's guilt.
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl 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.

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.

--------------------------------
You're implying that a dozen people who didn't know each other would
somehow magically agree to ignore evidence. You're a liar.
Steve

Oh, you mean like the twelve jurors in the OJ case?? Steve you are
making yourself look foolish
--------------------------------
I'm not speaking of OJ, YOU started that and assumed you had changed
the subject, when you didn't!
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

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

Really? I suppose that is why the kid and his family AREN'T suing
Jackson in a civil suit, when it is plainly obvious they would win it.
-----------------------------------------
1) Jackson promised them a multi-million dollar fight. They couldn't
find an attorney firm to carry that debt of billable hours that long.

2) They had hoped the prosecutor would not prosecute so they could sue
without compunction, the burden of proof being far lesser in civil
court, but the prosecutor called their bluff. The OTHER duty of any
prosecutor, as any law student knows, is to find and reveal ALL facts
in a case, EVEN WHEN THEY MAY BE EXCULPATORY!! Prosecutors hide that
duty under a magician's handkerchief.
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


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

Oh, really? That is why the jurors that wanted to remain "annoyomous"
have been all over the news?

------------------
The names of jurors must be placed in the public record by LAW.
It's a public act. What you just said is dog****. They will
invariably be dogged or paid-off, one or the other, till they
accept interview. Happens every time.



That is why the head juryman said fully
1/2 of the jury voted for guilty right away but "Changed" their minds?
Right.

---------------------
That happens in every jury on the first ballot, you see where people
are headed prior to the other persuasion confronting them and requiring
them to exercise their mind and reminding them that they MUST find
agreement with the other jurors in order to render a verdict. After
they sit down and go over the evidence in an itemized fashion and
are forced to agree with others or state why not, AND do so in a manner
that won't embarrass them for their stupidity and unreasoning, then
things change, a LOT!




No. They threw what Jackson did over because they hated the mother.

-----------------------
They hated her for a good reason, she had a known history of being a
lying conniving gold-digger. Between her history of PERJURY and her
previous influence on her son they knew that nothing the two said
could EVER be believed beyond a reasonable doubt!

And that's the problem with such prosecutions where there is no
substantive evidence of an act other than heresay, no DNA or worthy
material evidence. Given decent defense it is unprosecutable.



Which is exactly what these types of molestors DO.

--------------------
That's just it, "these types" cannot be shown to include Jackson.

If he was REALLY one of those he'd have had dozens or hundreds of
other victims who could come out of the woodwork WITHOUT a lying
stage-mom with a record of lying in court!

Jackson is most likely the pre-sexual type who simply hasn't
any actual sexual drive, toward anyone! He's a case of arrested
development by his father's physical abuse, but being a childish
Peter Pan he offends and frightens macho law enforcement types and
prosecutors, who are just sure he's a "faggot" and that "faggots"
are surely all trying to "convert" little boys.



They pick
disadvantaged kids from bad families, it makes it easier.

---------------------
You mean the ones with stage-moms who take their son to a hotel
room to grill him and prompt him for the last few days prior to
the trial.



Believe me I know from personal experience.

-------------------------------
And if the person had been attractive you'd have loved it.

"Molestation" is a codeword for being creeped out by someone
who's unlucky enough to be funny-looking or older in a society
where kids hardly see other people nude, and the few they manage
to see are all perfect, young and retouched. In a society where
kids see all the adults having sex publically they would not have
much more sexual attraction to youth as to age, or to us "averages"
versus the rare and amazingly slim and elastic, a state that doesn't
last but a few years and in a very few people. And in a society
where everyone touches each other sexually it would feel quite
normal to kids raised with it. It would be no more odd than
grandpa tickling you.
Steve

Steve, I'm sick your BULL****. I'm talking about a 7 year old girl
being raped by a grown man.
-----------------------------------
Define rape, define grown, define "7". I know personally a girl who
when she was still a few weekss from eight and a bit big for her age
was using a vibrator dildo 6.0" long and 1.25" in diameter every
single day. And I know another girl who used bananas at age 8. They
are, respectively, my daughter and her mother! As for a "grown man"
if he was less than that size, penilely speaking, then he was no
threat, and then only if he had coerced her would I claim she was
being harmed, and even then not seriously if no pain was inflicted
and if she had ever ****ed him in the past.

But antisexual neurotic **** like you want to make every kid a sex
victim, even when kids quite naturally play at sex in every culture.
I did, and I know hundreds and hundreds of other people who did so
as kids as well. And none of us that *I* know of, have developed
some sick predatory fixation on kids. We think our kids playing at
sex is cute, but a bit too tame for us!

Now if you were taken and hurt and coerced, I would agree you were
mistreated, but don't make assumptions about the rest of us and our
experiences that were often MUCH better. Or are you just jealous??
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

greccogirl 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.

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.

--------------------------------
You're implying that a dozen people who didn't know each other would
somehow magically agree to ignore evidence. You're a liar.
Steve

The fact that one of the jurors attended the MJ "victory" party is
pretty telling in itself.
-----------------------------
In every jury people who had devoted a fraction of their life to that
formative experience seem to emerged from it as an advocate for the
side their jury vote represented. I doubt they could ever have done
that prior to that experience. This is not at all unusual, nor is it
illegal. They return to their life changed in that regard, that they
have been forced to make profoundly measured and careful decisions,
and those do not come without permanent effect on their personality,
their preferences, and their politics.


You are so transparent, Steve. One minute you admit the OJ jury ignored
the evidence and freed a killer,
----------------------
The DNA proved it.


ignore the evidence.
----------------------
There was no "evidence". Porn does not magically prove he showed
it to kids, nor does the presence of alcohol prove he surely gave
it to kids. The opinions of witnesses both contradicted each other
through each and every issue, and those which were accusatory were
given by people with a known penchant to lie for monetary gain!
The jury was forced to see it that way BY THE FACTS!


but now you claim another 12 person jury "magically" agreed to
[]
Do you see how silly this is?
--------------------------
Nope, lying whore, that's what YOU said! *I* said they could NOT have
been "magically" induced to ignore REAL evidence, and that it was
BECAUSE they didn't HAVE any REAl evidence that they found it was
required of them to acquit him!!
Steve

greccogirl wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

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

No. They knew what they were doing. People don't "cry" when it is a
simple case with no proof. Even the head juror admitted on TV that six
of the jurors were solidly for "guilty" when they first adjourned.
------------------------
That was shortly after they elected foreperson. They hadn't even
reviewed any evidence. They obviously changed their mind when their
petty opinions were confronted by reason before their peers, now,
didn't they, hmmmm???


Apparently, there was mind changing. The same head juror admitted he
thought Jackson had molested kids but couldn't find him guilty -
---------------------
Which demonstrates that imagining that someone is guilty is quite a
different thing from proving it to eleven other people and even
yourself!!


basically, they screwed the kid because his mother was an asshole.
-------------------------
Nope, there is no way to determine how much more the kid has been
damaged in his life by his mother than he ever COULD have been by
Jackson!! Kids play show me yours all the time, it doesn't
hurt them. But mother browbeating you can last a lifetime!
Steve