michael jackson verdict

[mark33f 0]

He was acquited because he wasn't proven guilty. There was no concrete evidence, just testimony and credibilty (needless to say, a lot against him). The prosecution did not present a case in which reasonable doubt could be reached by the jury.There is no way, unless you were physically molestated by him, that you could know he was guilty. You would have had to have been there. Yes he may have done this, or this or this, and there is certain factors that seem like he is guilty, but the bottom line is there is not enough evidence to prove that he did these things. There were a ton of things against him, but in the end a reasonable doubt could not be proven.And furthermore, I have a family member who is a Santa Barbara County Sheriff, who was on hand both at the trial and at the scene when he got accused the FIRST time, giving me firsthand experienceBy the way, having a family memeber there doesn't give you first hand experience or credibilty because whatever this family member passed on to you was his/her view of the trial, not the "unedited" one.

[bmwguy525 0]

True Mark, but what this guy was arguing me with, I have heard more from people who were there than he has. He hears what the rest of the public hears, which is passed on through what the writers want the people to hear, which is passed through their editors who edit out what they don't want people to hear, which is all of their jobs. What I heard was from someone who was there who doesn't give a rats ass what anyone in our family hears.Note that I'm not trying to discredit your argument, as it is a valid one, but against this butthole it is useful in my argument.

[mark33f 0]

Yeah, believe what you want from the media, your friends or whomever, the bottom line is in the court of law, he was proven not guilty. And yes, your credbility is somewhat greater than a general citizen whom only gets the chewed up and spit out version.

[avsfan 0]

If the law says he is innocent then I beleive he is innocent.

I was wrong here it should say; If the law says he is Not Guilty then I beleive he is Not Guilty.Sorry I am not educated.

[RonBurgundy 0]

Michael Jackson didn't rape those children, he made love to them.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Michael Jackson didn't rape those children, he made love to them.

Man. from what i heard.. Mike pulled out some wine. and some pills. and sucked this kids dick.....Mother fucker, that is a good host!!. jesus.. i'd be lucky to get a glass of grape drink at my friends house.what more did this kid want

[KTW 0]

This is similiar to the OJ trial because of the "obviousness" factor. Obviously OJ was guilty but was found innocent. Obviously MJ was innocent and was found to be same. I have to this day never found a person of any race that thought OJ was innocent and 90% or so thought MJ was innocent. 8) :wink: 8)