Jackson Verdict Reached

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:46 pm

it is june 13, 1545 eastern, there will be a verdict announced at 1630.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 12:47 pm

Keep us posted Lady Cop

Agnes · Post by **Agnes** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:10 pm

they finally decided, yes LC keep us informed. Charles Manson will be his new friend if jailed.

babygirl · Post by **babygirl** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:22 pm

Hi LC please let us know when you find out

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:24 pm

My neice phoned me 20 mins ago to tell me that he'd been found guilty, i told her they havent yet announced the verdict, so how would she know that.

She said her bf had sent a text from Spain, so she phoned him & said its not been announced yet & wont be for another 20 minutes, what made you say that he was guilty?

He told her " well we're 1 hour ahead of you in spain".........funny sod!:wah:

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:30 pm

the verdict is delayed because jackson is late to court again. total disrespect for the court. i am very interested to see whether he will be remanded into custody right away if he is convicted. security is very tight, they even have SWAT team members on hand.

robinseggs · Post by **robinseggs** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:38 pm

lady cop wrote: the verdict is delayed because jackson is late to court again. total disrespect for the court. i am very interested to see whether he will be remanded into custody right away if he is convicted. security is very tight, they even have SWAT team members on hand.

My neighbor is coming over and we are going to watch this together--on the edge of our seats! Had to cut off the Gamecube bunch (my 3 and half the neighborhood), to get the t.v., but what the heck, they could use a little fresh air right??!! LOL....

kmhowe72 · Post by **kmhowe72** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:42 pm

I see lady cop beat me to the punch. I am bitting my finger nails. :-5

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:44 pm

They just said it'll be in 5 minutes.

robinseggs · Post by **robinseggs** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:47 pm

Now saying he is still in his car........................................ugh!!!!

robinseggs · Post by **robinseggs** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:48 pm

walking from his car.............................................................................LOL

Peg · Post by **Peg** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:09 pm

I Wish They'd Get On With It!!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrr

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:15 pm

not guilty of conspiracy. not guilty lewd act. more to come..........all counts, not guilty. unbelievable.

kmhowe72 · Post by **kmhowe72** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:19 pm

NOT GUILTY . i AM SICK

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:23 pm

The tiny amount of faith I had left in our so-called "justice system" is down the crapper. :-5

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:25 pm

BabyRider wrote: The tiny amount of faith I had left in our so-called "justice system" is down the crapper. :-5Dont worry he'll be back!

babygirl · Post by **babygirl** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:27 pm

BabyRider wrote: The tiny amount of faith I had left in our so-called "justice system" is down the crapper. :-5

i feel the same BR :-5

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:31 pm

i just found out.......it was really the oj jury!

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:31 pm

Sounds like he is innocent of the charges. Now my grandchildren will have to watch him grab his crotch. The prosecutor should resign immediately.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:33 pm

an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:36 pm

lady cop wrote: an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven.
I know but not guilty on all ten counts makes me wonder if the jury saw something we didn't.

babygirl · Post by **babygirl** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:36 pm

lady cop wrote: an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven.

so now he has been found not guilty what happens if they find more evidence? can he be re tried for the same offence?

Thanks for letting us all know LC.

i really feel sick now :-5

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:36 pm

Thanks for clearing up that point, LC. "Found not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", thank you very much. This maggot is FAR from innocent.

It's like the golden rule: "He who has the most gold makes the rules."

Makes me want to vomit.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:40 pm

Hi Angel, he can never be tried again for the same charges, that constitutes double jeopardy. it's like if oj came out and declared he killed ron and nicole, he could not be retried. so jackson would have to commit new offenses. -------any speculation about the direction his career will take now?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:44 pm

lady cop wrote: not guilty of conspiracy. not guilty lewd act. more to come..........all counts, not guilty. unbelievable.

I am a bit stunned myself - just heard it on the local breaking news. I have to say that maybe he isn't a pedophile OR he covers his tracks very well. I am stunned. I really thought he was guilty.

I almost have to concur on the OJ jury comment - I am stunned.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:45 pm

this was a good verdict. reasonable doubt is how the justice system is supposed to work, and this verdict is vindication of that principle. there *was* reasonable doubt. the accuser's sudden amnesia and inconsistencies when he was cross-examined. the family's history of approaching celebrities for money.

do i think jackson is innocent? don't know. all we have is hearsay. and assumption. only jackson and the accusers know the truth. the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:46 pm

lady cop wrote: -------any speculation about the direction his career will take now?Maybe not speculation, just wishful thinking:

He is immediately snubbed by his entire fan base, develops several severe STD's, loses his little perverted "playland" and everything else, ends up broke and alone, and dies a long, slow, painful death.

Just my humble opinion.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:47 pm

a rhetorical question....if a 46 year old man in your neighborhood admitted he regularly sleeps with little boys, is there any question what would be done with him?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:48 pm

nvalleyvee wrote: I am a bit stunned myself - just heard it on the local breaking news. I have to say that maybe he isn't a pedophile OR he covers his tracks very well. I am stunned. I really thought he was guilty.

I almost have to concur on the OJ jury comment - I am stunned.So you were convinced he was guilty until 12 fallible human beings said he wasn't?

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:49 pm

BabyRider wrote: Thanks for clearing up that point, LC. "Found not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", thank you very much. This maggot is FAR from innocent.

It's like the golden rule: "He who has the most gold makes the rules."

Makes me want to vomit.

I have to agree. And thanks LC - not guily does not mean innocent. And Anas - yes - there must not have been enough good evidence against him. For reasons I am not aware of - the jury came to its decision.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:49 pm

lady cop wrote: a rhetorical question....if a 46 year old man in your neighborhood admitted he regularly sleeps with little boys, is there any question what would be done with him?
My neighborhood?

They'd never find the body.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:51 pm

BabyRider wrote: So you were convinced he was guilty until 12 fallible human beings said he wasn't?

I still think he is guilty. Being an abuse survivor - I believe the worst when someone is accused 3 f-ing times. Maybe the families did see a gold mine - get rich quick - my heart says he's a pervert.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:55 pm

I think your heart is right on the money.

babygirl · Post by **babygirl** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:57 pm

BabyRider wrote: My neighborhood?

They'd never find the body.

exactaly the same as my neighbourhood BR

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:58 pm

i believe in the criminal justice system, but i am privy to too many trials where poor defendants are convicted on a lot less. reasonable doubt is defined as a real doubt that a prudent reasonable person finds. if the jury found it, so be it. let one guilty go free instead of one innocent go to prison. i do believe the trashing of the accuser's family turned the tide. if they were a bunch of sunday school teachers the outcome may have been different.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:00 pm

Amen Lc. :-5

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:01 pm

I have a hard time thinking that he isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a pervert. I would never want him around my grandchildren. I think the prosecutor is guilty of very bad judgment. He should have lined up an air tight case and presented a victim (defendant) that was credible. He spent $4M of the taxpayers money when all the time, he was evidently on shaky ground. Why would he go after someone with JacksonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s resources and popularity without even knowing how the defendant was going to respond on the stand?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:01 pm

lady cop wrote: poor defendants There's the key words right there.

Geez, am I sounding a tad BITTER? That's because

I AM!!!!!!!!

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:02 pm

anastrophe wrote: do i think jackson is innocent? don't know. all we have is hearsay. and assumption. only jackson and the accusers know the truth. the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.I'm delighted someone has the balls to say it.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 of which states: "(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:08 pm

spot wrote: I'm delighted someone has the balls to say it.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 of which states: "(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.

I agree Spot - it's just that where there is smoke 3 times - don't you think there might be a little fire? I said he might have been set up each time for blackmail money. What resonable human being would keep sleeping with children after the first pay-off? And who would keep saying it is OK after they have paid blackmail money 2 other times to keep it quiet?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:09 pm

mr. jackson is a freak. i don't dispute that, nor would any reasonable person dispute that.

however, his freakish nature alone is enough to give me pause. let's see, massive, world fame at what - five years old? at one point immensely wealthy. preyed upon numerous times for his wealth (and not for child molestation). settled out of court with *accusers* - that's way, way different from being convicted of that crime. how much would *you* trust someone who, rather than going to the police, filed a multimillion dollar civil suit over alleged molestation of their child? can you say 'extortion'? if i were a parent, and my child were molested, filing a multimillion dollar lawsuit would be the last thing on my mind. now it comes to this case, where they did go to the police with their charges. i wonder if that was part of the gambit - secure a conviction, then take him for his entire fortune, rather than a measly $20 million. call me cynical.

how many of your neighbors do you think would go on national TV and state that they slept with young boys, and that it was not sexual?

what am i getting at? not sure. i'm being hectored by the damn telebision pundits right now, i should turn the damn thing off.

let me make it clear, i'm no fan of mr. jackson, on most levels. have never been crazy about his music (though 'a b c, 1 2 3' is one hell of a catchy tune). his whole adult life has been freakshow. the plastic surgery. the skin lightening. neverland. all weird, weird, weird. now, how many pedophiles work that hard at getting attention?

i think jackson is deluded by the 'handlers' around him, by the immense wealth, by the lack of a 'normal' childhood, by his clear dissatisfaction with who he is.

what i don't know is whether he really is a child molester. and i don't think the jury could come to a conclusion on that based upon *the evidence provided*. innuendo, allegations, expectations, being a freak - none of them make for a conviction.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:09 pm

spot wrote:

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.excuse me, it is a fact. you notice the word 'innocent' is not used. it is not proven without a reasonable doubt under our rules of evidence. acquited and innocent are not the same.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:14 pm

lady cop wrote: excuse me, it is a fact. you notice the word 'innocent' is not used. it is not proven without a reasonable doubt under our rules of evidence. Lady, read the words: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial. The innocence is a presumption. There has been no conviction. The presumption exists. The acquittal is irrelevant. The man has not been found guilty. The lack of conviction presumes innocence. It's a cornerstone assumption of your legal process, and of mine too.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:15 pm

spot wrote:

"an acquital does not mean actually innocent, just means it wasn't sufficiently proven" is simply an abuse of both language and logic. The USA behaves better than that.
unfortunately, i now get to disappoint you.

the law is very clear, and verdicts are very clear. nobody at trial is *ever* found "innocent". they are either found guilty or not guilty. there *is* a tangible difference in meaning, and it is a cornerstone of our system of justice (yours too, i presume).

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:17 pm

it seems we now have dueling cornerstones.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:19 pm

a presumption of innocence is not the same as innocent. an acquittal on charges is not the same as innocent of the charges. not guilty is not the same as innocent.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:22 pm

We are innocent until proven guilty. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Not guiltyÃ¢â‚¬ means he wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t proven guilty and is what he was before he was taken to court and those words were read. He is far from innocent in my judgment but my judgment doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t count.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:22 pm

anastrophe wrote: the law is very clear, and verdicts are very clear. nobody at trial is *ever* found "innocent". they are either found guilty or not guilty. there *is* a tangible difference in meaning, and it is a cornerstone of our system of justice (yours too, i presume).You don't equate "not guilty" with "presumed innocent" then?

The traditional words employed in the English courts by the judge, on a verdict of not guilty, is that the defendant leaves court without a stain on his character. That's what the presumption of innocence implies. If you like, I'll dig back and find where it was first used. It is what "presumed innocent unless found guilty" means.