Post by Dr Demented on Jun 18, 2005 10:34:22 GMT -5
And, I'm not talking about Justice from Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, either...
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past several months, you already know about the Michael Jackson molestation trial...and his subsequent exoneration. Also, if you are on this site...you already know that I think this prick needs to be chained to a wall for a few years, while mechanical probes torture his every orifice.
I guess what really pisses me off is that I followed the trial almost religiously. I listened to the transcripts on Court TV, and followed commentary on Fox News...and after hearing the verdict, I could only sit there in disgust and wonder how in the hell these idiots could find him "Not Guilty". I mean, how much of a fucking moron do you have to be to NOT see that MJ is a queer pedophile? How much "jesus juice" do you have to drink before you can be that delusional?
THEN, the jurors had the brass cohones to go on tv and radio and say, "We think he is a molester, but we had to let him go". They blamed the Court's 95 page jury instructions in saying that they believed he committed crimes against children...but that the prosecution didn't give them enough evidence.
NOW, I believe that the prosecution fucked up. I had that impression all along...and I know that most high-profile attorneys like Shapiro agreed that the prosecution would have been more effective with the bare basics. None of these stupid embelllishments and "conspiracies". Just the accusers and the collaborating witnesses. You wouldn't have had the jury backlash against the kid's insane mother...and Jackson's attorney wouldn't have been able to bring all these "fluff" witnesses like Macauley Caulkin.
With that said...have these moronic jurors NEVER heard of a little thing called JURY NULLIFICATION? It's usually a phrase passed around when a defendant is obviously guilty, but sympathetic to the jury...so they find him NOT GUILTY, evidence notwithstanding. It's a door that swings both ways, though. Knowing he was guilty of molesting children, regardless of the pitiful prosecution, they should have found him guilty anyway. It's their right as a jury to interpret the jury instructions any way they wish...and their decision is NOT subject to appeal except in the case of jury tampering or evidence of misconduct. Jackson would be lanquishing in a jail cell....maybe swinging from the shower stall, or being the subject of jailhouse justice....but he wouldn't be free to molest again.
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past several months, you already know about the Michael Jackson molestation trial...and his subsequent exoneration. Also, if you are on this site...you already know that I think this prick needs to be chained to a wall for a few years, while mechanical probes torture his every orifice.
I guess what really pisses me off is that I followed the trial almost religiously. I listened to the transcripts on Court TV, and followed commentary on Fox News...and after hearing the verdict, I could only sit there in disgust and wonder how in the hell these idiots could find him "Not Guilty". I mean, how much of a fucking moron do you have to be to NOT see that MJ is a queer pedophile? How much "jesus juice" do you have to drink before you can be that delusional?
THEN, the jurors had the brass cohones to go on tv and radio and say, "We think he is a molester, but we had to let him go". They blamed the Court's 95 page jury instructions in saying that they believed he committed crimes against children...but that the prosecution didn't give them enough evidence.
NOW, I believe that the prosecution fucked up. I had that impression all along...and I know that most high-profile attorneys like Shapiro agreed that the prosecution would have been more effective with the bare basics. None of these stupid embelllishments and "conspiracies". Just the accusers and the collaborating witnesses. You wouldn't have had the jury backlash against the kid's insane mother...and Jackson's attorney wouldn't have been able to bring all these "fluff" witnesses like Macauley Caulkin.
With that said...have these moronic jurors NEVER heard of a little thing called JURY NULLIFICATION? It's usually a phrase passed around when a defendant is obviously guilty, but sympathetic to the jury...so they find him NOT GUILTY, evidence notwithstanding. It's a door that swings both ways, though. Knowing he was guilty of molesting children, regardless of the pitiful prosecution, they should have found him guilty anyway. It's their right as a jury to interpret the jury instructions any way they wish...and their decision is NOT subject to appeal except in the case of jury tampering or evidence of misconduct. Jackson would be lanquishing in a jail cell....maybe swinging from the shower stall, or being the subject of jailhouse justice....but he wouldn't be free to molest again.