Watching GMA just now So far, every juror asked said they would never trust MJ to sleep with their child. Remember, this verdict was on a very narrow question. MJ was found innocent of molesting one boy during a three week period.

So let's use that argument on you. You get a ticket for speeding in a speed trap, but you know you didn't do it and you can pretty much demonstrate the truth in court. After you do so and the officer fails to prove that you were speeding, the judge decides to find you guilty in THIS case because he figures there is a likelyhood that you had been guilty of speeding in the past but just never got caught.... Be grateful that our justice system works the way it does, because it could be you defending yourself some day....

Be grateful that our justice system works the way it does, because it could be you defending yourself some day.... **************************** And to the contrary it could be your child who was victimized and no one believes them. Yes I am happy our justice system is the way it is, however, it doesn't ALWAYS end with justice being served.

And to the contrary it could be your child who was victimized and no one believes them. Yes I am happy our justice system is the way it is, however, it doesn't ALWAYS end with justice being served. ==================================== My child would not have been sleeping in that bedroom unless I was there too.... so it's a moot point...

Your child could be elsewhere and victimized. Not necessarily in another adults bed! My point is that the jury may not believe you and your child and you may be telling the truth. Justice is not always served!

Your child could be elsewhere and victimized. Not necessarily in another adults bed! My point is that the jury may not believe you and your child and you may be telling the truth. Justice is not always served! *********************************************** true, I keep thinking back to when Avilia the one who killed Sammantha Runnion. He was on trial for child molestation where 2 girls accused him of molesting them. Their mother was the girlfriend of Avilia . Turns out the jury didn't believe the girls and Avilia was found not guilty. months later he went out and abducted Sammantha, molested her and killed her.

Your child could be elsewhere and victimized. Not necessarily in another adults bed! My point is that the jury may not believe you and your child and you may be telling the truth. Justice is not always served! *********************************************** true, I keep thinking back to when Avilia the one who killed Sammantha Runnion. He was on trial for child molestation where 2 girls accused him of molesting them. Their mother was the girlfriend of Avilia . Turns out the jury didn't believe the girls and Avilia was found not guilty. months later he went out and abducted Sammantha, molested her and killed her. ========================================= So you can't trust anyone then.... NICE.

It's not a moot point, you have alot to say and you are the one who needs to be careful. Usually those who talk alot about these things ends up with something happening and then they have to take back everything they spouted off at the mouth about. I haev seen your opinions on several of these posts and it seems that you don't get much work done in corporate law, or you are on vacation. I also thought I seen something about you practice corporate law and have never had to go to court. If that is the case then tell us all how you have so much time to voice so many opinions on here. I would think that you wouldn't have that much time. Anyway I was just curious about that, I don't like very many lawyers and that's just a personal opinion you could be very good and you could be a very nice person. I'm sorry I just had to say something about that because all this whole trial was is a game to lawyers and who ccould present their case the best and how much money each lawyer would get out of it. Forget about the victim, because it's obvious that with your opinion it is Michael Jackson who is the victim, and I think we all know that he is far from being a victim. They couldn't use his past discretions but they sure could tear that mother all to pieces with hers, IT'S A GAME!!!! and when you get into all this with big high payed lawyers etc. it's who wins and how much publicity they can get. I don't think a lawyer in the world would have taken this case if they had to base it on if they truly believed he was innocent. You didn't see this kind of stuff back in the day, because back in the day several men would have taken his skinny wierd tail out and whipped him real good.

"You didn't see this kind of stuff back in the day, because back in the day several men would have taken his skinny wierd tail out and whipped him real good." I hope you aren't actually meaning to advocate violent vigilante justice?

"You didn't see this kind of stuff back in the day, because back in the day several men would have taken his skinny wierd tail out and whipped him real good." I hope you aren't actually meaning to advocate violent vigilante justice? ******************************** Nope....He ain't worth it....Although I couldn't tell you how I would feel if it was my own child. I am just saying that back some time ago MJ would have gotten what he deserved, a good whippin'. Look at how the crime rate has increased since they stopped us Hatfields from making things right....:-)My g-g-g-grandaddy Devil Anse Hatfiled would have tied him to a paw paw bush and whipped him to an inch of his life with a horse whip. MJ wouldn't think about sex with anyone for a very long time....

I have time because my Paralegals do most of the ACTUAL work here... I just proof for legal accuracy and sign off on things. I truly beleive the guy IS innocent and has never molested anyone, but again I say that I wouldn't let MY child sleep anywhere that was not safe...

So let's use that argument on you. You get a ticket for speeding in a speed trap, but you know you didn't do it and you can pretty much demonstrate the truth in court. After you do so and the officer fails to prove that you were speeding, the judge decides to find you guilty in THIS case because he figures there is a likelyhood that you had been guilty of speeding in the past but just never got caught.... Be grateful that our justice system works the way it does, because it could be you defending yourself some day.... Thats exactly my point Lib, if these people where in the same situation would they want to be persecuted for a crime they were proven INNOCENT of commiting? This is total hypocrisy, instead they should rejoice that Michael Jackson never did do the things he was accuse of. Instead they are angry because an innocent man didn't hang, is that supposed to be justice?

"Remember, this verdict was on a very narrow question. MJ was found innocent [technically, not guilty] of molesting one boy during a three week period." Yep, and as I've been saying for a while, there's plenty of reasonable doubt on that question, and even plenty of reason to believe that the boys were being kept away from Jackson during that period. I'm not at all surprised that they acquitted, nor am I surprised that they are suspicious of Jackson. When considering their feelings, I think it's important to remember that they were presented with tons of pejorative information, sufficient to make at least some of them actively suspicious that he's guilty of molestation, but not sufficient to convict on *any* charged count. Their suspicion, I think, answers the question of whether he was acquitted for his celebrity. They didn't acquit for celebrity. If that was the reason, the more suspicious of them would have hung the jury. They got all 12 to agree to acquit because there simply wasn't a viable case.

I also watch a little of GMA this morning. The juror (male) said that the jury was going to have a GUITY verdict, however, the boy accuser was so inconsistant that they couldn't convict. This juror also stated that if the prosecution didn't put this boy and mother on the stand...there would have been a much better chance to convict Jackson. The juror said that this could/should be a wake-up call for MJ - if not, it will be up to another jury to convict him, when he finds himself in court again.

And we know he will!

I also watch a little of GMA this morning. The juror (male) said that the jury was going to have a GUITY verdict, however, the boy accuser was so inconsistant that they couldn't convict. This juror also stated that if the prosecution didn't put this boy and mother on the stand...there would have been a much better chance to convict Jackson. The juror said that this could/should be a wake-up call for MJ - if not, it will be up to another jury to convict him, when he finds himself in court again. ================================================ It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to not put the accuser on the stand. The constitution guarantees you the right to face and question your accuser...

The mother could have been left off in a heartbeat. It would have destroyed the conspiracy charges, but they were destroyed by her *presence* as quickly as they would have been by her *absence*. The conspiracy charges should never have been brought. In their absence, and if the prosecution had not called the mother, the case would likely have taken half as long, and noticeably stronger.

The mother could have been left off in a heartbeat. It would have destroyed the conspiracy charges, but they were destroyed by her *presence* as quickly as they would have been by her *absence*. The conspiracy charges should never have been brought. In their absence, and if the prosecution had not called the mother, the case would likely have taken half as long, and noticeably stronger. ========================================== The prosecuter was hoping to "split the baby" his strategy backfired on him...

"The prosecuter was hoping to "split the baby" his strategy backfired on him..." --- I don't think the word "backfired" really covers the full range of what this did. I don't know what word to suggest as a better option, though! Perhaps we need to coin one? Something like "The prosecutor was hoping to "split the baby", but his strategy Sneddoned on him"... By including the conspiracy charges, he made the case into a silly circus of absurd prosecution allegations, and introduced the single best defense witness in the whole trial -- the mother. As some of the commentators noted, when she was on the stand, the defense pretty much stopped objecting, except to object when the prosecution tried to *stop* her answers! I think he not only allowed the mother to destroy her own credibility, and damage the credibility of her children, but by standing behind her, they damaged their own credibility, and the subconscious presumption that if they brought a charge to trial it must be real. Also, the much broader case allowed for expanded testimony from the children on non-molestation-related subjects, which further damaged *their* credibility. I think another reason they introduced those charges was to provide another avenue for introducing some of their evidence for molestation which would not have been allowed into a molestation case (such as the Bashir video), but by the end of the prosecution case I think it was quite clearly a strategic error. One step forward, fourteen steps back.

tom sneddon was on the Today show this morning and he said that the mother had already been subpeonoed by the defense so regardless if they put her on....the defense would have because their whole argument was that the mother concocted the molestation story and had her children lie for profit. they really had no choice but to try and work with what they had.