Quote:
Originally posted by sugar and spice
Jackson won because, like O.J., his lawyers put together a better case. I certainly believe O.J. had a hand in Nicole's death, and like Dani I believe that Jackson has molested children (although not necessarily this particular one) -- but I have no proof that they were guilty, and nobody else had enough proof to convict either. And thank god our courts don't convict on what I believe but have no proof of, or what you believe but have no proof of. I'd hate to be on trial in a country where the justice system worked like that.
Did any of you who are sooo surprised at this verdict actually stay up-to-date on this trial? Because it seemed pretty clear to me throughout the entire trial that he was going to walk. The case against him just wasn't strong enough.
ETA: I also think the "Money/celebrity guarantees innocence" accusations are interesting in light of the fact that most child abuse cases NEVER come to court -- it was actually Jackson's celebrity that got him in this mess in the first place. If he had just been some random schmo off the street, I doubt these accusations would have ever come to light.
|
You're quite right... the prosecution did not present a substantial case to the jury determining Michael's guilt on any of the charges. The defense presented a better case.
Having served on a criminal trial jury in California some years ago (and foreman as well), whatever the evidence presented in the trial, as well as the instructions to the jury, sets the stage for deliberations. In the case I was on, the defendant was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance (steroids), not guilty of resisting arrest, and the jury was hung on the making a terroristic threat charge. Don't know what the sentence was, but he was a prison guard at Folsom; guess he's not doing that anymore.