That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The
odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that
the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.



I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the
case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The
odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that
the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were
not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.



I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the
case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction.

B.H.


Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn,
I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they
brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on
that one, since simple posession is a felony)

Brenda Ann wrote:


"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child
molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated,
CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured
that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the
public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted.

There's a good reason that juries are required to believe that somebody
did a crime without a reasonable doubt before convicting, and that's to
avoid convictions over hearsay. Many people, most of them ordinary
citizens, have gotten off because the defense was able to show the
slightest hint of reasonable doubt. "He's weird, therefore he's guilty"
is NOT admissible evidence. Add to that the fact that the family has had
cases thrown out of court before on suspicion of fraud, and the defense
argument that the mother wants to frame Michael for whatever reason
holds a lot of water.

We can armchair psychoanalyze Michael until the cows come home, but he
seems to me to have always identified more with kids rather than with
adults because of his childhood traumas and the fact that he never had a
carefree childhood-he started performing at the age of 5, and was
whipped with a belt by his father if his performance on a particular
night fell short of dad's standards. All the Peter Pan murals and the
odd behavior around kids can be traced back to the fact that he never
really WAS a kid. If he did it, I doubt that he views it as hurting a
child, he views it as legit affection, and he can't tell the difference
because he's emotionally stunted. He's one sad sack in any case.

Back to the BBC: I just finished listening to The World Today, and most
of the broadcast was about Michael Jackson. Just goes to show you that
he remains MUCH more popular in Europe than in America. One commentator
noted that Michael could probably make good money touring Eastern
Europe, where his popularity never really waned. Also, European media
doesn't have many of the constraints that American media does
surrounding such cases; the BBC has openly mentioned the accuser's name
on shortwave many times, while American media is forbidden from doing
so.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:02:04 -0700, running dogg wrote:

Brenda Ann wrote:


"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

Yeah, but the legislators in Sacramento CHANGED THE LAW so that in child
molest cases previous allegations of behavior, even if unsubstantiated,
CAN be used against the defendant. I'm not sure why; I always figured
that if true the current charges could stand on their own, and the
public hates child molestors anyway so they usually are convicted.


Unfortunately, in our current hysterical, politically correct
society, all you have to do is invoke national security or child
safety and previously assumed civil liberties go out the window.

It used to be that your records were secure. Now all someone
as to do is assert that they want access "in connection with an
investigation into terrorism" (and you're not allowed to investigate
that claim) and they grt access with no meaningful judicial oversight.
And the WH wants this sneak-searching power expanded.

Similarly, there used to be statutes of limitations for crimes
involving children or other offenses, but they have been retroactively
revoked. It used to be that a person could be convicted and serve the
jail time assigned, then be released on the understanding that the
debt to society had been paid. No more -- they can be housed on jail
grounds on the basis that, time served notwithstanding, they were
still deemed to be "unrehabilitated". They can be tracked and hounded
out of any chance of starting a new life.

Mind you, I have no problem if society wants to establish new
rules for search and seizure or for penalties for lawbreaking, but
these should never, ever be imposed retroactively. There is a contract
which we make with society and it can only cause contempt for the
contract if it can be changed in ways which call previously understood
rules into question based on the law enforcement fad or public
hysteria of the day.

Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.



Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice
or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike

.... those are NOT American citizens, they are enemies of Americans...
they ain't got NO rights...

John
"m II" wrote in message
news:Hkrre.62936$tt5.56979@edtnps90...
Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.

Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have
justice or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike