Rapist Flee's in Victims own vehicle

[camaroon4me]

Just caught this picture in the paper today! :whistling:

 

[Rob_k]

damm funny....not right, but damm funny!!!! i thought mj was a pediphile, not a rapist? :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

 

[camaroon4me]

damm funny....not right, but damm funny!!!! i thought mj was a pediphile, not a rapist? :whistling: :whistling: :whistling:

[snapback]194223[/snapback]​

According to the jury, he's not even a pedophile! Those crazy Californians, I guess anything goes in the land of the fruits and nuts*!










*I say this because it is my opinion that the jurors excercised their right of "Jury Nullification".

I think that they decided that what Michael did was acceptable behavior for the average Californian, it was not a crime, and that he should not be punished. Go figure.

Oh well, at least he has now said that he will no longer share a bed with any children, perhaps he has learned the hard way.

JV

 

[IgwanaRob]

According to the jury, he's not even a pedophile! Those crazy Californians, I guess anything goes in the land of the fruits and nuts*!


JV

[snapback]194229[/snapback]​

They didn't find him innocent - they found him to not be 'guilty beyond any reasonable doubt' of the charges of this case. The head juror came out and said they believed he was molesting kids, but they had to base the verdict of this case on what was presented to them, and the case (and the persecution) was weak and in the end left doubts.

Not that it matters, I'm just post padding :whistling:

 

[ree ree robusto]

LOL! Funny stuff.

Ree

 

[PuroEsq]

According to the jury, he's not even a pedophile! Those crazy Californians, I guess anything goes in the land of the fruits and nuts*!


JV

[snapback]194229[/snapback]​

They didn't find him innocent - they found him to not be 'guilty beyond any reasonable doubt' of the charges of this case. The head juror came out and said they believed he was molesting kids, but they had to base the verdict of this case on what was presented to them, and the case (and the persecution) was weak and in the end left doubts.

Not that it matters, I'm just post padding :whistling:

[snapback]194249[/snapback]​

Well put and exactly correct. Criminal defendants are either found guilty or not guilty (not innocent). As you stated the standard of proof ir Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

In the Jackson case the primary witnesses against Jackson, the mother and her kid, were not very credible and therefore destroyed the case in the eyes of the jury. I heard that the jury, during deliberations, listed the number of times that the mother or kid were found to have lied and counted something like 16 different lies or misrepresentation in their own testimony.

Whether he did it or not became moot when the DA failed to properly prepare his witnesses and investigate the validity of the victim's claims and prior history.

Another high profile LA criminal trial is lost (for the DA) due to incompetence, bad witneses and bad trial preparation techniques. Remind you of any other case?

 

[Matty_Vegas]

remind me next time I decide to commit a crime of any sort..do it in california

 

[ree ree robusto]

Remember...It's not what you know, it's WHO you know.

 

[PuroEsq]

Remember...It's not what you know, it's WHO you know.

[snapback]194280[/snapback]​

AND

It's not what you did but what they can prove.

 

[Rob_k]

remind me next time I decide to commit a crime of any sort..do it in california

[snapback]194279[/snapback]​

and name your kids names like prince and blanket, then get alot of plastic surgery, and have a ranch with....

 

[Korean&Proud]

LMFAO! thats so wrong but so funny!

K&P