I'm not sure whether or not he's guilty. There's a lot of evidence showing that the woman is one of those people who falsifies large amounts of evidence and then sues people for money. I hope they find some REAL evidence if he's guilty...and if not, well I hope that bitch gets what she deserves.

Oh I imagine the little freak will get off. :rolleyes2

I don't know... I'll just be glad not to hear about it any longer.

i wouldn't doubt him to be guilty, but i havn't seen the evidence. either way i still think the guy has some serious mental problems.

The verdict is in... Not Guilty on all counts.

The offical verdict is not guilty...as Aqua says.


Upon further review........

If it smells like a duck..

If it quacks like a duck...

If it acts like a duck.....


It therefore MUST be.....a duck.

MJ's "innocent"...just like OJ.

Don't you just love the legal system?

What a crock!!!! I'm going to go commit a felony....anyone got some money for my legal fees?

Beyond a reasonable doubt....it's the gigantic difference between criminal and civil cases.

If after all the evidence is presented you still have any doubt you have no other option.

Well put, Lil.

Having just sat on a civil case and facing being an advocate in a criminal trial soon, I have really been thinking about all this lately.

Juries are asked to find someone guilty or not guilty based on the premise of reasonable doubt. Juries are not asked if someone is innocent.

I know that there is "reasonable doubt". I hate that phrase with a passion, but isn't there a way for "guilty" criminals to be found as such, like MJ and OJ???

It's not like these charges have come from out of the blue....there appears to be a history.....hence my "duck" comments above.

Believe me I completely echo your frustration but it all has to do with the quality of the case that is presented by the State and if the Defense can activate actual, or manufacture doubt.

I have this nightmare that the Defense will be able to create doubt in the case I'm helping with.

BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT

Under our constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt is entirely on the State. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and you must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every element of the alleged offense. If, after all the evidence and arguments, you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant's having committed any one or more of the elements of the offense, then you must find him not guilty.

A "reasonable doubt" is just what the words would ordinarily imply. The use of the word "reasonable" means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason. It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away. Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it. The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty. However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

It appears, that in most cases, those charged with a crime are thought to be guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion fed by the media. Obviously, in this instance, the "state" could not prove without a reasonable doubt that MJ was guilty even though he is a very bizaar individual. Remember, the general public has not been privy to all of the facts, nor were we inside the courtroom hearing all of the testimony. Many have heard all of the charges and the "strange" behavior of Michael Jackson and assumed that the man was guilty of that which he was accused.

Our legal system is not perfect, but it is all that we have and we need to support it and understand what our duties are when we are called to serve.

Cheyanne,

Quite! Thank you! :thumb:

Cheyanne,
Thanks. Very well put. You and Lilith both speak knowledgably about this subject.

I do support our system, but in some cases I just don't like it much.

This is one of those times.

I never thought him guilty....so am pleased to hear the correct verdict was given

He might be weird...but weird doesnt equate to guilty in my books