Michael Jackson is innocent - Page 3

macgeek · 06-26-2005, 07:30 PM

Two more words..

Pee Wee Herman

(OK, that was three words)

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

BillM · 06-26-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by pam

... There was at least one jury member (and maybe more, I just remember an interview with one) who said they thought he had probably molested children, just not that one, because they didn't trust the mother not to have put the child up to a false accusation.

Pam, that's an incredible statement. The juror is saying that he believes he is really a child molester.
missed that ealier. I wonder if the rest felt the same way?
yikes!

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

BillM · 06-26-2005, 07:33 PM

not the same. Pee Wee was caught red handed.

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

citivolus · 06-26-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood

How can "not guilty" mean anything other than "innocent". A person is either one or the other.

No, they are two different things. While "not guilty" may imply innocence, it is not proof and you will never hear a finding of innocent. Taken a step further, innocence cannot be proven at all regardless of what the French, and now somewhat the Aussies, think. The reason is that you can't prove a dispositive and innocence is a dispositive. For instance, it is impossible to prove you [u]didn't</u> 'eat a potato chip', 'spill milk on the floor' or 'pee in the ocean' (assuming of course you have accesss to the ocean) but it is possible to prove you did do something with evidence. What I'm saying is that evidence of a non-instance doesn't exist and therefore can't prove anything.

For anyone interested in what I meant about the Aussies loss of logic:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...625617,00.html

--
swiftly flying

X-man · 06-26-2005, 10:25 PM

As much as I refrain from kicking dead horses, for TC I will make an exception.
Here's a few more viewpoints on his current behavior.
http://www.pulpmovies.com/phpbb/view...hp?p=4248#4248

Bob.

Where goeth I, goeth my Segway.

pam · 06-26-2005, 11:27 PM

As I recall, Bill, it was mentioned that there were 4 at the beginning of the jury deliberation who felt that way. I saw so many interviews of the various jury members that they all run together.

BUT, remember, the trial was THIS child, THIS time. The way the system is set up, they couldn't convict MJ unless they felt it was legitimate for this child, this time. The flaky mom caused the jury members to have doubt and for conviction the level of guilt had to be beyond reasonable doubt, since it was not a civil trial, but criminal.

Theoretically, the family could go back and sue him in civil court, like Nicole Brown Simpson's family did (and they won, there) because the standard is not so stringent. However, the various commentators felt that the family would not go back into court.

Pam

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by pam

... There was at least one jury member (and maybe more, I just remember an interview with one) who said they thought he had probably molested children, just not that one, because they didn't trust the mother not to have put the child up to a false accusation.

Pam, that's an incredible statement. The juror is saying that he believes he is really a child molester.
missed that ealier. I wonder if the rest felt the same way?
yikes!

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

BillM · 06-27-2005, 10:49 AM

citi... thanks for posting that article. I'm going to wrestle with that for a while. sounds presumtuous that they are so confident in thier health safety guidlines to state that if someone is injured/dies on the job that it must be a result of the managments neglect to provide a safe work place. doesn't that set the kind of precendent that could ripple throughout the rest of all democratic courts and throw us all back several hundred years of progress?
btw... aren't we leaving out the word Presumed? - Innocent.

Bill Mullen
JM Lexus
Margate, FL 33073
800 805-3987
billm@jmlexus.com

macgeek · 06-27-2005, 03:35 PM

In truth, I believe BOTH parties are guilty in the MJ case, He guilty of child molistation, and her guilty of child prostatution, as well as trying to con MJ out of $$$ (extortion) - Both are sick. and need treatment.

Jonathan

"Think outside the car"

gbrandwood · 06-27-2005, 05:15 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by citivolus

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by gbrandwood

How can "not guilty" mean anything other than "innocent". A person is either one or the other.

No, they are two different things. While "not guilty" may imply innocence, it is not proof and you will never hear a finding of innocent. Taken a step further, innocence cannot be proven at all regardless of what the French, and now somewhat the Aussies, think. The reason is that you can't prove a dispositive and innocence is a dispositive. For instance, it is impossible to prove you [u]didn't</u> 'eat a potato chip', 'spill milk on the floor' or 'pee in the ocean' (assuming of course you have accesss to the ocean) but it is possible to prove you did do something with evidence. What I'm saying is that evidence of a non-instance doesn't exist and therefore can't prove anything.

There is no doubting your logic - I see what you mean and concede that my statement was a little naive. The spirit of my point was that people are innocent until proven guilty - thus he is innocent in that sense.

-

To segue, or not to segue, that is the question.

voiceguy · 07-01-2005, 03:06 AM

Pam,

In response to the negatively slanted TC thread woven here, I think this article says it all:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/o...29navaret.html

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-26-2005, 07:30 PM	#21
macgeek Super Crazy Segway Geek Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 2,757	Two more words.. Pee Wee Herman (OK, that was three words) Jonathan "Think outside the car"

06-26-2005, 07:33 PM	#23
BillM Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Margate, FL, USA. Posts: 51	not the same. Pee Wee was caught red handed. Bill Mullen JM Lexus Margate, FL 33073 800 805-3987 billm@jmlexus.com

06-26-2005, 10:25 PM	#25
X-man Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: As a full time RVer, I'm on a road somewhere in the west Posts: 743	As much as I refrain from kicking dead horses, for TC I will make an exception. Here's a few more viewpoints on his current behavior. http://www.pulpmovies.com/phpbb/view...hp?p=4248#4248 Bob. Where goeth I, goeth my Segway.

06-27-2005, 10:49 AM	#27
BillM Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Margate, FL, USA. Posts: 51	citi... thanks for posting that article. I'm going to wrestle with that for a while. sounds presumtuous that they are so confident in thier health safety guidlines to state that if someone is injured/dies on the job that it must be a result of the managments neglect to provide a safe work place. doesn't that set the kind of precendent that could ripple throughout the rest of all democratic courts and throw us all back several hundred years of progress? btw... aren't we leaving out the word Presumed? - Innocent. Bill Mullen JM Lexus Margate, FL 33073 800 805-3987 billm@jmlexus.com

06-27-2005, 03:35 PM	#28
macgeek Super Crazy Segway Geek Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 2,757	In truth, I believe BOTH parties are guilty in the MJ case, He guilty of child molistation, and her guilty of child prostatution, as well as trying to con MJ out of $$$ (extortion) - Both are sick. and need treatment. Jonathan "Think outside the car"

07-01-2005, 03:06 AM	#30
voiceguy Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles, ca, USA. Posts: 205	Pam, In response to the negatively slanted TC thread woven here, I think this article says it all: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/o...29navaret.html

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)