Do you think he'll get the chair?

I think he'll go free.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
I think he'll go free.

ScottW

I hope he does. From everything I've read, this looks like one large
scam too.

On 13 Jun 2005 13:48:52 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

I think he'll go free.

Are you afraid of the precedent if he doesn't?

That's a pretty bold admission on your part. But what else would one
expect coming from someone with a family of thugs?

dave weil wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 13:48:52 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

I think he'll go free.

Are you afraid of the precedent if he doesn't?

Nope.


That's a pretty bold admission on your part. But what else would one
expect coming from someone with a family of thugs?

Once again Dave extrapolates beyond all limits of evidence. I think
you should hook up with Mags. If nothing else, she can take of you in
retirement.

ScottW

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:
I think he'll go free.

ScottW

I hope he does. From everything I've read, this looks like one large
scam too.

I don't doubt he is a perve or at least guilty of giving wine to
minors... but the molestation charges aren't proven afaik.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

ScottW wrote:

I think he'll go free.

ScottW

I hope he does. From everything I've read, this looks like one large
scam too.


I don't doubt he is a perve or at least guilty of giving wine to
minors... but the molestation charges aren't proven afaik.

Acquitted on all 10. Talk about a blowout.

Schizoid Man said:

Do you think he'll get the chair?

I hope you didn't bet too much.

NOT GUILTY ! On all count.

Not guilty all counts.

ScottW

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

ScottW wrote:

I think he'll go free.

ScottW

I hope he does. From everything I've read, this looks like one large
scam too.


I don't doubt he is a perve or at least guilty of giving wine to
minors... but the molestation charges aren't proven afaik.

Acquitted on all 10. Talk about a blowout.

I thought he might get a guilty on a lesser count of providing booze
to minors but after hearing the wording (internet feed kept cutting out
so I might have missed something) it sounded like it was providing to a
person under 21 "for the purpose of committing" something. Did they
link the booze charge to the molestation?

ScottW

EddieM said:

NOT GUILTY ! On all count.

Proving there needs to be an IQ test for California jurors.

Schizoid Man opined:

I hope he does. From everything I've read, this looks like one large
scam too.

Then you have not seen the documents posted at the Smoking Gun.com.

ScottW said:

I thought he might get a guilty on a lesser count of providing booze
to minors but after hearing the wording (internet feed kept cutting out
so I might have missed something) it sounded like it was providing to a
person under 21 "for the purpose of committing" something. Did they
link the booze charge to the molestation?

One would be a misdemeanor, the latter, giving alcohol for purposes of
committing a lewd act on a child would be a felony.

wrote:

EddieM said:

NOT GUILTY ! On all count.

Proving there needs to be an IQ test for California jurors.

The jury had 8 women and 4 men and still they turtned up 10 not guilty
counts. I think maybe you and the DAs should be the one subjected to the
IQ tests.

Since you're so conscious about how American tax dollars are ill spent,
what about this entire rigmarole so that Tom Sneddon can get his name in
the headlines.

If anyone is guilty here, it is the DA.

Schizo said:

Proving there needs to be an IQ test for California jurors.



The jury had 8 women and 4 men and still they turtned up 10 not guilty
counts. I think maybe you and the DAs should be the one subjected to the
IQ tests.


Oh, bull****, if they couldn't even convict on giving liqor to a minor
they weren't smart enough to be on a jury.

Since you're so conscious about how American tax dollars are ill spent,

what about this entire rigmarole so that Tom Sneddon can get his name
in
the headlines.


If anyone is guilty here, it is the DA.


Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.

wrote:
Schizo said:

Proving there needs to be an IQ test for California jurors.



The jury had 8 women and 4 men and still they turtned up 10 not guilty
counts. I think maybe you and the DAs should be the one subjected to the
IQ tests.


Oh, bull****, if they couldn't even convict on giving liqor to a minor
they weren't smart enough to be on a jury.

You said yourself.. for the purpose of committing lewd acts. Hard to
convict on one without the other. I agreed with this verdict... the
mother's history with JC Penny was enough for me. How many people get
their kids molested in two completely seperate incidents in a lifetime?

and George doesn't have kids that we know of.

ScottW

wrote:
Since you're so conscious about how American tax dollars are ill spent,

what about this entire rigmarole so that Tom Sneddon can get his name
in
the headlines.


If anyone is guilty here, it is the DA.


Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.

There's no defense in a grand jury hearing. It's straight prosecution
attempting to get an indictment. Did the grand jury hear about the
mother's history of bringing molestation charges?

ScottW

wrote:

Schizo said:

Proving there needs to be an IQ test for California jurors.

The jury had 8 women and 4 men and still they turtned up 10 not guilty
counts. I think maybe you and the DAs should be the one subjected to the
IQ tests.

Oh, bull****, if they couldn't even convict on giving liqor to a minor
they weren't smart enough to be on a jury.

At least now we know where you stand on the maxim of "considered
innocent till proven guilty".

wrote:
Since you're so conscious about how American tax dollars are ill spent,

what about this entire rigmarole so that Tom Sneddon can get his name
in
the headlines.


If anyone is guilty here, it is the DA.


Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.

If they were so damning, don't you think the jury would have sent Jacko
to the gas chamber?

I don't like him and he probably is a pervert, but as far as I am
concerned he was innocent until the DA proved him guilty, which he
failed to do. That's all.

In case you hadn't heard, we have something here in America called due
process and the right to a free trial. You should learn about it sometime.

Schizoid Man said:

Oh, bull****, if they couldn't even convict on giving liqor to a minor
they weren't smart enough to be on a jury.

At least now we know where you stand on the maxim of "considered
innocent till proven guilty".

According to Mickey (Side A), the government has no business prosecuting
people for "criminal" acts. The only purpose of government is to field
armed forces.

Suddenly, though, we're seeing Mickey (Side B) advocating for slam-bang
justice, due process be damned. Funny how the Bug Eater is completely
oblivious to what appears to be pedophilia by someone a lot closer to
home....

George Middius lies again:

"According to Mickey (Side A), the government has no business
prosecuting
people for "criminal" acts. The only purpose of government is to field
armed forces. "

You're lying George, I've never said anything like that. My position
has always been that the only logical function of government is to
protect individuals, and the services that it uses for that purpose are
the courts, the police and the military.


George compunds the offense by lying again:

"Suddenly, though, we're seeing Mickey (Side B) advocating for
slam-bang
justice, due process be damned. Funny how the Bug Eater is completely
oblivious to what appears to be pedophilia by someone a lot closer to
home.... "

Funny how you just make this stuff up as you go along. There's no
pedophillia here, I can't speak for you although your constant
references to NAMBLA do give one reason to wonder.

Thanks for showing anyone who didn't already know, what a piece of ****
you continue to be.

Schizoid Man said:

Oh, bull****, if they couldn't even convict on giving liqor to a minor
they weren't smart enough to be on a jury.



At least now we know where you stand on the maxim of "considered
innocent till proven guilty".

Then you know I agree with that concept totally, that doesn't mean that
I can't make my own decisions on the matter.

Can we at least agree that the main reason for the verdicts on 9 out of
the 10 counts is the skank factor of the mother?

The prosecutors should have dropped the conspiracy charge.

Snedden should have allowed someone else to handle the case.

If you look at the Grand Jury transcripts that are at smokinggun.com,
it seems clear to me that a conviction on the Jesus Juice should have
been a slam dunk.

The biggest worry I had, was that given the demographics of Santa
Barbara county, Jackson might have been convicted solely on the basis
of being a really wierd ****er.

wrote:

If you look at the Grand Jury transcripts that are at smokinggun.com,
it seems clear to me that a conviction on the Jesus Juice should have
been a slam dunk.


You said yourself... that's a misdemeanor. You really think the
outcome of this trial should have been a misdemeanor conviction?

ScottW

ScottW said:

You said yourself... that's a misdemeanor. You really think the
outcome of this trial should have been a misdemeanor conviction?

I think the judgements should bebased on the evidence. There were 10
counts, if Jackson was guilty of one or all, based on the evidence,
then that's how the jury should have found.

Yes, it would be a monumental waste to spend 4 million dollars to only
get a conviction for a misdemeanor charge, but the charge was there,
the evidence was there, and their duty is to make their judgements on
the evidence. It seems as if they decided the big charges weren't
proven, so there was no reason to convict on the lesser charges.

ScottW said:

Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.



There's no defense in a grand jury hearing. It's straight
prosecution
attempting to get an indictment. Did the grand jury hear about the
mother's history of bringing molestation charges?

My point was simply that there was evidence for many of the charges
that seem to me ample to prove at least some of the felony counts.

The mother being a flake was clearly a liability, but there was
corroboration of things like the family being held at Neverland.

I think the whole thing was a cluster **** and that the case could have
been handled better.

In total, there is probably no other way the jury could have found on
the felony charges, I can't say that I would have found differently on
those.

I also think that innocent men don't pay off people who charge them
with pedophillia. If they have the means, which MJ clearly did at the
time he paid off the previous kid, he should have fought to clear his
name. I know that I would have done so, had it been me so charged.
YMMV

Schizoid Man said:

Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.



If they were so damning, don't you think the jury would have sent Jacko
to the gas chamber?

Why must you make ridiculous statements like the above? When have you
ever seen me advocate the death penalty for anything other than murder?
Indeed I'm sure you can find Google records of me arguing against
people who want the death penalty for offenses other than murder.

I don't like him and he probably is a pervert, but as far as I am
concerned he was innocent until the DA proved him guilty, which he
failed to do. That's all.

Agreed, that doesn't mean I have to like it, since I think previous pay
offs lead a reasonable person to conclude there's fire under the smoke.
Innocent men, especially those with the means would fight to clear
their names of such charges.

In case you hadn't heard, we have something here in America called due
process and the right to a free trial. You should learn about it sometime.

Oh **** off. What's the point of such statements when you know they
have nothing to do with me?

I thought you were done with being an asshole.

wrote:

Schizoid Man said:
Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.

If they were so damning, don't you think the jury would have sent Jacko
to the gas chamber?

Why must you make ridiculous statements like the above? When have you
ever seen me advocate the death penalty for anything other than murder?

It's an expression. Of course he's not going to get the death penalty
for plying an underage kid with alcohol.

I don't like him and he probably is a pervert, but as far as I am
concerned he was innocent until the DA proved him guilty, which he
failed to do. That's all.

Agreed, that doesn't mean I have to like it, since I think previous pay
offs lead a reasonable person to conclude there's fire under the smoke.

I suppose that's why your rebuke was so damning as to instate IQ tests
for jury members.

Innocent men, especially those with the means would fight to clear
their names of such charges.

As you are probably well aware, fighting off charges in court may not be
worth it after factoring in legal costs and the effect bad publicity on
one's career. That's why his $20 million settlement had little impact on
his career compared to this fiasco.

In case you hadn't heard, we have something here in America called due
process and the right to a free trial. You should learn about it sometime.

Oh **** off. What's the point of such statements when you know they
have nothing to do with me?

Really? I thought you just stated that he was guilty. I guess I must
have misunderstood alongwith the majority of RAO.

I thought you were done with being an asshole.

So it's okay for you to pontificate on the virtues of freedom of speech,
democracy, human rights and a one-page constitution, but if I say that
Michael Jackson deserved a free and fair trial and he is innocent until
proven guilty, I am an asshole?

Talk about double standards.

wrote:
ScottW said:

You said yourself... that's a misdemeanor. You really think the
outcome of this trial should have been a misdemeanor conviction?

I think the judgements should bebased on the evidence. There were 10
counts, if Jackson was guilty of one or all, based on the evidence,
then that's how the jury should have found.

Yes, it would be a monumental waste to spend 4 million dollars to only
get a conviction for a misdemeanor charge, but the charge was there,
the evidence was there, and their duty is to make their judgements on
the evidence. It seems as if they decided the big charges weren't
proven, so there was no reason to convict on the lesser charges.

All those charges were for administering an intoxicating agent to
assist in commission of a felony.

Obviously without the molestation, this charge cannot stick.

You've been spouting off calling people idiots while you clearly don't
have your own facts straight. Time to slow down and gather yourself
together.

ScottW

wrote:
ScottW said:

Go read the Grand Jury transcripts posted on THESMOKINGGUN.COM AND TELL
ME IF YOU STILL THINK THAT WAY.



There's no defense in a grand jury hearing. It's straight
prosecution
attempting to get an indictment. Did the grand jury hear about the
mother's history of bringing molestation charges?

My point was simply that there was evidence for many of the charges
that seem to me ample to prove at least some of the felony counts.

Evidence that failed to stand up to the reasonable doubt raised by
the defense. Something that doesn't happen in a grand jury.


The mother being a flake was clearly a liability, but there was
corroboration of things like the family being held at Neverland.

You mean held while she made lots of phone calls, went shopping, and
went to the movies? That conspiracy case was ludicrous.


I think the whole thing was a cluster **** and that the case could have
been handled better.

In total, there is probably no other way the jury could have found on
the felony charges, I can't say that I would have found differently on
those.

I also think that innocent men don't pay off people who charge them
with pedophillia. If they have the means, which MJ clearly did at the
time he paid off the previous kid, he should have fought to clear his
name.

and endured all the resulting publicity and probably spent a lot more
than 23 Mil in the process.

I can't presume to judge people in that kind of position, I have no
idea what kind of considerations must be made.

I know that I would have done so, had it been me so charged.

But you're a peasant with no public career.

YMMV

Yeah, I don't presume to equate my situation with a public figures
like Jackson.

ScottW

Some short guy wrote:

I also think that innocent men don't pay off people who charge them
with pedophillia. If they have the means, which MJ clearly did at the
time he paid off the previous kid, he should have fought to clear his
name.



and endured all the resulting publicity and probably spent a lot more
than 23 Mil in the process.

Perhaps? What is one's integrity worth?
How much do you suppose the pay off cost him in lost record sales?
Clearly he was tanking after the payoff.

I can't presume to judge people in that kind of position, I have no
idea what kind of considerations must be made.

It would seem the major consideration was to leave doubt in the mind of
the record buying public, that he might actually be a pedophile.

I know that I would have done so, had it been me so charged.


But you're a peasant with no public career.

Obviously I was putting myself in the position of being a personality
like Jackson, but you knew that.

YMMV


Yeah, I don't presume to equate my situation with a public figures
like Jackson.

Is it so hard to imagine yourself in his position? Imagine you were
him, at the time, with those resources and that someone had accused you
of something you didn't do. If it were me in that position, I would
have fought it tooth and nail.

ScottW said:

All those charges were for administering an intoxicating agent to
assist in commission of a felony.

Thre jury had the ability and instructions that they could find him
guilty of lesser, misdemeanor charges regarding serving alcohol to a
minor.
It seems there was sufficent evidence to convict on that.

Obviously without the molestation, this charge cannot stick.

It's not obvious at all that they couldn't convict him of a misemeanor
charge of serving Jesus Juice to a minor which is a crime. It becomes
a felony if it was to facilitate a child molestation.

You've been spouting off calling people idiots while you clearly don't
have your own facts straight. Time to slow down and gather yourself
together.

I seem to have them together better than you, since I know what the
jury instructions were.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Is it so hard to imagine yourself in his position? Imagine you were
him, at the time, with those resources and that someone had accused you
of something you didn't do. If it were me in that position, I would
have fought it tooth and nail.


I would hire some goons to kidnap them.



----== 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 =----

Clyde Slick wrote:

wrote in message

Is it so hard to imagine yourself in his position? Imagine you were
him, at the time, with those resources and that someone had accused you
of something you didn't do. If it were me in that position, I would
have fought it tooth and nail.

I would hire some goons to kidnap them.

That's still a lot more plausible than hiring goons to put mother and
son in a hot air balloon, which was one of the alleged 'conspiracies'.

Tom Sneddon is the one who should be put on trial.

This whole drama was nothing more than a personal vendetta.

Schizo goes off again:

If they were so damning, don't you think the jury would have sent Jacko
to the gas chamber?


Why must you make ridiculous statements like the above? When have you
ever seen me advocate the death penalty for anything other than murder?



It's an expression.

Bull****.

Of course he's not going to get the death penalty
for plying an underage kid with alcohol.

Then why mention it?

Agreed, that doesn't mean I have to like it, since I think previous pay
offs lead a reasonable person to conclude there's fire under the smoke.



I suppose that's why your rebuke was so damning as to instate IQ tests
for jury members.

Given the OJ verdict, the Robert Blake verdict, and the failure to
convictg MJ of anything, I don't think so.

Another nice thing about living in the U.S. is being able to voice
opinions that others may not share. :-)

Innocent men, especially those with the means would fight to clear
their names of such charges.


As you are probably well aware, fighting off charges in court may not be
worth it after factoring in legal costs and the effect bad publicity on
one's career. That's why his $20 million settlement had little impact on
his career compared to this fiasco.

I disagree. I think it cost him more in lost sales and unanswered
questions in the minds of the public. Had it me in his position with
his resources, I would have fought.


In case you hadn't heard, we have something here in America called due
process and the right to a free trial. You should learn about it sometime.

Oh **** off. What's the point of such statements when you know they
have nothing to do with me?


Really? I thought you just stated that he was guilty. I guess I must
have misunderstood alongwith the majority of RAO.

It wouldn't be the first time.
Where does that leap into denying due process?

So it's okay for you to pontificate on the virtues of freedom of speech,
democracy, human rights and a one-page constitution, but if I say that
Michael Jackson deserved a free and fair trial and he is innocent until
proven guilty, I am an asshole?

Yes, if you say it as if I were trying to deny him a free and fair
trial.

Talk about double standards.

Go ahead, you seem to be very well versed on the subject.

Disagreeing with the jury is not saying he should be strung up or
executed or denied due process. It is simply my disgust with the way
an imperfect system seems to work all too often.

wrote:

Schizo goes off again:

Why must you make ridiculous statements like the above? When have you
ever seen me advocate the death penalty for anything other than murder?

It's an expression.

Bull****.

Of course he's not going to get the death penalty

for plying an underage kid with alcohol.

Then why mention it?

Black humour. I guess you don't get it.

Agreed, that doesn't mean I have to like it, since I think previous pay
offs lead a reasonable person to conclude there's fire under the smoke.

I suppose that's why your rebuke was so damning as to instate IQ tests
for jury members.

Given the OJ verdict, the Robert Blake verdict, and the failure to
convictg MJ of anything, I don't think so.

Robert Blake and OJ were *completely* different from Michael Jackson. I
don't think the prosecuting DAs in either case showed the zeal and
hostility that Tom Sneddon has for the better part of a decade.

Another nice thing about living in the U.S. is being able to voice
opinions that others may not share. :-)

Really? Say that to the Dixie Chicks! :-)

Innocent men, especially those with the means would fight to clear
their names of such charges.

As you are probably well aware, fighting off charges in court may not be
worth it after factoring in legal costs and the effect bad publicity on
one's career. That's why his $20 million settlement had little impact on
his career compared to this fiasco.

I disagree. I think it cost him more in lost sales and unanswered
questions in the minds of the public. Had it me in his position with
his resources, I would have fought.

Well, you're not in his position, so this argument is moot.

In case you hadn't heard, we have something here in America called due
process and the right to a free trial. You should learn about it sometime.

Oh **** off. What's the point of such statements when you know they
have nothing to do with me?

Really? I thought you just stated that he was guilty. I guess I must
have misunderstood alongwith the majority of RAO.


It wouldn't be the first time.

That I cannot deny.

Where does that leap into denying due process?

The evidence largely fabricated and shaky, the mother's got a history of
spinning cons and you had a DA who had been to imprison MJ for the last
12 years. Like I said, this was a vendetta. Not a fair trial, yet
justice was served.

So it's okay for you to pontificate on the virtues of freedom of speech,
democracy, human rights and a one-page constitution, but if I say that
Michael Jackson deserved a free and fair trial and he is innocent until
proven guilty, I am an asshole?

Yes, if you say it as if I were trying to deny him a free and fair
trial.

Talk about double standards.

Go ahead, you seem to be very well versed on the subject.

That's because I had in you a good teacher! :-)

Disagreeing with the jury is not saying he should be strung up or
executed or denied due process. It is simply my disgust with the way
an imperfect system seems to work all too often.

It's funny, because this trial reinforced the belief that the system
does work after all.

wrote:
ScottW said:


All those charges were for administering an intoxicating agent to
assist in commission of a felony.


Thre jury had the ability and instructions that they could find him
guilty of lesser, misdemeanor charges regarding serving alcohol to a
minor.
It seems there was sufficent evidence to convict on that.

Obviously without the molestation, this charge cannot stick.

It's not obvious at all that they couldn't convict him of a misemeanor
charge of serving Jesus Juice to a minor which is a crime. It becomes
a felony if it was to facilitate a child molestation.

Unfortunately, if the charge is that, they can't back off and go for
a lesser charge instead - it's an all or nothing gamble for the DA.

wrote:
ScottW said:

All those charges were for administering an intoxicating agent to
assist in commission of a felony.

Thre jury had the ability and instructions that they could find him
guilty of lesser, misdemeanor charges regarding serving alcohol to a
minor.
It seems there was sufficent evidence to convict on that.

Obviously without the molestation, this charge cannot stick.

It's not obvious at all that they couldn't convict him of a misemeanor
charge of serving Jesus Juice to a minor which is a crime.

Thats a different question but lets address it.

It was not just any minor, it had to be Gavin. Very little evidence
of that and lots of evidence they were into the booze all by
themselves.

It becomes
a felony if it was to facilitate a child molestation.

You've been spouting off calling people idiots while you clearly don't
have your own facts straight. Time to slow down and gather yourself
together.

I seem to have them together better than you, since I know what the
jury instructions were.

Knowing them and applying them are two different things.

You want to claim that evidence presented that Jackson has given booze
to minors makes him quilty of giving booze to Gavin Arvizo. Thats a
leap.

Obviously the jury realized that evidence didn't prove the charge your
wandering mind has concluded he is guilty of.

ScottW

wrote:
Some short guy wrote:

I also think that innocent men don't pay off people who charge them
with pedophillia. If they have the means, which MJ clearly did at the
time he paid off the previous kid, he should have fought to clear his
name.



and endured all the resulting publicity and probably spent a lot more
than 23 Mil in the process.

Perhaps? What is one's integrity worth?
How much do you suppose the pay off cost him in lost record sales?
Clearly he was tanking after the payoff.

Maybe you didn't hear Mesereau saying Jackson got bad advice from his
previous attorney and he would never settle again.


I can't presume to judge people in that kind of position, I have no
idea what kind of considerations must be made.

It would seem the major consideration was to leave doubt in the mind of
the record buying public, that he might actually be a pedophile.

I know that I would have done so, had it been me so charged.


But you're a peasant with no public career.

Obviously I was putting myself in the position of being a personality
like Jackson, but you knew that.


Your extraordinarily qualified to do that....NOT!


YMMV


Yeah, I don't presume to equate my situation with a public figures
like Jackson.

Is it so hard to imagine yourself in his position?

Imagination isn't reality and rarely accurate.

Imagine you were
him, at the time, with those resources and that someone had accused you
of something you didn't do. If it were me in that position, I would
have fought it tooth and nail.

Yet public figures pay people off all the time. You're imagination
doesn't include a publicist or a promoter screaming we have to cancel
the tour while this thing is going on. Its gonna cost more than the
settlement! You have no clue what was going on.

ScottW