Tweet
I recall i said he was not guilty as well in the trial thread. I still believe the guy is not gulity and the sneddon guy was on a vendatta to **** with this guy
-
When you find yourself arguing with an idiot, you might want to rethink who the idiot really is.
"It can't rain all the time"-Eric Draven
Being dyslexic is hard work. I don't even try anymore. -
I can't wait for NAMBLA to celebrate this absurdity.A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.Comment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
Now someone should sue the courts for a frivolous prosecution.
All that's needed is to prove the prosecution acted with reckless disregard and actual malice towards Jackson, or that they knowingly suppressed evidence that would exonerate Jackson and went to trial anyway.
A bungled case by the prosecution doesn't even come close.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
Yes, with those accusors there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
We'll see how they do in the civil suit.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
A question to those who understand the American legal system.
Jackson was found innocent, so the charges were made up. Therefore, the accusers gave false testimony. AFAIK, giving false testimony in court is a crime. Is there now going to be a case automatically against Jackson's accusers?Solver, WePlayCiv Co-Administrator
Contact: solver-at-weplayciv-dot-com
I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking ManComment
-
No, they won't be charged. There testimony could have been true. Just the jury decided there was doubt.It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Thats excatly what I said in the trial thread only reason the criminal trial was going on was to pave way for the civil suit figured this mother learned enough from the oj fiasacoOriginally posted by rah
Yes, with those accusors there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
We'll see how they do in the civil suit.When you find yourself arguing with an idiot, you might want to rethink who the idiot really is.
"It can't rain all the time"-Eric Draven
Being dyslexic is hard work. I don't even try anymore.Comment
-
Yeah, but the civil suit would have been much easier if he had been convicted.
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
No.Originally posted by Solver
A question to those who understand the American legal system.
Jackson was found innocent, so the charges were made up. Therefore, the accusers gave false testimony. AFAIK, giving false testimony in court is a crime. Is there now going to be a case automatically against Jackson's accusers?
"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent" - it means that the prosecution didn't meet the standard of proof to convict.
There's no connection to giving false testimony - the jury not believing the testimony as credible doesn't mean it's false, it just means the jury didn't believe it.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
Maybe the civil suit will convince BofA or some third party creditor to force an involuntary bankruptcy and put the little freak on the street.Originally posted by rah
Yeah, but the civil suit would have been much easier if he had been convicted.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
What about "the prosecution acted to promote themselves and make themselves celebrities". That's what I had in mind.Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
All that's needed is to prove the prosecution acted with reckless disregard and actual malice towards Jackson, or that they knowingly suppressed evidence that would exonerate Jackson and went to trial anyway.
A bungled case by the prosecution doesn't even come close.
The whole thing stank from the beginning. I am not a Michael Jackson fan either.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
well simply stated it will now be easier to say that it is more likely then not that this happened for the civil suit. Which is why i believe the mother went as far AS she could in the crimminal trial. I dont think he did any of the things they accused him of but since he is a freak people want to lend in to the fact he didWhen you find yourself arguing with an idiot, you might want to rethink who the idiot really is.
"It can't rain all the time"-Eric Draven
Being dyslexic is hard work. I don't even try anymore.Comment
-
Well, if you can prove they knew from the outset that they he was not guilty and they chose to proceed regardless, have at it.Originally posted by Agathon
What about "the prosecution acted to promote themselves and make themselves celebrities". That's what I had in mind.
The whole thing stank from the beginning. I am not a Michael Jackson fan either.
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
Now I can vote in the poll!
Comment
-
As I remember, juries consist of of the accused's "peers"...
Who exactly are Jackson's peers?
I haven't held the US justice system in particularly high regard after I heard that one DA left a murder trial to her subordinates, to prosecute in a shoplifting trial... for Winona Ryder. (
)
15 minutes, that's all I want.I've allways wanted to play "Russ Meyer's Civilization"Comment
Comment