O.J,Robert Blake, now this crack lookin kiebbler elf MF Michael Jackson, and the only way he tells time is when the big hand touches the little hand...heehhe but honestly Hollywood the place to be to commit crime?


fat girls make your car lower......

Not if you're a Sheen, a Downey, Nolte or most of the rest of the people in hollyweird.

The Jackson Verdict just goes to re-affirm that you'll probably want some SOLID evidence and well prepped witnesses, as well as clear and consise prosecutors.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Not if you're a Sheen, a Downey, Nolte or most of the rest of the people in hollyweird.

The Jackson Verdict just goes to re-affirm that you'll probably want some SOLID evidence and well prepped witnesses, as well as clear and consise prosecutors.

Jesus could come down from heavan and say some star was guilty and they would probably still get off.

Short of weak jail sentences and forced rehab stars rarely get into trouble its seems. Im sure your really bored and are going to look some up after I wrote that.

they had no solid evidence against the guy, so they had no choice but to say he's not guilty


You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

i whole heartidly agree with MikeC2003


it's disgusting that Jackson is free cause in my mind there is no doubt he HAS molested children. however there was not even a chance he would be convicted in this case


<img src="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze7ybq0/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/sig96cav.jpg">

There's a huge, deep chasm between what you think and what you can prove.

Jackson's eccentricities don't make him guilty.

The flimsy evidence police managed to gather was pretty much useless (the "kid's" fingerprints on the skin mags were a closer match to Jackson's), and the fact that the mother got caught lying, and had tried to sue Jackson and other stars proved she was a dirty whore gold digger.

If he actually did do something that was inappropriate or illegal, we, as the public will never know until he does it again and it can be conclusively proved.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Saddam's lawyer should ask for a change of venue to Southern Cali. lol

I have studied sex offenders and pedophiles under this guy...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Dr.+Isaac+Van+Patten%22

and they would claim kids would want what happened to them..that it wasn't wrong..etc. Jackson fits the profile to a T.

It's quite disgusting..........simply put! You got money you the got the lawyers.....one defense i so happy they didn't play is the race card.....because really what the hell nationalty is he??


fat girls make your car lower......

Ty wrote:It's quite disgusting..........simply put! You got money you the got the lawyers.....one defense i so happy they didn't play is the race card.....because really what the hell nationalty is he??

Nationality? He's American. You mean RACE? I would guess African-American as we say here.

^^ bingo.
He has money. Money buys a vigorous defence.

DEAL WITH IT.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:^^ bingo.
He has money. Money buys a vigorous defence.

DEAL WITH IT.

And as such, there's no such thing as justice anymore.

Not going to argue his guilt or anything, but if money will buy you a lawyer that will clear you of a crime--no matter how heinous, then Justice truly isn't blind.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

It's always been like that though and unless you would rather have the french system where you are guilty until proven innocent, there really hasn't been a better system to come along.

He has to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Given the evidence against him, I don't think the prosecuters were able to prove that. I don't know if he has ever molested a child, but based on the character and testimony of the prosecutions witnesses, I think the jury couldn't make that determination. Does anyone here who actually heard the testimony of the witnesses not have some doubt as to his guilt about this paticular crime? The defense did a good job of placing suspicion of the motives of the accusers into the minds of the jury.

what i was getting at, GTO, was that it *should* be that those in the legal profession are there to see that the law is upheld and justice is served, not bowing to the almighty dollar.

but unfortunately, it won't happen that way.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

If the lawyer does not have proof or admission to a crime then he shoud try to his utmost ability to defend that client using whatever means at his disposal. Peoples lives depend on it. It just happens that those who are best at what they do charge higher rates so only the wealthy that can afford their services.

Even if the lawyer has the opinion that the client is guilty, they should not give a half assed effort. They should ask to be removed from the trial and a new lawyer hired/assigned.

mrgto:
If by the French system you mean the Stalinist communist system... then you're right.

Your courts are actually modelled after the French/British reformed courts.

Labotomi:
If the Lawyer does have an admission of guilt, they can refuse the client's business. Only when there is a public defender must they have to defend until the bitter end.

The defence and prosecution must provide vigorous cases, no matter what once the case comes to trial.

Also, the Evidence speaks a lot louder than any witness can, and in this case there was little evidence to support the charge. Now, whether or not the evidence was collected and processed in a proper or sloppy manner, I do not know, nor do I care to speculate.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Let me further rephrase...

more time should be trying to prove the client's innocence than finding legal loopholes.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

if u let ur kid go to his house after that thing in 93 then its gotta be to try n get money from the guy. . .who cares anyway at least they found scott peterson guilty

Michael didn't need a great attorney to beat that case. Those "witnesses" were terrible. It was a terrible case and that was obvious.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Let me further rephrase...

more time should be trying to prove the client's innocence than finding legal loopholes.


What?

That's what great about American justice, I don't have to prove I'm innocent.


---

Innocent until proven guilty, they were not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so... under the law they are innocent.

^^^
Drew Van Oort..........Van Der Sloot??
Wouldn't happen to be in Aruba?

You missed my point...

I'm saying this...for someone that is guilty beyond a resonable doubt, and has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why look for some loophole in the law to get them off scott free?

For someone that is innocent, of course you'll want to prove they're innocent, because the prosecuter will do everything they can to prove them guilty. That's the best way to do it.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Usually those loopholes are rights violations. What other kind of loopholes can you sight?




---

Insanity defense. I think it's Bull@!#$.

Further, there are some rights violations where I agree--but would you really want a serial killer getting off scot-free because the arresting officer forgot to read them their miranda rights?

I'm talking logical degree here. And maybe i hold an outdated concept dear (read: honor), but if i was, hypothetically speaking, driving under the influence, killed someone, and the arresting officer forgot my miranda rights--i wouldn't not try to get off free because of that--someone is dead and it was my fault!




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Insanity defense. I think it's Bull@!#$.

Further, there are some rights violations where I agree--but would you really want a serial killer getting off scot-free because the arresting officer forgot to read them their miranda rights?

I'm talking logical degree here. And maybe i hold an outdated concept dear (read: honor), but if i was, hypothetically speaking, driving under the influence, killed someone, and the arresting officer forgot my miranda rights--i wouldn't not try to get off free because of that--someone is dead and it was my fault!


Its a sad thing when you can't assume people think logically and with morals....