[NA] Michael Jackson Verdict in soon

MSmith

MSmith

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
903
Location
Hamilton, NJ
Display Name
Display name:
Mark Smith
The Michael Jackson verdict should be announced at around 4:30pm EDT.
 
I don't particularly care either, but it's the big story for the day.

In other news, a DC-3 crashed in the Fort Lauderdale area about 1pm today.
 
the fact that it is the big story for the day is a pathetic reminder of what's going wrong with the media. it used to be this would be a big story for National Enquirer.

can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
 
Awww... come on.

Ever heard of Fatty Arbuckle?

This kind of stuff has been going on forever.
 
woodstock said:
can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
Click to expand...

Since the beginning of the "regular media"? Stories are told of the newspaper wars in New York 'round the turn of the century.

In modern days, Murdoch's tabloids were masters of the trait.

And the Television side of the media picked up on this when cable came along with a lot of competitive offerings. TV took old Radio promotional tactics and applied them to the news gathering and reporting sensationalism. 'Course eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and giving broadcast licensees "renewal expectancy" didn't hurt....

<flame shields up>
 
gibbons said:
I respond with, "Michael Jackson."

;)
Click to expand...
And the media.

And all the TV addicts gathering in our conference room to watch the verdict on the plasma. Sheesh.
 
Good time to have the popcorn and soft drink concession....
 
I'm not even going to consider the economic impact of a bunch of TV-addicted employees across the country watching for a verdict right now. It's past 5:00pm on the East Coast but the Real World is still working. ;)
 
woodstock said:
the fact that it is the big story for the day is a pathetic reminder of what's going wrong with the media. it used to be this would be a big story for National Enquirer.

can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Loooooong before I was born.
 
Not Guilty all charges, including the misdemeanor charges.
 
Doh! Shoulda known the resident news hound would be on this.:D I logged on, and posted as the verdict came up, thinking I had a "scoop" lol..... Oh well. Better a guilty man be acquitted than an innocnet man be convicted.
 
MSmith said:
Not Guilty all charges, including the misdemeanor charges.
Click to expand...

Gosh, if you listen to the supposedly-unbiased TV reporters, that's the wrong answer....
 
woodstock said:
the fact that it is the big story for the day is a pathetic reminder of what's going wrong with the media. it used to be this would be a big story for National Enquirer.

can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
Click to expand...

March 17, 1977
 
MSmith said:
Not Guilty all charges, including the misdemeanor charges.
Click to expand...

They had to use my tax money to figure that out? Heck, I could have told them that was the verdict even before they arrested the weirdo.

I want my money back.
 
woodstock said:
the fact that it is the big story for the day is a pathetic reminder of what's going wrong with the media. it used to be this would be a big story for National Enquirer.

can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
Click to expand...

I believe it is a pathetic reminder of what's gone wrong with our culture.
 
woodstock said:
the fact that it is the big story for the day is a pathetic reminder of what's going wrong with the media. it used to be this would be a big story for National Enquirer.

can anyone here pinpoint with accuracy the date the regular media decided we were all ignorant boobs?
Click to expand...


I would disagree. America LOVES a big celebrity trail. Look back to the turn of the century and the Pulitzer trail and all that have followed. Can't blame us if the publics loves a train wreck. But, I do see your point. It will be nice to have the news back. What will cable new do now :(
 
wsuffa said:
Gosh, if you listen to the supposedly-unbiased TV reporters, that's the wrong answer....
Click to expand...

Trial by the media .. the American way. They're just mad because
they can't do the followup story "MJ's life in prison".

A jury heard the evidence and decided it wasn't compelling enough
to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how it's supposed to
work.

MJ's for sure a little strange. Which he's entitled to be. But I thought
this whole parade of flakes they brought before the jury was a little
suspect. Sneddon should find a more productive use of the taxpayers'
money than his personal vendetta against Jackson.
 
That's my thing, as stated above, a waste of taxpayer money. We do some longish trials here sometimes, but nothing that compares with the circus atmosphere of this thing, and some of these other "celebrity" trials. I contend, if I were the prosecutor on this thing, I would have presented a very simply case with the accuser and a few other past allegations, and not put on a single celebrity. Then, when the defense brought in Jay Leno etc, I would have pointed the finger at the whole lot of them, basically told the jury that they were making entertainment out of it all, and that I was presenting them a simply prosecution of a perv, and left it at that.

I cannot believe the prosecutors allow this to become a circus on both sides. I understand the defense. I would do the same thing they did. I think, not withstanding the mother of the victim, that they might have made a conviction here, if they had stuck with the old prosecution rule, KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

Jim G
 
Last night during my local news cast (WISH-TV 8, Indianapolis, IN), they said "remember, Michael Jackson was not found innocent, he was only found not guilty"...
 
Greebo said:
Ditto - why that date?
Click to expand...

Just pulled out of my a$$ to provide a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question :D Of course, you can't necessarily prove me wrong, either, so I'll just stand by it.
 
grattonja said:
That's my thing, as stated above, a waste of taxpayer money. We do some longish trials here sometimes, but nothing that compares with the circus atmosphere of this thing, and some of these other "celebrity" trials. I contend, if I were the prosecutor on this thing, I would have presented a very simply case with the accuser and a few other past allegations, and not put on a single celebrity. Then, when the defense brought in Jay Leno etc, I would have pointed the finger at the whole lot of them, basically told the jury that they were making entertainment out of it all, and that I was presenting them a simply prosecution of a perv, and left it at that.

I cannot believe the prosecutors allow this to become a circus on both sides. I understand the defense. I would do the same thing they did. I think, not withstanding the mother of the victim, that they might have made a conviction here, if they had stuck with the old prosecution rule, KISS. Keep it simple, stupid.

Jim G
Click to expand...

I contend that if you were a prosecutor, you would have evaluated the crap for evidence that was available for this case, evaluated the absolutely non-existent credibility of the accuser, his family, and the prosecution witnesses, and waited for a better case to try. For example, there was no way to keep celebrity's out of this one, the defendents have been busy trying to fleece them all, and it was just to easy to draw the line toward them taking advantage of Jackson's repuation to get some money out of him, too. I think Tom Sneddon let his personal vendetta and hatred get in the way of his better judgement in this case. He's convinced, as am I, that Jackson is a child molestor and wants desperately to nail him, but that doesn't excuse unprofessional conduct. The man held a press conference while executing a friggin search warrant, joked about it, and presented material that was seized to the press, for heaven's sake!!! He should have been jailed for violating Jackson's rights in such a manner. The search warrant doesn't give a prosecuter grounds to be waving someone's personal property around for the amusement of the press, and the humiliation of someone the prosecutor dislikes. Worse, Sneddon's conduct, his choice to bring such a case to trial, and his resounding defeat may make it harder than ever to get a conviction if they ever to get a real case against Jackson. It's increasingly easy for the defense to point to a vendetta against him, and increasingly easy for the jury to believe it.
 
Joe Williams said:
I contend that if you were a prosecutor, you would have evaluated the crap for evidence that was available for this case, evaluated the absolutely non-existent credibility of the accuser, his family, and the prosecution witnesses, and waited for a better case to try. For example, there was no way to keep celebrity's out of this one, the defendents have been busy trying to fleece them all, and it was just to easy to draw the line toward them taking advantage of Jackson's repuation to get some money out of him, too. I think Tom Sneddon let his personal vendetta and hatred get in the way of his better judgement in this case. He's convinced, as am I, that Jackson is a child molestor and wants desperately to nail him, but that doesn't excuse unprofessional conduct. The man held a press conference while executing a friggin search warrant, joked about it, and presented material that was seized to the press, for heaven's sake!!! He should have been jailed for violating Jackson's rights in such a manner. The search warrant doesn't give a prosecuter grounds to be waving someone's personal property around for the amusement of the press, and the humiliation of someone the prosecutor dislikes. Worse, Sneddon's conduct, his choice to bring such a case to trial, and his resounding defeat may make it harder than ever to get a conviction if they ever to get a real case against Jackson. It's increasingly easy for the defense to point to a vendetta against him, and increasingly easy for the jury to believe it.
Click to expand...


The sort of witness bias that was obviously present here is a real problem for a prosecutor who is bringing a case. As a former prosecutor, and present defense attorney, I have seen that sort of bias absolutely kill an otherwise decent prosecution. You really need to bring the attention back to the kid. I am not all that sure, although hindsight is 20/20, that I would have put mom on. If the kid is compelling, put him on, let him tell his story, let the defense make this thing into a circus.

One angle I see here involves the willingness of the parents to put their children with this very weird person at his personal ranch. They know the kids are sleeping in the room, and the creepiness factor of the person they are sleeping with. I think the compelling nature of fame blinds these people to the sheer stupidity of what they are engaging in. You would not let you son on that place, no matter how much money was involved. I feel the same about my daughter. These sorts of parents are easily attacked as money/glory seekers.

And I do agree, the whole thing smacked of personal vendetta. At least, it was easily spun that way. I bet there are a whole bunch of unsolved homicides, dead hookers, things like that, sitting around on a back burner while the prosecution burns up many thousands of dollars trying this media turkey of a case. Believe me, any big municipality has murdered hooker cases that somehow never rate expensive trials like this one. Sadly, justice at times is a curiously disappointing thing.

I am sure that we have not seen the last of pursuits against Michael Jackson. Personally, I am not really sure he is a perv. I see him as an overgrown 14 year old child who never fully grew up. I think it is sad, and I really feel rather sorry for him. At the end of the day, my bet is that he is really a rather sad and lonely person. I wonder what the media will focus on now?

Jim G
 
inav8r said:
Last night during my local news cast (WISH-TV 8, Indianapolis, IN), they said "remember, Michael Jackson was not found innocent, he was only found not guilty"...
Click to expand...

I think the talking heads on Fox News were choking on their words, too. Before the verdict was announced, the anchor person and one other said "of course, he is guilty, they can't find otherwise". And after the verdict, there was the usual condemnation of the jury for "putting targets on the backs of children".

I did a little channel surfing to see how each of the networks handled. Fox was, by far, the most outspoken in declaring his guilt.

Now we wait and see who is the first politician to use this to demand changes in the jury system....
 
inav8r said:
Last night during my local news cast (WISH-TV 8, Indianapolis, IN), they said "remember, Michael Jackson was not found innocent, he was only found not guilty"...
Click to expand...


Boy that says it all right there?
 
wsuffa said:
I think the talking heads on Fox News were choking on their words, too. Before the verdict was announced, the anchor person and one other said "of course, he is guilty, they can't find otherwise". And after the verdict, there was the usual condemnation of the jury for "putting targets on the backs of children".

I did a little channel surfing to see how each of the networks handled. Fox was, by far, the most outspoken in declaring his guilt.

Now we wait and see who is the first politician to use this to demand changes in the jury system....
Click to expand...

In this case, I don't see any reason to condemn the jury. The prosecution had a weak case to begin with, did a crap job putting on what case they did have, and the defense ripped their witnesses to shreds. After all was said and done, I can't see how a jury could help but feel there was reasonable doubt, and if they felt they that HAVE to acquit. The jury did their job properly, I think, but I'm also probably one of the few folks here who feel the same about the OJ jury. I think both are guilty, but given the facts presented in both cases that the jury heard, there would have been "reasonable doubt" in my mind.
 
I have to agree. MJ may be a freak, but there certainly seemed to be AMPLE reasonable doubt based on the prosecution witnesses.
 
The prosecution went for too much and sunk their whole case. They could have charged him with the L+L and had the kid on the stand telling the story...his word against MJ's. Instead, they throw the kitchen sink at him. Forcing them to put mom on the stand so she can explain how she was out spending thousands and visiting lawyers while she was "kidnapped". The stuff they may have proven went down the drain with the bogus charges. Mom blew it. They should have done whatever was necessary to keep her off the stand. imho, tc
 
Last edited:
Joe Williams said:
In this case, I don't see any reason to condemn the jury. The prosecution had a weak case to begin with, did a crap job putting on what case they did have, and the defense ripped their witnesses to shreds. After all was said and done, I can't see how a jury could help but feel there was reasonable doubt, and if they felt they that HAVE to acquit. The jury did their job properly, I think, but I'm also probably one of the few folks here who feel the same about the OJ jury. I think both are guilty, but given the facts presented in both cases that the jury heard, there would have been "reasonable doubt" in my mind.
Click to expand...


Agree, weak case. Hard to be sympathetic to any parent , knowing the rumors about Jackson, would let their kid sleep with him
 
I love this headline:

Jackson Ending Sleepovers in His Room

...gee Mike, think that might have been a good idea a while back......

Greg
182RG
 
With a declining entertainment career and massive debt linked to alleged child molestation, perhaps the Catholic priesthood is Micheal's next profession ?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
With a declining entertainment career and massive debt linked to alleged child molestation, perhaps the Catholic priesthood is Micheal's next profession ?
Click to expand...

That is absolutely uncalled for, and absolutely unfunny.
 
Joe Williams said:
That is absolutely uncalled for, and absolutely unfunny.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it isn't funny. But definately called for.
I wonder though, did any of all those "priests" in question ever get any real punishment ?
 
There's a lot of excitement over Michael Jackson being seen at a K-Mart sale.

All the boys pants were half off. :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top