The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Haven't been following it that closely but it seems like the defence have shown enough evidence for the jury to return a verdict of not guilty based on the reasonable doubt issues raised in the trial of Michael Jackson.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Page:
Ant wrote:
> Admittedly, Jackson probably should give some of his limitless funds
> away. Just not to trailer-park trash.
Apparently he's in serious debt...
> Admittedly, Jackson probably should give some of his limitless funds
> away. Just not to trailer-park trash.
Apparently he's in serious debt...
For or against past criminal record being allowed to be known BG?
I'll never forget when the judge sentenced the accused in the trial I was at, when he revealed three prior trials and a sordid history of systematic abuse.
There was sobbing in the public gallery. One woman jumped up and shouted. Then to finish the judge boomed in classic style: "Take him down!" It was electric, and I must add, disturbing and emotionally draining. Took me a while to recover from the whole experience.
There was sobbing in the public gallery. One woman jumped up and shouted. Then to finish the judge boomed in classic style: "Take him down!" It was electric, and I must add, disturbing and emotionally draining. Took me a while to recover from the whole experience.
Black Glove wrote:
> I was recently sat on the jury of a child sex abuse case, and even
> though the guy was so obvoiusly guilty, some of the jurors still had
> doubts and had to be convinced.
Same here. well, a couple of years back. The guy obviously had been involved. The case was from the 60's, and the guys were all in their fourties. One of them a conviced murderer. The thing that swung it was that there were doubts, as 4/7 of the defendends went back to live with him after they had left the home he supposedly (almost definitly) abused them in. therefore it was consensual after that. They didn't put forward coherent stories either.
Basically, damaged people, which the defense put forward that they were in it for damages. Very upsetting.
The most upsettign thing was the f______ on the jury I was with that just wanted to go home asap. It took me and another girl to convince them that this is a large number of peoples lives in the balance, and to treat it with the thought it deserved.
I'd hate to be in court for something I hadn't done, and the jury to be a bunch of "lets get home to watch Eastenders" types....
> I was recently sat on the jury of a child sex abuse case, and even
> though the guy was so obvoiusly guilty, some of the jurors still had
> doubts and had to be convinced.
Same here. well, a couple of years back. The guy obviously had been involved. The case was from the 60's, and the guys were all in their fourties. One of them a conviced murderer. The thing that swung it was that there were doubts, as 4/7 of the defendends went back to live with him after they had left the home he supposedly (almost definitly) abused them in. therefore it was consensual after that. They didn't put forward coherent stories either.
Basically, damaged people, which the defense put forward that they were in it for damages. Very upsetting.
The most upsettign thing was the f______ on the jury I was with that just wanted to go home asap. It took me and another girl to convince them that this is a large number of peoples lives in the balance, and to treat it with the thought it deserved.
I'd hate to be in court for something I hadn't done, and the jury to be a bunch of "lets get home to watch Eastenders" types....
Ant wrote:
> I reckon it's just a bunch of selfish, greedy families who are trying
> to swindle Jackson for all he's worth. Jackson's crazy, yes, but I
> don't think he's a paedophile.
According to the papers, the family has had a history of 'swindling celebrities'
> I reckon it's just a bunch of selfish, greedy families who are trying
> to swindle Jackson for all he's worth. Jackson's crazy, yes, but I
> don't think he's a paedophile.
According to the papers, the family has had a history of 'swindling celebrities'
It's probably some overreacting parents.
"What!? You sat on his SHOULDERS!? PAEDO!!!"
"What!? You sat on his SHOULDERS!? PAEDO!!!"
I reckon it's just a bunch of selfish, greedy families who are trying to swindle Jackson for all he's worth. Jackson's crazy, yes, but I don't think he's a paedophile.
Admittedly, Jackson probably should give some of his limitless funds away. Just not to trailer-park trash.
Admittedly, Jackson probably should give some of his limitless funds away. Just not to trailer-park trash.
I was recently sat on the jury of a child sex abuse case, and even though the guy was so obvoiusly guilty, some of the jurors still had doubts and had to be convinced.
The prosection case in the Jacko trial seems so weak in comparison, so from my experience of a trial of this nature, I'd say most of the jurors will have reasonable doubts and find him not guilty.
Though it should be noted that there are 10 counts, so he might be found guilty on some of the minor charges - i.e. giving alcohol to minors, etc.
The prosection case in the Jacko trial seems so weak in comparison, so from my experience of a trial of this nature, I'd say most of the jurors will have reasonable doubts and find him not guilty.
Though it should be noted that there are 10 counts, so he might be found guilty on some of the minor charges - i.e. giving alcohol to minors, etc.
Haven't been following it that closely but it seems like the defence have shown enough evidence for the jury to return a verdict of not guilty based on the reasonable doubt issues raised in the trial of Michael Jackson.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Page: