-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
3rd day of jury deliberations - is that a good or bad sign for MicJac?
- Thread starter DarienA
- Start date
- Status
Lucky Forward
Member
I didn't think they did any deliberations on Friday, I think they just went over instructions and procedures. I'm just glad it seems the jury is actually reviewing the evidence and debating, unlike the OJ trial.
For what it's worth: from Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158811,00.htmlJacko
For what it's worth: from Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158811,00.htmlJacko
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Legal analysts on TV last night said that the longer it goes, the worse it probably is for Jackson. Take that for what it's worth.
All I know is that I couldn't be on that jury. I'm not exactly impartial when it comes to Michael Jackson. The dude is at least guilty of being a freak.
All I know is that I couldn't be on that jury. I'm not exactly impartial when it comes to Michael Jackson. The dude is at least guilty of being a freak.
ManDudeChild
Member
Matlock said:Or Jury Duty!
Looking at Jury Duty is worse for EVERYONE
Ninja Scooter
Member
i did jury duty on a child molestation case once. Man was that shit the worst experience of my life.
Ninja Scooter said:
I've done a month of Grand Jury. There's some strange people out there but it wasn't too bad :lol One lady came in testifying that these two boys "raped" her granddaugher and the gd came in like "uuh... ya... I guess they did..." and shrugged it off. It was pretty clear who was more upset over the fact that she had been get'n some pre-18 loving.
Bob Jones is pretty pissed for being fired by Randy. MJ's brother is causing a lot of problems for him and yesturday was wandering around the courthouse which stirred up the nest of reports wondering why he was there.
Even if there's a slim chance of being found guilty, this thing will probably be tied up in appeals court forever.
The Faceless Master
Member
I'm surprised, since Lawyer Girlfriend (who used to be a defense attorney) says that the longer a jury stays out, the more likely it is to acquit.Kung Fu Jedi said:
Actually, we talked about the case over dinner, and it's hard to say at this point if the jury has been out a "long" time or not. They had 98 pages of instructions (!!!), and a lot of evidence to consider. In her opinion, she'd be surprised if they return a verdict before the end of the week.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Cherubae said:
mine was a terrible experience. A large part of it was because there was some stupidass people on my jury. One older lady actually said, of the victim, "I don't believe her story but i know he did something to her so im voting guilty" and then got all upset when we called her out on it, saying we ganged up on her or some shit. I wanted to get up and backhand her.
as others have said, the longer the jury is out, the more likely it means they will end up either hung or will acquit.
One thing to remember though is that there are 10 different counts here. And they have to come to a decision (or hang) on each of the single ten counts. there are also TONS of instructions in this case (98 pages) and an unbelievable amount of shit that specifically has to be disregarded (pretty much 99% of what the mother said while on the stand, how some of the evidence MUST be interpreted and how it MUST not be interpreted or viewed, etc).
my reasoning on why it will be hung or acquitted is because the longer the jury deliberates, the more likely that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL and at the absolute minimum they will have to acuit on reasonable doubt. the entire basis for the case is she said he said. without any physical evidence or other eye witnesses except for the two boys whose testimonies are both questionable, there is no way they can say without reasonable doubt that he did it.
and before you go bashing me on the boys' testimonies, all I am saying is that you only have the one boy saying it happened, but not being clear on how many times, and the other boy saying he snuck into the room undetected and saw this despite the alarms. along with the boys saying they were kept from clocks and never knew what time it was. just those things combined (the only real useable testimony in the case) shows that there are inconsistencies.
as I've said since the beginning, jackson's guilt or innocence is largely irrelevant in this case. the evidence and testimony just isn't there to support the actual claims without a reasonable doubt.
One thing to remember though is that there are 10 different counts here. And they have to come to a decision (or hang) on each of the single ten counts. there are also TONS of instructions in this case (98 pages) and an unbelievable amount of shit that specifically has to be disregarded (pretty much 99% of what the mother said while on the stand, how some of the evidence MUST be interpreted and how it MUST not be interpreted or viewed, etc).
my reasoning on why it will be hung or acquitted is because the longer the jury deliberates, the more likely that JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL and at the absolute minimum they will have to acuit on reasonable doubt. the entire basis for the case is she said he said. without any physical evidence or other eye witnesses except for the two boys whose testimonies are both questionable, there is no way they can say without reasonable doubt that he did it.
and before you go bashing me on the boys' testimonies, all I am saying is that you only have the one boy saying it happened, but not being clear on how many times, and the other boy saying he snuck into the room undetected and saw this despite the alarms. along with the boys saying they were kept from clocks and never knew what time it was. just those things combined (the only real useable testimony in the case) shows that there are inconsistencies.
as I've said since the beginning, jackson's guilt or innocence is largely irrelevant in this case. the evidence and testimony just isn't there to support the actual claims without a reasonable doubt.
I actually doubt this is the case. Juror screening is actually pretty good at stopping this from happening. in most cases I've ever known jurors on, the jury is either usually in agreement on the verdict or in the couple hung jurys I have heard about first hand the evidence really was there to support a circumstantial case. here it would be difficult for a hardliner to say he did it as there isn't even any realistic circumstantial evidence.SickBoy said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
As my evidence teacher said, there's two things you don't want to see get made: sausage and jury verdicts.
The length of deliberations can go both ways. I remember watching CNN's panel of experts talking right before the OJ verdict was to be announced, and about half of them said the quick verdict favored the defense and the other half said the prosecution. Every case and every jury is different.
The length of deliberations can go both ways. I remember watching CNN's panel of experts talking right before the OJ verdict was to be announced, and about half of them said the quick verdict favored the defense and the other half said the prosecution. Every case and every jury is different.
-jinx- said:
Then that makes pretty much everyone's dad or uncle or older friend or friend's older brother guilty as well.
Should they be subject to a trial like this too? No.
It's about some people trying to milk MJ for some cash, and everyone knows that. So the moral high horse really has no place in a discussion here.
That is the defense contention, not a fact.triste said:
If you think that giving very young kids alcohol and having them sleep in an adult's bed is OK, you must be riding a very interesting "moral high horse" indeed. Whether MJ broke the law will be determined in the courtroom...but there is no doubt that he broke standards of propriety.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
-jinx- said:
thats also not a fact.
there is no evidence that proves he gave them alcohol or showed them porn. yes those are illegal and should be, but the question of the matter here is how did they get them. and while they are saying michael gave them to them, there is no one else saying he did, yet there are others saying they found the kids with both in their possession without michael around. so it's up to the jury to decide if michael without question was the one to do this and the witnessses saying otherwise are lying.-jinx- said:
-jinx- said:
I'm not riding a high horse. I'm saying the accusations outside of the molestation are common occurences and not ones people go to trial over. It's amplified because it's Michael Jackson.
If -jinx- were popped for having alcohol and porn in his house and kids saw it, no one would care, because you're just -jinx-. But if you allegedly had millions of dollars and you were a household name, omg teh villain!!1
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
I found a great deal of what the prosecution presented to be circumstantial. I'd be very surprised if Jackson was convicted on most of the counts that he has been charged with. I expect for the family to have better luck against him in the civil suit to follow, though.
1) I don't think it's OK for adults to share that kind of stuff with kids below a certain age, no matter WHO the adult happens to be. I've already said in other threads that I think the age limits for various things (18 for pr0n, 21 for alcohol) are arbitrary and don't match the reality of when "kids" actually mature, but 9 or 10 is too young by any standard.triste said:
2) Part of being a celebrity is realizing that you ARE subject to far more scrutiny than a private citizen. That means that you HAVE to pay attention to what you do, and realize that anything you do can and will be amplified by the general public...and your enemies. If Michael Jackson (and his handlers) can't figure that out, then he almost deserves to suffer some impact. He's been in show business since he was what, five years old? Don't you think that, at some point, he would have figured out that acting freakishly around kids was risky behavior?
Damn my family should be in jail then...-jinx- said:
Tell this to all the celebrities and athletes we continue to see getting in trouble with the law. The problem here jinx is that your opinion of acting freakishly and his own opinion of how he views himself obviously differ.
McLesterolBeast
Member
I can't see it as being anything but a good thing for jackson (a long deliberation). If an individual had doubt after going through that entire trial, it doesnt seem too likely they'll have a change of heart at this point.
-jinx- said:
As far as socially acceptable behavior goes, there's something very wrong with it. But that's not the decision charged to the jury. I personally predict a deadlocked jury handing Jackson a mistrial. An appeal would be tough on the part of the prosecution, finding someone with no knowledge of the case - let alone a pretty unbiased opinion on it is probably impossible.
-jinx- said:
Not if he was never exposed to your vision of normalcy, no. Yeah, he's been in the business since he was five, so doesn't that mean he's been sheltered from "regular" people for a longer period of time?
Take into account that he had an abusive father and never got to be a real kid, and it doesn't surprise me at all that he wants to hang out with kids. He wants to be able to provide the kind of fun that he apparently never had as a boy. That's not to paint him as some victim, nor to try and justify anything he did that may be wrong, but he's not normal by society's view of normal because he never had the chance to be. And with people liking him simply because he is Michael Jackson, of course it's going to allow him to be eccentric and make a good number of people go "wtf" at him.
But just because he is that way and he's prone to odd behavior, it doesn't mean he tried to ply kids with alcohol and then get them stiff with a Hustler so he could milk their boyjuice. It just means he's not the norm. That's certainly not a jailable offense, though a lot of people probably wish it were.
he is not being charged with sharing his bed with minors. he is being charged with supposedly molesting them.-jinx- said:
there is a reason that it is not illegal for a minor and adult to sleep in the same bed. because in many many many many many many many many instances there would be a lot of law breaking going on that would be viewed by society as 100% ok (step parents who are not legal guardians, significant others who are not parents, long time friends of the family in such situations as camping, vacationing, houseguests, etc).
Again I won't get into the morality of THIS situation (which I feel falls on the mom WAY more than it does micjac), but regardless, it is NOT illegal for him to share his bed with children and that is NOT what he is being tried for. The question here is whether the jury believes he molested the children. And as much as any of them might be appalled and disgusted that a grown man shared his bed with children who were strangers, that in no way answers the question as to if he did it or not.
I definitely agree that this has a higher probability of happening than him being convicted. Order of probability (based on what SHOULD happen from a technical standpoint based on the letter of the law)xsarien said:
Acquitted
Hung jury
Guilty
It is pretty pathetic on the prosecution's part that his actual innocence or guilt is a non-factor in this case. However I also feel that it was pretty unprofessional on the defense's side to make such a big issue of the family being money grubbers in their closing. It is one thing to attack the credibility of the family on the stand.. and they are a highly incredible lot. but the credibility is all that is in question here, not their motives.
anywho, if the system works how it should, jackson will be acquitted. if there are some people on the jury who absolutely believe he did this just because he is weird (simply because there is no evidence or testimoney saying he did aside from the accuser) then it will deadlock. But I highly doubt you can get 12 jackson haters who want to see him fry into a room together through juror selection process. the defense won it's case at the very first juror it was happy to see selected.
Smiles and Cries
Member
Naked Shuriken said:
as easy as he could get 18 years
to be found guilty he has to have all 12 jurors believe that, despite there being no physical evidence, despite there only being two heavily suspect eye witness testimonies, despite the fact that of the 10 charges, many charges don't even have eye witness testimony OR circumstantial evidence linking jackson to the charges, and despite all of the testimony countering virtually every charge he is accused of, he did everything that was said.Smiles and Cries said:
Needless to say it is not "as easy". Could it happen? Sure, anything can happen. But it is nowhere near just as likely. not even in the same park as likely.
borghe said:
To be more accurate, he is being charged with:
Count 1: Conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion between 1 February and 31 March 2003.
Count 2: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 3: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 4: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 5: Lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 6: Attempt to commit a lewd act upon a child between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 7: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 8: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 9: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
Count 10: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003.
But the point is a good one (except in the case of the first charge, which doesn't concern molestation...)
borghe said:
Indeed, although the defence hasn't exactly done a great job of quashing the case from what I've seen. "Your honour, here are some people who are willing to say Michael Jackson hasn't slept with them." Wha?
I'm surprised it's taken so long, to be honest. Let's get it over with, find him not guilty and move on to the civil case and destroy what's left of his life.
can't even be proven that anyone supposedly trying to imprison or kidnap them ever talked to jackson, let alone that he had anything to do with it.iapetus said:
none of these can be proven beyond accusers' testimonies and there are inconsistencies in the testimony where it can be construed that this number of times may have never even happened allegedly, let alone with evidence.
while these haven't been formally dropped, the judge has instructed the jury that they are allowed to consider reducing each of these to a lesser misdemeanor charge of contributing to deliquincy of a minor. much like the molestation charges there are no witnesses aside from the accusers. there are witnesses however saying they saw the boys drunk (while not around michael) and and saw them with bottles of wine (again while not around michael).
Simply because of the JC Penney's case I don't believe the family has a chance in hell of winning a civil suit. Literally all the defense has to do is stand up and say "You're not going to let them get away with this again, are you?" and they will have won their case.
The Chosen One
Member
I have to admit every morning when I log onto MSNBC or CNN, my heart beats a litte fast expectng a verdict one way or the other on the front page.
Frankly, the Juror should be sent to jail if they come up with a Guilty verdict. Hopefully sane heads will prevail.
Frankly, the Juror should be sent to jail if they come up with a Guilty verdict. Hopefully sane heads will prevail.
- Status