77. My purpose in responding to you is not to try to say . .
. . that you are wrong. I just want to expose you to another set of possibilities.
When an army of lawyers prevail it's usually on a technicality. In this case a very reasonable jury said that the prosecution had/made no credible case.
A jury member said they did believe he molested boys but that the DA didn't make the burden of proof. Think about that. MJ was accused of molesting the boy. This jury member said they really believed he did it.
If that was true then the jurist lied. They should have convicted him.
I think this jurist was fearing the outcry from people (perhaps like you) who would have him convicted regardless of the burden of proof.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
