The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

The verdict is in...

NOT GUILTY!


...on all counts. The freak got off.

TERRIBLE case presented by the prosecution, IMO.

It sucks. I've heard the jury was made up of some people who should have never made it on there. Total crap. He's a child molestor whose just gotten lucky.

What is more freaky are the people dancing in the streets after the verdict. Get a life, people. He's an entertainer - these people have way too much time on their hands.

Anyways, I thought he would at least be found guilty on the lesser alcohol charges - amazing.

I hope he locks himself up in neverland, never to be heard from again.

he is one of the best singers of all time and I feel bad for him even though he PROBABLY is a child molester. Oh well, hopefully he'll at least get some counseling after this crap

Guilty or not, I think the prosecution's case was the pits. Most of their witnesses contracdicted themselves, and just came off as schemers to me.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the verdict, but I am happy about one thing. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution for this type of case. I don't believe they completely convinced anyone that MJ was guilty of anything, except for being a freakjob. And I think the jury got it right, regardless of their emotions.

I think it could be argued that the jury 'liked' MJ, so they had predispositions to acquitting him. But I would rather believe that there were some members on the jury who came to their decision based purely on the evidence (not)presented and the testimony from the witnesses.

Redskins4Life wrote:he is one of the best singers of all time

Wrong, you mean best dancer of all time. His singing is just like a 10 year old girl screaming and what not. But than guy... girl... thing could dance.

But hey, if OJ was innocent, you had to see this comming.

His singing is just like a 10 year old girl screaming and what not. But than guy... girl... thing could dance.

no waaay! The dude was good! He has so much talent... it's sad he was disturbed... He could dance and sing and in my opinion is one of the best all time without a doubt.
I sampled a lot of music when I use to work in music full time... and from all the ppl I dabbed into... his was always the best...
anyway... glad he's not guilty... dont care what anyone says

The system worked. Whether guilty or not, the case was no where close to 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard.

It is great for all of us to know that you can't bring a family with a history of fraud and convict a guy based only on their allegations.

When they sue him in Civil Court, then it will all make sense and we will see the motive.

The family went to the civil lawyer who negotiated the 1993 settlement before they went to the police. If your child was molested, would you go to a civil lawyer before the cops??

Mother of accuser committed welfare fraud against JC Penney before claiming security guards 'belly flopped on her' and sexually molested her in a parking lot??? are you serious.

They accused him of the molestation after the Bashir documentary came out?? Would he really do that while the international media had him under scrutiny??

These don't mean that he did not do it, but it is reasonable to say the least that this family was advised by the civil attorneys they consulted to pursue criminal charges. Once the reasonable doubt standard was established, the lower civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence" would have made a multi million dollar payout automatic.

The Hogster wrote:The system worked. Whether guilty or not, the case was no where close to 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard.

It is great for all of us to know that you can't bring a family with a history of fraud and convict a guy based only on their allegations.

When they sue him in Civil Court, then it will all make sense and we will see the motive.

The family went to the civil lawyer who negotiated the 1993 settlement before they went to the police. If your child was molested, would you go to a civil lawyer before the cops??

Mother of accuser committed welfare fraud against JC Penney before claiming security guards 'belly flopped on her' and sexually molested her in a parking lot??? are you serious.

They accused him of the molestation after the Bashir documentary came out?? Would he really do that while the international media had him under scrutiny??

These don't mean that he did not do it, but it is reasonable to say the least that this family was advised by the civil attorneys they consulted to pursue criminal charges. Once the reasonable doubt standard was established, the lower civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence" would have made a multi million dollar payout automatic.

Remember, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't watching me.

A cold calculated molester would pick out the family characteristics you described when searching for a victim. Especially a perp with financial resources.


This is just another example of how the judicial system is broken. As has been said, a jury's made up of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, or in this case 12 people whose only concern seems to be the race for the first book deal.

I voted as don't care. I never was a MJackson fan and don't really care whats going on in his case. If I was involved...I'd most likely have a different answer....but for the time being...don't really care.

Redskins1974 wrote:What is more freaky are the people dancing in the streets after the verdict. Get a life, people. He's an entertainer - these people have way too much time on their hands.

Anyways, I thought he would at least be found guilty on the lesser alcohol charges - amazing.

I hope he locks himself up in neverland, never to be heard from again.

Wouldn't you be interested if an obnoxious accusation was placed on one of our fellow redskins? Wouldn't you jump for joy the day he was aquitted of all charges? I mean players ARE 'entertainers' as well. The guys on the roads must have been real big fans of him...just as we are real big fans of the Skins. I don't know about you but if there was a Redskin who won such a big case....hell ya...I'd be on the roads acting a fool!

This reminds me of the OJ trial

I can't "agree" or "disagree"...because I didn't sit through the whole trial viewing all of the evidence as it was presented.

I do care...but I voted "I don't care" because "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision" was not an option....which, in my opinion, should have been included.

If Jackson were a "joe blow" citizen without access to all that money, rest assured, he'd probably be convicted of many of those charges by now.

I don't think the justice system is racist in any way; however, I've always felt that the wealthy are able to "buy" a little better quality justice than those without money.

Just my

Justice Hog wrote:I can't "agree" or "disagree"...because I didn't sit through the whole trial viewing all of the evidence as it was presented.

I do care...but I voted "I don't care" because "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision" was not an option....which, in my opinion, should have been included.

If Jackson were a "joe blow" citizen without access to all that money, rest assured, he'd probably be convicted of many of those charges by now.

I don't think the justice system is racist in any way; however, I've always felt that the wealthy are able to "buy" a little better quality justice than those without money.

Just my

I totally agree with Justice Hog. The problem is most Americans flip on the media clips for a couple minutes a day and then make comments like were made here. Why in the heck would someone who didn't sit through the evidence trust their own judgment over 12 people who actually heard the evidence for 4 months???

So quick to call the jurors stupid whenever they return a verdict that you don't agree with?? Well isn't it foolish to make judgments without having all of the evidence.

This is a criminal trial. The standard is not 'More likely than not" or he 'probably did it'...the prosecution didn't prove it to 12 members of a jury. In OJ, everyone said it was because the jury was dumb, they were black etc.

Well, not one juror on this jury was black..so whats the excuse now??? Oh..they must be stupid because we think while watching Nancy Grace that he probably did it?

Thankg goodness that people who don't go with their preconceived notion of guilt don't wipe their butts with the law and say "ehh he probably did it so Guilty".

curveball wrote:

The Hogster wrote:The system worked. Whether guilty or not, the case was no where close to 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard.

It is great for all of us to know that you can't bring a family with a history of fraud and convict a guy based only on their allegations.

When they sue him in Civil Court, then it will all make sense and we will see the motive.

The family went to the civil lawyer who negotiated the 1993 settlement before they went to the police. If your child was molested, would you go to a civil lawyer before the cops??

Mother of accuser committed welfare fraud against JC Penney before claiming security guards 'belly flopped on her' and sexually molested her in a parking lot??? are you serious.

They accused him of the molestation after the Bashir documentary came out?? Would he really do that while the international media had him under scrutiny??

These don't mean that he did not do it, but it is reasonable to say the least that this family was advised by the civil attorneys they consulted to pursue criminal charges. Once the reasonable doubt standard was established, the lower civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence" would have made a multi million dollar payout automatic.

Remember, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't watching me.

A cold calculated molester would pick out the family characteristics you described when searching for a victim. Especially a perp with financial resources.


This is just another example of how the judicial system is broken. As has been said, a jury's made up of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, or in this case 12 people whose only concern seems to be the race for the first book deal.

A cold calculated molester may indeed pick a poor victim, but how in the heck does that explain why they sought legal counsel from a lawyer who wins CIVIL JUDGMENTS for money regarding this 'molestation' before reporting it to the police??


I guess Jackson did that too huh?? Im not saying he didn't do it. But the system works whenever you can't say for sure. The presumption is for innocence, and these 12 jurors from Santa Barbara all had to listen to the evidence for 4 months, and they all unanimously agreed on all of the counts...that the case was not proven beyond RD...that doesn't mean they don't think in their gut he did it.

air_hog wrote:

Redskins4Life wrote:he is one of the best singers of all time

Wrong, you mean best dancer of all time. His singing is just like a 10 year old girl screaming and what not. But than guy... girl... thing could dance.

But hey, if OJ was innocent, you had to see this comming.

Wow. No offense but thats probably one of the most boneheaded statements I've ever heard on thehogs.net.... michael jackson easily had a very good voice and his music was phenomenal. even when he became white and got the nose job and what not, he released an album called Invincible which wasnt as good as the Thriller album or anything, but was still worthy of high praise and merit. He didnt dance once! Sure, he was a great dancer as well, but damn the guy had some pipes

Guilty ...

... one of his sisters says he is a child molester.

I believe her.

I guess 12 people who listen to the facts are just always the village idiots...heck screw the justice system...lets just determine guilt or innocence with a good ole fashion Hogs.net poll....


if you're gonna accuse someone of molestation at least get some sperm...anyone heard of monica lewinsky?? u mean he jerked this kid off to ejaculation and there were no stains??

he'll sue for money and they'll all ride off into the sunset happy...i mean all valid molestation victims seek money in the end...right??

Michael Jackson is a Citizen of the United States, and by virtue of that alone, is guaranteed the Constitutional right of presumption of innocence. Too many people formed an opinion prior to the jury speaking. Think what you want, but anybody's dissapointment in todays verdict should not be directed at Michael Jackson or his defense team. It should be directed at the Prosecution team and how they pursued and prepared the case. They did so poorly, without proper preparation, and with personality issues with Tom Sneddon. If you're gonna go after the likes of Tom Meserau, you'd better come up with a hell of a lot more than Sneddon did. His case was weak from the beginning, and bringing in the extortion case, required them to put the Mother on the stand. Absent that, the child molestation should have been the focal point of the trial. If that was the case, in my opinion, the outcome would have been different. The jury did not fail in their civic duty. Jacksons legal team did not fail, and in fact, acted with class and proper courtroom etiquette. Any negative feelings should be directed at the prosecution. They simply did NOT prove the case. We have to remember, Jackson was found "NOT GUILTY", he was not found "innocent". Minor as it is, it means that the prosecution presented a weak case that was doomed from the beginning. Sneddons career is over. He really botched this one, and should never oversee another high profile case. When you put 50,000.00 a year attorneys up against millionaires who have done this thing for equally as many years, you simply need to be better prepared.

While in my own mind, I beleive Jackson is guilty of "SOMETHING", I do not beleive the prosecution proved it, as they are required to do so under the law. Where's hte backlash at the Prosecution?

I have another interesting aspect, that I thin the Prosecution team failed to capitalize on. If Michael Jackson is NOT a molestor of boys, and claims in fact to love children all over the world: WHERE ARE ALL THE LITTLE GIRLS that he cares so deeply for? We never heard from ONE little girl that he may have befriended. Why does he befriend only little boys? Could it be that he LIKES little boys? Why didn't the prosecution enter that into their argument.

Poor, Poor, POOR prosecution effort!!

Court cases in this country have less to do with guilt or innocence and more to do with credibility and what you can or can’t prove. I called this weeks ago, the message has been sent in LA that we aren’t going to convict “Hollywood”. In the end Jackson and more credibility than the Mother

The Hogster wrote:Oh..they must be stupid because we think while watching Nancy Grace that he probably did it?

I HATE that woman. I've watched many trials on CourtTV (celebrity and non-celebrity), and Nancy Grace ALWAYS determines guilt right off the bat. I have never seen her give any credence to the defensive team in any case she has covered. Now, I understand she has had a rough life (her husband was murdered when she was fairly young - which led her to law school), but she has the most biased opinions about everybody and everything when it comes to covering high-profile trials.



On another note:
I'm not very suprised that many people felt like the jury screwed up, or that the verdict was not returned in the manner some people had hoped for. But I am suprised about comments aimed at a "stupid" jury. First of all, none of us really knows any of the jury, so that conclusion is absurd for any of us to make. Secondly, the jury was picked by both sides. Third, I almost take offense to the whole "...too stupid to get out of jury duty...," or "...race to write a book..." arguments. I have jury duty coming up, and I have always wanted to serve. I am excited to be given a chance to serve, and I believe there are others who feel the same way.

I was not in the courtroom, and obviously, I was not given everything that the jury was. However, I did follow the case on a daily basis through news reports and transcripts of witnesses' testimony. Based on everything I saw, the prosecution did not prove much of anything, most of their own witnesses imploded on the stand, and they made claims in their opening statement that were never supported during the case.

If I was a juror in that courtroom, I would have given the same verdict. And I don't even like Michael Jackson that much.

DEHog wrote:. . . more to do with credibility and what you can or can’t prove.

Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Innocent until "Proven" guilty. No matter what you think of MJ, there were a lot of inconsistencies in this case.

Maybe the Jury's and Defense attorney's should send their kids to Neverland to Sleep with Michael if they believe he is NOT GUILTY !

I'm sooooooo ticked off at the verdict / he's a freaking wierdo pervert.

On the other hand....the kid's mother doesn't sound much better....and WHO let's their kids sleep with a 40+ year old man ??

Gold diggers ... what?