| Author |
Message |
    
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 03:36 pm: | 
|
Gallup: Public Splits, In "Major Racial Divide," on Michael Jackson Verdict
By E&P Staff
Published: June 14, 2005 11:30 AM ET
NEW YORK An overnight Gallup Poll released this morning shows that 48% of Americans disagree with the verdicts clearing pop star Michael Jackson of all charges in the molesting case and only 34% agree--along a “major racial divide,” Gallup said.
Whites disagree by about 2-1 (54% to 28%) while nonwhites take the exact opposite view by 2-1 (56% to 26%).
This recalls the O.J. Simpson verdict in 1995, when whites disagreed with him getting off by 62% to 27% while nonwhites supported it by 67% to 24%.
A clear majority, or 62%, believe that Jackson's celebrity status was a major factor in the verdict.
Nearly half said they were “surprised” by the verdict, with 24% saying they were “outraged.”
Exactly one in four said they were “still a fan” of the singer. Almost as many said they were once fans but no longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3382
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:11 pm: |
|
Chris,
Well. At least MJ's jury was WHITE. So, unlike with OJ, this can't be contorted into some White vs. Black thing. |
Kola
Moderator
Username: Kola
Post Number: 1482
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:14 pm: |
|
Not only was his jury WHITE---it was in Santa Maria, an upscale CONSERVATIVE REPUBLIC enclave.
All the more "strange".
I think franky---the Prosecution bungled their case BIG TIME.
They really didn't present a convincing trial---they didn't break it down----AND....the "mother" and those kids......had LIED SO MANY TIMES in other documented cases.
Reasonable Doubt was TOO HUGE.
|
Kola
Moderator
Username: Kola
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:15 pm: |
|
**notice I tried to talk like ABM. (giggling)
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3384
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:41 pm: |
|
Kola,
It's easy to 'bungle' what was never there to begin with.
As I said (and you ably mimicked), there was scantly ever a winnable case from the giddy-up.
All you really had was rumor, innuedo and Mike' generally creepy wierdness.
And if he hadn't had a prior multi-million dollar settlement on his record, this NEVER would have gotten passed a (SANE) grandjury.
But the prosecution probably figure they could contort a lot of circumstantial 'evidence' (a term I use loosely here) and hearsy into persuasive testimony.
Which still might have worked, if the victim/family didn't come across as total lying @$$e$.
You do know if we keep on talking in support of MJ's exoneration, 'Vette gonna get PO'd likah MOFO? Don't you?
Btw: You can't go wrong with genius. Hehe! |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3385
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Btw: Imagine that: Affluent/conservative WHITE jurors considering the the veracity of the EVIDENCE and TESTIMONY while deciding the guilt or innocence of a BLACK man.
Who wouldah thunk-it. |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 05:03 pm: |
|
How long do you think it is going to take for some of them to start coming foward and saying "They were confused" or "pressured by the foreman" or that it "wasn't their verdict" when they see how their brothers and sisters came down on it? |
Chrishayden
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 05:05 pm: |
|
Funny too how things are different--Abm was convinced OJ was guilty and I was convinced he was innocent--Abm is convinced Jackson is innocent and I am convinced he is guilty--
somebody is wrong--eh? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3392
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 05:16 pm: |
|
Chris,
I don't see any Monday Morning backtracking occurring here. Hell. The jurors seem almost GLEEFUL they let Mike off the hook.
Why?
Because NOBODY really wanted Mike to get convicted to begin with.
When it all said/done, this whole thing will be viewed as just some weird masturbatory exercise conducted by the Santa Maria prosecutor's office.
Funny. You're wrong on BOTH accounts with respect to me: I'm not sure of either OJ's or MJ' guilt/innocence.
I think, though, there was more EVIDENCE that supported convicting OJ (they had the man's BLOOD for Christ Sake!) than there was such of convicting MJ. Had there been, however, any evidence that the boy had been sodomized, I might have felt differently about MJ. |
Yvettep
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 464
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 05:17 pm: |
|
You do know if we keep on talking in support of MJ's exoneration, 'Vette gonna get PO'd likah MOFO? Don't you?
Uh-uh. See my first post here: http://www.thumperscorner.com/discus/messages/2152/5724.html?1118783594#POST2815 1
**wiping hands--AGAIN** |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3393
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 05:18 pm: |
|
'Vette,
HAHAHA!
Okay. Okay.
HAHAHA! |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Michael was found not guilty by default. The boy's mother totally turned the jury off, and the idea that the family was a bunch of con-artists saved the day for the defense. A couple of the jurors have already said that they believed that Michael did engage in inappropriate behavior but that the family put the boys in a position for this to happen. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3404
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Cynique,
All that may be true. But...
1) It's possible the mother's behavior evidences for what REALLY happened: The boy had been bred to lie/connive and such had manifested amid what occurred here.
2) If "inappropriate behavior" were sufficient basis to convict someone of a felony, MANY - if not MOST - of us would have done time at some point (LORD knows I would have.).
Again. I maintain Mike was exonerated primarily because there was never any REAL evidence that a crime - as the California law defines such to be – had occurred. Had things been different, Mike still might have been convicted notwithstanding the mother's mendacity. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
In the context of this case, "inappropriate" behavior is interchangeable with molestation. There was legitimate evidence against MJ, but there was still that small of window of reasonable doubt that stemmed from the credibility of the victims.
|
Kola
Moderator
Username: Kola
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
3 Jurors are now saying they believe that JACKSON molested boys in the past
---but that they could not apply that to THIS case and that there was too much reasonable doubt with this particular boy.
They said the mother especially turned them off.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3409
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 01:01 pm: |
|
Cynique,
What "legitimate evidence" was there? I've yet to see/hear of such.
Hell! What IS the full, unfettered LEGAL definition of "child molestation" anyway?
I think the problem many of us have is most of us truly don't know from a LEGAL standpoint what is...'IS'.
We're all just mostly speculating what we presume the standard should be. But when you get in court and receive specific instructions about the law, legitimacy of evidence, witnessing, testimony, etc., your perspective might change considerably.
And what "behavior" you're referring to? Because we might agree that sleeping in a bed with other foks kids is "inappropriate". But I've yet to see any LAW prohibiting such.
Kola,
I "believe" at some point I might be able to fly. Really. I do. And I sincerely wish/pray for such.
But I can't PROVE it in court that THAT will occur.
Of course the mother hurt the case. But riddle me this, Batgirl: If there had been ANY evidence that the alleged victim had be sodomized, do you think the lying@$$ mother would have thwarted a conviction.
I don't think so. |
Kola
Moderator
Username: Kola
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 01:42 pm: |
|
UH...
I am CATWOMAN,
ABM.
I don't do riddles.
Author Kola Boof on Church Days
meow
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3414
Registered: 04-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 01:55 pm: |
|
Kola: "I don't do riddles."
ABM: I gotcha! You "do" Batman. PUUURRRRFECT! |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 01:56 pm: |
|
The grand jury felt this case had enough credible evidence to go to trial, and most legal experts believed their was evidence enough for a conviction, not to mention the many other lawyers including defense ones were were totally surprised by the outcome of this trial. That's because they didn't count on the jury being so influenced by their dislike for the prosecution witnesses. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3416
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Kola: "I am CATWOMAN..."
Batman: "Heeeere! P@$$%. P@$$%. P@$$%. Heeeere! P@$$%! P@$$%! P@$$%!" |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 02:14 pm: |
|
Cynique,
Grand jury approval does not a conviction make. Otherwise, why waste time/money on a trial?
Also, ever heard of the term "Monday Morning Quarterbacking"? 'Cause THAT's all this talky-talk is, Milady. (Plus it sure boosts their Q-rating for marketing their legal svcs.)
EVERYBODY wants to second guess the QB who blew the gamewinning pass.
And if Mike had been convicted, believeyoume, there'd be at least as many (supposed) legal eagles waxing on about how the defense f'd up.
That's just part of the fun of what attorney's do. They enjoy that stuff more than sex. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 02:30 pm: |
|
We were originally talking about evidence, and a grand jury will not vote for a trial if there is not substantial evidence to hold up in court. Plenty of cases don't make it to trial. And needless to say, MJ was found not guilty, as opposed to innocent. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3420
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 02:56 pm: |
|
Cynique,
Indeed. But the threshold for scoring an indictment can, and often is, much lower than is that for a conviction.
Also, there were extenuating circumstances here that might compell a GJ to indict where they otherwise might not:
1) You have a famous alleged defendent. GJ might fear NOT indicting for fear of being label biased toward rich/famous.
2) MJ proudly admitted on TV he slept with children. Not only might that appear to be reasonable grounds for an indictment - because what grown man would sleep with children UNLESS be was molesting them - but that almost FORCES such because how is a GJ (in the climate of priest and soccer coaches being indicting for raping kids) going to do otherwise?
3) MJ has a record of paying off other children under a similar shroud of suspicion/innuendo.
4) There were a $#*+load of foks alleging to have seen this, heard that, etc.
5) And MJ is justah superweird MOFO who must be guilty of SOMETHING. After all...LOOK AT'EM!
Again. Those all together might warrant - if not NECESSITATE - an indictment. But they do NOT necessarily support guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as the LAW define such to be. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Who ever said a grand jury indictment guaranteed a guilty verdict??? I repeat. There was enough evidence for this case to be taken to trial in order for an impaneled jury to decide guilt or innocence. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3433
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Cynique,
There’s NO universal, hard-n-fast, foolproof method for issuing an indictment. It is issued via the approval of HUMAN grand jurors, thus is subject to error, bias and even coercion (regarding witnesses, evidence and testimony) like ALL other phases of the legal system.
Don’t believe me?
Then why within the last 3 years has the State of Illinois release +100 innocent Black men from Death Row?
Wasn’t “evidence” presented prior to THEIR arraignments? |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3434
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Cynique,
Simply: You (and, perhaps, others) appear to be assuming:
1) There exist within Santa Maria County's judicial system some reasonable, consistent and legitimate standard for issuing an indictment.
and
2) That such was applied regarding Michael Jackson's trial.
I content that either or both might not have existed/occurred. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 04:37 pm: |
|
Why are we having such a difficult time getting on the same page. A grand jury is a permanent "sitting" jury. Hundreds of cases go through the grand jury system every day and a great percentage of them are thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence. The grand jury has nothing to do with whether a defendant will eventually be found guilty or innocent. All it does is determine that a case is worthy of going to trial. The final verdict in a case is decided by the 12 impaneled jurors selected by the defense and prosecution lawyers. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3438
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 05:28 pm: |
|
Cynique,
This debate stems from YOUR initial "The grand jury felt this case had enough credible evidence to go to trial...".
My point is that just because the grand jury elected to indict MJ doesn't mean their was a legitimate cause for such. I've argued there are issues here OTHER than what we might consider sufficient "evidence" for an indictment.
Look at what happened...
Mike was charged with TEN alleged crimes and he was cleared of ALL of them.
Thus, it seems to me some combination of 3 things happened here:
1) The jury was so starstuck by MJ they were gonna exonerate him come hell-or-highwater.
2) The prosecutors did a piss-poor job.
3) Or the case against MJ was crap from the giddy-up.
The popular answers may be 1) and 2). But the real prize may lie behind Door 3). |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 08:37 pm: |
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it could just as easily have been that the grand jury did have sufficient evidence to indict and the reason the verdict was "not guility" was because as you say the jurors were star-struck or the prosecution didnt do a good job of working with the evidence they had. Whatever. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3459
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 08:07 am: |
|
Cynique,
Or they could have consulted tea leaves, astrological charts, palm readers...'
"Whatever", indeed. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Or to save time, they could've simply consulted you, ABM, since relevance doesn't seem to have been a factor in the proceedings. |
Yvettep
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 487
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 05:31 pm: |
|
Whatever.
To paraphrase Chris Rock, all y'all take me out for a drink when you get your Free MJ rebate checks in the mail. I got nary a cola from folks waitin on their OJ checks, so I don't think I'll hold my breath.
(can't believe I'm talking about this again after I said I wouldn't) |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3473
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 06:28 pm: |
|
'Vette,
If you look closely, you might observe this discussion really is NOT about Michael Jackson per se. It's about understanding/intepreting a certain facet of the legal system: the indictment.
And THAT can at some point affect us all: famous, infamous and anonymous. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3474
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 06:31 pm: |
|
Cynique,
If my discussion has, by your definition, lacked "relevance", why have you continued to debate me?
You choose to squabble with the irrelevant? I don't. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 07:24 pm: |
|
I continued to debate your because I had to give you enough rope to hang yourself, ABM. |
Yvettep
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 488
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 07:46 pm: |
|
If you look closely, you might observe this discussion really is NOT about Michael Jackson per se. It's about understanding/intepreting a certain facet of the legal system: the indictment.
Sorry, I tried my best NOT to look closely. I was responding more to the title of the thread and the linked article about the poll.
Legally, I say the same thing I said about OJ. The man went through a trial and the verdict is what it is. I have served on a jury before so I know it is no easy thing, and only too easy to lambast them after the fact.
On my jury, we had our hunches, but what we kept coming back to was "...beyond a reasonable doubt."
We kept asking for a definition of that criterium. The judge only kept talking about a standard, upon which "reasonable" persons could agree. In other words, not a crazy person, or a person inclined to habitual conspiracy theories, or someone consulting tea leaves...
Still. That can be a high standard to reach--and justly so. In the end, despite out "hunches," we couldn't say that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I bet that is what happened in this case.
What I continue to object to, is the constant droning of support for MJ in some Black communities. He was always "presumed innocent" and now he has been found "not guilty"--of this particular case. Why are some of us celebrating instead of using the high profile nature of this case to face issues such as child abuse in our communities? So many talked about his sad, lonely childhood: Why aren;t we talking about our responsibilities to child actors, singers and other celebrities?
Why? Because many of us are more interested in turning this into a case of another Black man wronged, who has now righteously prevailed. I'm not saying this is the case in this particular forum, but it is what I have observed elsewhere.
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3481
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 07:54 pm: |
|
'Vette,
I agree there are some misplaced focus/attention here. But I think there are a lot of people who've loved MJ for +30 years and that sort of blurs their behavior/rationale here.
Cynique,
There's only one part of my body's that you in your heyday I might have allowed you to try to "hang" with. But let me stop there: After all, GOD forbid I might intrude upon your feminine delicacy. |
Cynnique
Unregistered guest
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 08:31 pm: |
|
I made specific reference to giving you enough "rope" to hang yourself with, ABM, but as usual, you resort to distorting things in a feeble effort to be witty. |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 3489
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 08:01 am: |
|
Cynique,
And, "as usual", you respond. |
Email This Page