Jackson Verdict

[LHC]

No, but a feature in the Sun does.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

Thats why he was found innocent you f*cktard. There was no evidence to the contrary so it must be assumed that he didn't do it.

exactly. so stop trying to imply this was a misacarriage of justice

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

A thread on GD counts as media coverage does it?

Of course. GD has a readership of at least fifty or so. That's more than most of the magazines they stock in WH Smiths.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Phang

exactly. so stop trying to imply this was a misacarriage of justice

err err err he wasn't?

[Ärketrollmannen]

Actually, I got the same impression as Phang did.

Strange really, since he didn't actually do it.

[LHC]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...9&postcount=25
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...8&postcount=29

These two posts made it sound like he thought he was guilty.

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...3&postcount=35

But this one didn't.

[s|k]

Kind of random here, but this thread led me to imagine what would it be like if GD weren't a forum but a man instead, and I realized that it would be impossible because he would have more assholes than is good for his health.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by LHC

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...9&postcount=25
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...8&postcount=29

These two posts made it sound like he thought he was guilty.

"not really, just some poor people's word, and everyone knows that the poor are untrustworthy."
that kind of says it all imo. of course, knowing the guy kind of helps

[Summanus]

Did he moonwalk out of the coutroom? If not he should retrialled and found guilty

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

"not really, just some poor people's word, and everyone knows that the poor are untrustworthy."
that kind of says it all imo. of course, knowing the guy kind of helps

so, he was serious?

in which case he's an asshat for a much bigger reason.

[Kurashima]

Hes been found innocent. Theres no evidence against him other than the evidence of the accuser and that kids got parents that just scream "Will whore my kids for cash".

Hes ****ed career wise, hes got almost no money of his own left, and all we can wait for now is the inevitable bankruptcy and OJ style slide into obscurity after he loses a civil case.

[Alki]

sell his kiddy lure land

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Phang

so, he was serious?

in which case he's an asshat for a much bigger reason.

semi-serious, so i can kind of see how you could see it the other way. but yes, he is a big arse hat

[KoeN]

i think nobody on this planet would voluntary have sex with Macaulay Culkin, to be honest.

[roadrunner_0]

doesnt he still owe sony about $200 million, and arent they still after the beatles back catalogue off him for it? or did i miss that getting resolved?


do you know what would be really funny... if he was declared bankrupt now before he could pay his legal bills, i would probably be able to hear his lawyers scream from england hehehe

[Ärketrollmannen]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

semi-serious, so i can kind of see how you could see it the other way. but yes, he is a big arse hat

Actually, I don't believe that, noone can be THAT ignorant, can they?

[vampire_lestat]

it wasn't serious, but those particular poor people are in no way trustworthy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

do you know what would be really funny... if he was declared bankrupt now before he could pay his legal bills, i would probably be able to hear his lawyers scream from england hehehe

I'd imagine it'd be pretty good for the defence team in terms of PR in any case. There's already been several newspaper reports wanking over his leading attorney and his legal madskillz.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i suppose it restores a modicum of faith in america's judicial process.

Why does a not guilty verdict restore a modicum of faith in America's judicial process. Do guilty verdicts never inspire faith? I didn't see what the jury saw and thus don't presume to opine on the correctness of their verdict, however, all of the jurors seem to be saying that they all believed Michael Jackson had in fact molested the victim. However, they weren't sufficiently convinced to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why doesn't the fact that it is almost impossible to covict male celebraties of any serious crime regardless of the quality of the evidnce casue ADDITIONAL concerns about the state of the judicial system in the US?

[dda]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

doesnt he still owe sony about $200 million, and arent they still after the beatles back catalogue off him for it? or did i miss that getting resolved?


do you know what would be really funny... if he was declared bankrupt now before he could pay his legal bills, i would probably be able to hear his lawyers scream from england hehehe

I bet he got more money up front than any of us will see in the next 10 years.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

Why does a not guilty verdict restore a modicum of faith in America's judicial process. Do guilty verdicts never inspire faith? I didn't see what the jury saw and thus don't presume to opine on the correctness of their verdict, however, all of the jurors seem to be saying that they all believed Michael Jackson had in fact molested the victim. However, they weren't sufficiently convinced to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why doesn't the fact that it is almost impossible to covict male celebraties of any serious crime regardless of the quality of the evidnce casue ADDITIONAL concerns about the state of the judicial system in the US?

typical prosecution nonsense.

the fact that a jury applies the proper test, regardless of their 'suspicion' or so called 'belief' is what restores faith.
the trial was nothing short of an embarrassment for the american judicial system: proof perhaps that lawyers should never be politically appointed, and a warning I hope, that trial by media is a two edged sword.

sneddon wanted a conviction for his own ego. he debased the process of justice with his 'press conferences' and snide little statements.

the only failure during the whole process was the judge's failure to kick the whole thing out at half time.

thus the modicum of faith is restored, not by your lawyers, but by your lay people: your juries.

[dda]

Again, the question. If, after viewing all of the evidence, the jury of lay individuals, not lawyers, had reached the opposite conclusion, would faith have been destroyed because your view of the facts as reported by the press led you to a different conclusion.

I have great faith in our jury system. I do not quarrel with the jury's decision. I am just trying to find out what it is that you approve of and what you disapprove of and why. I am always eager to hear views, especially from those outside of the system of which I am a part. It seems a healthy thing to do. What I don't understand, and am trying to, is the apparant distrust of our system. A system based on your own. Do you have the same distrust of your system? If so why? If not, why not?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

Again, the question. If, after viewing all of the evidence, the jury of lay individuals, not lawyers, had reached the opposite conclusion, would faith have been destroyed because your view of the facts as reported by the press led you to a different conclusion.

your question is flawed in logic.
provided the jury were properly instructed (which they were) and that they applied that test to the evidence (which there is no indication that they failed to do) it is impossible to concieve of a verdict that is different from the one they reached

neither my views as you see them nor any information that i may or may not have recieved from the media is utterly inconsequential.

Originally Posted by dda

I have great faith in our jury system. I do not quarrel with the jury's decision. I am just trying to find out what it is that you approve of and what you disapprove of and why. I am always eager to hear views, especially from those outside of the system of which I am a part. It seems a healthy thing to do. What I don't understand, and am trying to, is the apparant distrust of our system. A system based on your own. Do you have the same distrust of your system? If so why? If not, why not?

you waffle too much.

I am disapointed at the conduct of this trial. I do not consider that disapointment to be unshared by my profession. I am further disapointed if american lawyers find nothing disapointing about the conduct of this trial.

as I have said.

a modicum of that disapointment has been overcome by the actions of the jury.

you may find in future that quoting my posts focuses your response.

[s|k]

This thread has made me realize that if assholes could fly, GD mods would require air traffic controller prequalifications.

[Marilyn Manson]

If assholes could fly, this place would be a shooting range!*
















































* Cum, not bullets.

[dda]

Yahwe: "Your question is flawed in logic."

In what way? I merely asked if the result was instrumental to your having a modicum of faith restored.

Yahwe: " Provided the jury were properly instructed (which they were) and that they applied that test to the evidence (which there is no indication that they failed to do) it is impossible to conceive of a verdict that is different from the one they reached."

You are saying that there was only one possible outcome? That if they had found Jackson guilty of anything then they would have either had to have been improperly instructed or would have had to of applied the wrong standard to the facts? This would imply a greater knowledge of the actual facts presented to the jury than it is possible for someone to have who was not present for the testimony. I was only trying to find out what the basis of your opinion was.

Yahwe: "Neither my views as you see them nor any information that I may or may not have received fro the media is utterly inconsequential."

It is difficult to decide what this sentence means. Are you saying that it doesn't matter what you think? Are you saying that it doesn't matter what I think your views are? Are you saying that the basis of your opinion is unimportant? Are you saying that your opinions generally are utterly inconsequential? Are you saying that what is done is done so why even talk about it? Or merely that my questions are inconsequential? If the last, then I will agree that my questions aren't of any consequence. However, I am still interested in the views of others.

Yahwe: "You waffle too much."

Since I haven't expressed an opinion other than I feel that the jury system works rather well most of the time, what precisely am I waffling about? Or are you implying that I eat too many waffles?

Yahwe: "I am disappointed at the conduct of this trial."

The jury was properly instructed, so that apparently isn't the source of your disappointment.
The jury apparently applied the proper test to the evidence, so that would seem to be eliminated as the source of your disappointment.
Are you disappointed in the decision of Mr. Snedden to go forward with the case?
If so, what is it that disappoints you and the other members of your profession?
The victim's family? Should the victim be judged by his family?
The age of the claim?
Are you disappointed in the failure of the judge to throw out the case without letting it get to a jury?
If so, at what part of the proceedings should he have thrown out the case?
Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Penal Code Section 995 before trial?
Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1118 at the close of the prosecution's case?

Yahwe: "I am further disappointed if American lawyers find nothing disappointing about the conduct of this trial."

I assure you that most American lawyers, by and large, are disappointed whenever there is a case which is tried in a circus like atmosphere. This is most porperly layed at the feet of the media who descend on celebrity cases like vultures on a dead carcus.

The vast majority of American lawyers are disappointed in leaks in information that by law is supposed to be held confidential (grand jury testimony). If Mr. Snedden deliberately leaked this information to the press then he should be prosecuted. However, in celebrity cases it is always difficult to say who is responsible for leaks because there are so many individuals involved, who want their few minutes of fame, and may have succumbed to that desire and leaked the information.

Yahwe: "You may find in future that quoting my posts focusses you response."

I agree and apologize for not doing so on the last post. In that case it was an oversight which I noticed just after pushing the Post Quick Reply button. Sorry.

Actually, I must confess, I haven't been able to figure out how it is that one goes about breaking the quote up into its contingent parts. If someone would give me instruction on that particular point, I would be greatful.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by dda

Actually, I must confess, I haven't been able to figure out how it is that one goes about breaking the quote up into its contingent parts. If someone would give me instruction on that particular point, I would be greatful.

just write [.quote] and [./quote] (without the .'s) around the bits you wante to quote.
if you want it to say "Originally Posted by Yahwe" then write [.quote=Yahwe]
Simple really.

[Nusselt]

click on the quote button to the bottom and side of the post you want to quote,

the quote bit will like this except with square brackets [ ] instead of curly { }

{Quote=Yahwe} Text you want quoted will be here {/Quote}


If you break up someones text you have to remember to add {Quote=Yahwe} at the begining of the quote and {/Quote} at the end

think of it like adding " and " at each end.

{Quote=Yahwe} text you want {/Quote}

{Quote=Yahwe} quoted here {/Quote}

use square brackets [ ] not curly { } im only using curly to show what to write (otherwise it would quote it)

and if you want to add another persons name instead of yahwe you can after the = sign.


If you want to add italics to a text put {i} before and {/i} after
for bold {b} and {/b}
for underline {u} and {/u}

again replace with square brackets [ ]



BTW check you PM (private messages) click profile (top of the screen) then on the control panel on the left hand side it should say private messages, list messages

[dda]

Ste and Nusselt

Thank you for the instruction. It should make things more simple.

Nusselt

I did check my private messages and would thank you for the information. It is always difficult coming into a group of people who know each other and trying to join in the discussion. So far I am enjoying myself a lot and hope that I am not being too big of a pain in the butt.

Now, how do I post a private message or reply to a private message?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "Your question is flawed in logic."

In what way? I merely asked if the result was instrumental to your having a modicum of faith restored.

no it wasn't. i was pleased at the way the jury conducted themselves.

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: " Provided the jury were properly instructed (which they were) and that they applied that test to the evidence (which there is no indication that they failed to do) it is impossible to conceive of a verdict that is different from the one they reached."

You are saying that there was only one possible outcome? That if they had found Jackson guilty of anything then they would have either had to have been improperly instructed or would have had to of applied the wrong standard to the facts? This would imply a greater knowledge of the actual facts presented to the jury than it is possible for someone to have who was not present for the testimony. I was only trying to find out what the basis of your opinion was.

well. only in the way that when ever a jury is properly instructed and conducts itself in a proper way its result is the only result that could have been reached.

for you to ask if the opposite verdict was 'possible' therefore makes no sense in logic. because of course it wasn't.

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "Neither my views as you see them nor any information that I may or may not have received fro the media is utterly inconsequential."

It is difficult to decide what this sentence means. Are you saying that it doesn't matter what you think? Are you saying that it doesn't matter what I think your views are? Are you saying that the basis of your opinion is unimportant? Are you saying that your opinions generally are utterly inconsequential? Are you saying that what is done is done so why even talk about it? Or merely that my questions are inconsequential? If the last, then I will agree that my questions aren't of any consequence. However, I am still interested in the views of others.

I apologise. i should not have assumed that humour would travel so easily between cultural boundaries.

forgive me

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "You waffle too much."

Since I haven't expressed an opinion other than I feel that the jury system works rather well most of the time, what precisely am I waffling about? Or are you implying that I eat too many waffles?

to waffle is to be the opposite of succinct.

you tend to say the same thing several times over in slightly different ways.

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "I am disappointed at the conduct of this trial."

The jury was properly instructed, so that apparently isn't the source of your disappointment.
The jury apparently applied the proper test to the evidence, so that would seem to be eliminated as the source of your disappointment.
Are you disappointed in the decision of Mr. Snedden to go forward with the case?
If so, what is it that disappoints you and the other members of your profession?
The victim's family? Should the victim be judged by his family?
The age of the claim?
Are you disappointed in the failure of the judge to throw out the case without letting it get to a jury?

yes. (see above)

Originally Posted by dda

If so, at what part of the proceedings should he have thrown out the case?
Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Penal Code Section 995 before trial?
Upon the filing of a motion to dismiss pursuant to California Penal Code Section 1118 at the close of the prosecution's case?

unsurprisingly perhaps I am not familiar with california penal codes. in fact even codification makes me unhappy.

but the answer is yes. either at the start or at half time would have improved my opinion of the ability of the judge.

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "I am further disappointed if American lawyers find nothing disappointing about the conduct of this trial."

I assure you that most American lawyers, by and large, are disappointed whenever there is a case which is tried in a circus like atmosphere. This is most porperly layed at the feet of the media who descend on celebrity cases like vultures on a dead carcus.

The vast majority of American lawyers are disappointed in leaks in information that by law is supposed to be held confidential (grand jury testimony). If Mr. Snedden deliberately leaked this information to the press then he should be prosecuted. However, in celebrity cases it is always difficult to say who is responsible for leaks because there are so many individuals involved, who want their few minutes of fame, and may have succumbed to that desire and leaked the information.

see you only needed to say 'yes we are' or 'yes i am too'

but i'm still gladdened that you were disapointed.

Originally Posted by dda

Yahwe: "You may find in future that quoting my posts focusses you response."

I agree and apologize for not doing so on the last post. In that case it was an oversight which I noticed just after pushing the Post Quick Reply button. Sorry.

Actually, I must confess, I haven't been able to figure out how it is that one goes about breaking the quote up into its contingent parts. If someone would give me instruction on that particular point, I would be greatful.

i found out by trial and error.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by dda

Now, how do I post a private message or reply to a private message?

Click "Quote" on the Private Message, as there is no "Reply" button.

[dda]

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]well. only in the way that when ever a jury is properly instructed and conducts itself in a proper way its result is the only result that could have been reached. for you to ask if the opposite verdict was 'possible' therefore makes no sense in logic. because of course it wasn't. [**/QUOTE]

[Different verdicts are possible depending on the make up of the jury. That is why jury selection is so important.]

[**QUOTE=Yahwe] to waffle is to be the opposite of succinct.[**/QUOTE]

[In America, to waffle is to keep changing sides on an issue. To be succinct on a complicated topic may also be uninformative. It is difficult to enter into a discussion without clarifying the premises. I think I have some basic differences of opinion with you but have not been able to gain enough insight to be sure what those differences might be.}

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]you tend to say the same thing several times over in slightly different ways.[**/QUOTE]

[You tend not to engage in any real dialogue. It is because it is may be logical but it is not very informative as to the thought process which produced it.]

[**/QUOTE]unsurprisingly perhaps I am not familiar with california penal codes. in fact even codification makes me unhappy.

but the answer is yes. either at the start or at half time would have improved my opinion of the ability of the judge.[**/QUOTE]

[To have thrown the case out either before or at "halftime" the judge would have had to decide that the jury could not, as a matter of law, believed any of the witnesses presented. To do so would have been an arrogant exercise of power. I would have found that equally disappointing.]

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]see you only needed to say 'yes we are' or 'yes i am too.[**/QUOTE]

[I didn't need to say anything at all. However, if I was going to venture an opinion, it seemed polite to clarify what I was disappointed about.]

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]but i'm still gladdened that you were disapointed.[**/QUOTE]

[On this we agree.]

[Yahwe]

look

try again. use the quote button and you'll see at the start of the body of text [**QUOTE=Yahwe] copy it. paste it before everything i've said that you want to make a point about
then at the end of my whole text you'll see [**/QUOTE] copy this, then paste before every [**QUOTE=Yahwe] you've inserted.
once that's done you type in between all the [**/QUOTE] and [**QUOTE=Yahwe]
AND if you are anything like me then at this point you try to remember what it was that you wanted to say

(delete all **)

[Dante Hicks]

Even ignoring the quoting issues, I'm personally finding some of the arguments here difficult to follow.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by dda

Or are you implying that I eat too many waffles?

u can never eat to many waffles

[s|k]

Wow dda has a lot of green blobs for only 24 posts. I'm telling you gimmicks are the new pink!

[Alki]

i really dont think it is a gimmick account and his posts are fairly good aswell

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Alki

i really dont think it is a gimmick account and his posts are fairly good aswell

Yes good posts, that's true. But the whole "I don't know how to pm" routine is silly.

[Alki]

what rules has he broken exactly?

[s|k]

I didn't say he broke any rules. I'm just saying not knowing how to pm, while possible, is unlikely. Especially if he's bright enough to make 'good' posts.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by s|k

I didn't say he broke any rules. I'm just saying not knowing how to pm, while possible, is unlikely. Especially if he's bright enough to make 'good' posts.

To be fair, the style-sheets are "broken" (imho) and on the Private Message screen there does not appear to be a button for replying. You are given the option of Quoting or Forwarding. Which is a bit counter-intuitive.

[s|k]

I think Yahwe is having a soliloquy here. (I'm always suspecting him of being up to something - no offence Yahwe - those are good posts!) Come on out if it's true. Be a man about it now. You've dropped your rambling nonesense phase and have adopted the gimmick as your new game.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by s|k

I think Yahwe is having a soliloquy here. (I'm always suspecting him of being up to something - no offence Yahwe - those are good posts!) Come on out if it's true. Be a man about it now. You've dropped your rambling nonesense phase and have adopted the gimmick as your new game.

you're being a stunning idiot. stop it.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

To be fair, the style-sheets are "broken" (imho) and on the Private Message screen there does not appear to be a button for replying. You are given the option of Quoting or Forwarding. Which is a bit counter-intuitive.

they are like that on all the forums I frequent.

[roadrunner_0]

you would think that someone would have told VB by now that they ****ed up on the style sheets

[dda]

Originally Posted by s|k

I didn't say he broke any rules. I'm just saying not knowing how to pm, while possible, is unlikely. Especially if he's bright enough to make 'good' posts.

The account is not a gimmick. The seeming bright is the gimmick. This is the first forum type thing that I have posted on. Never underestimate my ability to get confused by technology! I have been saving many other equally dense questions for the future.
DDA

[Yahwe]

are you going to bother trying to rectify that post of yours or am i going to have to wade through it attempting to work out what you've said?

may i advise the first course of action as the one least likely to enrage me.

something just isn't quite right about you.

[dda]

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]are you going to bother trying to rectify that post of yours or am i going to have to wade through it attempting to work out what you've said?[**/QUOTE]

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to see if I have the hang of this.

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]may i advise the first course of action as the one least likely to enrage me.[**/QUOTE]

Noooooo! I wouldn't want to face the wrath of Yahwe. It could be pillar of salt time.

[**QUOTE=Yahwe]something just isn't quite right about you.[**/QUOTE]

There are many people who think there is something not quite right about me, I have come to terms with it.

[pablissimo]

Close, take the **'s out.

[s|k]

It's just that a large percentage of the time, not only in this thread but also in the other 24 years for accessory one, Yahwe and DDA are talking to each other. That's what gave me the idea. :/ It's not soo far fetched you know. Otherwise I would have never known that it was Yahwe.