El Presidente Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 ....all I can say is that you guys really know how to put on a show :-D Even I tuned in to see which nose he was wearing to court today.
dragon Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » ....all I can say is that you guys really know how to put on a show :-D » » Even I tuned in to see which nose he was wearing to court today. Yeah well at least he didn't kill anybody like OJ did
habanohal Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » » ....all I can say is that you guys really know how to put on a show :-D » » » » Even I tuned in to see which nose he was wearing to court today. » » Yeah well at least he didn't kill anybody like OJ did Wacko Jacko gets off. It just goes to show ytou that no matter what you do, if you have $$$$millions, and you can afford the best, you can do and get away with anything. If it was your average middle income person, they would fry them. The law system here is so f'ed up . Its who you know and how much money you have. As in the OJ case ... in criminal court he was found not guilty, but in civil court he was found guilty of murder and has to pay millions. I will never understand how in 1 court ,for which you can get the death penalty , you are found not guilty, but in another, when it is for solely money, you are found guilty. Now we can get started on other BS goverment crap or the wonderful IRS , but I think I would take up all your bandwidth. Thanks for allowing to vent
El Presidente Posted June 14, 2005 Author Posted June 14, 2005 Highlights of OJ, Jackson and Martha Stewart would be a great Christmas DVD trilogy
Tampa1257 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » Wacko Jacko gets off. Actually IMHO a poor choice of wording, but could be the truth. The Government failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I believe that he was guilty as sin, but one needs to prove it. The family bringing up the charge was certainly questionable as well.
gehrig24 Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » » Wacko Jacko gets off. » » Actually IMHO a poor choice of wording, but could be the truth. » » » The Government failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. » I believe that he was guilty as sin, but one needs to prove it. The family » bringing up the charge was certainly questionable as well. I have to agree with Tampa...although he has some serious issues, i mean serious issues, the mother did not have much credibility in this case. IMO she cost them the entire case.
dragon Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » » » Highlights of OJ, Jackson and Martha Stewart would be a great Christmas » DVD trilogy Actually what Martha did was really minor (happens every single day on Wall Street) and she didn't deserve to do prison time in my opinion. I guess they just needed a high profile person to make an example of. The guys I'd REALLY like to see do some serious prison time are Dennis Kozlowski and Kenneth Lay.
El Presidente Posted June 14, 2005 Author Posted June 14, 2005 I thought the "supplying alcohol to a minor charge" may have stuck. Didnt see any chance for the other charges sticking. Wiithout judging the man, he would have to be the most bizarre person on the planet. I have never seen that many hanger-0ns outside of a Heavyweight title fight
shrink Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 IMO, the solution is to get Russell Crowe liquored up, show him videotaped testimony of the abused boy, then put him and Jacko in a cell overnight.
Ken Gargett Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 how did all this get posted without anyone mentioning kobe? anyone named after a cow deserves jail!
harwellplant Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 news interviews have jurors saying that they figured he did something, but that the da couldn't necessarily PROVE that he did anything. the system worked like it should. did money have anthing to do with it? not really. sure he hired a great attorney staff, but the attorney didn't decide the case. no money went to buy the jury, judge or da. it was probably his POPULARITY - separated him from being some thug criminal to someone the jurors "knew" and had even "grown up with". if you come out against someone who may have jury sympathy with him, you better come out with SOLID evidence to convict. apparently the da did not.
jwrussell Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I'll tell you what pisses me off the most about the whole thing, is the monday morning quarterbacking going on around the water cooler at work. As has been said, apparently the evidence wasn't compelling. The jurors have come right out and said, "Is he an innocent man? Probably not. Was he Guilty of what he was charged with? Not according to the evidence presented." Yet I have to sit at my desk this morning and listen to all the idjits around the water cooler talking about how stupid the jurors are and how they don't "seem that bright" based on interviews and how Jacko must have just bought his way out of it, blah, blah, F'ing blah. No person not following the trial day in and day out, and in the courtroom as even a 10th of the knowledge the jurors do of this trial. And anyone professing to know better...well... Anyway, thanks for the vent space.
1f1fan Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 There is one good thing that came of this whole thing and here it is......Triumph the Isult Comic Dog... http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/31636/ Did you guys see the woman that was releasing birds as they read the not guilty verdicts....she should have her head examined with the rest of them.
Well Armed Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 What was Michael Jackson doing at Kmart? He heard boys' pants were half off.
CIGARHead Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 » What was Michael Jackson doing at Kmart? » » He heard boys' pants were half off. LMAO!! Here come the jokes...I have a good one I heard today, but don't quite know if it's appropriate. Ah hell here is.. What do Michael Jackson and caviar have in common? Both come on little crackers.
1f1fan Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 LOL...here are some more.... Q: Why did Michael Jackson place a phone call to Boyz-2-Men?? A: He thought it was a delivery service. Michael Jackson had a boy. He also became a father! He asked his wife's doctor how soon after the birth could he have sex. The doctor told him he should wait until the kid is at least 12 or 13 years old. Q: Who does Michael Jackson consider a Perfect "10"? A: Two 5 year olds. Q: How can you tell if Michael Jackson has company? A: There's a big wheel parked outside his house!! Q: What's the difference between Michael Jackson and a grocery bag? A: One is white, made out of plastic, and dangerous for kids to play with and the other you carry your groceries in !!
habanablue Posted June 15, 2005 Posted June 15, 2005 One I heard from the boys today... what time does MJ go to bed? when the big hand touches the little hand...
Mel Posted June 15, 2005 Posted June 15, 2005 I love the humor and he desrves it all. When you are that weird and have little boys sleeping over in your bed you should expect hell to pay. I hope that if I ever come up on charges it is with the LA DA. They can't make **** stick.
ronin Posted June 16, 2005 Posted June 16, 2005 Just goes to show you that in California rich white guys will always get off:wink:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now