Official June 1 2005 Thread

abbymjgirl

New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
No Frenchy, first the prosecution does thier closing, then the defence, and the prosecution get to have the last word.
Hmm, I have to disagree 'cause doesn't it work like this: they're closing arguments. The prosecution forst, then the defense, then...nothing!! It's closing arguments! Or am I wrong? I dun think I am 'cause that is how it worx for closing arguments.
 

Frenchy

New member
Originally posted by Albamelia
Honey, when they say Michael's guilty of blah-blah, the judge has to be given a reasonable reason!! They cannot just say that! The judge has the last word in the end. If he says "hey, i think that you guys are just wrong and convicting him because you hate Michael and i say he's innocent." It's what the jugde says in the end! :D

Honey, I am truly sorry but I don't think so. I don't think the judge can disregard the jury's verdict as unacceptable. I don't think they have to give any reason either. The jury decides, period. The judge only applies the sentence. Or did I miss something?
 

Cristine87

New member
1108 is prejudicial! I can't believe that law was even passed! Do you know how many innocent people can be convicted on that shit?
 

abbymjgirl

New member
Originally posted by Frenchy
Honey, I am truly sorry but I don't think so. I don't think the judge can disregard the jury's verdict as unacceptable. I don't think they have to give any reason either. The jury decides, period. The judge only applies the sentence. Or did I miss something?
No, no, no, Honey. That's what the judge is there for, to make sure it's justice!


Take this: what if the jury hates Michael, they think like DS, and just say "hey we think he's guilty". the judge has to be given a why, he ain't gonna let it pass, it wouldn't be fair/justice. If he doesn't follow what the jury says or think they're being unfair, he can say that they're not being fair and go on about, w/out their decision. That's what he's there for. Get it?
 

danaluvsmj

New member
Originally posted by whisper
sp7e76d2.jpg

I really love this pic!

aww he looks so scared and serious, poor baby! I just wanna hug him.
 

mjfannn

New member
Originally posted by Frenchy
Problem is that the persecution does not have to actually PROVE anything. They just need to make the jury believe that there's a good chance MJ did it. A good chance meaning beyond reasonable doubt. That's what is sick.
yes my dear, the persecution does have to PROVE THAT CHARGE, because the burden of proof is on them. they brouht this b.s now they have to prove it. :bs
 

Frenchy

New member
Originally posted by Albamelia
Take this: what if the jury hates Michael, they think like DS, and just say "hey we think he's guilty". the judge has to be given a why, he ain't gonna let it pass, it wouldn't be fair/justice. If he doesn't follow what the jury says or think they're being unfair, he can say that they're not being fair and go on about, w/out their decision. That's what he's there for. Get it?
Honey, I really think you're mistaken but now I'm not even 100% sure any longer... I really do think the judge CANNOT refuse to follow the jury's verdict. And I don't think the jury has to give any explanation as to why they decide what they decide, esp since the deliberations are behind closed doors. Because otherwise, what's the point of having a jury? I think the judge's role is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial (so far Melville has not done a good job -- rather: arbitrate the debates) and to sentence or acquit the accused according to the jury's verdict.
Can someone else confirm or infirm what I or Albamelia think?
 

Frenchy

New member
Originally posted by mjfannn
yes my dear, the persecution does have to PROVE THAT CHARGE, because the burden of proof is on them. they brouht this b.s now they have to prove it. :bs
No my dear, not PROVE: just induce more than reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds...

My dear... Honey... I love you guys. :lol:
 

nowayout11

New member
The jurors come back with guilty/not guilty on each of the charges. No reasons WHY are given. The reason "why" is simply because they agree with one side more than the other.

Also, a judge CAN throw out a jury's verdict, but that is extremely rare.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's funny. They think he will be aquitted, but they will still say he's guilty.

Have you ever seen the way Michael lights up when he talks about Africa? It's one thing to hear him speak about it...but to see him. It's really moving.

Michael should move to a place where he can just get away from all this. It would be so nice if he could just transport Neverland.
 

mjfannn

New member
secutiom
Originally posted by Frenchy
No my dear, not PROVE: just induce more than reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds...

My dear... Honey... I love you guys. :lol:
the BURDEN of proof is on the persecution. :nonono:
 

nowayout11

New member
I think you're confusing the terms Frenchy. :)

It's the prosecution's job to prove guilt. And they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. "Maybe he did it" or even "he probably did it" is not sufficient for a guilty verdict. It must be "absolutely yes."

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They only have to create the reasonable doubt... which they have done in spades, in my personal opinion. :lol:
 

sistahlamb

New member
No, Brian Oxman said on MJJSource that the prosecution goes first with thier closing, then the defence, and lastly the prosecution.
 

mjwifey3

New member
I have to believe that not all twelve people on the jury are dumb asses like sneddung, I can't see how the jury can comeback with a conviction, if you look back at sneddumbass case you can see that he failed, he didn't prove not one thing except that he hates Michael, The defense easily came back and disproved everything said and they didn't take forever to do it, and they did it with style and grace, not to mention not one of their witnesses perjured themselves and none of the defense witnesses were crazy or said stupid things such as they were afraid that they would be sent away forever in an hot air ballon, so I'm confident that jury knows Michael is innocent and they will let him live the rest of his life in peace. On another note I know this whole thing is nerve wreaking and I can't even imagine what Michael and his family must be going through, but they're not going through it alone because God is there not to mention all of Michael's fans care for him. I think what we should all do is send Michael our love so that the angels in Heaven will see a flood of love pouring on Michael and maybe on some level he'll know that we all love him and support him and most importantly... that he's not alone, for he never's alone because my heart is with him always and I'm sure that he has everyone here's heart as well.
 
Originally posted by mjwifey3
I have to believe that not all twelve people on the jury are dumb asses like sneddung, I can't see how the jury can comeback with a conviction, if you look back at sneddumbass case you can see that he failed, he didn't prove not one thing except that he hates Michael, The defense easily came back and disproved everything said and they didn't take forever to do it, and they did it with style and grace, not to mention not one of their witnesses perjured themselves and none of the defense witnesses were crazy or said stupid things such as they were afraid that they would be sent away forever in an hot air ballon, so I'm confident that jury knows Michael is innocent and they will let him live the rest of his life in peace. On another note I know this whole thing is nerve wreaking and I can't even imagine what Michael and his family must be going through, but they're not going through it alone because God is there not to mention all of Michael's fans care for him. I think what we should all do is send Michael our love so that the angels in Heaven will see a flood of love pouring on Michael and maybe on some level he'll know that we all love him and support him and most importantly... that he's not alone, for he never's alone because my heart is with him always and I'm sure that he has everyone here's heart as well.

That was beautiful said. :D
 

abbymjgirl

New member
Originally posted by sistahlamb
No, Brian Oxman said on MJJSource that the prosecution goes first with thier closing, then the defence, and lastly the prosecution.
OH! OK.

Well, I still think that the judge could ask the jurors for a 'why'. I mean, he can. You know, I get what your saying but...I still think that he gets the last word. I mean, c'mon, he cannot let there be injustice!!

And I don't think that all the jurors are full of BS llike DS! I think that this jury pool has some very intelligent people, even if I dun know them. Know wat i mean?

I hope they say he's INNOCENT, 'cause he is!! :D
 
Top