Official June 1 2005 Thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

abbymjgirl
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:15 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by abbymjgirl » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:33 pm

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
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:34 pm

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?

abbymjgirl
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:15 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by abbymjgirl » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:35 pm

So, the defense has the last word. (good)

Cristine87
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 3864
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Cristine87 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:37 pm

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
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1883
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:15 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by abbymjgirl » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:40 pm

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
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 8:00 am
Contact:

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by danaluvsmj » Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:42 pm

Originally posted by whisper
Image
I really love this pic!
aww he looks so scared and serious, poor baby! I just wanna hug him.
Image

1958-2009

Gone Too Soon

mjfannn
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by mjfannn » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:07 pm

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
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:08 pm

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
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:09 pm

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
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:03 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by nowayout11 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:17 pm

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.

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:18 pm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3036652/
At 6:20 Pacific Time, 80% of the people who took the survey thought that Michael was going to be acquitted. It looks good, people, I'm telling you...

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:33 pm

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
Trial Period
Trial Period
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:50 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by mjfannn » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:42 pm

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
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 8:03 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by nowayout11 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:50 pm

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:

MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733 » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:13 pm

Those damn fools are so ****ing desperate! :thumbsdown I can't wait for mez's closing statements, he'll bring it all the way home! :D
Image



The Angel of Innocence :heart2:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest