[as2]

I think the key phrase is 'beyond reasonable doubt'

With all the tom-foolery and conflicting evidence from both sides of the argument I don't see how anything could have been certain. It all seemed to be she saw this, he saw that - very little concrete stuff.

[chris v]

I was so totally the first person to vote not guilty in this thread. Not because I think the guy's not guilty-- he's a goddam fruitcake Extrordinaire-- the case against him was totally circumstantial. And a monumental waste of time, money and human endeavor. Oh well, at least he's almost gone broke. I hope.

[ajprice]

Broke now, maybe. Broke soon, after the book, the TV interviews with Oprah, the sudden push on marketing of the Beatles albums... i don't think so.

[typoon]

I kind of figured he wouldn't be found guilty. There are a few reasons. First it was more he said she said type of case. There was no real hard proof like a tape or the "blue dress" or "dead body" type evidence that would prove he actually did it. I also think the Mother didn't help out the prosecution's case. She was known for trying to extort money by claiming some false injury and she tried to make this her biggest scam. I also don't think the Jurors liked her too much which also helped out Jacson in this case.

He should have probably been convicted on serving alchohol to a minor. Though I don't think he would have been put a way too long if at all for that one.

[Nodnarb]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

I study European history in university here. It was their claim they left England because of persecution. The truth is they were the ones making the trouble and went to America to start a Puritan society. There in New England and Boston they recruited young men to go to England and to fight the Royalists. The Royalists had done nothing to start the trouble. It all started with Puritans trying to destablise the country because they wanted the Protestant church to remove any similarity to Catholicism, even though there was no link to the Church of Rome. The Puritans were Bible bashing maniacs with conspiracy theories that resulted in violence. They acted in those times just like Al-Qaeda today, using foreign base to recruit terrorists and then say they were persecuted 'rebels'. They had a sermon, New England's Tears for Old England's Fears. Very Bin Ladin like talk.

Their attitude still exists today in the Christian Right of America. The whole shouting and Bible bashing, it all goes back to Puritans who thought they can change the world with war and shape countries by changing regimes.

Hey guess what. You're retarded. Just because you don't agree with some people in America, there's 300 million of us. Yeah, some people suck, but that's going to be the same anywhere.

Besides. We could kick you're country's ass.

[Wiskedjak]

Do I think he's guilty of child molestation? Absolutely.
Do I think the prosecution presented a convincing argument? Absolutely not.