ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Earl · 14 June 2005, 07:41 AM

Now that MJ has been found not guilty you think he will go out and buy a new Rolex?

mbogo · 14 June 2005, 09:54 AM

Nope. He'll just re-open Club Ped(ophile).

George

dman · 14 June 2005, 12:04 PM

I will stay away from this topic and just say no I doubt he is a Rolex wearer.

Uncle-AJ · 14 June 2005, 12:18 PM

I think he just wears a rabbit's foot................and a very, very lucky one at that.

dman · 14 June 2005, 01:46 PM

LOL!! True though!!

JJ Irani · 14 June 2005, 06:56 PM

LOL, Adrian, good one!

Uncle-AJ · 14 June 2005, 10:50 PM

It's a good job he's not black or he would have been as guilty as hell.

Rockrolex · 14 June 2005, 11:05 PM

OK guys. I'm no fan of MJ, but forget the media hype. The standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that the prosecution must come forth - with sufficient facts - to overcome any doubts the jury may have as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. You're talking a very high standard of proof here and the jury in this case just didn't buy into the prosecution's story or version of the facts. There could have been any number of factors at work: the prosecution didn't have a strong case to start with, it's star witnesses had questionable credibility, there were witnesses who were able to counter the prosecution witnesses version of the "facts". Until you are inside the courtroom listening to all the testimony all the time, you cannot make a judgement.

Also, remember that the media is always biased. There primary objective is to sell newspapers, air time, whatever. They do this by sensationalizing their story. Their primary objective is NOT to report the news. Don't ever think you will get a factual report from reading a newspaper or listening to the 6:00 PM news.

Is MJ innocent. Probably not. But is he not guilty. Yes. There's a difference.

Earl · 15 June 2005, 02:47 AM

Very well said Ed, I have to trust in the jury it was they who voted yea or nea. They not convinced by the prosecutors beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty and thats our legal system. Your right again the media has to sinsationalize the news to sell more air time (TV & Radio) and paper and this = $$ aka a job!

JJ Irani · 15 June 2005, 04:58 AM

Hey Ed,

You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer by any chance,would you now?

Rockrolex · 15 June 2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Hey Ed,

You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer by any chance,would you now?

What could possibly give you that idea, JJ?

dman · 15 June 2005, 05:15 AM

LOL!!

pandrew · 16 June 2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Hey Ed,

You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer by any chance,would you now?

Damn Lawyers, always twisting and turning the truth until people understand it. Damn Lawyers.

Rockrolex · 16 June 2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pandrew

Damn Lawyers, always twisting and turning the truth until people understand it. Damn Lawyers.

Takes one to know one, boyo!!

22 June 2005, 01:45 AM

I am truly amazed that no one has referenced BEAT IT in this thread.

In the US legal system, truth has nothing to do with the law and the term justice does not mean balanced. MJ got off not because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but because he is a rich icon, to whom normal laws do not apply.

Just ask O.J. if justice was served.

Rockrolex · 22 June 2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

I am truly amazed that no one has referenced BEAT IT in this thread.

In the US legal system, truth has nothing to do with the law and the term justice does not mean balanced. MJ got off not because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but because he is a rich icon, to whom normal laws do not apply.

Just ask O.J. if justice was served.

My, my. A bit of a cynic, are we, Atomic?

dman · 22 June 2005, 11:05 AM

Maybe, but pretty close to the obvious truth, IMHO!

pandrew · 22 June 2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic

I am truly amazed that no one has referenced BEAT IT in this thread.

In the US legal system, truth has nothing to do with the law and the term justice does not mean balanced. MJ got off not because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but because he is a rich icon, to whom normal laws do not apply.

Just ask O.J. if justice was served.

In the U.S. justice system we have a system that is set up to be adversarial. Nobody has ever argued that the system is balanced. How about all the accused that cant afford to hire multiple lawyers to match the government are they going to say the system was balanced? I understand that you may be mad that you believe the wrong side won but the system is set up to allow the accused to confront the government, not to allow the goverment to run over the accused at their will.
As to the "rich icon" the state of California has many and much more resources than even MJ. Their County prosecutor's office had over 100 lawyers to use on this case and/or at their disposal last time I checked, MJ had 3. The County prosecutor had over 600 investigater/agents at their disposal MJ had 4.
The question as to whether MJ is a freak or not is not what he was on trial for, only whether he molested that specific boy. Is MJ a pervert? Probably but I didn't hear all the evidence so my vote doesnt count.
Please don't blame MJ for beating a case that was prosecuted very badly, blame the crappy County attorney who didn't prep their witness' and the police for sloppy investigation and last but not least a (apparently) overbearing mother who would sell not only her soul but the soul of her son for a good price.
Did MJ do it? maybe. Does he deserve to be in jail, maybe. Did the County Attorney deserve to win this case, no way. If you are mad at anything you should be mad that the government tried such bad case. MJ did not win as much as the government lost this case if not on the facts on their sloppy work.

Rockrolex · 22 June 2005, 03:22 PM

Amen, Rob. I agree 100%. But then that's just another lawyer talking.

Earl · 23 June 2005, 07:27 AM

damn, well spoken and well said. btw hadn't the prosecutor been building this case for 10 years? (thought I had heard that said) if so, seems like he had and agenda and talked the rest of his office into it but, with poor evidence, hoping to convince the jury with alot of circumstancial evidence?

14 June 2005, 07:41 AM	#1
Earl "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Who Me? Location: Northern Virginia Watch: out Posts: 4,616	Does MJ wear a Rolex? Now that MJ has been found not guilty you think he will go out and buy a new Rolex?

14 June 2005, 11:05 PM	#8
Rockrolex TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: God Location: Washington, D.C. Watch: What do you think? Posts: 37,507	OK guys. I'm no fan of MJ, but forget the media hype. The standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That means that the prosecution must come forth - with sufficient *facts* - to overcome any doubts the jury may have as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. You're talking a very high standard of proof here and the jury in this case just didn't buy into the prosecution's story or version of the facts. There could have been any number of factors at work: the prosecution didn't have a strong case to start with, it's star witnesses had questionable credibility, there were witnesses who were able to counter the prosecution witnesses version of the "facts". Until you are inside the courtroom listening to all the testimony all the time, you cannot make a judgement. Also, remember that the media is always biased. There primary objective is to sell newspapers, air time, whatever. They do this by sensationalizing their story. Their primary objective is NOT to report the news. Don't ever think you will get a factual report from reading a newspaper or listening to the 6:00 PM news. Is MJ innocent. Probably not. But is he not guilty. Yes. There's a difference. __________________ Despite the high cost of living, it's still very popular. *Tosser Cabinet Member* Official Member: 'Perpetual 30' Vegas International GTG 2016 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2017 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2018 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2019

22 June 2005, 03:22 PM	#19
Rockrolex TRF Moderator & 2024 DATE-JUST41 Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: God Location: Washington, D.C. Watch: What do you think? Posts: 37,507	Amen, Rob. I agree 100%. But then that's just another lawyer talking. __________________ Despite the high cost of living, it's still very popular. *Tosser Cabinet Member* Official Member: 'Perpetual 30' Vegas International GTG 2016 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2017 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2018 Official Member "WIS-CON" Las Vegas International GTG 2019

14 June 2005, 09:54 AM	#2
mbogo Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 124	Nope. He'll just re-open Club Ped(ophile). George

14 June 2005, 12:04 PM	#3
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	I will stay away from this topic and just say no I doubt he is a Rolex wearer.

14 June 2005, 12:18 PM	#4
Uncle-AJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Real Name: Adrian Location: Bolton, UK. Watch: Daytona 116520 Posts: 6,844	I think he just wears a rabbit's foot................and a very, very lucky one at that.

14 June 2005, 01:46 PM	#5
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	LOL!! True though!!

14 June 2005, 06:56 PM	#6
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,320	LOL, Adrian, good one!

14 June 2005, 10:50 PM	#7
Uncle-AJ "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Real Name: Adrian Location: Bolton, UK. Watch: Daytona 116520 Posts: 6,844	It's a good job he's not black or he would have been as guilty as hell.

15 June 2005, 02:47 AM	#9
Earl "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Who Me? Location: Northern Virginia Watch: out Posts: 4,616	Very well said Ed, I have to trust in the jury it was they who voted yea or nea. They not convinced by the prosecutors beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty and thats our legal system. Your right again the media has to sinsationalize the news to sell more air time (TV & Radio) and paper and this = $$ aka a job!

15 June 2005, 04:58 AM	#10
JJ Irani Fondly Remembered Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: JJ Location: Auckland, NZ Watch: ALL SOLD!! Posts: 74,320	Hey Ed, You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer by any chance,would you now?

15 June 2005, 05:15 AM	#12
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	LOL!!

22 June 2005, 01:45 AM	#15
Atomic Guest Posts: n/a	I am truly amazed that no one has referenced BEAT IT in this thread. In the US legal system, truth has nothing to do with the law and the term justice does not mean balanced. MJ got off not because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but because he is a rich icon, to whom normal laws do not apply. Just ask O.J. if justice was served.

22 June 2005, 11:05 AM	#17
dman Lifetime TRF Patron Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Daren Location: Austin Watch: the road Posts: 13,583	Maybe, but pretty close to the obvious truth, IMHO!

23 June 2005, 07:27 AM	#20
Earl "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Who Me? Location: Northern Virginia Watch: out Posts: 4,616	damn, well spoken and well said. btw hadn't the prosecutor been building this case for 10 years? (thought I had heard that said) if so, seems like he had and agenda and talked the rest of his office into it but, with poor evidence, hoping to convince the jury with alot of circumstancial evidence?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)