It amazes me…

13 06 2005

… how so many people who…

  • did not sit on the 14 weeks of evidence presentation…
  • have never met, seen, talked to, or interviewed the parties involved…
  • have never had one day of legal schooling…
  • were not in the jury…
  • in fact, have not seen anything of the evidence other than what has been filtered through chat boards, CNN, and the rest of the ‘media’

…can decide, point blank, the guilt or innocence of a man in a court case.
Is it so hard for people to say “I do not have enough information to be able to say one way or the other. I wasn’t there.”?
Because, for 99.9% of the people shouting at the top of their lungs about miscarriages of justice, or whatever, that’s exactly the situation they’re in.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

One response

16 06 2005
Marty

It amazes me that anyone who paid any attention to this at all could have thought they’d find him guilty. The prosecution’s case was weak, and in the real world, unlike episodes of Law and Order, weak cases sometimes get rejected by juries, especially when the defense attorney is good at his job.
The prosecution certainly proved that Michael Jackson is strange, but that’s not a criminal offense. (And I don’t think the argument, made at http://www.slate.com/id/2120889/, that Jackson is wierd, and nothing else, can be easily dismissed.)
Two links on this. http://www.slate.com/id/2120812/ and http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06152005.html. The latter should be interesting to MA residents.




%d bloggers like this: