Quote:
|
Originally Posted by soundtest
Those parents should be charged with willingly putting their children in potential harm's way though. Innocent or not, there's no way I'd let my child spend the night with some eccentric Peter Pan freak.
|
That was one of the first sentiments I've heard out of one of the juror's mouths after the verdict. Granted, it's not a wise parental choice for her to have let her child stay with MJ. Perhaps she WAS trying to weasel money out of him. Also evil but, at the same time, not germane as to what the jury was trying to decide. You have to ask yourself why YOU think it was unwise that she let her children stay with MJ, the mother's motives notwithstanding. The only question, regardless of the mother's motive, past history, ect is whether MJ did these things or not. That was what this case was all about. As obviously, I was not there to hear the testimony, I hope that they rendered their verdict on reasonable doubt of MJ's activities rather than the mother's character. To me, her character is irrelevant. Amidtedly, from the snippets I heard from the prosecution's case, it did sound rather weak. After hearing the brief comments of the jurors following the reading of the verdict; however, many of them DID come off sounding like a bunch of "Corkies".
P.S. Many lawyers preceding the verdict were in agreement that, when deliberation is unduly long, chances are in more than likely in favor of the defendant in the form of a "hung jury" or outright acquittal so I can't say that I was really suprised by the outcome.
Threaded Mode