So how about the Michael Jackson thing?

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide:

when will the USA go back to monarchy?

It hasn't?

 

[KenElevenShadows]

I thought juries are supposed to be composed of peers. I always found that interesting - where would you find 12 people who were peers of MJ?

[Enrique]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Enrique, that's really a frightening idea you have there. What you are proposing is that we be forced to disclose to our local governments our voting choice for President. Voters are supposed to be guaranteed the right to privacy in terms of our choices. Some voters like to advertise who they vote for - by formally registering with a party - while others such as myself, do not. That is our right as Americans, we are guaranteed a vote by secret ballot and it's vitally important that we be able to make up our own minds, without fear of being censured for our choices.

 

And trying to "classify" other parties as either Democrats or Republicans is equally scary. You say for example that Libertarians should be lumped in with Republicans... but Libertarians are actually on the same side of the fence as Democrats on many issues, such as drug legislation and domestic issues (gay marriage, etc.) I could go on... I understand that you mean well with this idea of an ideologically balanced jury, but it won't work.

Lee, in the jury selection process, they will ask you what political party you belong to anyway.

 

And, if you claim thats none of their business (the right to privacy) they will probably

censure you by not letting you on the jury.

 

If they find out youre a Libertarian, they might censure you on that basis alone as well.

 

Im trying to minimize the cherry picking because I believe jury selection IS jury tampering.

 

You could argue that Im cherry picking as well for wanting a 50/50 "Republican and Democrat

split".

 

In a truly random draw, you could have a majority of Democrats on the jury or visa versa

and that would not be fair.

 

I know classifying other parties into a big Republican or Democrat tent is messy but I

still think its more fair than what we have now.

 

Libertarians and Republicans want less intrusive government in our lives (or at least

that is what Republicans SAY but thats another topic).

 

While the Socialist party and the Green party have more in common with the Democratic party.

 

But hey, once your in the jury your not obligated to vote with the group you were put in,

and thats all that matters.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

I thought juries are supposed to be composed of peers. I always found that interesting - where would you find 12 people who were peers of MJ?

LOL... yeah, when Keith Richards was on trial for drugs he asked the same thing. He said, "Well, I guess you'd have to get Chuck Berry in there... Jerry Lee Lewis..."

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Enrique:

Lee, in the jury selection process, they will ask you what political party you belong to anyway.

I served on a jury once, and was called in for selection another time... and in neither case did they ask me that. I don't think they would ask unless it's really relevant to the case.

 

Im trying to minimize the cherry picking because I believe jury selection IS jury tampering.

It is to a degree, or it can be if it's abused. But I don't think your idea makes things any better.

 

In a truly random draw, you could have a majority of Democrats on the jury or visa versa

and that would not be fair.

I don't see how it wouldn't be fair, because someone's political leanings may or may not have any bearing on the specific case or the person's ability to be objective about it. There may well be other things about the person that would be much more relevant.

 

Libertarians and Republicans want less intrusive government in our lives (or at least

that is what Republicans SAY but thats another topic).

But Republicans can actually be QUITE in favor of intrusive government when it comes to things like drug possession, people's sexual habits, etc. Whereas Libertarians would not be. That could be very relevant to a drug case, or prostitution. The fact is people have all different reasons for belonging to whatever political party they belong to. So it's really a crapshoot whether that has any bearing on somebody's fitness to decide a case.

[Philip OKeefe]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

I thought juries are supposed to be composed of peers. I always found that interesting - where would you find 12 people who were peers of MJ?

LOL... yeah, when Keith Richards was on trial for drugs he asked the same thing. He said, "Well, I guess you'd have to get Chuck Berry in there... Jerry Lee Lewis..."

"...and Ron Wood... I could always slip him a twenty." Or words to that effect.

 

All I can say is that if I'm asked what party I belong to, I will probably say that I was under the impression that I was entitled to keep that private, but if ordered to disclose that by the judge, I would. And if I was so ordered, I'd say I am a registered Republican, but I have never been someone to just vote the party line. I reserve the right to vote for the individual that I feel best represents my POV and who would, IMO, do the best job in office.

 

If the truth gets me tossed, then so be it.

[cerumen]

check your pm phil.

[LavaMan]

He is guilty as hell and will be in jail by the end of the week.

[Angelo Clematide]

No, he is innocent as bugs bunny, moves to

France, Monaco or Switzerland, and we eat

some brooms together in Gstaad, Ascona or

Interlaken !

[Angelo Clematide]

-

 

i just found the right property for Michael, castle "Kingschwanpopstein" in Bavaria :

 

http://lescompagnons.ca/Image/chateau/neuschwanstein-800.jpg

 

http://lescompagnons.ca/Image/chateau/neuschwanstein-800.jpg

[Enrique]

Still no verdict in the MJ trail.

 

Remember the rumor that MJ had surgery on his privates to keep his high pitched voice?

 

What if that is true. He does have an unusually high pitched voice for someone his age.

 

What if the surgery affected his sexual desire or his ability to perform sexually and thats

why we never saw MJ with someone?

 

What if MJ prefers the company of animals or children more than he does adults?

 

It is known that some people replace their relationships with pets because theyre sick

of all the ass kissing and two faced bulls**t adults partake in.

 

Maybe MJ is one of those kinds of people?

 

Im just speculating about the rumors Ive heard about MJ just like everyone else.

 

Remember how ridiculed MJ was for having a pet chimpanzee? It is still an exotic pet

but now it wouldnt cause such a fuss as it did 15 years ago.

[Super 8]

Originally posted by Enrique:

Still no verdict in the MJ trail.

 

Remember the rumor that MJ had surgery on his privates to keep his high pitched voice?

 

What if that is true. He does have an unusually high pitched voice for someone his age.

Well, he's had surgery on just about everything else. Might as well go to town on the testicles too.

 

Seriously, I have my doubts that he's ever done anything like that.....at least where his voice is concerned. You can hear his later stuff with the Jacksons, and his singing on "Off the Wall", and well as "Thriller". He was in his late teens to his twenties when he recorded that stuff, and I don't think he was nearly the eccentric he has become. If his voice were going to change, it would have been noticeable during those albums.

 

I just think he's a little thin guy with a high pitched voice.

 

What if MJ prefers the company of animals or children more than he does adults?

I think that's the problem.

 

It is known that some people replace their relationships with pets because theyre sick

of all the ass kissing and two faced bulls**t adults partake in.

I don't doubt that his fame has become a prison for him. He does tend to bring it upon himself with his little antics. The more bizzare he acts, the more people flock to see him. I can't believe he hasn't figured this out by now.

[Martin Kantola]

Enrique,

 

I'm sure you have some more interesting contributions to this forum than your last post.

 

This discussion has drifted into the usual stream of media poop. Makes me sick.

 

 

Martin

[Enrique]

Despite the not guilty verdicts handed down today by the jury and no physical evidence (DNA, photos or video of the kid he supposedly molested) provided by the prosecution, I heard a USA Today poll says that 57% of Americans disagree with the verdict.

 

I repeat, 57% of Americans disagree with the verdict.

 

To which I ask, based on WHAT?

 

I guess perception is reality for some.

[Geoff Grace]

Originally posted by Enrique:

I guess perception is reality for some.

To one degree or another, perception is reality for all of us.

 

I'm looking at a monitor now while I type my words - at least my perception tells me it's a monitor. However, if I were much, much smaller, my perception would probably tell me that I was looking out instead at a galaxy of atoms. Each perception is at best a fragment of truth, a piece of the puzzle.

 

At worst, a perception can be completely false, such as the visual perception that an oar bends as it's placed partway into the water.

 

A study of eyesight reveals that it's typical for the mind to fill in the blanks or to distort data so that it makes sense.

 

We long believed that the Earth was flat because our perception told us so. This was even a workable model of reality during less technologically evolved times, so it must have seemed to make little sense to question it. (This leads me to wonder how many of our current working models of reality are actually false.)

 

A pattern that emerges is that the more we examine reality, the less certain we become of our previous assumptions and the more likely it becomes that a more realistic picture of truth will emerge.

 

That bodes well for favoring the jury process over the court of public opinion, because the public at large doesn't examine a case nearly as closely as does a jury.

 

However, no matter how much examination one does of reality, one fact remains: it's an infinite universe out there and we have finite brains with which to grasp it. In other words, it's impossible to know the whole truth.

 

That shouldn't stop us from making a valiant attempt to gain knowledge, but it should keep us humble and aware that we'll always miss pieces of the puzzle. Our minds will fill in the missing pieces, but they may not always get it right.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[mars_dup1]

Originally posted by Enrique:

 

What if that is true. He does have an unusually high pitched voice for someone his age.

 

I've heard from very good sources that he does NOT actually have a high-pitched voice. Anyone else care to confirm?

[Philip OKeefe]

Excellent post (as usual) Geoff!

[Geoff Grace]

Thanks Phil!

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Enrique]

Philosophically, I agree with everything you said Geoff.

 

But, what Im saying is that 57% of Americans still think (perception) MJ

is guilty, not based on reality (the evidence) but on their opinion (perception).

 

Some people and the media were shocked that the lynching was not successful.

 

I think that says a lot. Damn the non evidence, we know he is guilty.

 

Man, what if the media and prosecutors went after Ken Lay and his type as relentlessly

as they did MJ.

 

Instead, I expect a Presidential pardon.

[Murphman]

If the prosecuters went after Ken Lay as relentlessly as they did MJ, Lay doesn't even need to pack an overnight bag...

 

Just because he was found 'not guilty' doesn't mean he's innocent. Listen to the jurors. They think that MJ is wierd, even capable of these acts, but they didn't trust the family, mainly the mother. If it was a frame-up, they chose the wrong people to frame him. If it happened the way they said it did, their past was too tainted. And even though MJ's past is tainted as well, the jury didn't have to rule on his entire past or whether or not he's a pedophile, just this set of events. They have reason to believe these particular events didn't happen.

 

Frankly, my life would go on whether or not MJ is free on in jail. I'll make sure my kids never sleep at his house. I just wonder what the news will concentrate on now that all the major trials are over...

[Base]

But this is the defining event of human civilisation and the struggle for freedom!!!!!!

 

At least according to his website...

[Bon Mot]

So a guy likes shacking up with minor boys... so he likes sharing his extensive porn collection with the boys too...They should leave poor eccentric Micheal alone. They never found his jizz stains in the boys undies..Therefore- No conclusive evidence! Plus the mom was apparently one of them Gypsies that got past Hitler. Everyone knows a grifter's kid can't be molested. You're all stars now in the dope show.