"I said the same thing but got their by a simpler, more direct route: He had the money to buy the trickiest tricksters around who would so confuse the jury they'd be lucky to be able to find the deliberation room."
Au contraire. From what I saw, Messerau tried a straightforward case, focusing on the credibility of the accuser and his family and raising questions about the timeline.
Same thing. More complicated path.
The jury members made it clear in their post-trial interviews that this does not amount to an "innocent" verdict (which is what Messerau trotted out on the talk shows this morning). Rather, they concluded that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reaonable doubt (high standard, mind you) that Jackson committed the crimes charged. I know it's a subtle distinction, but its a distinction.
Which point has been made repeatedly on other talk shows. General opinion is he's guilty of SOMETHING. It might have been these charges, maybe, maybe not, but something.
"As I said, the best justice money can buy."
No, I said that. You owe me a royalty of $100 for using my line.
So sue me. :-)
On that we agree.
The most recent archtype on this was the OJ case. The prosecutorial incompetence demonstrated there has yet to be surpassed. |
