Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Barrett Bucket -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (290)	6/14/2005 6:58:50 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1233

Actually, you were agreeing with Me...:-) And, wouldn't you know it, I agree with you. The inevitable outcome is that we both disagree (somewhat) with Laz....<g> btw, he doesn't think I'm good at collecting. Maybe I should try and get that $100 for you....

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (290)	6/14/2005 8:27:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1233

"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.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (290)	6/14/2005 10:00:11 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1233

I'm not a follower of Michael Savage (radio talk show host, too savage for me), but he said he considered becoming an attorney and decided not to because illuminating the truth isn't necessarily their objective; winning--victory--is their objective.