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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (131406)	8/10/2005 5:42:54 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793639

In a person's life there is limited time. Jackson has lots of money, but the same limits on time. What advice he took to and what actions he took disposing of a civil matter do not indicate proof positive anything. Based upon the case presented, I can think of no rational proscecutor who would have gone to trial. It seems only on celebrity the case went forward. Clearly those who have more money can get better legal word smiths and make the task of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt within the rules of evidence very difficult. In california a large number of folks voted for kerry. Clearly you have juries with so many with no critical thinking skills. I don't second guess those who heard all the evidence. I just know in the case of Jackson, a finding of guilty was not possible.