This is absurd...the Jackson jury foreman sounds like a fan...he's all worried about how Jackson conducts himself around children! If the jury has acquitted him of being a child molester, why would that be a concern? <br><br>Hmmm?<br><br><br>[i]The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed.<br><br>But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counselor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts."<br><br>"We would hope ... that he doesn't sleep with children anymore," Rodriguez said on CNN. "He just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."<br><br>
Don't know if Jacko is guilty or just has weird mannerisms, but the prosecution didn't PROVE squat. They were pathetic and bumbling bimbos !!<br><br>I sure hope Saddam doesn't get prosecuted by those morons- he'll walk !! <br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Because he felt that Jacko may have been guilty, but there was not enough evidence to prove it.<br><br>While we will never know what happened, I believe the jury did their job properly.<br><br><br>
The focus of the case was pretty narrow. It only had to do with this one boy. And, this boys mother has a record of fraud and cons. The boy was caught lying on the stand enough times to blow his credibility. <br><br>In law, a conviction is supposed to be based on what can be proven, and not what is suspected. Of course, we all know it doesn't always work that way and it's funny how fickle we are. When the law does work, like Jackson or Blake, people are pissed. When it doesn't work, like O.J. people are pissed. So, go figure.<br><br>
<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
<br>HELLO<br><br>
Previous Topic
Index
