tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11546978.post111871949458687186..comments2023-08-18T05:33:15.137-07:00Comments on Tantrum Warehouse: Stop Hurling the Hate Mail Right NowElizabethhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12193438348834805844noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11546978.post-1119016906530238742005-06-17T07:01:00.000-07:002005-06-17T07:01:00.000-07:00I agree. Even if each of those jurors felt in the...I agree. Even if each of those jurors felt in their hearts that MJ was guilty, they had to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence and testimony presented. The burden of proof was on the State, and they failed to produce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11546978.post-1118752599303240002005-06-14T05:36:00.000-07:002005-06-14T05:36:00.000-07:00If I just keep agreeing with you about everything,...If I just keep agreeing with you about everything, will you think I'm a crazed stalker? I swear I'm not, but, seriously, I couldn't agree with you more about the whole Michael Jackson case. <BR/><BR/>I happened to be in the car when the verdict was read, and the radio station I was listening to cut to it. When the DJ came back after the verdict was read, she said something to the effect of "Michael Jackson found not-guilty on all chargets, I guess that's the benifit of being a celebrity." Which, to me, seems totally wrong. Yeah, he's a celebrity, but he's not exactly a well-liked one anymore. Everyone seems to think he's a crazy child molester. So, for the jury to sit through the whole case, listen to the evidence and find him not guilty, that just says to me that the jury really did their job, and that maybe he really is not guilty. I think it would be mighty hard to be a juror on that case and not have any preconceived notion of who Michael Jackson is and what he has already been accused of doing. So, if all of them with their various biases can agree that the prosecution didn't prove the case, then I'm willing to believe them.<BR/><BR/>-Amy in NYAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com