Michael Jackson Trial

[MissTara]

((Tara)) Stop being nice to someone who doesn't agree with your grams!!!!! Where's the family pride?

LOL! Sorry ((Grams)) I can't help it. He's such a DOLL! ;D But that makes sense, It's common for the mother and/or grams not to agree with the soon-to-be son-in law. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[tabby]

misstara said:

((Tara)) Stop being nice to someone who doesn't agree with your grams!!!!! Where's the family pride?

LOL! Sorry ((Grams)) I can't help it. He's such a DOLL! ;D But that makes sense, It's common for the mother and/or grams not to agree with the soon-to-be son-in law. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You know you will get no gift from your granny ... What have I done to deserve this? Can you imagine Beej and me sitting at the same table?

[MissTara]

You know you will get no gift from your granny ... What have I done to deserve this? Can you imagine Beej and me sitting at the same table?

Probably the same thing as most in-laws do to each other. Remain civil (maybe) and give the "look" occasionally.

[tabby]

...

[Beej]

ABA...

See, I do care when celebrities and wealthy people get away with heinous crimes...and, yes, OJ Simpson did kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I disagree that the prosecution's case in that trial was rushed or weak, as you imply. Quite the opposite, I found it to be a structured and methodical presentation which indisputably linked OJ Simpson to the crime scene and provided convincing testimony as to both motive and opportunity. The amount of evidence presented against OJ Simpson was something DA's all across America can only dream about; people are convicted everyday in this country on 1/10 the evidence they presented against him.

Was it a perfect case? No...none are.

Was Mark Fuhrman the best witness to put on the stand? No. Was it reasonable for ANY juror to conclude he was a racist detective who planted evidence in an effort to falsely convict one of the most famous and beloved sports figures in American history? Hell, no. Mark Fuhrman was a highly-decorated officer with 20 years on the job. Not a shred of evidence was entered by the defense to support the implication that OJ had been framed. Why? Because none existed.

Did the gloves fit? Not very well. Was OJ doing his best to make them fit? Uh...not exactly.

Did the prosecution provide an adequate explanation as to why the gloves shrunk between the time of the murders and the trial? If you've ever owned a pair of tight-fitting leather gloves, got them soaked to the point of saturation and then didn't wear them or stretch them out in any way before they dried, yes, it made perfect sense. They bunch up.

Did you ever hear of a random killer wearing fine, imported Italian shoes...shoes that just happened to be the same type and size OJ wore? Doubt it.

Is it reasonable to conclude that the blood and hair samples matching OJ found at the scene of the crime were actually those of the other 1 in 3 billionth person who just happens to have similar DNA strands to Mr. Simpson? Mm-hmm.

Did OJ have a cut on his finger corresponding to a slice in the glove found at the crime scene...the same crime scene which contained a trail of OJ's blood leading away from the bodies? Yeppers.

Did Johnnie Cochran inject race into the trial to stir up recent memories of abuse at the hands of the LAPD and the injustice of the Rodney King verdict? You bet.

Was it intended to shift the focus away from his guilty-as-sin client and onto a white detective who used the "N-word" in a screenplay he had once worked on? Absolutely.

Was that a low point in American justice? You tell me.


No, I don't think the prosecution was rushing the case or cutting corners in the least. They KNEW he was guilty...as did the overwhelming majority of Americans after the prosecution's closing arguments. What they didn't count on was a jury unwilling to convict. You had some jurors who looked at it as a chance to "right the wrong" of the Rodney King disgrace; you had other jurors who had no intention of sending an American icon like OJ to prison for the rest of his life -- whether he did it or not -- and still others who were scared to death that a guilty verdict would result in more rioting.

It's just a big underwear stain in American judicial history.

In both the Reginald Denny (truck driver who was beaten half to death by four gutless punks) and OJ Simpson cases, it's as though justice was cast aside to ease racial tensions and keep the waters from boiling over again. Of course, OJ was found "responsible" for both their deaths in the civil suit that followed, but nobody cares. The Goldman and Brown families were denied justice...and everyday Orenthal James Simpson walks the Earth a free man, it's a reminder that our judicial system isn't perfect.



"How do we know that the money he paid the first time was not to keep his guilt a secret but to protect his reputaion and not have all the mess detailed for public consumption?"

I'll think about that while you're thinking about how a little boy of no relation to the accused can draw a picture and provide an accurate, detailed description of Mr. Jackson's penis to authorites. Unlike his sisters, Michael's not known for whipping out his privates in public for much-needed publicity...thankfully.

So, how did he know what it looked like?



"So I do think we'll see a more humble Michael, if not at least a somewhat more contrite Michael."

I'd settle for him packing up his chimps and llamas and moving his freaky-ass to France. They deserve him. Then -- hopefully -- we can go back to ignoring his existence.




Anna...

"The prosecution seeking revenge for their failure to accomplish that goal relied on skimpy evidence the second time because they wanted to destroy Michael. Had they not been too zealous, they should have noticed that their case was not solid, and that any decent jury would have rejected the Arvizo's as scheming, mean-spirited, lying freaks."

Considering neither one of us sat in that courtroom and listened to all the evidence, it's a bit presumptive to refer to the prosecution's case as "skimpy." And, again, I'm able to differentiate between a mother who's shown a history of contacting celebrities for money and a boy who claims he was molested. No one was seeking monetary damages in this case, so what do her prior actions have to do with whether or not her son was touched improperly by a middle-aged man -- and first-class weirdo -- who openly admits to sharing his bed with little boys? In other words, if she's out for money what was her motive in this case...where a guilty verdict would've sent Michael Jackson to prison, not the bank?

Any "decent" jury would've separated the two like I just did and given the proper amount of consideration to the evidence offered against Mr. Jackson. They very well may have done that...I don't know...I wasn't there. Many people can be easily duped and persuaded by smooth-talking defense attornies who attempt to shift the focus away from the defendants and onto the accusers. I'm not one of those people.



Boo-Boo...

...as always!

[Aba21]

You speak as if you talked to the jurors in the Oj case. How do you know what they were thinking. I don't even care about all that you presented cause you are right. Tell me why he got off. Tell me why Michael got off. It ain't just cause he was a celebrity. However, while we are on this subject, for years there was never a black man rich enough to go through the judicial system and hang in there long enough to do what white businessmen and white celebrities do all the time. Now all of a sudden a few black people beat the system and its a travesty of justice., I see you didn't mention Robert Blake or Phil Spector...........why the hell are they walking the street and why aren't you mentioning their names in the same sentence. It isn't all about race here............its about money. It always has been about money and prestige. And while I sympathize with what happened to the truck driver in LA, I see that same s&$@ happen to black men everyday here in NYC and you just don't see it or hear about it. It probably affected you the same way watching what happened to Rodney King affected me. I can drive accross the George Washington Bridge with a shirt and tie on and never be stopped once....let me turn my hat to the back and turn up my music and I'm as good as stopped and searched. You tell me.

A young aspiring white actress was shot down the street from my club in a botched robbery. The NYC police spent all their resources trying to find the killer because her family had money. Yet a young black college student was beaten and killed around the same time and I haven't heard a word since. Do you feel the same about what happens to those men? Every time a crime is commited against someone with money they round up all the black men they can find. But again this isn't about race, I don't care about whether he was black or white, innocent or guilty............doesn't affect my life one bit. I'm just saying don't stand up on the pulpit cause possibly another rich black man beat the system. Now its a travesty of justice? Your arguments about the evidence are absolutely correct and I agree with them in both cases. So without knowing what the jurors were thinking.....how did Michael get off? Somebody screwed up somewhere. Obviously the prosecution's case was not what it should/could have been and the jury couldn't convict. And sometimes people can be duped by smooth talking prosecution attorneys as well!!! ;D ;D

The real Golden Rule: He who has the gold....makes the rules!!!!

[jusme]

I'm feeling you on that Aba...

[Beej]

So much to answer...


This one I have to address first, though...

"I'm just saying don't stand up on the pulpit cause possibly another rich black man beat the system."

I'll take the high road and assume that was a general statement...not one specifically directed at me.

I don't know what kind of white folks you're used to dealing with, ABA, but I don't personally know ANYONE who viewed either case from that perspective. A lot of things come to mind when I think of OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson...and "rich black man" isn't one of them. Maybe you see the world in those terms...I don't. What gets me is you say, "...this isn't about race...," and then proceed to make it all about race. I mean, you stated justice (or lack thereof) is ultimately a matter of wealth -- and I agree -- so why is it necessary to then cast aspersions about the motives of people who might disagree with the verdicts?

What you're basically saying is if OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were white, we (white people) wouldn't complain as much...if at all...that it's only an issue because two black celebrities might have gotten away with something. That, my friend, is a steaming heap of crap.

What sets OJ's case apart isn't that he's black; it's that we actually watched the trial with our own eyes. We watched the proceedings from the comfort of our livingrooms day in and day out. We essentially became part of it. We saw all the evidence against him, KNEW he was guilty as hell and then watched in disbelief as a jury completely disregarded the state's case and set him free. THAT'S where the hostility comes from...OJ, himself, is almost a sidenote to the story at this point. I don't give a rat's hairy ass that the man's black. We could be talking about Donald Trump instead and I'd feel the same way. The anger comes from the JURY's inability/unwillingness to look at the evidence objectively and return the proper verdict.

It hits a nerve because it's something that a lot of us see from the time we're little...certain people in the community, in school, in sports, etc., always get special privileges because of who they are, who they know or how much money they have. It's not that we want those same privileges; we just want those people to be held accountable when they do something wrong. No one should be above the law.



"However, while we are on this subject, for years there was never a black man rich enough to go through the judicial system and hang in there long enough to do what white businessmen and white celebrities do all the time. Now all of a sudden a few black people beat the system and its a travesty of justice."

Again, it's not about "rich black men." It's about people of privilege getting away with criminal behavior or buying their way out of trouble.

You might find this shocking, ABA, but we white folks don't root for one another or cheer when one of the wealthy ones gets away with something. Those same wealthy, powerful white celebrities and businessmen you're talking about piss us off, too. And trust me, they'd take advantage of me just as fast as they'd take advantage of you. So, yes, when a Leona Helmsley or a Martha Stewart or a Dennis Kozlowski gets indicted, convicted and sentenced, it brings a smile to our faces, too, because it's an indication that someone out there cares about the rule of law enough to hold these privileged people accountable like the rest of us. When they get away with it, we're not happy, either. This isn't a black/white issue...it's a haves/have nots issue. In OJ's case, it wasn't his skin color that made us mad...it was the overwhelming evidence and the viciousness and brutality of the crimes that made the verdict unbearable to accept.

And before you make any other disparaging inferences along racial lines, you might consider a few things: Did you see white people take to the streets, burn cars or loot stores when the OJ verdict was announced? Nope. When the Reginald Denny verdict was announced? Nope. Did you see crowds of white folks celebrating and high-fiving after the Rodney King verdict? Nope. After the Robert Blake verdict? Nope.

So, I'm not sure where you're getting this notion from -- and I don't know what your life experience is, ABA -- but if the way you just summarized the "white" reaction to the OJ verdict is any indication of how you view white people in general, that's a pretty sad commentary.



"You speak as if you talked to the jurors in the Oj case. How do you know what they were thinking."

You don't have to be a mind-reader, ABA. All you have to do is listen to what they said afterward...

"[Detective Mark Fuhrman] was a snake.... He sort of looked like a Ku Klux Klan or a skinhead with hair.... When I heard those things about the n-word, it was like a hot flash hit me." - Armanda Cooley, Jury Foreman

"I remember thinking [ADA, Christopher Darden] was there as a token because the jury was predominantly black. I thought the prosecution felt they needed this particular balance. To me, this was the first 'race card,' as it has come to be called, and it was played by the prosecution. It didn't fool me, and it didn't fool a lot of other people on the jury either." - Armanda Cooley, Jury Foreman

"Fuhrman was the trial. Fuhrman found the hat. Fuhrman found the glove. Fuhrman found the blood. Fuhrman went over the gate. Fuhrman did everything. When you throw it out, what case do you have? You've got reasonable doubt right before you even get to the criminalists." - Cassie Bess, Juror (sidenote: Fuhrman did not find the hat and only located one glove and the blood on the Bronco...not that she noticed.)

"Those gloves fit. He wasn't putting them on right." - Cassie Bess, Juror

"Sure, you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as [OJ] stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody." - Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Juror

"A few jurors truly believed that Detective Fuhrman had planted evidence." - Armanda Cooley, Jury Foreman

"I don't put it past Fuhrman picking up all that stuff out there. . . .1 don't put it past [lead detective Philip] Vannatter trying to help-him." - Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Juror

Juror Lionel Cryer, a former Black Panther, drew criticism for flashing OJ the "Black Power" fist after the verdict was read. The two whites on the jury, Annie Backman and Anise Aschenbach, cast the only two guilty votes in the initial deliberations. Backman was 23 at the time and hinted afterward that although she still thought he was guilty, she felt intimidated by the other jurors and protestors outside the courthouse and just wanted to go home.

In my book, that's even more disgraceful. Way to take your job seriously, Annie!

So, rather than consider the actual evidence in the trial, we had jurors speculating about racist cops. Nice...real nice. Mind you, there was no evidence offered to support the notion that anybody planted anything...just jurors with their own agenda. If they had put half as much effort into objectively reviewing the evidence against Mr. Simpson, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It didn't matter that the whole LAPD "frame-up" conspiracy made no sense -- and wasn't supported by the evidence -- they had their minds made up that Mark Fuhrman was a racist and OJ wasn't going to jail.



"I see you didn't mention Robert Blake or Phil Spector...........why the hell are they walking the street and why aren't you mentioning their names in the same sentence."

If you look earlier in this thread, ABA, you'll see I did refer to Robert Blake's verdict in the same derogatory manner as the OJ verdict. The reason OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were specifically mentioned in my last post is because I was replying to YOUR comments about the prosecution's case in the OJ trial...in a thread about Michael Jackson. Call me crazy, but I do my best to stick to what's being discussed.

If you now want to talk about the Blake case, be my guest. I'd have to research the details a bit, but my gut reaction is that he got away with murder (or, at least, conspiracy to commit), too. Phil Spector's trial won't even begin until later this year, so it's a non-issue.



Lastly, with regard to your point about media coverage...you're absolutely right. If all you knew was what cable news programs broadcast, you'd think bad things only happen to attractive or wealthy white people. It's not that the general public doesn't care about anyone else; it's that the major media outlets only care about ratings. They don't think white people care about black on black crime or will tune in to keep tabs on missing black children unless there's a sensational angle they can exploit. That's just the awful truth.

Thousands of kids go missing over the course of one week...they're not all cute or white. Husbands kill their pregnant wives everyday in America...but they're not all attractive like Laci and Scott Peterson. It's like this girl missing in Aruba right now. I have my own thoughts about what happened -- and I fear wealth and influence are at play there, too -- but it's not like she's the ONLY person who's disappeared in the past three weeks! I feel bad for her family, but there are a lot of other families who will go to bed tonight not knowing if their kids are alive or dead...and they're not all white.


It's America. Money talks. It ain't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

[Aba21]

Thank you for your comments, Beej. I do not in any way mean to turn this into a racial commentary. But the reality is, I have lived most of the civil rights movement and while I do not try to justify burning and looting, I can understand why It happened. I wouldn't expect you to loot and burn because you are the "voice" and have the "ear" of AMerica, we don't. Problem is we don't burn and loot your neighborhood, we burn our own which doesn't make sense to me. I am not justifying it, just telling you why it happens.

I, myself get along with all people of all races. But I refuse to let people try to make me think we all get the same fair shake, because we don't. My education taught me to understand the differences but many people of my color do not have as much education as I do. I am the first and only in my family to graduate from college. I can only imagine that because of economics, that figure is about right all over. And had I not had a special skill, I may not have gotten one myself. There was no reason to think as a kid that I was going to college. Problem is that is still pretty much the case today for many young blacks.

It is good to hear you admit you are outraged at the same crimes committed by white people. "I" have personally never heard many say it for "my" public consumption. And that is only because that I may not have as much contact with white folks after business hours as you probably don't have as much with blacks after business hours. Discussions you may have at work are different than those you have in your own social circle.

I agree as well that I would not want to be any place else but here in AMerica. Having lived abroad for a while has shown me this is the best place in the world to live. Having friends of all races, I try to give them a perspective on what is is like to live the way black people have to live everyday in this country, and it surprises them that many of the things we deal with, you don't even have to think aobut. Its so subtle that it would be impossible for you to see it. If I offended you I apologize....not what I wanted to do. FOr me, these things only seem to surface in situations like these trials. If people were not afraid to talk about these things more openly with out needing the aid of some spectacular trial to do so, we would have a much better understanding of each other, trust me on that. I do think we are heading in that direction as people and that the line of difference between people is becoming a little blurred thank God.

Fact is, before these crimes, blacks in general had very little use for OJ or Michael. They only became "black" when charged with a crime. I didn't want OJ to be guilty because he was a "fraternity bother" in the world of sports and I couldn't imagine someone having played sports and made the kind of money he did to be unhappy enough in his life to kill someone. He could have just about any woman he wanted, white or black, so why kill one?

The people charged in these high profile crimes are really not the center of attention anyway. It is the makeup and fabric of our country that is put on trial. You find out so much about people you work with and around just through watching something like this. Yes we all watched the OJ trial on Tv...so why do so many of us see it differently? ;D ;D

You have every right to feel anyway you want about the verdict and every right to express it, even if I may disagree with some of it. I guess there is still some sensitivity when race is discussed in this country, you think? It is what makes us the people and the America we live in today. Things are much better than they were. But we still have a hell of a long way to go. And I don't see how conversations like this one can't help, as long as we don't take it personally.

[MissTara]

aba21 said:

And I don't see how conversations like this one can't help, as long as we don't take it personally.

They NEVER help anymore Aba! It ALWAYS turns into something personal! It may not be a personal slam on you, but believe me, I've plead the 5th on this subject for a reason.

[Aba21]

I want to clarify something on the "ear" and the "voice" of America. As a race, African-Americans know a hell of lot more about white people than they do about us. We were taught the right thing to do is to be like you...live like you............work like you..................buy a house in the suburbs and change our lives for the better. So we study you and how you live................move to your neighborhood and are told we are not wanted. You don't study me...don't aspire to be me.......don't want to be me....don't want to live where I live.......don't want the jobs most of us have. Therefore we are not a threat to your happiness. That's just the way of the world. Most of you can go through life and never have to deal with one of us except in a public place like a store or a game somewhere. Not us............almost everything we get...............we get from you.......we shop at your stores.......got to your stadiums...your concert venues...buy our homes, our cars from you. This is not a complaint but a fact of life. So it is different for us.......................and that difference makes all the difference in the world in our thinking. You control the economics...therefore some believe you contol the judicial and government and well. That plays into how we view these court procedings.

[Aba21]

misstara said:

aba21 said:

And I don't see how conversations like this one can't help, as long as we don't take it personally.

They NEVER help anymore Aba! It ALWAYS turns into something personal! It may not be a personal slam on you, but believe me, I've plead the 5th on this subject for a reason.

I guess you have to consider the source!!!!! ;D ;D

[MissTara]

I guess you have to consider the source!!!!! ;D ;D

Oh no you didn't!

[tabby]

((Beej)) I agree with Aba here. See, in the OJ trial money was a big issue. The prosecution even stooped so low to talk about his defense team as the "Dream Team" implying that only the rich can aford such a team. The papers were full of allusions to whether he could "buy" himself an acquittal or not. In y opinion, "black and rich" still does not sit well with the American society in general.

[MissTara]

Grams, I see what you all including Aba is saying. But being black, rich and in trouble doesn't sit well with me. Let me explain why. Personally, I couldn't care less what color your skin is, the fact is, black people DO get in more trouble over the stupidest crap I have ever heard of in my life. BUT, at the same time, if it were a serious offense like OJ, and MJ's they are sitting pretty in the "not guilty" section. I think this happens mainly because if they were to be found guilty, there would be a racial outrage among many a people. Meaning, if they were found guilty by a jury with 50% or more whites, everyone would say "It's because he/she is black"