• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Jacko verdict

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
tibor75 said:
Great news for American jurisprudence. The prosecution fucked up the case just as they fucked up OJ's prosecution. He deserved to go free. It doesn't matter if you do the crime or not. It just matters if your lawyer is better than the DA.
Click to expand...

Right. Doesn't matter if actual justice is served, i.e. those who are guilty get convicted, but rather it's more important that rules are followed to the letter or that the rich sick fucks get to go free because they can hire the very best defense and can manipulate the press. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
What a smooth criminal!!!



pic2.jpg
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Right. Doesn't matter if actual justice is served, i.e. those who are guilty get convicted, but rather it's more important that rules are followed to the letter or that the rich sick fucks get to go free because they can hire the very best defense and can manipulate the press. :roll1:
Click to expand...

So, people should be convicted on the basis of weak and conflicting testimony by unreliable witnesses? How comforting for the general public. :roll1:
 
Upvote 0
So media reports say that one person released doves to celebrate outside the courtroom, and another held a sign that said "Michael, on behalf of all mankind, we're sorry".


OMFG...makes the people who camped out for 3 weeks waiting for Star Wars tickets look like James Bond by comparison.
 
Upvote 0
Been waiting for the Jacko(ff) verdict so I know how to manage my own behavior. If I understand the rules correctly it is OK to -

1. Invite young children into my home.
2. Invite them into my bed.
3. Sleep with them unchaperoned.
4. Make alcohol available to them in my home.
5. Make pornography available to them in my home.

So long as nobody can prove anything beyond that it is all good, right?
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
So, people should be convicted on the basis of weak and conflicting testimony by unreliable witnesses? How comforting for the general public. :roll1:
Click to expand...

People should be convicted on whether or not they're actually guilty, regardless of the make-up of the defense counsel.
 
Upvote 0
i was going to ponitificate, but instead i'll just call bullshit on the whole thing, and comment that in Cali, "Not Guilty" is exactly the outcome that i expected... they don't call it the land of fruits and nuts for no reason...

anyway, what does Jacko love about 29 year olds?









































there's 20 of 'em...
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch said:
Been waiting for the Jacko(ff) verdict so I know how to manage my own behavior. If I understand the rules correctly it is OK to -

1. Invite young children into my home.
2. Invite them into my bed.
3. Sleep with them unchaperoned.
4. Make alcohol available to them in my home.
5. Make pornography available to them in my home.

So long as nobody can prove anything beyond that it is all good, right?
Click to expand...
excellent.....now all i need is carly pattersons phone number.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
People should be convicted on whether or not they're actually guilty, regardless of the make-up of the defense counsel.
Click to expand...
Who is to say if someone is guilty? You have trials for that exact reason. If they have solid evidence then the person goes to jail if its flimsy evidence they don't. As for this case, I think he probally did do innappropriate things with children, but unfortunatly the prosecution had the wrong family.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top