The same court system that MANY people believe is unfair or unreliable. That doesn't mean they are always wrong. Don't many people - -including MJ fans - - believe Casey Anthony and OJ got off? What about Zimmerman.
Does that mean that these people never believe any verdict? I think not. so, I guess they are all hypocrites, as well, then?
It's hypocritical for me to support specific vedicts but also believe that the justice system is nonetheless unreliable and unfair? I'm honestly surprised MJ was acquitted. I never said the system works, anyway! It just did in that instance, by the grace of God.
first of all it's not really appropriate to make blanket statements about "many" people. There are probably equally same amount of people that believes the system works.
Every single person looks to those high profile cases and come to a personal opinion about what the verdict should be. But public are different from jurors. While public can operate on a really wide base, jurors operate within the limitation of evidence presented, the law and the jury instructions. So that means for example a member of public can know in their gut that a person is guilty but a jury needs to look to the facts, laws, rules and come to a conclusion without reasonable doubt / more than likely setting.
So you, me and everyone else do have the choice to agree or disagree with any verdict but just because you or anyone disagrees doesn't mean that the verdict is wrong.
Let's talk about your examples.
OJ Simpson's defense is actually taught in law schools as one the best examples of defense / reasonable doubt. "If it(glove) doesn't fit, you must acquit," was the mantra. In the end the glove did not fit and it created the reasonable doubt.
Same goes to Casey Anthony, while no one had any questions about the body was disposed, there was reasonable doubt about how the death occurred. Drowning defense might not be the truth but it brought a reasonable doubt. Similarly if you followed Zimmerman's case there were a lot of witnesses with conflicting testimonies about who was on top during the fight, and that equals reasonable doubt.
So while we might not agree with those verdicts, we really cannot say that the jury got it wrong. The law clearly states "without reasonable doubt" and they had doubt. It means they followed the law.
Another difference between public and the jurors is that, public use emotion while American jurors are notoriously known for their non emotional approaches to verdicts. All of the above examples - which included brutal and/or sensitive deaths, emotions wasn't a part of the jury's verdict.
Some people criticized me for my emotionless approach to this (and any other ) trial but that's the way it should be if you are truly trying to understand the law and the case and if you truly want to prepare yourself for the verdict.
For example Randy Phillips's "I slapped him". While it was highly emotional information and while it without doubt proved that AEG execs are douchebags, it was highly irrelevant to the verdict form as well as the jury instructions. How many people on this thread said "AEG should be held liable because of the way they treated Michael"? Yes AEG did not treat Michael in a nice way but it was mainly irrelevant to the case and questions in this case (was AEG negligent in hiring Murray) but some people fell to that emotional trap. At the end it did not matter to the jury.
In this instance we are given a really detailed explanation to the jury's verdict and regardless of whether we agree or not, they gave a reasonable explanation. I typed 2 interviews with the jury foreman, I recommend everyone to read those.
For question 1 "did AEG hired Murray", they said they did not believe there was a written contract but they believed oral and/or implied contract was satisfied. some believed Murray was hired by both AEG and Michael but the instructions told them to say "yes" to that question if they believed dual hiring.
Question 2: depended on their understanding of "work he was hired for" which the jury said was to be a general practitioner. They determined fit and competent based on education, licenses and complaints. It's apparent that they did not believe debts or conflict of interest to be a factor in determining fit or competence. Which makes sense if you realize that there are a lot of Americans - probably jurors too- who have debts but still good citizens. I also don't believe there was any confusion in that question. Their first vote was 12 to 0 saying no. So they were leaning towards that answer strongly from the start. As the jury foreman said they probably realized the significance of their decision and wanted to discuss it further.
Now as the forbes and even Alan Duke - who happens to be extremely pro-Jackson- realized and wrote, it's also clear that it wouldn't make any difference if these jurors said yes to question 2.
Question 3 was the negligent hiring question and if you read the instructions you will see that it would require "AEG known or should have known". Foreman stated there wasn't a single evidence presented, juror 9 said AEg did not know what was going on and was kept in the dark. It's apparent that their answer to question 3 would most probably be "no". Furthermore Juror 9 called Michael an addict, and said he got his way, would probably replace Murray if he didn't give him what we wanted. Foreman was a lot nicer but also mentioned Michael had a problem with drugs and with spending. All of which suggests the jury would likely to place high levels of responsibility on Michael's actions and award not so much money in the billions. Which also in line with the American thinking of everyone is the master of their own destiny - good or bad.
So as far as I'm concerned, everyone is free to agree or disagree with the verdict but the jurors have given us a pretty clear picture of their reasoning and how the verdict will happen regardless of question 2. and honestly regardless of whether we agree or disagree with any verdict, there's not much to do but to accept it. Sure jacksons can pursue an appeal but unless there's a legal error nothing will change. Chances of an appeal being successful is in 20-25% range. It's a possibility but I wouldn't count on it or spend years waiting for it to make any difference.
My comment about "hypocritical" is the approach of after 2005 verdict fans saying "justice is served" and today saying "justice is not served". In my mind you either believe the system works or you don't. You can't really be selective and say system works when there's a verdict you agree with and say the system doesn't work when there's a verdict you don't agree with. (note: by you, I don't mean you personally. I'm using it in the general sense)
Conversely that system accused Michael falsely. Twice.
no people accused Michael, system acted on the accusations and correctly cleared Michael.
Again, who is to say the judge will not support an appeal? This verdict gave Wass hope and I will simply say I have seen stranger things happen on appeal, that cannot be denied.
Judge might support an appeal (although chances aren't that high) but I'm 99.9% sure that if they support the appeal it won't have anything to do with a civil jury saying Murray was competent. Civil and criminal trials are two separate worlds and that's a fact.
It would be grand if posters would stop suggesting others do not understand a concept simply because they do not agree.
I don't see this specific example as "because they don't agree". Verdict on civil courts has no effect on criminal courts. It's a fact, it's not something we can agree or disagree on - unless we are ignoring the law.
......and nor does it make them able to figure out what's going on in MJ's bedroom at night....
