100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Jordan Chandler lied??? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation.....  Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
 MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things.  How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty.  Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
No and neither did the courts from what I recall. As I recall it they found insufficient evidence. That does not prove he is not guilty, only means they're wasn't enough info to make a determination. If you have something that says other wise I'll look. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaveyB
on
Tue 06/30/09 01:46 PM
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Civil action was averted because there was agreement reached. If they had filed a civil suit such action is not considered double jeopardy because double jeopardy only applies to criminal law not civil law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
No and neither did the courts from what I recall. As I recall it they found insufficient evidence. That does not prove he is not guilty, only means they're wasn't enough info to make a determination. If you have something that says other wise I'll look.  I watched the verdict live on tv. He was not guilty on all counts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MirrorMirror
on
Tue 06/30/09 01:42 PM
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Civil action was averted because there was agreement reached The boy and his familys story fell apart on the stand in court
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo The boys story fell apart on the witness stand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Civil action was averted because there was agreement reached yes i know that but it should not have been permited to begin with o j was not averted he was not guilty as well still say if not guilty in state case civil case should not be permitted to move forward |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
civil and criminal courts are different. one can be found not guilty in criminal but found liable in civil. the settlement came from not proceeding with the civil trial
a not guilty verdict does not mean innocent. someone can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. that doesn't mean they are innocent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Civil action was averted because there was agreement reached yes i know that but it should not have been permited to begin with o j was not averted he was not guilty as well still say if not guilty in state case civil case should not be permitted to move forward No, civil action was averted because the boys story fell apart in court!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
civil and criminal courts are different. one can be found not guilty in criminal but found liable in civil. the settlement came from not proceeding with the civil trial a not guilty verdict does not mean innocent. someone can be found not guilty by reason of insanity. that doesn't mean they are innocent that is true but if a trial goes thru all phases and now defense saying i did it but was used then they should not be permitted to move into a civil action i know they can but i feel it is wrong and a form of double jeopardy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 OJ was found 'not guilty' of murder,but most of us know he did it,and now he's where he should be. Wacko Jacko was found 'not guilty' but is probably paying for his sins in the next life. justice will catch up with the guilty,either in this life or (let's hope) the next. be seeing you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Just re-read and realized there is another issue here... If they had filed a civil suit such action is not considered double jeopardy because double jeopardy only applies to criminal law not civil law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Just re-read and realized there is another issue here... If they had filed a civil suit such action is not considered double jeopardy because double jeopardy only applies to criminal law not civil law. The boy was shown to be lying in court
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
No and neither did the courts from what I recall. As I recall it they found insufficient evidence. That does not prove he is not guilty, only means they're wasn't enough info to make a determination. If you have something that says other wise I'll look. I watched the verdict live on tv. He was not guilty on all counts
Sorry I am not making this clear enough for you. The only verdicts available to the jurors in this case was guilty or not guilty. Interviews I heard said only that jurors felt the prosecution had not proven their case, not that they all were convinced MJ had not committed the crime. Remember "innocent till proven guilty", MJ was not required to prove he was not guilty and did not... and in all fairness could not. Only two who will ever know for sure if MJ and the boy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ was found 'not guilty' of murder,but most of us know he did it,and now he's where he should be. Wacko Jacko was found 'not guilty' but is probably paying for his sins in the next life. justice will catch up with the guilty,either in this life or (let's hope) the next. be seeing you
But the boy was shown to be lying in court
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
No and neither did the courts from what I recall. As I recall it they found insufficient evidence. That does not prove he is not guilty, only means they're wasn't enough info to make a determination. If you have something that says other wise I'll look. I watched the verdict live on tv. He was not guilty on all counts
Sorry I am not making this clear enough for you. The only verdicts available to the jurors in this case was guilty or not guilty. Interviews I heard said only that jurors felt the prosecution had not proven their case, not that they all were convinced MJ had not committed the crime. Remember "innocent till proven guilty", MJ was not required to prove he was not guilty and did not... and in all fairness could not. Only two who will ever know for sure if MJ and the boy. But you admit that the verdict was "not guilty"? and you realize that the boys story fell apart on the witness stand? That's why no civil trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ was found 'not guilty' of murder,but most of us know he did it,and now he's where he should be. Wacko Jacko was found 'not guilty' but is probably paying for his sins in the next life. justice will catch up with the guilty,either in this life or (let's hope) the next. be seeing you
But the boy was shown to be lying in court
There is no need to keep repeating the facts that everyone is already aware of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANYWAYS...On with the conversation..... Yes, time to get on with the conversation.
MJ is innocent. End of discussion.
Innocent? not hardly. Not guilty perhaps, not proven guilty that would be correct. they are all distinctly different things. How so, DaveyB?
Being accused means a person did it?
No one is ever declared innocent under the law, because no man (human really) is innocent. They can be declared not guilty or not proven guilty (that can very state to state) but they cannot be declared innocent. The only that happened in court was that they found there was no enough evidence to prove him guilty (that's our so called innocent till proven guilty thing) He was not proven to be not guilty just not proven to be guilty. Do you admit then that MJ is not guilty of these accusations?
how can any one admit not guilty of anything one can say they feel that they did not do it but unless they were with one of the two in question at the time they do not know for sure either way tried and acquitted end of story or at least it should have been civil action should be considered double jeopardy imo Just re-read and realized there is another issue here... If they had filed a civil suit such action is not considered double jeopardy because double jeopardy only applies to criminal law not civil law. The boy was shown to be lying in court
Which would be a good reason to reach a settlement rather than Filing the civil suit. Still has nothing to do with double jeopardy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OJ was found 'not guilty' of murder,but most of us know he did it,and now he's where he should be. Wacko Jacko was found 'not guilty' but is probably paying for his sins in the next life. justice will catch up with the guilty,either in this life or (let's hope) the next. be seeing you
But the boy was shown to be lying in court
Yes, it was shown. Nobody could get their story straight. |
|
|
|
|
