I meant that I didn't follow the trial in detail.

I meant that I didn't follow the trial in detail.
Re: I am curious -- skibummer	Post Reply		Forum

Posted by: tatiana
06/15/2005, 10:41:47

(About author)

Edit

It's pretty hard to be alive on the planet and not know the basic facts of the Jackson trial.

In Michael Jackson, I recognize a type that I know too well. Rich, exploitative, predatory, careless, beyond kooky. Of course, anything is possible. He could be innocent, but he fits the part so perfectly.

Since I didn't follow the details of the trial, I admit that the quacking duck may indeed be a hippopotamus with feathers (Excuse the DWAism. Where is he anyway?). I may have jumped to unfair conclusions, but I somehow doubt it. I think the verdict was created by high priced lawyers' twisting the truth.

I believe in the jury system, but not in the Hollywood lawyer system.

Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert

Previous | Next | Current page

Followups

Re: I meant that I didn't follow the trial in detail. --- skibummer ( 15-06-2005 ) ( 648 bytes ) +1
- I said "basic facts" and you answered as if I had said "facts" --- tatiana ( 16-06-2005 ) ( 842 bytes ) +2
  - Is this important? --- Julie D. ( 16-06-2005 ) ( 1396 bytes ) link +1
    - Is it important the ski learn what circular logic is? Could improve things here. --- tatiana ( 17-06-2005 ) ( 1043 bytes ) +2
      - Maybe. --- Julie D. ( 17-06-2005 ) ( 1520 bytes )
      - Tsk Tsk --- skibummer ( 17-06-2005 ) ( 690 bytes ) +1
        
        Passionate cirucular arguments --- DWA ( 18-06-2005 ) ( 1111 bytes ) +1
        
        Too too funny --- skibummer ( 18-06-2005 ) ( 219 bytes )
  - I know what you said it is there for all to see after all. --- skibummer ( 17-06-2005 ) ( 1896 bytes )