On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:00:57 GMT, in rec.food.cooking, Curly Sue wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:22:53 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>>I wasn't a juror who was presented with all the evidence and testimony
>>available and neither were you, but I've thought all along that
>>Jackson isn't guilty as this prosecutor has presented the charges.
>>From what I can infer, he is likely asexual and so disconnected with
>>reality, so unable to exercise good judgment that he really thinks he
>>can be playmates with these kids. The bit where he said - and proudly
>>- in a national interview that he slept platonically with the boys
>>was more or less a "tell," as they say in gambling, for me. He
>>actually sees no problem with an adult male sleeping with juvenile
>>males b/c he's just "one of the boys" himself with no sexual agenda.
>>And he *has* no sexual agenda b/c he is asexual, IMHO.
>
>But there's the pornography...

Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual pornography with no children in it.
No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
appear to be interested in homosexual porn.

Given that to convict a juror has to accept the prosecution's evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt -- pretty hard to do in this case, the acquittal
sounds very very justified.

The guy is weird, very very childish probably, very different from a
normal person - obviously. And he put himself in a position where such
claims were inevitable. But you can't convict someone for that.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk