Judge in Jackson Case to Release Statement

Associate Press ^ | 8 June 2005 | LINDA DEUTSCH

[TheOtherOne]

I can't remember I have LaToya and Michael at the same time. I think they have been sharing a body for years.

[Kewz1]

So no statement yet?

[TheOtherOne]

It was a big nothing. Jackson's attorney did not authorize the press person to speak, so he wasn't violating any gag order. That's all.

[A CA Guy]

There was a brief statement:


"Will someone please go out and buy two tickets each for all jury members for tonight's 44 million dollar lottery. We are busy doing the people's business and want a chance to be able to afford Jackson's estate when we are through with him and this case. Signed, the Impartial Jury."

[Kewz1]

Thanks!

I scanned the thread but obviously not close enough.

I'm surprised they only wanted two tix. They should have gone for at least 5. ; )

[TheOtherOne]

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"So, basically, you are saying that anyone could molest those children and get away with it because of their mother?"

Oh, yeah, certainly, that's exactly what I was saying.

Really, now. The kid himself has made contradictory statements, not least on national television. The mother is an established grifter, scam artist and loon. The family has a record of shakedowns and perjury. There is no physical evidence. It boils down to: Jacko's wierd and represents a severe case of arrested development. He likes to play Mr. Charity, and likes to have sleepovers with boys. The molestation case dealing with this particular boy may be reasonably doubted, or even dismissed because of the conduct of the family, especially the mother. The conspiracy portion of the case is simply laughable and does serious harm to the molestation portion.

[sharktrager]

You stated the mother alone is reasonable doubt. Therefore, no matter what else happens, in your opinion, a molester of these children could not be convicted.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

It would be very hard to get a conviction given the mother's antics and history. Or, it should be.

This bears all the hallmarks of a shakedown. None of us are safe when someone like her can succeed in making accusations of this sort. She has beyond zero credibility... negative credibility, in fact: the truth tends to exist 180 degrees from what she says. She shook down J.C. Penney and she defrauded the welfare agencies and made a habit of taking celebrities for a ride; she was caught in several whoppers on the stand and took the Fifth regarding the welfare situation. She's bad news and her word is a stain.

Any jury has to consider the credibility of the accusers. For this particular child, and substantially due to the mother, I have reasonable doubts that Jacko did what was alleged, and so (IMHO) should the jury. The cops simply picked the wrong horse to ride for this criminal case. In the broader sense, quite possibly he's a molester, but that's not what's being tried.

At this point it seems quite possible that a conviction will emerge. And that, in my opinion based on what I've seen in published reports of the trial, is a dangerous thing.

[somerville]

I think they did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the strength of the testimony of prior victims.

Also, the mother isn't getting money from this trial. And it all comes down to her son's word, not hers. She is not on trial here.

The top notch defense lawyers I"ve seen on TV- Geoffrey Feiger, Robert Shapiro and others say that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. "If this were anyone but Michael Jackson, the jury would have convicted him in a second," says Feiger.

[somerville]

Yes, and let's say they were watching a non-news show like Letterman or Leno. And those two have been making a lot of jokes about the case. It seems like it would be impossible to avoid hearing/seeing something about it.

[somerville]

Are you working for the Jackson family, by chance ?

As for "no physical evidence", there is very seldom "physical evidence" in child molestation cases. How could there be physical evidence of Jackson masturbating a kid ?

Child predators never just molest one kid. It's a compulsion and temptation. As one detective who dealt in such cases told me, "They always say they can't stop." It is ludicrous to think that Jackson would keep his hands off this one particular boy when he did it to many others - some of whom were not mentioned in the trial. Also, the boy- without knowledge of previous boys' testimony had very similar descriptions of Jackson's m.o.

Also, predators always prey on weak and unstable families. One of Jackson's former employees is coming out with a book that says Jackson has an uncanny radar for picking out unstable families to prey on. As for the mother, she's not on trial here. It's the boy's word against Jackson's.

[freebird5850]

One of you photoshop jockies needs to construct a MJ without a wig and makeup.

[somerville]

I can't do a photo with MJ without wig and makeup. However, someone posted a pic of how he would have looked now without the plastic surgery and skin bleaching. He would have looked like his father !

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Are you working for the Jackson family, by chance?"

I was waiting for that. Your posts have taken on an increasingly shrill ad-hominem tone, and such a jab was inevitable.

No, I'm not. But I have a low tolerance for shakedown artists, and in this case such behavior (up to and including the farcical conspiracy charges) adds up to reasonable doubt, or should.

As to the canard that the mother is not getting money from this trial: well of course not, it's a criminal not civil trial; you seem to think I'm an idiot as well as a Jackson employee! A civil trial will follow, just as surely as it did for OJ.

As to "knowledge of previous boys' testimony", let's face it, the whole world knows about previous boys' claims, in lurid detail. Meanwhile the current child just happens to have attributed identical quotations to Jackson and his grandmother, among other suspicious testimony. Not impressive.

The price of reasonable doubt as the burden of proof is that guilty individuals sometimes go free. I'm not arguing that Jackson deserves to, but I am arguing that the cops chose the wrong horse to ride into this criminal trial. Your long laundry-list of legal luminaries notwithstanding, to my eye as an outsider reading published reports, the jury should not convict. Of course, I fully admit that someone sitting in the jury box might well have a different perspective than someone sitting in their easy chair watching the show from afar.