Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Lots of physical evidence of the crime in that case . . . blood, shoes, the famous glove, etc. Motive, opportunity, presence, etc. Classic circumstantial murder case. The jury rejected physical evidence on the basis of a crackpot theory and the "N" word.
The real problem of course was the DA's ridiculous stipulation to a change of venue to central LA. He lost the case right there. Sending two lightweights in to try it didn't help, he needed a couple of cagey old senior ADAs with a cumulative 50 years or so of trial experience. The trial judge was also a stagestruck idiot. Very bad rulings from the bench and total failure to control his courtroom. That combination of bad decisions led to an acquittal despite the evidence.
This case on the other hand was a classic "he said, she said" with no physical evidence of the alleged act itself. (The books, paintings, photos, other settlements and all the rest of it are not evidence of THIS alleged crime.) The only relevant evidence was the testimony of the parties, and that is one hundred percent a credibility issue. If the jury weighed the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and found it wanting, then under the law given to them they have a duty to acquit.
...or Anjelica Huston
I did not say that nude little boys are the equivalent of the Coppertone girl . . . the point is that child nudity is along a continuum from art or harmless family snaps to frank pornography, but if you put it within a prosecutor's discretion to use child nudity as evidence of molestation, ALL nudity will become evidence of molestation, no matter how innocent its original intent.
While you may be convinced that ol' Michael is factually guilty (and I don't disagree with you, I think it's very likely), the safeguards are there to prevent prosecutors from using you and me to get another notch in their gun. If DAs are allowed to take your pics of your babies in the bathtub before a jury as evidence of molestation, some of them will do so with glee, just to get a conviction.
"I am a lawyer (scary admission there)."
You sound like one of the good ones. And I don't think there are many who care about anything but the $. And that is based on personal experiences by me and others. They all seem to know each other and they make deals with each other or watch one anothers back more often than they seek truth or justice for there client. But there are some good lawyers out there(I have not personaly found one around here). And judging from what you write...I would be willing to bet that you are one of them.
No, not really. I just get frustrated when people complain about California. Most of them think that we all live in La La land. Trust me, most of us live normal everyday middle America lives.
Good point... After seeing the jurors speak, I thought it was a random selection of audience members from the Oprah show. The culture of weakness marches on.
There are good lawyers out there, but they are getting harder and harder to find. Most of us think that the system has changed for the worse over the last 10-20 years. Too many folks getting into the field as you say for the $$$, instead of out of family tradition/love for the law/ seeking justice, all the reasons that folks used to become lawyers when it wasn't a big lottery jackpot if you won a big case.
I come from a family of lawyers. My dad was admitted to the bar in 1949 and tried cases for 50 years before finally retiring for some well-deserved fishing time. But he says he's glad he's retired, because things aren't like they were when he was a young lawyer. Shoot, they aren't even like they were when I was a young lawyer.
They got him dead to rights, though.
No way I'm taking on a lawyer, I didn't even go to college, but I do think you have to use common sense in what is the difference between a family picture of a baby in a bathtub compared to a line of naked preteen boys bent over with their bottoms to the camera. I don't think all nudity will become evidence of molestation, if common sense were used.
But I know, we aren't talking about right and wrong here, we're talking about the law.
I think snedden was blinded by his zelousness.
Jackson may have done the molesting in other situations, but this specific one came across as a con job using michael's past as an attack point.
Since this was the only case before him this was the only case the jury could decide.
The DA dropped the ball before the first juror was selected. Snedden showed he had a weak case because he had to resort to press conference games and leftist gestapo portrayals of executing his valid search warrents.
I believe it was not a portrayal as a grifter, she was proven to be a grifter because the jury voted the way it did.
In the end Snedden had snedden done nothing it would have not stopped the steady decline of MJ. Snedden has now done more to rehabilitate Jackson's career than any other stunt. That has to really bug him.
154,937+ views
wow! is this a fr record
I can't even get 500 for a pro-life thread.
A: Whitey isn't going to get our guy.
Of course you're right.
I think the original 9-11 post had more, and even some election posts, but this is close!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.