Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
As I said, the wealthy defendant often skews the result.
But the rules aren't there for the occasional defendant with tons of money to burn. The rules are there for the average defendant, who has to stretch to hire a good lawyer and is facing the overwhelming resources of the State, courtesy of his own tax dollars.
Exceptions don't set the rules, and hard cases make bad law. If you allow evidence of soft core porn as proof of guilt of a specific act, you have opened the door to allow prosecutors to push the envelope. And they will, it's their nature, it's what they do.
And don't be so sure about baby in the bath pics . . . they HAVE been introduced in this state by vengeful ex-wives as evidence to "get" ex-husbands. (Did you know that when an estranged wife goes through the house and takes books and pictures, even at the "suggestion" of the prosecutor, there is no 4th amendment search and seizure issue, because SHE is not the police?) The Supreme Court here just ruled such evidence inadmissible, though, unless there is specific testimony to tie the particular pictures to the acts alleged. Which is a good thing.
What happened to Nancy Grace? She was so sure MJ would be guilty, then right when they said Not Guilty she went off air.
Imagine what a maniacal prosecutor like snedden does to the person without michael's cash. The Joe Average defendant IS royally screwed by the snedens who are more interested in their personal belt notches than justice.
Michael Jackson is a kid-toucher. Incarceration is the only way to end his 'decline'. Now that he's free to 'touch again', he will, and it's only a matter of time.
But that's not how the law works. Because the prosecutor sees his job as "getting that conviction", once any nudity becomes admissible it will ALL become admissible.
The logical thing to me seems to be to allow nudity if it can be tied in some way to the specific act. If the complaining witness in this case had been able to identify specific pictures or books that were shown to him, that would be a sensible and logical rule.
Unlike us meer normal females, it takes a long time for the freak to put on all that makeup.
I think those around Jackson are going to make damn sure nothing else ever risks their meal ticket.
Now every homo/pedophile group is going to demand some sort of INCREASED access to school children.
I would want a jury of all-white candy-ass guilt-ridden lefty's any day.
"Do you think it's normal for a grown man to have a book filled with pictures of naked little boys, in various poses?"
Depends on where he got the book and why he has it. Having the book, though, doesn't prove the charges in this case. I mean, if I were to go buy the book(s), should I automatically be guilty of the charges Jackson was charged?
Listen, jackson has some mental problems, no doubt. He is stuck in a 12 year old mindset and needs serious therapy, but that doesn't prove molestation.
"Well, you see, I'm not a trial lawyer any more! < g >"
You will be missed out there.
"He's even paid hush money, but continued to sleep with boys even after that. Some things we can conclude for ourselves, without the media."
Not without the facts. Hush money? We don't know that. Charges are filed on many innocent people, especially sexual charges, and the defendant settles. Judges are getting a bit tired of it. We don't know why Jackson settled and paid. If he actually committed the acts specified in the civil complaint, why wasn't there a criminal prosecution at that time?
"They had MASSIVE amounts of evidence there and it was ignored."
And that is the most significant diffference between these cases. OJ bought the shoes worn by the killer. OJ would fit the gloves if not for having shrunk from the dried blood. Blood stains, etc. Jeez, that was physical evidence badly handled by the idiot prosecutors.
In Jackson's case, the star witnesses have a history of false suits, lying, and tampering. Everything was circumstantial. "He has porno, so he's guilty".
God forbid should any child walk through an Army barracks where there is typically porno mags. Would every soldier be guilty of having molested the child if the mother gold digs?
I would love the discussion of this case to center on the facts presented as evidence. If someone wants to say Jackson is guilty, by all means present the evidence as presented in court. I'd be happy to discuss it and change my mind that I don't think he was guilty of molestation.
"No, he said they slept in the same BED.
Please."
Yes, slumber party. I slept with my best friend on many nights in the same bed growing up from the 5th grade to about the 7th. His mother would pull out the couch sleeper when I stayed over. Neither of us molested the other. I wonder how that can happen as we all know sleeping in the same bed is a sexual act, right?
"Wonder why there was a trial?"
Excellent question. Try: Over zealous prosecutor looking to make a name for himself. Backfired, didn't it? All "evidence" presented was unbelievable witnesses and weak circumstantial evidence.
Why else did we have a trial? Because we don't lynch people because we heard media sound bites that got us all emotional to convict someone.
That's just innocent Michael being a "loving" man who just happens to sleep with little boys who aren't his. /sarcasm
"Trust me, most of us live normal everyday middle America lives.
"
well, I know good people in that state who try to. Kinda hard when all the loonies get all the attention. I am a refugee from California myself. Born in Santa Barbara. I like to think of the place as the home of Ronald Reagan.
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.