Posted on 06/03/2005 12:26:19 PM PDT by Howlin
Yikes. I guess they did bungle it. So they didn't even show the fingerprints on the magazine?
I don't recall off the top of my head how they blew that particular one.
They couldn't even make the liquor charge stick, and that seemed their strongest case - I think the conspiracy charge was over-reaching and made the whole thing shady. The prosecutor looked as though he had a personal vendetta, and was willing to put liars on the stand if it meant getting Jackson.
The prosecuter had to try. I think it's pretty obvious what a danger to children this creep is.
Oh, I agree that they had to put him on trial. I think there were some serious problems with the way they conducted the trial, including the charges that they brought.
You go to trial with what you can prove. Capone went down on tax evasion charges, after all. Not because tax evasion was his most serious crime, only because it was the best case. Conspiracy was a long shot here, and I think that over-reaching hurt the prosecution.
What I saw of the trial was scattershot at best. The prosecution looked to be moving in a million different directions, and thanks to their own witnesses surprising them on the stand they weren't moving in any of the directions very well.
Now, Jackson can go on being a danger to children. Any future prosecutions will be doubly hard to win. That's why I'm so frustrated.
I think most prosecutors get outmanuevered by a powerful defense team. It's the way the world is. Perhaps we should have some outlet in future trials where private donations can back up the prosecuter with expensive lawyers helping them. But that can present problems too. Imagine the rats funding a prosecution against Rush, for example. So scratch that. I guess we should err on the side of the defense.
The prosecution has the weight of the State behind it. I don't think we need to give them any more help.
Our legal system is balanced against the state and in favor of individual citizens. That is how it must be in a free country. You provide a perfect example of why.
Better ten guilty man go free than one innocent man is convicted. Jackson just happens to be one of those ten.
Excellent point, arasina.
The jury rationized in "blame-sharing," which had everything to do with celebrity of MJ and not much to do with the evidence.
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.