She's a nut!
Posted on 04/16/2005 10:04:11 AM PDT by Hawk44
It's now time to stop the madness and declare a mistrial in California vs. Jackson. What happened on Friday in the Santa Maria courthouse should not have happened at all. Whether or not Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation is no longer the issue. The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office is now potentially guilty of exploiting a disturbed woman's condition to get a conviction. It's wrong, and it's not going to achieve anything but tarnishing the reputations of their well-intentioned staff. The testimony on Friday of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson's teenage accuser, was alternately maddening and heart breaking. She came across on the stand during her cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau as a compulsive and pathological liar, a shrewd manipulator and a real operator. But she was also quite sad, and unable to control her emotions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Jackson's lawyers evidently are worth every penny.
I think we should just ban Celebrity\Murder Trials on TV...Just as the peterson trial was over..we have the Hacking Trial...and as soon as Blake gets done, Jackson heats up. Fox wont stop covering them. To my dismay
Pedophiles don't prey on solidly nuclear families. They deliberately go after dysfunctional families and families with little or not parental supervision.
Then when the sexual abuse is discovered and reported and the matter goes to trial, the pedophile's attorneys claim the complainants aren't reliable.
It's worked for a number of years.
No Matter how credible this witness is..is no reason for a mistrial.
MJ is a pediphile...should he go free because of this woman, to prey on other childern..NO!
From the article:
"And then there was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who sat not with the other prosecutors during this brutal performance, but on a bench behind them. In full view of the jury, Sneddon sat with his head often in his hands, looking askance at what he's wrought."
Incredible. This is a good piece, but this trial has obviously collapsed.
I find it to be just fascinating that you're so convinced about Michael Jackson's guilt, and at the same time you shill for Michael Schiavo's innocence.
In the one thread you're all about the appearance of guilt (Jackson) about which you have little court-related evidence, and thus he is GUILTY.
On the other thread you're all about the court-mandated 'facts' of the case, (which were never revisited, despite a federal order for a 'de novo' review), and you dismiss out-of-hand the appearance of guilt that attaches itself to Michael Schiavo as brainless speculation.
You can't have it both ways, Peach. You're being disingenuous somewhere.
"It matters little about the mother's credibility."
I'm sorry, I think you are wrong. She's a major witness in this trial, her credibility matters a lot. It seems like they've made a major error in putting this easily impeachable woman on the stand, and it seems like the step-father wasn't too much better.
Now, the Peterson trial seemed to be going very badly for the prosecution also, and they got a conviction (total conviction actually) at the end, so the prosecution may ultimately be successful in this trial. But I don't think you can say that it doesn't matter what this woman says, if that were the case she wouldn't be on the stand to begin with.
Jackson is smart enough to find really sick people with kids to molest
You're missing the point. If Friedman is right, there is almost no chance of a conviction, and even less chance of a conviction sustained on appeal.
Of course, there won't be a mistrial. Jackson's own attorneys will demand a verdict, as they have the right to do.
You're absolutely right about pedophiles not preying on solidly nuclear families. They have an uncanny instinct for finding unstable families - often where the parents are in the midst of a divorce, or headed that way- and they take advantage of the situation.
Also, a stable nuclear family wouldn't allow their kid to sleep with Michael Jackson.
Pedophile priests often pick on kids who don't have a father at all or the father is absentee.
The trial has not collapsed. It's been very up and down all the way. About two weeks ago, when that son of the maid testified, everyone thought Jackson was going to be convicted. You can't take the pulse of a trial every single second. People have the shortest memories.
Cross examinations should be outlawed in those cases whereby we all know the perp is guilty.
It's sad, too, because even if she is not credible, it doesn't mean her son wasn't molested. I believe Jackson is a serial molester, and if it weren't for his money and fame, he'd be sitting in a cell with Chester the Molester and all his buddies. There really does seem to be one kind of justice for the rich and/or famous, and another for everyone else.
After all, he's the sane one, right.
Dangling his baby over the hotel railing is such an okay thing to do. Doesn't everyone do that?
Same in the Blake murder trial. The idiot jurors thought the people he tried to hire to murder his wife were low life scoundrels. After all, Blake should have tried to hire his accountant to do the murder right. Or maybe his dentist?
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.