Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
The maid's son testified. Even though his mother wasn't a "grifter" one of the jurors said she didn't find him believable. On the other hand, reporters in the courtroom said he was quite believable, perhaps the most believable person either side called. Thus, my assessment that even if they'd had a videotape of Jackson molesting a child, they would not have convicted him.
Correct, any others?
I just found it odd that nobody else came forward.
This isn't about the child. It's about a criminal case in which the prosecution -- under the standards of justice that govern criminal courts in the United States of America -- has to meet a very substantial burden of proof.
From the start, this case was nothing more than a showcase for all kinds of freaks . . . Jackson himself, the kid's family, and all those @ssholes who spent every day of the last couple of months congregating outside the courthouse or Neverland holding up their "Free Michael" signs.
I am sick to death of the race card. I am hearing black people using it this morning on radio talk shows. They sound as if no black person has ever committed a crime in this country. It's impossible. It's just the white system that keeps arresting black people - there's no possibility that any black person has actually COMMITTED a crime. It's disgusting. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of blacks and hispanics and there has been a great deal of gang violence. Maybe this will only end when the black community realizes that there is a problem in their OWN community and it's not Whitey doing anything to you.
That said, the Jackson case had NOTHING to do with race. This man has done everything he can to obliterate any identification of himself as a black man - indeed he looks like he's trying to become a white woman.
The judge may not have allowed testimony about child molesting patterns, now that I think of it. I do recall that he wouldn't allow certain testimony about spousal abuse (the boy's father was abusive). This judge made several decisions I found odd.
If you stand up in opening and tell the jury they are going to hear Facts X, Y and Z from a witness, and that witness gets on the stand and not only doesn't testify to X, Y, and Z but DENIES that X, Y, and Z EVER HAPPENED, that is the ever-lovin' kiss of death.
Did the DA then claim "surprise" and ask to take those witnesses on cross examination and impeach them with their prior inconsistent statements? Did he even HAVE prior recorded statements or affidavits from these witnesses? What a clown!
If I had botched a case like this, I would expect to be turning burgers at Wendy's.
Anyway, his reputation, in America at least, short of a few loonies, is probably beyond repair.
This kind of attitude usually gets a potential juror struck, early on.
You obviously would rather protect Jackson than the innocent children.
And you would convict a person even if there were reasonable doubt.
"jury of his piers "
or his peers...
I thought Jackson would be found guilty on at least one of the charges (alcohol to minors would be a nice start) when Messereau promised the jury that Jackson himself would take the stand.
Spousal abuse evidence is another story altogether. It's probably irrelevant to any issue in the case.
What a pathetic response. You are the paragon of justice.
Nobody else came forward because they didn't want to be known forever as "Jackson's boy". At least that's what the guy who got paid off said.
Often times, pedophiles hope to be caught and stopped. They know what they're doing is wrong but they can't stop themselves. I think Jackson secretly hoped that he would be convicted and that he would be stopped from hurting any more children. His outlandish and obvious displays making him look like a child molester (see the mural, books with naked boy pics, etc) are just more evidence that he wants someone to catch him and stop him. The system failed the boys that have been molested by Jackson, the boys that will be molested by Jackson in the future, and it failed Jackson himself. He needs to be stopped, locked up, and given the mental health care that he needs.
So was justice served in this case? You yourself seem to acknowledge that Jackson is a child molester and now he has been set free by this pack of morons they call a jury. You don't think he should have been convicted on a SINGLE charge, even the alcoholism charge? Then what is the point of a legal system at all if the guilty can never be found "guilty". When is there "enough" evidence? What constitutes "enough" evidence? We have a man who publicly admits to sleeping with young boys. What do you think he's doing in there? How is he going to be stopped? Can he be stopped? What "evidence" would be enough?
I think we have a serious dirth of common sense in this country. How can a man publicly admit to sleeping with unrelated young boys in the same bed, be allowed to do this? THat should be a crime in and of itself. Maybe that's the problem - maybe this particular act in and of itself needs to be legislated as a crime.
And if a child of mine were ever molested, you don't have to worry about how you would act as a juror. There won't be a trial, because there wouldn't be a defendent -- the only who would get called to the scene would be the medical examiner.
What is reasonable doubt? What is "enough" evidence?
Oh, God, I'm so hurt by that. Not on your life.
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.