Wacko Jacko is innocent.
Yes, he joins the proven innocent club
Posted on 06/15/2005 5:57:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
You're going to have a hard time convincing these non-Californians that a California district attorney's office hasn't got the competency of a bucket of warm spit, even though this state's track record for the same should leave little doubt of that fact.
You watched a different case than I did, then. A relative sat on a jury not long ago (locally) that convicted someone for child molestation with NO physical evidence, only the children's word. (And one child was too young to even testify.) There was plenty of evidence in the Jackson case. You, like the jury, are demanding proof beyond ALL doubt, not beyond REASONABLE doubt.
Bump.
They're evidence of a tendency to commit the crime. Remember: molestation is not a crime where physical evidence is likely to exist. No bruising, no tearing, usually no semen. Most molestation cases are brought with only the accusation. These perverts do not usually commit their crimes in front of cameras, or in front of witnesses. Jackson's case was about as good as most of these cases get.
see bill clinton
see hitlary clinton
see ted kennedy
see Grusom Nusom mayor of SF
see Judges of Mass.
see The American Bar Association, and their total disregard of the law.
Yes US legal system is very flawed, but it is actually better than any other. (at least for those of us who have seen other systems in action)
Really?
You mean the mother of the accuser is characterized by Jay Leno as a "grifter", and she admits, under oath, that she lied, under oath, to get her JC Penny settlement?
That good?
First, she lied to the welfare people about her settlement--show me the transcript where she said she lied to JC Penney to GET the settlement, please. Second, the mother was not the one claiming to be molested. Her son was. Whatever the mother did, it wasn't the son's fault, and it had nothing to do with whether he was molested or not.
And ps--the case I mentioned had a mother just as bad--she was (is?) an alcoholic, with indications she turns tricks on the side. But since the case wasn't about HER, justice was done--unlike the Jackson case.
The kids had a tough life, no doubt, and if bad parenting was a crime, this trial would have ended in a conviction. If being a weird freak was a crime, this trial would have ended in a conviction.
IANAL, but I did wonder if there were other, perhaps lesser, crimes they would have had better luck with- child endangerment, or maybe indecency (a lesser crime than molestation?). Anyway, I'm not happy about the whole thing, but at least I'm not in CA, and it wasn't my tax money that paid for it....
The Amazing Randy Jackson...cough....is really giving it to EVERYONE...you rotten American people !!!!..and King Larry is coddling him like.....omg...I ........just don't throw something through the screen !
Most women will usually lie about their cosmetic surgeries.....;^)
I just have to flip on by; I knew I couldn't take it.
Wacko Jacko is innocent.
Yes, he joins the proven innocent club
When the kid admits, on the stand, that his mother often encouraged him to lie, it has everything to do with whether he was molested.
The mother did invoke her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked about welfare fraud. That sort of thing lowers a witness's credibility in a jury's eyes.
Patterns of behaviour is also important in determining whether a witness, or victim, is reliable.
THEY are on a roll now ! Makes me SICK ! I am taping it so I can stop it at will.
I always knew you had nerves of steel!
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.