Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
No. The man did not know what his witnesses were going to say. And when they said things pro-defense, they weren't challenged by differing statements given at their deposition. The case was a travesty. Sneddon should at the least be fired.
I think we can agree to disagree here and leave it at that, shall we ?
Reality check #2--only people who live in LaLaLand would believe that Jackson slept with those boys every night without anything "sekshooool" happening. Especially since so many of his staff have reported things like his request for a jar of vaseline, and when he opened his bedroom door to take it from the employee, he had a full-blown erection. And oh--there was a child visitor in his room that night. The judge wouldn't permit this testimony, but he should have.
The DA's case was just fine. No case, no amount of evidence would have convinced this jury, not even videotapes of molestation. After watching some of these jurors, I'm convinced they mistook the jury instructions to mean "any doubt whatsoever" instead of "all reasonable doubt."
I agree. The DA did the best he could and he actually presented a much stronger case than many other DA's who have obtained molestation convictions. The problem was the pro Jackson bias of the jurors. There was nothing he could do to change that.
I just talked to a relative who sat on a jury for a child molestation case locally. It was a couple of years ago. He stated that there was far LESS evidence presented at that trial than at the Jackson trial, and that they convicted the molester, who had molested two sisters 3 and 7. Only the 7 year old testified (the 3 year old, although 5 at the time of the trial, was deemed too young). The only evidence they had was the children's word. The mother was an alcoholic, kind of what we unkindly call "trailer trash" so not exactly likeable either.
In Jackson's case they had:
* A pattern of behavior over the years
* Eyewitnesses to molestation of other boys
* Testimony of other victims
* Collections of soft-porn ("art books" Hah!) used to turn them on
* Testimony and evidence of giving them alcohol (to loosen them up)
---and probably much more. This jury was despicable.
"LaLaLand" doesn't exist as a place, but refers to the suspension of common sense and lack of reality. As an ex-Californian, I'm familiar with Santa Maria.
If he is now a pariah, then well and good. He should be a JAILBIRD, but it's my hope that everyone will shun him.
Remember, they ask you to leave your common sense in the car or at home, with your knives, when you serve on a jury.
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.