Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Michael Jackson Update

Alright, is the case as weak as it seems from the outside? The testimony related to complaining witness charged in this case, as well as his family and other supporters, seems underwhelming. Obviously, getting in Jackson's history is a large victory for the prosecution, especially because of the confusing jury instructions related to prior bad acts.

First, the strength of the case. It appears as if the son of Jackson's former maid probably had more compelling testimony than the new complaining witness did. He actually was somewhat consistent in his claims, although he, too, once repeatedly denied anything untoward happening between him and Jackson. Tears appear to go a long way, especially from a grown man. But, could the case be any weaker vis a vis the recent complaints? I mean, the kid denies to everyone he sees, for the longest time, that Jackson does anything wrong to him. In the meantime, he appears to be a terror of a kid, always out of control (this according to the prosecution's own witness). Finally, they talk to a lawyer, and everything changes, and now he was molested. Oh, and this family has previously conspired to shakedown a big business for extra spending money.

The fingerprints of both Jackson and the kid on the dirty magazine? I had once thought this would be damning, but then we find out, according to different people's testimony, that the kids would happily rummage through Jackson's stuff, and they didn't even fingerprint the magazines until AFTER the kid testified (and held them?) at the grand jury. How could the prosecution be so dumb as to wait until after the kid had contact with the magazines in their presence before printing them? That's as dumb as the detectives in the OJ case drawing OJ's blood in downtown LA, and then driving themselves (and the vial of blood) to the crime scene, where they gave it to the rookie criminalist who stuck it in her pocket along with all of the samples she was collecting (later, of course, they found 2 cc's of blood missing, which was all the jury needed in order to disregard the blood - and DNA - completely. The mid-trial deathbed deposition of the person who drew his blood and testified that he actually drew 2cc's less was not enough to save that evidence.).

But, the jury instructions. Now this can be complex, so bear with me here. The idiotic law on prior sexual conduct by a defendant is a little crazy, but hey, our compliant courts here in California have found simply no problem with them, so here's how they go. A defendant is presumed innocent, and the prosecution has the burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest level in the law). To prove someone guilty of a sex crime, they can use prior sexual conduct in order to prove a pattern or character trait that may make someone inclined to commit a new crime. However, the prior crimes need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (the civil standard, or about 50% + 1, the lowest standard of evidence). Thus, the new case may be really weak (like here), as may be the prior acts (they need not have been convictions, or even charged offenses). However, the jury believes the prior acts by a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. They also have a reasonable doubt as to the new charges. However, the fact that he did it once earlier, something they believe by just a slight amount, coupled with the fact of the new charges, for which they now have motive and character (per the prior acts), means that there is enough to convict him of the new act. Thus, for someone charged with having done multiple acts of sexual misconduct, the standard of proof is effectively reduced to a preponderance of the evidence.

Our exalted California courts have sought to save that idiocy by claiming that the person still need be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but they never explain how to get past this conundrum. And they do not make any changes in the jury instructions that explain how it is they are supposed to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the law is beyond a reasonable doubt, but the reality is preponderance of the evidence.

This is how Jackson could be convicted even if the new case is total crap. However, on the Drudge report today (not something I would necessarily consider a reliable source of information), he writes that jurors have been overheard mocking the testimony of the maid's son. If that's the case, then Jackson can plan that summer concert tour.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I say its discusting the amount of taxpayers money wasted on this obvious chid stalking, molesting pig. Just because hes a celebrity he can rape our children and get away with it? GET REAL AMERICA, cut his balls off

Anonymous said...

Leave Micheal alone guys. Let him have his hearing, then judge him. It worrries me that people have already made up thier minds about him, when full evidence has not been given. Has society come so sick that people are convicted and hung without a fair hearing, as they are doing to Micheal. 'Micheal loves young boys' and yet not one single gay mag was found in his home. It is also strange that both of the young men, who complained about Micheal, were proded to do so by poverty stricken parents and after kind and given Micheal stoped doling out gifts to them and ended thier plush life style, which they had become accustomed to living, through sucking up to him . What type of parents would accept money for the abuse of thier child.Or even more so pimp thier kids off for 'cash and gifts' Vultures and animals that is what they are. Animals must not be trusted; they can switch and attack for no reason and they also have no sense of decency. Hence the term animal. Jordan, I really pitty you and make sure that your parents do not get a single dime of your millions and try to get out more often and live a little. Sod the media you are Ritch Ritch.
What about those witnesses who claim to have witnessed Micheal years ago abusing young kids and yet did not report it. Surely some thing should be done to these people who clearly had failed those poor young kinds and thier civil duties(if they are to be believed)to report abuse and the violation of a child's human rights. These peeping sick Toms need to be nailed and with big nails too. Final word to people who are accusing him of rape. Micheal is not on charge for rape and no child or witness have reported rape. So here we go again, condeming the poor guy. As for me I am waiting for all the boats to come in and not just the warship.

Anonymous said...

Jazz of London England said: Leave Micheal alone guys. Let him have his hearing, then judge him.

Why? We are not bound by the judgment of the court. Only the government is. We can disagree with an innocent verdict and act as though it's false. For example, we might decide that should the occasion arise that we needed a babysitter, we might want to avoid MJ even in the unlikely case he were available.

Besides, a so-called "innocent" verdict is at heart a "not proven" verdict, not a real determination that the accusations were false.

Anonymous said...

Real female magee mississippi
leave michael alone stop trying to get his money because its only making things worst.i feel hes a good man its his buisness if he gay an his buisness who he sleep with thats whats wrong with america now worried about the wrong things. An to the parents get a dam job an stop trying to get michael money.If your child gay he gay.

Anonymous said...

good site
http://www.flooring1.org/