🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:53:13 GMT, "Mike" <no.spam.@please.com> wrote:

>
>
>If Jackson intends to make a media blitz to deny the charges, then it
>probably is just that one boy's word against him. Would Michael think it is
>worth the effort if there were video tape and/or DNA evidence against him?

   Because he's in neverland?  The man is rather out of touch with
reality when he mentions he sees nothing wrong with sleeping with
children not his own.

>After two months of investigation, the prosecutor would have probably told
>us if there were video tape or DNA or multiple witnesses. 
Quite often prosecutors are restrained from stating that in pre-trial
publicity for a vareity of reasons. 
1.  It can taint the Jury pool.  The defense can claim that the
evidence was frabricated for that purpose, and possibly disallow it.  
2.   It gives the defense a free ride.  While the Prosecution has to
inform the defense as to what they're  going to use, they don't have
to tell them how they're going to use it.  

>. And prosecution has no theory for the
>jury to believe other than to say, "why would the boy lie", and you can
>convict if you want to. (As if we are liars that we should know when someone
>is lying) I think it is a tragedy that they are going to brain wash the boy
>into thinking that a conviction is going to rest on his performance on the
>stand when it should rest on evidence alone and not on its presentation.
>These moron attorneys don't even know the first thing about evidence.
>Evidence is something other that an accusation. And that's all they probably
>have here.

  Actualy they have a lot. First of all, California law allows them to
use past cases, even if they have not resulted in a conviction, to
establish a pattern.  Again, the sleeping in bed thing comes up, as
well as the ten million dollars paid.  The NDI between Michael's
estate and the parents of the first child probably won't stand up in
court, and they may compel the testimony.  Not only that, but all they
have to mention is: Why would an innocent man pay ten million dollars?

  Also, honestly, he's a freak who looks like a ghoul on a bad day,
with bleached skin, a face on which half the bones are falling off due
to all the surgery, who doesn't seem to realize most adults past 18
give up on sleep overs.  That won't play with most juries. 
   The Michael zombies are the teen's and young adults who say "He is
Ghandi, He is god." (I kid you not, I heard this idoicy from someone
on TV), but they probably won't be on the Jury.  The Jury will be
largely older, middle class individuals, who as hard as they try to
fight it, will probably have certain... credibility issues with
Michael's denials.  
  One thing for certain. if I were his defence Lawyer, I'd keep him
far, far away from the stand.  Nope, don't want Mikie to run into a
cross-examination buzz saw, that's for certain.