🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Mike wrote:

>
> "Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote
> >
> >
> > > We have his statements that he sleeps with young boys, not related to
> him on
> > > a regular basis. (You probably are not world famous and very rich.
> Announce
> > > that to the world and see how the locals respond to you.)
> > > Finally we have, after a search, the DA issuing a warrant. The position
> of a
> > > DA is *very* political and politicians move slowly against power and
> money.
> > > That alone convinces me that he is guilty.
> >
> > We have a DA and a lawyer who were both involved in the previous case.
> > We have evidence of a mother motivated by greed, a lawyer motivated
> > by greed and a DA who wants revenge.
> >
> > And now we have a boy's father who says the charges against Jackson are
> > phoney.
> >
> > http://www.nbc4.tv/entertainment/2654978/detail.html
> >
> > Indeed, the father himself was at one time accused by the mother of
> > sexually abusing the boy.
> >
> > So no, as far as I'm concerned, we've been shown no evidence yet
> > sufficient to hang the man. There is, however, enough evidence
> > available to suggest caustion. MJ's weird, no doubt about it and
> > maybe he IS a pedo. But maybe he isn't. Maybe he's just guilty of
> > extreme weirdness and lack of good sense.
> >
> >
> If Jackson intends to make a media blitz to deny the charges, then it
> probably is just that one boy's word against him.

His side claims to have actual evidence of the mother's intentions and
scheming. We'll see.

Would Michael think it is
> worth the effort if there were video tape and/or DNA evidence against him?

SUPPOSEDLY he has video evidence for this support. Activities are
routinely taped at the ranch.

> After two months of investigation, the prosecutor would have probably told
> us if there were video tape or DNA or multiple witnesses. I think this is
> probably just a bunch of bologna. You will probably find that it's just his
> word, he'd have to commit perjury before we could even tell the difference
> between whether he is lying or not. 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.
>

Geuss we'll see. I do hope that whatever happens, this case somehow
settles thing once and for all.