As far as throwing money around, isn’t Jackson in hock up to non-existant nose?
While I dunno if they can find any jurists who’ve never heard of Michael Jackson, they can probably find a handful of folks who haven’t been following the case. A “jury consultant” interviewed by a local news radio station the other day mentioned that, even during jury selection for the first OJ Simspon trial, they had 3-5 folks who hadn’t known anything deeper than the fact that Mr. Simpson used to play professional football.
And, of course, the jury doesn’t have to be composed of people who know nothing about Michael Jackson or the charges; they simply need to be people who are willing and able to keep an open mind and weigh the evidence fairly.
(Not to toot my own horn, but I think I could serve as a jury on the Michael Jackson case – I haven’t reached any conclusions as to his innocence or guilt, and could be convinced either way by the evidence. Whether I’d want to be a juror on the Jackson trial is another matter all together… 
)
The letter may not necessarily mean anything. Just to play devil’s advocate, if it was at the ranch, and was never mailed to the boy, a defense attorney could argue that it simply means that Jackson had fantasies.
As icky as it is, having fantasies and acting upon them are two different things.
Do I think he’s guilty? Yes. But I also think there’s a lot of room for reasonable doubt in this case.
First of all, you can’t convict a guy just because he gives you the creeps. That’s not evidence. The jury must restrain themselves to considering the facts at hand. (Most likely, any other charges of molestation will not be allowed to be presented.)
Secondly, the DCFS report, as I understand, found the charges to be “baseless”. (Actually, I don’t remember the exact word used.) According to a news report I heard, there are three judgements a case worker can make: 1) That the charges are probably true, and merit futher investigation/prosecution; 2) That the alleged abuse probably occurred, but there isn’t enough evidence to proceed; or 3) That the charge is groundless. (Now, I’m not saying that the case worker’s judgement is correct, but the defense is most likely going to make an issue of this. They will laud the case worker’s experience in these matters.)
Further, according to the news report, the boy and the brother both denied that anything untoward had happened. And defense attorney worth his salt is going to pound this into the jury’s head.
Thirdly, they will paint the mother as a greedy, selfish woman. The media has already reported that (gasp!) she sued a department store for an injury she sustained in a fall. There will be allegations of blackmail, and she will be made to look as if she either pandered to Jackson’s sexual interest in her son, or exploited his victimization.
Fourth, children are notoriosly poor witnesses. They’re easily confused, and often frightened or embarassed. Even with the best witness preparation, the children cannot be counted on to accurately convey what happened, or stand up to what will probably be an intense cross-examination without buckling under pressure. The defense will pounce on slight discrepancies between the two boys’ stories, and it will probably be easy to twist them around and get them confused.
I’m on record of leaning towards guilty in this case, but I also believe in “reasonable doubt.” Of course, the same goes for the defense maneuvers:
I am amazed at how that DCFS memo has been spun around. If I remember correctly, it referred to an early in the year investigation, which found no evidence or lack of it. However, this memo was presented to the Judge that approved the court order to go into Neverland last month. My conclusion is that the prosecutors found something NEW. I think that the defense and “The Smoking Gun” web site jumped too soon, this memo is going to mean very little on court.
Ther report is that there are several letters and that they were decribed by the kid before they were found, and they were found in the exact hiding spot where the kid said they were.
Easy for you to say. I’m in the actual fucking jury pool and I haven’t been called to jury duty in like five years. You better believe I have my mind made up and no lawyer can change it. (That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)
Haj
I actually meant to say something on topic too. I agree that the evidence will make all of the difference. He could very easily walk and then sue my poor county out of existence.
Haj
Granted. But if it does go to trial you gotta admit it’ll be a long selection process.
In all honesty, I must say I think I’d be a good juror too, thanks to the sort of critical thinking I’ve learned hanging out in places like the SDMB </shameless pandering>. But being on the other side of the country and all…
No, I think money can remove the stink from everything. Give me a couple of hundred billion dollars, and I’ll have every major media outlet touting “studies” that show childen who were molested become better adjusted than those who were not. There are lots of out of work tobacco scientists who would be more than happy to produce the study. With enough advertising dollars the media outlets will say exactly what they are told. What, you think Westinghouse (CBS), Disney (ABC) and General Electric (NBC) and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (Fox) are being driven by anything other than a profit motive?
Of course, a couple of hundred billion is a bit much to spend on such a fundamental attitude shift. Its much cheaper to just convince everyone you didn’t do it.
And the defense will say the kid was snooping.
Look, I’m not saying that the man is innocent. I think he’s guilty as sin, personally. But he’s got a damn good defense attorney who is going to try to destroy the child’s credibility and put a different spin on all of the evidence the prosecution has.
The kid’s credibility is an issue for the jury. {ersonally, i think there comes a point when the believabilty of the defense is going to be stretched to the breaking point. If the letters are graphic and make reference to sexual contact between Michael and the boy the jury is going to turn on MJ. Sure, his lawyers cana rgue that it was fantasy and that the letters were discovered by the snooping kid, but they would still have to admit that he has a sexual attraction to children even if they say it was limited to fantasy. I think that admission would be pretty damging compared with some of his other bizarre and inappropriate behavior with kids. Essentially they’d have to say, yes MJ is a pedophlie who writes down sexual fantasies about little boys, surrounds himself with little boys and sleeps with them but he controls himself while he’s in bed with them and that little cancer victim is lying when he says otherwise. It’s a pretty tough sell.
It would be like trying to tell a jury that a celebrity’s blood was planted at the home of his murdered wife and that a bloody glove was planted at the celebrity’s home. No jury would ever buy it.
I think if the letters are as incriminating as they are rumored to be then Garagos is going to have to get out the Chewbacca doll.
Diogenes nailed it. Any reasonable doubt regarding a child’s accusation of molestation evaporates at the exact moment it is proven that a sexually explicit letter from the pedophile regarding said molestation exists. At that point, the only chance Mikie has of walking is an OJ chance–meaning, a very specific jury that chooses to ignore obvious damning evidence.
That could happen, but it still doesn’t make it reasonable doubt.