Jackson, boy had sexual contact
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Well, that better be it. He went down; now he’s going down.
Oh, and I’m certainly not letting the guard off the hook for not intervening then and there.
You never hear of Jackson getting head from anyone, and I think that this fact speaks loudly in his honor. Micheal Jackson is a careing and giving person.
. . . Funny, the headline on the article about this in the Times today was “Holy Christ,” too . . .
I don’t know how that is allowable evidence in this trial. I don’t know the law is what I’m saying, not that I don’t think it should be allowed.
Jackson is definitely in trouble. Unless the guard and the maid had some reason to fabricate their testimony. But they don’t. I mean, that whole $16 million lawsuit they filed, lost and were ordered to pay $1.4 million to Jackson for was, like, so last year.
Don’t cross Jackson off as a sinking ship yet–his lawyers have managed to keep him afloat so far…
Now, how we ever gonna get a good lynching going 'round here if you people keep showing up with your fancy thinkin’?
I’m curious… with regard to the law and what testimony can be used to convict him of the current charges, what weight does this testimony hold? It’s in regard to a pattern of behavior but it doesn’t make him guilty of the allegations he’s facing, being a completely seperate incident.
You know and I know and anyone with half a brain knows he’s a ped and probably guilty as hell but can’t his defense team simply point out that this has no bearing on the charges and isn’t enough to warrant a conviction?
The defense did a pretty good job showing that this guy had an axe to grind. I suspect the jury will dismiss his testimony.
Now if Tito were to testify to the same thing, then the ship would surely be sunk.
Point being this looks every bit as damning as the Simpson blood trail… and just as dismissable.
Legal opinion?
This is a very tricky area of the law.
In general (and I’ll point out that California has some very specific laws about prior bad acts in sexual assualt cases, with which I am not expertly familiar) prior bad acts are inadmissible to prove that the accused acted in conformity therewith.
In simpler terms, that means you cannot show evidence of former crimes in order to argue to the jury that since he did it then, he must have done it this time, too.
You can, however, show prior bad acts if they reveal a common plan, scheme, design, or motive.
In the old days, it was enough for the prosecution to say, “This shows a lustful disposition!” and that counted as a motive. In today’s world, it’s generally not enough to merely point to two acts and say that they must both have been motivated by a lustful disposition. You should be able to point to unique aspects in the commission of the crime, things that you can reasonably conclude show the accused’s unique signature. For example, if the current accuser testified that Jackson dressed as a clown before the acts, or demanded that the boy call him Bubbles, and the previous acts also had these characteristics, then they’d probably be admissible. But the mere fact that two acts, sexual in nature, are alleged doesn’t make them admissible.
That’s the general rule. As I said, California has Evidence Code §1108, which permits evidence of the commission of prior sexual offenses to be used against the defendant - period. Even if those prior offenses were never the subject of a criminal trial. I have no idea how this has actually been put in play, or what the Confrontation Clause implications of this rule are.
- Rick
Rilchiam, I edited your thread title to something more descriptive.
Remember, all, to please use descriptive titles when creating your threads so we have an idea of what’s going on. 
- SkipMagic
I’ve been wondering how in the world the judge could allow witnesses that have nothing to do with this particular case to testify. It would be very easy for a jury to make the leap from “he had sex with a 13 year old over a decade ago” to “he had sex with a completely different 13 year old a couple of years ago”, so I hope they follow the law (as you described) and not follow their emotions and the outrage they may feel.
Not that I’m defending Jackson. I was concerned about the legality of it.
Thanks for clearing that up.
What Bricker said, although I hadn’t considered the Confrontation Clause. I suppose the theory is that he is being “confronted with the witnesses against him,” because the people testifying are testifying only to their personal knowledge. I agree it’s troublesome if Mrs. Mother comes in and testifies that Jackson molested her son (“no, I never saw it, but my son told me about it”), but that type of testimony would be excluded by the hearsay rule anyway.
The jury is entitled to decide what weight to give the testimony. Once evidence is admitted, they have to consider it (i.e., think about it), but they can choose to disregard it entirely, or believe it entirely, or put it somewhere in between. The jury could decide that the guard has an axe to grind, so that he is generally not believable, but that he saw something and is exaggerating it for effect, but that nevertheless his testimony that he saw an “encounter” is credible.
Anyone who has had experience in trials like this-what is the likely hood that PedoPan may take the stand?
I’m pretty sure that I have more than half a brain, and I don’t know that MJ is a ped. He may be or he may not be, but I’m not ready to convict him based on the testimony of people who very obviously have an axe to grind. Rilchiam, you were pretty selective in the news quotes you picked. Here’s a quote from this link.
Bolding mine.
People lie. And they certainly are quite willing to lie when money is involved or when they’re seeking revenge. I’d expect Dopers to be a little more skeptical about these witnesses.
This is the problem. I think that Jackson’s probably a ped, but the witnesses simply are not credible. The OJ Simpson trial had much better evidence than they have against Jackson.
I’m inclined to agree with the majority: this testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
One thing I can say: Mesereau is one hell of an attorney. Great attorney-hair, too :).
According to a former security chief, the standard Neverland contract places all employees under a gag order for up to five years after leaving employment.