Michael Jackson is being accused of molestation, but how can it be proven? It seems like it would be his word against the boy’s, if no one else was in the room. If the extent of the crime was inappropriate touching, there would be no genetic evidence to prove Jacko guilty. How are these things prosecuted? Fingerprints?? All other “evidence” seems rather circumstantial.
From what I hear, the main point now is the credibility of the alleged victim. I just wonder with MJ, why go with that lawyer? He didn’t do so hot for Winona, He’s probably going to lose the Scott Petersen case and now that he has MJ, Scott Petersen should probably start plea bargaining right now.
As for evidence, to even get the search warrant, the DA’s office would have needed to provide substantial evidence, so maybe there is some type of physical proof, like semen or pubic hair from MJ on the childs clothing.
The previous accuser just had details of each encounter and knew about moles on MJ’s body. I think that depending on the evidence, MJ might consider plea guilty with pschiatric needs, he can’t bribe the victims family now (the law has changed) but nothing says he cannot get a dr to say he was under his care to control he pedophiliac urges and is on medication. Maybe he’ll get a lighter sentence.
If there was a video of it happening that would do it. I suppose they are looking through his video library.
Till we know the actual charge it is hard to say. Right now I am hearing lewd behaviour. This can mean simply exposing one’s self to a person. This would be terribly hard to prove.
You would be shocked how many people have this charge. When I worked in H/R and we ran criminal checks on people a lot, and I mean a lot, of girls had this charge. It was a mistermeaner(sp?) so it didn’t stop them from getting the job. The director said it is usually some drunk girl showing some one her breasts when she was in college.
But on topic, lewd behaviour could also mean getting changed into PJs in front of someone.
In the mid 70s they were still having boys swim naked in gym, so times change and so do definitions.
Markxxx: The spelling you were seeking is misdemeanor.
Now a question for you: where was that happening? I had to take swimming as part of gym class in the 1970s and in every state where I attended school, we had to swim while wearing swimsuits.
"This can mean simply exposing one’s self to a person. This would be terribly hard to prove. "
Naw, it would be like the first time, that time the kid described how his groin area looked, some sort of weird skin look.
If they found child pornography in the search, that would bolster the accusers’ charge (but not prove it).
:eek: :dubious:
I was in school in the '70’s and can tell you without a doubt, everyone wore clothing…all the time. Where were you allowed to swim sans suit?
This is from Drudge so take it with a grain of salt but the prosecution may actually have Jackson’s unwitting confession:
I work as a psych consultant to LA County Superior court. Exposing oneself w/o touching is a misdemeanor & not L&L behavior-need a touching for a felony. The police were searching for evidence such as a video collection, child porn internet usage etc. A 12 year old’s word is usually not enough w/o physical evidence- so corroboration will be neded- witnesses, statements to or by others etc.
288.1 PC allows for “treatment in a recognized program in the community” if it can be safely done. A conviction does not have to end with incarceration.
Related question: What constitutes enough evidence for an arrest in a
child molestation case?
Not much- a victim that the police believe-many times arrests are made w/o any attempt at interview of the alleged perpatrator.
Maybe the 1870’s.
Back in the 1970’s, I had to keep my goodies in swim trunks too.
The required standard of proof for an arrest is probable cause.
Probable cause is simply the existence of enough credible evidence to make it beliveably likely that a crime was committed, and that the accused committed it.
The OP seems to believe that the accuser’s word against Jackson’s is insufficent to secure an arrest or a conviction. In fact, one witness’ testimony, without more, is perfectly sufficient. “It’s just his word against Jackson’s…” does not preclude a conviction, as long as the finder of fact (the jury, or a judge in a bench trial) believes the accuser’s testimony. As a practical matter, of course, since the standard for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” usually one word against another, with no corroborating evidence, doesn’t sway a jury. But it’s legally sufficient to do so – just seldom practically sufficient.
This means, of course, that the following information posted by Nvme77 is wrong:
In fact, although the DA may have such evidence, it’s not required to sustain a search warrant. The mere testimony of the victim, without more, is legally sufficient to create probable cause for a search warrant, and often does. Nvme77 has, inexplicably, posted inaccurate information in the GQ forum, a forum dedicated to factual answers. I don’t know why Nvme77 would do such a thing.
- Rick
Chicago suburbs is where I went to school. You could also swim naked in the YMCA. Remember at that time the YMCA was for MEN the YWCA was for women.
We had to take showers in gym class (we didn’t have a pool) and they even taught us how to properly “dry” ourselves off. Not everyone swam naked but it wasn’t unheard of.
Sorry, Bricker, and everyone else. I got this information from Wolf Blitzer on CNN Friday morning in his interview with Christopher Darden. He had mentioned that the specific judge in Santa Barbara that authorized the initial search warrant was very strict on what information was obtained given the previous time MJ was brought up on similar charges. And Bricker, yes you are right, the victims allegation is sufficient for a search warrant-but like I just said, the judge would have wanted more, and with probably cause and his interpretation he could have requested more evidence.
From what I understood in the press conference aired, there was an allegation first, about 2 months ago, with the DA’s office. This created an investigation and was brought to a judicial review who authorized a search warrant-to obtain evidence to corroborate the victims allegation. Then a warrant for his arrest at the same time as the search warrant. The accusers word is not enough probably cause for arrest without searching on MJ’s property for items in direct observation as stated by the victim.
Well, the way you’re explaining it now, it sounds like “you could if you wanted to”, whereas earlier, you said “they were having boys swim naked”, implying that it was a requirement. And if your school didn’t have a pool, how do you know what anyone “had” to do?
On a side note, if convicted, will MJ go to jail?
Whether MJ is a pedophile is something we may never know for certain. However, he is clearly a severely disturbed adult suffering an unhealthy affinity with pre-pubescent boys. Any adult who can rationalize taking young children (not their own) into their bed for their own gratification, sexual or not, is clearly walking a very thin line. Even if there is no overt sexual conduct or exhibitionism, the person opens themselves to such accusations.
“In bed” is an intimate environment and intimate (although inadvertent) things can be expected to occur - nightclothes shift resulting in exposure; a morning erection, maybe prompting an innocent touch and an “oooh, somebody should go to the bathroom” remark; a stray hand while asleep; a child cuddling close (as children tend to do) - - -
At the very least, MJ is guilty of extremely bad judgment, and if he didn’t learn his lesson in 1993, then maybe he’ll learn it today.
The Gaspode- I answered that above . Pursuant to Penal Code 288.1 & w/all his resources-probation & " treatment" is the most likely result if guilty. Then of course a civil suit will follow, IMO. Probation would almost certainly not allow unsupervised time w/ under age males-the cruelest blow of all.