What evidence can be used against Michael Jackson?

[ltfire]

*Originally posted by Cillasi *
**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. **

Jesus, CILLASI, I think you’re treading in the land of porn with that second paragraph.:eek:

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Nvme77 *
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.

It may well be that a specific judge refuses to sign search or arrest warrants without physical evidence. That may explain the as-yet-unsubstantiated fact that there was such evidence here; it does not make what you said correct:

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.

Apparently, you meant to say, “To get a search warrant from a single, specific judge…” This is also irrelevant, as it seems to suggest there is only one judge in Santa Barbara available to sign search warrants. I am confident this is not the case, and your quote grossly misstates the requisite legal standard for search warrants.

Neither Wolf Blitzer or Christopher Darden can change that, and given the reckless disregard for legal distinction often displayed during news segments, I think it’s not particularly surprising that they may have misstated it as well.

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.

No, that’s not true. The accuser’s word, without more, is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction - in what bizarro world would it be insufficient to sustain probable cause?

• Rick