RSSLessons From A Court Room
I have promised myself this is the last post I will do on Michael Jackson. The verdict is in and although many may not agree, we all have to live with it. I think we can learn two very valuable lessons from the charade that was the Michael Jackson trial.
1. Settle your case and do not ever let a jury “of your peers” decide your fate.
2. ‘Don’t snap your fingers’ in Court.
“I disliked it intently when she snapped her fingers at us,” said Juror No. 5, a 79-year-old great- grandmother.
“That’s when I thought, ‘Don’t snap your fingers at me, lady.’ “
Jury of your peers. Who’s peer’s?
But somehow juror #5 did not dislike intently the idea that a 40 year old man admittedly sleeps with boys that are of no relation to him in a palatial mansion with how many bedrooms? Juror #5 better get a sense of perspective. Oh, but know his lawyer says, he is not going to do that anymore. Atty. Mesereau, do what, exactly?
Then there was juror #1 who made this brilliant comment,
“I feel that Michael Jackson has probably molested boys,” Hultman said on CNN. “To be in your bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn, that doesn’t make sense to me.
But that doesn’t make him guilty of the charges that were presented.”
WHAT!!! This man just admitted he thought he was a child molester and thinks that it only happens on occasion. This jury put the mother ahead of a suspected child molester that many of them though had in fact committed the crime? (Red just shakes his head in disbelief).
The Moderate Voice asks, “will he change his lifestyle”? Red says, “nope, his handlers will just do a better job of covering it up in the future. Or maybe Michael will just buy an island with no media accessibility”.
CNN, Attorney: Jackson will be more careful
Michael Jackson’s lead defense attorney said Tuesday that he believes his client’s behavior will change now that Jackson has been acquitted of charges including child molestation.
Yeah, I bet he will. Atty. Mesereau, Gee ya think?
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
9 Responses to “Lessons From A Court Room”
Leave a Reply
This is what his lawyer had to say about “boys in the bed”
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050227144809990009&ncid=NWS00010000000001
The juror’s statement that Jackson “probably molested boys,” but that this does not make him guilty of the charges presented to the jury shows that this juror understood perfectly his responsibility in our system of justice. First, the standard of proof in a criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and not the “more probable than not” standard applicable in most civil cases. The belief that sombody probably committed a crime is obviously not sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Second, the juror was expressing a general belief about what Jackson probably did to some other boys, not a specific belief about what he did to the alleged victim in this case. Your castigation of that juror’s remarks makes no sense.
Stefan,
No kidding. I am not talking about legal proof here. I am talking about common sense and maybe one should never make such a comment.
Trust me, this case was decided in the court of public opinion years ago. Michael Jackson has the same standing as OJ Simpson. He is an innocent man too.
Get off the legalize, this post has nothing to do with that. But if you want to be so legal in your analysis, ya best add, “pattern of behavior”.
I’d take it a step farther than Stefan. He talks about “reasonable doubt” vs “more probable than not” but that wasn’t really the issue. If anything, based on the evidence it was probably “more probable than not” that this kid and his family were engaging in a con. The real question was whether or not the case would be decided on the evidence and the specific allegations of this family or whether this would instead be a general indictment of MJ’s lifestyle. The “he’s guilty” people seem to be ignoring the evidence in THIS CASE, and instead relying on the fact that Jackson regulary engages in inappropriate relationships with young boys (and whether he is a molester or not, we can all agree they are inapporpriate). The jury couldn’t base their decision on the general notion that Jackson sleeps with small boys. They swore an oath to God that they would decide the case based on the facts of the case. And anyone who followed the case closely knew that if the jury lived up to their oath there was no way we were going to see a guilty verdict.
You say “This jury put the mother ahead of a suspected child molester that many of them though(t) had in fact committed the crime?” incorrect, “many of them” did not believe Mr. Jackson to be a child molester as you imply. You are twisting this one juror’s statements to your own point of view. i’m proud to say that these jurors are my neighbors as is MJ. We bought some property near Los Olivos and on Nov 18, 03 we started our move. (The same day Tom Sneddon started his search of Neverland.) luckily, we aren’t on the same road. You know nothing of Santa Barbara and its citizens. We are not impressed by fame. Movie stars, directors, authors and even Presidents live, shop, dine and walk around here everyday. Locals just go on about their day unfazed. Many years ago, Ron and Nancy Reagan almost hit me at a stop sign. Mr Reagan was driving an old Ford with Nancy riding shotgun. Nothing fancy, no body guards, just life in SB as we locals know it. MJ’s fame did not sink Sneddon’s case, he never had one.
Juries are not what they used to be. They tend to be a little more educated generally, but more importantly they are more aware of of the world. Juries in high profile cases have to be sequestered. There are too many talking head that can be persuasive. Also, clever attorneys, on both sides can have a jury hi-jacked either by intent or poor performance. This is what happened in the Jackson trial. The prosecutor went over the top—-too many charges—-should have followed the KISS principle. The questioned reliablility of the mother in turn questioned the reliability of the son and brother.
I don’t think Mr Jackson is a child molester. I do think he is what we used to label excentric or if you prefer, far out.
Child molesters keep their sex lives private and don’t announce to the world in a documentory that sleeping with children is enjoyable. I am not using the term sleeping to be equivalent to having sex. Take it very literally, please!
To be sure Mr Jackson needs help and I would bet he would be diagnosed as suffering from a lousy childhood and was trying to relive it through these children he befriends.
Get help Mr Jackson , it is time to grow up.
I completely agree.
I’ve had to explain this to more than one person in the last day too. People look puzzled that he’s found innocent or are happy knowing that a family of grifters has been thwarted in their attempts to extract money from an “ecctentric” but otherwise “innocent” man.
The prosecution damned itself by not handling the mother more carefully so the deal is done now. Granted the jury wholehertedly voted AGAINST the mother and not for Michael Jackson, but the result is still the same; Jackson gets to settle back into his lifestyle of near-pederastic behavior (I assume, more carefully and quietly now).
My only question is how long will it be before he starts this mess up again? He’s been doing this for what, 20 odd years now? And some part of me fully expects his own children won’t give him whatever it is he’s seeking in these other little boys.
Pity he’s not too keen on asian boys. Otherwise, he could settle in some improverished area in a Pacific Rim country and not have to contend with such ugly things as self-restraint, the law, or the media.
Red,
If you want to offer the opinion that Jackson is probably guilty, you are entitled to do that. But that is not what you said. Instead, you derided the remarks made by the juror and exclaimed, “WHAT!!! This man just admitted he thought he was a child molester and thinks that it only happens on occasion.”
My point is that your denunciation of the juror was a cheap shot, because it ignores the fact that “probably” does not cut it in criminal trials, and that in any event the juror was talking about other boys, not the alleged victim in this case. Nor does your “pattern of behavior” comment help you. A belief that Jackson “probably” molested other boys cannot be transformed (by any logic I know) into a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that he molested the boy in question. The juror’s remarks demonstrate that he understood his responsibility as a juror, not that he is an idiot, as you implied.
Continuing to defend your attacks on the juror on the basis that I am engaging in “legalese” doesn’t cut it either. My post relies on very basic doctrines, as you seem to acknowledge yourself with your “no kidding” comment. If one wants to make intelligent criticisms, as opposed to cheap and sensationalistic ones, then one has to at least take account of these basic concepts.