Michael Jackson

[Smudger]

Quote[/b] (Spaceman Spiff @ June 16 2005,15:31)]I'm no lawyer, just a simpleton, but I see things thus:

1) I see no reason to believe that American Judges and Juries are any more bribable than UK ones. I have confidence in ours (and I have first-hand experience) so equally I have confidence in theirs.

2) Given the above, the amount of money a defendant does or does not have will make no difference apart from their ability to afford the very best defence team available.

3) Regardless of the lawyers on either side of the case, evidence is evidence. If there was a piece of red-hot evidence then that would tend to remove doubts as to guilt or innocence. There was no 'smoking gun' in this case.

4) The Jurors heard a number of items of evidence and testimonies from both sides (and the character of both sides could be deemed unreliable for a number of reasons). However at no stage did they see or hear anything that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson either touched Gavin Arvizo inappropriately, served him alcohol or showed him pornography.


Given all of the above the only option was to acquit. This is the correct course of action and I agree with it. It doesn't establish that Michael Jackson is innocent.

But i does demonstrate that the evidence put before the court was not sufficient to prove that Michael Jackson was guily of any of the named offences against Gavin Arvizo.

The only person who should be in prison right now is Janet Arvizo, for allowing her young son to sleep over at the house a 40+ years old 'friend'.

Would she have done that if Michael Jackson hadn't been loaded? What do you reckon?  

All the points you make are factually valid, I just feel that there is more to this than purely the case on which MJ was tried. His obsession with kids and the fact that there have been several other people making very similar (and substantiated) allegations gives me grave doubts as to his guilt. Read the Jordy Chandler case notes and you'll see what I mean....

When I spoke about his money getting him out of things, I meant his financial ability to a) pay off witnesses and/or accusers and b) provide himself with access to the slipperiest lawyers available. I was not suggesting that the American legal system is in any way crooked.

Bottom line - the man's a danger to himself and potentially to others. I don't want to see this joker on TV "entertaining" me any more. He can shove his Christ-like impersonations and self-canonising speeches right up his arse and I hope the rest of "his public" feels the same now....

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 16 2005,18:02)]provide himself with access to the slipperiest lawyers available.

Now, now - neither Mesereau nor Cochrane are/were slippery.  Cochrane was a master of rabble-rousing, inflaming the opposition, deflecting attention, show trials.  A real razzamatazz merchant - someone who got OJ off by successfully getting the jury to take their eye off the ball.  Perhaps not a pretty way of going about things, perhaps not too concerned with "justice" as such... but bloody effective.  More "bull in a china shop" than slippery, though.

Mesereau is a very different proposition.  He's a much less flashier performer - but is someone who comes across as good & honest.  He does a lot of work with the underprivileged, loads of free advice sessions in the inner-city 'hoods of LA, very popular and respected by the black community in places like Compton.  He's quite a find by the Jackson team - and was picked because, basically, he comes across as a decent and honest man... but is also, helpfully, a top notch lawyer.  He's certainly no slippery type...

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 16 2005,18:02)]Bottom line - the man's a danger to himself and potentially to others. I don't want to see this joker on TV "entertaining" me any more. He can shove his Christ-like impersonations and self-canonising speeches right up his arse and I hope the rest of "his public" feels the same now....

Now, I'm going to stick my neck out here... would I be right in saying that you're not too keen on Jacko, and that Earth Song is not your favourite video...

 

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (Yorkshire Bambi @ June 16 2005,14:42)]Also wasn' the charge supplying a minor with alchol with intent to perform a lewd act rather then just the intent to supply alcohol to a minor.

I thought there were 4 counts of a Lewd act
4 associated counts of supplying Alcohol for said Lewd act and
2 counts of Alcohol to a Minor

 

[Smudger]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ June 16 2005,18:14)]Now, now - neither Mesereau nor Cochrane are/were slippery.  Cochrane was a master of rabble-rousing, inflaming the opposition, deflecting attention, show trials.  A real razzamatazz merchant - someone who got OJ off by successfully getting the jury to take their eye off the ball.  Perhaps not a pretty way of going about things, perhaps not too concerned with "justice" as such... but bloody effective.  More "bull in a china shop" than slippery, though.


Now, I'm going to stick my neck out here... would I be right in saying that you're not too keen on Jacko, and that Earth Song is not your favourite video...

 

Matt, I have to defer to your knowledge of lawyers as one yourself but having watched the OJ trial (I was a student-nothing better to do...) I can't help but think you have donned the rose tinted specs for your assessment of Johnny Cochrane. "Slippery" is a more than apt description - he was the Don King of the court room! All that "If the glove don't fit....you MUST aquit!" stuff was fantastic theatre. I also seem to remember a dramatic speech comparing the dodgy cop to Adolf Hitler. What happened to Cochrane anyway?

Just off to watch "Earth Song" again, had forgotten how good it was. Also "Heal the World" is a good one if you do the actions....

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 17 2005,09:48)]What happened to Cochrane anyway?

dead as a doornail

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ June 17 2005,10:17)]

Quote[/b] (Smudger @ June 17 2005,09:48)]What happened to Cochrane anyway?

dead as a doornail

Indeed - RIP.

Smudge - you're spot on in terms of the Cochrane court-room style... but that seems more showman & razzle-dazzle than slippery as such. Slippery to me denotes the guy who pretends to become the jury's friend; and that wasn't Cochrane's style. He was a true Barnum & Bailey showman, leading a merry dance in the one-ring circus of a law-court...