...Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a high profile case in the US.
The worst part in all of this? The accuser’s life is over. That, and we’ll be forced to listen to a bunch of preening, self-righteous defense attorneys lecture us about how justice was done here, and how the evil little cancer boy and his crazy mom who tried to use the justice system to sully the reputation of a blameless manchild (a manchild who once paid $20 million to make charges of molestation go away, mind) got exactly what they deserved -- conveniently forgetting to mention that those are precisely the kinds of marks pedophiles go after when they troll for prey.
The problem, as I see it, is that jurors in these types of cases take the “beyond a reasonable doubt” mandate to ridiculous extremes when it comes to the prospect of being responsible for convicting celebrities, and high-priced defense attorneys have become quite adroit at concentrating on nothing other than raising doubts—even as they’re able to shield their clients from having to testify.
And there will always be doubt in a he said / he said molestation situation—particularly if the predator is careful about whom he chooses to prey upon.
But even so: not guilty of providing alcohol to minors? Please.
****
Prominent Colorado-based defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt will have much more, I'm certain.
****
update: The Western Standard's Ezra Levant weighs in (h/t Mike P).
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2114
Sneddon's freak show draws to a close from Potbelly Stove
Much was made of the kid's behavior in the taped police interview with the hesitation to answer questions and all. As though he was reluctant to describe some molestation of himself. My own take: The kid was reluctant to follow his mother's orders... [Read More]
Tracked on June 13, 2005 8:56 PM
What a shock, Jackson aquitted from Black Sheep Press
Who didn't see that coming? When's the last time a celeb was actually found guilty? [Read More]
Tracked on June 14, 2005 2:50 AM
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/
Just another take on it Jeff.
Celebrity cases are determined by who has the better lawyer - that means, which side has the most money to spend.
It's only a matter of time before a new charge comes up, people like whacko don't stop.
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 6:09 PMThat's disappointing to say the least!
Posted by: Candace at June 13, 2005 6:10 PMMichael who?
Posted by: maz2 at June 13, 2005 6:23 PMI dont Know Candance, Jeff and Jay, whether Jacko is guilty or not as I only heard some of the testimony but it seemed to me from the bits I did get that there was reasonable doubt, just based on that particular kid and his mother. If Jackson had so many kids at his place why would that particular kid be the one molested?? Secondly reading Levants take( I know its after the fact), but was a district attorney out to get Jackson??
Posted by: MikeP at June 13, 2005 6:29 PMThat's my point, Mike. There is always going to be reasonable doubt in such cases. It's the kid's word against Jackson's.
As for a vendetta by the D.A., that's nonsense. Prosecutors prosecute when they believe crimes have been committed. That's what they are elected for and paid to do. The perceived Sneddon vendetta comes from the man believing in his gut that a heavily monied, ubiquitously shielded pedophile is breaking the law in his jurisdiction.
Prosecutors don't get to pick who the accusors are -- though a case can be made that pedophiles do just that, which is why they tend to go after the vulnerable and those that provide them with a built-in degree of deniability.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 6:41 PMI'm with Mike P on this, except perhaps more so. I think Michael Jackson PROBABLY did SOME of the things he was charged with, but "probably" isn't good enough in criminal court. I am, for example, nowhere near as certain of his guilt as I am of OJ Simpson's (or Scott Peterson's). Prosecutors can only work with the evidence they have, and the jury can only work what's been presented to it, and on that, I alwasy say plenty of reasonable doubt here. However, I expected the jury to convict on something but not everything: that they acquitted even on all of the lesser-included misdemeanors is actually what surprises me most.
"...high-priced defense attorneys have become quite adroit at concentrating on nothing other than raising doubts..."
Excuse me, but what else exactly do you think it is the job of ANY criminal defense attorney to do? The burden of proof is on the prosecution: the defense does not have to present an alternative theory of the case. That's true regardless of whether you're talking about people like Jackson's attorneys or a junior public defender trying their first hopeless case fresh out of law school.
Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 6:42 PMThese days given the right amount of money Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy and probably Hitler would get acquited.
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 6:54 PMExcuse me, but what else exactly do you think it is the job of ANY criminal defense attorney to do? The burden of proof is on the prosecution: the defense does not have to present an alternative theory of the case. That's true regardless of whether you're talking about people like Jackson's attorneys or a junior public defender trying their first hopeless case fresh out of law school.
Uh, who said it wasn't their job, or that they aren't good at it? I'm arguing that the standard of reasonable doubt has become perverted to the point that it is too difficult to meet in some cases, and that defense attorneys have become expert at increasing the breadth of that standard to the point where convictions are nearly impossible.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 6:55 PMSince I, as I'm sure the rest of us, don't have access to all the details of the case, I can't come to any conclusion: guilty or innocent. I have to rely on the judgment of those who have studied the facts.
However, the jury was on TV and answered several questions:
1)When asked whether Jackson's celebrity status played any role in their decision - their answer was a firm 'no'. The jurors who answered explained that they were aware that the accused was a celebrity but that they got over that quickly and their focus was, at all times, on the facts.
2)They repeated several times that their focus was on the facts - and that they went through a LOT of data. They seem to have thoroughly discussed and examined the case.
They were cautious but their comments implied that they found many of the prosecution's witnesses, particularly the mother, less than credible.
I don't see how I, who am not privy to the facts, would not accept their verdict.
I also don't see what's at fault with Ezra Levant's analysis. I don't see that Sneddon's instinctive conclusions are valid; they don't seem to be substantiated, therefore, why should his 'gut instincts' be taken as more truthful than the evidence?
Agreed that Michael Jackson is 'strange'; I don't know a thing about his 'music' but focus only on his visible facial transformation..but..that's irrelevant.
So- I go along with the jury. I have no information that would lead me to reject their conclusion.
Posted by: ET at June 13, 2005 7:00 PMOh crap - can't use certain symbols. So try again:
(starting to wonder if we have members of NAMBLA here)
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 7:02 PMDamn that's disappointing.
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 7:10 PMNo we dont Jay at least I speak for myself. I am no MJ fan either, and I personally think he is rather stupid or naive to do what he does and not expect some sort of retribution. But the point I am trying to bring out is this. More and more in Canada at least, I see trials where the only evidence is circumstantial and a he said, she said type of argument. What ever happened to corroborating evidence?? It used to be Innocent until proven guilty but it seems more and more its the other way around.
Posted by: MikeP at June 13, 2005 7:17 PMYeah, ET. I was hoping the jurors would say "of course we took into account that Jackson is a celebrity. Facts? Pshaw. The truth is, WE HELD ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS MEN IN THE WORLD'S VERY LIFE IN OUR HANDS! THAT'S HOW POWERFUL WE WERE! POWERFUL, BUT BENEVOLENT!"
I saw the jury interviews. One juror said, "the mother snapped her fingers at us. And nobody snaps her fingers at me." So yes, they didn't like the mother. Which doesn't mean the kid was lying. And let's face it: normal mothers aren't going to let their kids sleep with Michael Jackson time and again. Pedophiles look for situations in which they can maintain plausible deniability. Jackson has shown a history of that. Why, for all his Peter Pan talk, was there never a Wendy?
You have no information that would lead you to reject the jury's conclusion? How about the unrebutted testimony that Jackson knew of -- and allowed for -- the drinking of alcohol by the kids? And yet they refused even to convict Jackson on that, so disgusted were they with the Mother. A mother who was not on trial.
Regardless, for all your rationalizing, ET, you're certainly ready to believe the worst of Sneddon, though, aren't you? Which means that you no doubt have evidence of his desire to frame Jackson that you're just not sharing with us.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 7:18 PMIf the glove fits you must acquit ;-)
What's it take to nail a celeb pervert?...Gues crime isn't the same in Hollyweird as it is in the real world.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at June 13, 2005 7:21 PMI don't know WL Mackenzie Redux, we see cases here all the time that make your head bang against the wall. I'm kind of wondering when there gonna bring punishment back for crimes.
You seem to get a bigger fine for speeding then you do for a grow op.
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 7:31 PMI thought Martha Stewart was a celebrity, but I guess not. Her case doesn't fit your theory.
Posted by: stint at June 13, 2005 7:41 PMJeff - how do you know that, as you write:
'the truth is: WE HELD ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS MEN IN THE WORLD'S VERY LIFE IN OUR HANDS! THAT'S HOW POWERFUL WE WERE! POWERFUL, BUT BENEVOLENT!"
How do you know that this is the truth? How do you know that this was the basis of the jury's decisions?
As for the jury and the mother - that was one member who spoke. Other jurists spoke about their conclusions that the evidence was unreliable.
How do you know that the jury acted as you say that they did -- " And yet they refused even to convict Jackson on that, so disgusted were they with the Mother."
How do you know that this was their reasoning?
I am not rationalizing. With regard to Sneddon, my point was that I didn't see how his 'gut instincts' provided sufficient proof of Jackson's guilt.
As for Sneddon's agenda, Levant's data is far more credible than 'gut instincts'. But, I admit; you are right - I don't know and can't come to any conclusion about Sneddon.
As for the drinking, I don't know enough about the case to comment. I haven't followed it and don't know the details. I do, however, trust the jury far more than I trust my own lack of knowledge about what happened.
Posted by: ET at June 13, 2005 7:42 PMBy the way, speaking of celebrities - wasn't Martha Stewart convicted?
Posted by: ET at June 13, 2005 7:51 PMFood for thought. ON AVERAGE a child has to try & tell someone NINE times before notice is taken and actions to stop the abuse come into play.
Nine times.
Regardless of whether MJ is guilty or not, my money is on that number going up. And fewer children reporting.
One in four children will be sexually assaulted before reaching 18.
I have no idea whether MJ did what he was reported to have done, whether the DA was on a mission (which, if he truly believes MJ is a molester, is a mission I could support) or bearing a grudge.
How many children have caught the headlines and now feel even more powerless, if they are caught in the web of a pedophile?
That's the real tragedy here.
It's quite possible the boy was molested; there are many professionals who can figure it out without traumatizing the child. It sounds like his mother is a bit of an idiot (like I'd let my kid within 100 yards of the guy?).
But I don't know that "justice" was necessarily done today. I hope the jurors were right and I am wrong.
Posted by: Candace at June 13, 2005 7:55 PMWell, Rob...the "puishment " for these coddled narcissists is being inconvenienced by the trial time.
As for what passes for punishment befitting crime in the star chambers of the nanny state, I'm surprised there aren't people trying to break into club fed after a megre existance as a tax slave.
Do yerself one o' them pop crimes..ya know the white collar celeb crimes...and do a strech in a fed holiday resort with folks you can relate to with no one about to bother you as you finish your degree on the public dime...day passes to shoot 8-19 holes ( on the links) then back "over the security hedge" to your modern high security condo where there's no chance of a robbery or breaking or property damage happening....no work, no expenses, no taxes, no worries...almost beginnin' to sound good to me...from a self emplyed consulting contractor who used to spend 12-14 hr days 6-7 days a week just paying tax bills and a mortgage and building a business against too damn may rules...sigh... some got it lucky...just gotta pick the right crime and catch the MSM on a no news day.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at June 13, 2005 7:58 PM"ON AVERAGE a child has to try & tell someone NINE times before notice is taken"
What did you say?
Eight ,more to go..... ;-) .. not intending to mean your a child of course, but I do that to adults as well... It's called the boss ignoring the employee syndrome, serious problem with kids though.
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 8:01 PMTrial in California:
California jury = innocent
California Celebrity = innocent
California Wealthy = innocent
California Pedophile = innocent
Unerpaid prosecution and overpaid defense = innocent
This case was a lost cause from the beginning.
Ref Martha Stewart - yes she was convicted. Of lying. Had she simply told the truth about her insider trading she would have paid a fine and gone home but she denied it.
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 8:04 PMStint --
Let's just say Martha wouldn't have been convicted of a serious criminal offense that carried with it serious weight. My personal opinion is that she shouldn't have been convicted (for lying) anyway. But the fact remains that she is the exception in recent years, and hers was a symbolic, white collar conviction.
ET --
No offense, but your epistemological questions are silly in this context. Of course I don't know with any certainty what the jurists were thinking or why they reached the verdict they reached. I wasn't in on the deliberations and I'm not a mind reader, so I can only speculate based on daily reports of the testimony, my own suspicions, the reasoning of legal analysts I trust, the verdict, and my observations from watching the jurors at their press conference. Which, in the absense of a metaphysical Truth revealed to me by a higher power, will just have to do.
Still, I point out once again that the jury failed to convict Jackson on alcohol charges despite the unrebutted testimony pointing to Jackson's knowledge of alcohol use by the kids. Which makes me suspicious of the rest of the jury's conclusions.
I believe that the jurists despised the kid's mother so much that they erred on the side of Jackson and reasonable doubt. Whereas they should have concentrated not on the mother but on the kid. Jackson had homosexual pornographic material in the room in where he slept with the boys. Why?
My informed opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 8:06 PMMJ: First order of business is to issue Neverland lifetime passes for the jury ... and there kids, ya they got lots of kids right?
...Oh... and don't forget to sign it "Love Micheal"
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 8:12 PMWouldn't it be hilarious if whacko "thanked" the jury by issuing passes for their kids but not for them?
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 8:20 PMPerhaps the focus should be on the limited success of one's own justice system, rather than on the operation of someone else's.
How many murders? How many rapes? How many years?
Or, perhaps we could ask about Air India. Pickton. Any of a countless number of unsolved murders in Canada. Questions of corruption in politics. And have you ever been shot at by a prison escapee committing a robbery? I know plenty of folks who have been.
At least in the Jackson case there was good reason to believe he was innocent of the criminal charges even if he did exercise poor judgement.
Posted by: Paul at June 13, 2005 8:22 PMJay: LOL...
MJ: Don't worry about little Johnny, they'll all be sleeping in my bed tonight.
Ya know, if they did that, I would have no sympathy for the parents. The kids on the other hand would be screwed for life.
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 8:31 PMOr at least until their passes expired.
Posted by: Jay at June 13, 2005 8:34 PMCandace - what's the basis for your statistics of 'nine times'? And for your prediction that, now, the number will go up? Why will the number go up now?
Jeff, my questions aren't silly. I was pointing out the absence of 'epistemological reality'. I suggest, that in the absence of evidence - one can't, reliably and validly, come to any conclusion. Yet you do. That's what I find puzzling. How you can be so certain - and yet - have no evidence to substantiate your certainty.
I don't know anything about the alcohol case. Certainly, it many family gatherings, children are given sips or small glasses of adult wine. Was this the same, or was it full glasses of hard liquor?
You 'believe' that the jurists despised the mother. Again- this is an opinion without evidence! What's your proof of this? There's no evidence for the existence of the variable (despise mother) nor of any cause-effect connection. There IS evidence that the jurors did not believe her, and that, after all, is what they are supposed to do - come to a conclusion about the validity of the evidence and the reliability of the witnesses. Based on the evidence.
I don't know if the jurors concentrated on the mother. Certainly, they couldn't ignore her evidence and her role in the situation.
All I know, is that Jackson is a strange person. Beyond that - I simply cannot venture. I can't conclude that he molested children or that he didn't - and I don't see how anyone outside of that jury can come to any conclusion either.
Posted by: ET at June 13, 2005 8:35 PMROFLMAO.... I guess you could take that literally...
Thanks Jay .. I needed a good laugh.. been a long day.
Posted by: rob at June 13, 2005 8:39 PMHow would you feel if your pre-pubic ten year old was charged with a sex-crime for playing 'doctor'?
We can only pity Michael Jackson for never wanting to grow up- there is a good possibility that he does not have the brain-cells for that.
ET --
Are you actually suggesting that in the absence of epistemological certainty one can't come to a conclusion? Because the jury just did that very thing, you realize, and not only that, but the conclusion they came to is a legally binding one. Methinks you've internalized a misguided populist understanding of certain postmodern precepts concerning epistemology.
You find it puzzling that I'm so "certain." Well, I'm as certain in my belief as the jury is in theirs. And I base my conclusion on all the things I've mentioned, including (as "evidence" for my belief that the jury let their dislike of the mother color their judgment) the unrebutted testimony that Michael Jackson knew of and did nothing to stop the use of alcohol by children in his home that somehow did not lead to a conviction on that charge.
Bottom line: His accusor says he was molested; Jackson's attorney says this is not the case. And there being no physical evidence of the crime, the entire prosecutory case by necessity must be made circumstantially. That is, without direct, non-subjective evidence. From an indirect evidentiary standpoint, however, we know that Jackson admits to sleeping with the boys in a room where prosecutors established there was homosexual pornographic material. Why that material in that room?
Now, let me turn the tables on you: what would constitute reliable evidence that jurists didn't like the mother? Me, I based my conclusion on the way they reacted to any mention of her during the press conference.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 8:52 PMI followed this case until the prosecution rested. I was surprised that the judge didn't grant the defense motion to dismiss the case without the defense even having to present. The evidence wasn't there...let alone credible evidence. Once the defense started I lost interest because it was already over.
I have no doubt that Jackson is a pedo freak, the prosecution however did not choose a good set of facts/witnesses to bring him down with.
Posted by: A Ziggen at June 13, 2005 8:54 PMNow, wait a sec. It has been reported that MJ, freaky as he is, was surrounded by predators, even on his own staff. I believe the whole lot, having a chance, were getting their shots in. Believe me when I say I am no fan of Jackson or his fantasy life style. But, given her (mother of the accusor) history, I think she saw easy prey in Jackson and had a go at hime.
Posted by: Howard Larson at June 13, 2005 8:54 PM"...do a strech in a fed holiday resort with folks you can relate to with no one about to bother you..."
Sorry, pal, but "Club Fed" is a myth. It ain't state prison (well, OK, maybe it's comparable only in Martha's Connecticut), but it's still prison. It still means strip searches and no privacy, it still means working in some prison facility (Martha was in the laundry) for essentially no pay, and it still means losing your freedom. The company you keep isn't all Wall Street types, either: there's plenty of street criminals and drug offenders convicted under federal statutes who the BOP doesn't deem quite dangerous enough to send to medium or maximum security.
Besides, if convicted, MJ would've gone from the courthouse to stay at Santa Barbara County Jail until sentencing, and then (for his own protection from the general population) to the severest lockdown California has on offer: 24-7 protective isolation, which is only available in the same facility that's holding (for example) Charles Manson.
"I point out once again that the jury failed to convict Jackson on alcohol charges despite the unrebutted testimony pointing to Jackson's knowledge of alcohol use by the kids."
That surprised me, too, but just because the prosecution presents unrebutted evidence on one its charges does not require the jury to convict. They're there to judge the credibility of that evidence, and they're allowed to reject it.
BTW, please don't think what I'm saying is kneejerk defense stuff. I've worked in the DA's Office in LA, and don't think I could EVER be a criminal defense attorney, but I'm just calling it as I see it.
Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 8:57 PMET - I was told that by a nurse at BC Children's Hospital. I didn't have time to research it. I know the 1 in 4 number is right, and out there somewhere.
brb
Posted by: Candace at June 13, 2005 9:06 PM
Live blogging the DA's and jury's press conference.
Totally the correct verdict.
Posted by: TalkLeft at June 13, 2005 9:08 PMDave --
I'm aware that they don't have to convict simply because they are presented with unrebutted evidence. I'm saying they should have.
And I'm further arguing that the jury's dislike of the mother colored every decision they made.
And yes, this is my opinion -- not an immutable fact of metaphysical certainty. But it is an opinion based on my consideration of the case and the evidence presented.
The sins of the mother were visited on the child here. In my opinion.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 9:08 PMI really wanted M.J moonwalk into his prison cell. And not because of any strong feelings of guilt, but just by how generally weird the guy is. He was tried in California people. And had a copy of my favorite magazine... Juggs
Posted by: Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man at June 13, 2005 9:27 PMJeff -
I am indeed suggesting that without evidence (epistemological certainty) then, one cannot come to a conclusion. It is irresponsible to come to a conclusion without evidence. That's been the tactic, for centuries, of various 'hate crimes' - such as witch hunts..where you 'prove' that someone is a witch because ..'well, just because'.
My point was that since neither you nor I have access to the full data base available to the jury, then, neither you nor I can come to a conclusion. On the other hand, I don't think that the jury's conclusion was without evidence. Their conclusion was that the evidence provided was not sufficient to prove guilt. That's most certainly not an 'absence of epistemological certainty'.
I don't think that it's valid to compare your conclusion with that of the jury's. After all, you don't have the data; they do. The fact that you are certain of your belief, and that they are certain of their belief, does not make your belief valid. That is - certainty of belief is not proof of validity. During the Salem Witch trials, people were very certain of their beliefs also.
You have no way of knowing that the jury's dislike of the mother actually colored and discredited their judgment. You know that they did not accept the mother's testimony, but, you have no way of knowing that this rejection in any way invalidated their conclusion of 'not guilty'. Because the jury rejected her evidence and did not like/accept the way she presented herself does not invalidate their conclusion. I think you'd have to provide evidence that their decision was based, not on the evidence, but on the fact that they disliked the mother. This seems to be your conclusion, but I don't see the causal link. (not-liking-mother...causes..not guilty verdict).
I don't think that subjective evidence is reliable. And, indirect evidence is also not reliable. Because Jackson slept with boys in his room does not also mean that he abused them. You can't directly link those two variables.
Because there was homosexual pornography also doesn't insert any causal link.
As I said, I don't know enough of the case and know nothing about the alcohol. What was this use?
Posted by: ET at June 13, 2005 9:35 PMI am indeed suggesting that without evidence (epistemological certainty) then, one cannot come to a conclusion. It is irresponsible to come to a conclusion without evidence.
Evidence is not the same thing as epistemological certainty. In fact, evidence must be interpreted within a particular context to be considered "evidence" in the first place. And as I've said, I've used the same type of evidence to come to my conclusion as has the jury. I haven't said Jackson is guilty "just because"; I've argued that Jackson is guilty based on my reading of the same evidence the jury considered. They say that the evidence presented wasn't enough to convict Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt. I say it was. So the case becomes about what constitutes reasonable doubt -- not about what constitutes evidence.
As I said before, I have no objective way of knowing with absolute certainty that the jury's dislike of the mother colored their judgment. Of course, I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow, either. But if I argued that the sun will come up tomorrow -- and cited as my proof my observation that it's come up on several other occasions that I've witnessed -- you probably wouldn't be making the same kind of silly epistemological arguments you're making here to try to discredit my reasoning. If you want to argue that you don't think the jurists allowed the their personal feelings for the mother to intrude on their deliberations, fine; but telling me that I can't make that case until I provide you with a cross-section of each jurist's brain taken from the "what we think about the mother" portion of the cerebral cortex, well, that's just absurd. We make judgments based on perception all the time. And the majority of convictions in criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence -- and on the jury putting together a narrative of events based around that circumstantial evidence.
So yes, there is no necessary causal connection between feeding children alcohol, showing them porn, then sleeping with them in bed, and molestation. But that doesn't mean there isn't or can't be a connection. The jury had to decide if that connection was there or not in this case. They decided that the family -- and the mother in particular -- was unreliable, and so they ruled that the circumstantial connection wasn't enough to convict; me, I'm arguing that they got caught up in the perceived villiany of the family (and in particular the mother) and so erred on the side of reasonable doubt.
In your case, though, essentially what you are suggesting is that without God himself having photographed Jackson slurping on the boy pipe and presenting that evidence to the jury, Jackson cannot -- short of admitting his guilt -- be convicted. And even if God were to present such photographic evidence, the defense would find strategies to impeach both it and God.
Which is why I'd want you on my jury if I'm ever accused of a crime, but which is also why were you a student in one of my argument courses you'd be seeing a bunch of red pen on marks on your term paper.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 13, 2005 10:07 PMET - this is the closest I can find at the moment. From
http://www.womensradio.com/reallife/rapevictimsspeakup.htm
"...Government estimates indicate that children under 12 are the victims of more than 30 percent of all sexual assaults. Also, the survey methods do not guarantee the privacy of the interviewee, hindering the detection of a crime that is often committed by family members and intimate partners of the victim..."
This is also an interesting site, but no stats that I can find.
http://www.hccac.org/Newsletters/mayjune99/realfears.htm
http://www.hccac.org/Newsletters/marapr99/childabusemth.htm
You want to know why the Jury found him not guilty? Read on....
[I've removed the long cut and paste from this pro-Jackson site but left the link - ed]
Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2005 10:27 PMHe got off that all there is to it. If (when) he does it again, it will be even harder to get him. He can pretty much do it with impunity. Do not think he will stop because he won’t. Moreover, don’t think he will not be able to get stupid parents to leave their kids with him because he will.
Posted by: jwbrown1969 at June 13, 2005 10:48 PMJeff - more here http://tinyurl.com/cmuy3
Posted by: Candace at June 14, 2005 1:55 AMOops, I meant ET
Posted by: Candace at June 14, 2005 1:56 AMThough I am not a Michael Jackson fan and don't know if he is what the D.A. proclaims him to be; I do know that they certainly didn't prove their case even though Sneddon has spent considerable time, money and political capital on a personal vendetta. Sure Michael is strange, since when is that not allowed in the land of the free. Sneddon's unetheical use of his office for grandstanding is probably the most dispicable thing in this whole case. Yes and I can easily see Sneedon with a white pointed cap on, he has shown what an intolerant man he is for all to see.
Posted by: burningman5 at June 14, 2005 3:59 AMJeff.
1) No, I don't think that you've used the same 'type' of evidence as the jury. Their evidence was full, based on their hearing all the testimony and their having all the reports. I don't think that you had the same data-base. You didn't have this data base. You are setting yourself up as equal, in knowledge, to the jury members. I don't think this is the case.
2)Your argument attempting to validate your conclusion that a)the jury disliked the mother and that b)this influenced and biased their judgment - is specious and invalid.
There is no comparison with your attempt to link the above two variables (a and b) to an argument that a)seeing that the sun rises leads to a conclusion that b)the sun will rise tomorrow. It's a false analogy. First, there's no causal link in 'the sun rising' example (you haven't stated the cause); and second, it's a physical rather than psychological variable and thus has fewer complexities.
3)No, I'm not saying that you have to provide a 'cross-section of each jurist's brain. I didn't ask you to do that and therefore, you are quite right that such a suggestion would be 'just absurd'. I'm pleased I didn't make such a suggestion. I'm not a fan of the brain=mind club anyway.
4) However, you then state that 'we make judgments based on perception all the time'. Indeed we do, and that doesn't make those judgments valid. In fact, in most cases, judgments based on immediate perception are invalid; they can be almost mechanical reactions.
5)If the majority of convictions in criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence rather than facts..and on a 'narrative' put together by the jury'...then,I'd say that this is a deeply flawed justice system. Deeply flawed.
6)You yourself point out there is no 'necessary' connection between those variables (drinks, porn, molestation)..which doesn't, however, lead to an 'actual' case of molestation. You can't have a set of three variables and then add a fourth (molestation) and say that, since in some cases some of these variables are found together, then, in ALL cases, they will be found together. That's an invalid argument.
7)Again, your argument that the jury was biased by their having moved into a personal rejection of the mother such that they no longer considered the evidence, in itself, is unproven.
8)I'm an atheist and reject your statement that I require God as Ultimate Viewer..and I'd appreciate your sticking to the facts.
9) I didn't realize that you were a professor. So am I. In fact, among other courses, one of my basic courses is social science methodology - you know - the stuff that deals with evidence, validity, reliability, causality, stats, valid versus spurious links, argumentation, logic..and critical thinking..for over 20 years.
I'd have to admit - that your argumentation would lead to an 'F' in my courses.
ET --
Absent any direct, clear record of the molestation taking place, do you think it's even possible to make a case against a child molester? You clearly believe in a very high standard of proof -- an impossible standard of proof, it looks like. Maybe you could clarify and explain what kind of evidence it would take.
Posted by: Matt at June 14, 2005 9:30 AMIn reply to Mike, yes, I think that there has to be direct evidence - of anything. Without such standards, as I'm sure you realize, we can convict anyone of anything. On pure supposition and speculation.
We've done this lots of time in both ancient and modern history. And, we've been wrong far more times than we've been right.
We have no choice but to err on the side of evidence and facts. Otherwise, we move too easily into speculation..and into doing what Jeff was promoting -
Jeff wrote: "the majority of convictions in criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence -- and on the jury putting together a narrative of events based around that circumstantial evidence".
Now, to me, that's really frightening. That means that we can be judged, not on the correlation of the actual facts, and their actual empirical and logical relations with each other..but instead..within an interpretation, a a narrative written with the jury as authors, based on 'circumstantial' evidence. That's not a justice system I'd want around.
I don't think that the standards of proof can be any different between cases - otherwise, we'd be getting a lopsided justice system. It has to be the same standards: the actual evidence and the actual results - not presumed, not guessed, not written as a narrative.
If there is physical evidence of molestation - that's evidence. If the reporting of events by the 'victim' is credible, i.e., non-contradictory, and remains stable within cross-examination, that's evidence. Same with the alleged molestor - are there contradictions and is the argument open to in-depth questioning?
But, to convict someone because 'he's the type to do that'; ...or 'why would he have young boys around other than to 'do that'?...or..'why would he have pornographic magazines around if he didn't 'do that'?...Or..'the only reason he got off was because the jury didn't like the mother'...No. That's all pure speculation, and has no role in a justice system.
You see, you can speculate throughout a justice system, but, unless you can actually prove your speculations - that's where they ought to remain.
Otherwise, you end up with Salem Witch Trials.
Sorry- the above was in reply to 'Matt'.
Posted by: ET at June 14, 2005 10:44 AMET --
1) type of evidence and amount of evidence are not the same thing.
2) simply using words like "specious" and "invalid" doesn't make it so. And my analogy is not a false one, no matter how much you try to obfuscate with jargon. In both instances, I haven't any absolute knowledge (epistemological certainty) that one thing (a) necessitates the other (b); all I have is empirical data and habit to make a prediction. The point being that I'm able to make a sound prediction based on something less than epistemological certainty -- and that in fact we do so all the time, out of necessity. In a linguistic universe wherein we have no direct confrontation with pure epistemological Truths, all of our attempts to determined truth rely on context and contingency (more on this here). Because I kept my example a simple one doesn't change its kind. That is, adding layers of complexity doesn't change the basics of the analogy.
3) If not a cross-section of brain, than you are essentially arguing that there is no way I can ever know with any certainty what the jurists were thinking with regards to the mother (a truism). From that premise, though, you go on to conclude that therefore there is no way I can come to a valid conclusion that jury is in fact thinking what I suspect them to be thinking (untrue). I may never be able to prove with epistemological certainty what they are thinking, but I can certainly hypothesize based on any number of pieces of empirical data (their physical reactions, their tones of voice, their facial coloring, their choice of language -- all compared to the same empirical data in different situations) and come to an informed opinion. This is what science does all the time. As someone else noted above, to expect more is to demand a degree of certainty that (ironically) only comes with the kinds of leaps of faith that led to the Salem witch trials.
4) The process of the perceptions (mechanical) does not invalidate them. In fact, if they didn't work for our environment, evolutionary science suggests we'd have gone extinct by now. I'm not sure what world you live in, ET. Honestly.
5) Well, that's how the human brain works. I'd call it a deeply human system. Deeply human.
6) Uh,I never said the 3 variables (the alcohol, the porn in the same room, and the sleeping in the same bed with the boys) necessitate the fourth (molestation). You're misrepresenting my argument. In fact, here's exactly what I wrote:
[...] there is no necessary causal connection between feeding children alcohol, showing them porn, then sleeping with them in bed, and molestation. But that doesn't mean there isn't or can't be a connection. The jury had to decide if that connection was there or not in this case.Or, to be it more simply, the jury has to take those individual pieces of evidence -- that Jackson allowed the kids to drink, that Jackson kept homosexual porn in the room he used to sleep with the children, and that Jackson then slept with the boys in that room -- and decide if those pieces of evidence add up beyond a reasonable doubt to a scenario in which Jackson did, as his accusor claims, molest him.
7) Yes, it is unproven. It is speculation based upon empirical evidence. Which is exactly how a jury makes determination. How can it ever be proved to your satisfaction?
8) Atheism has nothing to do with it. I am sticking to the facts. The point of the God bit was to illustrate that for your idea of proof to work, you'd need something as impossible to conjure as a metaphysical force to validate things -- because no where else does the kind of decontextualized empirical certainty that you require exist.
9) If you are a professor and you teach logic (and this I truly doubt), you are clearly not preparing your students well.
There is no reason to argue this any further. Any one with a modicum of sense will, at this point, have made up his or her mind. You believe we can only convict based on epistemoligical certainties (which don't exist in any way that we can possibly know them to be such), you can't differentiate between number and kind, and you don't believe the human brain operates efficiently enough by drawing together narratives from empirical data to have its conclusions validated -- regardless of whether or not habit validates them. Fine. Nothing left to talk about.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 14, 2005 12:53 PMI am with you ET. I mentioned earlier that more and more trials are being decided on a he said/she said basis with no corroboration and it is dangerous. If someone has a grudge against me its easy now to "get me", so to speak, in a court were very little evidence is needed.
As for the celebrity thing, did OJ really get off because of his celebrity, or was it because of racial overtones which I sensed?? Did anyone else sense that?
Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. I recall it was mostly her word against his and she went to his room at three in the morning. What for, to share a pizza. Yet he was convicted based on his reputation. Whether he raped her or not no one really knows but because he was a bad boy he was found guilty.
Celebrity didnt help Martha Stewart as ET mentioned.
It may have helped Robert Blake but I dont know enough to comment on his case.
I think MJ's non conviction was lack of evidence and lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Not celebrity.
Posted by: MikeP at June 14, 2005 12:54 PMI give up.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 14, 2005 12:58 PMI'm sorry - but to me the very presence of child-porn in his home would lead me to believe he was VERY guilty. How many of you men out there have child porn in your house???
When I was a juror - we got two versions of a story - we picked the one we believed the most (one claimed rape, the other said they were dating.) Did I have PROOF they weren't dating? Not absolute proof. I still managed to convince those wavering few that the guy was a rapist.
Posted by: Carin at June 14, 2005 1:35 PMGuilt? Innocence? Mere constructs of the Patriarchial gesalt.
Me?
I'm just glad this crap isn't gonna be on the teevee no more. I hope Mike, his lawyers and the entire jury pool (if not the city of Santa Barbara itself) fall into an informational black hole.
I DON"T FUCKING CARE!
Posted by: mojo at June 14, 2005 1:44 PMIt is written "A wise thief always prospers."
It's likely MJ chose his victims as people he knew would not be credible. He is a smart guy, if also a twisted freak.
Posted by: TallDave at June 14, 2005 1:45 PMNot like you Jeff to give up. LMAO.
Posted by: MikeP at June 14, 2005 1:45 PMI have to agree, there was enough evidence to convict MJ. The jurors were not given any information not available to the public.
It's virtually impossible to convict a rich celebrity. Tyson was convicted only because his idiot legal team made the case that "of course she was raped, she went to Mike Tyson's hotel room at 3AM, what did she think was going to happen? I mean, this is Mike Tyson, he's a menace." Surprise, the jury agreed and locked him up.
Posted by: TallDave at June 14, 2005 1:52 PMWell, Mike, when you've exhausted yourself philosophically and you can't seem to explain fundamental principles of what knowledge is and how it's constituted (and comes to count as knowledge in the first place), then it's time to call it a day.
Or -- you can do what I did and move the discussion into a different venue to see if you get different results. Who knows? Maybe the atmospheric conditions in the Canadian ether aren't amenable to such discussions.
Posted by: Jeff G at June 14, 2005 2:13 PMhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000956815
Interesting.
Posted by: TallDave at June 14, 2005 2:30 PMJeff.
1) I am not in the habit of lying. You doubt that I am a professor. What is the basis for your doubt? You doubt that I teach logic. What is the basis for your doubt?
Unfortunately for your capacities of proof, I AM a professor, and in one of my basic courses, I teach exactly what I said: social science methods, which include statistics, causality, reliability, validity, logical format and fallacies, argumentation, data presentation, etc, etc. And yes, I prepare my students well. I don't think that you have the evidence to conclude, as you have, otherwise.
You, on the other hand, told the blog that you teach argumentation. Were YOU telling the truth?
Are YOU a professor? I am sure you are not lying, so it puzzles me why you suggest that I was lying.
2) I repeat that your example of the 'sun rising' is a false analogy. The 'sun' rising is a univariate; the 'jury-mother' causes 'not guilty verdict' is a bivariate. Since you teach argumentation, then, none of this is jargon to you and you know why they can't be compared.
3) Is there such a thing as 'pure epistemological Truth"? What do you mean by that? I'm not a Platonist. Are you?
4)The fact that you made an 'informed opinion' doesn't make it valid. Someone else could have an 'informed opinion' about the jury that would be quite the opposite of yours. I, for instance.
You still don't know what the jury was thinking, and for a reasonably accurate conclusion, you'd have to interview them, each of them, several times, with very specific questions.
Furthermore, science may indeed come up with various 'hypotheses', based on 'informed opinion', but, these are not valid until empirically tested. That's the strength of science.
5)Perception is not mechanical; it's a complex process. It's 'triadic' rather than 'dyadic' (input-mediation-output). There's a mediation process and that mediation can interfere with and confuse the interpretation. If it does this too much, then, the system is in trouble. That's my point, the system can't afford to make invalid interpretations..and your 'judgment based on perception' can lead to that.
My research is in the field of informational dynamics and cognition. And, also, in the field of evolutionary information processes. Now, are you going to tell me, again, that you doubt me?
6) The human brain does not work only within the development of a narrative. Its interpretations have to be pragmatic, i.e., responsive to actual reality. If not, the human is in trouble..I might come up with a narrative that I can fly, but, I wonder if I should test if off the 20th floor of a building.
7) Although you said that the correlation of all four variables with each other wasn't necessary, you still conclude that they DO function together! Same thing. I'm saying that they might function together, but without proof that they DID, I can't conclude a thing on the Jackson case.
8)The jury bias, which you claim, is, in my view, unsubstantiated. Your evidence is merely your observation of their brief TV interview. That's not enough, in my view, to stand as evidence.
9) Again - you said that you teach argumentation. For how many years? Personally, I find it quite insulting of you to doubt that I teach logic. It happens to be a particular field of mine, that I greatly enjoy - even though you both doubt that I do it, and conclude that my students are badly taught. Notice that I don't insult you, by saying a word about your students in your courses.
By the way, your conclusions about me, are specious and invalid. You say I can't differentiate between number and kind (what a silly thing to say); that I reject empirical data - when, my point was that YOUR conclusions lacked empirical substantiation!; and I'm not saying that we convict only on epistemological certainties; I'm saying that we convict when our interpretations are substantiated by empirical evidence.
Best guess? ET is a first-year grad student who has just enough knowledge to sound dangerously underinformed.
Or, like JG suggested, a really shitty professor.
Posted by: Mike Jackson's Cleveland Steamer at June 14, 2005 3:39 PMBesides, if convicted, MJ would've gone from the courthouse to stay at Santa Barbara County Jail until sentencing, and then . . . to the severest lockdown California
Wrong. He would have sat in SBCJ until a new increased bail was set and he came up with the $$. Defendant's have the right to bail on appeal. Meaning, he would have years of freedom even if the conviction were not reversed.
I'm just calling it as I see it.
Time for an eye exam.
Posted by: kma at June 14, 2005 3:45 PMActually, no, I'm not a first year grad student. You see, I'm not in the habit of lying. I am what I said I was: a professor - with over 20 years of experience. No, I'm not a 'shitty' professor, but have always received high evaluations. I don't need to substantiate myself any further.
Jeff G. on the other hand, is misunderstanding my theme, and actually, moving me into Platonism - with his statement that I require 'epistemological certainty'..which he defines very, very differently than I do.
I define the term of episitemological certainty or epistemological truth only to mean that I must be reasonably certain that my interpretation of X-situation is a reasonablly accurate re-presentation of that situation. The confluence between the situation X and my interpretation...leads me to an 'epistemological certainty' that my interpretation is valid and 'truthful'. That's a Peircean or Aristotelian frame.
Jeff, I think, defines 'epistemological certainty and truth' in a Platonic sense,..that there must be some Pure Ideal Truth that exists, outside of the situation X...and I must then come along and match the two. If they don't match..then, I say that the case is 'unproven'.
So - we are talking about two different modes of ascertaining truth.
I'll repeat my conclusion. I, myself, can't come to any conclusion about the Jackson case, because I, unlike the jurors, am not privy to the evidence. Jeff, on the other hand, comes to a different conclusion - that he CAN come to a conclusion. And, he also comes to a conclusion that the jurors were biased against the mother and this affected/caused their decision. I claim that without his having access to evidence, both direct and indirect, he cannot come to those conclusions. I also question his logic, which I claim has many fallacies.
You people, on the other hand, can, of course, conclude that I am lying, that I am a first year grad student (if only!), that I am ignorant and a liar..and so on.
Posted by: ET at June 14, 2005 4:13 PMTallDave,
It's interesting because MJ's race and sex are so ill-defined. I wonder if there's a clear division between whitewashed circus freaks and non-whitewashed circus freaks?
Posted by: roki at June 14, 2005 4:29 PMI assume ET is just what he claims to be. Absent an LSD habit, only a decade or two in the academy can so divorce someone from reality. Your standard means, empirically, that rape is only a crime if the rapist is photographed in the act or fails to wear a condom. That's the practical application of your standard.
In the history of the world, I do not believe any man has ever (1) provided a minor with alcohol, (2) shared his porn with the minor, and (3) shared a bed with that minor without molesting him or her. Would it be possible to do the first three, but not the last? Well, yes. Has it ever happened? Not unless the porn-sharing, drunk-getting molestor had a heart attack before he could finish up.
Posted by: bokonon42 at June 14, 2005 4:30 PMWell now, ET - as the guy who is so bent on emPIRical evidence, I think you ought to substantiate your claims indeed. After all, absent any provable proof, you could be - for all I know - Michael Jackson itself! Or, for that matter, I could be you, for all anyone else knows. Nice box you've built, that.
Posted by: Mike J's blah blah at June 14, 2005 5:02 PMET: "I am sure you are not lying...", referring to Jeff G.
Oh? How so? Why?
Apply your own often stated standards.It seems you have jumped to a conclusion by ignoring your own standards.
The only "evidence" you have are the pixels before your eyes.
ZEN KOAN #1
If a tree falls in the forest, and a pedophile forest celebrity invites some forest children for a sleepover behind the fallen tree, did it really happen, if the celebrity pays the forest parents not to make a sound?
ZEN KOAN #2
What is the sound of one glove clapping?
Posted by: iowahawk at June 14, 2005 7:03 PMWell, I'll leave it to Jeff and ET to duke it out over "logic" and "empirical truth," but I DO have a comment in an area where my expertise is quite solid - "evidence" and "standards of proof" in court. ET, you may very well be the logic professor you have indicated - but you don't know sweet fuck-all about what constitutes "evidence" in a courtroom. If an accident happens, and there are ten "eyewitnesses," but no pictures of the event actually taking place, do you know what you get? You get ten DIFFERENT stories of what happened - none of which may have much relationship to the truth (what a videotape of the accident would have shown). Nevertheless, EACH of those stories is "evidence," legally - the sworn statement of a witness as to what he/she "saw" happen.
Now, as you may be aware, two different "eyewitnesses" may "see" two different events for a variety of reasons - differential abilities of sensory apparatus, different (physical) viewpoints, different prior experiences that cause them to process what they viewed differently, differential memories, etc. If both (or all ten, in my example) give their stories to a jury, ALL TEN STORIES ARE LEGALLY CONSIDERED "EVIDENCE." One of the JOBS of the jury is to evaluate this (frequently conflicting) evidence, and sort it out. But, to say that, because we have ten different (frequently conflicting, often contradictory) viewpoints, and no "objective" evidence (i.e., a videotape), we have no evidence, may be accurate in your classroom, but it's dead wrong in court. We've got LOTS of evidence - now we get to sort it out.
As for circumstantial evidence, Jeff is dead right, legally. MOST criminal cases are determined by just that, circumstantial evidence. Even most "physical" evidence (which you apparently consider "real" evidence) is, by its nature, circumstantial. A crime occurs, and the investigators find my fingerprint on the doorknob to the room in which the crime occurred. Presence of my fingerprint on the doorknob is not only not "proof" (by your standards) that I committed the crime, it isn't even PROOF that I entered the room - simply that I touched the doorknob. Now, I can argue that my fingerprint on the knob doesn't "prove" that I was in the room - but most people will find the inference very strong.
And we make decisions on this basis, in the real world, all the time. If I see a car with a dented fender, I can reasonably infer from that that the car was involved in an accident. Now, it is POSSIBLE that a meteor fell and hit the car, or a construction crane dropped a load of cinder blocks on it, or ten Russian midgets beat the crap out of it with sledgehammers - but an intelligent person wouldn't bet that way, would they?
Those same standards are PERFECTLY permissible in the jury room. You can make normal inferences from "evidence" - my fingerprint on the doorknob doesn't PROVE that I was in the room, but the jury can reasonably infer from that evidence that I was. If the PATTERN of circumstantial evidence paints a compelling picture (I am proven through testimony to have owned a knife consistent with the wounds on the body, I have a motive to kill the deceased, I can't absolutely prove my whereabouts at the time of the murder), even if there is no "evidence" (i.e., they don't have any of the victim's blood on my clothing, they don't have any witnesses to the actual crime, no witnesses can absolutely place me at the scene at the time, they have no murder weapon with my fingerprints on it), the jury can determine that I am, in fact, legally guilty - so long as the quantum of evidence, in the jury's mind, established my guilt beyond a REASONABLY doubt. Not ANY doubt, but a REASONABLE doubt - and the existence of that standard is perhaps the best evidence that your "standard" of proof doesn't obtain in court, since, if your standard were applicable, "reasonable" doubt would be any oxymoron - either you would have "absolute" proof, or you would acquit. And that is not, and never has been, the legal standard for conviction.
Don't know how you would "teach" this case in your class, but I have to agree with Jeff that the type and quantum of evidence was MORE than sufficient to establish, IMHO, that Michael Jackson had a pattern and practice of providing alcohol to little boys, and sleeping with them in his bedroom, where he also kept a stash of male kiddie porn. Now, that does not ABSOLUTELY prove he is a pedophile - but only an idiot would believe otherwise.
The most telling, to me, question is simply "OK, you don't think he's guilty. Would you let YOUR 12 year old son sleep with him??" If you answer "yes, I would," you're an irresponsible moron; if you answer "no, I wouldn't," you're a hypocrite. Take your pick.
Posted by: Flagwaver at June 14, 2005 8:10 PM"Defendant's [sic] have the right to bail on appeal."
Uh, no, sorry, under California law at least that's simply incorrect. California Penal Code §§ 1272 and 1272.1 provide:
1272. After conviction of an offense not punishable with death, a defendant who has made application for probation or who has appealed may be admitted to bail: 1. As a matter of right, before judgment is pronounced pending application for probation in cases of misdemeanors, or when the appeal is from a judgment imposing a fine only. 2. As a matter of right, before judgment is pronounced pending application for probation in cases of misdemeanors, or when the appeal is from a judgment imposing imprisonment in cases of misdemeanors. 3. As a matter of discretion in all other cases, except that a person convicted of an offense subject to this subdivision, who makes a motion for release on bail subsequent to a sentencing hearing, shall provide notice of the hearing on the bail motion to the prosecuting attorney at least five court days prior to the hearing. [emphasis added]1272.1. Release on bail pending appeal under subdivision (3) of Section 1272 shall be ordered by the court if the defendant demonstrates all the following: (a) By clear and convincing evidence, the defendant is not likely to flee. Under this subdivision the court shall consider the following criteria: (1) The ties of the defendant to the community, including his or her employment, the duration of his or her residence, the defendant's family attachments and his or her property holdings. (2) The defendant's record of appearance at past court hearings or of flight to avoid prosecution. (3) The severity of the sentence the defendant faces. (b) By clear and convincing evidence, the defendant does not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community. Under this subdivision the court shall consider, among other factors, whether the crime for which the defendant was convicted is a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5. (c) The appeal is not for the purpose of delay and, based upon the record in the case, raises a substantial legal question which, if decided in favor of the defendant, is likely to result in reversal. For purposes of this subdivision, a "substantial legal question" means a close question, one of more substance than would be necessary to a finding that it was not frivolous. In assessing whether a substantial legal question has been raised on appeal by the defendant, the court shall not be required to determine whether it committed error. In making its decision on whether to grant defendants' motions for bail under subdivision (3) of Section 1272, the court shall include a brief statement of reasons in support of an order granting or denying a motion for bail on appeal. The statement need only include the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review. [emphasis added]
In other words, once you're convicted of a felony, the burden of proof is on YOU, not on the state, to demonstrate that you should be granted bail pending appeal.
Posted by: Dave J at June 14, 2005 8:34 PMRegardless of the verdict, I have just this to say re: Wacko Jacko.
Ick, ick, ICK! :p
Posted by: Jason at June 14, 2005 11:22 PMRoadKills say: But even so: not guilty of providing alcohol to minors? Please.
You really need to fact check this one. The charge he was found not guilty of is:
Count 10: Administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony (child molestation) between 20 February and 12 March 2003. NOT GUILTY.He was never charged with providing alcohol to minors. In many states, with the consent of the child's parent and in a private home, that's not a crime anyway. Can't say off hand whether California is one of those, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.... Posted by: Krusty Krab at June 15, 2005 1:01 AM
I read with great interest ET’s logic and Jeff’s and I think the difference is that ET uses deductive logic and Jeff’s using inductive logic. Deductive thinking is very inflexible and is linear in progression. Inductive thinking includes many factors to influence the end such as environment, habits/patterns, trends. It does not operate linearly. It goes out and down and all around. It encompases all possibilties towards a conclusion.
Unfortunately, the jury was very “literal” in the interpretation of their instructions and deductive in their logic. Because of their disdained feelings towards the mother (based on interviews heard on TV and radio after-the-fact) for appearing to be a scam artist, they must have concluded deductively, that MJ was scammed early in their discussions. They forgot to include circumstantial evidence (porno and alcohol), the environment, his pedofile-like behavioral patterns/his habits that MJ used as a pedofile. They “deduced” from the onset that he was the victim to the mother’s “crime” (instead of her kids being the victim of his pedofelia) and then found all the proof to support their hypothesis. They interpreted their responsibility literally, by casting a “reasonable doubt” that MJ was the perp (instigator) compared to the mother (the scam artist/perp)
It is so sad that this has now set a precedence for all pedofiles. And it is even sadder that this ET professor of logic teaches ONLY deductive logic when inductive logic is what encourages creativity, inventions, opportunities, and scientists who operate on a “hunch” based on trends, patterns, projections, etc. We need more inductive thinkers to teach our children how to survive, not deductive thinkers!
Posted by: btutu at June 15, 2005 1:34 AMArguing for a system requiring only direct evidence does not create a more reliable system. I think there's a misconception about direct and circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence often still depends on matters of credibility. He said/she said cases are based on direct evidence. An accusation based on alleged first-hand observation is direct evidence. The problem is in finding the truth between two or more conflicting accounts.
On the other hand, circumstantial evidence can be very compelling: the murder victim was stabbed with a Ginsu knife by a tall person, the defendant is a Ginsu salesman and is 6'5", the murder victim had an affair with defendant's wife, defendant had previously threatened victim, and the defendant, while covered with cuts and bruises, caught a flight out of the county the morning after the murder. All circumstantial evidence. He would be convicted and it would be a disgrace to let the guy walk free for lack of direct evidence.
The MJ case did, in fact, involve direct evidence in the form of the child victim's testimony about his experiences with MJ. That obviously wasn't good enough because the jury doubted the veracity of the direct testimony. This doubt on the direct evidence overrode the otherwise strong circumstantial evidence in the case--perhaps for good reason.
As a juror acknowledged, MJ in all likelihood has molested children. But MJ was indicted only on selected charges. The prosecution proffered an alleged victim whose mother had a huge profit motive, a litigious history, and just the type of crass unlikeability that would lead one to suspect she would manipulate her child into making false allegations for private gain.
The prosecution was lucky enough to get into evidence the fact that OTHER kids had been in MJ's bedroom and were shown porn, but that evidence could not serve as grounds to convict him for molesting THIS victim.
That said, the evidence presented would in all liklihood convict a non-celebrity, UNLESS the defense counsel for this non-celebrity could show the jury that said non-celebrity has a bazillion dollars, is in a position to be the victim of a shake-down, and is an absolute bizarro with a complete lack of awareness of how the world operates or how he is perceived.
Posted by: ss at June 15, 2005 3:36 PMCheer up , all.
MJ is a pedophile - the "misunderstood" don't pay out $20M if they didn't grope inappropriately.
As such , he can't help himself and wil surely do it again - hopefully next time the accusers will be more believable.
I still can't find a reason why a 13 years old kid, should make up a story of sexual abuse. Even if his mother tried to get money out of it.
If admitting in public that you are still virgin, must be hard, imagine admitting that you were raped by a man.
And yes, it was very obvious that the jury disliked Gavin's mom.