…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).
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.
That’s disappointing to say the least!
Michael who?
I 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??
That’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.
I’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.
These days given the right amount of money Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy and probably Hitler would get acquited.
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.
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.
Since 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.
Oh crap – can’t use certain symbols. So try again:
(starting to wonder if we have members of NAMBLA here)
Damn that’s disappointing.
No 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.
Yeah, 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.
If 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.
I 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.
I thought Martha Stewart was a celebrity, but I guess not. Her case doesn’t fit your theory.
Jeff – 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.
By the way, speaking of celebrities – wasn’t Martha Stewart convicted?
Food 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.
Well, 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.
“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.
Trial 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.
Stint —
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.
MJ: 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”
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if whacko “thanked” the jury by issuing passes for their kids but not for them?
Perhaps 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.
Jay: 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.
Or at least until their passes expired.
Candace – 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.
ROFLMAO…. I guess you could take that literally…
Thanks Jay .. I needed a good laugh.. been a long day.
How 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.
I 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.
Now, 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.
Sneddon’s freak show draws to a close
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…
“…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.
ET – 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
Live blogging the DA’s and jury’s press conference.
Totally the correct verdict.
Dave —
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.
I 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
Jeff –
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?
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.
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.
ET – 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]
He 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.
Jeff – more here http://tinyurl.com/cmuy3
Oops, I meant ET
What a shock, Jackson aquitted
Who didn’t see that coming? When’s the last time a celeb was actually found guilty?