yeah, me too.

Marrk said:

Well, that's the conviction MJ fans need on this matter. They can't confidently claim his innocence and worry about the prior allegations coming in.

OK, they just said on CNN that one of those alleged victims is Macaley Culkin who keeps saying that MJ NEVER molested him yet the ppl around suspect that he was molested. DAMN IT!!! Shouldn´t Mac know better???? MY BRAIN SIMPLY REFUSES TO ACCEPT THIS LOGIC! Am I the only one on this one?

Secondly they said that this basically "saved" prosecution´s case.

Thirdly, it will make this trial MUCH LONGER!! DAMN IT!!!!!

dag said:

Only one of the named victims will be charged. I wouldn't call a witness who has denied several times that molestation never occurred. I bet it's someone else.

That being said, I don't think the state would name Culkin unless they could at least make a plausible argument on molestation, even if Culkin denies it.

The trial should take as long as it needs to to get to the truth.

Has he been found guilty yet?

namepeace said:

That's BS. Suppose he is 100% innocent of all charges. When do you think is he more likely to be convicted? With or without the prior allegations?
Since this is about child molestation, this means there are so many more opportunities for a jury member to think, mmm, that's fishy, maybe something did happen back then, let's convict the guy on this case just to be on the safe side.

As for the one victim that will testify. He was 9 at the time of the alleged inappropriate touching (1990). The mother or the boy didn't say anything about it until 1994 (i.e., after the 1993 allegations). Then sold her story to the tabloids, and was paid a measly $2 million to shut up and beat it. I can't see how there's any justice in using that story to support today's flawed case.

Finally, now already it is very difficult to disprove the current charges. It's basically the accuser's word against MJ's. Now imagine how hard it will be to disprove anything that is said from 10 - 15 years ago. I mean, now they will allow testimony like: "yes, I remember Michael touching a young boy in mmm early 1992 at Neverland, and maybe the kid doesn't remember, and yes i made some money selling my story to the tabloids, and no I never went to the police, and yes i was fired at some point, but you can't prove i didn't see this." That's just crazy.

Or the Bob Jones variant: "Yes i made some statements to sell my book and because i was angry with how i was treated, but now i admit i was lying". DA:"So you once said MJ inappropriately touched a boy, correct?" "That's right" "Look, look, it's a pattern of abuse!!!"

Or anoter one: DA: "Judge, we have SEVEN prior acts of molestation, and i would like to tell that to the jury." Judge:"well, you can have that one boy. And you can also tell about the one where the boy doesn't want to testify. And you can also tell about the ones where the boys always said nother ever happened. The others you have to leave out, cause they have credibility issues"
[Edited 3/28/05 15:32pm]

SpcMs said:

Think what you want. My point was, many if not most MJ fans are so confident that MJ did nothing wrong at any time. They should be equally confident about these allegations not affecting the outcome if they believe that. I mean really, are you gonna tell me that you believed these things were NEVER gonna come up?

Yet the same inferences that you suggest could be drawn by a jury could be correctly made, i.e., maybe where there's smoke there IS fire. But many of MJ's fans can't bring themselves to think that.

If this were not the King of Pop many of MJ's fans would cast a suspicious eye on a criminal defendant who has settled 2 cases of alleged child abuse for millions of dollars prior to the alleged abuse in this case (which maybe, in hindsight, MJ should have fought).

I'm just guessing here, but the evidence was apparently admissible because it goes to instances of prior conduct in conformity with the alleged crimes. If different accusers come forward and tell the same story,it could be used to corroborate the testimony of the accuser. "Mez" will sort this out if it's false.

Personally, I don't know whether the accusers are telling the truth, but NOW you see why MJ shoulda left them boys alone?

SpcMs said:

When the hell did that happen?

namepeace said:

Frankly, the "where there is smoke there is fire" reasoning is one a jury is not allowed to make, plain and simple. But by allowing this mixed bag of hearsay, unproven and even uncharged prior acts, and some total crazyness, the DA is looking for the jurors to think exactly that, and the judge is supporting him. Where's the justice in that?
If there were previous acts, he should have been charged, and convicted if guilty. He was extensively investigated, and never charged.
Like in the '93 case: the accuser wants MJ in jail so badly he a) chose for the money in '93 and b) decided to skip the country so he wouldn't have to testify in the current trial (he's in his 20ies now). Result: the prosecution get's to present the '93 accusers written statement (a story basically drafted with the help of laywers and totally one-sided), while the defense doesn't even get to cross the guy. You honestly think that's fair?

Cloudbuster said:

Well, i don't know the specifics but:



And from Foxnews:


[Edited 3/28/05 15:52pm]

http://www.foxnews.com/st...65,00.html

Did Jackson's Maid Meet Cops With a Reporter?
Monday, March 28, 2005
By Roger Friedman

Did Jackson's Maid Meet Cops With an Enquirer Reporter?

The judge could rule today that Michael Jackson's rumored but never-proven "prior acts" with children can be presented in court as evidence. But that may not help the prosecution. Jackson's former maid, who said she witnessed Jackson engaged in inappropriate activity with her son and other children, has a fuzzy and questionable history to her allegations.

On Friday, I told you that dozens of hours of fascinating tape-recorded phone calls made by a National Enquirer reporter have surfaced. The reporter, Jim Mitteager, who is now deceased, left them to a private investigator named Paul Barresi. Now Barresi, who combed through them and made transcripts, is uncovering material from a decade ago that resonates today.

Barresi discovered that the Neverland maid Blanca Francia, who claimed Jackson molested her son, used a National Enquirer reporter as her translator when she was interviewed by the police in 1994. She sold her story to the tabloid as well as to the now defunct TV show "Hard Copy," and received $2 million from Jackson and $20,000 from the show.


Today in court, Judge Rodney Melville will hear both sides in the Jackson case argue the pros and cons of introducing evidence of Jackson's so-called "prior acts." This evidence would be in the form of witnesses who say they have information about Jackson's inappropriate relationships with children. The accuser who received $20 million from Jackson in a 1993 settlement is not likely to appear. The former accuser has never outed himself publicly and there would be no benefit for him to appear.

But the prosecution is counting on Francia and her son. After the story of the first boy broke in 1993, Francia came forward with the accusation that she had seen Jackson in a sleeping bag with her son and showering with other boys in 1990. Her saga was featured in Mary A. Fischer's watershed 1994 article in GQ, "Was Michael Jackson Framed?"

Before she settled, the maid was called to testify in a civil suit brought by the family of the 1993 accuser. She admitted to embellishing her story to "Hard Copy" and to being remunerated for it as well.

On the tapes, Barresi discovered that Enquirer reporter Lydia Encinas was with the maid when police officers came to see her. In a January 1994 conversation, Enquirer editor David Perel asked Mitteager if anything new was breaking on Encinas' involvement in the interrogation.

"No. Just hope the cops don't freak out when they see the story. They sort of know what's coming," Perel replied.

What was coming was an Enquirer story about Francia that was penned by Encinas. It's unclear whether the cops knew that Encinas was a tabloid reporter or that she had a financial interest in the maid's veracity. The Enquirer was paying big bucks for any information about Jackson at the time.

At one point on the tapes, an editor at the Globe is heard saying to Mitteager:

"Jim, when you go in on these deals, talk big money and don't back off. I mean, talk 50 grand. We need [Jackson's former manager] Frank DiLeo telling all, at $100,000, if we can get him. We need all of Jackson's celebrity pals. Anything they said. Every kid that has ever been with Jackson. We want to know who he is ... where he's coming from ... any pictures available. We want to put big offers to any member of the family. We need to go with the big money. The big offers. It's the biggest story since [Elvis] Presley's death."

On March 23, 1994, Perel told Mitteager:

"The reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she's got a pretty good relationship going with Blanca ... The cops took Lydia yesterday to Blanca's house. [Blanca has] only got a sixth-grade education, so there is a problem there. Blanca is very distrustful ... The cops are looking for copies of agreements between Jackson and parents."

(See Friday's column for our story about a faked agreement touted by the tabloids.)

Russ Birchim, one of the police officers who interviewed the maid, denied that Encinas was present when at the questioning.

"Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles," he said.

Birchim, who is on the prosecution's witness list, did not explain why he had met with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place. All efforts to contact Encinas have failed.

Barresi is sitting on a goldmine of information not only about Jackson, but other celebrities as well. But he remains a staunch supporter of Mitteager. He's aware of the crucial role that Mitteager's tapes could play in rehashing scandals of a decade ago. In fact, Mitteager's tapes provide an incredible history that shows how the tabloids worked to gin up interest in sensational stories 10 years ago when "Hard Copy" and the original "A Current Affair" were in vogue.

By opening the door to this story, District Attorney Tom Sneddon may bite off more than he can chew. The maid, her payment from "Hard Copy" and the resulting lawsuits are less about Jackson than about the greed and ambition that surrounds him.

In unraveling the mysteries of Jackson's "prior acts," Sneddon could leave room for defense attorney Thomas Mesereau to openly investigate the connections between all these people. And that would make a much more interesting story than almost anything we've heard so far.

SpcMs said:

Come on, player, you're clearly smart enough to realize that juries do it ANYWAY. And you're also smart enough to know that not bringing charges doesn't mean that the suspect DIDN'T do it. Had the law been what it is in California today, MJ might be in jail right now. But MJ was able to negotiate settlements which for all intents and purposes prohibited the accuser(s) from testifying. Which also essentially ended substantive investigations of those charges.

To a certain extent, the evidence is incomplete, but you don't seem to allow for the possibility (I'm not asking for a heckuva lot, just an acknowledgement of the possibility) that there may be some fire behind the smoke.



It ain't that simple if the accusers refuse to cooperate. Ask the Eagle, CO District Attorney. To assume that an accuser' allegations are absolutely false because no charges are brought is somewhat naive.

In any event, there were over a half-dozen accusers. Can you unconditionally say that they're ALL lying?



I didn't say it was intrinsically fair, but it's ADMISSIBLE. And if the accuser signed an affidavit it is essentially sworn testimony, regardless of who drafted it.

In any event, it is altogether possible that the accuser's allegations are true AND the accuser chose to take the money to set himself up for life, as opposed to going through a civil and criminal trial and facing the humiliation of describing a sexual assault with potentially nothing to show for it.

That being said, admissibility is one thing. Credibility is another. The latter will be weighed by the jury.
[Edited 3/28/05 20:49pm]

namepeace said:

The settlements never prevented the D.A from filing criminal charges. After Mike settled with the Chandlers, Sneddon was still conducting a criminal investigation and the accuser could have been compelled to testify.

lilgish said:

lil, if the accuser in a sex assault case don't cooperate when a celebrity is the defendant, then it's over.

namepeace said:

She was lyin', Kobe didn't do anything, neither did Mike Tyson. Black guys are always getting setup for nonsense. Remember that crazy chick who said she gave birth to Michael's babies last year?

They don't retract shit when it comes to Michael. Tabloid Mfers
[Edited 3/28/05 21:37pm]

lilgish said:

As a Laker fan for 20 years, I agree with you on Kobe (tho he went on to destroy my beloved franchise). Tyson? Another story (tho I think he got railroaded in Ind.)

I'm not saying that folk out there don't make up stuff to cash in, but it happens to most celebs once or twice. MJ has had to deal with allegations on several different occasions. Could they all be lying? Perhaps. But if it were Stanley the accountant or landscaper, you can't tell me you wouldn't have some doubts.

dag said:

I think I agree with you here. Of course, Michael might be guilty (I happen to believe he's innocent, but time will tell and all that) but the media has for the most part only been focusing on the stories which seem to point to his guilt.

Look all the MJ fans know that there´s no way we could know for sure, but since the accusers are so poor, we´re going to continue fightin for him.

What I find completely UNFAIR is that all those kids who were supposedly been molested are happy with the money and nobody wanted MJ to rot in jail! I think if MJ really did he deserved to be in jail. And if someone molested me, I would WANT that guy to be in jail! I don´t know how about you. IF MJ did it and they felt he should be punished than they should have make up their mind back them and BRING IT TO COURT RIGHT AWAY! Call the police, do whatever it takes. But they did none of that and now 10 years later they all of sudden would want justice for him, right? IF they all are money-hungry, than I guess it´s no wonder that they agreed to come again now, cause even if not convicted right now, they can go for civil suit and get more money again. This is fucking not fair. Also notice that all those alleged other victims who are claiming that nothing happened happen to be financialy set (Culkin, Wadson and others) That I find interesting.

Also very interesting thing is that those "victims" who claimed that something happened admit it only to two very same ppl and deny it to anyone else. I wonder what is so "special" about those ppl that they get the confessions from all the MJ victims while other authorities and ppl cannot get it.

This whole case is ridiculous! Always have been, always will be and while I know that I cannot prove that Mj didn´t do it, all of you who question his innocence cannot prove that he did it as well, which I find interesting after a year of hearings going on, after hearing testimonies from the key witnesses and hearing about the evidence. There´s still NOTHING that would point towards his quilt except that he´s weird and settled twice. I think there should have been a more direct evidence by now and if the prosecution has it than I don´t know what they are waiting for to present it.

So MJ has the right to be "different" ( he didn't have any childhood...)and to make mistakes but others people involved in this affair ( not the Arvizo family who sounds like vindictive bastards) are supposed to be saints/ perfect ?
*
[Edited 3/29/05 0:28am]

FINDLAW.com

The Ruling in the Michael Jackson Case Allowing Testimony About Past Molestation Allegations:

Why It Was Wrong on the Law, and Unfair to the Defendant, Yet May End Up Hurting the Prosecution More

By JONNA SPILBOR
----
Tuesday, Mar. 29, 2005

Yesterday, March 28, Judge Rodney Melville - who presides over Michael Jackson's child molestation trial -- issued a ruling that was momentous. It was also clearly erroneous.

Judge Melville said he would allow prosecutors to present to the jury testimony concerning five boys whom they allege Jackson molested when the boys were between the ages of 10 and 13. Notably, however, only one of the alleged victims reportedly will testify himself. The rest of the testimony will come from those who claim they witnessed the molestation.

In effect, Monday's ruling allows prosecutors to shift the question in the jurors' minds from "Did Michael Jackson molest this accuser?" to "Is Michael Jackson a child molester?" As I will explain, it also allows prosecutors a sneaky way to evade the tough "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal cases.

In this column, I will argue that the ruling was wrong, and unfair to Jackson. But I will also argue that it's likely that evidence of these prior, uncharged acts may ultimately cast doubt on the prosecution's case and, ironically, help an already strong defense.

The Character of, and Unreliability of, the Evidence At Issue

The problems with allowing such testimony are plain. For one thing, it appears that much, if not all of the conduct alleged is claimed to have occurred in the 1990s. (For instance, the one alleged victim who will actually testify - the son of a Neverland maid -- claims to have received a $2.4 million settlement from Jackson fifteen years ago, in 1990.) That means that any testimony will be suspect, since details of events so many years ago may be hard to recall.

Moreover, none of the allegations ever led to a criminal trial - let alone a criminal conviction - for Jackson. So there is no guarantee that the allegations are trustworthy - and some evidence that they are not: If they were strong, why was no prosecution brought?

And if these allegations are true, why is only one of the alleged victims testifying? If the victims were currently young children, it might make sense that they would avoid the trauma of testimony. But in fact, some - such as former child star Macaulay Culkin, and Jordan Chandler (Chandler famously received a $20 million settlement from Jackson in 1993) are in their mid-twenties. Yet they still refuse to testify. Moreover, Culkin - whom the defense is likely to call as a witness - says he was never molested.

So who is testifying regarding the four alleged victims who refuse to speak? The answer is: Eight witnesses claiming to have personally observed Jackson sexually abuse the minors.

Again, this bizarre claim makes one wonder: Prosecutors have claimed Jackson was so covert that he had a bell in his bedroom to make sure no one coming up the stairs would catch him molesting boys. Yet they also claim that his molestation was so blatant, eight people saw it, and it left such a strong impression that they can now remember the details a decade or more later. They need to get their story straight: Was Jackson a blatant abuser, or a stealthy abuser?

Other issues also tend to seriously undermine the value of this third-party testimony. First, several are former Neverland employees who may have their own, separate axes to grind. Second, it appears that none of them reported the alleged crimes at or near the time they were committed. So it seems the prosecution will ask the jury to believe that these witnesses witnessed sex crimes against children, yet simply stood by and watched with mouths agape.

This creates a huge credibility problem: Even if the employees were scared to lose their Neverland jobs, wasn't this more important? And what about the time when they left those jobs? Shouldn't they have immediately reported the crimes then?

Finally, the testimony of these eight may not even recount molestation. Prosecutors say there will be testimony, for instance, that Jackson licked a child's head. But so what? That act is about as illegal as sharing an ice cream cone. One can easily see a parent or friend doing this in jest, affectionately. Any sensible definition of criminal child molestation is limited to sexual touching. Will they next charge Jackson with kissing a child's boo-boo to make it better?

This trial isn't about whether Michael Jackson behaves inappropriately with children. Let's face it, he does: It's eccentric, to put it kindly, to sleep with young boys in one's bed - as Jackson has admitted doing. And hanging your child over a balcony is dangerous, that's for sure. But this trial is not about custody or about propriety; it's about crime. It is about whether Jackson committed the crime of molesting those boys - which is a very different matter.

Why the Evidence Was Deemed Admissible: California's "Prior Bad Acts" Rule

Readers may wonder whether the law ought to simply deem this kind of evidence categorically irrelevant, and thus inadmissible - and they would be right to wonder. But California Law expressly allows its admission.

In 1995, California Evidence Code §1108, regarding "prior bad acts," was enacted. In a nutshell, it says this: In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the commission of prior sexual offenses -- including sex offenses for which the defendant was neither charged nor convicted -- may be used against the defendant.

Why is such evidence relevant? According to the Code, it is relevant to prove the defendant's "propensity" to commit the crime for which he is on trial. In other words, this evidence can show not whether the defendant actually committed the particular crime, but whether he was inclined to commit this type of crime.

American essayist Logan Pearsall Smith once wrote, "Our names are labels, plainly printed on the bottled essence of our past behavior." Whether you choose to buy into this philosophy or not, it is, at its core, the notion upon which California Evidence Code §1108 is based.

Yet, if one thinks it over, why should inclination be relevant? I'm not sure; after all, we don't jail people in this country because we think they are inclined to commit crimes. But California law says inclination is relevant - and that was the law Judge Melville had to apply.

(Before the enactment of the 1995 law, the rule was much more sensible. The prosecution was prohibited from ever using a defendant's past "bad character" to prove a defendant's guilt, and could use such evidence only to prove a very limited set of other facts, such as the defendant's motive, opportunity, or identity.)

Even worse, the jury is only required to determine whether or not these alleged prior bad acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence - roughly, more likely than not. This standard typically applies in civil, not criminal cases - and, obviously, is far below the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in every criminal trial. And that means that prior bad acts evidence can, in effect, be used to evade the hallowed "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Granted, the relevant California jury instruction -- the 1999 revised, modified version of CALJIC No. 2.50.01--does remind jurors that "if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a prior sexual offense...that is not sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged crime."

But that is cold comfort. If jurors believe it is indeed likely that Jackson molested earlier boys, their standards for finding him guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" may, in effect, drop precipitously - whatever the jury instructions may say. If they begin to look at Jackson as a likely molester, in other words, they are much more likely to find him guilty of molestation, even if it means bending the strict standard of proof the law imposes.

Prejudicial or Probative? Tipping the Scales for Exclusion

There is, however, still one way Judge Melville could have mitigated the unfairness of the new "prior bad acts rule."

California Evidence Code §352 states that "the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or ( create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury."

This provision might as well have been written for the Jackson case. The testimony from the third-party witnesses about the alleged prior abuse is far more likely to mislead the jury, and confuse the issues, than it is to aid in a search for truth. Especially without a guarantee by the prosecution that evidence of prior bad acts against Jackson would be proffered directly out of the horses' mouths, the judge should have ruled against its admissibility.

Remember, the one question the trial is supposed to answer is simply: Did Jackson molest the current accuser? Even the prior accusers' testimony would not have been very relevant to the answer to this question. These third-party witnesses' testimony is even less relevant; its probative value, in the balance, is even less.

And talk about "undue consumption of time": Since Jackson is entitled to defend against all five allegations of decade-old abuse, the introduction of the evidence creates the potential for five "mini-trials" within the current one.

This Third-Party Evidence Raises a Serious Constitutional Confrontation Clause Issue

Judge Melville's decision isn't just a wrong application of California law; it also threatens Jackson's constitutional rights.

The U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment gives every criminal defendant the right to a fair trial. Jackson is not being given one here.

But more specifically, the Sixth Amendment also guarantees the defendant's right to confront - that is, to hear the testimony of, see the face of, and cross-examine -- his or her accuser. That right, too, is being infringed.

(Some child witnesses are allowed to testify behind a screen, for fear the alleged perpetrator will intimidate them. But again, Jackson's prior accusers are no longer children, and Jackson is hardly the intimidating type anyway.)

Perhaps what is most confounding about the judge's decision allowing these third party witnesses to take the stand, is that they will do so in place of -- and instead of -- the alleged victims themselves. Jackson has a Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers -- not the accusers' mothers, friends, dogsitters, caddies or housekeepers.

To gain a conviction, the prosecution is putting on evidence that Jackson, molested in total, it says, six boys. But only two of those boys will testify, and be subject to cross-examination. One can hardly imagine a more blatant Confrontation Clause violation.

Why The Admission of this Evidence May Actually Hurt, Not Help, the Prosecution

Given the possible prejudicial effect of the "prior bad acts" testimony, why do I still believe this testimony could end up helping the prosecution?

The answer is: Because the defense will argue - and jurors will see - that the reason prosecutors are offering this other evidence, is that their case is weak. Perhaps the defense will call the accusers themselves to the stand - including Culkin, who reportedly denies abuse.

Or perhaps the defense will simply ask why the prosecution did not call to the stand the victims themselves witnesses - and ask jurors, Why wouldn't the prosecution want to present evidence of prior bad acts from the best sources possible? Protecting the sensibilities of men in their mid-twenties is unlikely to strike the jury as a good reason for sacrificing Jackson's cross-examination rights.

Propensity evidence, in my experience, is most powerful when the prosecution doesn't actually need it; it can be the icing, but only when there is a cake. In the case at hand, however, it seems the prosecution is desperate for all the help it can get. They are trying to ice a cake that so far, has fallen flat.

And this point will hardly be lost on Jackson's skilled attorney, Tom Mesereau. After the devastating cross-examinations he's performed so far, he can invite the juror to imagine how the accusers - if they had taken the stand - might also have collapsed on cross-examination.

class=Section2>
Mesereau can also make this stinging point: If D.A. Tom Sneddon truly thinks

the other five accusers were harmed, why didn't he ever filed charges on their behalf?

Sneddon might cite the statute of limitations. But Sneddon's office was certainly aware of Jordan Chandler's claims in time to bring charges on his behalf. And in the cases of the other victims, he could at least have argued that Jackson's power and might kept them silent. Yet no charges were brought.

In short, Sneddon is doing nothing to seek justice for those who may have been harmed, should the allegations prove true. Why? Perhaps because he can't prove those allegations - but is nonetheless willing to use them as a shaky foundation for continuing his vendetta against Jackson.

Here's an idea for Tom Sneddon: If you have proof that Michael Jackson committed sex crimes against other boys, then act as a prosecutor should, and charge him with those crimes.

http://writ.news.findlaw....ilbor.html

Of course the past cases should be brought forward. However, meaning something should doesn't mean it's going to be viewed neutrally by the jury, there I agree.

"Okay, so - we have this person who allegedly was molested by Jackson in 1993, there we have another from the late 80s and also one from the early 70s... oh, and there's a fourth one. You can see him if you squint your eyes a bit, he's hiding behind that tree. So, there Mesereau! Eat dirt, try to tackle that one."



Of course, the Jackson haters/critics have had a somewhat valid point on this: why are they always boys? If a pattern of greedy extortionists latching on to Jackson would have been forming, somebody probably could have tried it with a girl as well? But then again, if this news about 5 more victims turns out to be anymore convincing "news" than the previous Sneddon's efforts at the court room much of it could be dismissed outright.

Who are you talking about? Chandler´s? I never said they had to be perfect, but they also never presented ANY evidence to prove that he did it and they´ve tried a lot. They even made MJ strip down to compare his body to the description and they found nothing. I mean I don´t think that pedophils are so hard to convict. At least I don´t see that with other cases. Whenever you hear about someone molesting their kid, they usually don´t have problems puttin that person to jail.

Great article Marrk. Thanks.

I mean I don´t think that pedophils are so hard to convict.
when there are no evidences like dna and no witness, it's difficult to prove anything and if MJ is innocent but has paid this wowan 2 millions he's definitively a dumbass.

I still think that 20 years in prison is a harsh punishment for being dumbass.

And with all the times that Gavin was supposed to be molested it´s really a wonder that there´s no DNA found. Well don´t forget that Sneddon claims to have witnesses - but quite poor ones.

It will backfire big time. Mez will rip them appart. If Sneddon really thinks this is a surprise for the defence he is dumber than I thought.

BlueNote

dag said:

am not trying to cause any dissagrement here, just a question, where did you find that information that the description that jordy gave the polica was false, i read a few clips and saw this documentary where the police officers who stripped MJ said the description jordy gave of MJ's genitials was accurate!! am not trying to say your information is false at all, i just wanted to know where you got your info about that from??

ThaCat said:

It's on the smoking gun website somwhere. a very childish drawing that looks like a 5yr old attempting to draw a house but forgetting to draw windows and a door. It's quite pathetic. It's been rumoured that Evan Chandler is responsible for the descriptions around the 'artists impression'.

Marrk said:

see that was the only sort of evidence I was very uneasy with when the detective said the descriptions of his genitals matched jordys words. but if that allegation is false, surely that documentary should get sued for wrongful conduct of a character, because statements like that will hurt Mj's case esp if this is brought up in court,, its this question I have always wanted to know if it was true or not, because basically thats the only means of true evidence the prosecutor has!