M Jackson - a paedophile?

[DumbStick 13]

Well said.

 

GUILTY.

 

(I think Siren just wants the chance to stand up and should "OBJECTION" in our court every now and then.)

[DumbStick 13]

(He's good at dancing though, isn't he!)

[yodel 0]

I worry about Bubbles more than the kids. Poor chimp.

[Ocean11 0]

Who's good at dancing? Siren? Maybe he could do the Richard Gere courtroom dance from 'Chicago'.

 

"Ladies and gentlemen ... a tap dance!"

[Siren 0]

[Dumb, I am not quite done yet ]

 

I think you understand that I am not talking about facts as evidence proven in court but rather a prima facie case. Hunch is of course important but cannot exist in a vacuum. It is useless if not supported, at least partly, by logic and reason.

So what is the prima facie case that gives us the hunch?

You mentioned the admission about sleeping with children (not in dispute) and ‘difficulty knowing where to draw a line’. I am not sure about what to make of these. No one seriously doubts that the accused is extremely strange. I find his obsession with plastic surgery revolting. Given his inability to know where to draw the line, he may even be dangerous as far as children are concerned. But has he done anything else?

In the Middle Ages people prosecuted and burned ‘witches’ who allegedly ‘dealt with devil’ and of course they could do that because although no one quite knew what ‘dealing with devil’ was, it was the ‘prevailing’ social view that if someone lived an unusual lifestyle or practised strange form of religious, she must be a menace to the society.

I don’t think it requires blind prejudice to think that something is wrong – it takes much less in my view. It is more difficult to think why it is not wrong.

[Ocean11 0]

Siren, legal jargon and talk of witches aside, what d'you reckon?

 

Will you be surprised if evidence is eventually presented that shows MJ molested children?

[Siren 0]

I hope you don't think I am trying to obfuscate the issues using legal 'jargons' or talking hocus-pocus.

 

Of course there will be allegations and testimonies from some of the children or someone close to them. Even against an easy target like the present accused the prosecutors still need something to build a case.

 

But whether the accused is ultimately convicted or not is not the issue here. I think I have illustrated how easy it is for us to form an opinion of someone even though we can't quite point out or explain why we think such of such a person. You were the only one who attempted to set out the reasons for your view.

 

I don't know he is guity or not. The accused obviously has a blind spot when it comes to children and plastic surgery. On the other hand, he appears to have been involved in numerous children programme and spent vast amount of money thereon. At time he appeared to genuinely like children. I really don't follow news about the accused and can't really form any view on his guilt or innocence.

[Ocean11 0]

> I hope you don't think I am trying to obfuscate the issues using legal 'jargons'

 

Nah, I just don't know what the Latin terms mean and can't be bothered to look them up.

[snobee 0]

With you all the way on this one Siren.

 

Many of the "hunches/opinions" espoused here sound dangerously like the "All the Evil foreigners committing crimes" paranoic B.S. pumped out by much of the media and certain noted persons. Based not on evidence, but jabberings, fallacies, ignorance and good ol' bigotry.

MJ may well be guilty, but let the court decide that based on the facts.

The Dingo DID it.

[Ocean11 0]

Can't let that stand I'm afraid.

 

MJ paid a very large sum of money in an out of court settlement to the family of a kid who he 'allegedly' molested. He claimed that there was no wrong-doing, but he 'was just paying out a multi-million dollar settlement, as you do'.

 

There was none of that 'I just can't wait to go to court' then that you hear from MJ now, because in the last case, the kid was bribable. In this case it appears like not.

 

Child molestation cases are hard to make stick. So I don't feel great sympathy for somebody who would rather pay off accusers rather than face them in court with many a high-profile lawyer, and clear their name. If they can.

 

Because this is such a rare situation, state law was changed so that rich 'alleged' offenders also get to have their day in court.

 

So when you say "MJ may well be guilty, but let the court decide that based on the facts", the court has had to make some very special provisions to 'allow' MJ to have his day in court. It's not "jabberings, fallacies, ignorance and good ol' bigotry" that wonders why all that has been necessary.

 

Of course it could all be a huge conspiracy against MJ, but my 'hunch' is that it's not.

[snobee 0]

0-11 - I also agree with most of your statements - however I do believe the "Jabbering Masses" opinions are too often the prominent ones, esp. TV.

It's become like sport - based on past performances, current form, willingness to give all..... etc. I'll put my money on "guilty". Yeah, go prosecution, get him, get him, get the bastard. NO WAY ref, the pryks diving. Yowl! Nailed!!!!

Cept it ain't sport - it's real serious stuff.

[mina2 6]

GET THE BASTARD.

[Siren 0]

Thanks for helping me with my arguments, Mina!

[mina2 6]

Y'welcome! (Do I get a prize?)

[Siren 0]

Crimes relating to children e.g. rape, abuse and assault naturally provoke anger and other strong emotion in us. While we should be sympathetic to the victims, we should also be aware of other possibilities in the context of the (American) legal system.

 

Some would argue that the contingency fees (i.e. no win no fee) and punitive damages (i.e. punishing the defendant by ordering him/her to pay a sum that is greater than the damage suffered by the plaintiff) systems which are supposed to promote justice have instead made the legal system something like a ‘lottery’.

 

I am of course not saying that it is such in the previous case against the accused (which again I didn’t follow) but it is surely not that hard to imagine that the accused, such as he is, should be regarded a ‘dream defendant’ by some.

 

For people who are lucky enough not to have anything to do with the legal system, it may be hard to be believe but, get ready, good guys don't always win.

 

People settle out of court all the time, not because they are wrong but because it would cause them more damage (both financial and reputation) even if they win if they have their days in court.

 

Rape victims are reluctant to go to court sometime because they don’t want they entire sexual history, no matter how irrelevant, cross-examined by lawyers of the other side for days, with insinuations, 'jokes' and ‘suggestions’ to the jury. And you can forget about privacy. The other side would dig out shameful past/habit (not necessary a crime) to attack you.

 

Even if you win, at the end of the day, after few months of trial and an army (you need that because the other side has it) of lawyers, paralegals, investigators, PRs, expert witnesses and other ‘advisors’, each charging you by the hour, there is little feeling of victory. OJ legal costs bankrupted him!

 

And finally, I am bit concerned that a law can be changed to have retroactive effect. It is like saying we couldn’t get you last time so we will change the goal posts. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that one’s act should be judged by the state of law which existed when the act took place.

[miteyak 0]

What was the change in law that has occured? Is it just the closing of a technical loophole, or has the level of physical contact allowed between adult and juvenile been adjusted?

 

As for 'good guys don't always win' I never thought that about the states. I thought the rich guys always won.

[Siren 0]

 Quote:

I thought the rich guys always won.

You are forgetting something, Mitayek.

[Ocean11 0]

I don't think there's anything retroactive about the law. As I understand it, the first alleged offense took place. Then the highly unusual civil settlement without criminal charges went through.

 

Recognizing that this situation allows

1) Rich but possibly guilty defendants to get off scot-free

2) Hustling families to shakedown rich but strangely vulnerable victims

the law was changed to make such a situation more unlikely in future.

 

Then, another alleged offense took place, this time where the accuser is apparently not interested only in the money, making the change of law irrelevant for the moment.

 

So the new law can also be seen as deterrent to gold-digging families who might try to shakedown 44 year old men who just happen to like holding pajama parties.

 

miteyak, the law forces accusers to testify, even if they accept a financial settlement.

[Goemon 0]

I believe the change in law is (something to the effect) that the alleged victim does not need to bring the charges against the plaintiff; ie, the law enforcement agency can prosecute even without the consent of the alleged victim.

 

In the previous molestation case against Mr. Jackson, the alleged victim dropped the charges once his family got paid off; without his consent to continue with the trial, the prosecution had no case.

[Siren 0]

I haven't read anything about the change but tend to think Goemon's interpretation of the change is probably correct.

 

Try telling US litigants that they can't stay proceedings to accept a multi-million settlement! There will be a riot!!

 

 Quote:

the accuser is apparently not interested only in the money

That is typical negotiation strategy

[Ocean11 0]

More about it here;

 

http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/1120legalexperts.htm

 

I think this might negate some of what I said above... Trust them, not me

[miteyak 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Siren:


And finally, I am bit concerned that a law can be changed to have retroactive effect. It is like saying we couldn’t get you last time so we will change the goal posts. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that one’s act should be judged by the state of law which existed when the act took place.

So basically the law has been changed so that rich guilty folk can't buy their way out of criminal situations...

Doesn't sound like moving the goalposts to me. In fact, if someone were to claim, in their defense, that it were, would they not be implying that they commited the 'crime' with the knowledge and expectation that they could buy their way out in the event of disclosure? (making them guilty on two counts, in my book).

As an aside, what sort of perverse justice system can allow cash bribes in criminal cases?

[Siren 0]

 Quote:

moving the goalposts

I was speaking obviously on the assumption that the law changed the criminality of the offence which is of course not the case here, as clarified by Goemon and the article found by Ocean.

 Quote:

what sort of perverse justice system can allow cash bribes in criminal cases

This is a sad situation of course but criminal law to a large extent is about a wrongful act without the consent of the victim.

If the accused were to say to you, prior to the act, that he would pay you a few million dollars to assault you a bit and if you agree, there is no offence (ignoring for the time being the question of legal capacity to consent).

Now, is there a difference if you subsequently consented?

[miteyak 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Siren:

Now, is there a difference if you subsequently consented?

Yes, there's a huge diference. It subverts the rule of law. The rule of law is not about revenge or compensation, but the protection of society. A rapist is a rapist, a thief a thief, and it's the job of the law protect us from them.
The idea that victims may be buyable after the fact seriously endangers all of us.

[Siren 0]

The criminal law does not compel anyone to accept compensation. The victims don't have to accept any 'bribe'.

 

But, as we all know, there are those who obviously prefer compensation over punishment (Grisham's lawyers will argue that they are the same thing).

 

Don't we call that 'free will', something which the law also 'respects'?