Forums > Personal > Innocent until proven innocent?

forum rss feed
Author

John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 12:12 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

In addition to Erin's thread; (I didn't want to "hi-jack your topic dear ;-)

More on Michael Jackson: BOY 'WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED'

http://www.teletext.com/news/story.asp?intArticleID=63483&intarticlenumber=9&intRegionID=19&intSubsectionID=1&From=I&indent=2

You can actually read this boy's testimony for yourself.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjsearch1.html


"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Guy user not visiting Queenzone.com

Bohemian: 803 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 12:22 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I belive the phrase is certainly "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent" (with no relation to the subject of this topic). My father is a lawyer and he says that's one of the most fundamental things in criminal cases. That's why I think you can't judge him and say "he's guilty", you have to remember that fundamental phrase.

Ofcourse I'm not defending him and I obviously think child abuse of any kind is a horrible thing.


"You'll never find rainbows if you're looking down."  -Charlie Chaplin
Flashman user not visiting Queenzone.com
Flashman
Deity: 4523 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 12:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Nail him up, that's what I say. Nail some sense into him.

Open your eyes - he's a wrong 'un.

Would you let a 45 year old plumber sleep with your child? Why should old plastic-chops be any different?

'I sleep with children for inspiration', he says. Well, it would certainly inspire me to chop his bollocks off, the freaky looking bastard.


FLASHMAN STRIKES AGAIN!



Paul Rodgers is not the best thing since fried Fred.
John S Stuart user not visiting Queenzone.com
John S Stuart
Deity: 4178 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 12:44 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

The title of my posting was meant to be an ironic comment on the PREVIOUS Jackson case - not the current one. (Although I do accept that the one will have a bearing on the other).

More bluntly; "if" (and that is a very large "if") both the above cited stories ARE correct - then I think MJ should have been strung up years ago.

Being Scottish with a "Hollywood" skewed view of the US justice system ("Runaway Jury" anyone?), I don't really understand "plea-bargaining" or how the "guilty" can walk away freely, simply because they have the money to kill a case dead.

Perhaps this thread is more about "truth, justice and the American way" than it is about MJ? Perhaps one of my US colleagues could explain how this is possible?

(Presumming ofcourse that the above citations are indeed true?)






"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make."
Erin user not visiting Queenzone.com
Erin
Deity: 8445 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 12:45 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"More bluntly; "if" (and that is a very large "if") both the above cited stories ARE correct - then I think MJ should have been strung up years ago."


word.

Maz user not visiting Queenzone.com

Deity: 5799 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 31 Dec 03, 13:10 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

"More bluntly; "if" (and that is a very large "if") both the above cited stories ARE correct - then I think MJ should have been strung up years ago."

The laws at the time could not force a victim to testify against their attacker. In this case, MJ paid out a settlement to the family (estimated at $20 million by some) and in return the family is not allowed to discuss anything about the case. Legally, the State of Califonia could do nothing to stop this.

I believe now that the laws have been re-written so that the State can compell a victim to testify. But even this is tricky. Imagine trying to prove a case with an uncooperative witness who might "forget" exactly how things happened.

I think that what this proves is not that the US court is inherently corrupt, but that there are faults within it. Money will buy you a lot, and in this case, it has allegedly bought MJ a reprieve from any court action. In this new case, the District Attorney claims they have a willingly witness who is going to see the case through. We'll see.


DJ's the man we love the most