PDA

View Full Version : Guard Testifies He Saw Jackson Perform Sex Acts


Wigglytuff
Apr 7th, 2005, 06:16 PM
Guard Testifies He Saw Jackson Sex Acts

1 hour, 27 minutes ago

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A former Neverland ranch security guard testified Thursday that in the early 1990s he saw Michael Jackson perform oral sex on a boy who later received a financial settlement from the pop star.

Ralph Chacon was called by prosecutors in Jackson's child molestation trial in a continuing effort to show the singer had a pattern of molesting or inappropriately touching boys, which would support the current accuser's claims.

Chacon said he was making his rounds at Jackson's estate on an overnight shift in late 1992 or early 1993 when he saw Jackson and the boy in a whirlpool bath. He said he later saw them take a shower together, then leave the shower and stand naked across from each other.

Chacon said Jackson caressed the boy's hair, kissed him on the mouth and elsewhere and engaged in oral sex.

The former guard testified that at that point he left.

The boy received a multimillion-dollar settlement from Jackson in 1994 and refused to cooperate in a police investigation. No charges were filed against Jackson in that case.

Jackson, 46, is on trial on charges of molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003. The judge ruled that prosecutors may present evidence of alleged past improprieties involving five boys.

The guard testified after a one-day break in the trial that allowed Jackson to attend the Los Angeles funeral of defense attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr., who represented the singer in the 1994 settlement.

JenFan75
Apr 7th, 2005, 08:19 PM
I hope the kill him dead.

Rocketta
Apr 7th, 2005, 09:44 PM
So - if it's true - he saw an illegal act of pedophilia and he did nothing??? He didn't stop Jackson? He didn't call the police? I question his credibility.

Oh he did something alright he sold the story to a tabloid. :tape:

I'll start believing the prosecutions case when he puts one witness up that didn't accept money or talk to a cival trial lawyer before they went to the police. :sad:

Stamp Paid
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:00 PM
Oh he did something alright he sold the story to a tabloid. :tape:

I'll start believing the prosecutions case when he puts one witness up that didn't accept money or talk to a cival trial lawyer before they went to the police. :sad:

Instead of looking for evidence that what these witnesses are saying is not true, punish possibly molested children for opportunistic witnesses....:tape:

Yesterday my mother said that Michael needs a mistrial, so he can have a do-ever and I was disgusted. If even 50% of what is being alleged about present and prior acts is true, he is obviosuly a serial pedophile and needs some consequences. I just hope he isn't doing anything appropriate to his own children.

kabuki
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:02 PM
:scared:

Rocketta
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:04 PM
Instead of looking for evidence that what these witnesses are saying is not true, punish possibly molested children for opportunistic witnesses....:tape:

Yesterday my mother said that Michael needs a mistrial, so he can have a do-ever and I was disgusted. If even 50% of what is being alleged about present and prior acts is true, he is obviosuly a serial pedophile and needs some consequences. I just hope he isn't doing anything appropriate to his own children.

because in our system people are innocent until *proven* guilty. It's not about thinking Michaels guilty just because someone says so it's about someone proving it. Money and Motives go hand in hand. Frankly if what the man says is true he's as big if not a bigger criminal than Michael. A pedophile is sick what's this man's excuse? He didn't want to lose his job? :tape: Also, his allegations are so outrageous the fact that he did and said absolutely nothing to authorities makes it seem not true. :shrug:

Stamp Paid
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:19 PM
because in our system people are innocent until *proven* guilty. It's not about thinking Michaels guilty just because someone says so it's about someone proving it. Money and Motives go hand in hand. Frankly if what the man says is true he's as big if not a bigger criminal than Michael. A pedophile is sick what's this man's excuse? He didn't want to lose his job? :tape: Also, his allegations are so outrageous the fact that he did and said absolutely nothing to authorities makes it seem not true. :shrug:

But I don't understand, why go through all the trouble of coming to court and perjuring yourself, especially when you've been paid a long time ago for your story...

Rocketta
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:21 PM
But I don't understand, why go through all the trouble of coming to court and perjuring yourself, especially when you've been paid a long time ago for your story...

well lets see he already made money selling his story to the tabloids once how much more do you think it's worth now that he tesitified in court? Why would someone work for an employer who would do that and matter fact sue that employer for his job after he was let go? :confused:

Stamp Paid
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:31 PM
well lets see he already made money selling his story to the tabloids once how much more do you think it's worth now that he tesitified in court? Why would someone work for an employer who would do that and matter fact sue that employer for his job after he was let go? :confused:

I don't think the tabloids is going to buy the same story twice unless he has some NEW information....

Him testifying this under oath certainly makes it more believable IMO. Unless he totally fabricated times, events, persons, situation, locations, etc.

People do a lot of desperate things when they are desperate. Why would his maid continue to work for him despite seeing him in the shower with a little boy? Why won't the 1993 accusser come testify, seeing as how he was allegedly molested and he can certainly empathize with this new allegeed molesation victim?

Life is not all rosy, people cannot ALWAYS do the right thing, they sometimes become victims of circumstance.

ys
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:39 PM
because in our system people are innocent until *proven* guilty. It's not about thinking Michaels guilty just because someone says so it's about someone proving it.

Unfortunately the US system is not built on a concept of proof, it is built on convincing the jury. It's different. With jury you need no proof, you just need to convince the jury. Like in Peterson's case where they had no proof whatsoever..

Rocketta
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:40 PM
I don't think the tabloids is going to buy the same story twice unless he has some NEW information....

Him testifying this under oath certainly makes it more believable IMO. Unless he totally fabricated times, events, persons, situation, locations, etc.

People do a lot of desperate things when they are desperate. Why would his maid continue to work for him despite seeing him in the shower with a little boy? Why won't the 1993 accusser come testify, seeing as how he was allegedly molested and he can certainly empathize with this new allegeed molesation victim?

Life is not all rosy, people cannot ALWAYS do the right thing, they sometimes become victims of circumstance.

exactly life isn't all rosy...and people lie just because they want to as well. We are not talking about just believing these people we are talking about putting someone behind bars for years and years...a higher standard needs to be met before you just believe someone's word in this circumstance. People's motives are always key in criminal cases...why the defendent possibly did it and why people would accuse the defendent are both important.

"There's this presumption of coming to court with clean hands" and unfortunately I haven't seen one person yet in this case.

Stamp Paid
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:48 PM
exactly life isn't all rosy...and people lie just because they want to as well. We are not talking about just believing these people we are talking about putting someone behind bars for years and years...a higher standard needs to be met before you just believe someone's word in this circumstance. People's motives are always key in criminal cases...why the defendent possibly did it and why people would accuse the defendent are both important.

"There's this presumption of coming to court with clean hands" and unfortunately I haven't seen one person yet in this case.

I'm confused: So all of these separate individuals have somehow all conspired (individually, but with a collective efect) against Michael to get his money over the years. So they all are painting him to be a molester performing the same acts on the same type of young boy...:tape: So they all come to court and perjure themselves telling not one shred of truth...:tape: Even after they've already gotten their money and testifying against Michael would be just for what, fun? :confused:

Michael has not come to court with clean hands either, settling multiple cases for similar allegations. I hate the blame the victim mentality that pervades American society, especially when it comes to celebrities on trial.

I can't believe firstly that so many people dont find his behavior dubious, and still run every bit of evidence through the wringer before even accepting testimony/evidence even as a possibility.

Rocketta
Apr 7th, 2005, 11:05 PM
I'm confused: So all of these separate individuals have somehow all conspired (individually, but with a collective efect) against Michael to get his money over the years. So they all are painting him to be a molester performing the same acts on the same type of young boy...:tape: So they all come to court and perjure themselves telling not one shred of truth...:tape: Even after they've already gotten their money and testifying against Michael would be just for what, fun? :confused:

Yeah isn't it amazing that after all these years there hasn't been one person outraged enough, upset enough not to go for the money? :tape:


Michael has not come to court with clean hands either, settling multiple cases for similar allegations. I hate the blame the victim mentality that pervades American society, especially when it comes to celebrities on trial.

who says he has? :confused:

You're saying why don't we just believe these people because they are saying it happened and I explained why in this situation you don't just believe a witness but why you hold them to a higher standard of believability..

You mistake pointing to the fact that the accusers are less than desirable on many many aspects with thinking Michael's a saint. Fyi, this trial isn't about if he did those things in the past but if he did them to the defendent. I understand why the judge let the testimony in it shows a pattern of behavior. Michaels lawyers will try to show a pattern too.....that people will lie for money. Unfortunately, most of the witnesses so far have gone for the money. That's a fact too.


I can't believe firstly that so many people dont find his behavior dubious, and still run every bit of evidence through the wringer before even accepting testimony/evidence even as a possibility.

you don't convict people on possibilities....and really you shouldn't believe the worse about someone based on possibilities (but that's just my own opinion).

Of course everything said is possible....it's also possible that people lie....it's also possible that Michael did everything he's accused of except this last accusation which would mean he shouldn't be convicted. It's also possible some of the parents basically pimped their kid seeing a sick rich man and throwing their childs in and closing the door behind them all the while hearing the Ca-ching of the cash register. :shrug:

Stamp Paid
Apr 7th, 2005, 11:32 PM
Yeah isn't it amazing that after all these years there hasn't been one person outraged enough, upset enough not to go for the money? :tape:

This is America! :lol::lol::lol: Decency goes out of the door when it comes to money for many, if not most, in this society.

who says he has? :confused:

You're saying why don't we just believe these people because they are saying it happened and I explained why in this situation you don't just believe a witness but why you hold them to a higher standard of believability..

Yes because a man can go to jail for 5 years? The children who have been molested will suffer more throughout the course of their lifetimes than Michael will in jail. You saw how the young man who's mother was the maid couldn't compose himself when he had to relive the events that he said happened to him, and what happened to him was minor compared to the other allegations that have been made. I'm sorry, but my priority is to the children/victims first and foremost, not to the eccentric rich man with the high powered attorneys and several dubious distinctions, past and present.

You mistake pointing to the fact that the accusers are less than desirable on many many aspects with thinking Michael's a saint. Fyi, this trial isn't about if he did those things in the past but if he did them to the defendent. I understand why the judge let the testimony in it shows a pattern of behavior. Michaels lawyers will try to show a pattern too.....that people will lie for money. Unfortunately, most of the witnesses so far have gone for the money. That's a fact too.

I just don't understand...people went for the money, so they are obviously liars/fabricators? :confused: And still I ask, if theyve already gotten their money, why come and risk going to jail by perjuring yourself. It doesnt make sense to do this, if youre an opportunist, you get your money, take advantage, and move on. You don't slummet in your lies 10 years later just because.

you don't convict people on possibilities....and really you shouldn't believe the worse about someone based on possibilities (but that's just my own opinion).

Of course everything said is possible....it's also possible that people lie....it's also possible that Michael did everything he's accused of except this last accusation which would mean he shouldn't be convicted. It's also possible some of the parents basically pimped their kid seeing a sick rich man and throwing their childs in and closing the door behind them all the while hearing the Ca-ching of the cash register. :shrug:

Yes, I wasnt saying Michael should be convicted because all of these possibilites exist, I was just disappointed that you said that you personally wouldnt believe a thing in the prosecutions case unless they found a basically pristine witness. Of course everything is possible, its possible that a Satanic cult really did kill Laci Peterson and her child, but what was more likelyt and logical? :shrug: Its OK to love Michael Jackson and hope that he is innocent and support him, but dont totally blind yourself to any possibility that he could have done the acts alleged for that reason.

harloo
Apr 7th, 2005, 11:53 PM
Many former employees of Michael's have appeared on tabloid tv and in the tabloid papers saying these negative things. The tabloids pay good money for these stories, hell if someone offers you 50-60 G's for your story who wouldn't talk to them especially considering you are in the unemployment line?

The story sounds so outrageous that only someone without much sense would believe it. I am pretty sure the jurors will be able to see right through this testimony on cross examination. His testimony sounds like something right out of a movie. I mean you are just watching Michael and this kid engage in sexual acts and you do or say nothing. :rolleyes:

So far the prosecution has not proved their case. They have only produced lying children, and now they are scrambling for anything to convince the jurors that Michael is indeed guilty.

Personally I think he will go to jail. However it will not be based on his guilt. IMO their is already a preconcieved guilt in the minds of those jurors. Also Michael got a chance when he got out of that other legal nightmare, and so it is my opinion that he will not escape jail this time.

Lord Nelson
Apr 8th, 2005, 12:15 AM
Scoop of the day: Lord Nelson swears that he saw Michael Jackson molesting a young kid. He spoke to the prestigous 'THe Sun' who gave LN a present of 10,000 dollars as a gift for having the courage to tell the truth.

harloo
Apr 8th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Scoop of the day: Lord Nelson swears that he saw Michael Jackson molesting a young kid. He spoke to the prestigous 'THe Sun' who gave LN a present of 10,000 dollars as a gift for having the courage to tell the truth.

:haha:

Justin
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:11 AM
We are not talking about just believing these people we are talking about putting someone behind bars for years and years...a higher standard needs to be met before you just believe someone's word in this circumstance.

I usually agree with you Rocky, but it irks me when I hear this. Juries in criminal cases are instructed (and, in fact, they take an oath where they swear to) judge the facts and not think about punishment. I realize that you are just making a point here, but the fact of the matter is that most people simply cannot get the idea of punishment out of their heads- even when the only issue to determine is: Did the act happen? If the act did happen, Stage two becomes: What punishment is appropriate, given the totality of circumstances? Rarely is a jury entitled to decide stage two. In fact, it is only in rare situations of the death penalty. And even then, it is usually a recommendation.

Cariaoke
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:31 AM
Ok, so let me get this straight. If we don't believe the testimony of the witnesses, we're MJ lovers who can't see the truth? That's a biased assessment.

I'm looking at it from a neutral point of view since MJ is the *last* MF I want to defend. I don't have love for people, especially black people, who have a problem with the way they were born. These people are generally the same MFs who want to run back to the community they abandoned once they fall out of grace with the dominant culture. Now, Michael's suddenly "black" again and in a "struggle". MF puhlease... :rolleyes: Moonwalk your ass elsewhere because it doesn't fly. Vitilago, my ass. :tape: :haha:

Now that that's out of the way, the burden on the prosecution is proof. Is proof a maid who told "Hard Copy" that MJ never molested children and 13 years later she says he did proof? As far as the other witnesses go, if I was molested, I doubt I'd sell my story to a few tabloids. I'd be too freaking TRAUMATIZED to exploit MYSELF and make a profit off of my alleged suffering or the alleged suffering of my own child, for chrissakes! But, hey, that's probably just me. OBVIOUSLY, it's just me. :o

I'm not sure if he did molest those kids. If he did, may he rot in hell. If he didn't, I hope he learns from his mistakes because it was foolish to have children in his bed. And WTF @ the parents for allowing such nonsense. "Ooh, he's a celebrity and he's so nice." Not every pedophile is a strange dude in a trench coat with an unkempt look.

Rocketta
Apr 8th, 2005, 03:21 AM
I usually agree with you Rocky, but it irks me when I hear this. Juries in criminal cases are instructed (and, in fact, they take an oath where they swear to) judge the facts and not think about punishment. I realize that you are just making a point here, but the fact of the matter is that most people simply cannot get the idea of punishment out of their heads- even when the only issue to determine is: Did the act happen? If the act did happen, Stage two becomes: What punishment is appropriate, given the totality of circumstances? Rarely is a jury entitled to decide stage two. In fact, it is only in rare situations of the death penalty. And even then, it is usually a recommendation.

I agree that's the purpose of a Jury...I didn't say they should look at the punishment what I meant was that character matters for the defendent and the accusers. It's pertinent if you can prove the accuser to be a liar. It's pertinent if you can prove the witness to be an opportunists especially if the testamony is he said she said.

Juries have to hold witnesses to higher standards....if they didn't why wouldn't the defence attornies waste time showing witnesses to be liars and fabricators?

This is a man coming into court with questionable motives and then he tells the outrageous story and people are really to believe that he watched said and did nothing but when he gets fired he then talks to the tabloids, he sues Michael but he sees Michael put his mouth on a 9 year olds penis and does nothing.:shrug: Who should be in jail if that true? :tape:

and Justincredible...I didn't say a witness has to be prestine but can they find one that hasn't profited or trying to profit from Michael in one way or the other? Is that too hard? Trust if he molested my kid there would be no record of a payoff, there would be no record of tabloids paying me or me going to a civil attorney first....all there would be is the police reports....one about the molestation and one about me trying to put my foot in his ass.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:16 AM
I dunno. I agree with most of what Rocky is saying in this thread, but the cumulative effect of all this highly-prejudicial evidence is making it very difficult to think that Michael will walk. Even sceptical li'l me is starting to come to the view that he has pedophilic tendencies and that there must surely be at least some fire behind all this smoke.

I'm not at all convinced that he did any particular act, much less the specific acts he is charged with (which is what the jury is supposed to decide).
It's all so murky with this succession of tainted witnesses. But the jury could easily put him away just because they think he did something wrong somewhere and believe he should be punished. Some of the posters here obviously feel the same way.

That's the trouble with letting in this kind of evidence with more prejudicial value than probative value, but I guess the judge had little choice if there's a statutory provision about similar-fact evidence in sex cases.

Wigglytuff
Apr 8th, 2005, 06:40 AM
Ok, so let me get this straight. If we don't believe the testimony of the witnesses, we're MJ lovers who can't see the truth? That's a biased assessment.

I'm looking at it from a neutral point of view since MJ is the *last* MF I want to defend. I don't have love for people, especially black people, who have a problem with the way they were born. These people are generally the same MFs who want to run back to the community they abandoned once they fall out of grace with the dominant culture. Now, Michael's suddenly "black" again and in a "struggle". MF puhlease... :rolleyes: Moonwalk your ass elsewhere because it doesn't fly. Vitilago, my ass. :tape: :haha:

Now that that's out of the way, the burden on the prosecution is proof. Is proof a maid who told "Hard Copy" that MJ never molested children and 13 years later she says he did proof? As far as the other witnesses go, if I was molested, I doubt I'd sell my story to a few tabloids. I'd be too freaking TRAUMATIZED to exploit MYSELF and make a profit off of my alleged suffering or the alleged suffering of my own child, for chrissakes! But, hey, that's probably just me. OBVIOUSLY, it's just me. :o

I'm not sure if he did molest those kids. If he did, may he rot in hell. If he didn't, I hope he learns from his mistakes because it was foolish to have children in his bed. And WTF @ the parents for allowing such nonsense. "Ooh, he's a celebrity and he's so nice." Not every pedophile is a strange dude in a trench coat with an unkempt look.

every person is different and every person reacts to trauma differently.

ok, that being said. as a survivor of child sexually abuse, speaking for myself, talking about it openly comes only after years of counseling and talking about it for money comes never. i am highly suspicious of anyone who goes to the press before they go to some sort of personal healing, (religious conversion, counseling, medical assistant, SA, ANYTHING). seeking legal advice and selling stories for cash BEFORE seeking LONG TERM medical or emotional support is simply inconsistent with anything i have seen in my own experience or anything i have read about child sexual abuse.

in short, no rokkstarr you are not the only one.

ceiling_fan
Apr 8th, 2005, 06:41 AM
i've got a joke... why does michael jackson like twenty eight year olds so much??





because there are twenty of 'em!! :lol:

BUBI
Apr 8th, 2005, 07:00 AM
i've got a joke... why does michael jackson like twenty eight year olds so much??





because there are twenty of 'em!! :lol:
:haha:

Wigglytuff
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:27 PM
Jackson Defense Attacks Guard Credibility

1 hour, 58 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! Entertainment - AP Music

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson's attorney attacked the credibility of two former employees at the singer's Neverland ranch who said they had seen Jackson act inappropriately with young boys.

Former security guard Ralph Chacon said Thursday he had seen Jackson kiss, fondle and perform oral sex on a boy who later received a financial settlement from the pop star. Another prosecution witness, Adrian McManus, said she had seen Jackson kissing and touching three boys, including the one Chacon had testified about.

But defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. accused Chacon of making the whole thing up "to get even" with the singer and portrayed McManus as a thief and a liar. Mesereau also accused Chacon of having tried to "extort" $16 million from Jackson in a lawsuit and lengthy trial that he, McManus and other ex-employees lost. They were ultimately ordered to pay more than $1.4 million in a judgment won by Jackson.

"After a six-month trial, this is a good way to get even with him, isn't it?" Mesereau asked Chacon, drawing a strong objection from the prosecution.

McManus' testimony was scheduled to resume Friday.

The former employees' testimony is part of a prosecution attempt to show that the current molestation allegations against Jackson are part of a pattern of inappropriate sexual contact with young boys dating back more than a decade.

In questioning by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, Chacon told of looking through a window one night at Jackson's pool house in late 1992 or early 1993 and seeing him perform oral sex on a 10-year-old boy.

Chacon said he saw Jackson get in a Jacuzzi and shower with a boy, then kiss the boy's head and shoulders before moving his hands "down to his private area." He also said there was another incident in which Jackson took the boy away in a golf cart and kissed him in front of a Peter Pan display.

The boy received a financial settlement, reportedly between $15 million and $20 million, from Jackson in 1994. The boy did not cooperate with a police investigation and no charges were filed against Jackson. The boy is not scheduled to testify in the trial.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in 2003, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to make a video rebutting a TV documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed but that it was innocent.

McManus, a Jackson maid between 1990 and 1994, also testified Thursday that she saw the pop star kiss actor Macaulay Culkin on the cheek while his hand was on Culkin's bottom. The defense has asserted that Culkin has repeatedly said he was never molested, and a spokeswoman for the actor has said he has no plans to be part of the case.

McManus described a similar scene with another boy and a third incident involving the same boy that Chacon testified about.

In the latter incident, she said, Jackson and the boy were changing their shirts when Jackson kissed the boy on his cheek and mouth and put his hand on his groin area.

But McManus also testified that when subpoenaed in the lawsuit that resulted in the 1994 settlement she did not tell attorneys that she had seen Jackson touching the boy.

"I didn't tell the truth. I said I didn't see anything," she said.

Mesereau confronted her repeatedly with statements from her deposition and each time she said she could not recall until the attorney showed them to her.

"Do you know how many times you lied under oath in the ... deposition?" asked Mesereau.



"The whole time," she said. "I believe I didn't tell the truth."

She said she was afraid of Jackson because he had threatened to report her to her superiors if she ever did anything he didn't like. She also said she needed the job because her husband had been laid off and a house payment was due.

Mesereau also pointed out that McManus and her husband were found in a lawsuit to have defrauded three children of more than $30,500 from their estate and that in the Jackson lawsuit she was assessed $30,000 for stealing a sketch of Elvis Presley that Jackson had drawn and selling it to a tabloid.

McManus insisted that she found the sketch in the trash and didn't consider its worth.

The former guard also acknowledged he was ordered to pay $25,000 for allegedly stealing Jackson's property, which he said was only a candy bar.

In heated cross-examination, he acknowledged that when he and other employees decided to sue Jackson they consulted a lawyer who told them the only way they could fund the suit was to sell stories to tabloids. Chacon said they sold a story for $17,000 and all the money went to the lawyer.

Mesereau pressed him on whether he drafted the story at the lawyer's office.

"I probably did," said Chacon. "It's been a long time."

"Well it's no longer than some of these events you claim to have witnessed with Mr. Jackson," Mesereau replied.

The witness paused and said, "I probably did. I did."

He fended off Mesereau's suggestions that he has added "more lurid facts" each time he has told his story, but he acknowledged that he met with Sneddon this week and gave him additional details.

DelMonte
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:42 PM
I dunno. I agree with most of what Rocky is saying in this thread, but the cumulative effect of all this highly-prejudicial evidence is making it very difficult to think that Michael will walk. Even sceptical li'l me is starting to come to the view that he has pedophilic tendencies and that there must surely be at least some fire behind all this smoke.

I'm not at all convinced that he did any particular act, much less the specific acts he is charged with (which is what the jury is supposed to decide).
It's all so murky with this succession of tainted witnesses. But the jury could easily put him away just because they think he did something wrong somewhere and believe he should be punished. Some of the posters here obviously feel the same way.

That's the trouble with letting in this kind of evidence with more prejudicial value than probative value, but I guess the judge had little choice if there's a statutory provision about similar-fact evidence in sex cases.

This is exactly how I feel about MJ and this case.

I am generally against similar-fact evidence but I am also aware of the unique (evidentiary) problems that attend child-abuse cases so I am sympathetic to the exception but still.... hmmm, probative value v prejudicial effect. I never figured out what the right balance was, although my legal training taught me, rightly or wrongly, to lean towards the latter.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, The Leopard, you are a lawyer, right? Are you practicing at the moment though?

Wigglytuff
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:43 PM
i've got a joke... why does michael jackson like twenty eight year olds so much??

because there are twenty of 'em!! :lol:

:rolleyes:

Pengwin
Apr 8th, 2005, 03:11 PM
This is getting more disturbing every day

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 9th, 2005, 12:34 AM
Anyway, if I remember correctly, The Leopard, you are a lawyer, right? Are you practicing at the moment though?

No, not right now ... and I'm not sure if I'll ever go back to it. I'm making a good enough living doing various other things that I really enjoy more (much as litigation can be exciting ... but then again it's so all-consuming; I'm a nicer person when not doing it). I get a bit of teaching here, a bit of freelance writing there. A bit of investment income from the money I made in the law :shrug: .

:hehehe: