Jackson Not Guilty !!!

Just to end:

I stand corrected re the appeal issue.  I was not thinking; of course you are right that the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict without new evidence.  My bad.

Still wrong Maani, you can never appeal a not guilty veredict, not even whith new evidence, once you're declared not guilty, there's no chance for appeal.

The appeal process exists to help people who have been wrongfully found guilty, not for people who might have been wrongfully declared not guilty.

Once you're found not guilty you can not be judged for the same crime, as Garion said correctly this is considered double jeopardy.

Iván

Great argument Maani:

I have attended Mass for 40 years and helped the Priest several times, also studied in a Catholic School.

So thanks to your inpiring post I will write a letter to the Pope asking him to name me Bishop 

Probably he will laugh, exactly as I am laughing now.

Iván

PS: This doesn't affect my frienship either, of course we're friends.

Ivan and danbo:

I stand corrected re the appeal issue.  I was not thinking; of course you are right that the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict without new evidence.  My bad.

Ivan:

For the record.  Although I am not a school-trained lawyer, I actually spent over 10 years as a legal assistant (primarily corporate, contract, real estate and IP law), and also spent 15 years as an "advocate" in Manhattan's civil courts, including litigating dozens of cases, from tenant-landlord to small claims to civil claims.  (This is permissible under New York State law under certain conditions, which I met.)  I litigated at least 40 cases.  My record?  35 wins, 5 draws, no losses.  In addition, I am one of only a handful of people ever to be allowed to argue pro se in a federal court.  I won that case as well.  This is not offered out of smugness or ego.  It is offered so you know that I am not simply talking out of my backside.

Thus, when I say I would "wipe the floor with you," I am speaking as an experienced litigator.  I don't know how the law works in Peru, but if you were across from me at the prosecutor's table, and we were arguing this case, you would lose because you offer your arguments almost entirely from "my experience" and certain presumptions - neither of which are admissible in court.  And even were they admissible, you offer not one shred of evidence - hard, submissible evidence - to support your arguments.

The downfall of every attorney who ever faced me in court was their reliance on unsupported (by evidence) claims and/or accusations, irrelevant statements, suppositions and the like, which they presented with all the pomp and grandeur one would expect of lawyers trying to impress judges.  However, I found that a reasoned, logical argument, based on the simplest citable laws, and supported by even a few pieces of hard evidence, went much further than all the supposed legal wizardry of lawyers who had decades of experience more than I did, cited obscure case law, and strutted around the courtroom like bigshots.  In one case, I took on the attorney for one of NY's largest real estate developers (bigger than Trump, though he's also quieter), and not only beat him, but got the judge to reprimand him for wasting the court's time with what amounted to a frivolous lawsuit.

The discussion in this thread is (or at least was supposed to be) Jackson's guilt or innocence, and how we felt about it, and why we felt the verdict was right or wrong.  Since some of us are either lawyers or have legal expertise, we have been engaging in what amounts to a sidebar "re-trying" of the case, based on what we know (which is admittedly not everything) about the evidence, etc.  It is in this regard that I believe that, based solely on your (and others') arguments thus far - i.e., "Ivan (and Tony and others) for the prosecution" as it were - if it were "Maani for the defense," I would, indeed, "wipe the floor with you" (in a friendly way, of course...); i.e., I would show more than enough "reasonable doubt" to obtain the same verdict with the same evidence.

Hope we're still friends...

Peace.

ivan_2068 wrote: Maani wrote: Danbo said: "Just to be a touch pendantic. Once a case has been adjudicated, guilty or not guilty, it CANNOT be retried using ANY of the evidence already put forth."  Ever hear of an appeals court?  And it speaks volumes that Sneddon has no intention of appealing the case - because he knows that his case is flimsy. A person can’t be taken to trial for the same crime after being declared innocent, this is taught in the first day in every Law School in USA. Nobody can appeal a sentence of not guilty, only if the person is declared guilty this can happen and if new facts or evidence are found. Iván

Thanks for backing my play. I'm not a lawyer, but twenty years of LE work counts for something.

1- He sleeps with kids and publicly accepts that.  Tell me something: if Jackson were a pedophile, why on God's great earth would he admit to it in a public interview that he knew would be seen by millions of people?  He could just as easily never have brought up the fact that he sleeps with children in his bed.  That would certainly have served him better if he were a pedophile and wanted to continue to be one.

It's the oldest lawyers trick, which obviously you are unable to understand because you haven't studied 6 years of law and a master (very pedantic from your part to affirm you wipe me in court, almost as it would be to affirm that I know more of scriptures than you)

But back to the point: If a person talks something to the public and gives his own version even if it's disgusting or repulsive, he takes the surprise from the success, when the jurys heard he slept with children they stupidly said "That's not new, he already admitted it"

If the prosecutor would had disclosured that MJ  sleeps with kids before Jackson admitted it, the Jury would have instantly believed he was a pervert and wondered why MJ never admited it.

Believe me it works, I have used it.

Maani wrote:

2.- Has paid millions of dollars to kids parents (who are not betterthan huim I agree) to keep previous felonies away from courts.  "Previous felonies?"  Sorry, Mr. Lawyer: this is presumption on your part, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.  Only your very unlawyerly assumption that "settlements=guilt."

Sorry mister reverend, but that's experience after hundreed of cases seen in court, not on TV.

Maani wrote:

3.- Two persons from his staff declared he had relatioins with the kids.  How do we know that these people don't have agendas?  Whether they are disgruntled former employees (and such do exist, despite the overuse of that phrase) or maybe have a book deal in the works, we simply cannot accept at face value that these people do not have an axe to grind or a bank account to fill

According to youy, the mother has an agenda, the kid has an agenda, the witness have an agenda, the Goivernment has an agenda against Michael Jackson. But Michael Jackson has no agenda.

He is a white dove, the angel of the children who with no interest sleeps with kids in the same room where liquor and porn was found......He is like Jesus when he said Let the children come to me.... Please, neither you believe that

 Maani wrote:

4.- He doesn't declare in the trial (Very important issue) an innocent man almost always declares, unless he's afraid of the prosecutors's questions.  And you're a lawyer?  You know damned well that one of the first things that a judge instructs the jury on is that the failure of a defendant to testify cannot be used to determine that defendant's guilt.  And yet here you are doing so merrily, happily and without reserve!  Shame on you!!

The defendant can also invoke the fifth amendment, but this is more obvious. Any person who has nothing to hide declares his version, and the lawyers encourage them to do so, unless the lawyer is afraid his client will discover his guilt.

Maani wrote:

5.- Staff of Neverland declared he saw kids intoxicated.  I repeat my comment above: we cannot be certain that these people do not have agendas.

Yeah, I forgot, according to you everybody has agendas against poor innocent Michael Jackson

Maani wrote:

6.- Liquor and porn magazines were found in the same room he shared with kids.  Even assuming this is true, he lives in a mansion and we can only assume the rooms are alot bigger than anything we are used to.  And we don't know where in the room those items were found: they could have been in a locked closet, or on a high shelf in a non-visible place, or anywhere else for that matter.  Again, your statement is vague, and this is why you would lose this case were you to argue it.

Not assuming it'sA FACT  Maani, the magazines and liquor were found with his finger prints IN THE SAME ROOM WHERE HE SLEEPS WITH CHILDREN. One of the charges was related with placing kids in risk because the magazines and the liquore were in accessicle places. If you add this to the declarations of drunk children, it's more than casual

If Michael Jackson is a child that refused to grow up or as he self proclaimed Peter Pan, why in hell he needs porn ond booze. Please Manni you're more intelligent than that.

Only time will prove my point, sadly this will affect more children

Iván

Ivan said:

1. He sleeps with kids and publicly accepts that.  Tell me something: if Jackson were a pedophile, why on God's great earth would he admit to it in a public interview that he knew would be seen by millions of people?  He could just as easily never have brought up the fact that he sleeps with children in his bed.  That would certainly have served him better if he were a pedophile and wanted to continue to be one. Because he legitimises what he does by making it appear normal.Dont forget this guy lives in a very controlled environment where it is easy to to lose ones grasp of reality.
2. Has paid millions of dollars to kids parents (who are not betterthan huim I agree) to keep previous felonies away from courts.  "Previous felonies?"  Sorry, Mr. Lawyer: this is presumption on your part, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.  Only your very unlawyerly assumption that "settlements=guilt." Whilst I grant you that just because he has settled out of court doesnt make him guilty,it does beggar the question:why does he put himself in this situation if he does not have a "sickness" he cant control?
3. Two persons from his staff declared he had relatioins with the kids.  How do we know that these people don't have agendas?  Whether they are disgruntled former employees (and such do exist, despite the overuse of that phrase) or maybe have a book deal in the works, we simply cannot accept at face value that these people do not have an axe to grind or a bank account to fill. Surely all employees are strictly vetted.Also if I was working in that environment and it was all obviously "above-board" then I would be shouting this from the heavens during the trial .
4. He doesn't declare in the trial (Very important issue) an innocent man almost always declares, unless he's afraid of the prosecutors's questions.  And you're a lawyer?  You know damned well that one of the first things that a judge instructs the jury on is that the failure of a defendant to testify cannot be used to determine that defendant's guilt.  And yet here you are doing so merrily, happily and without reserve!  Shame on you!! We are not trying the case here,merely making observations about how the case was conducted...
5. Staff of Neverland declared he saw kids intoxicated.  I repeat my comment above: we cannot be certain that these people do not have agendas. But why presume that they do have agendas-you cant berate us for saying this very thing about Jackson then use the same logic against our argument.
6. Liquor and porn magazines were found in the same room he shared with kids.  Even assuming this is true, he lives in a mansion and we can only assume the rooms are alot bigger than anything we are used to.  And we don't know where in the room those items were found: they could have been in a locked closet, or on a high shelf in a non-visible place, or anywhere else for that matter.  Again, your statement is vague, and this is why you would lose this case were you to argue it. I think it is taken as "given" that these items were in easily accessible places.

Please forgive the size of my font,etc as I am finding it impossible to format this reply properly.

tuxon wrote: Ivan, You state that a settle agreement, automatically means he's guilty?, and if he's innocent he would go to trial? HE ACTUALLY WENT TO TRIAL ON THE LATEST OCCASION, AND STILL PEOPLE THINK HE"S GUILTY. so no difference, only a settlement costs a couple of millions, a trial would cost more, either way he loses, but without the hassle, and less media-exposure which is bad for his carreer.

Have you asked what caused that? Maybe the several settle agreements he done before, after paying millions and millions he had to face justice, but he alone damaged his reputation.

Settle agreements aren't a prove of being 100% guilty, but in all the cases I seen (and are many) there's something the people involved wants to hide.

In this case I admit the evidence was not strong enough for some people, who knows what kind of evidence there was on the other cases and how much money was involved.

But the most important factor for me was that Michael Jackson in an intelligent move by his lawyers admitted publicly that he slept with children just before this evidence was disclosured to public.

February 3, 2003 British journalist Martin Bashir's documentary on Jackson reveals at least a few freakish facts. The 44-year-old Jackson admits that having "water-balloon fights and climbing trees" are his favorite things to do. He also admits he has "slept in a bed with many children." Claiming there is nothing sexual about these sleepovers at Neverland, he says, "It's very charming; it's very sweet." Asked if it was appropriate, Jackson answers that he is a child himself, "I am Peter Pan. I'm Peter Pan in my heart."

Add to this the fact he created a fake marriage with Lisa Marie Presley when the first rumors of pedophilia appeared in 1994.

May 26, 1994 Jackson marries Elvis Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie. The Rolling Stone calls it "a move which many observers saw as an attempt to downplay pedophilia rumors." The couple divorced in early 1996.

BTW: We are not talking about 1 or 2 million dollars:

August 23, 1993 Los Angeles Police Department investigates charges of Jackson sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy. Boy refuses to testify after Jackson settles with boy's family for a reported 15 million dollars. Charges are dropped.

Nobody in the world pays 15 million dollars if he doesn't has something to hide.

Please, stop being naive, he's not Peter Pän even when he shouts this, add all this facts and the only posible conclusion is that the guy is guilty and has always been.

Iván