TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bad news for Michael Jackson
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bad news for Michael Jackson

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
Testimony about allegations of previous abuse will be allowed.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/28/jackson/index.html
I've got mixed feelings about this, but tend to go with the arguments of "once a pedophile, always a pedophile" that proponents in the California justice system use. What do you think - Is this unfair to the defendant, or added protection for potential victims, much like Meagan's Law?
Here's an article explaining the reasoning behind California sometimes allowing testimony about past behavior: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar26.html
post #2 of 18
Well I don't know enough about the laws to make a statement about whether this is right or not. But like you say if he has a pattern...plus to have been accused of that and then have such wreckless behavior says a lot.

The whole thing is so tragic. Either way this man needs treatment. And yet his accuser's family is so lame, did you hear about the George Lopez thing? How they accused Lopez of stealing $300 from the kids wallet?
post #3 of 18
i think it's fair, especially since he basically paid off the boys in the earlier 90's case to 'go away'. .... let him burn, that's what i say
post #4 of 18
Why shouldn't the jury be able to hear that evidence. It establishes a patteren and if he is inoccent, the facts will prove that.

PErsoanlly I think he's gulity, twice accused is 2 time too many.
post #5 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
...plus to have been accused of that and then have such wreckless behavior says a lot.
Perhaps his reckless behavior can be put down to his failure to have a firm grip on reality? He apparently doesn't believe that normal rules of behavior or laws apply to him. I was appalled when he compared himself to Nelson Mandela on Jesse Jackson's radio show. He definitely needs a "reality check".
post #6 of 18
I believe the man believes he is above the law. He has a pattern of lying about everything... from his plastic surguries, his skin treatments, and whatnot. The man is a habitual liar and feels the need to be in constant spotlight.

With that being said... It is very sad. He is very talented.
post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
Well I don't know enough about the laws to make a statement about whether this is right or not. But like you say if he has a pattern...plus to have been accused of that and then have such wreckless behavior says a lot.

The whole thing is so tragic. Either way this man needs treatment. And yet his accuser's family is so lame, did you hear about the George Lopez thing? How they accused Lopez of stealing $300 from the kids wallet?
i have problems with this in general. the previous allegations were settled out of court. the accuser chose not to press charges. in most criminal cases (having just sat on a jury this past fall) even previous convictions are not disclosed until after the verdict is rendered. at that case, the previous conviction was disclosed after we decided the defendant was guilty, in order to assist us with determining the appropriate prison sentence. that's when the patterning should be used - if a guilty verdict is returned.
that being said - his lawyers will just appeal any guilty verdict, & this will give them more ammunition if/when that time comes.
post #8 of 18
All I can say is what a waste of talent. I wonder if he ever went to a pyschologist??
post #9 of 18
Thread Starter 
The judge's ruling does make sense when you consider that Jackson's attorney has brought up a past suit brought by the victim's family. Why should only the victim's (family's) possible behavioral patterns be covered, and not the defendant's?
When Dominique Dunne (Poltergeist) was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, his physical abuse of a former girlfriend couldn't be testified to in the presence of the jury, and as a result he got off with a light sentence. Her father, writer Dominick Dunne, was really incensed, because the defense was permitted to drag her reputation through the dirt, as if trying to prove she was somehow at fault for her own murder, while Sweeney's past was out of bounds.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227
in most criminal cases (having just sat on a jury this past fall) even previous convictions are not disclosed until after the verdict is rendered.
I think that's precisely why they are allowing it. They aren't criminal convictions, they were civil suits. If he had previously been criminally accused of molestation, and found either guilty or not guilty, that couldn't have been admitted into court. Because they weren't prosecuted, they are admissible.
post #11 of 18
Let 'em tell all. It will establish the pattern of messed up behaviour.
That man is disturbed.
Even if he's not guilty (personally I think he's guilty as hell), he needs to be locked up in a mental institution. The guy's got some issues.
post #12 of 18
As far as the defendent goes-if he has a pattern of this kind of behavior, & a child is dead because he was out on the streets-I don't give a crap about his "rights".
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
The judge's ruling does make sense when you consider that Jackson's attorney has brought up a past suit brought by the victim's family. Why should only the victim's (family's) possible behavioral patterns be covered, and not the defendant's?
When Dominique Dunne (Poltergeist) was murdered by her ex-boyfriend, his physical abuse of a former girlfriend couldn't be testified to in the presence of the jury, and as a result he got off with a light sentence. Her father, writer Dominick Dunne, was really incensed, because the defense was permitted to drag her reputation through the dirt, as if trying to prove she was somehow at fault for her own murder, while Sweeney's past was out of bounds.
post #14 of 18
I used to think there was no way possible he was innocent but now I don't know. It seems the alleged victims are as crazy as he. I'm not saying he isn't a big weirdo but from what I've seen of the trial I'm not convinced he's a molester.
post #15 of 18
Thread Starter 
You weren't impressed by the parallels in today's testimony? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/04/ja...ial/index.html
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
You weren't impressed by the parallels in today's testimony? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/04/ja...ial/index.html

Yeah that testimony sounds credible. I really think this guy is going to get convicted now.
post #17 of 18
He's one messed up guy. I sort of met him once - or saw him really - in very surreal circumstances. He visited Israel when I was going through officers course. He asked to visit the IDF and they happened to pick our base for the visit. Can you imagine cheering for Michael Jackson as he leads a group of women soldiers with their guns across the dusty parking lot they used for drills?
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne
He's one messed up guy. I sort of met him once - or saw him really - in very surreal circumstances. He visited Israel when I was going through officers course. He asked to visit the IDF and they happened to pick our base for the visit. Can you imagine cheering for Michael Jackson as he leads a group of women soldiers with their guns across the dusty parking lot they used for drills?
Wow, that's like a scene out of some surreal movie! Gasp!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bad news for Michael Jackson