I have to say something about the Jackson trial.

I have been following it by reading some of the articles that are popping up. It has to be one of the worst supported large cases I have ever heard. For every witness the prosecution has, there is good reason to believe that they are lying or generally not believable. For every piece of evidence, there is serious doubt that it's legit.

Now, the prosecution submitted a porno mag with a child's fingerprints. Oh, but it was first considered inconclusive. Then they decided to call it conclusive and use it anyway. Basically, the prosecution got someone to say it was conclusive. It's very Bushesque. So another independent forensic examiner looked at it and figured out that it was inconclusive. Now the evidence on the magazine is a wash (waste is a better term).

This is looking more and more like a witch-hunt to me. Either that, or the LAPD is incompetent once again.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/jackson.trial/index.html

the poor guy can't even do his patented 360 twirL. :cry:

i wonder how many more times he can be Late to triaL.... you or i get the treatment.

of course they're going to find people with different opinions on the finger prints. The US has no standards when it comes to them. This was a problem even before Bush.

http://www.fd.org/Publications/SpecTop/fingerprintlawreview.pdf

As discussed in greater detail below,26 there is considerable
disagreement among fingerprint examiners as to how many common ridge
characteristics should be found before an identification is made. Examiners
historically have employed identification standards ranging from between
eight and sixteen matching characteristics, or “points of similarity.”27
Many examiners, however, including those at the FBI, currently believe
that there should be no minimum standard whatsoever and that the
determination of whether there is a sufficient basis for an identification
should be left to the subjective judgment of the individual examiner.28

This trial is in Santa Barbara County. I admit I haven't followed it more than to see the headlines on Cable TV, but if the LAPD is somehow involved, my apoligies.

are always very, very hard to prosecute -- and you will see that many jurisdictions won't touch them at all, or very seldomly unless their is obscene amounts of evidence.

There, he brought the 1993 boy multiple times. Perhaps there was evidence seized there

I don't think the jury will be able to deliver a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

or wiLL be abLe to with his back in such rough shape?

suit coat he likes to wear.

it will be the "shackled perp-moon-walk".

especially when the molester has a 1st class legal team to make everyone else look like a sleazebag.

If this case was so weak, no D.A. would touch it. Sneddon would not dare to go up against a legal team as formidable as the one Jackson would have unless he was sure he had a case. District Attys are notorious for not prosecuting unless they have a very good case----they do not want to mess up their scorecard of wins and losses

I have very little doubt that Michael is guilty, but it may be very difficult to convict.

I certainly don't want him to be a pedophile but if he is, I want him to go to jail for it (I would want this for all pedophiles of course). Since everyone seems to be lying though, it just forces me to not make any judgment of his guilt or innocence either way.

I will say this though...I'd bet $100 that if you went into any home in the USA that had both kids living there and porn material stashed somewhere, you would be able to find the kids' prints on the porn. My parents thought their stash was well hidden but my prints were all over them. It's amazing what kids can find when they're sneaking into everything when no adults are around.