Turn on thread page Beta

Michael Jackson-Verdict right? watch

    Offline

    13
    A big reason why the jury decided in Jackson's favour was that they considered the boy's mother to be an unreliable witness mainly because of her personality.

    There was a request by the prosecution that an expert be called to explain how a person who had been subjected to prolonged abuse by a partner (as she was) would display the agitative personality as this woman did. The judge refused the request. The jury was denied this extra insight and made a judgement on the witness without any chance of empathy been employed. In my opinion, because of this one aspect, the jury did not have all the information they should have had to make a decision that the relevant witness's evidence was unreliable.

    In many court cases that have been publicised there are always experts giving information about mental conditions, forensics etc. as an aid to jurors in reaching their decision. This was lacking in Jackson's trial and causes me to wonder why?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    In many court cases that have been publicised there are always experts giving information about mental conditions, forensics etc. as an aid to jurors in reaching their decision. This was lacking in Jackson's trial and causes me to wonder why?
    Well, if the defense brought in experts trying to explain Jackson's mental issues in detail, it would have seemed like an admission of guilt. That said, I believe they had some psychologist come in to explain that Jackson is sort of mentally trapped in childhood, but that was to explain the innocence in his desires to hang out with "other little boys." In contrast, the woman's mental state was not pertinent to the question at hand, regardless of whether that condition made her testimony more or less sympathetic.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Well, if the defense brought in experts trying to explain Jackson's mental issues in detail, it would have seemed like an admission of guilt. That said, I believe they had some psychologist come in to explain that Jackson is sort of mentally trapped in childhood, but that was to explain the innocence in his desires to hang out with "other little boys." In contrast, the woman's mental state was not pertinent to the question at hand, regardless of whether that condition made her testimony more or less sympathetic.
    I wasn't thinking of Jackson - although as you say the defence did have someone to exonerate his weird behaviour regarding pubescent boys. I wonder why he did not have the same attitudes to girls, considering he says he loves children?

    Regarding Gavin's mother. I think that her mental state is very pertinent to the way she conducted herself in the witness box and the attitude to that behaviour from the jury - after all they said they couldn't give her evidence any credence - this could have been due to the way she delivered her evidence rather than whether what she was saying was true or not. And she had taken an oath to tell the truth after all.
    It is a shame that Jackson was not called to defend himself - would he have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth whilst under oath?
    And why was he not called - surely that in itself is suspicious. OJ Simpson was called to the witness box, wasn't he? Where there is a prosecution there has to be a defence and the person being prosecuted should be compelled to defend themselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I wasn't thinking of Jackson - although as you say the defence did have someone to exonerate his weird behaviour regarding pubescent boys. I wonder why he did not have the same attitudes to girls, considering he says he loves children?
    Because "girls are icky."

    Regarding Gavin's mother. I think that her mental state is very pertinent to the way she conducted herself in the witness box and the attitude to that behaviour from the jury - after all they said they couldn't give her evidence any credence - this could have been due to the way she delivered her evidence rather than whether what she was saying was true or not. And she had taken an oath to tell the truth after all.
    Her delivery of testimony was not pertinent to the question that the jury was investigating. The only way that could have been addressed were if her state of mind related to the allegations.

    It is a shame that Jackson was not called to defend himself - would he have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth whilst under oath?
    And why was he not called - surely that in itself is suspicious. OJ Simpson was called to the witness box, wasn't he? Where there is a prosecution there has to be a defence and the person being prosecuted should be compelled to defend themselves.
    A) Jackson had the 5th Amendment on his side.
    B) Testimony from Jackson could have pushed the jury in either direction: "WOW, this guy's nuts, he thinks he's a child. He's so crazy he just may have done anything" or "Wow, this guy's nuts, he thinks he's still 10 years old, but I don't think a 10 year old would do something like that." His testimony could have really gone either way, and that is why I'm sure both the prosecution and defense were glad that he elected to keep silent.
    C) OJ testified because he was demonstrating the low of quality of the evidence that was presented. There was little evidence to disprove in the Jackson case.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Because "girls are icky."



    Her delivery of testimony was not pertinent to the question that the jury was investigating. The only way that could have been addressed were if her state of mind related to the allegations.
    Or because girls aren't boys!

    We have no way of knowing whether the alleged abuse of her son (or the guilt factor of allowing her son to spend so much time alone with an adult male) affected her state of mind as that question was never examined let alone raised.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    We have no way of knowing whether the alleged abuse of her son (or the guilt factor of allowing her son to spend so much time alone with an adult male) affected her state of mind as that question was never examined let alone raised.
    That still wouldn't make it pertinent to the case. Basically, if something did not directly relate to Jackson, it had no business being put forward for the jury.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes-there was no proof beyond resonable doubt
    It is quite sad that a majority of the votes in the poll voted for this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sleep)
    It is quite sad that a majority of the votes in the poll voted for this.
    Why is that sad if thats what people believe. Thats what stood out to me, there was no evidence that said to me yes he definatly did this.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    That still wouldn't make it pertinent to the case. Basically, if something did not directly relate to Jackson, it had no business being put forward for the jury.
    How can this not relate directly to Jackson? She says her son was abused by Jackson. :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How can this not relate directly to Jackson? She says her son was abused by Jackson. :confused:
    Her mental stability or instability is not a product of anything relating to Jackson, and, as such, would not be something that could be mentioned in relation to what the jury was investigating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The prosecution didn't have any physical evidence, and their witnesses were of questionable character. I was relieved at the decision.
    i think perhaps the verdict was right, but i gotta hand it to the prosecution for noticing the similarity in the boys appearance, even if the allegations were false.

    i also think that he is 100% innocent. having cookies and milk and reading stories before bed isnt something sexual at all. the surgery to look like peter pan, this child like behavior and also the 2 wives isnt something a paedo would do. also, after the first pay-off, if he was guily and doing something to be ashamed of, he'd stop sleeping with them.

    many parents sleep with their very youg kids when they have nightmares, and i think perhaps this was the case here.

    however i DO think he should definately never do it again and i dont know how he can rebuild himself after what happened. if he is innocent he should get compensation for the stress
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It is a shame that Jackson was not called to defend himself - would he have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth whilst under oath?
    And why was he not called - surely that in itself is suspicious. OJ Simpson was called to the witness box, wasn't he? Where there is a prosecution there has to be a defence and the person being prosecuted should be compelled to defend themselves.
    It's long been an accepted part of Western judicial thinking that no one can or should be forced to testify against themself.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    The prosecution didn't have any physical evidence, and their witnesses were of questionable character. I was relieved at the decision.
    I agree, and I relieved myself after the decision too.


    .........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the family were known of trying to get money out of celebs
    mj might have an illness that makes him think hes still a kid. loads of people have it. but i can't say for deifinate.. but it would explain when he said he's had no plastic surgary.

    He is "not Guilty" of the charges put before him...
    Innocent isn't used in british courts any more.. unsure about american courts.
    to be convicted of a criminal charge there must be a DEFINATE reason and its like 97% i think is beyond reasonable doubt. its the whole "Rather a guilty man walk free than put a not guilty man in jail"

    i was hoping he would be found not guilty from the start
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    im not sure
    it seems a bit dodgy- but more witnesses might have swung the balance
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 17, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,722

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.