Ripsaw Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I haven't been taking much notice of the Jackson Trial, but the news at the weekend said that previous accusations may be admissable as evidence against him in the trial. In UK law, previous convictions can not (to the best of my limited knowledge) be used to sway the descision of guilt as the charges have to be proven in their own right. No matter what the speculation and rumour surrounding previous allegations about Jackson the simple fact is that he wasn't tried and found guilty, so how can those unproven details be used as evidence in a current case? I realise that previous history can be utilised in the sentancing once guilt has been proven, but before the verdict? Have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 I'm not certain about the legal ramifications but the fact is these other cases never came to court so they aren't actually previous convictions. Therefore, these witnesses will be used to paint a picture of MJ's 'grooming techniques' to stengthen the credibility of Arvizo's claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Paying silly millions of clams to keep a trial from coming to court speaks volumes in itself for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted March 29, 2005 Author Share Posted March 29, 2005 Paying silly millions of clams to keep a trial from coming to court speaks volumes in itself for me. I would say that accepting a payoff speaks volumes about the previous family's priorities. Still doesn't explain why/if justice is being changed to suit the prosecution in this case. To be even mentioned this late in the day suggests that the prosecution are struggling with current evidence. If this does go ahead, would it set a potentially dangerous precidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey_magic Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 Magic 8 ball says: This will result in MJ's lawyers claiming unfair trial, and he will get off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 From what I've gleaned from the case so far, MJ should get off as there is most certainly reasonable doubt. I believe he probably did commit some form of abuse but there certainly doesn't appear to be a cast-iron case against him. I agree with Ripsaw, this does appear to be a retrospective decision by the prosecution - and a desperate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted March 29, 2005 Share Posted March 29, 2005 It is a well accepted procedure, even in English law. Known as 'evidence of similar fact' argument before the judge as to the validity is required, and once permission is given previous examples of similar behaviour can be produced in evidence. Most often used in trials for sexual offences, where the only witness is the victim, and by the nature of the offence there is no witness or corroboration as to what went on - and if the case is historical, like the Jackson trial, there is no forensic evidence available. It still doesn't stop juries gullibly swallowing the red herrings thrown to them by lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.