Viewing Thread:
"Reasonable doubt?"

Haven't been following it that closely but it seems like the defence have shown enough evidence for the jury to return a verdict of not guilty based on the reasonable doubt issues raised in the trial of Michael Jackson.

What do you think?

munn wrote:
> It's probably some overreacting parents.
>
> "What!? You sat on his SHOULDERS!? PAEDO!!!"

unless they were sat on his shoulders facing him, with his face buried in their crotch. in which case i'd say it was a fair reaction :)

Black Glove wrote:
> I know what you mean, and I understand that some sex abuse cases are
> difficult to prove, but it has to come down strictly to the evidence
> in the case in question. It has to. Otherwise jurors would say
> "Well he's done before therefore he must be guilty", and
> after that, there wouldn't be much need of a trial.

Depends on whether the jury is full of morons....... oh i see

Flock wrote:
> Surely it's relevant though especially when it's so difficult to get
> sex abuse convictions. I dont like the law protecting these people
> when the victims aren't.

I know what you mean, and I understand that some sex abuse cases are difficult to prove, but it has to come down strictly to the evidence in the case in question. It has to. Otherwise jurors would say "Well he's done before therefore he must be guilty", and after that, there wouldn't be much need of a trial.

Black Glove wrote:
> No. It would definately prejudice things. If the accused has done
> stuff before, I suppose you just have to hope the prosecution
> delivers their case in a strong manner. The evidence must speak for
> itself.

Surely it's relevant though especially when it's so difficult to get sex abuse convictions. I dont like the law protecting these people when the victims aren't.

Flock wrote:
> Would you want to?

Oh, I see what you mean.

No. It would definately prejudice things. If the accused has done stuff before, I suppose you just have to hope the prosecution delivers their case in a strong manner. The evidence must speak for itself.

Emitime wrote:
> Surely you should only be focusing on that crime, and not what they've
> done in the past?

The thing with child abuse or rape though is it's so hard to prove and in that case surely their history should be part of the defendants character.

I'm sure you can bring up past cases during the trial for character building or something if allowed.

Surely you should only be focusing on that crime, and not what they've done in the past?

Would you want to?
It would be pretty sickening to let someone go only to find they've a history.

Flock wrote:
> For or against past criminal record being allowed to be known BG?

Only after we'd reached our verdict of 'guilty'. During the trial we didn't know anyting of his previous crimes.