seuraavastakin TAAS näkee että syyttäjällä EI ole todisteita tai ainakaan raskauttavia todisteita Jacksonia vastaan:
"1993 Abuse Claims" Desperate Move
Michael Jackson's defense lawyers have charged that desperate prosecutors are attempting to use discredited and prejudicial evidence from an old investigation in the child molestation case against the entertainer.The accusations were part of a tersely worded defense motion released late Friday in response to the prosecution's request to allow evidence from a 1993 child molestation investigation into the current one."This is the same 'evidence' that left two separate grand juries so unimpressed with the prosecution's 'case' that they did not return indictments," co-defense counsel Robert Sanger stated in the court document. Prosecutors have the "same fact checking standards as Hard Copy and the National Enquirer," the defense motion said.Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday in Santa Maria about whether to allow evidence from the prior investigation against the entertainer into the current one. The defense has requested that that hearing and all other pretrial hearings about evidence be held behind closed doors.Mr. Jackson was not charged in that case, which crumbled when the boy at the center of the investigation refused to testify. His parents accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement from the entertainer in a simultaneous civil suit. The judge's decision could be crucial, because the prosecution plans to use the old evidence in an attempt to show a pattern in Mr. Jackson's behavior. However, the defense is prepared to attack the credibility of the witnesses and the accusers from the old case, claiming they were only out for the entertainer's money.
Jermaine Jackson's Son Questioned By Detectives
Mr. Jackson's nephew was questioned this week by sheriff's detectives about whether his uncle had molested him more than a decade ago, the News-Press has learned. Santa Barbara County sheriff's detectives quizzed the son of Jermaine Jackson at the teen's Calabasas home for more than an hour on Tuesday about how many times he'd been alone with his uncle and whether the pop star had ever inappropriately touched him, according to sources. Stacy Brown, a longtime Jackson family friend, told the News-Press late Thursday: "They told him he was now 18 and that he could talk to them. . . . They asked him in a number of different ways whether Michael had any improper touching or any improper contact with him at all." But detectives apparently left empty handed when Jeremy Jackson insisted his uncle had never molested him. This is not the first time Jeremy Jackson has been linked to the 1993 investigation. Detectives in that case suspected Mr. Jackson had molested numerous boys -- including his nephew -- based on statements from former Neverland Valley Ranch employees and at least one alleged victim. However, prosecutors were not able to generate enough evidence to file charges against Mr. Jackson. "I understand what triggered the prosecution into looking into Jeremy is that his name had come up around the time of the 1993 investigation and that, yes, they're getting all of that information together for the hearing next week," Mr. Brown said. Jeremy Jackson had just returned to his Calabasas home from celebrating his 18th birthday in Hawaii when detectives knocked on his door Tuesday, Mr. Brown said. The entertainer's nephew spoke with the detectives on his front porch and then invited them into his home. "He kept his cool -- he just went through the process," said Mr. Brown, who stated that Jackson family members contacted him minutes after law enforcement officers left the teen's home. "They did tell him that if he wanted other adults in his family present that they were welcome," Mr. Brown said. "His mother did at some point sit in. . . . She was very upset." Margaret Maldonado, who has been divorced from Jermaine Jackson since the mid-90s, declined to speak with the News-Press. "The family feels this whole thing with Jeremy is desperation and intimidation all rolled into one," Mr. Brown said. "The family just feels wholeheartedly that there is no case."
"1993 Abuse Claims" Desperate Move
Michael Jackson's defense lawyers have charged that desperate prosecutors are attempting to use discredited and prejudicial evidence from an old investigation in the child molestation case against the entertainer.The accusations were part of a tersely worded defense motion released late Friday in response to the prosecution's request to allow evidence from a 1993 child molestation investigation into the current one."This is the same 'evidence' that left two separate grand juries so unimpressed with the prosecution's 'case' that they did not return indictments," co-defense counsel Robert Sanger stated in the court document. Prosecutors have the "same fact checking standards as Hard Copy and the National Enquirer," the defense motion said.Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday in Santa Maria about whether to allow evidence from the prior investigation against the entertainer into the current one. The defense has requested that that hearing and all other pretrial hearings about evidence be held behind closed doors.Mr. Jackson was not charged in that case, which crumbled when the boy at the center of the investigation refused to testify. His parents accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement from the entertainer in a simultaneous civil suit. The judge's decision could be crucial, because the prosecution plans to use the old evidence in an attempt to show a pattern in Mr. Jackson's behavior. However, the defense is prepared to attack the credibility of the witnesses and the accusers from the old case, claiming they were only out for the entertainer's money.
Jermaine Jackson's Son Questioned By Detectives
Mr. Jackson's nephew was questioned this week by sheriff's detectives about whether his uncle had molested him more than a decade ago, the News-Press has learned. Santa Barbara County sheriff's detectives quizzed the son of Jermaine Jackson at the teen's Calabasas home for more than an hour on Tuesday about how many times he'd been alone with his uncle and whether the pop star had ever inappropriately touched him, according to sources. Stacy Brown, a longtime Jackson family friend, told the News-Press late Thursday: "They told him he was now 18 and that he could talk to them. . . . They asked him in a number of different ways whether Michael had any improper touching or any improper contact with him at all." But detectives apparently left empty handed when Jeremy Jackson insisted his uncle had never molested him. This is not the first time Jeremy Jackson has been linked to the 1993 investigation. Detectives in that case suspected Mr. Jackson had molested numerous boys -- including his nephew -- based on statements from former Neverland Valley Ranch employees and at least one alleged victim. However, prosecutors were not able to generate enough evidence to file charges against Mr. Jackson. "I understand what triggered the prosecution into looking into Jeremy is that his name had come up around the time of the 1993 investigation and that, yes, they're getting all of that information together for the hearing next week," Mr. Brown said. Jeremy Jackson had just returned to his Calabasas home from celebrating his 18th birthday in Hawaii when detectives knocked on his door Tuesday, Mr. Brown said. The entertainer's nephew spoke with the detectives on his front porch and then invited them into his home. "He kept his cool -- he just went through the process," said Mr. Brown, who stated that Jackson family members contacted him minutes after law enforcement officers left the teen's home. "They did tell him that if he wanted other adults in his family present that they were welcome," Mr. Brown said. "His mother did at some point sit in. . . . She was very upset." Margaret Maldonado, who has been divorced from Jermaine Jackson since the mid-90s, declined to speak with the News-Press. "The family feels this whole thing with Jeremy is desperation and intimidation all rolled into one," Mr. Brown said. "The family just feels wholeheartedly that there is no case."
Vastaukset 7
Vanhimmat
Copy/Paste:
"seuraavastakin TAAS näkee että syyttäjällä EI ole todisteita tai ainakaan raskauttavia todisteita Jacksonia vastaan"
Jassoo? Jos näin on asia, niin miksei oikeus ole sitten hylännyt syytteitä? Hylättiinhän aiemminkin vastaava juttu Jackoa vastaan, kun mitään muuta ei löytynyt kuin häntä syyttävän tyypin puheet... Vai
onko juttua hoitava tuomari niin hyvä kamu Sneddonin kanssa että oma urakin laitetaan vaakalaudalle? Ei tunnu uskottavalta.
en osaa tarkalleen sanoa syytä MUTTA sittenpä jackson voi puhdistaa maineensa ja todistaa että on syytön niin tähän 2003-syytöksiin kuin siihen 1993-syytöksiin.Mutta jos tarkalleen ajatellaan niin sehän on varmaankin hyvä asia että jos ne vanhat syytöset tuodaan esiin.Perustelen sen tuolla yllä kirjoitettuun juttuun.KAI.....
sanoppa mitä RASKAUTTAVIAA todisteita syyttäjällä on jacksonia vastaan.Ei mitään.17.1.2004 ilmestyneessä Iltasanomissakin sanotaan seuraavaa:
*Jacksonia syyttävä poika tekee kuolemaa:
-lehtitietojen mukaan syöpää sairastava poika olisi hyvin heikossa kunnossa.Syyttäjä seuraa huolestuneena tähtitodistajansa terveydentilaa.Pojan menehtyminen olisi VAKAVA ISKU SYYTTÄJÄLLE, sillä juttu rakentuu pääasiassa pojan KERTOMUKSEN VARAAN.
Eli tuo on ainut todiste jacksonia vastaan.
Puolustuksella taas paljonkin todisteita jacksonin puolesta:
1.Syyttäjät etsivät jacksonin patjasta dnata (EI LÖYTYNYT SYYTTÄVÄN POJAN TAI POJAN PERHEEN DNATA)
2.Syyttäjät etsivät yli vuoden muhineessa jutussa yhä vielä todisteita(Ratsasivat 3 kertaa Jacksonin ranchin, ilman mitään todisteita)
3.Syyttäjät löysivät pornolehtiä (lehtiistä löytyi jacksonin sormenjäljet ja pojan sormenjäljet, mutta tuo ei todista sitä että jackson olisi näyttänyt pojalle kyseistä tai kyseisiä lehtiä,Ainoa asia jonka tuo todistaa on se että jacko on katsonut noita lehtiä ja jostain kumman syystä myös poika oli löytänyt nuo / tuon lehden)
Pelkkä Gavinin todistus ei yksinään riitä, mutta tuo pornolehti toki kuuluu todisteisiin. Paha sanoa noiden muiden todisteiden lopullisesta arvosta mitään. Voihan olla että netissä on pornosivuilla surffailtu ja viinaa juotu ilman Jackoakin? Gavinin housut löytyivät tilalta niinkuin hän väittikin, se tosin ei todista yksinään vielä mitään.
En väitä tietäväni lopullisia faktoja kuten et sinäkään. Ilmeisesti myös Gavinin veli ja sisko ovat myös mukana juonessa koska tietävät kertoa samansuuntaisia juttuja? Luulen että jos noin moni kertoo saman tarinan voi jutussa olla perääkin? Ei Jacko käräjillä turhan takia ole, saapa nähdä millainen tuomio tulee? En oikein jaksa uskoa siihen että kaikki syytteet kaatuisivat. Kaikki on mahdollista aina sakkojen ja pitkän kakun väliltä.
Koska nyt on tyyppi joka on valmis todistamaan Michaelia vastaan sekä hänen veli ja äiti.
Sneddon otti äitiin yhteyttä kesäkuussa 2003, Sneddon teki kotietsinnän marraskuussa 2003 heillä oli reilut 5 kuukautta aikaa suunnitella ja kehitellä tarinaa. Totuus on eri asia.
nyt ei oikein kolahtanut. niin missä ne oli todisteet tuossa sun jutussa.
Sneddonin mielestä pelkkä pojan syytös on todiste Michaelin syyllisyydestä.