|
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2451918,00.html
The impact of the Michael Jackson arrest and prosecution on Kobe
Bryant is interesting to contemplate. Both international celebrities
face serious sex charges and lengthy potential prison sentences.
Jackson is a remarkably gifted megastar whose career has been
spiraling downward for over a decade. Bryant is an amazing talent and,
until June 30, an ascending star in the world of sports. Jackson's
reputation has long been damaged by indications of pedophilia.
Bryant's personal reputation was fairly spotless prior to his admitted
adulterous encounter in Eagle County, Colorado.
If the charges are true, Jackson seems to be a victim of a selfish
kind of love and should have long ago realized that he needed to look
in the mirror and make a change. Jackson claims he would never do
anything to hurt a child. So why did he just collaborate with
criminally accused and allegedly videotaped pedophile R. Kelly on a
new song for his greatest hits album? The ironic name of the song is
One More Chance.
To prove the molestation/fondling charge against Michael Jackson, the
prosecution needs to prove that the King of Pop willfully touched a
minor, or had a minor touch himself, in a manner designed to gratify
or arouse Jackson or the minor. "Willfully" will be the key word. The
district attorney must have evidence of specific intent which means
that Jackson had the conscious objective to give or receive sexual
stimulation.
Expect Michael Jackson to admit he slept with this boy in his bed. He
likely touched him and even might have given him a bath. This boy had
no father and it will be argued that he regarded Jackson as his
surrogate father.
There is one big problem with that, however: The kid is not his son.
How will the prosecution prove Jackson's specific intent? The answer
appears threefold. First, the alleged victim will tell us his version
of what happened and how many times. Other witnesses might back him
up.
Second, the district attorney has gone hunting for physical
corroboration at three different locations in Southern California.
What kind of corroboration? Let me suggest photos, videos, writings,
devices, wine, and/or possible semen stains. Third, look for the
district attorney to try to put on evidence of similar bad acts by
Jacko against other young boys.
California law (Rule 1108) specifically provides that special
indulgences exist for introduction of similar acts of sexual
misconduct.
The district attorney has specifically solicited other Jacko victims
to come forward.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the young man allegedly molested as a
boy in 1993 (and who received a reported $20 million-plus settlement)
would be subpoenaed in this case?
A comparable law exists in Colorado.
However, after several months of litigation, nobody in the Eagle
County District Attorney's Office or in the media has pointed to any
other indications of sexual misconduct by Kobe Bryant. Consent is the
issue in Colorado.
There can be no consent defense when sex with a child is alleged.
However, unlike the Jackson case, Colorado law provides that the Eagle
County district attorney need not prove Bryant knew his victim failed
to consent.
In other words, Bryant could be found guilty even if he had no
intention of raping anybody. All the district attorney needs to prove
is that the 19-year-old alleged victim did not consent. That is what
Colorado law says. Whether the jury will go along with that is an open
question.
Expect a couple things to happen in these two cases. Bryant's case
will go slow. Jackson's case will probably go slower. I would be
surprised if any judge allowed a sex assault case involving a minor to
be televised. (Then again, it is California.) On the other hand, I
would not be surprised if Bryant's case is televised.
Will people lump these two alleged celebrity sex offenders together?
That would not be good news for Bryant. For better or worse, most
people look more askance at any kind of homosexual sex versus a
heterosexual encounter. Beyond that, almost nobody likes pedophiles.
Even fellow prisoners of jailed pedophiles hate them.
Will Bryant seem normal and innocent in comparison to "Wacko Jacko"? I
suspect so.
|
| |
| |
In alt.true-crime on 27 Nov 2003 12:18:50 -0800, s_knight8@hotmail.com
(s_knight8) wrote:
<snip>
Jackson claims he would never do anything to hurt a child.
<snip>
Regardless of Jacko's guilt, "I would never hurt a child" is a rather
common thing for a pedophile to say. What they really mean is, "We
had sex, but it was consensual." Never mind that the child is too
young to give legal consent, they tend not to look at it that way.
--
L8r,
Bill, the Avender
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
I'm not so impressed with those who can descramble a cable TV signal.
What would _really_ impress me is if they could descramble eggs.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
|
| |
| |
Kobe Bryant is probably thanking God for Michael Jackson every day.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2451918,00.html
The impact of the Michael Jackson arrest and prosecution on Kobe
Bryant is interesting to contemplate. Both international celebrities
face serious sex charges and lengthy potential prison sentences.
Jackson is a remarkably gifted megastar whose career has been
spiraling downward for over a decade. Bryant is an amazing talent and,
until June 30, an ascending star in the world of sports. Jackson's
reputation has long been damaged by indications of pedophilia.
Bryant's personal reputation was fairly spotless prior to his admitted
adulterous encounter in Eagle County, Colorado.
If the charges are true, Jackson seems to be a victim of a selfish
kind of love and should have long ago realized that he needed to look
in the mirror and make a change. Jackson claims he would never do
anything to hurt a child. So why did he just collaborate with
criminally accused and allegedly videotaped pedophile R. Kelly on a
new song for his greatest hits album? The ironic name of the song is
One More Chance.
To prove the molestation/fondling charge against Michael Jackson, the
prosecution needs to prove that the King of Pop willfully touched a
minor, or had a minor touch himself, in a manner designed to gratify
or arouse Jackson or the minor. "Willfully" will be the key word. The
district attorney must have evidence of specific intent which means
that Jackson had the conscious objective to give or receive sexual
stimulation.
Expect Michael Jackson to admit he slept with this boy in his bed. He
likely touched him and even might have given him a bath. This boy had
no father and it will be argued that he regarded Jackson as his
surrogate father.
There is one big problem with that, however: The kid is not his son.
How will the prosecution prove Jackson's specific intent? The answer
appears threefold. First, the alleged victim will tell us his version
of what happened and how many times. Other witnesses might back him
up.
Second, the district attorney has gone hunting for physical
corroboration at three different locations in Southern California.
What kind of corroboration? Let me suggest photos, videos, writings,
devices, wine, and/or possible semen stains. Third, look for the
district attorney to try to put on evidence of similar bad acts by
Jacko against other young boys.
California law (Rule 1108) specifically provides that special
indulgences exist for introduction of similar acts of sexual
misconduct.
The district attorney has specifically solicited other Jacko victims
to come forward.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the young man allegedly molested as a
boy in 1993 (and who received a reported $20 million-plus settlement)
would be subpoenaed in this case?
A comparable law exists in Colorado.
However, after several months of litigation, nobody in the Eagle
County District Attorney's Office or in the media has pointed to any
other indications of sexual misconduct by Kobe Bryant. Consent is the
issue in Colorado.
There can be no consent defense when sex with a child is alleged.
However, unlike the Jackson case, Colorado law provides that the Eagle
County district attorney need not prove Bryant knew his victim failed
to consent.
In other words, Bryant could be found guilty even if he had no
intention of raping anybody. All the district attorney needs to prove
is that the 19-year-old alleged victim did not consent. That is what
Colorado law says. Whether the jury will go along with that is an open
question.
Expect a couple things to happen in these two cases. Bryant's case
will go slow. Jackson's case will probably go slower. I would be
surprised if any judge allowed a sex assault case involving a minor to
be televised. (Then again, it is California.) On the other hand, I
would not be surprised if Bryant's case is televised.
Will people lump these two alleged celebrity sex offenders together?
That would not be good news for Bryant. For better or worse, most
people look more askance at any kind of homosexual sex versus a
heterosexual encounter. Beyond that, almost nobody likes pedophiles.
Even fellow prisoners of jailed pedophiles hate them.
Will Bryant seem normal and innocent in comparison to "Wacko Jacko"? I
suspect so.
|
| |
| |
s_knight8! wrote:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2451
918,00.html
The impact of the Michael Jackson arrest and prosecution on Kobe
Bryant is interesting to contemplate. Both international celebrities
face serious sex charges and lengthy potential prison sentences.
How can one compare the two cases?
With Bryant, what we have is alleged sexual acts between two consenting
adults with one being married.
At best, the charges would be adultery if the act actually took place
consentually.
Why would a [black] man of superstar status involve himself with an eager 19
year old [white] girl who went to him to begin with? Was this his habit? As
circumstances are reported, Bryant had been in the hotel less than two hours
and was expecting to be in surgery the following morning. Had Bryant the
time to make contact with someone and prearrange the affair or was this an
oppurtunity knocking for a promiscous wannabe star?
In Jackson's case, we only have allegations that any sexual contact with a
minor ever took place.
Consent is not the issue here. It is the fact that a minor was involved.
Tom Sneddon, the DA, has been working on prosecuting Jackson for 10 years
because he lost the last case involving Jackson. The one in which the now
millionaire boy, refused to testify.
A new law was enacted to prevent victims from profiting in exchange for
refusing to testify.
Sneddon wants to hang Jackson any way he can and he will go to any lengths
to do it, whether or not the facts are true.
Eagle county, OTOH, wants to see proper justice carried out. If that means
that Bryant is found innocent, and the girl is charged with filing false
reports, then so be it.
The only reason we are discussing the Bryant case is because he is
superstar.
What if that same instance had happened to any other normal person? Would we
even care?
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anonymous@127.000> wrote
Tom Sneddon, the DA, has been working on prosecuting Jackson for 10 years
because he lost the last case involving Jackson.
I think it's more likely that he's working on prosecuting Jackson because
Mikey's a pedophile. He may well be outraged that a victim can be bought off
and the State's interests in prosecuting pedophiles be compromised when the
perpetrator is very wealthy.
I find it interesting that superstars find so many corrupt DA's and 'racist'
cops, and the rest of the citizenry is rightfully convicted by an honest
system.
I guess it's just bad luck.
Chas
|
| |
| |
The only reason we are discussing the Bryant case is because he is
superstar.
What if that same instance had happened to any other normal person? Would
we
even care?
Are we talking about Joe White Guy or Joe Black Guy - non superstar status?
Joe White Guy in Eagle would not have even faced charges.. whereas Joe Black
Guy would have extraordinary measures taken to file charges and seek an
arrest warrant PRIOR to any quality investigative procedure - and on
INDEPENDENCE DAY WEEKEND no less - LOL - I bet Joseph Hang em High Hoy was
upset that he couldn't arrest NEGRO superstar Bryant on April 16th..
OH and the black guy would have a DA that wants to destroy DNA evidence and
file a court order to keep the defense away from said DNA evidence -- "get
your ropes boys and find a good tree"
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2451918,00.html
[...]
If the charges are true, Jackson seems to be a victim of a selfish
kind of love and should have long ago realized that he needed to look
in the mirror and make a change. Jackson claims he would never do
anything to hurt a child. So why did he just collaborate with
criminally accused and allegedly videotaped pedophile R. Kelly on a
new song for his greatest hits album?
Another american who does not undrerstand the difference
between accused and convicted...
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
[...]
Another american who does not undrerstand the difference
between accused and convicted...
if you see the rapist kelly tape you wont have any doubt...
|
| |
| |
s_knight8 wrote:
[...]
Another american who does not undrerstand the difference
between accused and convicted...
See, that's the thing about our wonderful country. The Government has to
treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
but the people can make up their own minds.
Rich Soyack
|
| |
| |
Rich Soyack wrote:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2451918,00.html
See, that's the thing about our wonderful country. The Government has to
treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
but the people can make up their own minds.
Well then, "Jackson" is free to make up HIS own mind about
collaborating with R. Kelly, eh? The statement that this
contradicts Jackson's claim that he would never do anything
to hurt a child is predicated on the assumption that Jackson
is NOT free to make that decision for himself.
|
| |
| |
Rich Soyack wrote:
Well then, "Jackson" is free to make up HIS own mind about
collaborating with R. Kelly, eh? The statement that this
contradicts Jackson's claim that he would never do anything
to hurt a child is predicated on the assumption that Jackson
is NOT free to make that decision for himself.
What does what you wrote have to do with what I wrote?
Rich Soyack
|
| |
| |
"Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in message news:<eDKxb.39537$I53.1789672@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
Kobe Bryant is probably thanking God for Michael Jackson every day.
It seems likely to me that Kobes legal team are cursing the closure of
their only means of informing the jury of the facts of the case. It
seems paranoid to suggest that Jacksons arrest was concocted to keep
Kobe case facts out of the media, still, I'm going to suggest it's
possible anyway. So call me paranoid.
[snip]
|
| |
| |
Jackson is innocent:
http://www.geocities.com/tom5515/frame.htm
maybe Kobe is too !
|
| |
| |
"Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<8uQyb.19073$UG2.4552@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...
See, that's the thing about our wonderful country. The Government has to
treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
but the people can make up their own minds.
Rich Soyack
Excellent point. I'd like to add that the accused is not "innocent
until proven guilty" but merely "PRESUMED innocent until proven
guilty."
Mez
|
| |
| |
Create the picket signs! Write the posters! By-pass the lawyers! Picket the
court houses! And make the news media address the issue. You are entitled to
your opinion. Make it known!
On one side write:
WE ARE NOT LIARS
on the other side write:
THAT WE KNOW WHEN ONE LIES.
On one side write:
YOU'RE ACCUSING VICTIMS OF FRAUD
On the other side write:
SAYING THEY SHOULD KNOW WHEN ONE LIES.
On one side write:
HE'D HAVE TO COMMIT PERJURY
On the other side write:
BEFORE WE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
On one side write:
YOU CANNOT STATE A REASON
On the other side write:
YOU ONLY SAY THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO.
On one side write:
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TWO WITNESSES
On the other side write:
THE BIBLE REQUIRES TWO WITNESSES.
On one side write:
PROOF IS MORE THAN
On the other side write:
THE ACCUSATIONS TO BE PROVEN
I mean it. Get busy! There's not much time! Come on, march in line, raise
the chant, recite in unison. You know the truth. Make others aware! Give the
jury pool something to think about. If you do, the prosecution would
probably die of shock since they have no answer. If you need more
explanation, just ask.
|
| |
| |
|
