Prosecution Pundits Try to Shill for ‘lousy’ Opening Statement – MiniBullet #7 Should felons get the benefit of the doubt because the media wants Michael Jackson to be guilty? That question was posed after hearing a number of pro-prosecution sympathizers trying their damnedest, however unsuccessfully, to explain away the family’s felonious behavior and the prosecution’s rocky start. The argument from these people is that even if the family are a bunch of dastardly, conniving extortionists, its still possible Jackson could have molested the accuser…..based solely on their word. Uh, no. Sorry. Con artists who have left a string of scammed celebrities behind them all the way up to Jackson don’t deserve to get a blanketed, unquestioned benefit of the doubt without evidence. On that same token, one could argue that it’s possible the world will end within the next two seconds. That’s doesn’t make it probable. ….1……..2……ah look! We’re still here. It’s possible that George Bush will resign today, but the probability of that happening is non-existent. It’s possible that the NY Post will suddenly become of Nation’s paper of record tomorrow, but the probability is non-existent. So maybe these hack pundits at Court TV and the like need to gain a fundamental understanding of the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. And all the excuses in the world won’t be able to save the prosecution from having to rely on the word of people who have lied under oath at least twice already. Look at what we’re suppose to believe. We’re suppose to take the family’s word for it that they were held hostage and kidnapped, even though there’s concrete evidence of them spending over $3,000 of Jackson’s money on things like manicures, pedicures, clothes and leg waxing during the time they claimed to have been kidnapped. We’re supposed to take their word for it that the mother saw Jackson abusing the accuser on a plane full of people reportedly including a doctor, Chris Tucker and other people? Take the brother’s word that he saw the accuser being abused at Neverland on at least two different occasions and just so happened not to say anything about it at the time?? This is where a pesky little thing called ‘evidence’ comes into play. If someone were to accuse Tom Sneddon of molestation, with the type of past this family has, you can be there would be screams from every pro-prosecution hack pundit and tabloid reporter from miles around, exclaiming that the accuser has to 1) prove the case, 2) give them a reason why their non-existent credibility should be given the benefit of the doubt. With Jackson, we’re all simply suppose to discount the mountainous proof of felonious behavior all because these pro-prosecution sympathizers WANT Jackson to be guilty? Hell no, I certainly couldn’t discount these facts no matter how they try to clean it up by spinning it after the fact. The argument has gotten tired already. Even before the defense finished it’s opening statements, these people – who have invested many manhours on TV trying to convince us all of what to think before a trial – are trying to create a path of redemption for the prosecution. Depending on what Jackson attorney Tom Mesreau says today (March 1 2005) in the second part of his opening statements, there may be even more information to counter some of the questions raised by these pro-prosecution pundits. The excuses for Sneddon’s “lousy” opening statements are largely coming from Court TV. Shocker. ‘Oh he’s just a folksy kinda prosecutor going up against the slick defense attorney’ exclaimed tabloid reporter Diane Dimond on Court TV this morning (Mar 1 2005). As if the fact that the allegations logically don’t make any sense at all have nothing whatsoever to do with the critique of the prosecution’s claims! Close friend of Sneddon’s, former sheriff Jim Thomas, seemed to be attempting to put the blame for a convoluted opening statement on the fact that the judge didn’t allow the attorneys to use charts and graphs. None of this will mean squat once witnesses are up on the stand and subjected to cross-examination. They’ve even gone so far off the cliff that even Lisa Bloom is making excuses for why the mother, an alleged welfare cheat who rightly should be prosecuted – but won’t be as long as she’s sticking by Sneddon — may have spent money earmarked for her son’s medical bills on plastic surgery. ‘Oh she had legal fees’, Bloom said. ‘Oh the JC Penney money was her money, so what?’ Bloom exclaimed. “So what”, my ass. This is someone who told a great number of people, including officers working with the LA Police Dept. in 2001, that they were destitute and in dire need of cash to pay non-existent medical bills. No way in the world this behavior can be condensed to a flippant ‘so what’. What it is, is a proven pattern of behavior; a modus operandi. They make much hay out of speculative, to this day unproven allegations back in 1993, and call it a “pattern of conduct.” But we’re not supposed to care about the family’s past history of misconduct? But again, in this age of the hysterical prosecutor, every person is a “victim” just because they say so; regardless of whether or not they have engaged in chargeable, felonious behavior. That makes no sense. We’ll see how this plays out as the trial progresses. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *