Mike, over at The CIA, posts that Micheal Jackson was acquitted on all counts against him. I personally think there is a good chance he may very well be twisted enough to have assaulted kids….(though I think he honestly wouldn’t feel that way…like I said he’s twisted). But the real bottom line here, isn’t his being guilty…or innocent. Rather, what is up with the District Attorney’s office, and (possibly) various law enforcement training, for the city (and county?) of LA, in how evidence is handled, collected, and in how a case is brought to trial.
In one way or another, they have, in two major cases, dropped the ball twice. First, there was the OJ trial (Yes, I think he was guilty, or at the very least knows who did it.) where due to ineptness on both the DA’s office, and various members of the LAPD, he was able to walk. Second, the Jackson case. Did the “State” ever really have (all) the evidence needed to properly present this case and expect to win? Or was it (as has been suggested) a thinly discussed vendetta by the DA because he was not able to successfully prosecute the first case which settled out of court.
If I was a professional crook, with a personality (read charisma), I would want to be tried in LA, cause the DA’s office appears not to be to handle the pressure of either a strong personality and or a well constructed defense.
And for those who would hold out the chestnut…that race is what set them free…what about Robert Blake? Yes, the case was a bit different in that he was *at the scene of the crime”. But, in the end it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the crime, or acted as the agent in contracting two former stuntmen to do it in his stead.
No eyewitnesses, blood or DNA evidence linked Blake to the crime. The murder weapon, found in a trash bin, could not be traced to Blake, and witnesses said the minuscule amounts of gunshot residue found on Blakeâ€™s hands could have come from a different gun he said he carried for protection.
I think the Robert Blake case was a bit different (though there are similar threads here…). The big thing is, once again the “State”, at the end of the day, could not:
!. Match up Blake’s gun with the bullet(s) that killed her. There was no DNA evidence to tie it to him as well.
2. Prove Blake tried to place a contract out on his wife.
End result, Blake is a free man. Still poor prior planning by the State was a factor. And being blindsided by their own witnesses, doesn’t help either.
A final thought to ponder:
If the rule of law is appearing to unravel in Lotus land….how long before anarchy reigns in the LA basin?