quote:Sanger also argued against the prosecution's request to show photos of Jackson's genitals, saying it would be "very shocking" and prejudicial to the jury.
The photographs were taken in 1993 when prosecutors were trying to gather evidence against Jackson in another molestation case.
After taking the photos, authorities had the boy involved in the case draw a picture of what he thought the genitalia looked like. Prosecutors claimed the picture showed a unique blemish.
What do you think? Do you think the photos should be allowed in court?
FG
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ew. No one wants to see that... It's bad enough to see his scary, boggart-like face.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's clearly relevant, as even the defense admits. The relevant balancing test is whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect or likelihood of confusion. Here, the pictures would tend to show that the boy had seen Michael's genitals. I'm not exactly sure what the prejudicial effect is in this case.
Assuming the detectives can testify about the pictures, it's possible the same evidence can be let in without whatever shock or prejudice the pictures might have.
My non-lawyer reaction, of course, is "ewwwwwww!"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It should be allowed, but not in open court per say. It would be enough to have the judge look at it, or something.
It's not like they have anything better to do, you know... Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, I don’t. Though I really doubt that looking at the picture would be “very shocking.”
Edit: If this birthmark or whatever is very disctinctive, and was described by the child, maybe. But to try to argue similarity between a child's drawing and a photograph?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, I would think it would hinge on whatever the "unique blemish" is, and how well the child could describe it -- which would prove he had seen it.
I have to admit to having seen some pretty "unique" ones in my past - and could probably describe them accurately enough that prove the point. So I can see how this could be a huge factor in this trial.
But it squicks me out to think of them showing Jackson's -- I mean, I'm just glad I'm not on that jury. I'm assuming they won't let these photos "leak out" to the tabloids....
FG
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I heard in the one story that a drawing by one of the accusers has the same "markings" as Jacko. That would be easy to defend though if there’s a community shower like at the gym. The defense could go on about it hardy being his fault that the boy was staring. I’m betting the jury is out for less then a day and finds him not guilty.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I really don't think that a community shower by a non-related adult with a young boy who is a guest is appropriate, though. And why would you have it at your house? Ewwww.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not trying to say it’s appropriate. But lots of gyms have them and Nederland is a huge place and I wouldn’t be surprised if it has one and how they’d defend it. I think he’s guilty, but I also think he’s going to get off. The thought of having a slumber party a Jackos is Ewww enough and I almost think they have the wrong person on trial. Any parent who would let their child might have good ground to be found guilty of child abuse.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If I were to design an estate the size of Jackson's, it would have a common/shared pool house for showering and changing clothing. And if it were to be used as a "summer camp"-like facility, there would also be common/shared restrooms similar to those found in public parks or in commercial establishments such as restaurants, theaters, Targets, sports arenas/stadiums, etc. Since male locker rooms tend to have open showers and changing areas, and male restrooms tend to have unshielded urinals, I can't see how knowing what private parts look like would prove anything other than a breach of "don't stare" etiquette on the part of the observer.
Add that the DA has always seemed to be a sleezebag quite willing to engage in witness tampering in order to gain a conviction, favorable publicity for himself.
[ May 27, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
It would be hard to use it as proof of anything. A good defense could tear it to peaces.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Thinking of all the inappropriate Michael Jackson songs we could be singing for this thread right now….
*runs before getting hit*
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Logically, Penguin.
But the emotional impact could outweigh any logical rebuttal (sorry) the defense could offer.
-Trevor
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If the defense goes with the common/public shower theory, they can simply stipulate to the fact that the alleged victim did see Jackson's genitals. In that case the defense can argue that the photos have very little probative value.
On the other hand, if the alleged victim can describe Jackson's genitals in vivid detail, the prosecution can argue that the pictures would allow the jury to evaluate how good of a look the kid had at MJ's genitals. A brief glance in a common shower is weird but understandable. A detailed description corroborated by the picture can be very damaging.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
On a side note. Aren’t closing arguments for summarizing everything not introducing new stuff?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I didn't know Michael Jackson had a copy of Private Parts. Cool!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
With all his surgery, I'm surprised it stopped at one copy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)