"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The
odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that
the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were
not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.



I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the
case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction.

B.H.


Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn,
I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they
brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on
that one, since simple posession is a felony)

"Brenda Ann" wrote:



Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn,
I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they
brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on
that one, since simple posession is a felony)


To clarify, they found adult porn with the accuser's fingerprints on
it.

I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate
Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity
with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not
having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see,
and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently.

--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert