Ernest Schaal wrote:
> in article 1118773055.165287.245040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, etaka at
> etaka@yahoo.com wrote on 6/15/05 3:17 AM:
>
> > kuri wrote:
> >> "etaka" <etaka@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>> I thought it would be impossible to get off on every single charge, but
> >>> as in the OJ case, I knew the legal system made it incredibly difficult
> >>> to convict.
> >>
> >> That shows you have no system in your country.
> >
> > I know. Being willing to pay $20 million dollars to the previous boy to
> > keep him from going to trial or going public, should mean something.
> > What was Maikeru afraid of? His future prospects? His good name?
> > Incriminating identifying marks witnessed on his private parts? The
> > boy's statement on the Smoking Gun is quite interesting.
>
> Funny that you should ask. The Michael Jackson case is presently being
> discussed on a mailing list for lawyers, which is as wild as
> fj.life.in-japan

How so? Under the US legal system, are any of them actually surprised
by the verdict?

> and one on the comments was that it was better for one's
> career to plea guilty on minor charges than fight it, even if you are
> innocent. For serious charges, the celebrity has no choice. Look at Fatty
> Arbuckle, whose career was finished even though acquitted.
>
> Considering the cost of the defense, a $20 million dollar settlement seems
> to be good tactics, even for the innocent.

Do you think this defense or one against the earlier boy cost more or
it would have been necessary to defend a case like this? You don't
believe the future prospects or financial situations of the two
entertainers are different? Was Arbuckle at any time a billionaire on
paper?

Since you are talking about lawyers, do you mean "innocent" by, it
cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that one
has done what they are charged with, or by "innocent" do you mean, they
actually did NOT DO what they are accused of?

And I was not asking you in particular, since I'm pretty sure what
you'll have to say claiming to be a law abiding attorney, but since you
are here, are you able to separate the legalese from the real world
like some jurors and comment on whether you believe he is a child
molester or not or whether or not you would leave young male children
unsupervised in Michael Jackson's care, despite him cleared of all
charges?