-
Cambios en el aspecto y funcionamiento del foro. Ver detalles
La Policía tenía una 'causa probable' contra Michael (by los 40 principales)
- Iniciador del tema Gsus Jackson_88
- Fecha de inicio
La Policía tenía una 'causa probable' contra Michael
La policía tenía una "causa probable" para creer que Michael Jackson había cometido un delito cuando entró en su rancho Neverland en busca de pruebas, dijo el martes un juez en un auto sobre el caso contra la estrella del pop por un presunto delito de abusos a un menor.
El juez de la Corte Superior Rodney Melville argumentó, en su rechazo a la recusación presentada por el abogado de Jackson en la audiencia previa del caso, que las denuncias por abuso sexual presentadas por un joven de 13 años de edad tenían suficiente fundamento para registrar Neverland el pasado noviembre.
"Había una causa probable para creer que el señor Jackson había cometido acciones delictivas a partir de las declaraciones de testigos menores", dijo Melville en alusión al joven demandante de Jackson y sus hermanos.
Los abogados del Rey del pop alegan que las órdenes de registro tenían fallos legales, y pidieron una audiencia para determinar si la prueba encontrada en el rancho debería suspenderse. Esa prueba no se ha hecho pública.
Jackson, que acudió al tribunal el pasado lunes acompañado por su familia, no asistió el martes.
La policía tenía una "causa probable" para creer que Michael Jackson había cometido un delito cuando entró en su rancho Neverland en busca de pruebas, dijo el martes un juez en un auto sobre el caso contra la estrella del pop por un presunto delito de abusos a un menor.
El juez de la Corte Superior Rodney Melville argumentó, en su rechazo a la recusación presentada por el abogado de Jackson en la audiencia previa del caso, que las denuncias por abuso sexual presentadas por un joven de 13 años de edad tenían suficiente fundamento para registrar Neverland el pasado noviembre.
"Había una causa probable para creer que el señor Jackson había cometido acciones delictivas a partir de las declaraciones de testigos menores", dijo Melville en alusión al joven demandante de Jackson y sus hermanos.
Los abogados del Rey del pop alegan que las órdenes de registro tenían fallos legales, y pidieron una audiencia para determinar si la prueba encontrada en el rancho debería suspenderse. Esa prueba no se ha hecho pública.
Jackson, que acudió al tribunal el pasado lunes acompañado por su familia, no asistió el martes.
ISKANDER
0
A ver, sobre este tema, que no me entero: el juez ha denegado la eliminación de pruebas del registro de Neverland, ¿no? Pero no tiene nada que ver con lo de lo incautado en la oficina de Miller, que es de lo que tratan estas vistas previas, ¿no es asi?
Por supuesto, la prensa se lanza al titular: en vez de decir lo que explicó el juez, que el testimonio del menor ya era suficiente para realizar el registro de Neverland, los de los 40 le dan la vuelta de una manera muy sutil. Dicen que "las denuncias por abuso sexual presentadas por un joven de 13 años de edad tenían suficiente fundamento para registrar Neverland el pasado noviembre."
Lo que me preocupa es que ellos no han redactado esto. No tienen un conocimiento del caso suficientemente profundo para tergiversar la info americana de esta manera.... seguramente lo habrán copiado de alguna nota de prensa y se difundirá tal cual a otros medios.
Por supuesto, la prensa se lanza al titular: en vez de decir lo que explicó el juez, que el testimonio del menor ya era suficiente para realizar el registro de Neverland, los de los 40 le dan la vuelta de una manera muy sutil. Dicen que "las denuncias por abuso sexual presentadas por un joven de 13 años de edad tenían suficiente fundamento para registrar Neverland el pasado noviembre."
Lo que me preocupa es que ellos no han redactado esto. No tienen un conocimiento del caso suficientemente profundo para tergiversar la info americana de esta manera.... seguramente lo habrán copiado de alguna nota de prensa y se difundirá tal cual a otros medios.
ISKANDER
0
Aqui lo explican más o menos bien. Se trata de otro tema:
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1267&storyid=1795988
De hecho, si el juez hubiera aceptado dicha moción, el caso se habría desmoronado ya que no habría ninguna prueba material que pudieran usar.
http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1267&storyid=1795988
De hecho, si el juez hubiera aceptado dicha moción, el caso se habría desmoronado ya que no habría ninguna prueba material que pudieran usar.
Esto salió de REUTERS, ISKANDER. Anoche lo puse en el tema de la audiencia:
REUTERS story
Judge: Police Had 'Probable Cause' Against Jackson
By Dan Whitcomb
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - Police had "probable cause" to believe Michael Jackson (news) had committed a crime when they raided his Neverland Valley Ranch looking for evidence, a judge in the pop star's child molestation case ruled on Tuesday.
Rejecting a challenge by Jackson's attorneys during a pretrial hearing in the case, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville said sexual abuse accusations by a 13-year-old boy were sufficient grounds for police to search Neverland last November.
"There was probable cause to believe that Mr. Jackson had committed criminal offenses based on the statements of the minor witnesses," Melville said, referring to Jackson's young accuser and his siblings.
Attorneys for the self-styled "King of Pop" claim that search warrants for Neverland were legally flawed, and they wanted a hearing to determine if evidence found there should be suppressed. That evidence has not been made public because Melville, who has conducted the case under nearly unprecedented secrecy, has kept it under seal.
While dismissing a blanket challenge by Jackson's attorneys to the search, Melville said he would still allow them to argue against individual items of evidence taken away by police.
Jackson, who attended court on Monday dressed in symbolic white and accompanied by members of his family, was absent on Tuesday, with the judge's approval.
Earlier in the day, Melville angrily fined one of the Jackson's attorneys $1,000 -- payable on the spot -- for defying an order and stalked out of the courtroom.
Lawyer Brian Oxman was trying to get psychologist Stan Katz to admit he had a conflict of interest in the case because he had counseled both Jackson's young accuser and a private investigator who worked for the singer's former attorney.
Melville repeatedly warned Oxman that Katz, because of confidentiality requirements, could not be questioned about his patients. When Oxman persisted, the usually soft-spoken judge exploded in anger.
"A $1,000 sanction, immediately payable. We will take a recess," Melville barked at Oxman. "I'm not going to put up with this."
To lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau, he said, "Mr. Mesereau, you're in charge of this team. We've got a problem."
Melville then walked quickly to his chambers. During his 10-minute absence, Oxman wrote a check to the court clerk.
When court reconvened, Oxman tried to apologize, saying that he had been carried away by his "passion" for defending Jackson. Melville abruptly cut him off, saying, "Just stop that."
The hearing is scheduled to resume on Thursday, with further testimony and argument over pretrial issues. Jackson is scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 31 on a 10-count indictment that charges him with child molestation and conspiracy. He has pleaded not guilty.
REUTERS story
Judge: Police Had 'Probable Cause' Against Jackson
By Dan Whitcomb
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - Police had "probable cause" to believe Michael Jackson (news) had committed a crime when they raided his Neverland Valley Ranch looking for evidence, a judge in the pop star's child molestation case ruled on Tuesday.
Rejecting a challenge by Jackson's attorneys during a pretrial hearing in the case, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville said sexual abuse accusations by a 13-year-old boy were sufficient grounds for police to search Neverland last November.
"There was probable cause to believe that Mr. Jackson had committed criminal offenses based on the statements of the minor witnesses," Melville said, referring to Jackson's young accuser and his siblings.
Attorneys for the self-styled "King of Pop" claim that search warrants for Neverland were legally flawed, and they wanted a hearing to determine if evidence found there should be suppressed. That evidence has not been made public because Melville, who has conducted the case under nearly unprecedented secrecy, has kept it under seal.
While dismissing a blanket challenge by Jackson's attorneys to the search, Melville said he would still allow them to argue against individual items of evidence taken away by police.
Jackson, who attended court on Monday dressed in symbolic white and accompanied by members of his family, was absent on Tuesday, with the judge's approval.
Earlier in the day, Melville angrily fined one of the Jackson's attorneys $1,000 -- payable on the spot -- for defying an order and stalked out of the courtroom.
Lawyer Brian Oxman was trying to get psychologist Stan Katz to admit he had a conflict of interest in the case because he had counseled both Jackson's young accuser and a private investigator who worked for the singer's former attorney.
Melville repeatedly warned Oxman that Katz, because of confidentiality requirements, could not be questioned about his patients. When Oxman persisted, the usually soft-spoken judge exploded in anger.
"A $1,000 sanction, immediately payable. We will take a recess," Melville barked at Oxman. "I'm not going to put up with this."
To lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau, he said, "Mr. Mesereau, you're in charge of this team. We've got a problem."
Melville then walked quickly to his chambers. During his 10-minute absence, Oxman wrote a check to the court clerk.
When court reconvened, Oxman tried to apologize, saying that he had been carried away by his "passion" for defending Jackson. Melville abruptly cut him off, saying, "Just stop that."
The hearing is scheduled to resume on Thursday, with further testimony and argument over pretrial issues. Jackson is scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 31 on a 10-count indictment that charges him with child molestation and conspiracy. He has pleaded not guilty.
Si, el juez ha denegado la eliminacion de todas las evidencias en su conjunto! Pero lo q no dice este articulo es q los abogados de Michael pueden y lo intentaran seguro, ir eliminando evidencia a evidencia... las q ellos crean q fueron obtenidas ilegalmente por supuesto.
Asiq no hay nada perdido.. la decision del juez es de lo mas logico. Y los abogados de Michael seguiran luchando por eliminar evidencias sacadas de registros ilegales.
Asiq no hay nada perdido.. la decision del juez es de lo mas logico. Y los abogados de Michael seguiran luchando por eliminar evidencias sacadas de registros ilegales.
Última edición:
pues ami esto ya se me hace mucho....y me estoy haciendo bolas...
ISKANDER
0
El tema es que si no hay evidencia de algún tipo, no hay caso.
No pueden basar todo el caso en e testimonio del niño. O sí, pero no irian muy lejos, vaya.
La palabra correcta a usar aqui es la de indicio. En judisprudencia se considera que varios indicios pueden llegar a constituir una prueba. Cosas como que Michael acostumbre a beber vino de latas de refrescos, por ejemplo, sería, si se demuestra cierto, un indicio, ya que en su acusación el niño asegura que a él se lo administró así.
O la famosa cinta, por ejemplo. La acusación plantea que es una prueba de la conspiración. Pero para ello tendría que aportar varios indicios que apuntalara tal interpretación, ya que la cinta, en principio, sólo muestra a la familia diciendo maravillas de MJ. Si aparecieran cosas como, no sé, que en la grabación solo habia gente de confianza de MJ, o que la madre estaba muy seria en la grabacion.... yo que sé, cosas así. Si aparecieran un numero suficientemente alto de este tipo de indicios, la cinta podria terminar siendo considerada como prueba de la conspiracion.
El caso es que lo que parece claro es que el fiscal, no tiene ninguna prueba solida mas alla de la declaracion del niño y la de su hermana que parece asegurar haber presenciado uno de estos actos lascivos. La defensa de MJ se basa, por lo tanto, en, primero, tratar de impedir la utilizacion de la mayor parte de evidencia posible y, dos, arrojar el maximo numero de dudas sobre la honorabilidad de los demandantes, principalmente la madre, lo que ya sabemos que no sera muy dificil.
No pueden basar todo el caso en e testimonio del niño. O sí, pero no irian muy lejos, vaya.
La palabra correcta a usar aqui es la de indicio. En judisprudencia se considera que varios indicios pueden llegar a constituir una prueba. Cosas como que Michael acostumbre a beber vino de latas de refrescos, por ejemplo, sería, si se demuestra cierto, un indicio, ya que en su acusación el niño asegura que a él se lo administró así.
O la famosa cinta, por ejemplo. La acusación plantea que es una prueba de la conspiración. Pero para ello tendría que aportar varios indicios que apuntalara tal interpretación, ya que la cinta, en principio, sólo muestra a la familia diciendo maravillas de MJ. Si aparecieran cosas como, no sé, que en la grabación solo habia gente de confianza de MJ, o que la madre estaba muy seria en la grabacion.... yo que sé, cosas así. Si aparecieran un numero suficientemente alto de este tipo de indicios, la cinta podria terminar siendo considerada como prueba de la conspiracion.
El caso es que lo que parece claro es que el fiscal, no tiene ninguna prueba solida mas alla de la declaracion del niño y la de su hermana que parece asegurar haber presenciado uno de estos actos lascivos. La defensa de MJ se basa, por lo tanto, en, primero, tratar de impedir la utilizacion de la mayor parte de evidencia posible y, dos, arrojar el maximo numero de dudas sobre la honorabilidad de los demandantes, principalmente la madre, lo que ya sabemos que no sera muy dificil.
Última edición:
ISKANDER
0
El tema queda aun mas claro aqui:
SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Child molestation allegations by a 12-year-old boy provided authorities with legal justification for a massive search of Michael Jackson's (search) Neverland Ranch last year, a judge ruled, rejecting defense efforts to challenge the search as illegal.
In his ruling Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville (search) short-circuited a plan by Jackson's lawyers to call multiple witnesses in an effort to show that prosecutors had insufficient information to justify the invasion of Jackson's estate last November.
Defense attorney Steve Cochran had argued that authorities "relied on a lot of pontificating" from people without sufficient expertise.
"The point was to smear my client, to make it appear there was a menace to society out there whose house needed to be searched immediately," he argued.
Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the only thing that could invalidate the search would be significant misrepresentations on the search warrant. Those, he said, were not present, and the judge agreed.
Melville conceded that there may have been "some relevant omissions," but he concluded: "There was probable cause to believe Michael Jackson had committed the offenses based on the statements of the minor witness."
The judge said he was basing his ruling on extensive written briefs, most of which he has sealed from public view.
Loyola University Law School Professor Laurie Levenson said the ruling probably was not a surprise to the defense since such motions are difficult to win.
"It doesn't hurt to try," she said, "and it preserves the matter for any future appeal."
Melville did agree to let defense attorneys challenge individual items seized during the search at Neverland Ranch (search) and recessed the hearings Wednesday to give lawyers time to draft a list of items they want suppressed as evidence.
When the hearing resumes on Thursday, Jackson's lawyers are expected to call more witnesses as part of their effort to get evidence obtained from the office of private investigator Bradley Miller thrown out.
On Tuesday, the defense made a surprise allegation — that Stanley J. Katz, the psychologist who first took the boy's claims about Jackson to authorities, had also been treating Miller.
Katz declined to discuss his relationship with Miller, claiming a therapist's privilege of confidentiality, which the judge eventually upheld.
Brian Oxman, the defense attorney who made the surprise allegation, wound up being fined $1,000 by the judge when he persisted in bringing up issue after the judge ruled it was out of bounds.
"Bradley Miller is a very special patient of yours, is he not, Dr. Katz?" asked Oxman.
"If he were a patient, I could not disclose that because of the privilege," Katz replied.
Katz had been called Tuesday in an effort to determine whether Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and other authorities were aware that Miller worked for Jackson's former lawyer, Mark Geragos, when evidence was seized from Miller's office. They say they had no such knowledge.
Katz, who acknowledged only that he had worked with Miller on family court cases, said he never discussed the Jackson case with Miller and did not tell authorities that Miller was working for Geragos.
Jackson, 45, is charged with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $3 million bail.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129281,00.html
_______________________________________________________________
Y este es el analisis, bastante lúcido, que hace BNSilly del Mjjforum, sobre este asunto:
I'm going to copy a post I put in another thread because I think it is relevant here.
Here is my opinion, for what it's worth.
The OK of the Neverland search is not a biggie. I don't think the defense was really expecting that, since it is obvious to even the layperson that 288(a) would allow it. I mean - if all you need is an accusation to make an actual arrest, I don't think you would need any more than that to search the accused's home.
I think the defense had to challenge that though so that they could get all the inconsistencies (such as the ommission of Katz's statement that he didn't think MJ was a pedo, the over-exaggeration of the effects of alcohol on the kid, etc. etc.) into the record. All of these little things will have to add up to mean something.
They are trying to get the whole indictment thrown out and Sneddon off the case (Melville, also, perhaps). So they have to introduce ALL these details of shady and borderline police work into the court record as evidence that Sneddon does poor and unacceptable work.
This casts doubt upon Sneddon's competence as a whole so that an appeals court will look at Sneddon with suspicion in general - not just in the one area of did he know about Miller. It's all a part of laying the groundwork to get the buffoon cut loose.
That's what I think - so don't let the media sway you from relying on your own COMMON sense, not their NON-sense.
SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Child molestation allegations by a 12-year-old boy provided authorities with legal justification for a massive search of Michael Jackson's (search) Neverland Ranch last year, a judge ruled, rejecting defense efforts to challenge the search as illegal.
In his ruling Tuesday, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville (search) short-circuited a plan by Jackson's lawyers to call multiple witnesses in an effort to show that prosecutors had insufficient information to justify the invasion of Jackson's estate last November.
Defense attorney Steve Cochran had argued that authorities "relied on a lot of pontificating" from people without sufficient expertise.
"The point was to smear my client, to make it appear there was a menace to society out there whose house needed to be searched immediately," he argued.
Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the only thing that could invalidate the search would be significant misrepresentations on the search warrant. Those, he said, were not present, and the judge agreed.
Melville conceded that there may have been "some relevant omissions," but he concluded: "There was probable cause to believe Michael Jackson had committed the offenses based on the statements of the minor witness."
The judge said he was basing his ruling on extensive written briefs, most of which he has sealed from public view.
Loyola University Law School Professor Laurie Levenson said the ruling probably was not a surprise to the defense since such motions are difficult to win.
"It doesn't hurt to try," she said, "and it preserves the matter for any future appeal."
Melville did agree to let defense attorneys challenge individual items seized during the search at Neverland Ranch (search) and recessed the hearings Wednesday to give lawyers time to draft a list of items they want suppressed as evidence.
When the hearing resumes on Thursday, Jackson's lawyers are expected to call more witnesses as part of their effort to get evidence obtained from the office of private investigator Bradley Miller thrown out.
On Tuesday, the defense made a surprise allegation — that Stanley J. Katz, the psychologist who first took the boy's claims about Jackson to authorities, had also been treating Miller.
Katz declined to discuss his relationship with Miller, claiming a therapist's privilege of confidentiality, which the judge eventually upheld.
Brian Oxman, the defense attorney who made the surprise allegation, wound up being fined $1,000 by the judge when he persisted in bringing up issue after the judge ruled it was out of bounds.
"Bradley Miller is a very special patient of yours, is he not, Dr. Katz?" asked Oxman.
"If he were a patient, I could not disclose that because of the privilege," Katz replied.
Katz had been called Tuesday in an effort to determine whether Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and other authorities were aware that Miller worked for Jackson's former lawyer, Mark Geragos, when evidence was seized from Miller's office. They say they had no such knowledge.
Katz, who acknowledged only that he had worked with Miller on family court cases, said he never discussed the Jackson case with Miller and did not tell authorities that Miller was working for Geragos.
Jackson, 45, is charged with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $3 million bail.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129281,00.html
_______________________________________________________________
Y este es el analisis, bastante lúcido, que hace BNSilly del Mjjforum, sobre este asunto:
I'm going to copy a post I put in another thread because I think it is relevant here.
Here is my opinion, for what it's worth.
The OK of the Neverland search is not a biggie. I don't think the defense was really expecting that, since it is obvious to even the layperson that 288(a) would allow it. I mean - if all you need is an accusation to make an actual arrest, I don't think you would need any more than that to search the accused's home.
I think the defense had to challenge that though so that they could get all the inconsistencies (such as the ommission of Katz's statement that he didn't think MJ was a pedo, the over-exaggeration of the effects of alcohol on the kid, etc. etc.) into the record. All of these little things will have to add up to mean something.
They are trying to get the whole indictment thrown out and Sneddon off the case (Melville, also, perhaps). So they have to introduce ALL these details of shady and borderline police work into the court record as evidence that Sneddon does poor and unacceptable work.
This casts doubt upon Sneddon's competence as a whole so that an appeals court will look at Sneddon with suspicion in general - not just in the one area of did he know about Miller. It's all a part of laying the groundwork to get the buffoon cut loose.
That's what I think - so don't let the media sway you from relying on your own COMMON sense, not their NON-sense.
Última edición:
Totalmente de acuerdo contigo, es mas... el fiscal NO tiene ninguna prueba mas q la supuesta declaracion de los niños....ISKANDER dijo:
Esta todo tan claro de q, con solo 2 dias de vistas, la acusacion no tiene nada.. y si pretendian darle la vuelta a lo de la cinta de video, q en principio la defensa iba a proponerla como prueba exculpatoria.. les esta saliendo el tiro por la culata!!
Si la defensa logra ridiculizar cada evidencia de la acusacion como lo estan haciendo hasta ahora, y repito, en solo dos dias... el caso durara menos q un capitulo de Perry Mason.. lolol
No me extraña nada que el periodista ni se preocupe por documentarse. En España ni tan siquiera la prensa más rigurosa se toma nada de lo que tiene que ver con Jackson en serio ¿porqué iban a hacerlo con esto? Es como pedirle a las piedras tratados filosóficos. En Estados Unidos Jackson es un artista con problemas judiciales, en nuestro país un payaso en otra de sus excentricidades. Periódicos supuestamente serios como “El País”, “ABC”, “El Mundo”, etc., tratan el asunto en las secciones de sociedad en el mejor de los casos, cuando no en el lugar que ocuparía el último montaje de Sara Montiel. Como si todo fuera una representación griega con personajes delirantes. Cuando no se limitan a copiar la información directamente de la agencia desatan todas sus gracietas en un tono en el que no se atreverían a tratar ninguna otra información, como si con Jackson no tuvieran que guardar formas, contenido ni veracidad.
Ni siquiera se le respeta como músico, los estrenos discográficos de Jackson pasan totalmente desapercibidos en las páginas de cultura. En muchos de esos periódicos su último disco “Invincible” no mereció ni la valoración de sus sesudos críticos, como si fuera un producto ajeno a la música. Si Bruce Springsteen saca un recopilatorio se encienden en elogios, dedican especiales, piden entrevistas y acuden a su presentación, poco importa que sea la duodécima colección con las mismas canciones, menos aún que la única canción nueva sea más de lo mismo, a él no se lo recriminarán nunca. Si aparece el nombre de Jackson es para recordar al lector que tal nuevo artista de moda tuvo en su infancia como ídolo a Jackson, a él pero también a Enrique y Ana, y Parchís. Todo esto a pesar de que Jackson fuera en los ochenta una de las principales referencias musicales internacionales. Es una batalla casi perdida…
No es sólo que falten a la verdad o se dejen la ética periodistica en la mesilla de noche, es que además le ningunean...
Ni siquiera se le respeta como músico, los estrenos discográficos de Jackson pasan totalmente desapercibidos en las páginas de cultura. En muchos de esos periódicos su último disco “Invincible” no mereció ni la valoración de sus sesudos críticos, como si fuera un producto ajeno a la música. Si Bruce Springsteen saca un recopilatorio se encienden en elogios, dedican especiales, piden entrevistas y acuden a su presentación, poco importa que sea la duodécima colección con las mismas canciones, menos aún que la única canción nueva sea más de lo mismo, a él no se lo recriminarán nunca. Si aparece el nombre de Jackson es para recordar al lector que tal nuevo artista de moda tuvo en su infancia como ídolo a Jackson, a él pero también a Enrique y Ana, y Parchís. Todo esto a pesar de que Jackson fuera en los ochenta una de las principales referencias musicales internacionales. Es una batalla casi perdida…
No es sólo que falten a la verdad o se dejen la ética periodistica en la mesilla de noche, es que además le ningunean...
deberiamos hacer como mj y echar mano a la ignorancia en estos casos...