Read on Twitter
If a Prosecutor can indict a loaf of bread, then why couldn’t they indict @MichaelJackson?
Stop debating the evidence with the Guilters as if it’s a debate about a case that was dismissed or charges were dropped as most of you have been doing.
There was not even an arrest.
Stop debating the evidence with the Guilters as if it’s a debate about a case that was dismissed or charges were dropped as most of you have been doing.
There was not even an arrest.
The Grand Jury is not even presided over by a judge. Instead, the prosecutor takes the lead role in running the proceedings.
The DA presents evidence:
1)Sworn testimony by witnesses
2)Writings, material objects, or other tangible items,
3)Deposition transcripts
The DA presents evidence:
1)Sworn testimony by witnesses
2)Writings, material objects, or other tangible items,
3)Deposition transcripts
The hearsay rule does not apply in indictment proceedings. Including the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer repeating a statement someone else made to them out of court, as long as the law enforcement officer has more that 5+years of experience or had taken a class.
California is very unique.
PC 939.71 provides that the prosecutor must disclose any exculpatory evidence they are aware of that may prove that the suspect could be innocent.
In conclusion, JC’s statement & drawing were admissible. Photos is MJ’s
were admissible.
PC 939.71 provides that the prosecutor must disclose any exculpatory evidence they are aware of that may prove that the suspect could be innocent.
In conclusion, JC’s statement & drawing were admissible. Photos is MJ’s
were admissible.
The investigators testimony of what others told them were admissible.
This liberal evidence rules are why a “True Bill” is issued buy a GJ 99% of the time.
So why did prosecutors get a “No True Bill” in a child sex abuse hearing?
This liberal evidence rules are why a “True Bill” is issued buy a GJ 99% of the time.
So why did prosecutors get a “No True Bill” in a child sex abuse hearing?
We don’t know exactly.
After looking through everything that a prosecutor would have shown to the GJ & what they HAD to show(For example: MJ’s claims of the extortion: EC & DS tapes and correspondents between team MJ and Rothman for the Chandlers +)
After looking through everything that a prosecutor would have shown to the GJ & what they HAD to show(For example: MJ’s claims of the extortion: EC & DS tapes and correspondents between team MJ and Rothman for the Chandlers +)
I concluded that the GJ must have felt strongly that there was clear evidence of extortion.
If they hadn’t then they would have issued a true bill!
The DA was running the show & presented the GJ with what they wanted them to see.
They still couldn’t get a win,
it’s that simple
If they hadn’t then they would have issued a true bill!
The DA was running the show & presented the GJ with what they wanted them to see.
They still couldn’t get a win,
it’s that simple
If it wasn’t extortion then they saw something very wrong with the accusations. It could have been that they didn’t believe Jordan Chandlers story.
Whatever the reason or reasons, they couldn’t in good conscience legally agree to indict MJ.
Whatever the reason or reasons, they couldn’t in good conscience legally agree to indict MJ.
If a 1 sided docufiction,like leaving neverland,can pull the wool over the eyes of 10’s of thousands, how is it even possible that prosecutors failed to convince just 10-12 people in a 1 sides GJ hearing?
*10 for LAC or 12 for SBC.
*10 for LAC or 12 for SBC.
