holmes writes me:
quote:
If you don't want to argue all the other facets of the case, I might recommend you not keep mentioning them in a salacious way yourself.
Point taken. I didn't want to get into the issues related to guilt or innocence, there's already a thread for that. I am most interested in the question of video testimony but I'm not opposed to discussion of other matters related to the conduct of the trial if such discussion can shed light on why this sort of testimony might have been allowed. I did comment on MJ's repeated tardiness but only as support for the notion that he's getting special treatment - I really do think this judge may be star-struck.
quote:
I think video testimony is different than written testimony in that it is more accurate and can also draw more empathy from the viewer.
Exactly, and that's why I say it shouldn't be allowed under the same premise by which a written statement would be allowed. It isn't the same thing, and IMO if a defendant is going to testify in any way beyond a written statement he should be subject to cross. He shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the questions he wants to answer.
quote:
Problems would arise if he starts disputing actual specific factual statements of others and asserts concrete new facts the jury must consider.
But what else is he going to do, holmes, talk about the weather? Of course he's going to try to contradict the charges that have been made against him, otherwise there'd be no point.
Please tell me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this video testimony somewhere include a statement that he would never do the sorts of things he's been accused of doing? I think this is the same rebuttal video he made in response to the British documentary of a year or so ago.
In order to avoid getting into the specifics, let's make this a hypothetical. Suppose this is a murder trial in which an accuser claims to have witnessed the crime. The defendant is allowed to make a video statement in which he doesn't specifically say "I didn't kill this person" but instead says "I would never kill anyone". Would that not be a challenge to the accuser's statement?
quote:
I'm surprised the case hasn't been thrown out due to lack of evidence.
I am too, but that's beside the point of whether or not video testimony should be allowed. But the lack of evidence and the flimsy case that the prosecution has made would seem to me to make the video testimony unneccessary. If the only point is to establish that MJ is a nice man of good character, couldn't that be done by character witnesses? Why do we have to allow him to appear before the jury, in effect defending himself, without requiring him to take the stand?
You're absolutely correct that he doesn't have to testify against himself. But if he doesn't want to answer the prosecution's questions then I think he should just keep quiet entirely or he should be limited to presenting a written statement.
Keep America Safe
AND Free!
™ Version 4.2