Não sei porquê mas mantenho uma certa desconfiança em relação ao resultado deste julgamento...
Posted by Alice on terça-feira, junho 14, 2005 at 6:44 da tarde |Permalink
Parece uma re-edição do famoso julgamento de O.J. Simpson.
Nos EUA os "civil rights", a culpa ou a inocência, também se avaliam pela capacidade de pagar honorários a advogados de escrúpulos duvidosos. O cantor de "Thriller" vai ter de pagar qualquer coisa como 40 milhões de dólares, o que poderá implicar a hipoteca do portentoso "ranch" para onde atraía criancinhas carentes e indefesas.
«The courtroom drama had profound implications for Mr. Jackson's life and career but did not rise to the level of legal spectacle offered by the O. J. Simpson double-murder trial a decade ago. The nature of the crime was different, Mr. Jackson's career was already in decline and the judge in this case, Rodney S. Melville, barred cameras from the courtroom and imposed a gag order on all participants.
The verdict was a devastating disappointment for Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the Santa Barbara County district attorney, who has pursued Mr. Jackson for 12 years, since the time another boy made similar accusation.
Mr. Sneddon tried to bring a criminal case involving that boy, but was thwarted when the witness and his family reached a $20 million civil settlement with Mr. Jackson and refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation.»
Parece uma re-edição do famoso julgamento de O.J. Simpson.
Nos EUA os "civil rights", a culpa ou a inocência, também se avaliam pela capacidade de pagar honorários a advogados de escrúpulos duvidosos. O cantor de "Thriller" vai ter de pagar qualquer coisa como 40 milhões de dólares, o que poderá implicar a hipoteca do portentoso "ranch" para onde atraía criancinhas carentes e indefesas.
Posted by
Anónimo |
15/6/05 11:00 da manhã
Bem, ontem li no NY Times algo como isto:
«The courtroom drama had profound implications for Mr. Jackson's life and career but did not rise to the level of legal spectacle offered by the O. J. Simpson double-murder trial a decade ago. The nature of the crime was different, Mr. Jackson's career was already in decline and the judge in this case, Rodney S. Melville, barred cameras from the courtroom and imposed a gag order on all participants.
The verdict was a devastating disappointment for Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the Santa Barbara County district attorney, who has pursued Mr. Jackson for 12 years, since the time another boy made similar accusation.
Mr. Sneddon tried to bring a criminal case involving that boy, but was thwarted when the witness and his family reached a $20 million civil settlement with Mr. Jackson and refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation.»
Acho que o último parágrafo says it all...
Posted by
Alexandre Carvalho |
15/6/05 2:34 da tarde