Whitey Jackson looks closer to prison

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Cutaway, Dec 12, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    It seems that Placcy Jacky's denials might be as shaky as TCH's knowledge of Her Majestey's Armed Forces.

    Having said that, the following report was first filed bt the National Enquirer...... :roll:


  2. Might as well face it, no matter how much proof is found and how bad the trial goes, the freak will buy his way out of incarceration. Good old US of A, the land of the free!
  3. "the freak will buy his way out of incarceration."

    Scuse me while I bang my heed.
    Serious time in open association is the only answer, Cons know how to deal with babay rapers.
  4. maninblack

    maninblack LE Book Reviewer

    Based on music industry rumours this may well not be the case.


    Jackson received a large advance (I seem to remember $36 million being mentioned but I'm sure an internet search will reveal all) on his last album against which he offered a sureity, namely his section of the Beatles back catalogue.

    The album sold 35 copies or some ridiculous amount which left Jackson owing the record company serious gelt.

    The problem is that he had spent the said gelt propping up his lifestyle and private theme park.

    If he goes down then his career is over and Sony (I believe) get the rights to The Beatles back catalogue for circa $36 million.

    Bargain of the year.......isn't it strange how the record company are not investing in his defence?

    I stress that this is merely an industry rumour not my theory.
  5. Cutaway

    Cutaway LE Reviewer

    Cheers MIB.

    As usual, the Duty Rumour's looking good !

    :lol: :lol:
  6. Shoot him.......guilty as charged.......however he could get OJs lawyers and accuse the cops of being racist......wait a minute......he was black but is now...... :?
  7. Who knows, going to nick could be gould for him-it would certainly widen his repertoire,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ouch
  8. Yet another delay - will they ever get this man's arrse in prison let alone courrthouse (yes pun intended :wink: )

  9. 1. If the prosecution case were truly nothing but a malevolent fiction, the defendant would have his remedy in the form of a motion to dismiss, at the preliminary examination, for failure to show a prima facie case. As far as I know (and I admit I haven't followed this milestone of jurisprudence very closely), the defense brought no such motion.

    2. The notion, which this article seems to imply, that a motion to dismiss can be based on the proposition that the prosecutor is an overly ambitious SOB, is fanciful. The subjective yearnings of the prosecutor are both unknowable and irrelevant. All that matters is whether the charge can be proved.

    3. Prosecutorial gamesmanship, such as knowingly listing fictitious persons in the witness list, can be (and typically is) dealt with by sanctions less drastic than dismissing the indictment or complaint. The public, in whose name the prosecution is brought, has an interest in both the acquittal of the innocent and the conviction of the guilty. That interest shouldn't lightly be flouted because of the (assumed) misconduct of one man, the prosecutor.

    4. Motions, by one party, to disqualify the lawyer representing the other party, are rare, but not completely unprecedented.

    Typically, the movant must either show:

    1) That the targeted lawyer either is, or ought to be a witness to a material issue of contested fact. The court won't condone the unseemly spectacle of counsel urging his own credibility in closing argument.

    2) That the targeted lawyer has a conflict of interest insofar as he represented the opposing party in some earlier, related matter. The law won't allow a disgraceful situation in which a man finds himself opposed by his own faithless, professional confidence-breaching former lawyer.

    Neither of those considerations seem to be involved here.

    The idea that a prosecutor (or any other lawyer) should be disqualified from appearing in the case merely because he's too ambitious (in the opinion of his adversary) is as novel as it is baseless.

    I conclude that Mr. Jackson's defense team has decided to string this thing along for as long as possible.
  10. No matter how long it takes the case is going to be a real THRILLER

    The plastic peado ain't going to moonwalk his way out of this one.
  11. Or do a OJ and BEAT IT?.... Ok, :roll: I get me coat......