you don't forget me
So a few days ago, very late at night, I remembered something I've been meaning to do for a few years now. And went searching for the court transcripts of the trial. I had seen on some fansite that they were actually available online and at the time I made a mental note but really didn't have the courage to go look at them until now.
Turns out that particular link was just to a pdf of a notice of motion, not the actual hearing. Sorry, legal jargon but basically it wasn't what I thought it would be. And no wonder cos the trial went for four weeks so that would have been a lot bigger than a 900KB pdf.
That was a bit disappointing because I was totally ready to sit down and wade through opening statements and legal argument and examination and cross-examination and closing statements and summing up from the judge before verdict. Right now I'm eyeing the links from the Wiki entry but this Internet Wayback Machine thing is confounding me with its repeated loading. Maybe a little more patience is needed.
Still, holy mother of god, that was the most fucking messiest disconnected garbled repetitive badly-worded notice of motion I've ever experienced! Good bloody god, is that the standard accepted in American courts? Is that the standard someone like Michael could afford at the time? Jeeesus.
It made me very uncomfortable. Not just the upsetting details of what was being alleged ... I didn't follow the trial at the time, it was in my period of total denial. I was aware it was happening and when the acquittal made the news, I permitted myself a small vindicated smile. ... but no, precisely because of the luridness of the allegations and the overly complicated almost-irrelevant other shit, I was very uncomfortable that I wasn't getting the whole objective picture. I was only reading one notice of motion from Michael's lawyers, not the official court transcript of the trial and that wasn't what I wanted.
Still, my god, from the stuff that was quoted from the official transcript, what the fucking fuck was that fucking DA on?! I mean, god, the way he spoke to the witnesses! Was the judge not listening?! Christ, I can count at least five judges I've seen who would cut that man right off at the knees. Some very cutting admonishments from the bench. Dear god. Well, maybe he was admonished and those bits weren't quoted. I'd bloody well hope so.
I don't know, though. I'm very confused by this whole grand jury thing. We don't have that here. The judge or magistrate decides whether it goes to trial, whether a prima facie case has been established, whethere there's enough probability for a jury to thrash out and make up their own minds on the evidence presented. All this business of prosecutors questioning witnesses in front of an unselected jury ... I haven't seen or typed that. I did type them arguing about the possibility of it once but the magistrate decided against it. And I don't know if the jury they would have tested the witnesses in front of would be the same jury that decides the ultimate conviction. I would bloody well think not. One jury decides if the case can be tested, a whole new other jury actually tests it. I would think.
It's all very unsatisfactory. But I am glad I waited this long to go look at the case. Back in 2005, I only started the monitoring thing in November and the whole trial happened in June. I wouldn't have been equipped in June to deal with it clearly and with understanding. Funny how things happen.
Did I ever mention how when I got back into Michael, there was this lady at the old office who asked me once what I was listening to my iPod? And I showed her my iPod screen and she visibly recoiled and said loftily to me: "Oh, I don't listen to him on principle."
I actually felt my eyes glint and I smiled rather sweetly at her and said: "I do listen to him on principle."
Cos hello, acquitted on all fourteen bloody charges by a jury and in an atmosphere of pretty high emotion and media scrutiny.
I was prolly reminded of it because on Thursday she and I ended up getting our lunch from the same cafe and walked back to the office together. Oh yeah, she moved to the new place too and loves the new boss too. We didn't talk Michael but I thought of it later on the bus and she'd said we should have lunch together one day which I agreed to. I might gently raise it then, see what she says and point out what little I know now.
There is a book about the trial but more about the media aspect of it which I really don't care about. I want the court transcripts, damn it. In their entirety.
Jesus, what I wouldn't have given to transcribe that trial. Even if it might have shattered me or made me want to shatter something.
Turns out that particular link was just to a pdf of a notice of motion, not the actual hearing. Sorry, legal jargon but basically it wasn't what I thought it would be. And no wonder cos the trial went for four weeks so that would have been a lot bigger than a 900KB pdf.
That was a bit disappointing because I was totally ready to sit down and wade through opening statements and legal argument and examination and cross-examination and closing statements and summing up from the judge before verdict. Right now I'm eyeing the links from the Wiki entry but this Internet Wayback Machine thing is confounding me with its repeated loading. Maybe a little more patience is needed.
Still, holy mother of god, that was the most fucking messiest disconnected garbled repetitive badly-worded notice of motion I've ever experienced! Good bloody god, is that the standard accepted in American courts? Is that the standard someone like Michael could afford at the time? Jeeesus.
It made me very uncomfortable. Not just the upsetting details of what was being alleged ... I didn't follow the trial at the time, it was in my period of total denial. I was aware it was happening and when the acquittal made the news, I permitted myself a small vindicated smile. ... but no, precisely because of the luridness of the allegations and the overly complicated almost-irrelevant other shit, I was very uncomfortable that I wasn't getting the whole objective picture. I was only reading one notice of motion from Michael's lawyers, not the official court transcript of the trial and that wasn't what I wanted.
Still, my god, from the stuff that was quoted from the official transcript, what the fucking fuck was that fucking DA on?! I mean, god, the way he spoke to the witnesses! Was the judge not listening?! Christ, I can count at least five judges I've seen who would cut that man right off at the knees. Some very cutting admonishments from the bench. Dear god. Well, maybe he was admonished and those bits weren't quoted. I'd bloody well hope so.
I don't know, though. I'm very confused by this whole grand jury thing. We don't have that here. The judge or magistrate decides whether it goes to trial, whether a prima facie case has been established, whethere there's enough probability for a jury to thrash out and make up their own minds on the evidence presented. All this business of prosecutors questioning witnesses in front of an unselected jury ... I haven't seen or typed that. I did type them arguing about the possibility of it once but the magistrate decided against it. And I don't know if the jury they would have tested the witnesses in front of would be the same jury that decides the ultimate conviction. I would bloody well think not. One jury decides if the case can be tested, a whole new other jury actually tests it. I would think.
It's all very unsatisfactory. But I am glad I waited this long to go look at the case. Back in 2005, I only started the monitoring thing in November and the whole trial happened in June. I wouldn't have been equipped in June to deal with it clearly and with understanding. Funny how things happen.
Did I ever mention how when I got back into Michael, there was this lady at the old office who asked me once what I was listening to my iPod? And I showed her my iPod screen and she visibly recoiled and said loftily to me: "Oh, I don't listen to him on principle."
I actually felt my eyes glint and I smiled rather sweetly at her and said: "I do listen to him on principle."
Cos hello, acquitted on all fourteen bloody charges by a jury and in an atmosphere of pretty high emotion and media scrutiny.
I was prolly reminded of it because on Thursday she and I ended up getting our lunch from the same cafe and walked back to the office together. Oh yeah, she moved to the new place too and loves the new boss too. We didn't talk Michael but I thought of it later on the bus and she'd said we should have lunch together one day which I agreed to. I might gently raise it then, see what she says and point out what little I know now.
There is a book about the trial but more about the media aspect of it which I really don't care about. I want the court transcripts, damn it. In their entirety.
Jesus, what I wouldn't have given to transcribe that trial. Even if it might have shattered me or made me want to shatter something.