Tuesday, June 14, 2005


I guess it was “reasonable doubt” that won the day for Michael Jackson, and that the prosecution didn’t have an airtight case or he would have probably been nailed. I haven’t been paying much attention to this case, but after reading about the verdict this morning it seems like the accuser’s mom was quite a loose cannon, the prosecution had developed a conspiracy theory that Jackson was basically holding the accused hostage at Neverland Ranch, etc.

There has never really been any doubt that the “King of Pop” is weird, but I don’t think his weirdness is what was on trial.

Nonetheless, I expect we will be watching ways in which this decision adds fuel to the conservative fire about how our judicial system “doesn’t work”.

I expect some will soon be vocal advocates of an “if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…” approach to American justice. I can imagine their saying things like this:

“Letting a murderer like O.J. off the hook is one thing, and now a child molester!? We need a system that will put these people in jail where they belong!”

“Our judicial system lets a pedophile loose because he is a celebrity.”

Before they start into the inevitable spewing of things like these, they need to realize it wasn’t the judge who made the decision in this case. It was the jury, in regard to a specific set of allegations. Amendment VI of our Bill of Rights states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Like it or not, Jackson got acquitted. The decision was made in accordance with the Bill of Rights, in a way our country has used for a couple of centuries. I don't believe that needs to be changed.


Blogger Unadulterated Underdog said...

I'm not sure how I feel because I a not sure if Jackson is/was guilty or not. In high profile cases like that, you never know. Look at OJ? He practically admitted being guilty after his trial was over but he got of scott-free.

Hey Snave! You should check out my Clinton post! I am interested to see what you think. It's long but worth a read.

10:38 AM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

And regardless of whether he is a molestor or not, you can be sure that even as I write this con artists nationwide are imagining ways to get their kids a future spot at Neverland Ranch.

But I think OJ is a different case entirely because there was no question at all that he had been prone to violent behavior. I think he really did get off because he could afford the lawyers.

But I think it's a false comparison because at this point Jackson is a magnet for child abuse allegations, whereas I don't see that OJ is necessarily a magnet for spousal abuse charges.

It just would be infinitely easier to frame the rich Jackson than to frame the rich OJ. (If you wanted to exploit them for money, that is.)

12:56 PM  
Blogger Chancelucky said...

In one way I see the Michael Jackson and OJ cases as a sign of progress in that they mean that a rich black man (or in Jackson's case a rich bleached man) can hire a high quality attorney and get acquitted. Maybe both deserved to be acquitted, but I think about all the indigent defendants who wound up on death row largely because they couldn't afford a better attorney. Now that we have DNA testing, I'm still amazed by how many are turning up provably not guilty.

In Jackson's case, I think the most interesting parallels might be Fatty Arbuckle and Charlie Chaplin. Chaplin liked young girls, wound up exiled (a la Polanski), but his reputation survived. Arbuckle was likely innoncent, but was ruined by the trial. I suspect it'll wind up more like Fatty Arbuckle.

4:07 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

I am 100% convinced that he's a pedophile, but in this case, the system worked. Reasonable doubt was established.

Like I said on Damiens's blog, the prosecuter should have picked another one of Jackson's victims to try this case with. Considering he's been molesting kids for years & years, there has got to be some credible families out there...that didn't take a pay-off.

4:56 PM  
Blogger Phil said...

I can't believe that I agree with Lizzy about something. (MJ is a pedophile.) I don't want to change the system. I didn't hear the case, so can't judge his guilt on this charge.

I do think that the state should charge this kids mother with child endangerment. She knowingly put her kid at risk by allowing him to stay with that freak.

7:10 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

So why are you guys so sure he is a pedophile? As I said, if someone is very rich and has been accused of something like that, he would automatically be the perfect target for further accusations regardless of how he treats kids?

I'm not saying he is not one, but considering that he was denied his own childhood, he could just like being around kids so he can compensate for not being allowed to play enough as a kid?

And I am in no way a Michael Jackson fan, but it did not surprise me at all when it turned out that the kids mother had her own dubious history.

Like that lady who found the finger in her chili and turned out to have a history of suing companies and was the one who put it in there.

I just think there is always room for doubt when great amounts of money are involved.

8:30 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

>So why are you guys so sure he is a pedophile?<

Come on, Sheryl, of course he is. These allegations go way, way back. He's paid off one family after another. Look at this transcript from 1993:

Neverland is just one big honey-pot.

9:11 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

As far as him being denied his own childhood - it's time to get over it, get some therapy and leave the 13 year old boys alone.

9:14 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

The operative words are "paid off one family after the next." A lot of money. In other words, suing Michael Jackson is a lucrative thing to do.

But let me put it a different way by asking you a question-- considering all the hype in the media that you mention, what motive would a truely concerned parent have to send his or her child to visit Michael Jackson?

7:38 AM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

It's not about the parents motivation, it's about a slow seduction. Jackson showers families (that have young sons) with lavish gifts and trips. After he ingratiates himself into their family, he starts to separate the son from the family. When he has the parents trust, he'll have the child sleep over in his alarm fortified bedroom where the real seduction begins, all the while, the families of these boys are in another wing of Neverland. That is Jackson's MO.

8:07 AM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

You are evading the question. Everyone in this country has seen these things on TV.

If you were a parent and had seen all these allegations in the past, would you think:

"Hey, Little Joey. You've always said that Scout Camp was a bore. Michael Jackson has a theme park called Neverland. And while it's true that he has already been accused of molesting little boys, that might be a great way to spend your Summer vacation."

12:59 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...

If I had kids, I would not let them near MJ. Knowing what we know about him, any parent that would is nothing more than a pimp.

3:22 PM  
Blogger Damien said...

MJs a pedophile, I have no absolutely no doubt about that.

Maybe if the jury were so convinced of his innocence they should have offered up their own children for an overnight stay at Neverland.

The jury have become great enablers for Jackson. Its not about who he is, or how much money he has - its about what he's done, simply thats had sexual encounters including intercourse with children.

3:29 PM  
Blogger Phil said...


Any grown man that 'sleeps' in the same bed with children that are not his own is either screwing them or intends on it. MJ was doing it all of the time.

I'm not sure if he was guilty for this crime, but he has been guilty in past years.

8:14 PM  
Blogger Lizzy said...


We finally agree on something! Maybe this will be a turning point for us. : )

8:40 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

Look, I don't whether he molested the kids or not. I wasn't there, and I haven't followed the case.

I'm only saying that no sane parent is going to let their kids near someone who has been accused of such things, which returns us to the question of what motivated these parents to send their children to Neverland.

And you can't ignore the possibility that one of the motivations might have been to sue a millionaire and get rich off the proceeds, especially a millionaire who is more vulnerable to lawsuits due to past allegations. That's all I was trying to point out. That suing Michael Jackson for molesting your kids could be be seen as a goldmine by less scrupulous individuals.

But I think I'll let it rest here. X-)

12:17 AM  
Blogger Phil said...

As I have said before, the mother should have been charged with child endangerment.

7:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home