Posted on 04/16/2005 10:04:11 AM PDT by Hawk44
It's now time to stop the madness and declare a mistrial in California vs. Jackson. What happened on Friday in the Santa Maria courthouse should not have happened at all. Whether or not Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation is no longer the issue. The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office is now potentially guilty of exploiting a disturbed woman's condition to get a conviction. It's wrong, and it's not going to achieve anything but tarnishing the reputations of their well-intentioned staff. The testimony on Friday of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson's teenage accuser, was alternately maddening and heart breaking. She came across on the stand during her cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau as a compulsive and pathological liar, a shrewd manipulator and a real operator. But she was also quite sad, and unable to control her emotions.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bump to all your posts and thank you for getting this thread off the CROSSTHREAD INFIGHTING THAT DOES NOT BELONG HERE.
Contrary to this Freidman feller, I saw pundits the past two days applaud how she gave it right back to Jackson silver haired attorney.
And Mr. Schiavo has been charged with what crime...?
M.J. is certainly NOT the only victim, nor did I mean to imply that he was, however inartfully I may have tried to state my case.
First and foremost were the molested children, their families, friends and classmates...but it hardly stops there.
It is the taxpayer that foots the bill for this travesty by funding all of the social agencies, D.A.'s, investigators, court costs and prison facilities involved. That will probably amount to several millions of dollars while this process runs its due course.
To try to understand a problem is not the same as excusing it; the larger question is, what can we as a civilized and compassionate people do to prevent problems like this from happening in the first instance where the costs to society would be far less, than react to the problem once they surface full blown.
By and large, children are not (with the possible exception of a few genetic sociopaths) born criminals. They are made that way step by step, day by day by unfit parents, poor schools, lousy neighborhoods, inadequate social systems to detect and intervene while there is yet time, and in M.J.'s case, an entertainment industry that was making a lot of money from his talents and wouldn't chance rocking the boat.
Cool.
Yet another wild turkey.
Answer: None. But, if memory serves correctly, Stalin wasn't charged with any crime either. Nor was Samuel Gompers. Nor Jake Guzik. Nor numerous Teamsters. Nor cops on the take. Nor Herbert Hoover, for that matter.
It doesn't make it any less a crime, just not a crime being adjudicated before a guy in a black robe.
What's ugly about the moment? That Terri wasn't abused? Just doesn't fit with your conspiratorial worldview so it's ugly she wasn't abused; that's a new twist.
Last I saw, this thread is not about Terri Schiavo--no matter how much some of you folks are trying to make it so. We disagree on Schiavo. I will not change my opinion just because the turkeys think I should. Get over it.
Sure she is! Perfect example of the type of weakling jackson preyed upon.
I didn't start mention the other matter on this thread. As you are well aware.
And since you were talking about my responding to something else on this thread, I answered in kind.
I don't know what you think it is that's ugly about this thread that I shouldn't be here...I notice you are here.
So the new rules - you can respond to threads that you wish to respond to but I shouldn't. Interesting twist.
Note, I did not bring up Terri either. I tried to re-read the posts in question, but some of them are missing, so now I frankly don't know who started what. The one where Peach called someone a "class-a liar" remains. What I DO resent is this business (on both sides) of dragging the resentments from those threads into every single topic on Free Republic. Enough already.
Amen to that. I'm glad we're in agreement.
What a whiner.
#1. You are supposed to ping a poster when you mention them. Not that you think the rules are a big deal.
#2. You can clearly see that my first post on this matter was #4, about pedophiles and how they prey on dysfunctional families.
#3. I don't know who had a post deleted. And neither do you. But it happens every time this topic comes up because we have some sick freepers.
#4. Post #8 was addressed to me and attempted to drag a conversation from another thread onto this one. Another rule breaker.
#5. Grow up and quit whining. Sheesh. You make an obnoxious post to me. I respond and you go running to the Mods.
Pinging Peach to #112, as required.
Now, will you DROP this nonsense?
That's rich, coming from someone who accused me of doing something I didn't do and then running to the mods when it was pointed out by several freepers I didn't do what you think I did.
You need help. Seriously.
That's it exactly. If we can see that this poor woman is spastic, fragmented, jittery and frazzled, then most certainly Michael Jackson could see it, and made the most of it while going after her cancer-stricken little boy. Now, to add insult to injury, his million dollar defense team is doing the same........making the most of a splintered woman.
One wouldn't expect Phyllis Schlafly's child to become one of Michael Jackson's victims!
....and I agree w. you about Geraldo at least. Rita, the fat rabbit, tries to make her stories interesting with an excess of over-the-top enthusiasm, in my opinion, but Geraldo (5 times married) becomes a blatant, obnoxious advocate! He might as well be a member of Jackson's defense team...........and that woman lawyer who represents Jackson's parents is equally obnoxious.....so much so that I've forgotten her miserable name.
Char
Oh, puhleeeze, ColoCdn, spare me the nonsense. The two sets of circumstances are drastically different. I don't give a rat's butt what you think of Michael Shiavo, nor am I at all motivated to try to change your mind. However, Michael Shiavo has never been accused IN LAW of a crime.
In about the starkest contrast possible, Michael Jackson has ADMITTED TO sleeping with young boys. He has a long, very public record of luring troubled familes to his estate, and then doing, shall we say, unusual things with them.
You zealots also cannot have it both ways. You cannot, on the one hand, screech about the Shiavo case on religious grounds while excusing the atrocious behavior of Jackson. A middle-aged man luring unrelated young boys into his home and sleeping with them is morally wrong period. Jackson's fame, celebrity and wealth do not excuse him.
Well stated. As always.
Not to carry on unpleasant feelings--but apparently Post #8 has been reinstated, and I am able to see that indeed, it did not start with Peach. I only bring this up now because I feel a public apology is in order. Peach, I'm sorry I got it wrong.
Wolfstar, thanks for your post--if not for that, I wouldn't have noticed the reappearance of #8.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.