Posted on 06/13/2005 5:08:17 PM PDT by Jess Kitting
Since the early 1990s, Santa Barbara, Calif., cops and prosecutors have viewed Michael Jackson not as Peter Pan, but as the wolf in "Little Red Riding Hood" (only this time he likes boys). Two kids have come forward before to accuse Jackson of molesting them, taken multimillion-dollar settlements from the star, and then refused to cooperate. Now the state has blown its chances of nailing him on charges of molesting a third boy, who said that two years ago, when he was 13, Jackson fondled him four or five times. Maybe the jury acquitted Jackson on all counts because the cops got it wrong. Or maybe the problem is that any family crazy enough to get intimately entangled with Jackson—and intimate the relationships are, sex or no sex—is too crazy to be believed, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Is that the actual title to the article? Interesting choice of words.
Find a cute 8 year old boy....
He came in his jammies.
Ah, the children will be much safer now that justice has been served.
Because celebrities can't get convicted of so much as jaywalking in California. I don't care what they've done.
That's why.
Actually it's the subtitle (but quite fitting nonetheless). The title is "Crazy for You."
I like the juror who asked, "What mother in their right mind would serve up their child to Mr. Jackson or any adult male, for that matter?" (Paraphrased)
I'd like to ask, what juror in their right mind would aquit a guy that sleeps with young children? If she wouldn't volunteer her child, there must have been a reason.
If the mom was a turnip and Jackson molested her children anyway, I guess this juror thinks it's okay. These weren't the only children whose testimony was place in the record. Evidently this juror thought they deserved it, probably had a lousy mom. Hey juror, so what?
If you're an ass while sitting on a jury, doest that give people license to do something to your family? Going by your sterling logic it would.
It's the "I can't think my way out of a paper bag, defense." U.S. citizens who serve on juries today, are so dumb that they probably go without ice, having forgotten the recipe.
How Michael Jackson Got Off:
Because it`s California, the France of the Union. Just saw that woman on the jury who voted not guilty because the mother snapped her fingers. Just like France, support the killers, rapists, pedophiles because of an annoyance.
MJ got off because this country and its system's have become so morally ignorant that people no longer know the difference the corrupted and the uncorrupted.
We are up to here with how Michael Jackson got off. What we really want to know is why he wasn't convicted.
Why wasn't he convicted?
Simple.
There was no incontrevertable evidence that he was guilty.
Perhaps the father of the next molested child, will simply shoot the bastard...and be done with it..
Semper Fi
Maybe he should hook up with Ellie Nessler's kid. Actually, I think he just got convicted of murder.
Michael Jackson is the next pope of the Democrat Party...
I have been called for jury duty here in SoCal next week.
I wasn't looking forward to it, but after this horrid travesty, I really don't want anything to do with any of it. It seems all logical thinking is as extinct as the Dodo bird in this state.
Prosecutions strategy: Choose your witnesses with eyes tightly closed. Add in a dab of myopia and lack of sense. Make sure the parents can be easily discredited by the defense. Be assured of a prosecution stratagem that is not air tight. And on top of this have the whole thing be at a level that would work against some 2-but criminal from down the street (eg your typical weed peddlar), but would NOT work against someone with enough money to hire premium legal aid.
Seriously it always amazes me how the prosecution handles people with enough money to get the best legal help as if they were some dumb gang-banger whose only hope is a public defendant. And then you have to consider this was a criminal case, where the case had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And to this add the prosecution fumbling big time several times.
What do I personally think of Michael Jackson? That he is guilty. What would I have done if I was a juror in this case? If I was a good juror, and thus made my judgement based on the evidence presented and not my personal thoughts, then I would have also found him not guilty on most counts. Based on the evidence and witnesses the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is the paramount factor here. My personal thoughts may be that he is guilty, but as a juror the prime directive is to make the judgement call based on the evidence presented and not on personal feelings (at least that is how it is supposed to be, even though there are many times when this is not the case). The prosecution messed up.
thought he would get at least 5 years community service,
in day care centers.....
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.