Congratulations Michael, now please, get help

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 14, 2005

[MizSterious]

I'm not a Nancy Grace fan either, but her question was a common-sense question, and one I wish the jurors had asked themselves before they set Chester the Molester free to hurt more children. And, frankly, she doesn't seem half as vindictive as Jackson's minions who fanned out all over every television interview show possible. Sneddon a member of the KKK? Oh, please. (That, courtesy of Jackson's mother.)

[rwfromkansas]

oh golly, the race card.

Perhaps the reason more blacks are in jail is that you guys do more crimes.

[CharacterCounts]

The prosecutor simply did a horrible job, and has allowed a pedophile to walk.

The best baker in the world can't bake a cake unless he has the ingredients.

I think they should have held off even charging MJ unless and until they developed a more solid case.

[American Butterfly]

I believe he did put one on. If he didn't then, the judge may not have allowed it.

[shellshocked]

"You know, someone should tell Arnold that the state can save a lot of money by just not trying celebrity cases in the first place--the juries will just cut them loose, so why bother?"


The state could save a lot of money if they just wouldn't have trials. I mean the seriousness of the charges says we should have just locked Jackson up the day the mother can forward, right?

Actually, the state could save a ton of dough if they would stop having DAs get star struck and prosecuting weak cases for the glory of it.

[MizSterious]

Others might know for sure, but I really don't recall a single child-molestation expert who testified. I'm pinging Howlin, who might have a better memory.

[rwfromkansas]

I would have found him guilty, even if he didn't molest this kid.

[rwfromkansas]

I mean, he should go to jail just for sleeping with little boys.

Too bad I wasn't on the jury.

[blueblazes]

It wasn't a great case, I agree. However, that's what a prosecutor is going to get with Michael Jackson - not great cases because he chooses his victims carefully and they'll all eventually sort into the "nuts and sluts' defense.

Bottom line: Michael Jackson has publicly admitted he sleeps with unrelated young boys in the same bed. Should a 45 year old man be allowed to do this?

[roses of sharon]

I love the conspirazoids, and so does the defense.

Everyone is lying, for decades, except MJ of course!

[ncpatriot]

Character disordered people don't see themselves as the problem. The problem, acc to them, is outside themselves ie everyone else.

Neurotic people, on the other hand, are opposite. They see themselves as being the problem.

[sinkspur]

He did? Which one? Got proof?

What does MJ do when he crawls into bed with one of these kids?

The problem is, he paid off two, and this one had a nutty mother who has a history of litigiousness.

[American Butterfly]

Nancy Grace is all right with me. Her politics may not be mine, but, she speaks up for victims and that makes her all right with me!

[blueblazes]

EXACTLY. Just the fact that he sleeps with little boys alone, and that he has stated that publicly is the reason he should go to jail. That, in and of itself, is wrong, and harmful to the children.

[TheOtherOne]

Jackson molested children, but the prosecution simply didn't prove that he molested this child.

I have been surprised at all the charges that there must be other victims. I would assume this would have been the time to come forward. Their stories would be believed and add weight to the prosecution claims. But nobody else showed up. Where are all these victims, surely they heard he was on trial.

A boy sleeping with a man is highly inappropriate, but absent any other behavior is not aginst the law. MJ is admittedly guilty of sleeping with children and has been for years. Did that fact, even absent molesting, bother the mother?

[we must be careful what laws we ask for. I would not want one that made a criminal out of me for watching a video with my nephew and both of us falling asleep in a bed.]

[Alberta's Child]

Oh, stop the dramatics, would you? The child isn't being "punished" because of his mother -- his alleged molester is being acquitted because his mother was a terrible witness for the prosecution. The child himself was a terrible witness for the prosecution, too. In some cases this would not have been a problem, but when the prosecution is predicated on the testimony of just a few witnesses -- all of whom have credibility problems -- then it's easy to see how this would have ended in an acquittal.

I knew Jackson was going to be acquitted when the prosecutor promised the jury that they would hear damning testimony from a number of key witnesses, and none of that testimony lent any credibility whatsoever to the charges that had been brought against Jackson.

[shellshocked]

"And MJ is GUILTY. Any sane person knows it to be true. "


Any sane American would ask for proof before making such a conclusion. Our founding fathers knew that, hence the Constitution, instead of jailing people on suspicion.

[blueblazes]

I'm not sure if you answered me. Do you believe Michael Jackson is innocent?

[MizSterious]

And now that we've heard from the Jackson fan section...

Earth to shellshocked: HE'S ADMITTED TO SLEEPING WITH LITTLE BOYS AND SAYS IT'S "SWEET." The guy's a pervert. No man in his 40's sleeps with little boys with any kind of honorable intentions. Anyone who thinks they do--well, let me say I have some nice waterfront land to sell, adjacent to the swamp in Louisiana--and a terrific bridge in Brooklyn.

[blueblazes]

I would ask you the same question I asked Alberta's Child. DO you believe Michael Jackson is innocent? Furthermore, do you think it's okay for a 45 year old man to be sleeping in the same bed with unrelated young boys?