Posted on 06/14/2005 7:32:32 AM PDT by Asphalt
Michael Jackson's fans were cheering and hugging each other Monday outside the courtroom where he was acquitted on all counts in his child molestation case. But it was impossible for us to get excited over the verdict. You could feel relief that this case was over and the 46-year-old "King of Pop" had gotten his day in court, but no number of "not guilty" pronouncements could erase the taint of the "lifestyle" choices that got him into trouble.
As Jackson was driven away in a funereal black vehicle, under the gaze of a now standard-issue helicopter camera, we wondered how he will respond to being freed of accusations some experts were sure he would be convicted of and even those who thought otherwise acknowledged came dangerously close to criminal behavior. Will the owner and aging lost boy of Neverland continue to insist he is pure of heart and spirit, did nothing wrong in sleeping with underage boys and faces no greater challenge than being misunderstood? Or will he respond to his brush with years in prison by facing up to his psychological problems and seeking help for them?
In saying "the healing process must begin," Jesse Jackson may have been talking about recovering from the grueling trial and its coverage. But Michael Jackson has deeper personal issues to deal with -- including, possibly, being in a state of denial. His strange appearance at the courtroom in his pajamas, his stomping on the roof of his SUV, his mystery trips to the E.R. certainly did nothing to establish his stability.
He will live with the knowledge that he owes his freedom to the prosecution's haphazard case as much as his pleas of innocence or any skillful turns by the defense to support them. This was a case, built and rebuilt over a decade by Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, undone by prosecution witnesses seemingly hired by the defense. They included a young accuser who kept changing his story; the accuser's mother, who came off as a gold digger and, in allowing him to sleep in Jackson's bed, a derelict parent, and an ex-wife of Jackson's, Debbie Rowe, who was brought in by prosecutors to testify against him but spoke of what a wonderful father he was. This despite being involved in a custody battle with him.
In the end, even as this verdict is applauded for showing you're not guilty until proven so in this country, it will, for some, confirm the notion that celebrities get their way in the justice system. Will Jackson's biggest media moment since "Thriller" recharge his career, which was on an artistic and commercial decline before the molestation charges were raised? Perhaps if he stops blaming other people for his misfortunes and starts taking responsibility for them. But if he continues living in his fantasy world, any buzz from this trial will wear off as fast as cable news can find another scandal to obsess over.
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.)
oh golly, the race card.
Perhaps the reason more blacks are in jail is that you guys do more crimes.
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.
I believe he did put one on. If he didn't then, the judge may not have allowed it.
"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.
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.
I would have found him guilty, even if he didn't molest this kid.
I mean, he should go to jail just for sleeping with little boys.
Too bad I wasn't on the jury.
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?
Neurotic people, on the other hand, are opposite. They see themselves as being the problem.
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.
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!
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.
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.]
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.
"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.
I'm not sure if you answered me. Do you believe Michael Jackson is innocent?
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.
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?
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.