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.
It's absolutely appalling. One juror said that perhaps she may write a book! About what?????? She couldn't even put two sentences together to save her ass!
Thanks for that.
She'll be a one-book wonder, with the help of a ghost writer who will probably get most of the profits, if there are any. I won't be buying any books by these jurors.
Jurors, in past cases, have said that, among the reasons they voted for conviction was the fact that they didn't like the defense attorney.
Everything goes into forming the minds of juries. That's why defendants wear coats and ties and not orange jump suits.
The mother sunk the case.
Yup, he grew his own victims. Does anyone really care? All these people who are pretending that "justice" was really done? DO they really give a flying rat's rear end about these kids? I don't think so. You do whatever you can, whatever it takes to protect children - this jury just didn't give a damn. Even if he were buggering a kid before their very eyes, they would have said they needed glasses because they couldn't have just seen what they saw. No amount of evidence would have been enough because this jury would NEVER have convicted Michael Jackson of ANYTHING.
I concur, sink, however; it seemed to me that he would have at least gotten tagged for the "Jesus Juice"?
Bottom line: The man has publicly admitted that he sleeps with unrelated little boys in the same bed. Sir, what do you think he is doing with those kids in that bed, and do you think this should be allowed? I DON'T.
True, but, she is also the one whose grandson is a registered sexual deviant. Should we blame grandma for the way her grandson turned out since she blames the accuser's mother for her past?
I think it will be very difficult for a lot of these cases that might be coming up. For one thing, I am seeing a lot of talk about how there was "no evidence."
The thing is, with molestation, it's hard to find "evidence" other than the child's accusations. Molesters don't usually molest on camera, or in the company of witnesses. Molesting per se is not going to leave the bruises and tearing that a rape would, so there would be little or no physical evidence. Demanding physical evidence to convict is tantamount to giving permission to every pervert in the country to molest at will.
I would like to! Guess the only way I can get back at her is by not buying her (likely incoherent) book.
I'm pretty sure double jeopardy only applies to these particular charges. If he were to molest the same boy again (however unlikely that may be), he could be charged and tried again for that crime, just not for the previous charges.
Double jeopardy only applies to charges already tried.
Well, now, you're right there. Didn't he admit that he gave alcohol to kids and even to this kid?
It isn't the double jeopardy that will get in the way of another trial--it's just that after this one, I doubt most prosecutors will want to dive into another pointless circus like this one.
"I can't help but think of his own children and how much danger they are in now........let alone the weird costumes he makes them wear."
Ditto that, OldFriend! I also would like to know what kind of woman would give birth to a child and hand it over to that sick freak to "raise".
Exactly. I think it's pretty much impossible to convict many of these people (or indeed to even convict on charges like murder) as people don't seem to have a grasp of what Reasonable Doubt might be. I can't even imagine what kind of case you have to construct to get a conviction nowadays - videotapes, dna, doing it on the Boston Common in front of a marching band? Michael Jackson has publicly admitted that he sleeps with unrelated young boys in the same bed. That one FACT, in and of itself, should be enough to get him convicted of something. What do people think he's doing in bed with these boys? Is this "okay"? He has to be stopped. Anyone with a moral sense and sense of responsibility would have found him guilty simply because he needs to be stopped.
If we cannot find the most obvious, flagrant, admitted child molester on the face of the planet, guilty, then what is the point of having these laws at all?
Il faut laver son linge sale en famille!
Like the one graying juror said he can't believe he slept with boys for years and just ate popcorn. Just because they didn't prove beyond a doubt that he didn't have a problem in the past. Look at the book found in his room and I remember a young star coming forth a talking about Michael showing him photos of nude boys when he was young. He said he didn't think it weird then but that now that he is older the behavior was something that you just don't do. Anyway, like the article said hope he gets some help...he only got away by a hair.
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.