OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly. What do these three have in common?
Let’s see, two pedophiles and a murderer, no that’s not it. Two singers and a murderer, no that not it. Two guys who are nose deep in debt and one who isn’t, no, not that one....I give up. :-)
“OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly. What do these three have in common?”
They are all on Obama’s short list for V.P.?
Rich celebrities. Two Black, one White.
Easy question, although there are three distinct answers.
Answer 1: They are all celebrities, and the legal system has an interesting way of letting celebrities off the hook (of any color, race or creed by the way)
Answer 2: They are all wealthy enough to afford the best criminal defense money can buy, and a good defense team is a very good prime indicator of whether you are going to hang or going to waltz (there is a reason that a top echelon of lawyers exist that are greatly paid for their services .....it's because they are simply that good, and your typical Government prosecutor is simply not good enough against such)
Answer 3: The prosecution (to use the tail end of answer 2) is simply not good enough (basically, this is the culmination of all the three answers .....you normally have a prosecution that is used to going after two-bit marijuana peddlars, and while they may be quite good at throwing the book at weed sellers, they are woefully inadequate when it comes to people who can ACTUALLY afford a real legal defense. This is where you see PERFECT cases being torn to shreds .....think of the OJ case. Everyone knows that he killed those two people, and the evidence was all there. But it was bungled from the start, to the point whereby his legal team simply started picking off targets one by one. Something many people on FR don't get is that there is a difference between a criminal case and a civil case. In a civil case you only need to prove someone is 51% likely to be guilty, which is why OJ very quickly lost the civil case. However, in a criminal case you need to prove beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. Now, if you have a multi-million dollar lawyer line of funds, and those lawyers are going up against prosecutors who, while perfect against local jay-walkers have never faced up against legal maestros, then it is very easy for those lawyers to create a reasonable doubt. For example the OJ case started very strong, but by the end of it there was so mcuh flak that the prosecutors couldn't handle ....for isntance the cop coming up and saying that the evidence was not contaminated, and the defense team pulling up a video showing that same cop touching evidence without gloves)
Anyways, maybe the answer you wanted is that they are all black. But that is not the reason here ....for that matter most of the jury were White.
The problem is a combination of the three answers above. Mix a celebrity, with money, and a prosecution better used to going after 100 dollar a week Weed peddlars .....and the celeb will almost always get out. Whether the celeb is white or black, male or female, somewhat smart or with the IQ of a Paris Hilton ....it doesn't matter. They will get out.
As an aside .....this is why in business criminal cases (especially when they are trying to 'make a point') there are special prosecution teams that handle such cases. When they go after the GlobalCrossings and Enrons they do not just pull up some anti-jaywalking prosecutor .....they bring it people who can be able to match the crack-defense teams word for word and point for point.
However, when it comes to celebrities, it is always the same .....a celeb with money, money to get the best legal team, against a prosecution team that RAPIDLY discovers it is way out of its league.
Just like the OJ case, this was also an open and shut case. From what i've read, the perp shot himself in HIS house, with awards he had won in the background, and had an identifiable mark (maybe a birthmark or mole?) on his person that was identifiable in the video. And the guy got off.....
He could have been white, or female, or an Asian transexual .....fact remains that money (and the small intelligence to use that money to get a defense team that could get the devil some time off) vs a 'normal' prosecution will almost always result in you waltzing free.
The only exception to the above is in business fraud cases, where you can be certain that the prosecution is smart enough to fend off a mensa chess team, and knowledgeable enough to start a top-15 performing hedge Fund. And when the Government wants to make a point with you. That is the only time all the money in the world does not avail much.
In all other cases, always bet for the perp with money and a gilded defense team. Always. Be they black, white, or a one-legged Papua new Guinea cannibal chief with a bad case of the clap!