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.
And if you admitted that on national television, it would be grounds for a successful appeal.
Juries are not about vengeance; they're about convicting on the facts of a particular case unless there is reasonable doubt.
You have no business serving on any jury.
If I were a juror on this case, I'd only convict Jackson if I could also convict the mother, too. The fact that Jackson was on trial while the kid's mother was never charged with child endangerment (for letting him stay at Neverland despite knowing full well that he was sleeping in Jackson's bed) is what kept me from giving half a sh!t about how the case ended.
Sneddon did suck it up and he needs to be fired after this fiasco and never work again.
But, I would have hung the jury if necessary to keep him from being declared not guilty.
So you don't care about the child himself, whether or not Jackson abused him. You just care about punishing the mother. So it's okay to let Jackson go free? I'm assuming from what you're saying that you think Jackson is indeed a child molester?
I disagree with everything in your post.
p.s. This is his FIRST trial that ended in a verdict.
None of that changes the fact that the allegation has to be believable.
What exactly would you propose? that all allegations be believed without question? This kid and this family had a track record for fraud. Should that not be considered? I think we also do have to admit that the early unquestionability of these kinds of allegations has led to a rash of false allegations in everything from divorce cases to revenge against teachers and the like. Exactly what is the cure then?
Well lucky for you, you don't get to decide if I serve or not.
I will do what is right, and Jackson is guilty. Regardless of whether the specific case was proven, I would vote guilty to protect the kids.
You obviously would rather protect Jackson than the innocent children.
Mainly proof that Jackson surrounds himself with thugs, opportunists, and criminals--they're the only ones who can stomach what he does.
If only one of the kids he slept with says that something untoward happened, and the jury doesn't believe that kid, how do you do that?
I'm wondering what kind of evidence you would deem sufficient to actually convict Michael Jackson of child molestation? Obviously his public statement that he sleeps with young boys in the same bed isn't enough, nor is the case the DA put together enough. So what IS enough for a conviction?
No, he's not "innocent." I wouldn't pick up the phone and call 911 to save that freak's life.
Having said that, I would also point out that in this case he was not necessarily "guilty" under the standards of criminal justice in this country.
Remember, when a defendent is acquitted, the jury hasn't determined that he's "innocent" -- they determine that he's "not guilty." That's a huge distinction that appears to be lost on a lot of folks here.
That was the reason for being able to bring in the "past acts." It was to show a pattern. The jury chose to ignore it.
Well, I hope nothing happens to your children. And you had better hope that I'm not on the jury. I'll show you the same courtesy you've shown the accuser's mother in this case.
Two previous Jackson acquaintances were paid off, and refused to testify.
Unfortunately, they called 'past acts' who testified to no abuse (Caulkin)
Did the other child from the earlier case testify?
So how are you going to convict a man of child molestation in this country, if MIchael Jackson - the biggest, most obvious child molester in the WORLD, and someone who publicly and on television admits to sleeping with young boys in the same bed, gets off? What is "enough" evidence, when people don't care to convict him just on the basis of that one statement alone. Just the very statement he has made that he sleeps with young boys should be enough to convict him in all cases. What do you think he's doing with those kids?
But the jury has to be told about that in the context of the testimony. They only get what the prosecutor presents to them.
If, as is stated elsewhere on this thread, the prosecutor FAILED to provide an expert in the area of child abuse, "grooming", and child abuse accommodation syndrome, he is a total incompetent.
When you add prosecutorial incompetence to the amount of dirt and sleaziness proved WRT to the mother in this case, you have a sure loser on your hands. The prosecutor had to KNOW he had a credibility problem with this parent and this child, the best way to counteract that would have been with an authoritative, credentialed expert who could lay out the story line for the jury. (A good prosecutor doesn't just showboat and hold press conferences - he gives the jury a story line to follow throughout the evidence.)
I can't believe he didn't do this. He must be the worst DA in California.
Bullsh*t. You are acting as though it's all about race. It's all about being able to afford a great criminal defense atty.
Just look at the disparity of incarceration rates between the races that the justice system released last year... Caucasins on average are arrested for illegal use of drugs as much as any race, but when it comes to serving time, blacks and hispanics invariably are the ones face the consequences of their own actions..
It is a fact that minorities committ more crimes. And again, the perps who get off usually do so because they can afford the best lawyers. It's not about race...
Just one word of advice for anyone who doesn't believe a word of what I'm saying: if ever in the future you're accused of a crime you didn't commit, you better ask your attorney to pick as many dark skinned individuals to be on the jurror panel as possible... We might be your only shot at someone truly believing you're innocent..
You're losing your own argument. Michael Jackson didn't have any dark skinned jurors and he was set free. So will you argue that Michael Jackson isn't REALLY a black man?
"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?"
Yes, I believe he is innocent of molestation and of providing alcohol to minors.
I don’t think it is normal for a man to sleep with boys as often as he does, but it is not criminal.
Jackson has a serious mental problem. He has the mentality of a 12 year old. I suspect that is due to the abuse and traumatic childhood he endured. Many abused children have that problem: They fail to mature. Jackson loves children as playmates, not sex toys. He seems to see himself as a 12 year old. He needs therapy and the help to mature.
For a normal man with no mental problems, sleeping with children is suspect. For a man with an abused history and significant signs of failing to mature, it is not suspect of criminal behavior but a clear indication the person needs help.
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.