Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congratulations Michael, now please, get help
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 14, 2005

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeljackson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 601-609 next last
To: sinkspur

Note to those considering child molestation: go for children with mothers who have a history of bilking companies and celebrities.


181 posted on 06/14/2005 9:04:10 AM PDT by johnb838 (In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes
How can a man publicly admit to sleeping with unrelated young boys in the same bed, be allowed to do this?

How can a mother publicly admit to allowing her son to sleep in the same bed as a strange man in his 40s and expect anyone to believe her when she claims that the guy molested her son? The basic problem with this case is that almost every one of the key players is a freakin' loony-tune. You shouldn't expect some high-minded principles of justice to be served when all of the people involved in a case are loony-tunes.

I fully expected Jackson to be convicted of serving alcohol to a minor, but after reading a number of posts here on FR this morning I'm not so sure about this charge. Someone on another thread with a legal background explained that the formal charge was "serving alcohol to a minor with the intent of molesting him" or something like that. Once the jury decided to acquit Jackson of molesting the child, there was no rational reason to convict him of the alcohol charge as it was presented by the prosecution.

182 posted on 06/14/2005 9:05:33 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Jackson molested children, but the prosecution simply didn't prove that he molested this child. And that's really unfortunate.

The prosecutors should all be disbarred for incompetence.

183 posted on 06/14/2005 9:05:56 AM PDT by dfwgator (Flush Newsweek!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The system failed the boys that have been molested by Jackson, the boys that will be molested by Jackson in the future, and it failed Jackson himself. He needs to be stopped, locked up, and given the mental health care that he needs.

I seem to be alone in fearing the worst for 'his' three kids. You know damn well he's already diddled with them. One day this jury will be reading about the sexual molestation he put his kids through when they're old enough to tell. He cannot help himself because he is a pedophile. As I said before, I wish insomnia on the jury for the rest of their nights...

184 posted on 06/14/2005 9:06:59 AM PDT by demkicker (A skunk sat on a stump; the stump thunk the skunk stunk; the skunk thunk the stump stunk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Cmonster

People like you are the reason O.J. got off.

You are a racist. Broadbrushing Suburban White America as one monolithic group. The irony is, you don't recognize it, because you are too busy smearing Suburban White America (SWA or "The Man") as racists.


185 posted on 06/14/2005 9:07:01 AM PDT by SerpentDove (Don't we all have a little Spongebob in us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Mauley Culkin is one messed up kid. We see that from his life in general. Maybe nothing did happen with him. BUT...do you think that a 45 year old man should be allowd to sleep in the same bed with unrelated little boys? SHould that one thing in and of itself be allowed? I don't think so. THere might be one man in a million who is not molesting kids under that circumstance, but it would be incredibly rare. I think we have to make the assumption, in the interests of protecting children, that a man who sleeps with little boys is molesting them. How do you stop Jackson from doing this?


186 posted on 06/14/2005 9:07:11 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: shellshocked
Read this and keep telling yourself Michael Jackson is simply immature. "These are merely indicators and it should not be assumed that individuals with these characteristics are pedophiles. But knowledge of these characteristics coupled with questionable behavior can be used as an alert that someone may be a pedophile."

Characteristics of a Pedophile :

  Often the pedophile is male and over 30 years of age. Single or with few friends in his age group.

If married, the relationship is more "companion" based with no sexual relations.

Pedophiles Like Child-like Activities: 

He is often fascinated with children and child activities appearing to prefer those activities to adult oriented activities.

He will often refer to children in pure or angelic terms using descriptives like innocent, heavenly, divine, pure, and other words that describe children but seem inappropriate and exaggerated.

He has hobbies that are child-like such as collecting popular expensive toys, keeping reptiles or exotic pets, or building plane and car models.

187 posted on 06/14/2005 9:07:39 AM PDT by spectre (Spectre's wife)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes
What is reasonable doubt? What is "enough" evidence?

It depends on the case.

188 posted on 06/14/2005 9:08:07 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Oh come on....Nancy Grace is a disgrace; trying and convicting on her TV show. Give me a break.

Remember how she conducted herself with the family whose 2 little kids drowned? Her and her show is an outrage!!! Take it off the air!!!!

189 posted on 06/14/2005 9:09:33 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes
If the jury had any common sense they would have convicted him on a lesser charge - of alcoholism - so that Jackson could get the help he needs, stop molesting little boys, and stop creating future victims.

Didn't you know that there is no cure for pedophilia? The man needed to be locked up for many, many years.

190 posted on 06/14/2005 9:09:53 AM PDT by demkicker (A skunk sat on a stump; the stump thunk the skunk stunk; the skunk thunk the stump stunk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

You are falling into the same trap of blaming the mother. Very easy to do isn't it, rather than blaming the real villain - Michael Jackson. So the mother is a nut. That's the kind of family child molester LOOK for. That's the background they want. But that has nothing to do with whether Jackson is actually molesting children. And you know damn well that he is. How can he be stopped without legal intervention? And what kind of evidence is "enough" particularly in light of the kinds of vulnerable kids he targets?


191 posted on 06/14/2005 9:10:27 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Cmonster

You're so full of shi'ite you stink.


192 posted on 06/14/2005 9:11:27 AM PDT by johnb838 (In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes

Why are you putting the entire burden of this acquittal on the jurors? If everything you've said is true, then the entire prosecution team should be fired for incompetence.


193 posted on 06/14/2005 9:11:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

This jury doesn't give a flaming rat's rear end whether Jackson molested these children or not. I simply refuse to believe that. They just don't give a damn. IF they did, they would have found him guilty on a lesser charge just to stop him from this behavior. They don't care.


194 posted on 06/14/2005 9:11:57 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
I wonder why MJ defenders here are so angry at those who disagree with them and the jury.

Their guy won! He is free to "love" again.

All these rationalizations for the ridicules conspirazoid defense that all the families, children, employees, police, DA, all were lying for decades, and MJ is a poor victim, is laughable.

I rolled my eyes everytime I read a transcript from the court.

This jury fell for the conspiracy against MJ defense, MJ won, why all the consternation from MJ fans here.
195 posted on 06/14/2005 9:12:42 AM PDT by roses of sharon (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes
I think that's why we have to look at the pattern of behavior with this guy and his own public admission that he sleeps with young boys. That, in and of itself, and that alone, should be enough to convict him.

Except that young boys testified that nothing happened when they slept with Jackson. There was only one accuser who said Jackson molested him. Unfortunately, he has a mother who makes a living suing celebrities.

Even if no credible accusers came forward to charge Jackson,(much less convict him), you'd still send him to jail?

What kind of justice system is that?

196 posted on 06/14/2005 9:13:39 AM PDT by sinkspur (If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

Perhaps if they had prosecuted the mother to show that her behavior was not acceptable then the jury would have not given the verdict just to get back at her.

I hope Michael does get help, he could get his white glove attire from the Beat it days for a start.


197 posted on 06/14/2005 9:15:05 AM PDT by Delmont (Zuwarah-Love of my life, Velveeta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

IT has to start somewhere - and if the case was not strong enough to convict him on the major charges - hell I would have of course, but these jurors are morons, then a conviction on a lesser charge would have been something. But to let him go scot-free on to molest other children is absolutely disgraceful.


198 posted on 06/14/2005 9:15:23 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: blueblazes
You are falling into the same trap of blaming the mother.

No, I'm not. The mother wasn't just a side show in this case -- she was one of the key witnesses in the case for the prosecution. I wish this freak could have been left out of this whole story so nobody would have to talk about her, but failing to point out the obvious problems with this woman would be like writing a story about the Titanic and neglecting to mention this little thing called an iceberg.

199 posted on 06/14/2005 9:15:36 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

You seem to forget the big pay outs that Jackson rendered. If he was so innocent then why did he settle numerous times in the past?


200 posted on 06/14/2005 9:15:54 AM PDT by American Butterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 601-609 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson