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.
Yeah, he would have been better to stay focused on a relatively small group of serious charges and just build the case up in intensity instead of diluting it with the side charges. The conspiracy charge was a bad idea - I never did get that whole thing anyway, and the crazy mom was a disaster. The DA didn't do a good job. That said, I'd still have found the SOB guilty on something anyway as there was certainly enough evidence to produce reasonable doubt of guilt as we all know he's a pedophile.
The mother remarried to a great man, an Army Major. Who has put the boys in a Military School.
The boys are making excellent grades and doing well by all accounts.
I am very happy for them.
She ain't doin' nothing in my face, b/c I don't see her.
I am ignoring her posts.
I'm amazed that there are still people who buy this Peter Pan crap. I bet the Netherlands are full of people in green leotards with fairy sidekicks.
My mistake, DeeJay, I assumed from your handle you were a guy - guess it proves what they say about assuming :)
Is it true this was NOT allowed? OMG
I think much of the problem lies in the circus atmosphere, huge load of issues, and the horrendous lengths of these trials. Out of the major trials out there in the last several years -- OJ, Peterson, Blake and now Jackson -- only Peterson was convicted No one can tell me that in the other three, the jurors were at fault.
Judges need to get a grip on the proceedings, make the lawyers focus on one or two key issues, hold down all the unnecessary witnesses (what did, for example, Macauley Culkin really contribute as a witness here) and keep the length of these trials down to a max of 2 weeks, maybe shorter.
I thought Dr. Katz testified to
patterns of pedophiles.
So it is simply impossible, in your mind, that 12 jurors would sit through a 14 week trial, and all come to the conclusion that all ten counts were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
I don't find that implausible at all. In fact, once the prosecution witnesses started changing stories under cross examination, I would have doubted anything they said.
I have to disagree about the jurors. As far as I can remember , these cases were all pretty clear cut - OJ and Blake certainly were, with Blake's perhaps being the MOST clear cut. HE had a damn gun in the restaurant. I think Peterson's case was pretty reasonable too. I do think that juries are frequently either biased or stupid or both - they're selected for that (and the general populace isn't that bright these days anyway). THe Jackson jury is composed of morons. Absolute morons. Have you been listening to them for the past few hours? Not a single MENSA candidate in that group. Sometimes people just ARE dumb, and sometimes you get a bunch of them together in one room. That's what happened here. As you say, the DA did not do a good job with the case, but there's enough evidence that a reasonable, non-Michael Jackson fan (I bellieve half of the jury admitted to being MJ fans before the trial began) would have found him guilty of at least one of the charges. This was just a case of stupid fans vindicating their hero and probably hoping to make a buck off it themselves.
"You are pathetically naive and are just the type of target criminals prey on."
That was the dumbest, most emotionally driven response yet.
I believe those of you who fail to understand the issues here are naive and the primary reason we have juries instead of lynch mobs.
"This case eventually boiled down to he said - she said, and that's not enough to convict.
"
I totally agree. My point was that even though the prosecution delivered tons of so-called evidence, none proved guilt.
In fact, the he-said-she-said aspect was destroyed when the prosecution witnesses couldn't keep their stories straight.
So did the defense witnesses.
Leno, comes to mind.
He said the mother or boy, didn't ask him for a bloody thing.
Same w/Chris Tucker, he said the bio dad did ask for $. Tucker gave him $1500.
Not one witness, testified the mom or the kid(s) asked them for anything. Except prayers.
The mother asked for "prayers." Several, from both sides, testified to that.
Yes, it is literally impossible for me to imagine any 12 people of ordinary common sense with some knowledge of Michael Jackson's past and his admittance of sleeping with little boys, to find this man not guilty of all charges. I literally cannot imagine anyone with a brain doing this. I know these jurors are morons anyway as that's obvious from just listening to them, but they also appear to be Michael Jackson fans (that's probably redundant though) and not terribly literate or well informed.
Several of the jurors have already admitted that they do indeed believe he IS a child molester, but they let him go anyway. So the next set of victims has them to thank. When you know that someone is a predator - a child molester, you should take whatever opportunity comes your way to have him locked up provided you have a half-assed realistic case to do so. And they did. The case was far from perfect, but it was good enough. Sometimes that's all that you need - a case that's good enough as NONE of them are perfect. Proof is usually a matter of opinion. At the very least, he was plying these kids with alcohol.
"Characteristics of a Pedophile:"
First, no one can say what a peophile profile looks like: They are all different. You have been watching too many television programs that try to describe "profilers". The fact is that the vast majority of profilers get the criminal profile wrong.
Second, I, me, yes, me, fit that description. I have been described as a big kid. I have no children and love to pamper other people's children. I race dirt bikes, love to fly, play computer games, keep exotic pets, believe children are devine and pure at heart, and generally love children.
This "profile" is complete garbage. It doesn't fit the Catholic priests, now does it?
What would you consider "evidence"?
"You are saying that children who have bad or neglectful parents are free game for whatever happens to them."
Not at all. Read my comments again and stop being so emotional. My God you're becomming neurotic about this.
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.