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.
"pompous buffoon "
With a comment like that, I can tell you have no substance to offer. Must be nice to live in a 8th grade world.
Yes it is true. I read in an earlier thread that Sneddon wanted to introduce some expert witness, FBI, I believe, and the "judge" wouldn't allow it. I always put "judge" in parenthese nowadays as I think that's about all they deserve. Makes you wonder how else the "judge" helped MJ.
Why am I not surprised?
"I literally cannot imagine anyone with a brain doing this."
Because you have none. You are emotionally driven. A lynch mob.
*Snicker*
I'm not the one who says that I fit the profile of a child molester, which I think you just said about yourself a few posts ago. If I were you, I'd change some of my habits.
I take child molestation seriously and I think Michael Jackson needs to be stopped. A grown man should not be sleeping withh little boys. If you can't understand that, what can I say?
EXACTLY. It clearly indicates that they were biased in favor of the defendant from the start. They had no intention of actually "reviewing" the evidence as their minds had been made up. These people are not only morons, they're morally corrupt too.
This could be the one factual post by you on this thread.
Yes, they are the real words; his fan sang them the entire time the trial was going on -- outside the courtroom.
Let me see. You click on a thread that's about a topic in which you have no interest, let alone knowledge, where you find people you don't like. Like a sort of would-be Hitler, you try to dictate what can or cannot be said, and try to declare the entire topic null and void rather than click on some other thread, or go to some other board. When people don't agree with you, you resort to name calling.
That, Marguerite, is the very essence of what trolls do. I suggest you take your ignorant, trolling self off to some other thread, perhaps one where you actually have some knowledge and interest.
Yeah, I'm funny that way. I get really upset when I see the world's biggest, serial child molester be acquitted of all charges by a jury of morons. Go figure. I mean, why should it bother me that a 45 year old man likes to sleep with pre-teen boys and pays them off when they threaten to go to the authorities? It's all good clean Peter Pan "fun", right?
Can somebody tell me when EXACTLY Free Republic became loaded with pedophilia defenders?
Probably since they cut back the staff at Neverland.
If you find out for sure, let me know. I had heard that he did not testify. I might have heard wrong.
if the evidence was insufficient, the evidence was insufficient and i can't fault the jury for that. but there is no doubt in my mind that he did the stuff and i do NOT have to presume him innocent simply bc he was not convicted, bc all that verdict says is that it was NOT PROVEN, not that it didn't HAPPEN. he will do it again and that is a tragedy. he clearly will feel validated by this verdict, since he has NEVER felt he did anything wrong.
AND, if i want to sit here and bellyache about this verdict til the dang cows come home, that is my perogative notwithstanding the FRENCH ; )
Wish I knew, but they're sure here.
I think we should all consider what constitutes "evidence" or "proof". There is nothing set in stone about what constitutes proof in most areas, it's actually a matter of opinion. Some juries would have been convinced by an eye witness - others might want a DNA report and a videotape of the act taking place at Town Hall at noon. What is "proof"? We know from Michael Jackson's own words that he sleeps with little boys. He has publicly admitted that. That is a fact for which he should be prosecuted. On top of that we know his history, in which he pays off millions to other little boys so they don't go to the authorities. We know that he fits the classic profile of a pedophile. In this case we have the eyewitness reports backed by physical evidence of the drinking and porn magazines. In short, even with all the flaws in the case there was more than an enough "proof" as proof is inherently subjective, for a jury to find this obvious pedophile GUILTY and put him away at least on a minor charge so he does not continue to molest children. That they did not do so, is absolutely scandalous, and speaks volumes about the absolute uselessness of our criminal justice system - at least for celebrities.
If you cannot convict the world's most open and obvious pedophile, Michael Jackson, how can you convict ANY pedophile? The kids will generally come from the same woe-begotten types of families and backgrounds because that's what these predators look for. It comes down to what the jury wants to believe. And they wanted to believe that Michael Jackson was not guilty.
I think jury selection might be harder for the prosecution as the defense gets so many challenges, etc, that it's probably hard for the prosecution to find a jury of people with IQs beyond room temperature. That's a big part of the problem nowadays, the juries are just so damn dumb. The jury system really needs revamping. It's obvious from listening to these morons that they don't have what it takes to evaluate a case like this, nor would they have the interest. I believe most of them started off believing Jackson was innocent from DAY ONE and just kept on believing that. No amount of "evidence" or "proof" would have dissuaded them from this belief.
The jury system needs to be re-modelled desperately. We need to get more intelligent, educated people on juries. At least people who can understand English (I could be wrong but I believe one of the jurors needed an interpreter) and evalute evidence and explain their reasoning.
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.