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.
Hey, how dogeared is your copy of gay porn?
If you're kids were molested and I was on the jury, I'd let the guy off. (/American Butterfly)
I said I wouldn't answer you but here's my last one. I don't understand what your position is on this Michael Jackson affair. From what I can see, you've stated no real opinions one way or another - until after I pressed you with some questions, and your comments have basically been very critical barbs directed at various posters, regardless of their position on the issue apparently. I don't understand what you're debating frankly or if you're just blowing off some kind of steam.
As for a question you asked me - what question? That comment about Butterfly? That has nothing to do with the Michael Jackson debate. Butterfly has been debating this issue with a variety of posters all day and very ably. She didn't just pop in here attacking people as you have. You might go back and read some of the previous comments throughout the day to see what the discussions have been about. Frankly, that's all I have to say to you.
I've told you this before, but for your sake I'll repeat myself.
I believe Michael Jackson is a pedophile.
I don't know whether this boy was a victim.
I believe the prosecution FAILED MISERABLY in attempting to prove the second statement.
The jury should not be condemned for assuming facts not in evidence.
So Butterfly is ably debating by saying she hopes that a criminal gets away with molesting another poster's children? I don't think so. AB is a child. Perhaps she doesn't know any better. I'm giving her a chance to learn.
BTW, I'm soooo nasty, that when she told me to go to hell I DIDN'T call a mod for abuse or even respond in kind. Guess I better try harder at being nasty, huh? :-)
You may not realize it, but it wasn't just your comments to Butterfly. Your comments to me and to Sinkspur seemed very hostile as well and totally unprovoked. At that point I had no idea of what your position was on anything and considering what you were saying to me, I logically assumed you were a Michael Jackson supporter as that's what you sounded like. At any rate, there's no point in debating it further. Perhaps you're unaware of the tone you were using.
What comment to sink was hostile? I agreed with him completely on this thread!
You are either confusing me with someone else, or you are making things up.
Wondering again why all the anger when their guy is free to "love" again.
He won and they are still angry?
I don't understand it either. I guess they just don't like it when people call a 45 year old man who sleeps with little boys a pedophile. That's the only thing I can figure.
I'm going to pack it in for the night, roses. Have a good one.
If I may butt in here kind of late to the discussion, I think the prosecution did a masterful job. If you had seen some of the dimwit jurors last night.... totally starstruck. One woman chirped that Michael was totally "normal" and saw nothing wrong with any of his behavior. I think she's hoping to go on Oprah. Whoever picked this jury mostly went for the dimmest bulbs.
Just ignore the bastard. He's obviously disturbed.
Does anyone think that Michael Jackson is "normal"??? My point, is if he had kiddie porn, they did not find it. He had "ordinary" porn, which he allegedly showed young boys while he diddled them. He claimed he did no such thing, and that the boys must have gotten into the stash of ordinary porn on their own.
I just typed "The Boy" into Amazon's search engine and apparently got the wrong book.
TRUE REALITY CHECK In our legal system the police have to prove that he actually did bad things, not just have dirty minds.
Oops. I just typed "The Boy" into Amazon's search engine.
What else would a grown middle aged man be doing sleeping with young boys he's not related to in the same bed? C'mon, Nathan, you're smarter than that. Use your common sense. This bull about milk and cookies is just that - bull. This is how child molesters work. This guy is a CLASSIC, text-book case of a child molester. And if you talk to any of them, they'll all give you some bull about how they "love" kids and they want to help them and give them candy and toys. They are mentally ill. Michael Jackson is mentally ill. He should be prevented from having young boys in his house as he has publicly admitted that he sleeps with them. That, in and of itself, is WRONG and should be prevented.
Mike Savage made a great point last night. Many of the pedophile priests were convicted with far less evidence and witnesses than MJ was tried with. That's actually true in many cases. The prosecution's case against MJ was adequate - they had a lot of evidence and eyewitnesses. People rail against the mother but apparently the DA's thinking there was that he had to put her on, whether he wanted to or not as the defense would have put her on anyway. She was going to end up on the stand no matter what. Unfortunately the DA has to prosecute the cases that come before him with the people who come before him. In molestation cases the victim's families will seem odd or disturbed because those are the types of people that molesters target.
It's kind of like trying an organized crime case - your witnesses are not going to be nuns. A reasonably intelligent jury would have to sift through truths, half truths and lies and see what makes sense. This jury was totally incompetent to do that, and moreover, were biased in favor of Jackson from the very start. The jury is disgusting. This case was more than adequate for a conviction of at least some of the charges. This baloney about lack of evidence or a poor case is just that - baloney. It's purely apologetics for a terrible, moronic, star-struck jury who just didn't give a damn about this kid or any other kid Jackson is accused of molesting.
The really unfortunate thing here (beyond the verdict itself) is that the young man who was the victim, was actually very credible. He is a cancer survivor and is now a youth minister and is not someone who seems to be looking for anything other than justice. It's unfortunate he has a crazy mom, but that's not his fault. I understand this young victim is feeling pretty badly today that the jury didn't believe him. I don't think it's just that they didn't believe him - I don't think they gave a damn whether MJ did it or not.
Jury consultants. THey work with the defense attorneys to sculpt a jury to specs - they almost always look for the stupidest people they can find as those are the people who will give them a not guilty verdict. The system sucks, it needs to be re-vamped desperately.
"The problem I find is the lynch mob mentality that says he **must** be guilty, simply because he admitted to reading to young boys in bed."
Nathan - that ALONE should be enough to convict him. His public admittance that he sleeps with young boys in his own bed should be enough to convict him. He's not just reading to them. THat is simply absurd. You'd have to be crazy or an idiot to actually believe that. That is the kind of nonsense any pervert is going to say. A middle aged man does not (and SHOULD NOT) have unrelated young boys in his bed. This man does this on a regular basis and he should be STOPPED. PERIOD. His admittance of doing this is ENOUGH to convict him.
The DA's case was adequate. He has said that he had to put the mother on the stand anyway (which is probably why he came up with the conspiracy charges, after the fact) because she was a loose cannon he was trying to control, and he knew the defense was going to call her anyway. She was going to end up there one way or another. There was nothing the DA could do but try to control the damage. This is the case the DA got, he had to use the people he had.
The DA did a perfectly adequate job with this case. There was more than enough evidence for an unbiased jury of reasonable intelligence to convict Jackson of at least some of the charges. That they did not do so, is not the DA's fault. Pedophile priests have been convicted on far LESS evidence. It is the JURY'S fault this man is now free as they didn't regard the evidence and the majority of them were biased in favor of Jackson from the beginning. Moreover, they are simply STUPID people. That is abundantly clear from listening to them yesterday.
I feel sorry for the victim in this case who has been disrespected both by this terrible jury and by the media. This young cancer survivor, who has turned his life around and has become a youth minister after surviving an obviously traumatic childhood on many levels, is a man to admire. And he was treated like dirt by this jury and by the pro-Jackson media. I am disgusted by it. I hope they all rot in hell.
What makes you think, that I think that Michael is actually innocent??? I ONLY think that the DA did poor job of trying this case. Not only did he fail during jury selection, (one idiot juror thinks that Michael did nothing wrong.) but by calling the mother as a witness (in the unnecessary and confusing conspiracy case) he opened the door for the defending consul to impeach his whole case. If the opposing consul had called her, whole lines of questioning would probably have been ruled out, and the fact that she is a grifter who has lied under oath before, would have been inadmissible. FWIW "Sleep with" does not always mean "have sex with".
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.