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.
No. The man did not know what his witnesses were going to say. And when they said things pro-defense, they weren't challenged by differing statements given at their deposition. The case was a travesty. Sneddon should at the least be fired.
I think we can agree to disagree here and leave it at that, shall we ?
Reality check #2--only people who live in LaLaLand would believe that Jackson slept with those boys every night without anything "sekshooool" happening. Especially since so many of his staff have reported things like his request for a jar of vaseline, and when he opened his bedroom door to take it from the employee, he had a full-blown erection. And oh--there was a child visitor in his room that night. The judge wouldn't permit this testimony, but he should have.
The DA's case was just fine. No case, no amount of evidence would have convinced this jury, not even videotapes of molestation. After watching some of these jurors, I'm convinced they mistook the jury instructions to mean "any doubt whatsoever" instead of "all reasonable doubt."
I agree. The DA did the best he could and he actually presented a much stronger case than many other DA's who have obtained molestation convictions. The problem was the pro Jackson bias of the jurors. There was nothing he could do to change that.
I just talked to a relative who sat on a jury for a child molestation case locally. It was a couple of years ago. He stated that there was far LESS evidence presented at that trial than at the Jackson trial, and that they convicted the molester, who had molested two sisters 3 and 7. Only the 7 year old testified (the 3 year old, although 5 at the time of the trial, was deemed too young). The only evidence they had was the children's word. The mother was an alcoholic, kind of what we unkindly call "trailer trash" so not exactly likeable either.
In Jackson's case they had:
* A pattern of behavior over the years
* Eyewitnesses to molestation of other boys
* Testimony of other victims
* Collections of soft-porn ("art books" Hah!) used to turn them on
* Testimony and evidence of giving them alcohol (to loosen them up)
---and probably much more. This jury was despicable.
"LaLaLand" doesn't exist as a place, but refers to the suspension of common sense and lack of reality. As an ex-Californian, I'm familiar with Santa Maria.
If he is now a pariah, then well and good. He should be a JAILBIRD, but it's my hope that everyone will shun him.
Remember, they ask you to leave your common sense in the car or at home, with your knives, when you serve on a jury.
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.