Wacko Jacko: Is It True Anymore that 'No One Is Above the Law'?

The Richmond [VA] Times-Dispatch ^ | June 16, 2005 | Ross Mackenzie

[quidnunc]

Regarding Monday's acquittals in the Michael Jackson case, what can one believe?

• That prosecutor Tom Sneddon seemingly so similar to the intrepid Inspector Javert tracking Jean Valjean in Les Miserables — did not make the case for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Juror Raymond Hultman implicitly countered, with this: "I feel that Michael Jackson has probably molested boys. To be in your bedroom 365 days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn, that doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't make [Jacko] guilty of the charges that were presented."

• That the jurors looked dispassionately upon all the witnesses, such as the accuser's mother? One juror has said: "What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen — just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone? That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with." Another juror said: "I disliked it intensely when [the mother] snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me, lady!'" Sounds less like dispassion than detestation — and anger at being dissed.

• That mother and son were not truth-tellers but shakedown artists? How can that be, when the testimony of the experiences of the boy at Neverland were confirmed (a) by eyewitness testimony (of his brothers) and (b) by the similar experiences of at least two boys who over the past dozen years — settled with Jacko for oh, about $20 million?

Or maybe we are supposed to believe that:

• Neverland — Never-Neverland? was not a pederast's lair with pedophilic pornography and "Jesus juice" soft drinks laced with booze.

• The real victim in this and other cases was not a pubescent boy — but Jacko himself, merely a sweet mincing falsetto freak …

-snip-

[A CA Guy]

There was no case, bad witnesses and even the accuser claimed his mother molested him before.

What other result from not guilty could there be with a reasonable jury?

[TheGeezer]

I believe in the justice system.

Wacko Jacko is innocent.

[proudofthesouth]

You forgot to add the sarcasm tag.

[A CA Guy]

The brother's testimony did not jive with each other and even JC Pennys settled with cash with these con artists who now confessed they lied under oath.

So based on that, you also by the same logic have to figure JC Pennys is hires security that likes to molest to since they paid to have these weirdos leave as well rather than get publicity with it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Well said.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What about Jackson's past? Why don't you bring that up? In the end it is about who you believe, the boy or Michael Jackson.

[quidnunc]

A CA Guy wrote: There was no case, bad witnesses and even the accuser claimed his mother molested him before. What other result from not guilty could there be with a reasonable jury?

There wasn't a straight-thinking person connected with this case except maybe the judge, and that includes the defendent, the witnesses, the prosecutor, the defense and the jury.

[infidel29]

I always thought there were those who were "above the law." Look at Teddy Kennedy

[A CA Guy]

The jury had to deal with the facts, evidence and witnesses brought to them, and they replied properly to it all.

Really, there was NO case.

[TheGeezer]

I'd rather leave 'em wondering.

[JLS]

I believe in the justice system.

Wacko Jacko is innocent.
_________________________________________________________

I believe in it too. Jacko was not found innocent. He was found not guilty.

That is the prosecution did not meet its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When your star witness must admit he has lied under oath on the stand before, that is often going to be the result.

[95Tarheel]

In the end, I think NEITHER was believed. And as annoying as that is (to me), that's reasonable doubt...

[MizSterious]

In molestation cases, usually there is no physical evidence. They have to rely on other things, such as patterns of behavior. There was a lot of good evidence in this case--not Sneddon's fault that the jury thought "beyond REASONABLE doubt" meant "beyond ANY doubt."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Interesting. I believe the kid. I think the evidence supported his story.

[MizSterious]

Right. And we all know what a fine, upstanding, truth telling person Michael Jackson is, right? (shoot, he even lies about how many surgeries were done on his hideous face!)

[Clintonfatigued]

This is not O.J. The prosecution had a weak case: no physical evidence, witnesses with huge credibility problems, and a prosecutor who appeared to be persuing a personal veandetta. Michael Jackson didn't so much win acquittal as the prosecution handed it to him.

[A CA Guy]

Out of 150,000 people, there is going to be also a statistical percentage of crooks, liars and crazy people coming through that claim all kinds of bunk as well, and I think the lack of evidence in this case backs that up.

[MizSterious]

You mean like the mother who was trying to get money out of all those celebrities? Oh, wait, she didn't. At least, not according to the celebritieson the stand. Or maybe you're talking about her big lie about being manhandled at JC Penney's? You know, her husband supposedly did all those bruises? Oh, wait again--her husband was in jail when that happened, so maybe she was telling the truth.

Then again, some people would rather believe the defense spin, regardless of the FACTS.

[proxy_user]

But patterns of behavior are not a crime.

Crime is specifically defined in the statute books. Anything that is not included is legal.

Therefore, Mr. Jackson is free to entertain children at Neverland, no matter how bizarre his behavior, providing he does not do anything illegal.

It is an abuse of prosecutorial powers to try to fool the jury into believing that bizarre behavior proves the criminal act. The criminal act itself is what must be proven.