Posted on 02/04/2005 11:07:23 AM PST by Servant of the 9
"Guess who came over with his kids," my son said, when he came home from his friend's house -- and by the tone of his voice, I knew something was not right. Call it maternal instinct. My son is 11, and his friend's dad is very wealthy. It's not easy raising sensible children in this town, but that's another story.
The guest, the dad's "friend," was Michael Jackson, who'd come over with his children to play. I cannot duplicate my reaction in print. My son happens to be the most adorable, most precious, most delicious 11-year-old boy in the world. I am no more biased in saying this than any other mother, and the fact that my son looks young for his age only made me more upset. The very notion of my boy being around Michael Jackson is something I think every mother reading this can understand that no mother would want for such a son.
So I explained to my son, who up to that point had only a vague awareness of the charges against Michael Jackson, what it was that he was alleged to have done, and to whom. And my son, thoroughly and totally repelled and disgusted, not only never wants to be in a room again with him, but hopes, as he put it on the first day of jury selection, that "he gets punished and goes to prison if any of it is true."
I don't claim to be the "mother of the year." Not even close. I don't want to count how many times I've sent my son to school without lunch because I thought it was pizza lunch day and it wasn't. My daughter broke both wrists, and both times I told her to be tough because they were just bruises. But it doesn't take a course in parenting to know enough to keep your kids away from Michael Jackson, much less to keep them out of his bed. After what he paid the last time around to avoid a criminal trial, what kind of mother would let her son "play" with Michael Jackson?
In adult sexual assault cases, the routine defense these days is to attack the victim, to try to question her motives and undermine her credibility. The only difference here, where the alleged victim is a child, is that the target of the attack is his mother.
The defense has made clear that they intend to go after the mother, to portray her as a gold-digger and fame-seeker, a liar and worse. She may be some or all of those things. Perhaps that explains her decision to accept Jackson's hospitality in the first instance, and her willingness to lie to protect him and to remain in his good graces. But having a child with cancer is every mother's nightmare, and I don't ever want to walk in her shoes.
She is not claiming to be the victim; she is not the person the law here was intended to protect. Laws protecting children from molestation are there precisely to protect those children whose mothers and fathers are NOT behaving responsibly. Too often in such cases, they are the actual molesters or their silent accomplices.
Destroying the mother as a defense strategy in these circumstances may prove risky business. You destroy her credibility, and then what? She is not on trial, and her consent is not a defense. Portraying her as a bad mother doesn't make the man who took advantage of it more sympathetic. A boy without a mother on his side is the one who most needs the other mothers and fathers to protect him, as we instinctively do our own children.
To find out more about Susan Estrich, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
I hope Susan take the lesson to heart.
So9
So9
Susan knows the strategy well. Destroy Gary Aldrich. Destroy Paula Jones. Destroy Kathleen Willey. Destroy Juanita Broaddrick. Destroy troopers Patterson and Perry.
The ostrich wrote this? Was she screaming too?
I never thought of Susan Estrich as a mother. Well, at least in the literal sense. Could you imagine growing up hearing that voice every day.
"delicious 11-year old boy...."
Is she advertising?
Melodramatic malarkey.
Real nice. I don't think I would put this in print for everyone to see, but then again, I am not an idiot (most of the time) and realize bruising usually accompanies broken bones.
Can't you just hear her shrieking, "Stop being a baby! Suck it up!"
I agree. I was shocked when I saw the author of the article. She seems about as maternal as a post it note..
Hildy wrote:
I never thought of Susan Estrich as a mother. Well, at least in the literal sense. Could you imagine growing up hearing that voice every day.
Dear Susan:
Excuse me Susan, I have something to ask you. I know you are probably the smartest woman in the USA, a sage beyond compare esp. when it comes to giving advice and enlightening us on your wisdom. After all, it was uncanny how you predicted the election outcomes, (I can see you still gloating when the exit polls started to come in.) And you teach law correct?
So please excuse my ignorance, but I'm no fan of Michael Jackson, who is obviously a pedophile disguising as a roll model for children, but in America we are innocent until proven guilty, and every one of us wants the best defense that we can afford if we are prosecuted. So here's my question to you, "oh wise one": ARe you saying that attacking the mother is not a viable option for the defense to make under any circumstances? Do we know this mother or her possible agenda? And I notice you give no advice on what his defense strategy should be.
Thank God, you are not practicing law...only another arm chair intellectual idiot. The only harm I think you obviously do is to your students and those dumb enough to ever take anything you say seriously.
nikos vlachos
PS-Maybe Chris Matthews will have you on his show. The two of you make a good team.
Is she the one that sounds like she goes through a carton of cigarettes a day? I never watch the talking heads but I think I saw a little of her on election night. The voice, which sounds like a cross between one of Marge Simpson's sisters and a cheese grater is what I remember.
If you hear something that sounds like two chalkboards mating, it's her.
Aaack, I can't stand Susan Estrich. I still remember her during the Clinton scandal. She is one of those NOW hags that defended the perpetrator rather than the FEMALE victims. I doubt I will follow this case of freaky Michael too closely.
How ironic someone so well versed in using vicious phrases to twist the truth and attack her opponents would take such vehement exception to the same tactic being employed by counsel. How different it all is when you're on the receiving end . . .
Don't hold your breath waiting for the woman's epiphany.
I never thought of Susan Estrich as a mother. Well, at least in the literal sense. Could you imagine growing up hearing that voice every day.
EVIDENTLY SUSIE SOCIALIST'S HUSBAND COULDN'T IMAGINE HEARING THAT VOICE EVERY DAY EITHER! lol
Once in a while Freepers come across as senselessly mean spirited as DUers.
When a Leftie comes to a correct conclusion praise them for it, don't try to be as nasty as possible and drive them away from your position.
SO9
Can you imagine procreating with her? < shudder >
Gotta be the same person. The voice still haunts me whenever I hear the sound of a slipping fan belt, badly worn breaks or a mouse falling in a garbage disposal. Ok I've never heard the last one but it's gotta be close.
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.