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.
That's my whole point. There was more than enough evidence to convict him of at least some charges. With this jury there could never be ENOUGH evidence - what constitutes evidence or proof? Pictures, videos, confessions, eye witnesses, tapes, DNA, fingerprints - even if Michael Jackson had diddled a kid on National TV in front of Katie Koran, he would still have been found innocent by this jury.
Proof is not a scientific thing, like measurements or equations - it's inherently subjective. What proves something to one person is not enough or more than enough, for another. Look at the Scott Peterson trial vs the Robert Blake trial - there was far more actual "proof" from what I can see in the Blake trial, however Blake was found not guilty and Peterson was found guilty (as I think he should have been). These verdicts represent the jury's beliefs about the evidence, not whether the evidence is intrinsically good or bad, or insufficient or abundant. There is no one standard of "proof". There was sufficient proof to find him guilty, and certainly for the safety of other children this jury should have done so. Morally what they have done is indefensible.
Which they should have done after he paid out the $20,000,000 to Jordy Chandler.
(I cannot buy it that they are a loving, caring, close-knit family. It flys in the face of what MJ himself has said about his family.)
Isn't that rich?
Apparently, they are most proud of the bonding and making 18 new friends.......aaaccckkkk!!!
Absolutely true, and unfortunately the nature of their crimes frequently means that they pick victims who are some not credible or who have obvious problems, such as this young victim and his family. A serial rapist or murdered might for ex, pick prostitutes - few really care about these girls, and even if one testifies, some defense attorney just pulls out the old "nuts and sluts" arguments and destroys his or her "credibility".
I think patterns of behavior are critical in convicting this type of criminal and juries must be made aware that this is not an isolated example in a defendant's life. Otherwise, he or she could just continue to molest, or rape, or even kill with impunity depending on the nature of the victims they select or the naivete (or stupidity or callousness) of the jury.
I think Sneddin did want to bring an expert from the FBI to talk about pedophilia but the "judge" stopped it. Can't have too much of that expert witness stuff going on, someone might learn something.
Maybe we need to consider what "jury of peers" means as well as what "reasonable doubt" means. I pray that this Jackson jury does not represent average America.
***
Well, I think the Jackson jury was fairly typical, but going back to what I said about this abundance of issues -- that abundancy probably helped contribute to the reasonable doubt -- too many issues clouding the whole process. Also, it looks like the jury had a hard time with the alleged victim's mother...it was her behavior, coupled with certain allegations of past fraud and other attempts at extortiion that may have brought down the prosecution's case. One might say that her past should not have been a factor, but either the prosecution did not move to limit any testimony in that regard, or they did and the judge rebuffed those attempts. And that goes back to the narrow focus I mentioned -- the judge should have set some limits, in my opinion, and he did not do so.
Yeah, that was one of those "now don't that beat all" moments in the jury interview. One of several, actually.
MJ's family is totally dysfunctional. I think the MO is cover-up, cover-up. They won't get him help, they'll all deny there is a problem and continue pushing this Peter Pan crap that so many credulous souls still buy. Peter Pan is just a bunch of peanut butter.
I believe those of you who fail to understand the issues here are naive and the primary reason we have juries instead of lynch mobs.
Yeah, right. And I noticed you avoided remarking on the VALID points I made. Here they are again for you to address if you want to try and sugar coat or explain them away:
And I suppose it's just a coincidence that his privates were accurately described and the same molestation acts were identical on each of the previous kids? The books of pornographic pictures of children were just all about Peter Pan wanting to be free and naked, huh?
Fire away...
I got to go, see ya later folks. have a great evening.
But at least they "bonded."
You nailed it!
MJ's mother had the gall to ask mj for $250,000 for her brief part in a documentary mj made, or was going to make, some years ago.
You wrote:"The reasonings for their verdict were perfectly understandable, given the behavior of the mother and the lack of evidence that MJ did anything to her kid."
I didn't follow it that closely, but that's the information I get. Not that MJ is totally innocent, just that there wasn't enough evidence in this one case.
I'm a rebel, especially when it comes to protecting people from filth like this. I would have voted him guilty not because of the preponderance of evidence, but because of the pattern.
My Reply: What pattern? The prosecution called 5 people for lack of a better word prior bad behaviour. 3 out of the 5 denied ever being inappropriately touched by MJJ.
I couldn't have voted to convict either with those conflicts.
Incidently I watched it live over here in France. It was surreal watching it in France, live what was happening in California.
THUD! (my head hitting the desk.)
Yes, that's why hearing Germaine & Tito last night, saying what a loving, caring family they are......just did not compute w/what mj has said.
He said the physical and mental abuse was daily life in their family, throughout their growing up years.
Yes, I thought Nancy did a great job with him. I also thought he looked extremely nervous and shaky when she asked him whether he thought the boy who is now a youth minister was believable. He couldn't give a good answer as to why he didn't think he was credible (but then he said he sorta was.) He was most defensive about this boy. Something tells me a few months from now some of those jurors are going to wake up and realize what they've wrought.
I don't see that at all. I see people defending our American Legal System, with all it's faults, against a howling mob who wants to lynch Michael Jackson, despite the evidence or lack therof presented in this actual case to this actual jury.
Naturally. Since they came to a different conclusion from you (even though they were the ones who actually heard all the evidence, or lack of it), they must be morons.
If every potential juror had to be "well informed", our judicial system would grind to a halt.
Since he was not on trial for molesting those kids, whether or not his private parts look like a mushroom is irrelevant.
The books of pornographic pictures of children were just all about Peter Pan wanting to be free and naked, huh?
The books were ordinary heterosexual porn, not kiddie porn. He used them to get his victims "aroused".
He looked like Nancy had exposed him as a liar.
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.