MICHAEL JACKSON GETS OFF?
THE HERETIK HAS NO COMMENT,
But if The Heretik did have a comment?
No comment. Michael Jackson gets off. Michael Jackson gets off? Michael Jackson gets off!!! Is that the verdict or the charge? Oy.
The great news is we now don't have to worry about what news we will get for the next two weeks. Instead of endless speculation about a verdict in the Michael Jackson trial, we will now get reaction to the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial. Cable networks will break away from this obsession to obsess about that sad girl in Aruba. A sad situation for that girl, a sad one for Michael Jackson's young friends, no matter the verdict. A sad state of affairs for us, where obscenity surrounds us, a cynical sea. All who report to us, all who should sniff out stories that would change our lives, all they can give us is a story about a man boy who lost his nose and his innocence long ago.
QUESTION OF THE DAY: DID MICHAEL JACKSON GET OFF? WHO IS TO BLAME IF HE DID?
Must be nice to be rich and untouchable (less'n you *want* to be touched, of course...).
Posted by: Eli | June 13, 2005 at 06:07 PM
Well, the poll at CNN, says that 85%, say that the verdict will not restore his reputation.
There will always be doubts. Welcome to the real world Michael.
Posted by: rhondda | June 13, 2005 at 06:09 PM
A jury of his peers judged him innocent. I guess we have to accept that. I have a bad feeling, tho, that the real innocents will never get their day in court.
Personally, Jackson disgusts me. He needs to grow the fuck up and stay away from little kids.
Posted by: Kath | June 13, 2005 at 06:30 PM
Now he's going to go out and hunt down the real molester. It'll be hard for him, since I don't think he can swing a golf club.
Posted by: mikez | June 13, 2005 at 06:45 PM
Well...In this case, I believe the jury did FOLLOW DIRECTIONS TO THE TEE. I think that they know all too well that Michael Jackson molests children, however, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the evidence wasn't clear cut enough. The jury said there were many questions that didn't get answered and they couldn't ask to get them answered. There were several who didn't go into details, but said they had formed opinions of Jackson that they didn't want to discuss at this time.
Not guilty and Innocent are entirely different things.
In OJ's case, the jury was certainly biased against the prosecution. They didn't like Marsha's attitude. They didn't like Darden. They didn't like it that a black man was on trial. They simply didn't listen to the evidence. They decided they didn't want to believe ANY evidence. They were going to settle all the cases of not guilty African Americans being sent to jail with the OJ case. They weren't there to judge OJ...there were out to send a message.
My hometown is Santa Barbara, and I can tell you, the folks up there are NOT really happpy to have Jackson as a neighbor.
The prosecution's case was strong...but NOT strong enough to convict a good many people, not ONLY a celebrity.
This particular family was viewed as grifters and social remoras and I think that charges should be brought against the mother for Welfare fraud. She should go to prison.
Do I believe Jackson is a child molester...yes. Do I believe the prosecutions case was strong with the lying history of this family and the boy...no. Even though Jackson has a history of fondling children, it was not shown in sufficient examples in THIS case. You can not convict someone of a crime based on separate cases. You can take it into consideration as a pattern of behaviour, but if you don't have CONCLUSIVE evidence in the CURRENT case, you can't convict on past cases that are not on trial. The opposite of OJ's scenario.
Like I said...I believe Jackson is a pedofile. But when you have mother after mother thinking that it is OK to have their sons sleep over in Jackson's bed...Shame on them.
We as a society must now chastise those parents who allow their children anywhere NEAR Jackson. This is a clear message to those willing to sell their soul and their children's innocence for the almight dollah....We warned you. Don't come crying to the media when it happens to your child.
Jackson may have been found "not guilty" but I believe that he is certainly NOT innocent.
Posted by: jillian | June 13, 2005 at 08:03 PM
social remoras? Why I love you!
Posted by: The Heretik | June 13, 2005 at 08:10 PM
I have never thought that Michael Jackson was guilty of anything but being strange and inappropriate for a number of reasons that I won't go into here, but the charge seemed highly suspicious to me. I have discussed his case with other clinicians of my acquaintance, and they feel the same way. Of course, we can never know, and he does fit the profile in one way, but in most others, he does not.
But putting that aside, how anyone thought the prosecution would win is beyond me. They put on the worst case imaginable.
Posted by: Diane | June 13, 2005 at 08:18 PM
Um, I don't think it'd be possible for Michael Jackson to have a jury "of his peers".
He's disgusting and the fact that parents let their children near him (especially after hearing some of his comments re: sleeping with boys being natural) is equally disgusting. As I said on my site:
Posted by: amy | June 14, 2005 at 08:45 AM
And yes I know that my comment about sentencing the jurors isn't actually legal or allowed. Just what I'd want to do if I were the judge.
Posted by: amy | June 14, 2005 at 08:49 AM