« Home | Hot in NYC, went straight from the cool spring to ... » | Told you so. The adults of the Democratic Party ha... » | Vietnam Vacation » | Latest fashion news from France » | Wang Chien-ming » | Baseball / Changing of the Guard » | NYC Stadium Dead?- GOOD » | 2 WTC Escape / Sept 11 » | Interview by Brooklyn Beer Brewmaster » | Yankees »

Wacko Jacko " Innocent "

This strangest of individuals has been found not guilty. I doubt that the jury was found " star struck ". More likely this very probable miscarriage of justice was caused by the fact that a case like this is very hard to prove.

O.J. got away with murder, and, unburdened by a conscience, is a happy man today. But Jacko will not have the post-trial joyride that OJ has enjoyed.

He's broke, his career's over, and now even the most irresponsible parent will not let their child within a hundred miles of Neverland. No more money, no more little McCauley Caulkins coming over.

A solitary freak who used to be a star.

Dear Phantom,
Saw your comments on MJ and OJ and thought I would respond.

I was watching CNN when the verdicts were announced. I was astonished. I was of the opinion that MJ was guilty of child molestation. I stress the word "opinion" here because my thoughts about the situation were not based upon any rigorous examination of fact. Obviously I was not privy to testimony and proceedings. My opinion derived more from the traditional where-there's-smoke-there's-fire kind of logic and a blend of Occam's Razor thinking.

While the D.A. has been accused of pursuing a personal vendetta I believed that his office proceeded on the basis of strong substantiating evidence. Though the victim was depicted by the defense as a young grifter I believe that on the whole he was telling the truth. It now seems likely that all or some of the jury believe that MJ is a child molester. They did not believe that he molested the boy in question. A parallel trial seems to have taken place in which the jury has found the boy's mother to be so reprehensible as to deny validity to the boy's claim.

I disagree with you about MJ's future. First of all he's not broke, yet. At minimum he still maintains majority ownership of the Beatle's catalogue estimated in excess of $400 MM. His recent exoneration will restore his risk worthiness and he will be able to borrow what he needs to get out of the whole. The fact that "Thriller" continues to sell as one of the most popular albums of all time and that his fans - European fans in particular - remain unperturbed by the king-of-Pop's foray into pederasty, indicate that he should have no problems selling more of his music.

As for Neverland and parent's not letting their children go there; that raises an interesting point. Today's news carried a story of some infamous pedophile who kept records of his involvement with hundreds of victims around the world. Being a pop icon certainly has its disadvantages. The visibility MJ enjoys as pop icon works as a deterrent to the fulfillment of his sexual urges. If anything his escapades at Neverland pale in comparison to the exploits of the more anonymous individuals who share his orientation. MJ will thrive and if he learned anything at all from his recent debacle it will be to pursue his sexual impulses in anonymity, however possible.

As for OJ, it appears his case was an even more egregious miscarriage of justice, naturally because it entailed the brutal murder not mere groping of an individual but more so because it seems the jury was completely bamboozled by the defense.

Now to the heart of it Dear Phantom. How do we account for a society that works principally in reactionary mode to address the deeds of would be murderers and pedophiles. Why is there so little proactive effort invested to cure the social ills and protect the innocent from the incurable? Wouldn't a truly caring society respond quickly and effectively to the "warning signs" evinced by the MJ's and OJ's. We taxpayers unwittingly subsidize corporate interests and our dollars line the pockets of politicians and their corporate sponsors. The world is up to its neck in handguns, landmines, "death-gel" and right-wing Christian fundamentalists. Given the latter's role in the reelection of Dubya I wonder what the most lethal item is on my foregoing list.

The only thing that is certain is that Michael Jackson is a strange person who needs help.

This case was decided correctly because there was not enough evidence presented that could make 12 people convict him without reasonable doubt.

I didn't follow the trial closely but I did hear about some of the prosecutions big guns:

The brother who witnessed the abuse on two occasions when he walked in the bedroom? I wouldn't believe that anyone could sleep through that not only once but twice... and how very convenient that the brother was there silently on both occasions and didn't set the alarm off as he entered the door.

The magazines? They weren't kiddie porn, and if we are to think all men who have porn in their house are pedophiles, we'd have a big problem on our hands.

The wine in the soda can? The only person who said they saw that was a fired employee as I recall.

Don't even start me on the kid's mother. Just weeks before the accusation, she and her son made the video that stated how wonderful MJ was. After that, people started talking about how odd the relationship was, and she saw a new way to get some bucks from someone. She has zero credibility between her false lawsuits, shoplifting and welfare fraud.

And just as an aside from evidence, but with all the thousands of kids that have slept over MJ's house in the past 15 or so years, wouldn't the prosecution find at least a few more that could present some kind of oddity, some type of inappropriate behavior?

Did MJ molest kids? I sure hope not, for the kids' sakes. But there isn't always fire where there's smoke... That's what juries are supposed to be for, to look through the smoke to see if there is a clearing and in this case there wasn't.

The OJ verdict was a disgrace in our judicial system. This case was decided correctly because there was reasonable doubt. You can't convict someone for being weird.

Dear pentex,

A few additional points regarding MJ are required in response to your comments.

The jury found him "not guilty" on all counts including child molestation. Yet I believe that the jury was convinced that MJ did indeed molest the boy. So why the not guilty verdict?

The better question is when is child molestation NOT child molestion. The answer is when circumstances have been deliberately arranged to place the victim within proximity of the would be molester. The jury didn't so much doubt whether MJ is groping boys as much as they believed it was all part of a scam hatched by the mother and her willing son. Just opinion of course but a plausible explanation for what transpired in this case.

Planetpatrol,

You say you got the feeling that jury members believed the boy's story of molestation but I heard the opposite. I heard members interviewed, saying that they were confused because the boy himself said he slept through the abuse and couldn't recall it. They felt the situation itself was odd but could not say whether sexual abuse took place.

There is no doubt the boy's mother is a player. And if she deliberately set her son there as a trap to get money from his pain, she should face criminal prosecuition as well.

May all this rest that Michael Jackson --beautiful King of Pop of the 1980's who vanished someone from this Earth and returned a white, scary stranger--will in his current strange and saddened life, never, ever let a child sleep in his house again.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link