Prosecution: “He’s a forty-six year old man who sleeps with little boys. Drunk little boys. With porn next to the bed, and more in a secret room. His best friend is a monkey.”
Defense: “Fine, sure. But the accuser’s mother is a scam artist. Quite nuts, to boot. I mean, look at her! What a conniving shrew, am I right?”
Prosecution rebuttal: “Did I mention the guy sleeps with little drunk boys?”*
I think the prosecution has the better argument. Lock him up.
Man, when this trial is over and we can all go back to a Michael Jackson-less existance, it’s going to be like Christmas.
PS- I don’t think the prosecution had much of a case, but it would be a remarkably irresponsible parent who would let their kids do sleep-overs with the aging, freakish, and oddly sculpted Jackson.
Or a parent who really wanted to cash in on the aging, freakish, oddly sculpted pop-star’s fading horde of cash.
Big question of the moment: will there be rioting if he is acquitted?
Sure. Cub Scouts everywhere setting forest fires, kindergarten kids throwing cookies and juice… Could get ugly.
Defense: “Did I mention.. Can I get an Amen !.. ?”
Riots? And what will those cheese-asses that have been hanging out outside the courthouse do? Get a job? The very thought!
If he is convicted, there may be irresponsible nationwide monkey-spanking.
Don’t underestimate how difficult it is to get a 10-year-old drunk. I mean, it’s really hard.
Don’t underestimate how hard a 10-year-old is when he’s drunk. I mean, it’s really hard.
Defense: If it didn’t fit, you must acquit.
Jury: ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Personally, I’ll be relieved if he’s aquitted.
Then he’ll have time looking for the real pervert who likes to get young boys drunk and sleep with them.
Little Boy: Mommy how did Micheal get so pale?
Mommy: Honey, he got that way from rubbing little white boys all over himself.
My $2 is on acquittal. The state’s case is witness-based, and there’s way too much demonstrable sleaze and avarice among the people the prosecution is calling to the stand for the jury to dispel reasonable doubt.
Gee, where to start? Of course it’s “witness-based.” This isn’t the kind of case that lends itself to forensic evidence. The events happened relatively in the past, and it wasn’t a murder case. Did you expect the kid to have kept a come-stained blue dress? And I think you meant to say that there’s enough demonstrable sleaze and avarice among the people the prosecution is calling to the stand to create reasonable doubt. Other than that, it was a great comment.
Now see, Craig – that was just mean.
The key to this case is that Santa Maria is not Santa Barbara. That town is populated by retired military, defense contractors ( Vandenberg AFB is nearby ) and central Californian ranchers and farmers.
It is not downtown Los Angeles, and its not even the nearby Santa Barbara.
Those people are probably the most likely Californians to convict Jackson.
Craig, if you can spare a moment would you mind reading my comment again?
Craig,
It’s CUM – not “come”.
I’m hoping for guilty. Why? Four words: Micahel Jackson Prison Diaries
I’m with Beck, we all stand to gain so much at his conviction, that the temptation for the jury will be too great. I mean, they’re only human.
Hey, they put Scott Peterson away with less …
… But then, O.J. got off despite more…
AB, O.J. was tried in downtown Los Angeles. Jackson in in Santa Maria. While only a two hour drive, they are worlds apart.