…Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a serious, high profile criminal case in the US.
The worst part in all of this? The accuser’s life is over. That, and we’ll be forced to listen to a bunch of preening, self-righteous defense attorneys lecture us about how justice was done here, and how the evil little cancer boy and his crazy mom who tried to use the justice system to sully the reputation of a blameless manchild (a manchild who once paid $20 million to make charges of molestation go away, mind) got exactly what they deserved—conveniently forgetting to mention that those are precisely the kinds of marks pedophiles go after when they troll for prey.
The problem, as I see it, is that jurors in these types of cases take the “beyond a reasonable doubt†mandate to ridiculous extremes when it comes to the prospect of being responsible for convicting celebrities, and high-priced defense attorneys have become quite adroit at concentrating on nothing other than raising doubtsâ€â€even as they’re able to shield their clients from having to testify.
And there will always be doubt in a he said / he said molestation situationâ€â€particularly if the predator is careful in choosing his prey.
But even so: not guilty of providing alcohol to minors? Please.
****
Jeralyn will have much more, I’m certain; cross-posted at sda.
****
update: The Western Standard’s Ezra Levant weighs in (h/t Mike P).
****
update 2: If you missed the lead-up to the reading of the verdict, Michelle Malkin live-blogged it.
Yeah, good points. I figured they nailed him for the alcohol at a minimum.
On the plus side, the publicity of the trial probably ensures he won’t molest anyone else. So there’s that, at least.
I recall the words of Bill Murray at the end of “Kingpin” when he wins the million-dollar tournament:
“Finally! Big Ern is above the law!”
Quote of the day over at Free Republic:
Poster 1: They aren’t even covering the verdict at BET.
Poster 2: That’s because he isn’t black OR entertaining.
Heh.
TallDave – you must be kidding! Those rabid fans will be lining up at the gate to EeverEverland.
Quote from Shep Smith on Fox News–the jury felt this was an attempt to “suck the blood from the turnip that is Michael Jackson.”
Now Michael will be free to join O.J. in his agonizing and tireless quest to find the real killers of Nicole and Ronald Goldman.
Odd that O.J. should choose to look for the killers in Florida on the pricey golf courses, but it’s his quest and he clearly knows what he’s doing.
Not Guilty – Beat It, indeed.
Turing word: “Freedom.” Screw you.
Now that this thriller is over, Jackson can focus on finding the real culprit. I suggest starting with the man in the mirror, asking him to change his ways.
Bulletproof Celebrities.. Bulletproof CEOs..
Time to establish The Star Chamber
I wonder how Russell Crowe will do in his trial for throwing a phone at a hotel worker? He probably wishes he did it in California instead of NY.
On the other hand, his finances are such that there may be a limit to the number of parents that he can pay “hush” money to.
They’re about to interview the idiot jurors.
I knew they wouldn’t convict him when I read in Vanity Fair that after the wrenching testimony of the boy who gave in to tears, the jurors started laughing and talking on the break immediately following it.
Our justice system at it’s worse. You hit the nail on the head Jeff.
These jurors are making me cringe:
“The Mom snapped her fingers at me. And I said to myself, ‘don’t you dare snap your fingers at me, bitch. And That’s when I knew I
wasnt going to convict Jackson. Because the Mom got all uppity. And secretly, Michael Jackson now owes me his life, making me more powerful than him. Which is kinda cool…”
One of the jurors was just talking about how he made 19 new friends because of this case.
Awwwww. I’m getting a toothache.
Wow… the vitriol…
I’m not an MJ fan. I think he’s creepy, weird, and stupid (very very stupid for putting himself in this situation again), but I don’t know that he’s a molester.
The court ruled… and we have to accept that verdict. Look at the mother’s history of suing people, even when she was at fault (the whole JCPenney shoplifting thing); you must admit the smell of gold-digging was in the air. That alone could have turned the case.
I think Jackson’s problem was that he paid out on the first one… he took the easy way out. Once he did that, they knew he was a “settler,” and he was sure to be targeted again. Think it doesn’t happen? Lawyers assess exactly that sort of thing when deciding whether to sue a doctor (personal experience talking here)… why not a celebrity?
Who knows? I’m just glad we’re going to stop talking about it.
Oh no we don’t have to accept this verdict, New Guy! I, for one, am gonna go out and fuck shit up!
Oh yeah, gonna riot tonight! Who’s with me? What, no one? Shit…
Sorry. To me, it’s more than just weird and creepy and stupid to have 13-year-old boys in your bed every night.
Gold digging in the air? Sure. But that doesn’t mean the child wasn’t in fact molested. This mother has a history of using her children; and Michael Jackson shows a propensity for doing the same.
Asked which witnesses seemed credible, one of the jurors said, “The people from the telephone company.”
Kudos to the prosecutors. They went for it on what they knew would be a tough case (not necessarily from the evidence standpoint.) It was a mistake to makie the mother a big part of the case though. They probably should not have called her. Her son and the other boys abused could testify and police found a wealth of corroborating evidence. Add a little common sense, keep the case short so the media frenzy won’t drive everybody crazy – it could have been a conviction. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
What will Drudge say about the prosuctors drinking in the bar tonight?
Hey, put me down for some whitey riotin’, too!
Hell yeah! Shit is gonna burn tonight!
Right now on the BET show BET.com Countdown, they’re doing the top Michael Jackson videos. They just finished #3 “Rock With You” and now it’s #2 “Beat It”.
“Suggesting (to me, at least) that it is all but impossible to convict a celebrity in a high profile case in the US.”
I seem to remember reading Martha’s diaries recently. Of course, that does seem to be the exception.
If only Martha had done more than lie to the feds (you know… molest a kid or kill her spouse) and been tried here in California, she probably would have walked.
Perhaps the prosecutors could take another lesson from Martha and try to convict MJ of something like conspiracy to give alcohol to minors, or conspiracy to cover-up giving alcohol to minors.
I feel really bad for Sneddon. He actually believed that people who choose to live in CA might have a smidgen of morality when it comes to an obvious deviant preying upon children. His almost tears were genuine, and he probably won’t give up, but it’s a losing battle. Famous= no conviction. Famous and not white= Heap of abuse on the prosecuters and detectives. I truly believe that Sneddon believed in what he was doing. A better case would have been nice, but they had Jack-O dead to rights on booze to a minor. If you are innocent, better a court martial. If guilty, a civilian court. Caught with a smoking gun in your bloody hands, change venue to California. I am disgusted.
What is with this “The court ruled… and we have to accept that verdict” nonsense? There is some law now that I can’t criticize a jury verdict? Gee, wonder when that snuck by the first amendment?
Hooray!!
I live blogged the DA’s press conference and the juror’s press conference.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011086.html
The foreman is on Larry King Live now and says resolving the child molestation charge was the easiest of all.
I live in SB County. Sneddon is an asshole. He’s been saying things that no professional should.
This is not like the OJ case where there was hard physical evidence. I’m no fan of MJ, but I do remember the McMartin trial as well which also seemed like a slam dunk abuse of scores of children, but turned out to be prosecutor overzelousness and adults inserting ideas into kids heads. I think that might be the case here as well.
Pure speculation, but I think MJ has a Peter Pan complex, and is mentally trapped in his early teens, and may have event slept with some boys, but in a sleepover, not sexual, way.
Seconded.
How might the results have been different had he molested the child of a more credible set of parents?
Oh…wait.
A sane parent would never send their child to sleep with a 45 year old man.
Nevermind.
When I was practicing law in the area in the ‘90’s, Michael Jackson and his cohort of private detectives and lawyers were notorious, tt. Do you believe in the little winged fairie of Peter Pan too?
Okay, Jeff. Time to stash the Satch! He’s only two years away from that 10 year window on either side of 13—the age MJ likes ‘em. Can’t be too careful these days.
[I don’t think I can take hearing about this sob any longer.]
SPQR speaks the truth. MJ is a notorious pedophile. If you have ever had any contacts with pedophiles, they are all a like – the excuses and the maniuplations. They have these common characteristics, all exhibited by Jackson. It is a compulsion and he will re-offend.
well said.
Of course the price the parents will demand for their children has probably increased.
Again, not trying to defend the creep, but if he was as “notorious” a pedophile as you claim, it should have been easy to build a case over *ten* *10* *ten* (that’s ten) years. You’d think some child porn would have shown up in one of the many compound raids, which is the usual MO of a pedophile.
Quite honestly, I’m more pissed off about the taxpayer money wasted on this than anything else. At least in the OJ case, the prosecutors pretended to bring their A-game, and today, everyone “knows” OJ is guilty even if the jury was stupid. I’m pretty sure that will not be the legacy of the MJ case.
I’m surprised by the ridiculous posts by so many intelligent bloggers. Childhood issues, perhaps?
Q: Is there reasonable doubt as to the boy telling the truth?
A: Yes. Absolutely.
Not guilty.
If I was on that jury, I would have voted not guilty too.
Seems people’s jealousy, loathing, or hatred of MJ has clouded their judgement.
Doesn’t it bother any of you that a little boy or little girl can accuse ANYONE, and with no physical evidence of ABUSE (please tell me how having porn mags in any way is illegal or leads to molestation???) that person can be put into jail?
This entire case is a joke. There are serial child batterers, rapists, and murderers out there. This was a case of EGO. Sneddon’s ego and MJ’s ego. Whatever happened to any kid in the bed of MJ is the fault of the child’s parents. If anything, they should be on trial!
Let’s go after the serious/major offenders. This case should have never been brought. Never.
There is always reasonable doubt in cases such as this, Slick. So the evidence must necessarily be circumstantial.
Jackson may very well be a serial offender who has become quite adept at selecting his boys. So you’re suggestion that Sneddon go after serious / major offenders begs the question, because many people believe Jackson to be just that.
tt, he’s paid off other victims to the tune of millions of dollars.
I was flying kites several years ago when a friend of a friend showed up with his mildly autistic brother. This kid was mystified as to how the kites worked, what kept them in place. He could not believe the string from my hand went all the way to the kite, because he could see it disapear about halfway there.
I thought of this kid while I was listening to the jurors.
OK. I have not written about Michael Jackson because I don’t really care about celebrities and their trials. I am not into pop culture. But now that the verdict is in, I will make some comments about Jackson, the trial, justice and the media circus.
To understand this case, and the jury verdict, it’s important to separate two issues: (1) is Jackson a pedophile and (2) did he molest the 13-year-old Gavin Arviso?
The widespread assumption is that Jackson is a pedophile and therefore molested Arviso. If Jackson were not a pedophile, why would he invite little boys to share his bed? Unfortunately for the prosecution, the jury was not asked to determine if he was a pedophile, they were asked to find specifically if he molested Gavin Arviso. The jury found that the direct testimony of the accuser and his mother was not sufficiently credible and acquitted Jackson.
I believe the jury did a credible job. In Jackson they had a defendant who raised conflicting emotions. To his fans, Jackson is one of the most famous personalities in the world and a great artist, the object of adoration. To most other people, Jackson is grotesque; a surgical freak who dresses bizarrely and who invites little boys into his bed. He deserves to be put away on general priciples.
Here is my own theory about Jackson, a person who I have never met and whose life I care little about. Michael Jackson is a little boy inhabiting the body of a 46 year-old man. He never had a childhood, as we understand that phase. Brought onto the stage by a demanding family, he has been a pop super star since he was a pre-teen. Jackson is not normal now and he has never been normal.
But he did become incredibly rich.
Think about Neverland. It’s not the creation of a middle-aged man. Jackson used his wealth to create a personal children’s park for himself with all of the things that a little boy would want: his own personal Disneyland with amusement park rides, animals … and little friends. Little friends his own emotional age in a desperate, bizarre attempt to create a childhood he never had, complete with milk, cookies and sleepovers.
To normal people, inviting young boys to sleep in an adult male’s bed is not just bizarre, it’s perverted. But if you are a 12 year-old inhabiting a 46 year-old body, hard as it may be to understand, it’s just possible that, as Michael Jackson said: “it’s not sexual.â€Â
Call me naive, call me blind to the obvious, but to send someone to jail to 20 years should take more than a well-deserved reputation for being a rich freak with strange tastes.
I think justice was served.
I won’t spend much time agonizing over the verdict. The kid and his mother are grifters and as Moneyrunner pointed out, the jurors had to find that Jackson had molested THAT kid, not just any kid. I’ve believed from the get go that the prosecution’s case was weak, simply because if your star witness is not credible, your case, in 9 out of every 10 times, is sunk.
I’m sorry, but making a twelve year old boy sleep in the bed of a 46 year old man pretty much qualifies as molestation to me. Hell, a woman his own age could successfully sue him if he made her sleep in his bed. That shit is not right. A kid doesn’t have to be cornholed to be molested; he just has to be put in a sexually charged situation that is controlled by an adult. The guy shouldn’t have been aquitted on all counts, and he knows it.
I don’t like child-abusers any more than anyone… less even, since I take care of their victims, but let’s all take a step back for a second.
MJ was on trial for his life. If anyone doubts that, think about how long a freakish, waif-like man like Michael, convicted of child molestion, would survive in prison. He’d be dead before they finished the intake paperwork.
The state failed to prove its case… spectacularly. It’s being charitable to say that they didn’t quite bring their A-game. I don’t know if the prosecutor was hoping the jury would share his personal prejudice against Jackson, or perhaps he was counting on the lurid nature of the charges to swing the jury. Regardless, this same prosecutor has now air-balled twice, spending a lot of taxpayer money in the process.
The prosecution’s case was full of holes. Receipts… phone records… videotape… the mother a liar… reasonable doubt to the absolute hilt.
Jackson was able to put on a vigorous defense, and his attorneys may have prevailed, but who really wins? Jackson remains a disfigured, pitiable figure, the child “victim” and his mother look like cheap con artists, and the prosecutor looks like a bungler… and all this cost HOW much money and media time?
Mind-boggling.
I thought your comment well put, NewGuy. I’ll add that some of the jurors are now saying that, “He probably did it,” but that they weren’t given enough evidence to convict on even the the most obvious of charges: the alcohol-to-minors thing.
We all have a gut feel that Michael was preying at some level on little boys. What the prosecution didn’t do was prove out that intuition with irrefutable evidence.
Clearly, MJ is a pedophile. The case is there, but Sneddon and his team were not skilled enough to make it. They should have been more dispassionate. Also, Sneddon appears not to have very good judgement.
Seconded.
Hear, hear!
I mean, after I drop my pearls of wisdom in, then we can all let it drop.
At least one juror sounded like he would have returned a verdict of “not proven”, if this had been tried under Scottish law.
As for whether this will hurt MJ’s career, it’s pretty obvious that his creative peak is long past, and his income is going to come from gig money and Beatles songs rights, rather than new music, in the future. Wonder how he’ll deal with hecklers at his shows in the future, going “hee-hee” whenever he speaks between songs.
Lessee, Martha went up the river, but Robert Blake skated, R. Kelly nails middle-schoolers to his heart’s content, at no cost to his popularity. And after this, Phil Spector has gotta be liking his chances of beating the murder rap for shooting his girlfriend in the mouth. Just goes to show what P. J. O’Rourke once said:
Somewhere Fatty Arbuckle is shaking his head in disgust.
Turing = corps, as in If the Turing word was corpse, that would have been perfect.
About now, Michael has gotta be scoping out real estate in Bangkok, for all of the obvious reasons. Great weather, great beaches, cheap real estate, elephants, and lots of abandoned kids.
As far as being a 12-year old trapped in a 46 year old body, that body has adult hormones, and those hormones bring on adult urges. There’s a reason why it isn’t normal for 12-year olds to have sex, but it is normal for 46-year olds. MJ has also admitted to drug abuse (pain killers, wink wink), consumes alcohol, and has other adult-like thoughts. Only an idiot would assume that sex is the only area where he is completely naive.
The history books will note that, while never proven, charges of child molestation dogged Jackson in the years before he died on the surgeons table for that last rhinoplasty. He will join Oscar Wilde as one of history’s notable pedophiles (albeit, with more controversy).
How, exactly, does a jury take “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a ‘ridiculous extreme’? Should that basic concept of jurisprudence apply, in varying doses, depending on how weird the defendent is?
It has nothing to do with the relative strangeness of the defendant. It has to do with the intent of the reasonable doubt standard, especially with regard to what kind of doubt is reasonable before guilt or innocence can determined by the subjective human agents who make up a jury.
“Reasonable doubt” and “the possibility of doubt under disparate circumstances that, should those circumstances obtain, or can potentially obtain, might, in the abstract, be exculpatory” are two different standards. That defense attorneys have been able to finesse the standard so that the second description now determines judgment is a testament to their skill—but it is also a standard that is near impossible to meet in cases that don’t hinge on direct and irrefutable evidence. In my mind, this weakens the justice system.
Defendants with money can always hire experts to raise doubt. And so long as the jury cannot distinguish between doubt that is reasonable and doubt that is possible, the defendant has a good chance of beating the charges.
I think what they mean is emphasis on the ‘reasonable’ and not so much on the existence of doubt. I mean, the existence of a doubt in the juries mind is predicated and qualified by it’s reasonability – it’s feasibility. If you just have to plant doubt, then any case can technically be tossed out. The doubt has to be reasonable. how reasonable is it to assume that a 46 year old man who allows children to consume alcohol in his presence and keeps porn where they can find it and requests they sleep in his bed, yet doubt that he molests them? I’d say that doubt is not very reasonable at all. I can’t decide if the prosecution failed the jury or vice vers.
damn, Jeff scooped me; the bastard.
One can, I suppose, parse the meaning of “beyond a reasonable doubt” – as you have. In that way, people unhappy with a particular verdict can then ‘finesse’ the value of a time-honored, basic standard of our justice system.
Isn’t that just a way to reinforce one’s own prejudices? (As opposed to one’s having had the benefit of hearing all the evidence presented in a particular trial?)
Peggy, get a clue. Jeff parsed the meaning of “reasonable doubt” to mean “doubt that is reasonable, not just theoretically possible.” Which is exactly what it means.
Well, that begs the question, Peggy, because my assertion is that the “time-honored, basic standard of our justice system” has already been finessed, and that this finessing is itself the problem.
I’m speaking in general here, not simply as pertains to this individual case. I think the standard of reasonable doubt has been the altered so that doubt, rather than reason, has become the determining feature.
Um, ok, Matt. And your point is?
Jeff, I guess I’m not sure that the reasonable dout standard is being/has been finessed. Maybe that’s why I don’t get your point. How has/is the standard been ‘finessed’?
You accuse Jeff of “parsing the meaning of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” in order to “‘finesse’ the value of a time-honored, basic standard of our justice system.” I called bullshit, Jeff didn’t finesse anything, he just gave the correct definition.
Pointy enough?
Matt, I’m no attorney (though I play one at bridal showers and Sunday cookouts), so pardon me for not knowing the full language of the “reasonable doubt” standard. I don’t think I accused Jeff of ‘finessing’ the standard; I think he said that attorneys have successfully done so in some cases.
Dunno, just seems that some verdicts are more popular than others, eh?
Jeff, doesn’t the “reason” part of reasonable doubt have to ultimately be derived from the evidence and testimony presented in a trial, and not on one’s suspicions about a defendant?
Peggy —
The overdetermination of doubt at the expense of reasonable is the problem, so far as I’m concerned. Which is to say, the existence of doubt itself has become proof of its own reasonable-ness.
And yes, I would like reason to come from the evidence, not from the doubt.
Oh, I think JeffG got it right.
Well, then I apologize, I misread you. And Jeff isn’t talking about just this verdict, but this verdict as part of a trend. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” has most certainly been changed to “beyond any possible doubt,” which is very different.
Ok, I think I get your point, Jeff. Guess I haven’t studied enough current cases to feel worried that any/all doubt is overtaking reason, or that the two are incompatible in jurors’ minds.
Matt, can you cite some examples of this ‘trend’? I honestly am unaware of it.
Sure, but they’re going to be the sort of cases you’d criticize me for being unhappy about. And they’ll make me look like a racist, since all the defendants are rich black men. But the ones I can think of are Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and OJ. Perhaps the Rodney King verdict, also, but I don’t remember that trial well.
I think Martha Stewart proves the trend, too, even though she was convicted. Remember they got her for lying about insider trading. I don’t think they even tried to prove the insider trading itself, and in my opinion they gave up on that because of this new definition of doubt.
On second thought, Kobe doesn’t belong in that list. His case never went before a jury, and it looked to me like any doubt was very reasonable.
Matt, I’m not here to call you a rascist, since I don’t know you. The cases you cite are of course the high-profile type about which we all have opinions, so it’s probably best to leave it at that. To get into a real discussion about any of those cases, as they pertain to your view that there is some sort of unfair and/or diluted version of the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard (which I think was Jeff’s original point) would require us all to study court transcripts which are, alas, not available to us, in order to broaden our own knowledge and better inform our opinions.
Matt, not only will I not call you a rascist, I won’t call you a racist, neether.
Off to my typing class. Ciao.
Hey, is this where I can get in on some whitey riotin’?
Juror #7, Michael Stevens, on O’Reilly just now: “We looked at the evidence, and there was doubt.”
eg., on Jackson’s having porn in the room in which he slept with the boys. “Porn is not against the law.” After the follow-up, in which O’Reilly pointed out, yes, sure, porn is legal, but coupled with it being in the room with the alcohol and the boys, couldn’t you come to the conclusion that something untoward was happening, Stevens responded with, “Probably. But it might also not have happened. So there was doubt.”
The presence of doubt = reasonable doubt.
He also talked about how annoying the mother was, and how the finger snapping by the mother bothered him.
I rest my case.
Having read much of the commentary from those who believe that is Jackson guilty, can we say that you believe that Jackson is a pedophile because (1) he is a 46 year old man who invites children into his bed, (2) he has pornographic literature, (3) he drinks and allows his little playmates to drink wine, (4) he has paid off previous people who have accused him of molesting them, (5) he was accused by Gavin Arviso and his mother of molestation.
So, the conclusion to be drawn is that the fact of his being a pedophile has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and even if the Arvisos are grifters and their story does not hang together well, we should convict Jackson on general principles because we know he has molested young boys in the past and may do so in the future?
Well, lots of people have been convicted on just such reasoning. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion rather than murder.
It’s often right, but it still troubles me. What troubles me is that this way, being a low-life or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being caught up in a witch-hunt or just being freakily unpopular can get you put in prison. There are people who are still in jail who were accused of child molestation as owners and operators of pre-schools during that hysteria a decade or more ago. Remember the McMartin case?
The Arvisos were not just irritating or unlikelable, their testimony was not believable. And since Jackson was on trail for acts against this boy at this time, the jury acted properly in acquitting.
“Having read much of the commentary from those who believe that is Jackson guilty, can we say that you believe that Jackson is a pedophile because (1) he is a 46 year old man who invites children into his bed, (2) he has pornographic literature, (3) he drinks and allows his little playmates to drink wine, (4) he has paid off previous people who have accused him of molesting them, (5) he was accused by Gavin Arviso and his mother of molestation.”
No, we cannot say that. Add to it belief in the boy’s testimony and we’re on to something. (You characterize the testimony as unbelievable, which is what allows you to say that the jury acted properly; that begs the question)
Re: the jurors. More here.
I can say MJ is a pedophile because he acts exactly like every pedophile I have her known or read about.
It’s a compulsion and he will continue offending. He paid out a big settlement to Chandler and to the maid’s kid for molesting them. Neverland is just a way to lure and attract boys. It’s called “child erotica.” Erotica does not mean dirty pictures, it’s a seduction tool. He seduces boy. He licks boys heads, for chris’ sakes! He shows up at people’s door begging and crying to be allowed to sleep with their kid. This “i love children” crap—he has three kids, why isn’t he spending time with them? Why aren’t girls given the special attention he lavishes on boys? Why do all his boy-victims have the same age and look? What was this crap tape he bade with Boteach saying he would just die if he couldn’t be with children? What a bunch of fucking nonsense!
Now, you want to argue that even though he’s sleeping with this kid and says nothing happened anybody with a brain should believe him?
You all slam the mother, but I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the people making excuses for him or this idiotic jury.
You all slam the mother, but I don’t see a whole lot of difference between the people making excuses for him or this idiotic jury and her.
I’m too pissed off to type straight.
Jeff, I’m also troubled by some of the jurors comments. They seem to reflect a personal pique. However, as an advocate of the preponderance of evidence rule, is it your contention that the jury acquitted Jackson because they disliked the accuser and his mother? That seems to stretch the few inane comments a litte further than is warranted.
You believed the boy’s testimony, the jury did not. There seems to be a legitimate difference of opinion. Because the jury was closer, I side with them, but I always make room for your being right. I have not stayed glued to the TV set or radio to follow this story and only know what I know from the internet and talk radio on my drive to and from work. Even those commentators who regard the Jackson verdict as a travesty were, as I recall, commenting on the inconsistent belligerent testimony of the boy and his mother during the trial. The defense fairly took them apart. It would be interesting to have a transcript of the trial so that we can get the same information as the jury. We could then back up our statements regarding believability and credibility.
Peace
II,
I’m sorry. I’m not personally familiar with pedophiles so I will defer to your superior experience.
II,
I’m sorry. I’m not personally familiar with pedophiles . . .
Based on my superior experience that you so intelligently deferred to, I can only respond to the above: How odd.
Jeff,
Doubting this boy’s testimony is certainyl REASONABLE. It’s not just doubt. It’s REASONABLE doubt. Why? Because the boy had a history of lying.
Absent of any other evidence, it came down to wether or not you believed thsi boy’s testimony. Given the fact that he had been trained to lie, and is a PROVEN liar, it is very reasonable to think that he might be lying.
The bummer is if this kid, in this case, is really telling the truth. Obviously, that is a possibility. And if that is the case, then that’s the price the kid, and society, and potential future victims, will pay – all because he was raised by scumbag , irresponsible, money-grubbing, celebrity-idolizing parents.
I still don’t understand why these parents are not being prosecuted for placing their child in such danger? Seriously. How can MJ be accused of molesting a child, and the mother not suffer any consequences for putting her child in harm’s way?
I still don’t understand why these parents are not being prosecuted for placing their child in such danger?
Think really really hard. You argue that the parents should be prosecuted for putting their kid in danger, b/c Jackson is a pedophile while arguing at the same time there is insufficient proof that Jackson is a pedophile. Duh.
Lord, what fools these pedophile apologists be!
<<Think really really hard. You argue that the parents should be prosecuted for putting their kid in danger, b/c Jackson is a pedophile while arguing at the same time there is insufficient proof that Jackson is a pedophile. Duh.
>>
1) Don’t put words into other people’s mouths. It’s a dishonest way to argue a point. I wasn’t discussing whether or not MJ is a pedophile. (How the hell would YOU know that? You don’t). All I said was that there was easily REASONABLE DOUBT. Try not to get so confused, ok?
2) As to the point about charging the mother, you misunderstood. Again. I think the point shoudl be pretty clear. If Sneddon is prosecuting MJ on behalf of teh pople, because he believes MJ is guilty of child molestation, and presents evidence that he is a known repeat offender, then why isn’t the mother’s placing the boy with this alleged predator not criminal?
<<Lord, what fools these pedophile apologists be!
>>
Ah yes. A very normal and mature response. Thanks.
And on that lovely note….
Oh, I should have known better than to try to explain it to you since your question was incredibly dumb to begin with. You really out did yourself this time. lol!
<<Lord, what fools these pedophile apologists be!
Ah yes. A very normal and mature response. Thanks.
Shakespeare. You’re welcome.