Barf
Three celebrities on trial -- OJ, Robert Blake and Jacko -- three acquittals.
It looks to me like justice is for sale.
If you’re rich enough and also have a public persona that has reached celebrity status, juries will find a way NOT to convict you. That old “beyond a reasonable doubt” which I still don’t understand...(really, I could never serve on a jury simply because I don’t understand what is meant by beyond a reasonable doubt) –gets them off every time.
I need to know, someone please explain. What is beyond a reasonable doubt? What’s out there in the beyond? Is it an unreasonable doubt? Does that mean no doubt whatsoever? It’s not clear to me what they mean…but it seems like this catch phrase allows people to be acquitted all the time…unless…
You are Joe Schmoe. You sleep with little boys. You get your ass hauled off to court and get convicted and that’s that.
Smoking gun?
It would have been lovely if Jacko had videotapes of his sexual adventures with little boys, but even he isn’t that wacko…
Now each jury member, bathed in the afterglow of a celebrity trial, can make their rounds on the talk shows, seal their book deals and ride around in limos for a few months.
They’ve traded a young boy’s future molestation for their 15 minutes of fame.
Three celebrities on trial -- OJ, Robert Blake and Jacko -- three acquittals.
It looks to me like justice is for sale.
If you’re rich enough and also have a public persona that has reached celebrity status, juries will find a way NOT to convict you. That old “beyond a reasonable doubt” which I still don’t understand...(really, I could never serve on a jury simply because I don’t understand what is meant by beyond a reasonable doubt) –gets them off every time.
I need to know, someone please explain. What is beyond a reasonable doubt? What’s out there in the beyond? Is it an unreasonable doubt? Does that mean no doubt whatsoever? It’s not clear to me what they mean…but it seems like this catch phrase allows people to be acquitted all the time…unless…
You are Joe Schmoe. You sleep with little boys. You get your ass hauled off to court and get convicted and that’s that.
Smoking gun?
It would have been lovely if Jacko had videotapes of his sexual adventures with little boys, but even he isn’t that wacko…
Now each jury member, bathed in the afterglow of a celebrity trial, can make their rounds on the talk shows, seal their book deals and ride around in limos for a few months.
They’ve traded a young boy’s future molestation for their 15 minutes of fame.
posted by mary bishop | 7:42 AM
27 Comments:
The jury memebers made me sick. Especially the old lady. She didn't like it when the mother of the child in question "snapped her fingers" at her. It was like she was all a quiver with the power trip. She said: "Don't you snap your fingers at ME lady!"
uh.
Oh yes, I was going to write about the fact that the jury hated the accuser's mother.
Now there's a good reason for acquittal.
Dislike of relatives of the victim.
Way too much talk of the snapping fingers...I'm surprised they didn't ask to have the mother arrested for her disrespect!
The person that should have been on trial is the kids mother. I think it is horrible that Jackson was found not guilty, but that is the system. He may have molested kids but the gov't. couldn't prove it. That is gov't's fault.
William, I agree the mother is a scheming nut - probably with mental problems severe enough to warrant institutionalizing...
But I disagree on Jackson, if they had one tenth the evidence on you that they had on Jackson you would be locked up. No question about it.
Now we wait for the civil trial like OJ's and see what comes next I guess...
The mother could have handed the kid over naked and placed him in MJ's bed... it's irrelevant.
Why were any of the jurors even saying: What kind of mother would let her child sleep over at a grown man's home and in his bed?
It doesn't belong as part of the defense.
Jar of vaseline on nightstand
Stack of Porn on nightstand
Young boy in bed
MJ in bed
equals...
aquittal??
Big sigh. Jackson was awarded carte blanche, I fear. He already believed the rules didn't apply to him. He will be more careful not to have witnesses, not to leave evidence, and the D.A. will not ever get enough evidence to go after him again. It is open season on little guys at Mike's house. I am not usually such a pessimist, but . . .
What LB said. No one explained to these people that you can hate the mother and still do right by the child?
And as for the Mom, yes, there should be consequences for her and for all parents who put their children in harm's way. But you know what? I'll bet MJ is lining up his little visitors right now, and starstruck parents are telling themselves, "Michael is innocent."
One last thing. Why the phuck (I'm trying not use the F-word) do we keep hearing about how the victim (and in the case the victim's mother) is "confused, emotionally disturbed, has a questionable background, needs money, can't get anyone to say they're wonderful people..." that sort of thing. Why can't people of average intelligence understand that predators go after the wounded. They go after the poor, those with no support system, those with 2 strikes already against them in society. Child molestation (and rape, Kobe) are often crimes of opportunity. In a strong, stable, well-respected, well-dressed, mentally and physically healthy, white bread family, the opportunity just doesn't present as readily. And people might BELIEVE them. And people might LIKE THE MOM.
Sorry to take the floor for so long, Mary, but thank you for the forum. As you can see, it really hurts my heart and my mind.
Go Susie! I agree w/you 1000%.
I was having this same discussion with another student yesterday. The more money you have, your free.
There are degrees of reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is basically when a reasonable person can take the evidence presented and reasonably believe there is enough doubt to not give a quilty verdict. This is the easiest threshold to meet.
A proponderance of the evidence is at least over 60-70% of the evidence is against the person.
There is one in between, and the threshold is over 51%, and I forget what it is.
Reasonable is a term of art with regard to the law. It dosent mean 'reasonable' how its used by non-lawyers, law students. I dont recall the definition. I learned this 5 terms ago, which equals 1 and 3/4 years so I may be a bit off, but thats the general idea.
One of the tendencies of molesters is that they will target a child of a disfunctional family. The interview that was aired with Wacko prior to this made me want to puke. He talked about the total innocence and taking them to bed with warm milk and cookies. God forbid an innocent man be accused or convicted. I am a man. The very last thing that I would ever, ever consider is getting in bed with a strangers kid ever. Your own kids will kick you square in your sack while you sleep. NO innocent man will sign up for a kick to the nuts. Much less having his skin crawl by getting in bed with a kid.
Susie - thank you so much for putting a spotlight on the characteristics of most child abuse victims...the injured and weak, the troubled and disadvantaged. As you said: predators go after the wounded...just like in nature.
Not liking the mother is a ridiculous reason for jurors to go for an acquittal...just as not liking Jackson is not a reason to convict him.
But the huge amount of evidence (including an eye witness saying he saw Jackson abuse the boy) or the maid who said Jackson showered naked with the boy would be enough to convict anyone other than apparently Michael Jackson.
He was tried by a whole new set of rules...he can get away with this because he's so odd and so rich. I wonder what the verdict would have been if he had been molesting little girls rather than little boys? Susie, if you stop back..I really would love to hear your opinion on this...
Thanks lawbrat - I was hoping you'd stop by and share your expertise --
Since I'm the kind of person that always carries doubt in my mind, almost never say I'm 100% sure unless I truly am, I'd be hard pressed to convict anyone... I could always come up with a doubt if I had to...
This legal yardstick cannot be used in every trial though...look at the Peterson trial...no pictures of him killing his wife..so there would have to be some doubt..no?
So true Jeff, and as I said to William, you try telling people you sleep with little boys and see how long before you are locked up, tried and convicted...
Barf is right. You hit the nail on the head with this title MaryB.
I watched about three minutes of this circus yesturday afternoon, one of the jury members saying how odd the mother seemed. I had to shut it of, my blood was boiling, I couldn't see straight.
Do you know what is the worse? All of his fans.. the people outside the courthouse with signs that say "FRAMED" and the like.. what the hell is wrong with these people? The man makes music and suddenly it is okay for him to take kids INTO BED with him? Even if this trial didn't take place, even if he was never 'accused' of these things.. how can you support a 'man' who thinks these things are okay? I'll tell you what, anybody, celebrity or not, took my baby boy to bed with them, they would have a serious prob. Not with the law. With a crazy ass Mommy that will hunt you down.
GRRRR.
(can you see the boiling blood from over there?)
And.. ditto, ditto, ditto ditto everything that has been said already. And thanks for posting about this and giving us a forum to chat about it. I wanted too, but like I said, i wasn't seeing straight enough to type. :)
Odd, and rich, and celebrity all are factors, certainly. If it had been girls . . . it may have been easier to convict. One thing I think, it would be more difficult for parents of little girls to justify to themselves that they were sending little girls into MJ's bed. That shouldn't be so, but I think it is. Would there be more of a public outcry? I don't know. It's so hard to apply logic to something that makes no sense no matter which way you turn it.
I have heard media types saying that the prosecutor screwed up by introducing the conspiracy charge, and diluting the sexual offense case. That makes sense, that that was a factor.
I think a huge factor, as others have said here, is the disdain for the mom. I suspect that mom has Borderline Personality Disorder. We all know someone who has it. They usually give us the heebie jeebies; we don't feel quite safe or quite right in their company. I'm afraid that her mental disorder made the jurors (especially the women, and I don't know the gender makeup of the jury) NEED to disassociate themselves from that woman. That's the kind of vibe borderlines put out. I wish there were a way for the jury to have been cautioned about some of the unconscious prejudices, some of the queasy gut feelings, that a person like that can arouse; they shouldn't be relevant in a courtroom, but I'm afraid they were.
What I've always wondered (and I've actually tried to avoid following the details of this trial as I find it absolutely revolting - both the circumstances as well as the circus that has ensued - this may have been answered during the trial) is what kind of mother would say "here's a really really strange and really really really rich man, who's been previously accused of child molestation, who wants to be best friends with my son. I think I'll let my little son SLEEP IN HIS BED."
I'm not saying the Jacko didn't do anything, or shouldn't have been convicted, but c'mon. This woman sent her kid in to the shark tank, and then cried foul when he got bitten (not that foul shouldn't be cried in this circumstance, just don't throw him in the shark tank in the first place). If I was a father, and I knew that someone had been accused of fiddling with kids, there is no way in any of the 9 circles of hell that I would allow that person within 100 yards of my kid, let alone allow unsupervised sleep-overs.
I have to wonder if she suspected that what happened was going to happen, and wanted to profit off it. . . if that's the case I think she's as guilty as Jacko (or not guilty on all charges, as it turns out).
Oddly enough, there was a Law and Order episode about this a few years ago (when the whole thing with Jacko started) and this was the angle they took as well - the complicity of the mother in the assault.
Ritapita- glad you liked my title...it's what I felt...I didn't do a good job on this post...but I had to vent...
Susie...thanks for responding to my question...you're right about the mom hate...to me she's definitely suffering from some mental illness...and most mental illnesses aren't all that appealing unfortunately...but still, why does that spill over to the victim?
Oh Cap'n...sure wish I'd seen that episode, I'm a law and order fan...even traveled to New Haven to see Sam Waterston in Stoppard's play Travesties...and I agree the mother and father (does he have one?) are responsible for his fate...but only one person was on trial and that was Jackson.
I agree with Ritapita's ass. You did a fine job. I never really post anything controversial, and this was so distressing to me that I almost did. I was glad to see that you had tackled it, and so well.
The headlines that I have seen, and I have not seen many major newspapers, but they say things like, "Jackson Cleared," or "Jackson Found Not Guilty." Has anyone seen "Jackson Innocent" or even "Jackson Not Guilty"? It's as though the whole country knows it's a travesty.
I go back to what I said here weeks ago, he should still be put in prison, just for being a national annoyance. Every few years we have to hear this crap because his crazy ass can't manage to "share his love" without having minors in his bed.
I heard an interview of a juror last night while I was doing some work in the shop. The interviewer asked how many jurors felt one way or the other at the onset of deliberations. They were "50/50" this guy said. The interviewer asked how this guy thought at first? He said "That was 7 days ago, I cant remember." WTF Either this guy has no balls to say what he thought or he is indeed a moron. It is amazing to me that in 7 days he forgot the overall feeling he had from the trial.
I have to admit that I was deep down wishing that MJ would go to prison. I am biased. I was hoping he would meet an inmate that wanted to "Share his love in his bed, totally innocent, with milk and cookies" I would like to see him moonwalk after that.
Phoo ! Phoo ! And I, as a forigner thought that only Presedents and their bunch were biased. I watched with awe the news stories and then whooosh..... like a balloon unleashed, gone with wind.
"Be a celiberity and do what you wish"
ritapita..the comments far outweigh the post...but isn't that what's so good about comments? A good frosting can make a dry cake mighty tasty.
susie - your comment: he should still be put in prison, just for being a national annoyance -- took me by surprise and made me laugh out loud and scare the dogs! Very funny my dear...
Kitsune...gotta run now to read your post..can't wait. Thanks for IDBing.
Jeff, I was hoping to hell he'd be whisked away in cuffs and left to rot for a while...but no, he's free, living across from an elementary school with a huge playground for a home and opportunities galore to be with his little boys.
You got it right Jac...celebrity status allows you to buy children and abuse children as in Jacko's case. The president would have gone to jail...
Scott Peterson didnt have the type of money that OJ, Burke, or as Susie said the 'national annoyance' has. I truly believe its all about the money. Even before all the stuff regarding Jackson, you couldnt pay me enough money to send my kids there. Its just not normal behavior. I so agree with Jeff. My kids come into my bed sometimes, and I HATE IT. I'm kicked in the head, they use me as a pillow or foot rest, sleep sideways, constantly in motion.
On night, they both were in my bed when my mother was sitting. When I went to bed, I saw them all over the bed, and said...no way. I went into one of their beds. But, they have radar. Within 2 minutes of going to bed, both were in their own beds, one with me. UGH. I couldnt win that night.
Kit - DB U C I like it when U DB.
lawbrat: Yup - I was saying celebrity but the correct word is money as you point out. Witness that Jonbenet Ramsey case...her father was filthy rich so he could pay to keep whoever did it (someone in his family I'm sure) from having to pay for it.
This whole country has been for sale.
Samantha...how true that is, and the scariest part is if the countries we owe money to, all called in their chits right now, we'd be bankrupt and no one would buy us.
Then again, it is we who sold ourselves out.
Mary and Everyone,
I found this link, thought I would share.
Try not to run screaming from the room.
Post a Comment
<< Home