Tuesday, June 14, 2005


So yesterday I was in Pep Boys buying a radiator hose to fix some pool plumbing (it's a jerry-rig - but it worked) and as I was at the register, a criminology major from Fresno State was telling of her disgust of the just read "not guilty" verdict in the Michael Jackson case. I have been semi- following the case because I like Thomas Mesereau's courtroom demeanor, and think he is a rising star in the law world. So this crim major was aghast at the verdict and when I asked her what info she has that convinces her of MJ's guilt, she said that she followed the case closely on Court TV and they showed the "tons" of kiddy porn presented in the trial, though they did blur out the images so as not to offend. But later I heard one of the jurors say the porn presented was the kind that any adult could legally buy. So the questions here are:

A) Was the woman in Pep Boys prejudicial because she is very offended by the idea porn i.e. "Anyone who looks at that stuff is psychologically sick", or has some relevant past history concerning child molestation?

B) Did the judge exclude that graphic evidence for some reason? I recall hear about some porn found at MJ's house, but I don't recall hearing of mountains of evidence of that specific nature.

C) Or was Court TV's coverage biased against Michael Jackson? And I don't mean that in a racist way. What I mean is that they didn't present this case as a neutral observer. After all, opinions, even when wrong, sells more print than neutrality. Ask Moron, er, I mean Moreene Dowd, Molly Ivans, and Rush Limbaugh.

My thoughts on the trial? From the info that I had, and I always remove myself from certainty as I wasn't in the courtroom, I thought he would walk on the molestation charges due to these reasons:

A) Most pedophiles seem to present themselves as normal as possible, i.e. soccer coach, boy scout leader, priest, etc. And they generally won't announce to the world that they sleep with young boys in their bed, unless the perp is a member of NAMBLA. Jackson is just weird, period. But that does NOT equal guilt even if he is bizarre and shares a bed with (presumably) sleeping kids, no more than being gay automatically means you're a pedophile.

B) Ped's typically have boat loads of kiddy porn on computers and pictures stashed all over. Look at Paul "I was just showing my stub" Reubens and Jeffery "Farris Bueller" Jones. If these two peripheral celebs were convicted due to the mere possession of the stuff, certainly MJ would have been charged and convicted also. And if you go to THIS PAGE at Court TV's web site containing evidence the jury did not hear, not only do you not see any mention of tons of kiddy porn, but where is the list of the ten charges brought against MJ in the first place? There is a drawing of a member that is supposed to be Michaels, but the kid is a guy, and he knows what a penis looks like. So I ask; how much time and effort would it take to draw a penis that is definitely recognizable as belonging to one person and one person only? THIS is either Michael Jackson's penis or a house. Who ever runs the site PERVSCAN.COM said it best "It's amazing that a man who spent so much money making his nose smaller didn't do anything to improve his tool". Then again, if you like having sex with children, then size does matter.

C) The mother is a conniving flake. The kids admitted to lying on the witness stand in another case. Almost all of the key witnesses against Jackson had an ax or two to grind. But the mothers attitude on the stand and past grifting history doomed the possibility of a conviction from the start. Sneddon's team didn't do the kind of thorough background check needed to bring this case to court. Enough said.

D)When the catholic priest scandal broke, you had dozens, sometimes hundreds of victims coming forward to help prosecute the molesters. Just a thought, but if MJ is a child molester, and with the access to children that he had for a couple of dozens of years, you would think there would be more than three or five victims who would want to come forward to convict the guy. Lets face it, Jackson surround himself with yes men and there was no one there to stop him having his way with any of these kids. Unless he only molested those few. But then that would be like a practicing alcoholic who works in a bar but never gets drunk on the job. MJ may be described by his fans as the "King of Pop", but he definitely isn't going to be known as the "King of Self Control" anytime in my lifetime.

E) I've heard some people say Jackson chose his victims well, that he planned to molest this child because of the dubious background of the family and mother. Yea. The mother had already gone to court and won a case against J.C. Penny, but she wouldn't go to court to pursue Jackson for violating her son? The fact that the whole family lied in that case didn't come to light until well after this case had already started. And since when has Jackson shown anything that vaguely resembles any kind of rational thought?

For these reasons, I was fairly sure he would moonwalk any from a molestation conviction, but I thought he would get nailed for serving alcohol to a minor. Am I saying that he has never molested a child, or even this one? No. He may have. But, from my vantage point, this case didn't come anywhere close to proving it.

So I ask again. Was Court TV's coverage of the Jackson trial biased?

PS. In my next life I WILL be a lawyer. I'm too lazy and distracted to do it in this one.

No comments: