PeterDavid.net

You really do hope justice was served, and I really haven't followed the case, but you have to wonder that if he wasn't a celebrity would the results been the same? I mean his creepy behavior with kids is well documented. I really have a hard time believing that even the lesser counts didn't stick.

I also remember a time when the perception was that a black man harming a white person would not receive a fair trial and be found guilty no matter what the circumstances. Has that perception finally gone away or is there a new caveat that states "unless said black man is a celebrity"?

My last thought on the topic, I suspect that the status of "celebrity" is so high in this country, that they have an immunity. After all, can Michael Jackson really be tried by a jury of his peers?

I watched the reading of the verdicts last night and felt...cheated? There was ths huge build up, and all the "experts" were saying they'd at least get him for providing alchahol to a minor, and yet everything came up empty.

The jurors apparantly didn't look at MJ when they came in...usually a good sign that they've convicted the defendant. In this case, I'd take it as a sign that they wanted to convict him, that they felt he was guilty, but that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

I don't think it's the cult of celebrity that insulates stars...it's the money that often comes with celebrity that translates into a good legal team. The boy's mother in this case also allowed that legal defense team to shred the basis for the prosecution's witnesses: If the mother was considered an unreliable witness, and had suspect motives, it tainted the testimony of the boys involved, as she could have easily swayed or influenced her children.

I'm still left with the impression that MJ had an improper relationship with those boys. I don't know that it was illegal, but it sure was wrong.

Anyone see Triumph the Insult Comic Dog taking shots at those scummy trough-feeders at the courthouse on Conan O'Brien last week? It's about time somebody rip into those fuckers. And his parting shot to that lady about seeing her back there when Clay Aiken goes on a shooting spree was PRICELESS.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-me-analysis14jun14,1,3620922.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The lead prosecutor in this pieces says something like "we don't check the pedigree of our witnesses."

Which is either a lie, or an admission of ineptitude. I may not be a trial attorney (civil federal practice) but I know that, in a case like this, you absolutely check the pedigree of your witness, especially when a large portion of your case hinges on their credibility.

I'm just shocked by the number of people who interpret an acquittal as Jackson being declared "innocent." Not Guilty and Innocent are galaxies apart from each other. Lizzie Borden was acquitted.

I too feel that it is definitely possible though that Jackson never did anything illegal with the accuser. That the most criminal action may have been the mother who allowed her child to stay at Neverland. (And any parents who allow their children to stay at Neverland now should be prosecuted for negligence, but there will be some, who will explain, "He was declared innocent!" Even though he wasn't.)

"I'm just shocked by the number of people who interpret an acquittal as Jackson being declared "innocent." Not Guilty and Innocent are galaxies apart from each other."

Just for the record, yeah, I know that. Notice I used the term "not guilty." "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (I love when people substitute "shadow of a doubt" for that.)

PAD

I hate to say this but I think the right decision was made. MJ did way too good of a job in picking people who weren't trustworthy both as staff and as victims. Therefore, even though we all know he is a pedophile, we can't definitely prove he did anything to those kids even though most reasonable people feel in their hearts that he is guilty.

At the very least his career is destroyed. I doubt that anyone will let their children be sucked into Neverland again. If there is another victim out there I hope they'll be able to prove that MJ did this but it may be too late. At least the rest of the world, the rational world, sees this man for what he really is: a sick, sad freak.

If you followed the trial, you would have seen from the start that the prosecution's evidence was week. The prosecutor has such a "jones" for convicting MJ, he didn't do a thorough job of research.

At one point, the prosecutor said the child actor from 'Home Alone' was among those that MJ abused. How do think the prosecutor felt when the child actor became a witness for the defense and told the jury the 'evidence' the prosecution has about this 'incident' is a complete and utter lie? The prosecutor and his office obviously did not properly do their research.

And this was just one portion of the prosecution's case that was badly researched. I could go on, but I won't. There are enough analysts out there to do that for me and everyone else.

I'm just shocked by the number of people who interpret an acquittal as Jackson being declared "innocent." Not Guilty and Innocent are galaxies apart from each other.

But in some cases, the line is so blurred in a fudged criminal trial (ie, one that should never have gotten to trial) that you can't help but see a not guilty verdict as proof of innocence.

I told my folks weeks ago to stop following the case on CNN, that Jackson was going to get off. In California, beyond a reasonable doubt seems to mean the prosecution has to bat 100 percent, and given the history of the mother, that screwed the pooch right there.

Let's just hope that Jackson doesn't have to sell all those Beatles songs to pay his legal bills. Otherwise we'll be treated to commercials for new dishsoap played to the tune of "Help!" or somesuch.

Ohhhhh!!! May I use the quote "If Saddam Hussein is smart... he asks for a change of venue and gets his trial moved to Los Angeles."? I'll include proper credit of course but that's one of the best things I've read yet!

Let's just hope that Jackson doesn't have to sell all those Beatles songs to pay his legal bills. Otherwise we'll be treated to commercials for new dishsoap played to the tune of "Help!" or somesuch.

Then again, since Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for those Beatles song rights years ago, there are surely some who'll hope that if he does have to sell 'em off, he'll sell them to Sir Paul...

As others have said, you've got to feel for the jury here. They're not judging Michael Jackson, they're judging the evidence.

It's not California juries that worry me, it's California prosecutors....

---KRAD

IMO, MJ is a pedophile, but, much as it would have pained me, I would have reached the same verdict, based on the horrendous job the prosecution did.

How the heck they ever thought they should build a case around such deplorable people I'll NEVER understand.

Later,
Chip

Haven't you heard? Saddam is in Connecticut:

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=saddam+casino&fr=FP-tab-news-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8

As to those who think MJ's career is over: I highly doubt it. He'll put out a record in a year or two and it will sell at least 2 million copies worldwide. He'll never have another THRILLER, but that wasn't going to happen even if he hadn't taken the express train to freaksville decades ago. There are already labels lining up to sign him and top name producers lining up to work with him.

Some of the jurors said that they don't think he's innocent but that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's how a lot of people feel. I also think the accuser's family came off somewhat skeevy and shady, and that did not help the prosecution's case.

Just wait for the inevitable multimillion dollar civil suit to follow...

Oh, as to Phil Spector, I don't think he'll get off -- he's not as much of a household name as MJ or OJ, and the evidence seems clearer, so I think the prosecution will be able to put up a better case against him. Hey, Winona Ryder was convicted because they had clear evidence, too.

exactly...if you watched even one witnesses testimony, then you would HAVE to find him not guilty. Their witnesses were so unreliable. You had the sister of the accuse admitting her brother lied on one case. You had another witness saying she saw MJ groping McCulley and then you have McCulley saying that never happened. Plus, if he was found Guilty then I think the parents should have been charged also for something.

Peter -- Have you been called as a witness (he asks, before scrolling back up the list to see if this has already been asked and answered.)

"Peter -- Have you been called as a witness (he asks, before scrolling back up the list to see if this has already been asked and answered.)"

On the Phil Spector thing? Good lord, no. A passing meeting with the victim, a couple minutes of exchanged pleasantries...I don't see what use I'd be. Certainly there's people who knew her or worked with her far more closely who'd be able to testify that she wasn't remotely suicidal.

PAD

One thing I think is at play in the Jackson case is the sort of families involved in the (alleged) victims. Poor, desperate for medical help, and quite possibly shady themselves -- the sort of people who, if they pursued charges, might not be believed.

If the prosecution had left the (alleged) victim's mother off the stand, it might have all turned out differently. Some jurors said that when she snapped her fingers at them, they reacted very angrily to it.

In the Catholic church's abuse scandal, investigators found a trend of victims coming from poor families, some of them single-parent households -- the sort of people who could be pressured into signing a confidential settlement with a provision saying they'd have to repay the money if they talked.

If Jackson IS a sexual predator, it could be that he's used the same tactics -- so it's easier to say "These are Springer people after my money." In that case, he'd be crazy ... like a fox.

"I hate to say this but I think the right decision was made. MJ did way too good of a job in picking people who weren't trustworthy both as staff and as victims. Therefore, even though we all know he is a pedophile, we can't definitely prove he did anything to those kids even though most reasonable people feel in their hearts that he is guilty"

I agree. The mother really came of like a gold digger that was just pressing charges for money. that puts a huge shadow of doubt on the whole thing.

Do I think he did it? yes. Beyond a shadow of doubt? Unfortunately no.

If Saddam Hussein is smart he asks for a change of venue and gets his trial moved to Los Angeles.

Too bad he can't get Johnny Cochrane..."If there's no WMD, my client must go free."

I have to agree with the general opinion here that while there is very little doubt in my mind that Jackson is a very sick man, the evidence was weak and the case poorly presented.

Spector will have a difficult time getting off, from what i know of the case. His celebrity is limited (they will have no trouble finding a jury composed of people who don't know him) and his story stinks on ice. Lana Clarkson seemed like a lovely person and I hope justice is done.

"One thing I think is at play in the Jackson case is the sort of families involved in the (alleged) victims. Poor, desperate for medical help, and quite possibly shady themselves -- the sort of people who, if they pursued charges, might not be believed."

Didn't we see this in the Robert Blake trial? The alleged trigger-man was saying something about people dressed as trees were following him. He also said something incriminating about Blake...I forget what...but PAD pointed out in that case that if you want to get away with murder, make a crazy person your accomplice.

Seems MJ did much the same, here. Target a needy famliy that would make questionable witnesses if he ever got caught.

Predators also tend to go after those who are most vulnerable. The kids involved in this case fit into that category perfectly. While they may have grown up learning to manipulate, they also grew up in an extremely volitile family system with little to no stability. Ripe pickings in the minds of those who exploit it.

There were five boys who testified to being molested at one time by MJ.
I think he was found not guilty by reason of celebrity. A multimillion dollar legal defense does wonders for a guilty party. A poor legal aid defense can get the innocent convicted.
Welcome to American Justice.
BTW, he's a pedophile and will do it again.

edhopper, while you are correct, as I understand it, those other witnesses were not part of the charge. MJ was specifically charged with molesting one child (the cancer patient) only. The other testimony was only provided as support for the one charge. I'm thinking there was a statute of limitations issue involving the other children.

In any case, the jury may well have believed the testimony of the other children...and still found MJ not guilty of the charges he was being tried for.

I don't really buy the Not Guilty by Reason of Celebrity: there's no way a jury could be staffed by people sympathetic to the defendant because of any celebrity status. Such people, assuming they answer jury questions truthfully, would be dismissed from the jury for reason of bias. He's not guilty because the case against him was not strong enough, and the defense was able to create a reasonable doubt.

On the Phil Spector thing? Good lord, no. A passing meeting with the victim, a couple minutes of exchanged pleasantries...I don't see what use I'd be. Certainly there's people who knew her or worked with her far more closely who'd be able to testify that she wasn't remotely suicidal.

I'm sure there are; I've just watched too much CSI... you know, you always want to talk to ANYONE who saw a victim on that last day to get a state-of-mind picture.

Scott Peterson screwed up. If you're going to kill in California, first you have to get your entertainment career going.

The jury said it came down to a question of reasonable doubt. Well I have my doubts too.

There were too many accusers present for this to have been a simple matter of mistaken circumstances for my personal comfort. For one who claims to be a friend of children, Michael Jackson certainly had no problem saying his accusers were either wrong or lying. And representatives for Jackson HAVE settled similar “disagreements” out of court on his behalf before.

Yet considering the pattern of repetitive claims concerning inappropriate behavior with minors that has developed over the preceding years, how many more children must cry “Foul!” before someone realizes there IS something wrong?

Inspired by the exact AOL news headline:

Michael and the boys were bouncing on the bed
Made the prosecution guys all see red
Had to go to trial and the lawyer said
"No more boys in Michael Jackson's bed."

PAD

Lee, you bring up a difficult point for juries to wrestle with, and I'm sure this is what's going to haunt this jury for the rest of their lives: in the face of overwhelming evidence that the defendant is guilty of SOMEthing, do you convict him of on the current charges in order to enforce some form of karmic justice?

For example, I've jaywalked a lot in my lifetime. Not so much now, because I don't line in an area where walking places is very convienent. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Now, suppose my town decides to start issuing tickets for jaywalking. They send me one, with a letter saying "we know you've done this in the past. We can't prove it, but we know. So pay up."

As I mentioned before, I don't think this is a case where the jury thinks MJ is innocent. They just can't say he's guilty of *this* crime, based on *this* evidence. The fact that none of them would look at MJ while the verdicts were being read supports this: if they had thought he was innocent, they'd have been smiling at him, maybe waving (due to his celebrity). Instead, you get 12 people saying "not guilty," but refusing to look him in the eye. Why? Because they know he's guilty as sin, there just isn't enough proof.

We have a high burden of proof for a reason: because liberty is one of the highest freedoms we posses, the state must go to almost herculean lengths, sometimes, in order to remove the right to liberty. If we lower that burdern of proof, the chance that truly innocent people will be deprived of liberty increases.

Sometimes, someone with money will settle a case out of court because it's worth more to them to make a pest go away than to fight it. There's a lawyer here in San Diego who makes his living filing borderline ADA lawsuits, on behalf of no one in particular, in the hopes that the business beign sued will settle and he'll get to keep the settlement money. Works more often than not...

Large numbers of accusers mean nothing, either - especially where the Deadly Profit Motive is concerned. Hell, if "too many accusers" meant guilt, wouldn't this entire administration already be in the jail at Nuremberg?

And the standard isn't "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but "beyond a reasonable doubt". There may well have been a shadow of doubt clinging to this case; however, given the quality of the witnesses the prosecution was able to dig up, it would be reasonable to conclude that each of them, for his/her own reasons (from Mom wanting money, to the former guard hoping to lessen his sentence in Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping), wanted to pillory Jackson. His guilt or innocence didn't enter into it. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that there would be an alternate, innocent explanation for all the circumstances cited - which innocent explanation was given.

The system worked, this time (still not too sure about the Blake thing, though...).

Just read an opinion piece about this whole case - it called it the "King of Distraction".

So, here's another reason to have the trial for Hussein LA: another great distraction for the media to keep their eyes and cameras off of the White House.

The best discussion I've found is here (either registration or "day pass" with commercials required):

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2005/06/14/jackson_essay/index.html

The best point made in the article, entitled "Guilty!", is that the Jackson trial revealed our own attitude towards celebrity, fame and power. And our own attitude sucks.

Speak for yourself, Thomas..... now I'm off to pick up the Simple Life DVD Boxed Set. :p

I for one can not belive this happen again. They spend millions on convicting M. Stewart for a phone call she lied about. But a kid toucher who shows dirty mags. to kids can just back to his perveted lifestyle. BTW the M.Stewart line was Leno last night had this guy on Jim Norton who was the funniest guy I have ever heard. But back to topic MJ should have been put away anyone of us would have. but if you have a name and money in cali kiliing ex wives present wives and touching kids are all ok. But Scott Petersen who they had a very case gets death for murders even though i was not even born yet. BTW the Insult dog link very funny http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935?htv=12&htv=12

Further proof that the jury system doesn't work.
At least it wasn't broadcast live on national television day in day out for a year.

Oh, hi, btw. New here.

Any chance you'll sydnicate this on lj?
Cheers.

Further proof that the jury system doesn't work.

So we all should just hang 'em, never mind the evidence....

I agree with the majority of the opinions here (or what I view as the majority)--just because Jackson is "not guilty" does not mean he is innocent, counter to what his legion of sheep, I mean loyal fans, believes. He's been found not guilty, by reason of celebrity.

I loved seeing the jury foreman squirm on CNN Headline News last night, where Nancy Grace really laid into him, pressing him for a reason why he thought Jackson had little boys with him in bed, while he wanted to stick to the "facts." He refused to tell what he believed, resorting to rhetoric about the jury just finding him not guilty, and shouldn't that be enough for her? Obviously not, because he was on, of all things, a news discussion program.

I did think the evidence in this particular case may not have been enough to convict for the molestation charges, but at least some of the alcohol charges should have stuck.

But at least this isn't the end. Oh no, just the opposite. IMNSHO, MJ is a pedophile in every sense of the word, and he will offend again as per that psychological profile. We saw it twice before this, and we'll see it again no matter how his family and lawyers try to rein him in. And as long as he preys on just this sort of family, who have trust and general family issues and everything that brought their credibility in doubt, he'll never get a guilty verdict.

~G.

So, here's another reason to have the trial for Hussein LA: another great distraction for the media to keep their eyes and cameras off of the White House.

I can understand the frustration of those who want to see Bush ridden out of town on a rail but face facts--most people don't feel that way and not everything that happens is somehow tied into White House politics. The Michael Jackson trail would have been news had it happened during Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Fillmore, whoever. OJ wasn't part of a "distraction strategy" and neither was this.

Just for the record, yeah, I know that. Notice I used the term "not guilty." "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (I love when people substitute "shadow of a doubt" for that.)

So when did America do away with the presumption of innocence?

As I understand it until someone is proved guilty in a court of law they have to be assumed to be innocent. If that someone is found not guilty then they are still innocent. I am slightly appalled that someone with such a commitment to civil rights can suggest that in a particular case, any particular case, a person who is found not guilty should be considered as anything less than innocent.

To suggest anything else is to say that any comic book guy that the CBDF fights for doesn't have to be treated as innocent just because they got him a not guilty verdict.

Feh.

Regarding Gary Miller's comments: Nancy Grace does NOT host a "news discussion program". She hosts a "I'm Nancy Grace, former prosecutor, and anyone charged with a crime is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, and anyone who can't see that is stupid" program.
I've watched the woman on a few occasions (which I truly regret because I'll never get that time back), and I've never seen her present anything remotely resembling "news discussion". Her entire focus is on court cases and crimes from the point of view of being a prosecutor. She doesn't allow people of differing opinions to state their case without constant interruptions while people on "her side" get to answer questions she's asked of them, with the only interruptions being her reiterating a statement the person made or to clarify a point that might not be fully understood by a viewer just tuning in. That's NOT "news". That's a "talk show" with her opinion being the only one that's acceptable.
She has shown no interest in the truth, only convicting by media.

Just for the record, yeah, I know that. Notice I used the term "not guilty." "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent." It means there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (I love when people substitute "shadow of a doubt" for that.)

I don't love it. It sucks.

So when did America do away with the presumption of innocence?

We didn't, which is why he's walking around free right now. You're failing to distinguish a legal presumption from actual fact. In any criminal case, the truth preexists the indictment-- either the person did what he's accused of, or not, no matter how the court acts or doesn't act. Someone was guilty of shooting JFK, even if that has never been proven in court, and even if there's a disagreement about who the guilty party is; whether it was Oswald or the guy from the X-Files, someone actually did it. We can revile the person who actually did it, we can complain about the person who actually did it. The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that humanity has to bury its collective head in the sand absent a jury verdict; it just means that we do not unleash the awesome power of the state on a person without showing in public that we know good and well that he is guilty. The state can do all sorts of nasty things to a person who is guilty of a crime, up to and including killing the miscreant, and no responsible prosecutor has any gripe about the burden of proof. It is our responsibility to assemble and present legally acquired and convincing evidence that the person charged is guilty, and if we can't do that, then maybe we have no business locking the person up. The problem is not the burden of proof. The problem with the jury system is that it has an awful error rate. We have enough checks built into the system--effectively stacking the deck in the defendant's favor-- to ensure that almost all the false readings are false negatives (guilty people going free), and of course those are a hell of a lot better than the opposite (innocent people in prison). But it's still frustrating when you have an OJ, or a case I tried a couple years ago where the defendant was SITTING ON THE DAMN CRACK PIPE, and a person who HAS been proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is acquitted. There are lots of reasons guilty people are acquitted, and some of them are even good reasons, but there's still a distinction between "acquitted" and "exonerated."

There's an even more insidious aspect to this, which is jury nullification. The founders did not intend for trial by jury to be a factfinding success-- it was specifically included in our legal system as a check against the government. It's one thing to have fond memories of colonial juries obstructing British imperial oppression; it's quite another to have Hoke County grand juries simply refusing to indict statutory rape cases because they don't like the law. In short, I don't feel a need to congratulate a defendant when a jury does the wrong thing.

"They spend millions on convicting M. Stewart for a phone call she lied about."

Ummm...no. They spent millions of dollars convicting someone of selling off $60K worth of stock that she knew was going to tumble the next day because of inside information. Keep in mind that Stewart was a trained stockbroker and knew of the severity of her crime. If you allow people who sit on boards the ability to sell stock that they know is going to bomb, you undermine the credibility of the stock market.

And keep this in mind- Martha Stewart did this for a lousy 60K, this even though she's worth a few million bucks AND was head of a publicly traded company. You can't let people like that get away with such crimes.

Put it this way- if you had bought the 60K worth of stock, you'd be mighty pissed, wouldn't you?

For some levity...

-- I hope I'm not the only one who saw tonight's Daily Show. Stephen Colbert's report "from the courthouse" is an absolute must-see, and takes Peter's initial statement to some disturbingly logical extremes. :-)

-- Julio's "but that wasn't going to happen even if he hadn't taken the express train to freaksville decades ago" is begging to be turned into a filk version of "Last Train to Clarksville."

The quick political comment: the reading of the verdict does not have to be part of a grand conspiracy for it to be a successful distraction. All you need is for White House staffers to get wind of the verdict enough in advance to prep a few quiet press releases they want to be under the radar -- and frankly, everyone and their kid brother had that advance notice this time, well-connected or not. I'm not saying anything happened this time around -- just acknowledging the possibility.

As for the verdict itself: I suspect MJ is mostly finished in the court of public opinion at this point, and would've been regardless of the verdict. Given the line of work he's in, that's going to be a fairly punitive sentence. Do I personally think he was guilty of the sort of conduct the prosecutors were after? Hell, yeah. Do I think he was guilty of this specific crime with these specific people? Hard to say.

TWL

"As I understand it until someone is proved guilty in a court of law they have to be assumed to be innocent. If that someone is found not guilty then they are still innocent. I am slightly appalled that someone with such a commitment to civil rights can suggest that in a particular case, any particular case, a person who is found not guilty should be considered as anything less than innocent."

Whereas I am slightly appalled that someone could attempt to smear my commitment to civil rights when all I was doing was discussing the correct manner in which verdicts are announced in a court of law. Okay, actually, I'm not appalled. I've seen people bend over backwards to try and come up with new and interesting ways to snipe at me, so I'm pretty much used to it by now.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is, number one, not absolute. Robert Blake sat in jail for months, if not years, and he hadn't been proven guilty. Ed Kramer of Dragon*Con has remained under house arrest for FOUR YEARS, accused of child molestation, and still hasn't had his day in court to my knowledge. Number two, what innocent until proven guilty really means is that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove its case; the defense isn't even required to put forward a presentation. This distinguishes it from other societies where it's incumbent upon the defense to prove the innocence of the accused.

One can still believe someone is not innocent even if the jury found otherwise and not betray a commitment to the legal system. For instance, I absolutely don't care that the jury found OJ Simpson "not guilty." I think he did it. For that matter, so did the jury in the civil case. I think any rational interpretation of my view in that matter wouldn't see it as any sort of contradiction or undercutting of my other views.

Interestingly, "Feh" is John Byrne's favorite word to dismiss out of hand anything I say. That you hiding behind a pseudonym, John?

PAD

The problem with the jury system is that it has an awful error rate. We have enough checks built into the system--effectively stacking the deck in the defendant's favor-- to ensure that almost all the false readings are false negatives (guilty people going free), and of course those are a hell of a lot better than the opposite (innocent people in prison).

That's not a bug, that's a feature. As you yourself point out...consider the alternative.

Personally, I think he did it and I feel there was a lot more going on then meets the eye in this case then either side is telling. However, if I had been on the jury I think I would have voted "Not Guilty" as well.
I followed this case closer then I thought I would thanks to slow moving LA traffic and listening to newsradio in the car. Beyond my own emotional response, the defence really did put up a paper-thin case that was full of holes (the timeline, conflicting testimony, who knew what and when etc..) and the defence did a job of disputing every major piont they introduced.
I don't want add fuel to the whole "Not Guilty vs. Innocent" debate, but IMHO there was cerntainly enough "Resonable Doubt" in this case to not convict him.

The Justice System, if not Justice itself has been served in this case.

It's disturbing that one of the jurors said that he, and several other jurors, think that Michael Jackson probably did it, but they weren't 100% convinced. There are more news reports today that they wanted "a smoking gun" that just wasn't there.

Most criminals don't leave direct evidence. Most prosecutors don't show juries videotapes of the accused committing the crimes. The standard is "beyond all reasonable doubt," not "beyond all possible doubt in the universe." Michael Jackson did go on television and talk about how much he loved spending the night sleeping in the same bed as young boys. Numerous witnesses testified of their first-hand experiences of Michael Jackson molesting them (including one boy who MJ settled with in a once-sealed settlement; I suppose he paid millions because the boy was making it up, but doing a really good job).

And no, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." If I kill my neighbor, on videotape and in front of witnesses, and I'm found not guilty (mental defect, not read my rights, etc.), that doesn't mean I didn't comitt the crime. It means they can't legally make the charge stick.

I can understand the frustration of those who want to see Bush ridden out of town on a rail but face facts--most people don't feel that way and not everything that happens is somehow tied into White House politics.

I don't think anyone believes that the Bush White House framed Michael Jackson to take the heat off.

Rather it is just more proof that news networks prefer to over-cover the "hot" story of the moment instead of digging into things that are going on in D.C. these days. Especially when the media runs into brick wall after brick wall trying to get information from the Bush White House. (To be fair, no White House loves to share information with the media.)

I was over-joyed to read that the "hyper-rich" the weealthiest .001 of the population, have seen their share of earnings more than double since 1980, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell. The hyper-rich also pay almost the same Medicare and Social Security taxes as those that make $50,000 to $75,000. Also, under the Bush tax plan, by 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay up to 14 percent more of their income than the hyper-rich.

Just some reality away from Jackson's insanity.

The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty. What a marvelous little lynch mob mentality we have going here. Heck, watching the aftermath of the MJ trial, I keep flashing back to the end of To Kill a Mockingbird, though I doubt a bunch of rednecks with a rope would get within 100 feet of Jackson.

But, back to my original point/gripe. You don't KNOW that he's guilty. It may be your OPINION or INFERENCE that he's guilty. I'd even concede the possibility that he was, in fact, guilty. I have no way of knowing, though, one way or the other, and I refuse to get worked up about it.

-Rex Hondo-

To be completely accurate, even jury members have come forward to say yes, they personally feel that MJ acted improperly. One went as far as to say he felt that Jackson did molest boys. However "reasonable doubt" was present and they could not say absolutely for certain he did it. He emphasized that the judge warned them against using personal opinion.

Jackson is certainly not innocent. He has publically acted inappropriately upon several occassions. I think it's fair enough to doubt innocence opposed to not guilty.

Going back to the juror that discussed the inability to allow his personal opinion to sway his vote, I have to ask. What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom? I find it extremely disturbing to hear jurors announce that their personal beliefs do not coincide with their votes. Not that I don't recognize the necessity in it. I do. I understand our juries should send a person to prison just on a personal whim because it sounds good. But I wonder what it says that we cannot rely on our instincts and common sense in addition to the facts presented.

From my post above... "I understand our juries should send a person to prison..."

It should be I understand our juries SHOULDN"T sent a person to prison...

Sorry ;)

"But I wonder what it says that we cannot rely on our instincts and common sense in addition to the facts presented."

Perhaps if common sense was truly more common than it actually is...

-Rex Hondo-

And on the other hand I think about the impressive percentage of celebrities walking away from crimes in California and wonder if--despite the jury's claims to the contrary--the cult of celebrity really does render them invulnerable.

Hmmm, maybe the jury should be made up of famous people who are already jaded by the cult of celebrity...

You know, I've often wondered if the jury has to follow the rules? Is there really anything stopping the jury members in the deliberation room saying, "Well, the prosecution really did a bad job proving beyond reasonable doubt, but we all know he's guilty so screw it, lets find him guilty."

That would make for a dangerous precedent I guess...

Another comment mentioned that there were other cases that they couldn't make a trial on because there is a statute of limitations that has passed. I've always found this expiry time a strange idea. Here in Australia there is no statute of limitations on sexual child abuse. (You should have seen the look on my abuser's face when I told him that twenty years after the acts were committed...)

Dic. H.

I have followed the trial a bit because Sky One here in Britain broadcast the highlights using actors and scripts.

When you just look at the evidence as presented, no wonder that there must be reasonable doubt! The Home Alone star denied having been mistreated by Michael Jackson in any way after it was publicly stated that he was. The contrary, nobody even talked to him BEFORE this was done!

Magazines found at Michael Jacksons ranch weren`t checked for fingerprints for months. Worse, the boys who accused MJ could have touched them at the police station before these examinations were made!

The mother was definitely entertaining to watch. The bit if she got a leg wax or body wax was just hilarious. But as witness for the procecution, she was a disaster.

I don`t think any other verdict was possible here. Locking a man up because he shares a bed with boys without any sexual meaning behind it is enough to lock him up. This is obviously what the jury believed.

...is not enough.

Sorry, my daughter kept climbing all over me while I was typing.

"I am slightly appalled that someone with such a commitment to civil rights can suggest that in a particular case, any particular case, a person who is found not guilty should be considered as anything less than innocent."

I'm a big fan of the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but I have only two words for people who cling to it come hell or high water: Al Capone.

"Well, the prosecution really did a bad job proving beyond reasonable doubt, but we all know he's guilty so screw it, lets find him guilty."

Jim Unger's HERMAN strip had a good one on that as a dour-faced judge comments to the defendant: "The jury found you 'not guilty', but I'm going to give you two years, just to be on the safe side."

PAD, I was neither trying to sneer nor snipe at you. I was just left with my mouth hanging open when I read your comments and responded to them.

I know there are cases where no right minded person agrees with the result given by the jury, and I know there are bizarre miscarriages of justice but my response was to a general comment you made about the subject, not a specific one.

The tone of many of the comments here has been "I disagree with the verdict and so I am going to do all I can to damage the life of this person." In this case that really just means refusing to buy any products produced by them and talking trash whenever possible, but translate that to a more local situation and the action becomes a lot more direct and personal. Your comment in context seemed to sanction this lynch mob attitude. This makes me extremely uncomfortable.

As for the "feh" comment, I'm not sure where I picked that up from. I had rewritten a last sentence several times and in the end just decided the heck with it. I'm not sure whether to be amused or appalled to be taken for John Byrne.

I've been reading this blog for a while now, and while I don't always agree with your opinions I do respect them. If my honest reactions are going to be dismissed as the simple minded sniping of someone with a grudge then I don't see much point in sticking around.

""They spend millions on convicting M. Stewart for a phone call she lied about."

Ummm...no. They spent millions of dollars convicting someone of selling off $60K worth of stock that she knew was going to tumble the next day because of inside information."

Actually, they *did* spend millions to convict Stewart for the crime of being a liar.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/

Ok, os technically it was for obstructing justice, but the judge tossed the charge that related to the actual stock trade. So Stewart was convicted, even though the only law she broke was that she lied to the investigators...about an act that ultimately wasn't a crime. It's similar to what nearly happened to Chris Webber. He didn't do anything illegal (accepted money from a booster while playing NCAA basketball at the U of M)...but he didn't tell the precise truth during his grand jusy testimony (as I understand it, Webber was asked if he received a specific amount of money from the booster. Webber's reply was something like "it was not that amount of money. The actual totals were only a few hundred $ off, so Webber's answer was technically, factually, and legally correct. This didn't stop the government for threatening to prosecute him, and his father, for obstruction of justice).

The lesson, of course, is don't lie to the government during an investigation, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.

The more insidious lesson, of course, is that the government employs some prosecutors that are little more than bullys, wielding enough power to take away your freedom.

The Michael Jackson trail would have been news had it happened during Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Fillmore, whoever. OJ wasn't part of a "distraction strategy" and neither was this.

My point was the fact that this should NOT be the most important news of any day.

No, I don't see this as some governmental conspiracy (beyond the local idiots in California who yet again screwed up another prosecution).

But, either way, you know the White House is loving it.

Actually, I think justice was served BECAUSE of the cult of celebrity.

Let's for a moment say that some unknown black man (with or without the bleached skin) was charged with this crime. History suggests that the jury would already believe the guy is guilty, making reasonable doubt much easier to overcome. (Or forget the black guy and make it a priest.)

Because MJ and OJ are celebrities, the willing suspension of innocent before proven guilty was almost a given... not because they believed them innocent, but because being "larger than life" they are difficult to judge ("this ain't no common black man...")and hearing the case out with a semblence of an open mind is possible.

The witnesses weren't credible and they were seen that way. If they had been, he would have been convicted.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for court, by the way, not the police or the common folk.

The lesson, of course, is don't lie to the government during an investigation, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.

cf. Clinton. The only thing the millions spent on his investigation was ever able to turn up on him was lying about something that wasn't a crime. nothing else stuck.

"PAD, I was neither trying to sneer nor snipe at you. I was just left with my mouth hanging open when I read your comments and responded to them."

And I'm saying that you overreacted and that overreaction came across as contemptuous at best, snotty at worst.

"I know there are cases where no right minded person agrees with the result given by the jury, and I know there are bizarre miscarriages of justice but my response was to a general comment you made about the subject, not a specific one."

Except my comment was not a general one, but instead a very specific one as to the fact that--from a legal point of view--juries find someone "not guilty," not "innocent." In fact, I was simply acknowledging someone else's post on the subject; I notice you didn't excoriate them.

"The tone of many of the comments here has been "I disagree with the verdict and so I am going to do all I can to damage the life of this person.""

This is one of my favorite internet stunts: Completely distort what people are saying and put it in quotes as a means of adding veracity. I have reread this thread, every posting, and I have seen not so much as a single post that even comes close to your implication. Not even close. I didn't even see a single person saying they were going to boycott Jackson's future work. Now if I missed one and someone did say it, okay. I read through it fast. But it's not remotely prevalent; there is no lynch mob mentality at work here. Which is actually kind of funny: All I have to express political opinions someone doesn't like, and people come out of the woodwork to announce they'll never touch my comics again. But many people believe that Michael Jackson wasn't innocent of the charges, verdict notwithstanding, and they're STILL not saying they'll shun his future work...your fabricated quote to the contrary.

"Your comment in context seemed to sanction this lynch mob attitude. This makes me extremely uncomfortable."

Then you need to reexamine the prism through which you're viewing this thread, because in my opinion, you're seeing something that isn't there. Personally, I believe you have your own issues and concerns that are distorting what you're reading here, but there is NO lynch mob attitude at work here. Most of the discussion revolves around an even-handed examination of the pros and cons of the judicial system, and posters here are as inclined to criticize the prosecution's case as anything else. Indeed, many have said that they themselves would have found "Not guilty." You're reacting to something that simply isn't there.

"As for the "feh" comment, I'm not sure where I picked that up from. I had rewritten a last sentence several times and in the end just decided the heck with it. I'm not sure whether to be amused or appalled to be taken for John Byrne."

Well, it read like his, so take it however you wish.

"I've been reading this blog for a while now, and while I don't always agree with your opinions I do respect them. If my honest reactions are going to be dismissed as the simple minded sniping of someone with a grudge then I don't see much point in sticking around."

Well, you said "simple minded," I didn't. But yes, I very much thought that you had a grudge for the simple reason that--at first read--what you wrote was SO unrelated to what was here that I was looking for some motivation. Your follow-up post, with your quotations of non-existent sentiments, only lends validity to my previous assessment. If you want to say that it was not motivated by personal enmity, fine, I accept that. But it sure was motivated by SOMETHING going on inside your own head. What that something may be, I haven't the faintest idea, nor do I really care that much since it's personal to you. But I'm telling you here and now that your condemnation of a pretty straightforward discussion of the pros and cons of jury trials and the power of celebrity in such situations are the rantings of a "lynch mob" is a wildly unfair characterization.

Now if that observation steams you so much that you feel the need to depart in a snit, that's entirely your decision. No one is forcing you to do so, nor asking you, nor urging you. But I think that, in regards to boycotts and trying to make someone's life difficult, we had more people howling for economic bloodletting when it came to the Dixie Chicks than Michael Jackson. Which might be an interesting indicator of where people's priorities are, but I couldn't say for sure.

PAD

Michael Jackson did go on television and talk about how much he loved spending the night sleeping in the same bed as young boys.

This may be true, but unless the prosecution showed it during the trial, it doesn't get considered.

He has publically acted inappropriately upon several occassions.

Inappropiately does not always mean illegal.

What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom?

I think it says that we can fairly judge someone after hearing both sides of the story. That's why we use impartial juries. If we're going to judge people according to our emotions, why bother with trials when we can just conduct opinion polls to decide.

PAD:

>>What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom?

>I think it says that we can fairly judge someone after hearing both sides of the story. That's why we use impartial juries. If we're going to judge people according to our emotions, why bother with trials when we can just conduct opinion polls to decide.

Awww Peter, you take away the fun of considering the possibility of modern day reenactments of the witch trials when you make with this crazy talk... and uh stuff.

oops... misread this... Michal gave the response that I attributed to PAD.

Robert Blake sat in jail for months, if not years, and he hadn't been proven guilty. Ed Kramer of Dragon*Con has remained under house arrest for FOUR YEARS, accused of child molestation, and still hasn't had his day in court to my knowledge.

Don't forget Jose Padilla - 3 years 37 days in prison while the government says "no trial if we say so".

"Don't forget Jose Padilla - 3 years 37 days in prison while the government says "no trial if we say so"."

At least Padilla has some credible connection to terrorist actions. What about the hundreds of other internationals sitting in some US prison camp that we *don't* have any evidence of terrorist activities on? And, convienently enough, since we blew up the governments that those people used to be under, there's no one to fight for their rights.

Because no one else has said it yet:

Y'know, the only reason Jackson got off was because he's white.

:)

Actually, that was commented on last night in the "Daily Show." Stephen Colbert stated that Jackson had played "the race cards." When Jon Stewart questioned the plural "cards," Colbert when on to explain that the all-white jury felt guilty over the concept of convicting a black man, but at the same time, naturally hesitated to find a fellow white man guilty.

PAD

I didn't even see a single person saying they were going to boycott Jackson's future work.

Well, to be fair PAD, it's pretty easy to boycott MJ's singing career considering he hasn't had one for going on 10 years now. Whether he has actually committed a crime or not, his own bizarro and inappropriate behavior had already destroyed his career as an entertainer. So, even though he's a free man, he really has no hope of resurrecting it. Maybe he can devote his life to finding the real pre-pubescent boy rapers.

Or maybe he'll just take up golf.

Den

There's no such phrase as "no hope" when it comes to resurrecting careers. If Richard Nixon could be treated as an elder stateman late in his career, Michael Jackson can come back from this. And he probably has more die-hard fans at this point than Nixon had.

I think people have too many fond memories of Jackson at his peak to want to write him off. I think if Jackson gives them the excuse to move beyond the recent ugliness by producing top flight music, going out on tour, reconnecting with his fans...I think they'll leap at the opportunity if there's quality product. In my opinion, it's up to him. In terms of a career restoration, if he builds it, they will indeed come to him.

If, on the other hand, he retreats to Neverland and stays there, then Kathleen is absolutely right on her blog when she says he'll be the new Howard Hughes, living in paranoid seclusion with strange hair and distended fingernails.

PAD

No one says it better than Andrew Vachss. If you've never read one of his books, may I recommend you start with FLOOD and work your way forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15vachss.html

You have a point, PAD. But I look at the probabilities.

On the one hand, he would have to totally change his behavior, find his nose and reattach it, drop the entourage that has increasingly isolated him from his fans, and produce top-flight music, or at least music that doesn't suck.

On the other hand, he could retreat further behind his umbrella holders and other hangers on, continue down the road of increasingly bizarro behavior, continue transforming his face into silly putty, and continue to produce music that is derivative and stale.

I'm giving 100:1 odds in favor of the latter.

One more thing:

Nixon is still a crook. He's just a dead crook now.

Peter David cannot even comment on Michael Jackson without saying BUSH SUCKS.

Classic. And funny.

Also exponential!

"I'm giving 100:1 odds in favor of the latter."

I don't disagree. But whereas you admit that you're considering the probabilities, I was focusing only on the possibilities. The whole reason that probabilities exist is to try and limit the infinity of chances that possibilities present.

PAD

Maybe so, but only if and when he actually modifies his behavior and image will he have a chance to revive his career. Until them, his career is and remains dead.

Personally, I think Robert Blake has a better chance of a comeback.

Hey! Maybe they could form a double-act, like Velma and Roxie did in "Chicago."

C'mon. Admit it. You'd pay to see that.

PAD

"Well, to be fair PAD, it's pretty easy to boycott MJ's singing career considering he hasn't had one for going on 10 years now."

The song "Butterflies" he did for his last album was rather pretty. Caught it on the radio one night. Nice harmonies.

Aside to Bobb- you're right, I'm wrong. Martha was conviced for lying and obstructing justice while the government was investigating here for her using inside info to sell 60K worth of stock that wasn't worth 60K.

Except for one thing- I'm perfectly happy with the govvy spending that money to convict her. She knew the rules and broke them.

Absolutely right, Ray, and worse than that, she *thought* she had committed a crime, and was trying to cover it up. I don't object to specifically sending Martha away, but the idea that you can go to jail when the only crime you committed was because of what you said about an act that wasn't criminal....

Yeesh, it makes my head spin, but there's something there that just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's the "poison fruit" idea that stems from legal evidentiary law: if the only way you obtain some incriminating evidence is through illegal means, you can't use the illegally obtained evidence (in some cases....Mr. Bjorlin, feel free to correct and expand).

So, if the only reason you're lieing to the government is to cover up some legal act...how is that a crime?? I get it, and I don't....

The song "Butterflies" he did for his last album was rather pretty. Caught it on the radio one night. Nice harmonies.

That would be from his "Invincible" album that tanked, right?

I rest my case.

The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty.

Including his past victims who got paid off to keep their mouths shut....

*chuckle* Wouldn't you know it, somebody had to do a
cartoon about this.

JosephW wrote:

Regarding Gary Miller's comments: Nancy Grace does NOT host a "news discussion program". She hosts a "I'm Nancy Grace, former prosecutor, and anyone charged with a crime is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, and anyone who can't see that is stupid" program.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. Your bias, your problem. I was being impartial and calling the program what it's objectively called in respectable media. And anyway, my post wasn't even about the quality of her program, but rather just a moment I found pretty hilarious. Doesn't mean I endorse her as the greatest news anchor ever (I don't). Hey, this thread isn't about your petty biases about one news anchor. It's all about vilifying Jacko the Whacko. (/sarcasm)

Looks like, according to today's paper, 3 of the 12 jurors were leaning toward guilty, but got talked out of it by the other 9. Would that there was any serious consideration paid to the alcohol charge.

And I still think he'll offend again.

~G.

At least Padilla has some credible connection to terrorist actions. What about the hundreds of other internationals sitting in some US prison camp that we *don't* have any evidence of terrorist activities on? And, convienently enough, since we blew up the governments that those people used to be under, there's no one to fight for their rights.

I agree. But Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and the Constitution says everyone has a right to a quick & speedy trial, a jury trial. There are no exemptions listed.

Also, if the Government has a case, they should bring him to trial. I think the Government is holding him as a test case, to see if they can get away with 'disappearing' someone.

If any repectable news media is calling Nancy Grace's show a "news discussion" program, they're doing their readers/viewers a disservice. Joesph W.'s evaluation of her absolute lack of objectivity is accurate, as anyone who's ever seen her on Court TV or CNN should be able to tell. I understand there was a murder of a loved one (fiance?) in her past,so she is worthy of sympathy, but still - she is about as unbiased in her arena as Rush Limbaugh is in his. CNN isn't doing much for their reputation as a news organization by ginving Grace a primetime hour.

Jerry Colvin, thank you for rather spectacularly making my case for me.

-Rex Hondo-

The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty.

Including his past victims who got paid off to keep their mouths shut....

Which personally, I don't buy it. If someone molested my daughter, there isn't enough money in circulation in the world's combined economies to make me shut up and go away. Nothing would satisfy me short of seeing the short-eyes that did it going into the roughest "correctional" institution in the state.

I don't really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money.

Further thoughts: Now, I'll be one of the first to admit, MJ is a Class-A wierdie, but when you're one of the most recognizable people on the face of the Earth from childhood on, the odds of turning out "normal" are about nil. I suppose the main flaw I see in the whole "He settled, so he must be guilty," argument, is that it fails to take into account a number of factors.

First, it ignores the overly litigious society of the United States of the last decade or so. When any dumbass can sue McDonald's when they spill coffee on themselves and get a settlement, it makes somebody like Jackson who's both strange and richer than fuck a very easy target.

Which brings me to my second point. So he settled for a few million bucks before. The man has more money than he probably knows what to do with. A few million here or there is ass-wiping money. Even if he didn't do it (I honestly don't have an opinion one way or the other) it would have been more than worth it just to avoid the hassle. A trial is always a gamble, whether one is truly guilty or innocent. He put money on the sure thing.

*shrug* Like I said, I don't know one way or the other, and don't have any emotional investment in the case, but I do know that molestation is one of the most serious accusations you can level against someone, and if you're going to, you'd better be damn sure you have some evidence to back it up. And for Joe Sixpack from Pig's Nut, Arkansas to say that he KNOWS what goes on in Neverland is just typical armchair quarterback bullshit.

-Rex Hondo-

"I don't really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money."

I don't believe that YOU would take hush money--or at least your protestations that you wouldn't come across as very sincere to me--and I know I sure as hell wouldn't. Then again, I know I sure as hell wouldn't go on an afternoon talk show and use it to air grievances about family members. But, boy howdy, people are sure lining up to do that.

So as repellant a notion as it is to think that people would accept hush money, I have to think that there are no limits as to what some people will do or not do.

PAD

"So as repellant a notion as it is to think that people would accept hush money, I have to think that there are no limits as to what some people will do or not do."

Which, interestingly enough (to me at least) is a statement which swings both ways, depending on which "side" of the MJ verdict you happen to be on.

One of the best points I saw made as to why the prosecution's case backfired so spectacularly is that (to paraphrase) anyone who lets their kid spend the night with Jacko is, by definition, too crazy to be credible in court.

-Rex Hondo-

"One of the best points I saw made as to why the prosecution's case backfired so spectacularly is that (to paraphrase) anyone who lets their kid spend the night with Jacko is, by definition, too crazy to be credible in court."

Yeah, but that's just classic Catch-22. The only excuse for getting out of making bombing runs is insanity. But if you claim insanity for the purpose of getting out of bombing duty, the presumption is that you're in fear of your life, and that fear is demonstrative proof that you're not insane, so therefore you won't be excused. But if you truly are insane and not in fear of your life, you won't apply for getting out of making bombing runs.

Personally, I don't know that anyone who let their kid spend the night with Michael Jackson is too crazy to be credible in court. I do, however, think they're too stupid to be good parents. I mean, I'm 48, and if I told my folks I was planning to spend the night with Michael Jackson, they'd say, "The hell you are."

PAD

Well, I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd disagree that, given her performance, "crazy" just about covers the mother in this case.

Of course, the question remains, given Jackson's legal past, and continuing rumors surrounding him, how much liability in the case rests with the parents? Whether the rumors are true or not, handing one's child over to the man is damn near, if not completely, criminally irresponsible. Might we see proceedings in the near future to legally declare this woman an unfit parent?

(Sorry if I seem to be flogging a dead horse, but once the bluster on either side is out of the way, there are a couple of interesting points to be discussed here)

-Rex Hondo-

Jonathan (the other one):

"short-eyes" ???

I never heard that one before.

"I don't really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money."

Neitherw ould I but one has to admit that the families that did got a hell of a lot more than the families that, as I would do, tried to use the legal system.

(Actually, my first impulse would be to have the bastard killed and/or tortured but A- ofr the sake of my soul I hope I'd get over that idea and B- realistically, my chances of getting close enough to someone of Jackson's power is highly unlikely).

"short-eyes" ???

"I never heard that one before."

It's the name of a chilling, somewhat obscure film on prison pedophiles. It's prison slang for child molestors who "have eyes for" short people (children), according to one source. It's interesting, (and gratifying on so many levels) that even the scum of the earth consider pedophiles to be at the absolute bottom rung of the human ladder and will gladly brutalize them in prison. (Of course, taht also means that one should be pretty damn sure of guilt before sending someone to prison on the charge).

Thanks for the definition Bill Mulligan.

Now, I'll be one of the first to admit, MJ is a Class-A wierdie

What's so weird about MJ? Sure, she doesn't realize Spidey is Peter, but it's not like Spiderman isn't wearing a mask or anything. It's perfectly understandable.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Hey! Can we get back to the original topic of BUSH SUCKS?!?!?!?!