June 13, 2005
The Jackson Verdict: It Was Just Milk And Cookies
Not guilty on all counts.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Today's big winner: Geraldo.
Posted by: annika at
02:29 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Proves the same thing that the OJ jury did... even a rich black man can't get justice in America.
Posted by: Casca at June 13, 2005 03:20 PM (qBTBH)
2
In MJ's case, that would be a rich white woman, Casca.
Posted by: The Owner's Manual at June 13, 2005 05:36 PM (asvHL)
3
Annika - wait, wait, go back. Geraldo said he would SHAVE OFF HIS MUSTACHE if Michael was convicted? What??
I mean, it's Geraldo, right, why am I surprised ...
But still. Woah. That's feckin' nuts, Geraldo. Way to make a stand, dude, way to make a stand.
Posted by: red at June 13, 2005 05:55 PM (Tx1kD)
4
i liked hugh hewitt's comment:
How angry must Martha Stewart be? She's less likeable than MJ, Robert Blake, and OJ? Or is it just California? Duane suggests that Saddam may be seeking a venue switch to the Golden State.
Posted by: louielouie at June 13, 2005 06:50 PM (xKfMm)
5
Quoting hugh hewitt?...time to move off the wetspot
Anyway...I like Martha
Posted by: Fletcher at June 13, 2005 07:47 PM (pO1tP)
6
just milk and cookies?
i heard that he also used vaseline, to stop them squealing.
Posted by: wegglywoo at June 13, 2005 08:11 PM (uzn/d)
7
Okay, I'll offer to be the apostate here and submit that I do not see much of a comparison with the O.J. case. I didn't follow the MJ case real closely, but what I read suggested that the state's case consisted mostly of what we lawyers call "propensity" evidence, which would have given him an excellent issue on appeal had he been convicted. I read very little that seemed actually probative of what he was charged with doing in this particular case. I therefore don't have a problem with the jury's conclusion that the state had failed to meet its burden, here.
Help me out. What did I miss?
Posted by: SWLiP at June 13, 2005 10:00 PM (geWFa)
8
Common Sense 101?
Q: What forty-something man sleeps with "boys only" who aren't his children?
A: A fucking pervert who wants to ass fuck them.
Posted by: Casca at June 13, 2005 10:14 PM (qBTBH)
9
Another possible explanation is that this is not a person who has any sexual feelings at all. A normal grown man -- even a normal grown male pedophile -- would know better than to openly admit to spending the night with young boys.
My own theory (and I admit it sounds off the wall but it's the only theory that explains everything about him) is that MJ's father had him castrated when he was a boy. That explains the voice, the Peter Pan complex, and would likely play a role in his apparent gender dysphoria. But most of all it explains why this is not someone who relates to the world as a sexually developed adult.
Posted by: SWLiP at June 13, 2005 10:21 PM (geWFa)
10
Jackson was found "Not Guilty". That doesn't mean that he was found "Innocent".
The allegations were simply unproven by the marginal witnesses and skimpy proof. The jury chose to disbelieve the testimony of people who had been proven to lie before.
In case anyone forget, that's our system of justice. What we need is another possibility, one that allows the jury to find that the allegations are "Not Proven". I submit that both the O.J. jury and the Jackson jury would have reached that alternate conclusion, as opposed to "Not Guilty".
Justice prevailed in Santa Barbara; the American people won, and they lost.
Posted by: shelly at June 14, 2005 01:39 AM (pO1tP)
11
Shelly is right. This case was about the burden of proof. Should Sneddon have brought this case? i don't know. It may have been his best and only shot to get MJ, but it seems to me that a conviction on any of the lewd act charges would have bordered on jury nullification, given the evidence presented.
What do i think? i follow the conventional wisdom. MJ probably did it to other kids, probably did it to this kid, the mom was out for money and willing to sell her kid for it, and MJ will move to france soon, where he can have his next video directed by Roman Polanski.
Posted by: annika at June 14, 2005 07:58 AM (9ei5+)
12
Roman P. direct next video: very funny...Polanski is weird, I have a sneaking (and totally baseless) suspicion that he had more contact with the Manson family than the police discovered.
Casca, I think you should work on expressing yourself more freely, i.e., I'm still unsure about your opinion on 40 year old guys sleeping with children??
Posted by: Jason O. at June 14, 2005 08:37 AM (2CAKL)
13
I have a...suspicion that [Roman Polanski] had more contact with the Manson family than the police discovered.
Normally, I take anything with a grain of salt, but *that* one...Just when you think conspiracy theories can't get any weirder, along comes...Jason, I am laughing at you, not with you.
Posted by: Victor at June 14, 2005 09:19 AM (L3qPK)
14
You conveniently omitted my qualifying term "totally baseless" in your quotation. Wait a moment...are you Dana Milbank in disguise??
It takes a Ciceronian command of the language to read the generally frivolous nature of the previous posts, and then assume I was dead serious with the Polanski thing. Bravo.
If you want to defend the honor of a child rapist and fugitive, be my guest.
This exchange has caused me to hatch another conspiracy theory....Victor's family and friends work together tirelessly to hide from the world Victor's sexual obsession with reindeer.
Posted by: Jason O. at June 14, 2005 09:41 AM (2CAKL)
15
Annika,
Perhaps if MJ grow tired of boys, he can entertain himself with Roman Polanski.
Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2005 09:53 AM (8IsTQ)
16
Say what you want, Jason. Had I included the "qualifier", I'd still be laughing at you. Conspiracy theories frequently begin with a "totally baseless" sneaking suspicion.
Further, keep in mind the typed word doesn't convey any facial expressions that would convey you were joking (this gave rise to the emoticon). At the same time, sometimes context helps convey intent. Be careful when throw in a qualifier stating your suspicion is "baseless"--to me, that was an admission you're serious.
Now, putting words into someone's mouth...that's low. I never have, and never will, defend the "honor" of a child rapist and fugitive. It sounds more like you're the one doing that, not me.
ahhh, bite me. Everyone knows I'm attracted to rats, not reindeer.
Posted by: Victor at June 14, 2005 10:48 AM (L3qPK)
20kb generated in CPU 0.0134, elapsed 0.0657 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0577 seconds, 147 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
61 queries taking 0.0577 seconds, 147 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
