Once the dramatic moment passed when the jury announced that Michael Jackson was not guilty of the charges against him, the curious — I among them — have been waiting to see what clues he and his would be give as to his future.
What tone would MJ take on this, the first day of the rest of his life? to quote a phrase from the era when he stood astride the world of entertainment. 
We now have a couple of clues, one semi-positive, one appalling.
First the positive, downgraded to a notch because the words came from Jackson's attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., rather than from Jackson himself: On NBC's Today Show this morning Mesereau stated that Jackson will not sleep with boys anymore. "He's not going to do that anymore because of the false charges that were brought here. He's not going to make himself vulnerable to this anymore."
In a follow-up interview with AP, Mesereau added he is convinced Jackson "has never molested any child," and he he believes that Jackson will continue to be "a convenient target for people who want to extract money or build careers at his expense." As a result, the attorney said, Jackson will have to change his lifestyle and "not easily allow people to enter his life."
That's a reassuring (if totally Jacko-centric) statement, but would have been better coming directly from the subject himself. If Jackson wants to begin resurrecting his image, if he has any hopes of rebuilding a career in the United States, he has to accept responsibility for — at minimum — stupendously poor judgment and state that he has learned from his mistakes and will not repeat them.
Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez agrees that changes in behavior are critical. "We would hope first of all that he doesn't sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they're called down there. And he just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DrPat
mankind -- and its HIStory -- was created specifically as a backdrop for the solipsistic sublimity that is Michael Jackson
This is a side-effect of celebrity, that the famous person sees himself as the center, the culmination of history, the greatest thing instead of simply the latest thing.
When the fickle attention of the masses moves on (as this will), the fame-addict is left gasping in withdrawal. Michael Jackson has this dependency, and it (more than any sexual proclivities, life-style choices or plastic surgeries) will inevitably lead him back into the court of public opinion again.
2 - Nick
And how arrogant to ask an innocent man to change his ways to become more politically correct and to act the way people want to see him act. He is innocent. Let him be and let him make his own choices. I can't even understand why would anybody care about the choices he makes for his personnal life. The man has been vindicated for heaven's sake ! LET HIM BE !
3 - Eric Olsen
He is quite clearly not "innocent." He is "not guilty within a reasonable doubt" of the charges brought against him.
4 - JR
Any narcissistic twit who floats a fifty-foot statue of himself down the Thames needs to change his ways.
If this bozo is going to compare himself to Martin Luther King, Jr., I gotta ask: Where's James Earl Ray when you need him?
5 - nick
oh thanks Eric for reminding me what the fine line between both terms is. I know that's the only thing you poor sods have had to say all day ! But my point is still a valid one.
6 - ComeOn
People you need to remember this: There is *no* physical evidence of the alleged abuse at all. This leaves the word of the accusers vs. MJ's word.
What has happened here is simply that MJ's accusers are not credible beyond doubt. It's pretty hard not to judge people about their word when their word is all that is offered in accusation of another individual. Past acts and character are the central theme here because there isn't anything else to decide on.
7 - Josia
Oh what's the point? It's all HIStory now - beautiful copy & title ERic
8 - Eric Olsen
thanks J, you are always so kind!
And ComeOn, you are correct
Nick, the point is relevant
9 - Eric Olsen
I have to admit to being taken aback -- even now! -- by the video on his site
10 - Natalie Davis
But why? A jury of his peers found him not guilty. Being a pop star, of course his focus is going to be himself and of course he has delusions of grandeur. Nothing new. Beyond that, like it or not, he is free man and has nothing to prove to anyone. He owes explanations to no one. I agree that he ought to keep kids at arm's length to avoid future trouble (and for hosts of other, more important reasons), but much of the post-verdict crap insists that MJ ought to start acting more "normal." That is just sick. And it's sadly typical of this conform-or-die culture.
11 - Eric Olsen
my point is that if he wants to reconnect with an audience, he will have to acknowledge his "mistakes" and vow not to repeat them. If he doesn't care, he doesn't care.
12 - debbie
to think some people out there are so money hungry that they have to accuse a person like michael jackson of abuse and among other things is down right pathetic. leave the poor bloke alone i say,only mj knows the truth and we can't judge him from what the media has portrayed him to be.just take a look at him when he arrived at court and when he left he looked as if he couldn't take any more i feel sorry for him he has giving the public enormous satisfaction from his career and there are people out there critising him even before the verdict people judged him before proven guilty or not guilty well i hope he gets well and does a come back
13 - Nancy
I keep hearing the phrase, "not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it...." and various permutations of same. Well, under US law as it now stands, yes it DOES mean the jury felt he didn't do it. In fact, one of the jurors came right out and said, "perhaps he did [molest boys] in the past, but not this time." In Scotland, Not Proved would imply he was guilty but they couldn't prove it; but we don't have that here. I'm no MJ fan, but I think it would be awful to have people go thru trials and be judged 'not guilty' and everybody takes it to mean they did it anyway. Why bother to have a trial, then? A n.g. verdict is supposed to mean it's over, finished, go home & get on w/life if you can.
14 - Nancy
Any lawyers out there want to comment? Set me straight or bear me out?
15 - Eric Olsen
not guilty does not mean innocent, ie, he didn't do it, it just means the prosecution didn't prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the way our system works: by putting the burden of proof on the prosecution, it leaves ambiguity on the other end.
16 - Natalie Davis
If he is truly not guilty -- and by law, that's what he is -- then what are his "mistakes?" Seems his "mistake" is being a so-called "freak" who refuses to conform to your society's dictates. From the reactions I've seen, one might assume his nonconformity is a far worse crime than any of those for which MJ was acquitted. How twisted is that?
In any case, MJ's lawyer says there will be no more sleepovers. That's good news, right? That ought to satisfy the lot of you. And MJ, even from the midst of his own fantasyland, knows that the cold, hard stare of a world waiting for him to fuck up will follow him all the rest of his days -- meaning those who wanted him imprisoned get their wish in a way.
As for the knock against MJ for letting Mesereau make the statement, give a guy a break! He looked totallty depleted after four months of this very public trial and about a year and a half of turmoil since Sneddon and the gang stormed Neverland. MJ is frail to begin with -- can't he have some time to recuperate? Oh, right, only the "normal" deserve rest after a long, debilitating ordeal.
17 - Nancy
I gotta say, if it were me standing trial, they'd have to bring me into court for the verdict either coked to the gills so I would be too far gone to fall apart from hysteria (relief or grief, whichever was appropriate for the verdict), or in a straitjacket. I just could not under any circumstances stand there expressionless without major drugs...or something. Either he has preternatural control, or he was mercifully out of it. Not judging, just commenting on what a wreck I'd be at that point.
18 - Eric Olsen
I did give him credit for what Mesereau said, that's fine, but the video on the site couldn't have been much worse.
19 - Eric Berlin
Wouldn't be cocaine be bad for an ultra-stress situation (separate from being bad in general, of course)?
I'd likely have a bottle of Jack in one pocket and bottle of DRAIN-O in the other.
20 - Eric Olsen
I think cocaine would be REALLY bad for a high-stress situation
21 - he did it
Now, lets see....you have a poor 13 year old nobody with a mom who's been physically/verbally abused by her spouse for 15 years from the ghetto's of LA taking on arguably the biggest superstar in the history of the universe.....uh, no-brainer what the verdict would be.
Without a high-res video of MJ with his hand down the pants of Gavin "beating it" showing the jury "he's bad", well of coarse he's going to walk.
Juror #1 admitted that he thought MJ had molested young boys, but that there wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Some of the other jurors also said how they didn't like the eccentric way that Janet Arviso spoke and shook her finger at them in court. Those are the reasons for the verdict!
George Lopez was quoted saying "If I ever decide to be criminal, I'll just move to Santa Maria."
So get off your high horse all you MJ fans!.....just because he's not behind bars DOES NOT mean that he isn't a molester.
22 - NP
There are all headlines but none on the
whereabouts and the reaction of the
losers Janet and Gavin Arvizo.
Anyone approached them for their reaction ?
23 - Eric Olsen
good question
24 - he did it
No matter what the verdict is ....
MICHAEL JACKoffyourSON is a loser
25 - Nancy
Haven't seen or heard a peep. They seem to have slipped quietly out the back. For once, showing good judgement.