As most of you have probably already heard, Michael Jackson was acquitted of all charges today, much to the surprise of pundits and prosecutors. Apparently the accuser's mother was just too opportunistic and unconvincing for jurors to accept, and the rest of the case just fell down like dominos. If she wasn't credible then the conspiracy claims fall apart, and her sons testimony looks suspect as well, and the rest of the case was mostly rumor and innuendo.
Of course, one of the great strengths of our legal system is that Jackson was protected by the principle of 'reasonable doubt'. He might well not be innocent, but the prosecution didn't present a strong enough case to prove it to the satisfaction of a jury, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. And it has to have been some major doubt, because everything about Jackson cries out for punishment in the eyes of most normal, rational Americans who might find their way onto a jury. We should all be thankful for this, because it means that no matter what we do, there's always a chance that fate and a jury of our peers will give us the benefit of the doubt too.
Free though he may be in the eyes of the law, Jackson still faces the merciless judgement of the court of public opinion. In the eyes of most people he still remains the freak which he has chosen to make himself through his pursuit of self-gratification through an alternative lifestyle which few of us can begin to comprehend. He faces financial problems, public suspicion, and a career which is likely to have been destroyed by the combination of his negative reputation and his apparent loss of whatever muse made his early work palatable. He still has considerable assets and will likely be selling some of them off in the near future to pay his lawyers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Tan Hoang
Nice summation of Jackson's future.
2 - Bennett
Yeah, that pretty well sums it up. Nice job Dave.
3 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
Dave, you may or may not know, but i think you're a swell fella regardless of political differences or whatever we may share. I say this so as you don't take this the wrong way, as some sort of personal slur or something - i found that fairly unpleasant an really rather nasty. it's pretty easy for us folks to sit back and fling words like "freak" in the direction of folks we don't know a damn thing about, other than what we've been told. In fact, even if we do know them, surely we've moved beyond yelling "freak" at folks who look different which, really, is what this boils down to.
but regardless, you're entitled to say what you want, and don't see this as some sort of personal attack or somethin.
4 - Dave Nalle
Hmmm. Not really the impression I intended to leave, Duke. I'll go over it and see where I went wrong. I meant to emphasize how screwed he is by the lifestyle he's chosen and the personna he's created.
Personally I have a warm affection for freaks, but it's no way to go through life if you have a choice.
Dave
5 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
ach, Dave, it was probably a knee-jerk reaction on my behalf. Pay no mind.
However far-fetched it may seem, i would love to see some sort of happiness of some kind surrounding the fella, but that "sad, ironic" incident you hint at, perhaps thats as much as we'll get. or HE'LL get.
6 - Eric Olsen
Dave, I was actually rather surprised how empathetic you were - maybe it's just the title.
7 - DJRadiohead
Duke - I tend to agree with you a lot in what you are saying in theory. I will quibble just a bit on one tiny point. While the word "freak" might seem a bit harsh, we do sort of have more to go on than simply media reports when it comes to evaluating the relative 'normalcy' or 'sanity' of Michael Jackson. We have the man's own words.
I understand there might have been some fancy editing in the documentary that started this brouhaha, but he has made some statements and defended some statements that put him out of step with the 'norm.' His belief in the beauty of sharing one's bed with children and his unwillingness to acknowledge the rest of the world's revulsion at such behavior would be one example.
He has been acquitted and has the right to lead a lifestyle of his choosing (within the bounds of the law, and again he has been acquitted). This calls into the question the whole celebrity-as-a-doubled-edged sword scenario. His celebrity has helped him sell metric buttloads of records and it has also caused him innumerable problems. Like most people, he wants it both ways. He wants the perks without the consequences.
Maybe it is a bit rude to call Jackson a freak. And not everyone has to come to the same conclusion. I do think there is ample 'evidence' for someone to draw the conclusion Dave has drawn. This is simply my opinion. I do think you make a good point about namecalling and labelling those who are different. I think Jackson and Dave's post just aren't the best places to advocate such. Just an opinion.
And I can't wait to read your Oasis review (I am still working on mine!).
8 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
DJ, and again to Dave, i fully admit here and now that my reaction was of the knee-jerk variety. apologies, and i actually agree with EO. there's a lot of empathy on display here.
An DJ, again, you're right here. This maybe ain't the best situation for to be bringin up those sorts of arguments.
And at the end of the day, my own assumption that Jackson was innocent of the charges is taken from the self-same information, more or less, that led Dave to his own conclusions. so saying that he shouldn't base assumptions on that information is fairly contradictory, since i did the same thing.
I think it is just a personal dislike for that sorta name-calling, which i'll readily admit is totally hypocritical given the abundance of "c**ts" and "motherf***ers" i've flung about in my time. heh. ah well.
9 - Dave Nalle
>>And at the end of the day, my own assumption that Jackson was innocent of the charges is taken from the self-same information, more or less, that led Dave to his own conclusions. so saying that he shouldn't base assumptions on that information is fairly contradictory, since i did the same thing.<<
I'm actually not positive Jackson wasn't innocent, but at the same time, he's certainly guilty of monumentally bad judgement and a level of self-absorption which ought to be a crime in and of itself.
As for the namecalling, it's harsh, but I think it's accurate. Jackson made himself a freak because an outlandish image benefitted him, and this trial and its aftermath are the price you pay for taking that route.
Dave
10 - DJRadiohead
No apologies needed - and personally, I love the flinging of C*nts and Motherf***ers!
And your argument is worth making. Just wait until Dave goes hardcharging at some other poor bastard (or motherf****ing c*nt, if you prefer) and then make it (I'm kidding, Dave. I just wanted to get into the namecalling action myself).
11 - Aaron, Duke De Mondo
i gotta say, im glad i taped the Bashir documentary that night. whats the chances of THAT being repeated.
12 - Mickey
For the Good Lord's sake , please leave that poor man alone. All of you. He is just a harmless retard.
13 - sandra smallson
Nonsense, Dave. Absolute Nonsense!
I am posting the same responses on any of these topics because that's what I have got to say about the verdict, save a few differences.
I think Prince is a freak. I think Mariah carey is a freak. I think Joan Rivers is a freak. There are many freaks out there. Mj was not charged for being a freak and once the lot of you open your minds you might make more sense. It doesn't matter you think he has flown over the cuckoos nest.
The issue at hand is "do we believe he molested Gavin Arvizo"? The reasonable objective viewer cant possibly believe such a thing. Gavin is a liar like his mother and brother and sister. That was about the only thing this case PROVED. We all knew Mj was weird so that was nothing new but he has been found NOT GUILTY which means GUILTLESS which in turn means INNOCENT(whether you like it or not) of sexually molesting this boy and unless you were in the room while he pawed Gavin or Jordan then you have no basis to say he is a child molester other than that he is so weird you think he might as well be a pedophile, which I must add says more about YOU than it does about MJ.
I am extremely satisfied. America did everything to put MJ in jail. The jury was not sequestered in such a high profile case where even going in it was almost impossible to believe that any of the jurors had no pre-conceived belief about MJ as a person. The jury was all white and conservative white to boot. The Judge as I stated numerous times was biased. He allowed in all sorts of things and I hear was visibly disappointed when he said to MJ, you are free, your bail is exonerated..apparently he said it as he was standing to leave. THAT is not common practice. The Judge often looks at the defendant to pass on the instructions. He never spared MJ even one glance. We had a Prosecution team who refused to look at the case before them but chose to use their own beliefs about weirdness of MJ to prosecute a case that no discerning Prosecutr would have brought to Trial. Not with the witnesses they had and especially not with THOSE wiotnesses when you have no physical evidence.
I was certain from the start and the mind boggled that others seemed to think otherwise. MJ had this boy to himself for a while and did nothing. When was he supposed to do something? After he had sent them away and only called them back for the documentary because they had told him that he was a big part of Gavin’s cancer being in remission. MJ being as naïve as possible brought them back cos he thought it would be good publicity and show how he truly loved children. Little did he know that by this time, the family were bitter at having been discarded and plotted their revenge.
It has come to nothing now. The media trued, the prosecution tried, the judge tried, BUT the TRUTH prevailed in the end. NOT GUILTY. GUILTLESS which means he is innocent. TYou can all argue about this does not mean he is innocent but if that is the case then nobody since the beginning of the criminal justice system who has ever been fopund not guilty is innocent. We can not make the difference in the verdict only for MJ. The opposite of guilt is innocence so if you are not guilty, then on the basis of the facts before 12 jurors, he has been found innocent. He is not a child molester, or kidnapper or whatever else. The Jurors have impressed me immensely. I worried if they would LISTEN and apply the facts of THIS case, but the y showed me that they can.
Jordan chandler’s case was never brought to trial. It would have been pretty daft to convict him of a case that never stood up to cross examination. Expect gavin to quarrel with his mother now just like Jordan hasn’t spoken to his mother for 11 years. MJ is weird, strange and does inappropriate things BUT he is not a pedophile and unless you can prove otherwise, let the man be. The one case that has come to court, MJ has won. Jordan clearly didn’t feel that violated to bring his own case to Court. I can not imagine if I was raped or indecently assaulted that there is any amount of money in this world that can prevent me from wanting to see the rapist punished. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY ONEARTH. Perhaps after the rapist is in jail, I might go for the civil case if I am destitute but tio say I would take money as a settlement? NEVER! Which is why I have doubts about chandler as well. Especially about his mother too. Taking money from the man who has molested your young son. She could have got that money after a criminal trial too but they took the money and ran. MJ paid them off because he could..the so called victims have no excuse for taking the money.
I am ecstatic with this verdict and I know it will not change the narrow minds of those of you who feel weird equals pedophile but make no mistake about it, Justice has been served.
14 - nick
Told me that you're doin' wrong
Word out shockin' all alone
Cryin' wolf ain't like a man
Throwin' rocks to hide your hands
You ain't done enough for me
You ain't done enough for me
You are disgustin' me
You're aiming just for me
You are disgustin' me
Just want your cut from me
But too bad, too bad
Look who just walked in the place
Dead and stuffy in the face
Look who's standing if you please
Though you tried to bring me to my knees
Too bad too bad about it
Why don't you scream and shout it
Too bad too bad about it
Why don't you just scream and shout it
Too bad too bad about it
Why don't you scream and shout it
Too bad too bad about it
Why don't you just scream and shout it
15 - Nancy
What I found interesting was that, according to the jurors, they did think MJ was guilty of and had in the past molested boys - just not this particular one, at least not without his mother's full and knowing consent. They also felt the wrong party had been charged, and that the one(s) who should have been on trial were the parents, who used their kid to troll for suckers for their set-ups, i.e. engaged in pimping using the boy for bait. I gotta concur with those conclusions. Pity the state doesn't step in and take the kid(s), but since he's 15, it's too late for him, now, I suppose. He's already 'in the mold' of his parents' criminal lifestyle.
16 - nick
I'd be curious to know how you managed to jump to this kind of conclusion Nancy (Grace ?). Especially the part where you say they think he is guilty of molesting boys in the past. Wishful thinking here ??
17 - Eric Olsen
MJ was found "not guilty," which in our system means there was not enough evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt - since we presume innocence, that's all it means.
18 - Nancy
No, not Nancy Grace, just 'Nancy' - different person altogether, no one of importance (me).
I didn't come to any conclusion: it's what the jurors themselves said in various post-verdict interviews.
19 - nick
1 juror said so not "The jurors". That is 1 out of 12 people. In percentage that is 8.3%
The prosecutors with their million dollars case managed to let one juror think that MJ may have molested kids in the past ! What a terrific blow to Sneddon !
20 - Dave Nalle
>>Nonsense, Dave. Absolute Nonsense!
I am posting the same responses on any of these topics because that's what I have got to say about the verdict, save a few differences.<<
By posting the same response you look like an utter idiot, because my post had nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence. Perhaps you should READ the posts and then respond to the actual posts. They're not all the same.
Dave
21 - Nancy
I'm just telling you where I heard it, since you did ask. My radio station played TWO different jurors stating very much the same; I heard their voices, altho their names were not annouced. Don't start sniping at me for answering your question.
22 - nick
oh wow calm down darling ! My mistake I apologise, I was not aware of the latest news !
23 - Nancy
Thank you. I'm not upset, despite the way it reads. Just a bit nettled. I won't be able to listen to the radio til about 5 when I get off, perhaps by then they'll have names for attribution.
24 - nick
Ok Nancy I am glad we can put that behind us ! What do you mean when you speak about names for attribution ?
25 - Nancy
I mean, perhaps they'll play the jurors talking again, but this time mention their names, who they are that are talking, etc. I heard two different people, who were mentioned by the radio person only as "jurors (plural") but no I.D.s, then the Talking Heads came on and started analyzing the jurors' reactions to the mother, evidence, etc.