First, the Rodney King Cops. Then, OJ. Now, MJ. Southern California is
an awesome place to be guilty! Or not guilty. You know what I mean.
Have a good April Fools’ Day tomorrow, but be mindful about your pranking.
As I’ve written before, I sometimes browse Facebook Marketplace for nothing more than pure entertainment,…
Ten years ago today, this happened: And since that day, it’s been an adventure. Thank…
It’s been over a year since I’ve played with Tom Hood’s band, the Tropical Sons.…
Here’s the main course for dinner tonight... ...and that’s because it’s January 25th today, making…
View Comments
Not that I'm intimately familiar with the case, but it seemed the evidence was thin. The family claimed the boy was molested. And the family had a history of less than ethical behavior. MHO.
-Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com
I agree with Randy. Being a freak is not imprisonable...yet.
Yes: the evidence in this particular case was thin, and the accuser's family is reported to have a serious credibility problem.
At the same time, Jackson's behaviour around children is totally inappropriate -- even his own lawyer, in a statement today, says that he's giving up his sleeping-with-young-boys habit. "
From the article:
Wait a minute -- who's vulnerable in that situation?
The jury is not convinced of his guilt in this particular case, but neither are they convinced that he's never molested a child. In the same article as the one linked to above, juror Ray Hultman says: "He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with."
In the end, in this trial, he can only be judged on this partocualr set of allegations. Thankfully, the law says that we don't put people on trial for one thing and then try to expand the parameters of the case to included everything the accused has ever done.
Try out this gedankenexperiment: suppose he wasn't Michael Jackson the entertainer, but Father Michael Jackson, Catholic priest in your diocese with a trail of accusations from altar boys that string back over a decade. Would you go as easy on him?
Joey, I agree entirely. Just as I believe OJ did it, I believe MJ did it. But unlike the OJ trial, where the evidence was conclusive, the evidence in the MJ trial was very weak. In the OJ trial, the prosecution simply screwed up. In the MJ trial, the prosecution did the best they could with what they had. MHO.
that was me
-Randy