?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Michael Jackson verdict

Just reported live from the Santa Maria courtroom.  Not guilty on all counts.  Unbelievable.

castalie, the Star Wars post will have to wait another day.  I don't have the stomach for it after that string of "Not Guiltys".

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
rileyc
Jun. 13th, 2005 03:37 pm (UTC)
Not exactly a surprise, though, is it? Celebrity + money = no accountability.
aswanargent
Jun. 13th, 2005 03:45 pm (UTC)
Okay, I can understand part of the verdict. But they didn't even find him guilty of the furnishing alcohol to minors charges. I happen to think that he was guilty of most of the charges; now he's going to be untouchable and free to do anything he wants going forward.
pride_of_erin
Jun. 13th, 2005 04:19 pm (UTC)
WHAT?! I missed the verdict because I haven't exactly been paying attention the trial, but JEEZ! If they're gonna let him off you'd think they'd at least stipulate that he can't have young boys sleeping in his bed anymore. And of course, he's going to keep doing it.
aswanargent
Jun. 13th, 2005 05:09 pm (UTC)
It's been impossible to avoid the trial out here (Santa Maria is maybe 100 miles up the coast from where I live), and his Neverland ranch near Santa Barbara is only about 60 miles away.

No, he's been completely exonerated. They didn't even find him guilty of the providing alcohol to minors charges. The whole thing makes me ill (of course, it probably doesn't help that I saw the film Mysterious Skin just a week ago; everything in that (deservedly) NC-17-rated film grows out of a Little League coach's sexual abuse of a pair of eight-year-old boys).
pride_of_erin
Jun. 13th, 2005 08:36 pm (UTC)
It's so sickening that he gets out of it, just because he's famous - anyone else wouldn't be allowed near kids ever again.

When I was in fourth grade one of my classmates accused a substitute teacher of 'inappropriate touching'. After a huge fuss was made, it eventually came out that she'd made the whole thing up, but it didn't matter becuase just the allegations had already ruined his career - he couldn't get another teaching job after that, and he hadn't even done anything.

Meanwhile, Jackson (who definitely *is* guilty of inappropriate behaviour, even if it's true that he didn't molest anyone - which I don't believe for a second) gets to walk free, virtually untainted. Anyone else who walked free on these charges would have still be forced to endure regular visits from social workers to monitor the treatment of his own children, and judge whether or not they should be removed from the home, but will that happen in this case? My guess is no. And considering how those kids are forced to live (virtually no contact with the outside world), they would have been taken away from anyone else *years* ago.
castalie
Jun. 14th, 2005 02:02 am (UTC)
So that's the verdict? We'll get to hear tonight in the news but I was wondering.

And don't worry, I can wait *g*
rosybug
Jun. 14th, 2005 08:21 am (UTC)
I suppose (possibly naively) that the evidence was less than reliable. Or could be questioned. My impression is that the charges should have been more for abuse in general than sexual abuse in particular, if that makes any sense.

It seems wrong to "buy" children for one's entertainment. Children aren't toys and should not be "used" for adults' amusement.

I am surprised by the verdict and feel really ambivalent about it. I hope it was based on lack of evidence rather than presence of cash.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )