After a week of deliberation, the jurors on the Michael Jackson molestation case found him not guilty on all counts.
This isn’t exactly a shock. Everyone knows Wacko Jacko is guilty, but knowing it and proving it are two different things. And the evidence in this case has been a mess.
We can expect his millions of fans to equate legally not guilty with factually innocent. But I still maintain that any parent who exposes their child to Michael Jackson ought to be sued for child abuse. If an adult wants to be a fool, fine, but what kind of twisted parent would allow a child to sleep in the same bed with him?
Now the real question: will Michael Jackson swear to track down the “real molester”?
sari, i would vote for you.
How come you’re so damn logical!?…;)
Seriously, your talents are wasted in telemarketing, you NEED to get into politics!!!!
“Everyone knows Wacko Jacko is guilty”
How do we know this? Do we all have video cameras in his bedroom?
I agree entirely that any parent who lets his child romp around the Neverland Ranch is a negligent fool. Such people shouldn’t be trusted with cats, never mind kids.
But we don’t *know* what Jackson did or didn’t do. We weren’t there. Obviously, he’s overly fond of children, but we do not *know* that he molested anybody.
We do know that he’s a strange, sorry, screwed up individual. If nothing else, the evidence in the case proved this. (The whole nose-falling-off thing doesn’t hurt that claim, either.) However, being strange and sorry is not against the law in the U.S. The man doesn’t act within what most people – rightly – consider normal bounds for an adult male. But that does not necessarily make him a molester and a criminal.
(I’m no fan of his, BTW. Mostly, I don’t give a damn. But it’s the Topic of The Day on the intarweb, it seems.)
Well, Jill’s already posted the comment I was going to (how did she do that?). What she said.
To clarify: when I said “everyone knows he’s guilty”, I meant it more in a “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck” kind of way. Like I said, knowing and proving are two different things. If I were on a jury and the evidence didn’t conclusively prove anything, I’d vote to acquit. But I’m not on a jury, and to me, there are enough red flags out there to suggest that keeping one’s kids far, far away from him is the best course of action.
Sari; except that keeping HIM far far away from kids is one step better.
I note that, with a few exceptions, it’s women defending him, guys KNOW he’s guilty!
*know*
-I know that the sun rises in the East
-I know the Liberals are corrupt
-I know my tax $$$’s are being wasted
-I *know* that that creepy little get is a twisted pervert with waaaay too much spare time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4090186.stm
See, See!? I told you so….;)