Jackson found not guilty


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”?

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

1 just a guy 11.30.-1 at 12:00 AM

sari, i would vote for you.


2 DaninVan 06.14.05 at 3:18 AM

How come you’re so damn logical!?…;)
Seriously, your talents are wasted in telemarketing, you NEED to get into politics!!!!


3 Jill 06.14.05 at 2:49 PM

“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.)


4 Lynn B. 06.14.05 at 3:31 PM

Well, Jill’s already posted the comment I was going to (how did she do that?). What she said.


5 segacs 06.14.05 at 3:58 PM

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.


6 DaninVan 06.14.05 at 6:40 PM

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!


7 DaninVan 06.14.05 at 6:47 PM

-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.


8 DaninVan 06.14.05 at 6:54 PM

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: