≡ Menu

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… add one }
  • just a guy 11.30.-1, 12:00 AM

    sari, i would vote for you.

  • DaninVan 06.14.05, 3:18 AM

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

  • Jill 06.14.05, 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.)

  • Lynn B. 06.14.05, 3:31 PM

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

  • segacs 06.14.05, 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.

  • DaninVan 06.14.05, 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!

  • DaninVan 06.14.05, 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.

  • DaninVan 06.14.05, 6:54 PM

Leave a Comment