Verdict About to be Delivered

[TheEarl]

I think Michael Jackson is as mad as a box of frogs.

I wouldn't let my children (should I have any, anywhere near him), but that's cause he's 100% sack of hammers, rather than because I believe he molests children. IMHO the Arviso family are total chancers and their actions and testimony have done nothing to dissuade me from that viewpoint.

The Earl

 

[Nightrider662]

Well, the jury found him innocent- and they heard ALL the evidence presented.

But MJ is still fucking stupid to be sleeping in the same bed with a minor.

If any of us was in the same position- we'd be in jail so fast...

You got that right.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Anyway, I still trust that the jury reached the correct verdict. They, after all, have seen all the evidence and took their time considering all of it.

Amen. They know much more than we do, and I think it's best to trust them.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

BUT, and this is a big but, if any other man in the US (or the UK, or anywhere else, for that matter) had shared his bed with a boy, he'd be in the clink so fast his feet wouldn't touch the ground.

(And, as my hubby just said... "But, they are American." I.e. will they be blinded by "celebrity"?)

Bullshit, on both accounts.

We seem to mostly agree that we don't know for certain whether or not he is guilty or innocent (myself in agreeance), which is good, since too often people are unable to see past thier own prejudices, but we have to remember that we here aren't normal everyday people (as odd as this sounds) we're actually a bit if not more above normal intelligence, and it seems we're more accustomed than most to listening and at least trying to understand those that aren't immediately "our kind." A fair number of people have nothing but their own biases to lead them, and they'll be pissed that he wasn't convicted (cuz as we all know, everyone's always right, and don't argue with them).

As for what Tate said, I disagree for the most part (on the first statement she said, that is). Any other man? If the allegations were made, it's a fast trial and possibly a bad outcome. But with any other man, those assumptions wouldn't be immediately jumped to. Hell, in this case in particular they were saying that the mother and son were the best witnesses for the defense. That bieng true (hypothetically, of course), would anyone else have wound up in the courtroom at all. It's easy to accuse him, and to get people to believe, when he's as unusual as he is. People fear what they don't understand, and how much of people's opinions have been affected by fear? We can't understand his way of thinking; he's so unlike us, and if we wouldn't, then doesn't it stand to certain irrational, fearful reason that he would?

This is partially why I disagree fully with the second part of what Tate said. Fame isn't necessarily why he got off, which will be the claim more than money given the issues he has economically these days -- same as with O.J., but how much did it influence him being tried to begin with, not just the accusations, but the people who allowed it to go further than it maybe should have?

The other (well, the largest other) reason I disagree with her second statement is for the simple reason that Americans, contrary to certain people's beliefs, simply aren't all retarded, twelve-year-old Britney Spears fans. We're not stupid, and never were. It's a stereotype that we're blinded by fame. And it's about as accurate as that old one where black sall drag their knuckles and the one about women all being bad drivers. And the more current one where all the people in the Middle East are terrorists, ever' damned one of 'em!!!! *raises shotgun and gives a Gabby Johnson rr-rr.*

I'm sure you didn';t intend that, and I'm not all that offended, but it is a clearly apparent stereotype. It isn't accurate.

Q_C

p.s. I pretty much guessed him innocent; that's my bias.