 |
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Michael Jackson Is Vindicated...The System Works
I let out an ecstatic holler yesterday at about four o' clock when a Santa Maria jury acquitted Michael Jackson on all 10 charges he was facing. I have made no secret of my belief that Michael Jackson is an innocent man victimized by grifters, charlatains, a ruthless and unscrupulous District Attorney, a lazy and sensation seeking press and an ignorant, judgemental public. My opinions were vindicated after over a decade of arguments when the verdict was announced. Apparently 9 of the 12 jurors believed Jackson was completely innocent and only 3 acquitted on grounds of "reasonable doubt." At this time I will tackle the most oft-repeated arguments toward his guilt.
1. "Why would a 46 year old man sleep in bed with 12 year old boys?"
I understand on the surface such things seem odd but one has to recognize this argument deals with taste and not law. Inappropriate does not translate to illegal. Legally speaking, sleeping in a bed with anyone, including a child, is not a crime. Plus, this "only boys" argument is a lie. During the course of this trial the names of girls who have had sleepovers with Jackson have been revealed. One such girl was "Simple Life" star Nicole Ritchie who is his goddaughter. What people fail to realize is Jackson does not invite boys to Neverland. He invites entire families.
2. "Three boys now have accused him. Are all three lying?"
The simple answer is yes. The first accuser, Jordy Chandler, was drugged into believing he was molested by Jackson by his own father, a shady anesthetist and a shakedown connoiseur of a lawyer. The evidence for this is layed out in Mary Fischer's October 1994 GQ article "The Untold Story." I will continue to post a link to that article on the poetry page. The second accuser, Jason Francia, is a classic example of coercion. His mother, police and the District Attorney repeatedly asked the boy leading questions and encouraged him to accuse Jackson. Such actions have been proven to lead to the invention of stories of abuse that actually become believable to the accuser. Plus, his story of Michael briefly fondling him three times in nearly four years goes against all we know about pedophiles. Lastly, Gavin Arvizo is an admitted liar from a family of cunningly deceptive con artists. The jury didn't believe him. Why should you?
3. "Why would an innocent man pay off an accuser with a $20 million settlement?"
First off, I hate how the media has convinced people that Jackson bribed a boy into keeping his mouth shut. The entire settlement negotiation was officiated and observed by a panel of three judges. It would have been impossible to include a stipulation that the accuser would not testify at any subsequent criminal proceedings. Even the slightest insinuation of such a request would have landed Michael Jackson in jail for bribery and obstruction of justice and all participating attorneysould have been brought before the bar. What is never reported is Michael Jackson never paid a dime for that settlement. An insurance company [most likely Transamerica] footed the entire bill. Imagine you are facing seven years of constant civil litigation. You've been ransacked, strip-searched, had your medical records seized, and humiliated globally. Now you have a chance to make it all go away free of charge by copping to "negligence." Would you take that opportunity? I would. I'm sure Michael Jackson thought he could squash the civil suit and prove his innocence in criminal court where his odds are better and the rules of double jeopardy apply. But what happened? Upon receiving the settlement, the Chandler family beat feet to the Hamptons and refused to cooperate with investigators. Doesn't that look pretty? What really irritates me is the most obvious question is rarely asked. What parents take the money? If your son is truly molested where do you go? Do you go to the police or do you go to a civil attorney? If you're son is truly molested what is the more understandable response...beating that pervert within an inch of his life or negotiating screenplay deals?
4. "Michael Jackson fits the profile of a child molester."
I know this little sound bite sounds great coming out of your mouth. It makes you sound really intelligent as if you actually know what you're talking about but in truth it doesn't hold water. Most pedophiles do not fit the profile and most people in this country fit some aspect of the profile. Do you live or work within close proximity to children? Do you possess items in your home which would appeal to children? Do you have limited relationships with those your own age? Are you openly affectionate towards children you are not related to? According to the profile such people as Walt Disney, J.M. Barrie and perhaps even Santa Claus are child predators. Even Jesus would be suspect under this standard seeing as He had no apparent sex life, traveled only with 12 young men and made statements such as "Let all the children come to me and forbid them not for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." The glaring truth behind this statement and the reason why so many believe it is the ignorance of true pedophilia and the Boogey man myth that is so reinforced in our national consciousness. For some reason people are still convinced that homosexuals molest boys but in fact, almost all victimizers of young boys are normal, heterosexuals. But people look at Michael Jackson wearing lipstick and eyelashes and are convinced he's gay and therefore a pedophile. I don't know why this rumor persists seeing as he has been linked to women such as Tatum O'Neal, Diana Ross, Brooke Shields, Sheryl Crow, Whitney Houston, Madonna, Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe [the mother of two of his children] Plus, given his appearance and the bizzare image the media has cultivated for him many see him as congruent with the monster image of molesters that is prevalent in their ignorant minds. In truth, pedophiles go to painful lengths to appear normal. Doesn't quite keep with our perception of Jackson. If you are attempting to gain the trust of naive parents why put yourself in the position of having to defend your appearance and behavior right off the bat? How many pedophiles are known as Wacko Jacko? The best argument against this is thousands of children have been to Neverland and only 3 have accused him of wrongdoing. That doesn't sit well with the sexual compulsion known to be evident in virtually all pedophiles.
5. "The 1993 accuser accurately described marks on Michael Jackson's genitals."
Common sense proves this is a myth concocted by a sensationalist media. If it were true such evidence would be a smoking gun. But Michael Jackson was never arrested or charged. In addition, Michael Jackson faced two seperate grand juries where all evidence was presented and though it has often been said that a grand jury will "indict a ham sandwich", Jackson was never indicted, charged, or arrested after months of exhaustive investigations by two counties. What does that tell you?
Now let me ask a few questions....
"If Michael Jackson only wants to molest children why not just move to some European country where the age of consent is like 12?"
"Some tabloids say Michael Jackson does not have a skin disease but rather, he bleached his skin. But they also claim an accuser described vitiligo blotches on Jackson's genitals. Can you have it both ways?"
"If there his no bias in media coverage against Michael Jackson in the media how did Court TV manage to break virtually every story in this case that benefited the prosecution and also land exclusive interviews with Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen only minutes after the verdict?"
"If there was really sufficient evidence that Michael Jackson molested children why did Santa Barbara County Child Protective Services not remove Jackson's three children during the course of the trial?"
"If the evidence was so strong in the 1993 case why was so little of it presented during the state's 1108 case? Also, why did so many "vital" witnesses in 1993 end up being no shows or no calls in 2005?"
"For years there have been solacious rumors about naked photos of boys, boys' underwear, explicit videos etc. If there was any truth to any of it where was all of this stuff during the trial?"
"Why is it virtually everyone who has testified against Jackson has a financial and/or revenge motive to do so?"
"If the prosecution is so objective and are convinced Jackson is a molester how come they refuse to prosecute or even investigate these parents who allow children to share his bed?"
If you can answer all of those questions with intellectual honesty and still believe the man is guilty then you are a hell of a lot smarter than I am.
After 12 years Michael Jackson is finally vindicated and has emerged triumphant from the constant assassination attempts on his character. He has overcome a bully D.A. seeking his 15 minutes, a biased media who pounced on any journalist [namely Geraldo Rivera] who had the temerity to ask for actual evidence and not sensationalism, constant cheap shots from biased individuals such as Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly [who actually proclaimed his hope that jurors would "ignore the evidence"], a constant persecution lasting more than a decade which included law changes and Waco like S.W.A.T. team raids complete with reporters and camera crews present, the pillaging of his home, attempted relocation of his three children, a jury makeup which was a prosecutor's wet dream and endless humiliation and came out a free and redeemed man. The real kick of the whole thing is Michael Jackson endured all of this purely because he decided to have some plastic surgeries in the 80's and no other reason.
I may yet send a gigantic bottle of hot sauce to Tom Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, Jack Gordon, Schmuley Boteach, Gloria Allred, Sheperd Smith, Rolling Stone magazine and of course, Martin Bashir to flavor the hefty dose of crow they now must digest.
The most important message in all of this is that the American legal system works. Regardless of how relentlessly an innocent man is pursued and how dilligent the frame up is a jury will see past all the smoke and mirrors and find it's way to the truth. I just feel sorry for all of those innocent people in prison or on death row who couldn't afford a brilliant attorney like Thomas Mesereau. That is the direction a decent press would look after the lessons of this trial. Let's see how many "journalists" go down that road. After 12 years and an overwhelmingly evident triumph my worst fear is this dance will continue.
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
welcome to the etcetera page. from time to time i write things other than poetry. you will find opinoins, observations, humor and other interesting items. to read my poetry click here i hope you enjoy.
|
|
|
|
