Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison
I am certainly not one to get involved with political threads, and I won't feign interest in the subject. I wasn't surprised when I heard the verdict today - well, I wouldn't have been surprised either way. I understand that is a cultural icon, and I'm sure (as is now becoming evident) that many people will suspect this is a reason for the verdict.
Is it so hard to believe that a jury of our peers was not biased by the fact that this man had money, albums, and a fan base? The jury deliberated for seven days - isn't that a bit long to say 'Man, I liked Thriller, there's no way this guy is guilty'?
And furthermore,
Is that really so hard to believe? Is it hard to believe that a bride faked her own kidnapping because she was terrified of getting married? People do stupid and silly things, based on their emotions... and sometimes, based on greed. It's happened before, although whether or not it happened here, that's for the grand jury and not myself to decide, although they seem to have discounted the charges for a reason. I have to assume they have discussed all options, and ruled accordingly.
My point? It's not up to one of us to say whether Jackson is guilty or not. That's already been done, and he is cleared of the charges. I don't personally know what happened, and I can't base my reputation on what is published in tabloid magazines. His reputation is tarnished, his life been made into a mockery, and his family matters displayed to public like a soap opera for the last thirty or more years. That hardly seems like a good base for an opinion.
|
Agreed, Amanda. For the most part, I don't think people think that the jury was biased...if anything, I'd think they would have a negative bias. Child molestors are the lowest of the low. I do think it's slightly naive to believe that somehow they managed to pick 12 jury members with
absolutely no predisposed bias one way or the other, unless they've been living under a rock in a cave in the desert.
While he wasn't convicted, that certainly doesn't mean he's innocent. Like I said before, all it means is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reproach that Jackson was guilty of the charges listed. That's what happens when you have a case full of little (or big) holes. the Scott Peterson trial was similar to this. The prosecutor did a bad job in critical areas, and luckily for them, managed to convince the jury anyway.