If you were on the Michael Jackson jury.....
.....what would you have concluded? (Be warned! - this post is going to bluntly discuss some of the most heinous crimes we can imagine).
Despite all the TV court reporting idiots, I believe the prosecution has made a strong circumstantial case, where even though there is a lack of strong eye witness testimony, any person can reasonably conclude exactly what Mr. Jackson was up to and his modus operandi.
The first hurdle Mr. Jackson had to overcome, was to procure a victim. It is in how that was accomplished, that I personally have been totally amazed that there is no law, at least not in CA, against either asking or consenting to allowing a child to sleep with someone not of his own immediate family. Now, I'm no fool - as a child I found no better place to crash than between grandma and grandpa when I was away from home or in my dad's sleeping bag on pre-adolescent childhood camping trips, and as a father, I know that one good thunderstorm will result in the entire bed crawling with the little critters, (usually right about the time you think mom is going to go for your moves), but the idea of someone else's kid sleeping in my bed is incomprehensible to me, and even more incomprehensible is the idea that some grown man would ask me to allow one of my sons to sleep in his bed. I can see why there would be no law on this for family members, but I am amazed that a person can legally pimp his kid to a stranger or attempt to procure one for his bed. Amazed. Absolutely freaking amazed that this is legal. But even if it is legal, I do know this:
If a grown man came up and asked me if my kid could sleep with him, my response (could I get a show of hands here) would be to either call the police if I was feeling chartible, or beat the motherfucking pervert into a coma with a car antenna, just for assuming he could ask me a question like that, nevermind the fact because any normal father confronted with a person who is attempting to molest one of his kids is seized with an indescrible insanity that only other fathers know of what I speak that opens the possibility of unspeakable violence, no matter what the consequences, on a person he percieves is attempting to molest one of his children. And if I found out he had actually done such a thing, I myself would have a hard time not killing the bastard. I really, really do not think I am unique in this - this is what a normal person would do. Men are returned to cave man level in a situation like that. A molester must know this as well as anybody, so to pull it off without ending up on the wrong end of a feeding tube has got to take cunning and guile.
If I was on the jury, the only conclusion I would be able to reach is that selecting people who would be willing to allow this, like fame-hungry greedy scumbags like Culkin's parents, or total nut cases like the mother who has made a spectacle of herself on the stand - just ferreting these people out is an act of pedophilia. A grown man would not risk the wrath of a car antenna unless he had minimized his risks, and he was willing to take a risk because he wanted something very,very badly. Once one accepts that, no matter how the defense try to spin it with their Peter Pan tripe, it becomes easy to see how the rest of it works. After the procurement, then comes the alcohol, probably a technique developed because his earlier awake act got him in so much trouble. What adult does not know this: Getting any child to drink a glass of wine or even a single beer, is going to result in a child in a very, very deep sleep, and the motive for desiring this result is to get a child that MJ can fellatio and rub his woody on and get away with it, as long as he doesn't engage in actual penetration.
What other reasonable conclusion can a person draw? The prosecution introduced witnesses to the fact MJ was sued for performing oral sex on a minor, and a witness who claimed she had seen him do the same to another child wannabe star, now grown, who denied it happened, so we can reasonably assume that the goal of MJ's perversion was an oral sexual assault on a minor, and one can then easily see that the evidence shows that the most likely conclusion is the assumption is more than assumptionn - it is a fact that is exactly what this guy is doing. I cannot help but believe that any person on the jury would not conclude the same thing. I guess my question here is, if you are a man, would you reach for a car antenna or is there any circumstance were this could be innocent, and if you are a women, (and Mr. Jackson seemed to specialize in families were it was women who gave permission for this) is there any reason a women would feel differently about this as a man? And do you think I am correct in my guess of what the average juror is going to conclude here?
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address