Michael Jackson Verdict

I just heard the not guilty verdicts in the Michael Jackson case and I was glad to know the circus is finally over. The prosecutor obviously had no credible case. Many including a NYTimes article agreed the jurors were pro-prosecution types and even they couldn't find him guilty on any count. I remember going out to dinner with a couple, both of them saying how much they thought Michael Jackson should be found guilty based on their perception of how weird he is or that is what it seemed they were saying. That kind of thinking has been a big part of this case and also that Michael Jackson admitted sleeping with little boys and reported that he thinks doing that is fine (loose interpretation). He just sleeps with them or near them according to what he said on the Bashir tapes. I don't known what really happens in his bed, but I do think this trial was a farce and represented an overzealous prosecution that also likes to stir up things based on rumor, the testimony of obviously bad witnesses and prejudice. I never heard once that Jackson was accused of anything really that horrible, minor lewd conduct at the least and if found guilty of that he would have gone away for a long time. I don't think people should be convicted for being weird.

There is another side to this story. Michael Jackson had superb lawyers and the money to buy the loyalty of certain witnesses.
And I do remember feeling in the O. J. case that I felt the case was badly mishandled by the police but that O.J. was definitely guilty. I wondered why I had been so elated when the jurors found O.J. not guilty. I thought it was a victory against corruption in the police and prosecution community. Looking back, I felt the public won and lost on that one. But the Michael Jackson case goes to show that juries will see through false charges and that it is unethical to attempt to find a suspected person guilty based on made up or doctored evidence.

It will be interesting to see what the jury members who tried the case have to say.