June 14, 2005 in Current Events

Jackson Acquittal

Post placeholder image

I am not going to begrudge Michael Jackson for his acquittal in the child molestation case as I strongly believe in the American judicial system. It is perhaps the best in the world. But one has to question the jury’s judgement to acquit this man on all counts. Something just does not seem right and I’m not buying the argument that they had doubts about the victim’s mother’s testimony. What about the victim? Where is the justice? I grew up adoring Michael but based on the entirety of the evidence and previous allegations/payoffs, I was sure he was guilty this time around too. So in my eyes, this is just another acquittal for a celebrity who has the money to hire the high price lawyers, jury consultants, experts, etc. Such a miscarriage of justice.


  1. June 30, 2005 at 6:12 pm


    After I did my own independent research into this, I came to the conclusion that MJ never molested anyone of those boys…
    Looking at MJ as a corporation, it seems that he made the mistake a lot of corporations try to avoid, becoming targets of frivolous lawsuits after making civil settlements. From my own experience as a lawyer, I have noticed that once a company settles one case, to avoid publicity or for whatever reason, other cases will follow. The first molestation case MJ settled was in 1991, when he settled for $2 mil rather than litigate (which would have cost him even more) with a discharged maid, who claimed he had touched her son inappropriately when they were playing a tickling game (she said MJ touched the crotch area of the young boy even though the boy repeatedly denied it until interrogated by authorities). That case was settled to avoid publicity. But once he made that settlement, he became an easy target of such claims.
    From a legal perspective, I am convinced that the 1993 allegations were FALSE because the accuser and his father chose not to testify in this case. There was nothing stopping them from testifying in a criminal case back in 1993(even after the civil settlement) and in this recent case. Only the mother testified in this case that molestation occurred. However, she had repeatedly denied the allegations in court documents during a custody hearing back in 1993. If it did occur, why didn’t the young man testify himself?
    Whether they think MJ is guilty of the 1993 case or not, people should have better sense than to believe he is guilty of these current charges. The prosecution is actually alleging that the current allegations occurred after the showing of the Bashir documentary in January 2003. Their time frame for the incidents is from February to April 2003. Even if MJ is a lunatic, he would be lucid enough to not commit molestation after the whole uproar over the documentary had already started.
    To decide whether MJ really molested those boys, you should listen to both
    sides. Apparently, the public has been hearing only the media’s negative portrayal of MJ, to hear the other side you have to dig a little more and do some independent research. I suggest reading the book “Redemption” by
    Geraldine Hughes or going to these websites:
    (1993 Civil Suit Settled by Insurance Co. against Jackson’s wishes)
    Information about the so-called “porn” books with pictures of nude boys that were
    found at Neverland in 1993. Look at the links to the books online and decide for yourself whether
    these were pornographic books about boys.
    1. THE BOY A Photographic Essay
    entire book & pictures online at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johnie/jpptb.htm

  2. June 20, 2005 at 9:07 pm


    From the things I have read on the case, this was not another OJ situation (or even Robert Blake). There simply was very little actual evidence and the people doing the accusing seemed like the kind of people that would make this up to make a buck. Common consensus around here is that Michael surely has diddled somebody, but not necessarily this kid. In addition, trying to sell the conspiracy charges made the whole case look bad. So, basically, it was a pretty weak case that was probably true.

  3. June 16, 2005 at 3:11 am


    OJ. Not Guilty.
    Robert Blake. Not Guilty.
    Michael Jackson. Not Guilty.

    You really have faith in our judicial system? Maybe the problem is just in CA.

Comments are closed.

By browsing this website, you agree to our privacy policy.
I Agree