Monday, June 13, 2005



Well I saw the verdict just as you all probably did and what do I think of it? I dunno what to think. I just hope the jury made the right decision. And Michael Jackson needs some serious counselling. He really does. Because he got himself in one heap of trouble.

I really wanted to believe the prosecution's case. I really do think Jackson's a really messed-up individual. But at the end of the day the prosecutors just didn't have enough to convict Jackson, that's what I think. Their case was full of holes and I was pretty frustrated with their handling of the trial. They had proof of all kinds of horrible things against Jackson except for the crime itself. What they had related to the charge were a lot of unreliable witnesses who didn't come through as expected. In short I think the prosecution put forward a flawed case from start to finish, and the defense team did an excellent job and deserved the big legal fees they were able to extort from Jackson for getting him off.

People are now pointing to the Deborah Rowe testimony as the turning point. The prosecutors put her on the stand thinking she was going to trash Michael Jackson because she was in a custody battle with him, and instead she praised Jackson as a parent. And that was the story of the trial, prosecution witnesses letting the prosecution down or otherwise damaging their own credibility by forgeting key details or contradicting themselves. That's why they lost, it's so obvious. If they had DNA evidence or photos or something that absolutely proved Jackson did the crime, it might have been different. But I just think they had a lot of problems proving their case at the end of the day and it was too much for them to overcome with this jury.


You'd never know they were in trouble from the trial coverage, though. I didn't have Court TV access but I have it on good authority (talking to my parents) that much of their trial coverage was of the "Jackson is guilty" variety. Nancy Grace, Diane Dimond, Catherine Crier, basically "all the women" from what I was told, were angry because they thought for sure Jackson was guilty, and they were ranting and raving. I even read on their own Court TV blog that the Jackson people were pretty upset with Court TV and some of the female anchors for crusading against Jackson.

You know, they do have a point. The anchor deck at Court TV seemed somewhat stacked, from what I read and heard. There was an article in the LA Times about it and Tim Rutten was complaining about the ranting and raving that has been going on with these biased prosecutorial reporters ranting about Jackson. TVNewser has a link to it. Seems like a few of the anchors over there are former prosecutors who spent their whole lives putting people away, and they think everyone out there is automatically guilty and that the police never get anything wrong. Abbie Carmichael from Law and Order (Angie Harmon's character) would fit right in with this crowd. They're out for vengeance.

I mean really, come on. This isn't the prosecutor's office anymore, this is television! THIS IS JOURNALISM! If you're going to cover a trial and be an anchor, at least try and be objective! You have to inform the public and give them the facts and the ebb and flow of the trial! Don't go on a rampage against the accused all the time, they could be innocent!!!

It was a lot different at the OJ trial. I remember watching that trial and even though a lot of these trial watchers were pretty biased (prosecutors thought he was guilty, defense attorneys thought he was innocent), at least the main people who covered the trial on CNN- Jim Moret, Roger Cossack and Greta Van Susteren- seemed pretty fair and even-handed. Geraldo Rivera, another lawyer-journalist, is opinionated but all over the place as far as whether certain individuals are guilty or innocent- he thought OJ was guilty but thought Jacko was innocent. But still, I just think it's terrible to cover a trial and be biased one way or another, crusading for someone to get the book thrown at them.

You know, this is why there needs to be cameras in the courtroom for a lot of these trials. You don't get any accuracy watching Nancy Grace or any of these people, and you don't see the justice system at work or see for yourself what the jury has to consider. I mean, Nancy Grace is entertaining and has an opinion, but frankly you won't get objective reporting about these trials and about how they are going from these biased, opinionated commentators who give you their version of the truth. You're better off getting it live from the court, with cameras, in my estimation.

Anyway, that's this Trial of the Century over, at least until they they deal with Saddam.

UPDATE: A jury member has spoken and hints he suspects Jackson was not such an innocent guy.

But they didn't have the proof they needed to convict him. And then you had Macaulay Culkin and these others who were defending Jackson as well. There just weren't enough people willing to stand up and say Jackson molested people, and there were stories out there of people being bought off and stuff. Disgusting.

When you think of it, if Nancy Grace and Catherine Crier and the rest of them were disgusted and revolted by Michael Jackson, who could really blame them?

Yecch, what a revolting case. I don't know if Jackson needs jail time as much as he needs a doctor and a stay in a mental institution. He is a TWISTED individual.

No comments: