The jackson verdict is FINALLY in

Wow - I'm going to go make some popcorn. This is much better than any of that lame crap on the boob tube tonight.

Boob tube indeed . . . watching paint dry is usually more entertaining that anything on television . . . especially the news . . .

You overlook the Hudson? I do, too . . . but as i'm hundreds of miles away, it's easy for me to overlook it. If you are closer, i admire your willful blindness.

It can be depressing watching the local industries dump their sewage into it while telling us it's OK to eat the fish.

Serious business ? ! ? ! ?

People eat fish from the Hudson ? ! ? ! ?


OOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOoooooooo

I think i'm gonna be ill . . .

Yes, they do. I personally don't recommend it. When I lived in Brooklyn I often saw people fishing in the East River, as well as the Hudson. Mostly immigrants from poor islands that white people think of as vacation spots. In some cases it is actually a major source of food for the immigrants. There are signs up saying "one serving per month" won't hurt you. Then there are warnings about not letting children or pregnant women eat the fish. However, I have seen river side cook outs that obviously include both catagories of folk eating recently caught fish, eels and crabs.

Jack K?(can't remember his last name) former president of GE said he wasn't afraid to eat the fish of the Hudson and would feed it to his family. I wrote him a letter saying I was willing to come over and cook it for him on weekly basis, but only if he promised to have his then pregnant daughter in law eat it with him. He never wrote back.

I was born there, and when i was just a liddly living in the Bronx, i remember thinking how bad the river (and the East River, too, for that matter) smelled. My brothers once teased me that they were going to throw me in the river. I was truly terrified, frantic in fact, and loud enough that they got in trouble for it. I couldn't have eaten fish from the river if i'd known the source at age three (more than 50 years ago), i'd sure as hell not eat it now. What's worse is that investigations have shown that organized crime which runs toxic waste disposal companies dumps the waste into the sewage system, which is sufficiently old and broken down that it seeps right into the soil, and then into the rivers and the sea.

Now i'm making myself ill again.

Here is my most gross story about the east river:
In the early 80's I dated a young NYC detective and he told me how they once pulled a dead body out of the river. The body was covered with crabs. Another dectective on the scene started to pull off the crabs and put them in sack. My boyfriend asked him if they would be used for the investigation. The other detective said "no, my father loves crabs and he would appreciate the snack".

OK, now you can be sick.

You've contributed mightly to the probability . . .

Sorry, I'll go to bed now. good-night.

Setanta and Green Witch
Setanta and Green Witch, I've decided (in between upchucks) that you both are sadists.

BBB

Er - can I ask some dumb questions?


I haven't followed this whole psycho-drama/media frenzy - but I kind of get the idea that some people think Jackson got off cos he is famous? Is that right?


Is there a sub-stratum of folk who think his blackness (no jokes, now) also played a part? I have seen mention of OJ, the outcome of whose trial seemed, to me, to reflect a long held grudge by black folk being paid back - as well as some other stuff.

If people do think either or both of those things played a part in the verdict (leaving out money, and that he could hire good lawyers), is there any actual evidence of this, or is it just a feeling?

I ask cos sexual abusers get off all the time - it is such a hard crime to prove beyond reasonable doubt - sans semen in orifices or credible actual witnesses and such.

Even very poor and unattractive people get off. Conviction rates for cases actually taken to court (and, at least here, most fall by the wayside prior to that - because the prosecution do not think there is any realistic chance of conviction) are very low - again, at least here.



Leaving aside any debate of the rights and wrongs of all that, is there any real reason to think Jackson got off because of being Jackson?

The little I heard of the trial during it led me to believe that he would be acquitted, because of failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt - nemmind any Jackson factor.

I have to admit to having avoided the whole circus but then when I heard the jury was coming back I took the radio (waterproof) into the shower so I wouldn't miss it.

I must admit to not being surprised when the verdicts were being read out. Getting a conviction in a sexual matter where it's not an outright violent rape is pretty difficult. Having said that I heard the interviews with the jury (stunning of itself for me) and they struck me as being reasonable people who had thought about the matter. The upshot for me is that the prosecution was hampered by a lack of admissible evidence and at least one flaky witness.

Yeah - and, as you know, plenty of violent rapists get away with it, too.

a spin to his 'not guilty' verdict, possibly bringing charges against the mother of the child who accused him
Claims of her filing wrongful lawsuits, conspiracy etc.

Wait, you guys are saying that sexual abusers get off all the time (no pun intended)--but what about child molestation cases? I'm thinking specifically about child molestation. Is that as tough to get a conviction on? I would figure that a kid saying someone molested them would be more likely to be credible, wouldn't you?

I think his fame did get him off, but not because they were all enamored with him or anything. I think his fame created this fishbowl atmosphere--the jury had to have felt the pressure of the whole world watching. This, in my opinion, caused them to overthink it.

It just seems to me that if it were just some poor regular guy I don't think they would have been as thoughtful about it.

The kid says "this man did (insert molestation specifics here) to me".

The accused is a thirty-some-odd year old man with a history of bringing little boys to his house for sleepovers.

Accused shows up to court wearing pajamas.

I'm just sayin...

No - if anything kids have less credibility - because there is oft-expressed doubt re their ability to tell truth from fantasy and that they have been influenced by adults.

Hey - you wanna rape someone - choose a little kid - the littler the better.

I have worked in the area too long.

If you wanna offend - choose rape.

WAY less chance of ever going to court - and WAY less chance of being convicted.

You will often do heaps less time than if you did someting REALLY important - like steal something.



I have worked with abused kids and raped adults.

I tell you, if I am ever raped again, I won't even tell the cops unless it was in front of a number of witnesses who weren't his mates - and I am seriously injured - and he had at LEAST a HUGE knife.

If you detect a little bitterness, it is there.

BUT - I also accept the problems of how hard it is to DISprove these offences - and how awful it is if one is wrongly accused. There DOES need to be reasonable protection for alleged offenders.

Life just sucks sometimes.

If a kid of mine were sexually abused I would be reluctant as hell to have them go to court, too.

It is unspeakably awful.

Really? Hmm. Okay. Well then, I guess I was wrong.



But the guy is still a freak.

kicky, There's no question about the guy being a freak, but that doesn't make him a child molester. The prosecution wasn't able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Jackson molested this child. I think the jury came out with the righ verdict. The mother is also of questionable character having sued others and instructing her child in acting school. The child's story wasn't consistent with his claim. He told some people Jackson didn't molest him.

Okay. I don't really care enough to argue about it. But I do have a feeling he is a child molester, even if he didn't do it in this case.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh, wait, yeah, there IS something wrong with that.

THAT FREAK!!!

Oh yeah.
here in america ( Oprah facts everyone..watchout)
Less then 1% of molesters are CONVICTED. one 30% GET to court
I know from my experience, it is hard to get a sexual abuser convicted. It took me and my mother almost 2 years to try to convict the man who abused me, and his verdict?
" not enough evidence"
Im with the bunny. If it ever happens to me again, aside from taking the mans dick off with a rust butter knife MYSELF, I wont go the court route unless i was battered as well.
People dont think molestation is that important.
Some people even look at it like this :
She is a girl, she is going to have sex some time or another. Sorry it wasnt a nice 'first time' but you should just get over it and go on'.
I have heard variations of that statement told to me by other WOMEN , and being said about other kids who were abused,
GRRRRRRRRRR!
Now, enter in a little boy and sodomy...
>sigh< except for the MJ case, all the little boy has to do is imply something happened and the man/woman who is accused will more then likely go to jail. For some reason our society sees rape of a little boy more important and more CONVINCING then that of a little girl .