So Michael Jackson got off. All the charges brought against him, all the negative press from newspapers and magazines that basically tried him in print, and the jury said "not enough to convict." Is it really something to celebrate?
The jurors decided that there wasn't enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict, but that doesn't mean that he's innocent. Yet, the fact that he liked to have young boys sleep in the same bed with him doesn't mean he's guilty, either. He made the repeated mistake of putting himself in situations where shady business is presumed, whether it happens or not. When a grown man sleeps in the same bed with children (not his own), isn't the first thing that comes to mind that somebody is doing something wrong? Hopefully Michael will learn from this and not leave himself open to such accusations.
At the same time, the prosecutor was like a shark. He smelled blood and wanted to rip into Michael Jackson. Like President W acting against Saddam Hussein to avenge his father after a failed assassination attempt, Sneddon tried to clean up "unfinished business" from 1993 by finding witnesses willing to testify against Jackson just so he could finally put him in jail, or so Sneddon hoped. But Sneddon was so intent to find bodies to put on the witness stand that he apparently didn't do much of a background check. He couldn't have, considering all the things that came out about the accuser's family during the trial. As I said earlier, Jackson may very
well be guilty, but who would believe that coming from someone with a long history of scams and fraud?
This trial was a circus from the very beginning, and the jury acted correctly in not jailing a man just because he's a clown.