|
You would immediately think that this trial would bring a huge following equal to that of O.J. Simpson’s, given the seriousness of the charges. But I am inclined to believe that there isn’t as much interest generated by these recent accusations. It is a very difficult case to sort though to begin with. All previous accusations have settled out of court and although the circumstances regarding the initial charges and evidence can be admitted into court, the amount of the settlements can not. There seems to be a wide variety of witnesses ranging from youngsters, comedy club owners, celebrities, and ex-employees of Michael Jackson. Witnesses Brought into the trial were aspects of previous cases that were settled out of court for what we can assume are extremely large amounts of money. I ponder the reasons for settlement quite frequently during this trial. I can understand a parent wanting to do this considering the media coverage and how the impending questions, accusations, and subsequent trial can affect a child. As a parent, it would be a judgment call as to what their child can handle emotionally. It is extremely difficult to lay blame or accuse a parent of accepting cash rather than submitting their child to a long, drawn-out, media-frenzied trial. However, this can be
construed as a ploy for financial gain as well. I try not to decipher
the reasons for the settlements, but rather maintain the knowledge
that they exist. Without some type of viable discrepancy against
the parents, it is very difficult to make a judgment on their position
and subsequent decision. What I find the most unsettling is that the people that step up to the stand for the prosecution are either lacking in memory, or seem to have had worries or concerns, or witnessed sexual behavior between Michael Jackson and children and did not bother to tell anyone when these events were occurring. The latterangers and perplexes me the most, especially those who claim (former maid) to have watched children inebriated, those who claim to have witnessed sexual acts (former chef) and sexual touching, and yet they admit to not only bringing their own children to work, but also never bothered to tell anyone or contact the authorities until this trial. It seems as if suddenly all former employees have a damaging story to tell and waited years for this particular moment to recall them. I cannot in good conscience find their testimony credible based on the fact that these stories weren’t brought to anyone’s attention until this particular media-biased trial.
There is just so much about this case that leads me to believe that a whole lot of people either covered up for Jackson (in which case, they should be on trial as well), or they are mistaken and/or misleading in their testimony. The very fact that the evidence presented by LeMarque contradicts what Macaulay Culkin states himself as an adult leads me to ponder the validity of this ex-employee who previously owned an adult content website. It is always a good thing when a pedophile is locked away; however, it is never a good thing when someone who is financially well-off and innocent is locked away. I do not state this with the belief that Michael Jackson is innocent, given that he is quite eccentric. However, I do not feel that a person is guilty of anything based on eccentricity, either.
I must admit that I do not find any of the evidence given so far compelling and concrete to date that would lead me to conclude Michael Jackson’s guilt or innocence. I think I am perpetually stuck in limbo when it comes to this trial and I have nothing but sympathy for the judge and jurors. I think if he is found guilty, then those who suspected wrongdoings but did nothing should also be held accountable. After all, this was a man who has been through this previously, and any inkling of inappropriate behavior should have been reported immediately and this trial should have begun long ago. I think ten years of silence lends credence to the theory that the cover-up was by many; therefore, those who conspired to keep this behavior quiet should be charged as accessories to a crime. And, if he is found innocent once again, then he might need to hire a nanny for himself and stop being to kind to anyone with children with whom he comes into contact. Of course, I am neither judge nor jury in this case, and the only conclusion I can state with all honesty is that whatever the outcome, I have faith that justice will serve those involved and the public well. Of course, I also had the same faith during the O.J. Simpson trial.
|
