Which isn't the same as innocent.
This Michael case reminds me so much of OJ. I wonder how it can go fairly or clearly with a superstar. I wonder if it is harder to put away our icons. Perhaps there is no way to convict him based on the evidence the jury saw. But it just doesn't feel right.
What does it take to reach justice?
3 comments:
pre-empted oprah for this. insanity... now i'm wondering when they'll prosecute parents for allowing their kids to play with a 40 yr old man in his jammies?
Perps and offenders of all sorts have perfected the art of creating ambiguity surrounding their misdeeds. It's the surest way to beat the criminal justice system. If you can maintain some degree of plausible deniability and at least infer that the victim or others have a reason to drag you down, then you can get away with just about anything in our society, legally speaking.
I didn't follow the case closely enough to have a strong opinion on his criminal culpability, but I have a hard time imagining a "strong comeback" scenario in his performing career. But there will probably be some kind of nauseating "thank you to my fans who always believed in me" statement made via song or video in the relatively near future. Otherwise, I think MJ is irrelevant as a pop entertainer.
As for justice, it's really hard to say what would have been "fair" in this case. The whole thing was a sordid mess so I am satisfied to leave matters where they stand.
And that's about the only comment I will make on this case, in writing at least!
Hi there.
I've always felt that "an eye for an eye" is always the best justice.
He got out of it three times. Would a "Regular Joe" get so lucky?
Post a Comment