6.11.2005

Surely this qualifies as some sort of child abuse, right??

Sorry, MJ fans, and sorry, fans of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but y'all know Michael Jackson is a child molester, right? Don't you? That this whole trial is not some b.s. shakedown-gone-wrong, or anything else? District attorneys, in California as well as everywhere else, don't prosecute every case the police build, you know. They have to prosecute only those cases that won't waste public money, and that have a solid chance of conviction. This means, for the non-legally-minded out there, that they have to have all their ducks in a row and be sure of the facts and of the witnesses and of the whole story, before they rush in to court. Not to mention that the little bits of what we've heard from the hijinks in Santa Maria seem like Michael's got a problem with being handsy, even if the accuser's mother is a nutcake herself -- what in the world do her delusional behaviors have to do with her son and the crimes against him, by the way, I'll never know, but whatever.

In any event, here's what has sparked my rant today: surely hauling your infant granddaughter out and decorating her to proclaim MJ's innocence is a bad idea. Can't Child Protective Services be called? (Gee, there's a thought: maybe if just ONE of the many people who knew that Michael's habits as regards kids were creepy and touchy and gross and illegal had called CPS in Santa Barbara County, rather than dancing around for years, the boy at the center of the instant prosecution might have been spared the unwelcome attentions of his favorite pop star....)
Travesty. (Oh, and p.s.? That lanyard around the neck of a baby is a dangerous item on which she could strangle herself -- maybe it might be best if grandma doesn't get to hang out with Bianca unsupervised, herself.)

4 Comments:

Blogger Di said...

Two points... dos puntos, if you will:

1) I don't think he's done anything that he thinks is inappropriate or that was aimed to harm a child. I think he's a child himself in his own mind. That is not to say that he did not do things that were inappropriate (the rare triple negative!).

2) I would never ever in a million years let my child, sick or not, spend the night alone with an adult that was not directly related to her, superstar or not. What are these parents THINKING??? It is unfathomable to let their kids stay with someone who has already been accused of indecency.... HELLO?

That is not to say that he shouldn't be prosecuted and punished and all that. Under no circumstances should we let anyone believe for a second that they can treat kids like this and get away with it, nutcase or not. Whew. Why did you make me think about this? And do you think that the long jury deliberations "mean" anything? And also... don't you think that the LADA would prosecute this just because it's so high profile? Your input is eagerly awaited.

8:42 PM  
Blogger Dew said...

1) Once you've paid a $20MM settlement on account of inappropriate behavior toward a child, you know what you're doing is WRONG wrong WRONG, even if it hadn't (somehow, inexplicably) occurred to you before.

2) Not true: you'd let her stay with us, 'cause you'd know she'd be as safe here as she would be at home -- but, see, that's the difference: you know me, and you know I'm not a freak (much), and you know the environment.

I don't know what the long deliberations mean, but I don't like it, I'll say that. It may be that the jury instructions were especially complex, or that the evidence is totally different from what's been reported, or whatever.... But as to your final point, NO. The LA District Attorney's office (although this is the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office, in fact, I think) would NOT prosecute for the star quality -- if anything, they'd be less inclined to do so (hence the number of stars pleading out vs going to trial), because of a jury pool's likelihood of "knowing" the defendant, or thinking they do, and having an established "relationship" with the defendant thereby -- must make it pretty damned hard to get a conviction if the jury already finds the defendant a sympathetic character 'cause they played Doogie, or whatever.... Dig?

9:32 PM  
Blogger Val said...

That baby should ALSO not be gnawing on the keychain ring. Hello, choking hazard?

11:02 AM  
Anonymous coda said...

There are entirely too many babies in the world as it is. One less won't hurt anyone. Furthermore I posit that we don't really need this family in the gene pool anyway.

10:49 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home