Tuesday, June 14, 2005

JackO's trial

About 24 hours has passed since a jury declared Michael Jackson not guilty, and this is what I think:

There were 8 women on the jury. Women always are harder on other women, according to what I've been told by various people over the years who have spent a lot of time figuring the angles on jury psychology.

So JackO's lawyers probably figured that the mother of JackO's accuser would rub at least two-thirds of the jury the wrong way. After the trial, one of the lady jurors raise her eyebrows and say she sure didn't appreciate the alleged victim's mama snapping her fingers at the jury.


It's time to move on, people.

The state almost always wins. It's good for them to lose sometime. Keeps them from getting too big for their overalls.

I don't buy this bullcrap that JackO's celebrity and economic wherewithal gave him an unfair advantage over the poor, underpaid, underdressed state's lawyers. Your average citizen wants to believe the state cause they're for law and order, truth and justice and the American Way. That's a HUGE advantage right off the bat. If they can't find those kind of people in a jury pool, they're not looking hard enough.

And, you know the other thing the state's got? Subpoena power! How many times did they raid Neverland Ranch. Three? How many times did JackO's lawyers get to raid the Santa Barbara D.A.'s Office? Uh, ZERO?

Of course, JackO's guilty. But that troublesome "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard can be a biatch sometimes, if you've a jury that can follow instructions.

That's all I'm saying about it! The best we call can do at this point is tend to our own rat killin', at least until the next celebrity trial comes along. And, yes, I do own the Thriller album. On vinyl.


ttyler5@hotmail.com said...

Jacko is really strange.

But what does this verdict do to the Supreme Court's most recently-penned racial theory of juries and convictions?

Tom Kirkendall said...

Banjo, as with the jury in the O.J. case with regard to the LAPD, my sense is that the jurors in Jacko's case simply were not comfortable with the fact that the accuser and his mother framed a guilty man.

Banjo Jones said...

Good one, Tom.

Tyler, I suspect it will have no effect on the Supreme's decision. In fact, I know it won't. Don't be trying to stir up trouble. There's enough of that to go around already.