California Criminal Court Conundrums, Part III

Michael Jackson was just acquitted on all 10 of the child-molestation-related charges against him.

Maybe he didn't do it, but as the Amish say, "It just doesn't look."

All that can be said with certainty is that he is not guilty--which is NOT to say that he is innocent [despite how it will be reported by the press, especially the print media--Ed.].

All that the verdicts mean is that the prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." It doesn't even mean that the jury thinks Jackson didn't do it; it just means that the prosecution failed to convince the jury sufficiently that he did. In plain English, the DA botched the case.

[At least part of this is because the victim and his family looked like a bunch of money-grubbing extortionists . . . no one seems to care that even if they were, if Jackson did what they alleged, they were entitled to justice. Even a prostitute can say "No," and if she does but the guy proceeds anyway, it's still a rape.--Ed.]


Add this verdict to the Robert Blake and OJ Simpson verdicts, and you get a sum of poor prosecution of high-profile cases. I wonder when California DAs are going to realize that to succeed in high-profile cases, they'll have to be 100 times more thorough and careful than they'd have to be in a Joe Schmo case.

I also wonder whether the jury would have convicted Jackson if he had been Joe Schmo, and all other elements in the case were equal.

Not that any of this will matter in the popular media. There's going to be a great deal of spinning going on.

Batten down the hatches for a lot of talking head nonsense! And bring me a barf bag; I think I am going to be sick. I'm certain to be dizzy!