Monday, June 13, 2005


I have not been paying attention to the Michael Jackson trial. Frankly, I think there are more important things that should be dominating the headlines daily. That being said, I turned on the tv today and watched the aftermath of the not-guilty verdict. Although I'm not exactly sure what my feeling are about the whole case, two things crossed my mind while watching:

1) If indeed he is innocent, how entirely awful it must be to go through all of this.

2) I'm starting to wonder though, if "reasonable doubt" can always be raised if you pay enough money for it.


  1. Thanks for the link Tracey. I watched all of the O.J. case and feel that the jury was influenced by two factors:
    1. O.J. was an American icon.
    2. The defense managed to thoroughly confuse the jury with the DNA testimony to the point that the jury lost all confidence in their own judgment.
    I'm also conflicted with the Jackson case. If he's innocent, I'm glad things turned out the way they did. The prosecutors blew it big time by putting the child's mother on the stand. Once her testimony was over, so was the prosecution's case. Jackson may indeed be innocent in this case. But I can't help but think that the prosecutor had more reason to pursue the case than simply the idea that he had a "vendetta".
    Oh well. As you say, on now to better things. :)

  2. Good points. Even though I realize it probably is true that the defense didn't prove their case, I always find it disturbing to hear a juror say something like, "Well, although I really do believe he/she is guilty, it wasn't proven to us beyond a reasonable doubt". It makes sense but it just doesn't feel good.