10. Mesmerized by Tito's hubcap-sized medallions and pimptastic Jheri curl.
9. Drank too much "Jesus juice" while court was in session.
8. Michael swore on Tinkerbell's life that he didn't do it!
7. Waif-like asexual man-child thugs threatened that if the verdict wasn't favorable, jurors would be "sleeping with the llamas".
6. Still trying to tell LaToya and Janet apart. For that matter, still trying to tell LaToya and Michael apart.
5. Felt sorry for Michael's umbrella-holder, knowing that without Michael, he'd have to go back to being a doorstop.
4. Mistakenly assumed that this was a "practice" trial.
3. Slept through victim's testimony.
2. Distracted by creepy nose-less mannequin in fright wig, lipstick, and pancake makeup.
1. Too caught up in all the circus bullshit to do the right thing.
3 comments:
I'm no fan of MJ, fact is that he is a freaky pedofile. Given that, if the evidence is weak, it's weak. I would rather have him be found not guilty based on weak evidence than guilty. Cause if it happens to him, it can happen to anyone else.
What kind of moron parent let's their child anywhere near that freak anyway?!?
Hell, the mothers of his children ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting him have custody of those poor kids.
I love lists!!! Keep on rockin and rollin, Hammer!
Thanks, Horatio. I've been getting more into doing the lists lately; good to see people enjoying them.
Dave, I disagree that the evidence is "weak" -- indeed, the jurors have yet to specifically discredit said evidence, which by its very nature is almost entirely circumstantial and/or based on the kid's word.
What the jurors have taken pains to say is that because of the kid's family circumstances, because of the clear and obvious dysfunctions of his family, particularly the mother, they decided that the whole thing was a concoction designed to grift Michael out of his millions.
It's possible; as I said in another post, I believe that Michael Jackson molested a grifter. Both things can indeed be true. And I totally agree that any parent that would let their child near Michael Jackson is an idiot. But that's irrelevant as to the question of whether or not he molested this kid.
I submit that Jackson, like most predators of children, from serial molesters to pedophile priests, specifically targets children from these situations -- broken home, dysfunctional family, shithead parents. Not only does it make these poor kids much easier targets, but it helps with discrediting the accusations should they finally come to light.
I think the jurors should ask themselves a very simple question: "Would I let my pre-teen son spend the night at Michael Jackson's house, and if not, why not?" They know goddamned well in their heart of hearts that he's an abuser, a predator, a deluded scumbag. They let him get away with it, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves, as should the dove-releasing retards outside the circus.
May they all be reincarnated as Rosie O'Donnell's toilet seats.
Post a Comment