1. Has Michael Jackson got a fair trial?
2. Regardless of the evidence, can a person be found guilty of a crime because of their lifestyle?
3. Was O.J. Simpson innocent, or was the whole issue clouded by racism?
4. Is it possible to ever convict an international celebrity?
At the moment, popstar Michael Jackson is on trial in California on charge of child molestation. In fact, the jury having heard all the evidence is deliberating their verdict.
Michael Jackson is a 46-year old Afro-American artist/popsinger who having made an awful lot of money, built his home as an amusement park called Neverland in California, United States. According to the prosecution he has sexually molested several minors. There are groups that are for and against Michael Jackson, regardless of the charge. Those for tend to be American liberals, artists, members of the Democratic party and probably, most of the Afro-Americans. On the other side, we have the conservative media (such as FOX News and, to some extent, CNN), most members of the Republican party, The Bible Belt, most of the inhabitants of the Mid-West and smalltown dwellers.
Michael jackson's fate has become something of a national battleground where the issue of whether he did or he didn't is dominated by the man's money and lifestyle.
Michael Jackson seems to be a very special person. It's not for nothing that gossip magazines have called him "Wacko", meaning crazy. He was a star at 13. As far as we know, he didn't have much of a childhood. This presumably led to the construction of Neverland which is, ofcourse, referred to J.M. Barrie's novel "Peter Pan". (In this story, the 11-year old Wendy is abducted by Peter and flies to the Neverneverland, where people never grow up.) His child-like behaviour and desire not to grow up is not accepted by certain sections of society.Witnesses for the prosecutions have testified to being molested by the popstar. At the same time, some of them have already received a lot money to stop the case from appearing in court. What does this mean? Does it mean that he's guilty? Or does he simply want to avoid the finger of accusation being pointed at him, which would ruin him professionally and as a person? Do you think that a man in Sweden who worked at a day-care centre, having been found not guilty of child molestation, could ever work with children again? The accusation itself is enough.
Circumstantional evidence such as a porn magazine and Michael Jackson's own statements that children slept in his bed seem to damning, but this in itself does not constitute a crime. And the fact that he said it in his present situation, could indicate his innocence.
Given the evidence on its own, O.J. Simpson was guilty, but seen against the background of the racistic LA police, the whole basis of this evidence can be questioned for example the bloody glove. Was this glove, found in Simpson's apartment, placed there by the police after the crime? Could the magazine in MJ:s Neverland been planted by someone?
If M.J. is a kind of Peter Pan
, the question can be asked, what chance would Peter Pan have stood in an American court of law when charged with abduction and child molestation? How would Wendy have reacted? Would she be the main witness for the prosecution or the defense?