District Attorney Tom Sneddon has had a legion of help in packaging and selling Michael Jackson’s guilt to the world. On a daily basis, for the past twelve years, we have heard and seen an endless number of molestation jokes that imply Michael’s guilt or, at least, intelligent and wise people should think so. These are the establishment satirists and comics who subtly influence public opinion. Without any reference to context or even probable evidence, the quest for the most salacious stories are considered fair game if it is Michael Jackson on the receiving end. The over-arching assumption has always been that something inappropriate was happening at Neverland, and even if there wasn’t any evidence to support that claim, that it was okay to assume he was guilty of child molestation because the architects of public opinion in the media made it appear so. Isn’t there any worry, by members in the media, that there can be the possibility of a blacklisting backlash? Especially during a time where trust in the media and government are at an all-time low.

It is worrisome how many people have been more than willing to profit mercilessly off of these unsubstantiated charges with no regard or care that he could be innocent and that this kind of white-collar corruption could easily happen to them. Many brilliant satirists such as Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Howard Stern or Eminem, who come across as your witty non-conformists and voices for the voiceless, clearly sold out something when they jumped on the bandwagon and arrogantly implied in their material that Michael is a child molester. Now that the case has finally unfolded, with surprisingly suspicious timelines and poorly coached testimony, it will be intriguing to see how people like the aforementioned will rationalize their blindsided ignorance and apologize to him for it. I am sure they wouldn’t like being called child molesters as they pursue their own careers; even if it was ‘just a joke.’

All this time, so many were so sure that he was guilty. So sure, that Tom Sneddon, an accomplished District Attorney, had a solid probable cause, some evidence and a superb circumstantial case to compliment his giddiness when he demanded that Michael Jackson turn himself into authorities. Tom Sneddon has produced an alarmingly weak and baseless case. The transcripts speak for themselves, which is a highlight reel as to how many forms or patterns of lies one can count. It is Sneddon who is pathetically pushing Sisyphus’ boulder. This case is demolishing the reputations of several professionals who gambled their careers on Michael’s guilt. Michael has endured unprecedented alienation although his innocence is shining bright at this moment.

How the tides have turned. In classrooms across the world, this poorly presented and constructed case has cast a brand new light on to the situation. The question with which students must wrestle is no longer merely that of guilt or innocence. Today, the question is this: How did this case come to be? Why was Michael Jackson blacklisted throughout the media if their information from inside sources proved to be weak? Why should we trust law enforcement after this? With such a massive absence of evidence, what factors drove this prosecution to proceed using such a baseless case?

Those irritating whispers regarding Sony Music’s influence are certainly getting louder in a world where we are all too familiar with the ominous partnership between some corporations or organizations and the State. It was okay when the story framed law enforcement as being the good guys and the wealthy eccentric celebrity as the disturbed bad guy. But it is clear, at this juncture, that the State’s case against Michael Jackson is bankrupt.

Due to its poor performance, the prosecution’s case will never rest peacefully. Imagine all of those poor media profiteers who must now come to terms with the ill-advised investments made into all of those Michael Jackson specials, exclusives and late-night jokes. That monumental momentum that any prosecutor would dream of has vanished within weeks. With the absence of tangible evidence, questions are being asked as to why these media outlets weren’t aggressively exploring how this case was conceived and what is the nature of this obvious entrapment?

If a state like California is going to attempt to attract entrepreneurs and businesses, as Governor Schwarzenegger has frequently said it must, people need to be assured that its civic institutions are for the most part legitimate, and that the rule of law applies to all. This is paramount for free-market capitalism to flourish and a guarantee to attract the best talent. This case is being watched very closely from all over the world and the State’s action or inaction will speak volumes as to its sincerity as being progressive.

Will Californian Attorney General, Bill Lockyear, look the other way and permit this kind of conduct to continue? Is it acceptable for a prosecutor to pursue a case on a whim or for a price? How has this case demonstrated otherwise? These types of questions are just beginning to emerge as the state’s case against Michael Jackson comes to a close. By allowing the 93 allegations as evidence, Judge Melville’s home-court ruling to desperately resurrect such an embarrassing showcase of American jurisprudence will logically give solid premises to connect these toxic questions into substantial indictments.

At this moment, it is plausible that there is an uncomfortable nexus of anxiety tormenting the taxpayers of Santa Barbara.

Source: MJJ Source (Author: John Karrys)

Category: Archive