A little from Column A a little from Column B...

Its not anything besides bad entertainment.

OOOOO, lets ask a bunch of uninformed assholes what they think and pretend it has meaning!

To be fair, I really can't see the race angle being played here....if there is any stereotype for pedophiles at all, I would guess that people percieve them as being white. Statistically, I highly highly doubt the (percentage) majority are black.

I think it's a stupid poll. Who cares what anyone thinks outside the jury or those who were there for the entire trial?

it is human nature to care about what other people think, whether its our business, or not.

I don't know if the poll indicates racism in its participants directly as much as it indicates a belief in institutionalized racism in the prosecution of high-profile blacks.

I personally think the celebrity card trumps the race card in these types of criminal actions. But the case against Michael, unlike that against OJ Simpson, was weak and circumstantial, and too reliant on "he said/she said" testimony between two unreliable parties. I think the system worked in this case.

I've written more on this on my blog: The Quern.

OOOOO, lets ask a bunch of uninformed assholes what they think and pretend it has meaning!

Wow! You really are irony proof. Your whole shtick is abysmally uninformed and you think you actually have something to say.

The only difference here is nobody asked you for your feeble thoughts.

Likewise RR.

"Wow! You really are irony proof"

Oh yes, he absolutely is.

"I think the system worked in this case."

Sorry, but I think it fell apart under the influence of modern psychobabble. The jury, though sure that "something" happened couldn't go far enough to convict in LARGE part because the RULES OF EVIDENCE are set up so that NO child molester who is careful can ever be convicted. Unless there is DIRECT evidence, the jury has a hard time overcoming the "reasonable doubt" (though I personally think they have "reasonable" confused with "no." I think some doubt in this case was "reasonable," but the doubt did not extend to being uncertain that he did it.)

At the same time, the jury was SO concerned (from their comments) about their OWN experience of being a "family" and "making friends" and "seeing Michael Jackson as a normal person" (are they BLIND?) that they ignored the testimony of past acts that came from credible witnesses. They didn't like the accuser's mom. Well, fine. That shouldn't have anything to do with it.

How is a child molesting vicitm supposed to get any justice in this country? They are groomed carefully in the first place to make sure they won't tell. They are CHOSEN for their lack of credibility in court and their deep-seated need to be loved and accepted by an adult, even if in a sexual way--and what kind of homes do you EXPECT kids like that to come from?

When that child molester has a snazzy lawyer and a bad background, how on earth are his child victims supposed to be credible in a court of law?

If the system actually WORKED, Michael Jackson would be banned from seeing any more children (if he weren't in jail) AND that little boy would be in therapy, and so would his entire FAMILY.

If the system WORKED, the jurors wouldn't be more interested in the BOOKS they are writing (one woman decided to include the Jackson case in a book the day she was picked--she should NEVER have been on the jury to begin with) than getting justic for a CHILD.

For kids, this system is broken. And the adults are too busy congratulating themselves on their brilliance to bother to fix it.

To be fair, this judge seemed like a no-nonsense sort of guy, but I think he made a big mistake with the 10 minute question limit for jurors.