Simpson, Blake, Jackson. There should never again be a TV police show set in California. It just wouldn't be believeable. If you are a celebrity there you can get away with murder, quite literally.

I state for the record:

More than 80% of the population of the Great State of California are refugees from the other 49. Those few of us who are natives are NOT responsible for the actions of this foreign majority.

It may be time to vote with my feet (again).

Da_Wiz Sends

Bet you Spector goes free too.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

Post-verdict slumber party at Neverland. Bring a friend. Book deals and larry king time for the jurors. Pathetic.

Two statements, the first a question to the decent people who still reside in California, yet seem to NEVER get called for jury duty...

Why are you still living in that wholly f***ed up state?

And, for the rest of us, a caution...

Don't ever move to California, unless you want to serve up your children to pedophiles and your women to murderers.

San Andreas Fault, PLEASE do your stuff.

Later,
bbeck

Pfft. I coulda told you the outcome months ago.

Rich/famous people don't go to jail. They hire high-priced attorneys and throw a lot of bullshit at the juries. A huge wate of time and effort. If Michael Jackson would have been some out-of-work schmuck, he'd be on his way to Soledad right now to make little rocks out of big ones. But he's rich and famous, so he gets to go home.

I hope Jackson does decamp to Europe so they can deal with his freak-show life rather than us. In any case, I hope he just fades in obscurity so I never have to hear about him again.

Now get ready for the gossip rag and celeb mag deluge.

Someone just called him "the teflon molester" on Foxnews!

"Michael Jackson is an innocent man."

Same-o,same-o.

I gave up on the 'justice' system after OJ , so this is hardly surprising.

That said,I do think the case was not as strong as could have been hoped. I believe that he is guilty, but I can see how it came out the way it did.

The real outrage is that a 'creature' such as Jackson is still considered a 'victim' by many,and many others simply don't care if he did it or not.
He is a CELEBRITY and they are MORONS. That he is clearly NUTS seems to be hardly worth considering.

What a SAD and REVOLTING spectacle.

for what it's worth (virtually nothing) -- he's not innocent. He's not guilty -- not the same thing.

A Catholic priest will be convicted of a supposed crime 30 years ago with no evidence more than a memory brought out through regression therapy. Here Jackson admits to having children in his bed, WITH pornography after having given them alcohol and he is let go. Tell me there is not a double standard/Catholic bashing.

You don't blame the lumber for a wobbly chair, you blame the carpenter. It was was not exactly an example of prosecutorial excellence after all.

In his sick mind, this will validate his behavior. He will see those idiotic fans waiting for him outside and think everyone still loves him, and his actions were/are fine. He will be back to going after kids in no time. The only difference is that he is effectively broke now, so he might not have the handlers to keep him in check. This won't be the last time he is in a courtroom.

HE IS FREE. You far-right nazis failed again to frame a person of color. Michael Jackson is everything we progressives stand for. This is a great day for liberals and (real) democracy!!!! It's a bad day for Bushco and fascism!!!

www.liberalavenger.com

It's a bad day for Bushco fascism! (boo hoo)

"It was was not exactly an example of prosecutorial excellence after all"

Quite correct. I still thought he'd get hit with a guilty on one or two of the lesser charges, though.

Ah hell, it's CA...

Just more evidence of our two tiered legal system.

Michael Jackson is everything we progressives stand for

Hell, I'm just glad one of you finally admitted it.

If he were a white man and the victims were black children he'd fry and everyone knows it! This sort of racism will not change until the right learns to boycott just as the Civil Rights Movement did from the start.

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!!!

"You far-right nazis failed again to frame a person of color."

I think the rest of us are talking about Michael Jackson here. You seem to be confused.

It's not that rich people don't go to jail. In New York Martha Stewart, whou could buy Michael Jackson with petty cash, was found guilty. It's that the jury pool in California is composed of idiots. Everyone working for any California DA office is also a moron.

Now I know why the lawyers in the "Practice" and " Ally Mcbeal" never lost. Even though the shows were set in Massachusetts, the lunatic jury stories were all from California.

Not guilty? Nee, laddie ... 'tis merely Not Proven!

Pass the haggis.

Michael Jackson is everything we progressives stand for.

Michael Jackson is a psychologically damaged pedophile whose fame saved him from jail and responsibility.

Hey, you're RIGHT, he IS everything you 'progressives' stand for!

Later,
bbeck

"If he were a white man?"

My God, how much whiter can the guy possibly get?

I wonder if (in addition to everything else) he tampererd with the jury?

Guess I'm the only one who finds this fucking hilarious...

Monte, you'll know when they all show up at Neverland for a sumbler party.

FK, my spelling is hilarious too.

Guess I'm the only one who finds this fucking hilarious...

Gee, that reminds me of a Jimmy Buffett lyric, FK; "If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane..."

As for me, I'll appreciate the irony, later...

Later,
bbeck

Malkin is linking to a nice collection of freaktography

This is a great day for liberals and (real) democracy!!!

Dude, you are either mentally deranged or you don't have kids. Possibly a combination of the two.

BTW, If you do have kids, please seek guidance.

It's not that rich people don't go to jail. In New York Martha Stewart, whou could buy Michael Jackson with petty cash, was found guilty.

Yes, but she was a WASPY white woman.

"State of Decay"

Under a picture of Michael Jackson and a map of America.

You could throw in a few of the WWotM* as well, for good measure

*White Woman of the Moment

MJ innocent
OJ too, everyone sucks
Fat Kid = misanthrope

Did you people actually look at the case? Or do you just feel that he's a child molester in general and so he should have been convicted in this particular case regardless of how weak it was?

Look, I think the way Michael Jackson behaves with children is inappropriate and disgusting. I don't know for sure if he's outright molested children in the past, but I wouldn't bet too much that he hasn't.

But this kid? The family was a bunch of crooks. Some of the charges (conspiracy to kidnap) were outright ridiculous, and once you establish that the family was lying about those, their credibility was shot on everything else. Then they have a history of doing con jobs for money, to the point that there was photographic proof that the mom had faked bruises in another case.

He very well may be a child molester, but this case was absolute garbage. It is not comparable to the OJ case.

A question...

If it is innocent on all charges wtf took them so long? Honestly... I thought there was less evidence that sent Scott Peterson to death row. I suppose short of getting it on film there is not evidence GOOD ENOUGH.

Of course, Rkelly taped his escapades with that 12 year old and he is still out of jail and singing at Congressional Black Caucus Fund Raisers. Go figure...

What took them so long is they had the longest jury instructions of almost any modern case (almost 100 pages). They had to go through all that then go through every charge one by one.

Dear God, even more than all of the random children he will be molesting (with impunity, now), what about his own children? They will not be protected from him -- molesters do not exempt their own children. And they have to be with him for many, many years to come. There will be no rescue, no respite for them.

Holy shit! This is a right vs. left issue? I thought it was CA vs. Michael Jackson?

If there's a place you want to commit a crime, it's southern CA.

And if she hadn't covered up, they couldn't have touched her. It was the lying that hurt.

Did you guys see the...well fan, with the "We apologize on behalf of all humanity" sign? Methinks people need to get themselves some Val-U-Rite and settle down a tad.

Yeah they are all kooks, but that really makes the boy a better victim in a sense, doesn't it? Who would believe him? He isn't going to choose kids who are likely to either tell or tell and be believed. This kids was the perfect victim.

Iblis
I wonder if (in addition to everything else) he tampererd with the jury?

Monte, you'll know when they all show up at Neverland for a sumbler party.

Good one! Just what I needed (a slumber party at Neverland.)

How many bad "beat it" jokes will there be now? ugh

Iblis -

Did the fanthing have a 'compassion head-tilt'? 'Cause it just isn't a real apology without the head-tilt.

Michael Jackson is everything we progressives stand for.

Diddling children and physical mutilation is everything you guys stand for? Y'know, I wouldn't be too proud of that, unless of course you WANT to lose more elections...

Here Jackson admits to having children in his bed, WITH pornography after having given them alcohol and he is let go.

Come on, people, let's not just make stuff up. Jackson did not admit he lay in bed with kids while they drank wine and browse pornography. You're taking accusations and claiming that he admitted to it.

All Jackson admits to is that he let the kid sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor. He did not "admit" to serving them alcohol -- his side said the kids got into his wine cellar. He did not "admit" to giving them porn. They claimed that, and there was porn on the site, but Jackson did not admit letting them see it.

Again, I'm not saying I think he's a great person and I'm not saying he's never molested children. I'm just saying let's not pretended there was a good case against him and he got off. The case against him was crap, full of outrageous charges and holes.

Brenda, there was head-tilt and tears!

I can't believe all the "my God now no children are safe from him" stuff. Come on, people, if you have kids for the love of God don't let them hang out with Michael Jackson. Period. What kind of idiot parent would even consider doing that? I think charges should be brought against them as well.

He very well may be a child molester, but this case was absolute garbage.

I thought there were allegations of Jackson operatives intimidating witnesses?

No matter what the truth this case has impressed the public that, as Iblis put it: money talks and shit walks.

We are headed down a very bad road when the public has lost its sense of outrage and continues to allow itself to be fleeced. We have become: We the Sheeple.

Iblis -

My goodness, with both head-tilt and tears! to his account, MichaelJ has become another Apologetic Left icon. How special that DU is joining in the victory party -- wonder how many of 'em would leave their children for an overnight at Neverland?!

Brenda, I didn't think DU believed in procreation, harmful to the environment and all.

Yay!

Now I don't have to marry what's her face!

Karma has an interesting way of biting the guilty in the ass.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows he's done inappropriate things with young boys. But Bob's right, this case wasn't good enough to convict him.

I find no humor in this or anything to do with the freak.

Hey is this one of Mike's kids?

if you have kids for the love of God don't let them hang out with Michael Jackson. Period. What kind of idiot parent would even consider doing that?

Bob,

Did you see the people standing outside the courthouse crying tears of joy when they heard the verdict?

Most of them were adults, many old enough to have teenage or pre-teen kids.

That kind of idiot parent.

Iblis - that could certainly explain the DU Denizens jubilation -- what Jackson is doing certainly doesn't lead to procreation...but, it must lead to their slight disappointment as well as it doesn't lead to abortions either. Freaks supporting a Super Freak.

And, BOB if not another parent ever brought their children to his place again he'd still have ready victims. His own children, and wherever the hell he purchased Price Michael 'blanket' Jackson.

Yeah they are all kooks, but that really makes the boy a better victim in a sense, doesn't it? Who would believe him? He isn't going to choose kids who are likely to either tell or tell and be believed. This kids was the perfect victim.

Yes, I've heard other people say that perhaps he just chooses his victim well, and that is a good point, but...

...I think that would be more relevant in a rock-solid case that was put forward by people with a shady past. Then you could say it was a great case but their credibility was bad. But in this situation the case was absolute garbage, full of claims that were demonstrably false, and so even without a shady past the family's credibility was shot.

Even if this family walked in with good credibility, by the end of the case it would have been shot. They claimed there were no clocks inside Neverland (to explain away their inconsistent timelines), and that was not true. There were plenty of clocks, including a giant working garden clock outside of the house. They kept having to adjust their timeline when evidence came forward proving it impossible. They claimed they were held hostage during a time period when they had much phone and person contact with outsiders and said nothing to them. It goes on and on. The prosecutors spent half the case trying not to visibly cringe when witness after witness they called not only did not corroborate the family's charges but cast serious doubt on them.

This particular case, as opposed to the general case that he's a child molester, this case that was actually being tried, was absolute crap.

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO JACKO.

Bob
All Jackson admits to is that he let the kid sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor.

The prosecution may not have proved its case, the witnesses may have been bribed or coerced, defacto anti-white racism had a mighty amount to do with it too as any honest person must admit, and aslo his celeb status. But the pampered star of Neverland sleeping on the floor? Not even on an extra bed he had his servants wheel in from another guest room? Would you? Does that make common sense?

Besides all the rest, the tragedy of this is that it proves that too many juries today are loathe to condem anyone because "judging" anyone for anything has become such a Liberal sin. They have lost their common sense and they do not understand (or seemingly care) that beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond all doubt.

72V wrote:

He very well may be a child molester, but this case was absolute garbage.

I thought there were allegations of Jackson operatives intimidating witnesses?

Jackson's people have done that in the past, but in this particular case the intimidation accusations were very weak and unbelievable, along with the kidnapping ones. Jackson's camp claimed someone was given the task of entertaining the family to to keep them out of his hair, and there are tons of receipts for movies, spas, restaurants, etc. They claim they were kidnapped and intimidated during this time. The jury didn't buy it (especially since they had contact and phone calls with many people during the "kidnapping").

We are headed down a very bad road when the public has lost its sense of outrage and continues to allow itself to be fleeced. We have become: We the Sheeple.

I'm outraged by Michael Jackson's behavior. But this case was very bad, so I can't be outraged that it was rejected by the jury.

John from WuzzaDem wrote:

if you have kids for the love of God don't let them hang out with Michael Jackson. Period. What kind of idiot parent would even consider doing that?

Bob,

Did you see the people standing outside the courthouse crying tears of joy when they heard the verdict?

Most of them were adults, many old enough to have teenage or pre-teen kids.

That kind of idiot parent.

I was more responding to the people saying no children in California were safe, as if they couldn't stop him (when they could just by denying him access). But point taken. People are insane. I guess we can hope that the people you're talking about haven't reproduced.

And, yes, "his" children may be at risk.

By the way, none of the kids are biologically his. His side essentially admitted this in court.

Oh, goodie. Here come the jurors to 'splain themselves. Thank you, jurors! Thank you, thank you. With an astounding lack of anything resembling plain, common sense you've released that monster back into our midst. Appreciate that, really.

shit from shinola wrote:

Bob All Jackson admits to is that he let the kid sleep in his bed while he slept on the floor.

The prosecution may not have proved its case, the witnesses may have been bribed or coerced, defacto anti-white racism had a mighty amount to do with it too as any honest person must admit, and aslo his celeb status. But the pampered star of Neverland sleeping on the floor? Not even on an extra bed he had his servants wheel in from another guest room? Would you? Does that make common sense?

I was responding to someone that said Jackson admitted doing this and that. The fact is that he did not ever admit to the bulk of it.

Whether other people claimed he did it, whether or not it's "common sense", and, yes, whether or not he actually did those things has no bearing on the fact that he never "admitted" doing them.

I am listening to the jury press conference and watching them on tv as well: What a bunch of morons. Jacko got a free pass cause they hated the accusers mother. I hope all of the Jury's children and grandchildren are invited to the Neverland victory party/sleepover. Stupid ass jerkwads.

Let's be honest, how smart can they be if they got stuck on jury duty?

I'm betting those creeps wanted to be on the jury. They've got their 15 minutes of fame...of course, they're famous for being total jackasses. Best hope for the rest of the country, Jackson (who is commercially unbankable in the US) makes his merry way to France. Where he will be welcomed.

The case WAS crap. I was hoping he'd get gigged on alcohol to minors - because it is a shame the perv didn't get nailed on something....But the Arvizo Family???

Collectively bigger pieces of shit than Michael Jackson, especially the Grifter mother. You can't introduce reasonable doubt better than with her being caught in lie after lie, and on cross had to admit she had taken the "accuser" and his older brother to acting classes so they could learn how to act better in the JCPenny lawsuit. The jurors found the Arvizos such liars that even other "abuse" victims tainted by appearing to be like the Arvizos and also seeking a Big Payday.

And the Prosecution could have avoided Mother Arvizo testifying and tainting all the charges just by dropping the dumb "Conspiracy" charge. That one that consisted of the mother's claims of her family being held against their wills...though she managed to escape several times with a Jackson aide with a platinum credit card to fuel her urgent need for body waxing, clothes shopping.

The perv walks. But this case fell apart with the lying mother and lying manipulative sons no juror believed - so they couldn't convict - though I think many would have liked to have taken Jackson off the streets.

//Fat Kid nods to Cedarford

Yep, I believe the accusers are grifters...liars...a family of con artists. I even suspect that this family deliberately put the child in Jackson's way just so that they could reap civil court rewards later. Regardless, he (Jackson) is STILL a molester, and it just doesn't matter if the kid and his mother and his siblings are scum of the earth. Given Jackson's undeniable history I have to go with the molestation as valid.

If it walks like a child molester, and it talks like a child molester, and it pays out multiple multi-million dollar settlements to previous victims, I have to go with it IS a child molester.

Not that I couldn't be more tired of the whole damn thing, but I'd still like to prosecute the parents who pimped their kids out to this walking freakshow.

Lame case, lame witness, lame prosecutor.

Snedden was told PRIOR to the stewardess taking the stand that she would not testify to serving booze to the kid. He still leaked it to the press and called her up there. Snedden should never have prosecuted the conspiracy/kidnapping charges.

Snedden didn't even listen to his own staff.

BTW, Bob, didn't Jacko admit to sleeping with the kid? He said it on camera in the Bashir documentary, with the kid resting his head on Jacko's shoulder.

Still, the kid was trash. He wrecked the Neverland golf cart, broke into the booze, admitted to jacking off with his brother, etc. It was a totally fucked up case from the start.

I just hope Jacko goes broke. Evidently, that is our only shot at justice.

Oh well. He will move to some nice indonesian island somewhere and stalk foreign children now.

He can't. Pedos have preferences. Jackson's is white boys 13-14. Got one he can buy? I'm sure he's looking for a new supply at the moment.

I can't blame the kid for acting surly on the stand. fucked up family, followed by cancer, followed by being pimped by his family.

Anybody who has any familiarity with pedophiles knows, MJ is a pedophile. They use the same excuses, have the same patterns of behavior, etc. Yuck.

Two ways I look at this: Either there WAS enough evidence to convict his perv ass and Sneddon screwed it up worse than Michael's nose job, or there WASN't enough evidence to convict, in which case Sneddon made the cardinal mistake of taking an unwinnable case into court.

Either way, Sneddon deserves to be sent back to the minors; he's obviously not capable of handling the big time.

Jacksom now has a free pass for his prior cases of molestation and a guaranteed excuse for the NEXT time he gets caught. Thanks, Mr. D.A.

Dogstar wrote:

BTW, Bob, didn't Jacko admit to sleeping with the kid? He said it on camera in the Bashir documentary, with the kid resting his head on Jacko's shoulder.

No, he said he slept on the floor next to the bed. Although I guess it's kind of confusing. Here's the actual quote: "I didn’t sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it’s okay. I slept on the floor. I give the bed to the child."

I guess you could interpret the "even if I did" to mean he's admitting maybe he did after all, but if you see the video it's clear (at least it was to me) that he was denying he had done that but saying he didn't see what the big deal was even if he had. Because, you know, it's just a "charming" sleepover, like two ten year olds would have. (gag)

The kid either on the Bashir show or on the rebuttal show also claimed Michael Jackson slept on the floor and claimed that he had many times offered to sleep on the floor and let MJ sleep in the bed, since it was MJ's bed, but that MJ had always insisted that since he was the guest he got the bed.

Anyway, again, I'm not saying he didn't sleep in bed with him or making any claims at all about what happened. I'm just saying the story from the Jackson camp has from the start been they did not sleep in the same bed together, that Jackson did not give the kid wine, and that Jackson did not give the kid porn. So the person lamenting that Jackson got off after "admitting" all of that is off-base.

That quote I gave was actually from a followup interview about the Bashir show on 60 Minutes. Here is the actual transcript from the Bashir show:

Bashir: "When you stay here, do you stay in the house? Does Michael let you enjoy the whole premises?"

Gavin: "There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom." "And I was like, 'Michael you can sleep in the bed', and he was like 'No, no, you sleep on the bed', and I was like 'No, no, no, you sleep on the bed', and then he said 'Look, if you love me, you'll sleep in the bed'. I was like 'Oh
mannnn?" so I finally slept on the bed." "But it was fun that night."

Jackson: "I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?"

Gavin: "You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor."

Bashir: "But Michael, you're a 44-year-old man now, what do you get out of this?"

Gavin: "He ain't 44, he's 4!"

Jackson: "Yeah, I'm 4. I love, I feel, I think what they get from me, I get from them. I've said it many times, my greatest inspiration comes from kids. Every song I write, every dance I do, all the poetry I write, is all inspired from the level of innocence." "That consciousness of purity. And children have that. I see God in the face of children. And man, I just love being around that all the time."

Bashir: "But when people hear that children from other families have come and they've stayed in your house, they've stayed in your bedroom ..?"

Jackson: "Very few."

Bashir: "Well, you know, but some have, and they say, is that really appropriate for a man - for a grown man - to be doing that? How do you respond to that?"

Jackson: "I feel sorry for them because that's judging someone who just wants to really help people." "Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do, is to share your bed with someone."

Bashir: "You really think that?"

Jackson: "Yahhh. Of course."

Gavin: "You are taking the position that you use every single night that you sleep and you're sharing it with another ..."

Jackson: "You're saying you can have my bed if you want, sleep in it. I'll sleep on the floor. It's yours. Always give the best to the company, you know. Like to him. Because he was going to sleep on the floor and I said 'No,
you sleep in the bed and I'll sleep on the floor.'"

While there is a lot of disturbing stuff in there ("if you love me..."), there is no admission that he slept in the bed with the kid. (Again, I'm not saying he didn't, just saying he said he didn't.)

Two ways I look at this: Either there WAS enough evidence to convict his perv ass and Sneddon screwed it up worse than Michael's nose job, or there WASN't enough evidence to convict, in which case Sneddon made the cardinal mistake of taking an unwinnable case into court.

I kind of thought this way, too, but I saw Sneddon on TV and he made the point that as D.A. he doesn't really have the luxury of passing on a case like this just because it has problems. Basically if it's a serious accusation and the charges are fairly credible, they pursue the case. They can't say, nah, let's wait until a better MJ molestation case comes down the pike.

But, yeah, I don't think he did a great job with it. They sure seemed to be surprised when many of their witnesses told stories that contradicted the accuser's family's testimony. Perhaps they didn't realize how dishonest this family was when they first took on the case. Maybe on about the 4th major revision of the timeline they could have announced they no longer found the family credible and dropped the case.

Either way, Sneddon deserves to be sent back to the minors; he's obviously not capable of handling the big time.

Oh, give me a break! How many baby diddling cases have your tried?

On second thought, I take that back. The kidnapping charge was such hogwash that it's a disgrace Sneddon put that in there. Either the family had such little credibility on that charge that he should have dropped the case or he himself wanted to pursue that bogus charge, in which case he screwed up the case. Either way Sneddon blew it.

The guy just seethes with hatred for MJ every time he speaks about him. I'm not saying it's not justified, and I believe Sneddon believes with every fiber of his being the MJ's a serial child molestor, and that's certainly a good reason to hate someone, but I think perhaps his extremely strong emotions did him in here.

So much for innocent till proven guilty, eh?

Fat Kid, you hit one of my pet peeves. You're not "innocent until proven guilty". You're "presumed innocent until proven guilty". The innocence or guilt is obviously set at the time of the crime.

And it's our legal system that presumes you innocent. Nobody else has to presume a damn thing. It drives me up a wall to be lectured that I have to think someone's innocent until a court proves otherwise.

I have no power to jail anybody, and I can think whatever the hell I want, thank you very much.

And what I think is that at the very least MJ has acted very inappropriately with children and at the worst he has molested children. The "least" crimes are based on what came out of his own mouth, so I don't need a court to tell me I can be horrified.

(Not ranting at you personally, Fat Kid, just ranting at the concept in general, so please don't take offense.)

Hey man, it's all good. You actually make some decent observations/comments in here. It's the lynch mob mentality of a lot of the rest that bugs me.

*shrugs*

I really was hoping for a guilty (on all counts) verdict on this one. Then, when it came down, I kinda thought an innocent would prove far more entertaining. I immediately recognized the shit-storm this would raise in both the right and left wing of our political sphere, and it made me laugh. Not b/c it's funny, but b/c it's sad.

I'm going to the gym to blow off some steam. See y'all later.

Bob, you nailed a big part of what I'm talking about. Sneddon couldn't dissasociate what he felt about Jackson long enough to build a professional case. He let his personal feelings into his professional life, and went to trial with witnesses he KNEW wouldn't stand up to cross-exam and a lack of solid evidence... because he hated Jackson. DA's are supposed to build cases on admissable evidence and reliable witnesses, not on how much they FEEL the accused is guilty.
And don't buy the excuse that prosecutors have "little choice" what they bring to trial; the choice to bring a case to a Grand Jury is ENTIRELY the prosecutor's (except in certain states with domestic violence charges, but this wasn't one). "I have no choice" is just the excuse they use when they either have no case or a politically motivated one.
Depending on how you view the case, either an habitual molester was put back on the streets after a hideously expensive trial that the taxpayers will have to foot an awesome bill for; or a man who was innocent of the specific charges brought was forced to suffer and pay for the legal equivalent of slow torture and continuing death of character. Either way, it happened because Sneddon brought a weak case to court.

"Innocent until proven guilty"? Fat Kid, in a child-molestation case there isn't even "Innocent AFTER proven innocent". Look up the Bucky-McMartin atrocity and you'll see what I mean. That's one reason why I'm so down on the DA.

I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor after reading cedarford's bullseye synopsis of the whole damn mess. His observations are flawlessly on target.

Which makes his political opinions even more of a mystery to me.....

I'll start off by saying I haven't followed any of this case [ Not saying that to pass myself up as some high minded stiff who wouldn't deign to wallow in the celebrity/trainwreck mudpit - I'm usually all over that shit - but somehow, for some reason, this case just didn't grab salacious ol' me] but from what I've read/heard today (and that's it), seems people are trying to make Sneddon into a bad person for taking a tough case to trial, doing it by pointing to the Conspiracy/Kidnapping charge, saying he screwed up ever bringing the mother near his case.

I think this is wrong. Say the D.A. never charges those counts, never brings the mother near the courtroom. That doesn't mean the jury isn't going to see her cause, lord knows, the Defense is going to call her as a hostile witness. The defense's whole theory is that this is a money grab organized by her, thus she's relevant. They call her. It all comes out anyway. Worse still, the defense will likely be able to get into her whole wild kidnapping claims AND because the State didn't even charge those, be able to imply 'Why, ladies and gentlemen, even the Prosecution thinks she's a liar! If they believed this woman, then where are the kidnapping charges?"

So what's a D.A. to do? What Sneddon did here. He files the charges (assuming he has good faith belief in their merit) and uses her in his case in chief, hoping to 'draw the sting' and explain away as much of her actions before the Defense does it. If he doesn't call her, it looks like he was trying to avoid her/hide her from them. Either way, this whole 'blew it when he called her/charged kidnapping' seems to assume the defense wouldn't have been able to call her themselves.

Prosecutor's don't get to pick their victims, only criminals get that luxury. Maybe the mother was revealed as even worse than he realized in his case prep, but should he have tossed the whole case out or, assumin he actually believes Jackson is a pedophile + did the crimes, take a chance on a bad case? He took his chance even though she's appears a truly awful human.

Someone loses a big case and we want to say this shows he's flawed somehow. No. Doesn't mean he's vindictive. Doesn't mean he's an awful trial attorney. Just another prosecutor trying to do his job with a not so great case. A prosecutor's role is to seek justice (not just win a case or seek the longest sentence). So the question is, assuming you believe the kid, which is the greater justice: to roll the dice on a tough case or walk away cuz you're likely to lose. I know which is easier.

The jury foreman indicated that the jury did not quite believe the youth minister who testified that Jackson had fondled his genitals. If they could not believe an adult who had nothing to gain , the jury would not believe anything. It would have taken video of the molestation to convict. Also it was my understanding that it was not the mother who reported these charges but the alleged victims psychiatrist.