Jackson Beat It

So, just like I said, a California jury just cannot convict a celebrity.

My theory is that people move to, or live in, California because they're enchanted by celebrity. And this is reflected in the juries.

Or maybe it's just that celebrities get the best defense money can buy.

In addition, nearly 58% of the voters in my poll were correct (if we count both "Not Guilty" votes and "Guilty But Will Be Acquitted" votes.) I might have to call on you, the voters, to predict the outcome of my next trials.


  1. Hell, if Robert Blake is innocent, then Wacko Jacko must be, too.

    We watched the verdict at work. I wanted to say, "Blonde Justice totally called it!" But then I realized nobody would know what I was talking about (or maybe they would, but wouldn't want to reveal that they, too, dwell in the Internets).

  2. I think the big difference between PD cases and celebrity cases is the level of funding available for investigators. PD's are experienced and are often good at trials but don't have as much to work with because they don't have the resources to dig up good stuff. Look at the Kobe case too, the case was dismissed after the defense dug up stuff on the accuser.

  3. We convicted Winona Ryder...

  4. I seem to recall that the accuser in this case accepted a settlement from Jackson several years ago, when the accusations first appeared in the press, and was not willing to press charges then -- but the law was changed so that the state can force a victim to testify.

    So it wouldn't surprise me to learn that both the accuser and his mother were unconvincing on purpose.

    It also wouldn't surprise me if this prosecutor's real motive was to take down a celebrity and (metaphorically) mount his head on his office wall. Otherwise he would have prosecuted at least a few of the Catholic priests who have committed the same crime.

    It's hard to point the finger of shame in a situation where nobody's hands are clean.