Michael Jackson Verdict: Innocent?

Posted on June 1st, 2005 in Commentary by EngineerBoy

So, Michael Jackson has been found innocent of all charges in his most recent court fight. As this drama has unfolded it has all smelled very fishy to me. The family was just a bit too questionable, for example, and had a history of grifting and shady dealings. Witnesses kept flip-flopping on their stories. The mother was quite a freaky subject on the witness stand. It kind of felt like the prosecution was supposed to fail.

Hmmm. That sure has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t it?

I mean, why would the prosecution go after such a high-profile, and hitherto untouchable celebrity like Michael Jackson when they would have to build their case on such a shifty foundation? It seems ludicrous, in retrospect, as if the final outcome was pre-ordained by the very fabric of the prosecutions case, which was the accuser and his family.

Well, bear with me for a moment and open your mind to an alternate theory.

What if Michael Jackson and/or his people staged this entire thing, with the prosecutors being unwitting/unwilling pawns?

Think about it for a minute. Here is Michael Jackson, whom I think we can all say is an indisputable freak. However, he has never been successfully convicted of any kind of freaky crime. Yes, there are rumors that he has paid off past accusers to silence them. But why didn’t he just do that here? I mean, I think we can all stipulate that this family would have loved nothing more than to score a few quick million from MJ and slink off into the night to blow it all raising emus or something, right?

Why did he choose to stand and fight this time? Why did he decide to allow the sordid details of his freaky existence to be dragged out into the light, confirming to most of us just how bizarre he really is? Why not just pay these people off? I find it difficult to believe that they would not have taken a cash payment. Did MJ finally decide to stand up for himself against false accusations? Or did he do something else? Did he choose to damn all his accusers with the faint praise of his current accusers? Think about it for a minute.

Michael Jackson (or his talking heads) can now point to these accusers as unquestionable rip-off artists who brought false claims to the public. They can then easily spin this to defuse any future claimants, and to discharge the built up negative static electricity of previous claims.

“See, Mr. Jackson has been set upon by money-grubbing liars, just like we told you.”

I think that a distinct possibility is that Michael Jackson bided his time and finally picked an opponent he knew he could beat, in the hopes of quelling some of the negative publicity and preventing future accusers from coming forward, based on their fear of suffering the same fate as the current scumbag family.

Think of it as a team of oil rig fighters, who actually blow out the rig fires by exploding dynamite in the middle of the conflagration. Or think of a team fighting a forest fire, who set controlled containment fires to try to subdue and control the out-of-control wildfire. It’s not exactly intuitive to think that something so destructive can have a positive effect, but I think it’s certainly possible that this is exactly what happened in the current Michael Jackson trial.

Post a comment