|
Once again, Michael Jackson is being accused of sexually molesting young boys -- but this time there is going to be a trial. Everyone seems to have an opinion on whether or not he is guilty; everyone, that is, but me.
I wonder if it is even possible for him to get a fair trial. Consider this: despite not having a hit song in years, he remains one of the world's most well known and recognizable people. Unless you have been completely isolated from the world (in which case you probably would not be reading this blog) you know about the "baby dangling" incident in Germany, the first allegations of "sexual misconduct" by a boy 12 years ago and Jackson's ever-changing (warping?) facial features. Everything he does is well documented, and it has earned him the nickname "Wacko Jacko" by the press.
That brings me to my next question: Are people basing their opinions of his guilt or innocence on "the facts" or by Jackson's appearance and personality? Let's face it, the guy looks like a freak. His nose looks as if it has been destroyed by numerous cosmetic surgery operations (though he says he has only had two) and is going to fall off. His current hair and makeup make him look very feminine -- and then there is that voice! How can anyone -- let alone a group of jurors -- only consider the facts presented to them when determining whether or not he is guilty of the charges brought against him? Is anyone even paying attention to the charges brought against him? Or have people just determined that they either do or do not like him and stand by their conviction regardless of...anything.
I am interested in reading everyone's take on the subject.
|