Charlie states to me " It's all about the $$$ and the fame. If Scott Peterson had starred in "E.T.", he'd be a free man today. "
On further reflection...... you know something.... I agree. What brought this on was a post Charlie had done about MJ (Michael Jackson, in case you've been living in a cave) being acquitted on all charges against him. Even poor Martha Stewart, convicted in NY of some sort of money fraud issue spends her time in JAIL but on the other coast of the good ol' USA we have OJ's double murder acquittal and the Little Rascal's Blake murder acquittal and now Michael Jackson goes free.
Ok, ok I know we have legal system that turns a blind eye and relies on truth to see the light. But when statements from jurors in the MJ trial such as:
"The jurors, who listened to the mother for more than five days, indicated that they, too, doubted her credibility and were put off by the way she directly addressed jurors and accented her testimony by snapping her fingers. "I disliked it intensely," said Juror No. 5, a 79-year-old woman from Santa Maria. "I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me, lady.' "
The juror said that as a mother she was also troubled by the fact the accuser's mother allowed her son to sleep alone with Jackson. "What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen -- just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone?" she said.
I have to wonder.....who is on trial here. Obviously to some jurors, the mother of the accuser. She might not be the brightest bulb in the pack (quote from prosecutor "When a victim comes in and the victim tells you they've been victimized, and you believe that and you believe the evidence supports that, you don't look at their pedigree") but for the jurors to overlook all the other freaky stuff that was presented and acquit him based upon the credibility of witnesses...to me that isn't right. Thank God I'm not a lawyer right?