Originally posted by maintenant
:thumbsup Love the summary! Also, I think the prosecution has moved over into "way unethical". It's one thing to genuinely believe that Michael is guilty of heinous actions and to attempt to prove that, but to keep on reaching beyond the threshhold of all rationality to put an obviously innocent man behind bars, for what, a political career, envy, what? In all honestly, at this point, how can the prosecution continue to believe that they actually do have a case? Is that justice? Is this the kind of system they want to put themselves behind? I think if Sneddon were actually worth his salt, he'd stop the whole proceeding and make a little speech, something along the line of "I sincerely apologize...when I started this thing, I honestly believed that Michael Jackson was guilty, but as this trial proceeded, I finally had to realize that I had been wrong, too zealous, and allowed myself to be taken in by professional crooks who used me like they used Mr. Jackson. Your honor, I ask that this case be dismissed and that Michael Jackson be declared innocent of all charges. That's the kind of justice I want to work for." But no, he has to pretend an art book is child porn (not something implicitely beautiful), he has to pretend that several years of Playboy are to "entice" little boys (instead of for the enjoyment of the subscriber), he has to pretend that adult witnesses who claim they were never molested must have been molested when they were asleep and therefore don't remember, and so on and so on. He ought to be ashamed of himself. His role ISN'T the same as the defense attorney's...the defense can do anything it can to get their client off, but the prosecutor can't morally do anything possible to get an innocent man convicted of a crime he didn't commit, and a crime that doesn't even make sense.
In Sneddon's tiny little mind, and it IS a tiny little mind, Michael is "guilty" of two things, (1) being a grown man, (2) sometimes sharing his bed with children. But that is NOT a crime. Now SOME grown men MIGHT have sex with the children they have in their beds. But this one did not, could not, and would not. I don't know why that isn't obvious by now. And even if it isn't obvious, what clearly IS obvious is that such has NOT been proven, and at this point, never will be. There is an absolute reasonable doubt, and no legitimate way to convict. But Sneddon wants a conviction more than he wants truth and justice. And for that, he's beneath contempt.
