The Conviction of Jerry Sandusky in Light of the Clueless Condemnation of Michael Jackson

[Pace,MioDolceCuore]

The Conviction of Jerry Sandusky in Light of the Clueless Condemnation of Michael Jackson[/B]
]... While there are some key similarities (multiple accusers, the leaking of the grand jury transcripts, the excessive pro-prosecution media coverage), the verdicts were polar opposites for very good, legitimate reasons. ...

...

There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between the few extortionists that had whatever twisted and sick agendas to accuse an innocent Michael- and the gigantic occurrence of molestation that Sandusky was found guilty of.
Sandusky was the 'abuser profile come to life' of every profiler- abused after abused, after abused.

It is both a slap into the face of Michael- and Sandusky's victims to make that a "key similarity". Sandysky was convicted of over 40 (!!!!!!) accounts of molestation.

Little tidbits like that do sit in the public's 'court of opinion' because Sneddon tried very hard to find this mass of accusers- and never found them. Sneddon tried extremely hard to play the 'mass abuser' card- it's time any inference of mass abuse is nipped in the bud when it comes to Michael. A lot of people are walking through the world with this "why was he accused so often" - Sneddon must be pouring himself a beer in celebration of that.

While I appreciate the general conclusion of this article- I still walk away feeling the general approach of wanting to equalize, appease and wanting to be appear 'neutral' in MJ's case - when I read articles that flat out state the truth without the aftertaste of not wanting to appear too sympathetic to Michael- then I will applaud it whole heartedly.
And I completely understand if I come across as the party spoiler - but it's this 'similarity' stuff that makes makes me sad. First it was the sick OJ comparison and now it's Sandusky. Michael has absolutely nothing more in common with them that all of them were male. Nothing more.

[Dublinproud]

Great article...Refreshing not to read the usual false garbage crap!

Thanks for posting

[bluetopez]

Is there any transcript or clip of this - I'd be interested to have a look. Sorry to go off topic.

http://youtu.be/8c5klp_8Hcs

While I appreciate the general conclusion of this article- I still walk away feeling the general approach of wanting to equalize, appease and wanting to be appear 'neutral' in MJ's case - when I read articles that flat out state the truth without the aftertaste of not wanting to appear too sympathetic to Michael- then I will applaud it whole heartedly.

^I totally agree with this! To many don't want to be seen as having a bias for MJ and seen as a fan or being accused of seeing him as some saint. I seen even fans perfer these type of "not really an MJ fan neutral reportings" more. Only because they want it to be taking more seriously. SMH I say doesn't matter who writes it, a fan or not. As long as they get the facts right then all should be worth reading and spreading around.

[MIST]

It´s a good article although I feel sad to see Michael and J.S in the same article.

[331836]

There is a HUGE, HUGE difference between the few extortionists that had whatever twisted and sick agendas to accuse an innocent Michael- and the gigantic occurrence of molestation that Sandusky was found guilty of.
Sandusky was the 'abuser profile come to life' of every profiler- abused after abused, after abused.

It is both a slap into the face of Michael- and Sandusky's victims to make that a "key similarity". Sandysky was convicted of over 40 (!!!!!!) accounts of molestation.

Little tidbits like that do sit in the public's 'court of opinion' because Sneddon tried very hard to find this mass of accusers- and never found them. Sneddon tried extremely hard to play the 'mass abuser' card- it's time any inference of mass abuse is nipped in the bud when it comes to Michael. A lot of people are walking through the world with this "why was he accused so often" - Sneddon must be pouring himself a beer in celebration of that.

While I appreciate the general conclusion of this article- I still walk away feeling the general approach of wanting to equalize, appease and wanting to be appear 'neutral' in MJ's case - when I read articles that flat out state the truth without the aftertaste of not wanting to appear too sympathetic to Michael- then I will applaud it whole heartedly.
And I completely understand if I come across as the party spoiler - but it's this 'similarity' stuff that makes makes me sad. First it was the sick OJ comparison and now it's Sandusky. Michael has absolutely nothing more in common with them that all of them were male. Nothing more.

Hi, I'm Alicia, the author of this article. I disagree with some of your criticism.

It is not a "slap in the face of Michael" to call that a key similarity. I started it off that way because that's how the public perceived the two trials. In the rest of the article, I explained why those perceptions were wrong. Like you said, there were a couple of moneyhungry extortionists after Jackson and innocent young boys telling their mothers what Sandusky did to them.

I am not a Michael Jackson fan. I'm 19-too young to be a fan. That's why i appear neutral. I have no reason to defend him other than the fact that he was innocent, not because I like his music. There are some things about him that I, quite frankly, don't like, but that's besides the point. It might not matter to you whether or not it's written by a fan, but I didn't write that blog post for MJ lovers. I run a blog on Christian music and I happened to have researched the Jackson allegations out of curiosity ever since he died, and more recently, since the Sandusky allegations. I know I get a lot of Conservative visitors, which is why I wrote this and posted it on my blog as opposed to sending it to some MJ fansite to post up. those people know me and they know I'm not a Jackson fan. If they read a fellow Christian's view, they might change theirs. I never intended for this article to become so widely read by people around the world (I got clicks from many different countries), though I am flattered by people's compliments. I have had people ask me to send it out to the media (someone even Tweeted it to Stacy Brown), so being neutral would have it taken more seriously. I read a critic's review of Aphrodite Jones' MJ documentary and they said it sounded like a "love letter", so I kept that in mind while writing my article. I didn't want those same comments directed at me. Besides, if you read the little prelude I wrote, I mention that I wanted to be a journalist. I was trying to hone those skills. What's missing in journalism today is objectivity.

"Michael has absolutely nothing more in common with them that all of them were male. Nothing more." I couldn't agree more. I wasn't comparing Michael Jackson as a person to Jerry Sandusky. I was comparing the trials. Grand jury transcripts leaked? Check. Media frenzy? Check. Guilty until proven innocent? Check. There is no comparison between Jackson and that vile pedophile. I know there were some morons saying they both had charities and were around kids, etc, so this should prove those people wrong that despite those *cough cough* similarities, there was nothing else to pin the same title on the two. As for OJ Simpson, I was in diapers when that happened, but I don't see any sense in comparing a murder case where there is forensic evidence to a molestation case where the case is based on witness credibility.

To the other commentators: I never said "MJ changed the media"-even though that could be argued. Bill O the clown of all people said Jackson's accusers were LIARS. O'Reilly's show is the number one news show in America. Imagine how many people heard him say that, got curious, and Googled it. What I actually said was that several people in the media were quick to point out that no one entertained the possibility that Sandusky might be innocent. Why would they point that out? Because no one gave Jackson (the most high profile sex abuse case ever) the benefit of the doubt (other than Geraldo, Taibbi) and he was acquitted on all counts. Surely they had to have realized their "mistake" especially now that the general public's opinion of Jackson has changed greatly. I think the ball has started rolling, but I agree, lies and greed beat out truth.

Sorry, I felt the need to defend myself because I don't want any misconceptions about my intentions or views in that article. Someone first posted a link to it on this forum on July 5th, and since then, it has gotten over 1000 views, so that's what I'm specifically on THIS site. I appreciate the support and I do not mean to make anyone sad or offend them by talking about Jerry the criminal alongside Michael. I actually thought it would be a great way to show people that Jackson really was innocent by showing them an example of someone who was guilty as sin. And now that Diane Dimond has written an article arguing the opposite (I haven't read what she wrote and don't plan to-I don't read trash), I'm glad this is out there for people to see.

Thanks for reading and please leave a comment.

--Alicia

[qbee]

Thank you Alicia for clarifying your points in the article and welcome to MJJC

I really appreciate your article, so do many other fans and people who believe in truth and justice.

[marebear]

I can handle when people say to me they are not a fan of Michael's music and style. I don't know why lol but you know everyone likes who they like and that is fine. But what I can't handle or take is when people call Michael a child molester or other nasty and vile comments of him like that. I just want more people to see the truth and that Michael never hurt anyone.

[soulmum]

Yes, thank you for that Alicia. It's good to see a blog like this from a self confessed 'non fan'. Too often the media read articles like this and condemn them because a long time supporter has made the report.

[Bubs]

What's missing in journalism today is objectivity.

And now that Diane Dimond has written an article arguing the opposite (I haven't read what she wrote and don't plan to-I don't read trash), I'm glad this is out there for people to see.

--Alicia

Hi Alicia,
I wanted to thank you for your article, very well written.
I agree with you about objectivity missing from today's journalism.
I have a question for you. As future journalist, how hard it is to keep you personal opinions to yourself and write objectively?
For example, you have to write a piece of something/someone that you really hate/dislike, how do you keep yourself open for being objective? You mentioned D Dimond, in my opinion, she is as closed up as they come for any other possibility other than MJ was child molester and her reporting goes with that.

By the way, I loved the way you wrote that you don't read her trash, that is exactly what she writes

[8701girl]

I am not a Michael Jackson fan. I'm 19-too young to be a fan.

Hi alicia just wanted to say you are not too young to be a mj fan- mj fans are all ages young & old from all generations

[Courtney]

Good article overall. People who think that Michael is guilty should read this.

[tricia70]

Thank you for sharing. I truly believe that Michael will be truly vindicated once and for all in every sense. It looks like it is already happening. Very good news.