» Book Reviews

» Features

» Short Stories

- Join Here
- Terms & Conditions
- What is Writers Club?

Michael Jackson stands accused of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, three counts of committing lewd acts upon a child, attempted lewd acts upon a child, and four counts of administering intoxicating agents to assist in the commission of a felony. So why does it seem that the trial has shifted to one of discrediting every person brought in as a witness, as opposed to establishing the guilt or not of Mr J? Is it possible that the plot has been lost?

One is actually left wondering if the Prosecution witness’s are guilty and Mr J not guilty because they lied about something that is not relevant to the case. Or, alternatively that Mr J is not guilty because several Defence witnesses stand up and say he is a nice guy.

For instance, do we care if his ex-wife lied about his parenting skills? And if she did, is she not lying now to give her leverage towards acquiring access to her children? Are we remotely bothered about whether a former employee was treated fairly, and thought the sun shone out of Mr J’s derriere? No, we just need to be focussed on whether Mr J is guilty or not.

How many people have not lied or bent the truth to get out of a tricky situation, such as the many witnesses now find himself or herself in? Could it not be feasible that they fear losing their jobs if they tell the truth, or that they lied to get out of the Neverland Grasp?

Look at the Mother of the boy, her character has been systematically destroyed by the media and even more so by Mr J’s attorney’s. Yes she may have lied about a few things that are completely irrelevant to the case, and she may have received money from the Neverland Camp, but does that mean she made this story up to make a quick buck? Would any Mother subject her child to worldwide scrutiny over a sexual abuse case, knowing full well that somebody either now or in the future will discover his identity? Because it will, there is no doubt about that, we live in a global village nothing is sacred anymore.

If we try to put this into some kind of perspective, a comparison can be made with a man charged with murdering his neighbour. Knowing the accused is a violent type, would we doubt he could commit murder because his other neighbour gives evidence that the accused “is a really nice guy.” Is that not what is happening in this case? Mr J stands accused of abusing a boy – forget the other accusations from previous years - and the way to get him off this charge it would seem is to get as many people as possible to say what a nice guy he is.

The point of this case that needs to remain at the top of everybody’s minds is that a boy has said Mr J sexually abused him. The fact that a horde of other boys come forward to say they were never abused has got nothing to do with it. Abusers are known to pick their victims, seeking out the vulnerable, the children who are craving love. It could well be possible in this case that the other boys had strong enough characters to stave off any attempts, or even hinder the accusers thoughts of abuse. And let us not forget how psychologically damaging it is to have to admit to the world that you were abused, let alone to have to tell your loved ones. Is it no wonder so many abused children keep quiet, and indeed lie to protect themselves?

Let this trial not become reminiscent of the OJ Simpson debacle. Let it find the truth and let justice be done, either finding guilty or not. But likewise it is imperative to not loose focus of the seriousness of the charges made.