This post is in response to two separate bloggers about Michael Jackson and Jessica Alba. The first one is by a fellow blogger and can be read here.
It’s not my general genre of post to get into celebrity gossip, but I suppose in its limited fashion this post is a criticism of society, law, and the like, and is a bit of a philosophical inquiry in its own right. With all of the Michael Jackson drama lately, I have seen more than a few points and posts made. I cant help but to ask the next level of question.
According to the above referenced blog post, and countless others in the blogosphere, a little boy named Jordy has apparently “come clean” by admitting the accusations of molestation against Michael Jackson has been a lie all along.
I am forced to ask, though, how many little molested boys go around bragging that they were molested? Should little Jordy have bragged that, of all people that could have molested him, it was the famous Michael Jackson?
I just don’t get it. It would stand to reason that anyone who suffered that kind of emotional trauma would forever deny it. Women who are rape victims even deny the event to themselves to their own psychological and emotional detriment. Denial, repression, suppression – these are common phenomenon. Sure as hell, even if no one denies it, no one brags about it.
Is it truly sufficient evidence for the MJ fanatics and loyalists that one little rape victim in denial is sufficient evidence to clear MJ of the crime he was accused of?
Don’t get me wrong, I was only a little kid when this drama originally happened. I dont know the first thing about it, really, so I am not necessarily passing judgment on MJ, myself, but I just don’t get the mentality of people who accept this kids change of testimony as evidence. Even women rape victims can change their testimony and deny the rape after the fact, and if the state has already filed charges against the accused, her new testimony wont be recognized due to emotional corruption – even if he is innocent, or if he is guilty.
I would be less inclined to believe little Jordy if he did advertise the fact about it.
What else was he supposed to do besides deny it? If not to himself then to everyone else in society that will judge him for it, one way or the other. No one wants to be seen a victim. No one wants to be praised for being a victim of a celebrity. No one wants to be asked about it, or forced to remember. And no victim wants fanatic loyalists to criticize a victim and tell them that they were lying. So, so what if he denies it? It means nothing to the truth of what happened.
I don’t know if Michael Jackson was innocent or guilty, it is irrelevant at this point. Leave the kid alone! Awesome on the American people to force a sexual-assault victim to relive their experience. Just awesome! Is the fans blind, meaningless devotion to a man they never truly knew, a staged personality, their blind loyalty to a man who is deceased, really worth putting someone through the emotional reminder and suffering? As evidenced by the above referenced blog post, people are more callous to the living than they are to the memories of the dead.
It does strike me as odd, though. If Michael Jackson was guilty, why didn’t the state file criminal charges against him? It wouldn’t be the first time that a guilty famous man bought his way out of incarceration. OJ Simpson, anyone? They let the man go up for a civil lawsuit, though he was supposedly innocent.
What strikes me as even more odd, however, is how an innocent man of a criminal charge could be found guilty of that same crime in a civil lawsuit. Where was the compelling evidence of the crime and why was it sufficient for a lawsuit but not sufficient for a criminal court? As is the case with OJ Simpson, how can a man be found innocent of a criminal charge but sued for it in a civil suit court?
How and why did Michael Jackson settle in suit for a crime he didn’t do? It seems to me that an innocent man wouldn’t admit to it by giving into a lawsuit and settling. If he were innocent, and not formally charged, then why not fight it? The accusers are obligated to come up with the evidence. If he were found guilty in the lawsuit, he should have been criminally charged and sent to a regular court as well.
Not only did little Jordy’s parents whore their little boy out by accepting a civil-suit court, but they whored him out again when they accepted the settlement.
There are questions here that I do not have the answers to. It confuses me. It puts doubts in the whole judicial process and justice system. I realize that I don’t have all the legalities straight, but I’m sure my point comes across fine.
I discussed both Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson in this post. Apparently Jessica Alba was recently accused of a crime – plastering posters? Posters to save some whales, I think?
Since when has putting posters up been a crime? The city does it all the time. I see posters for lost pets and for rock concerts. I even see graffiti which goes unpunished. But when a celebrity wants to save an endangered or ill-treated species, its a crime worthy of nation-wide publicity?
I am curious, though, as to whether or not this was merely a publicity stunt made either by the city that first charged her, or her and her agent themselves. I dont have the details about this, but as I understand it, the city in question has not charged her. Interesting, isnt it? If its a crime she should be prosecuted or fined, the crime documented on her criminal record after she has been given the chance to prove herself innocent in a court of law. And if its not a crime, why publicize this drama in the first place? It’s obviously important enough to note, isn’t it? So then why is she getting away with this crime scaved in only a way a corrupt justice system would permit?
On top of that, it is just plain hard for me to believe that she would actually get off her tush and plaster this stuff up herself given the fact that she can pay any number of people to do it for her. She doesn’t strike me as the sort to dirty her hands. And yet she was caught ‘on film’ doing something that may be criminal, but was only a good deed for a good cause.
Something is fishy about the Alba story, if you ask me. It’s a bit too well documented and a bit too publicized. A bit too staged and a bit too righteous of a ‘crime’ – a crime worthy of attention but not punishment. At that, she and the city both get their names on nation-wide news for a while – sounds like its just about the worst that happened.
I just cant believe she did it herself with her own hands. Had one of employees done it, it wouldn’t fall on her. Unless she gave the order herself to violate civil laws, she would not be held accountable. For an employee to violate city ordinance of his/her own free-will, or by accident, would be a different issue – it wouldn’t make the papers in any major light and there wouldn’t be a focus on Alba. And for Alba to have given the order directly and explicitly would be an issue she would have no escape from under law – it would have been a deliberate act of civil defiance. No, she had to have been caught ‘doing it herself’, a minor crime of ignorance, or else there wouldn’t be legitimate celebrity drama of a ‘self-righteous’ nature to speak of – and that, I suspect, was the agenda.