"Jurors Describe “Stressful” Deliberations
They Criticize Demeanor, Testimony of Accuser's Mother
By TIM MOLLOY, AP
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (June 14)
“Jurors said they were put off by the accuser's mother, who tended to stare at them and snapped her fingers at them during her testimony.
Cook said the mother had perfect hair and makeup when she appeared in a video made by Jackson's associates to rebut the damaging BBC documentary in which Jackson said he slept in a bed with young boys. But when the woman took the witness stand, Cook said, she appeared disheveled, with no makeup and unkempt hair.
''When she came into court, she looked like Mother Teresa after a bad rain,'' she said Tuesday on ''Good Morning America.'' ''She was trying to be pitiful to us, I felt.''
So once again it came down to women’s inhumanity to other woman and a not-guilty verdict based upon the disheveled appearance of the mother of the victim. God forbid that she should be unnerved at the situation and forget to visit her hairdresser or not have her makeup and manicure perfect before entering the jury’s presence. How dare she show up looking unkempt?
Well now at least now America can sleep comfortably in their beds knowing that a probably child molester did NOT beat the case because of any serious problems with our judicial system; but due to the fact that WOMEN were so busy judging and clawing apart one of our own that we missed the whole point of what we were supposed to be doing in the jury room…not picking apart one woman’s appearance for those critical fashion faux pas, but examining the evidence which seemed to pretty clearly demonstrate that the defendant had a pattern of victimizing young boys…and was finally, finally being prosecuted for it by Santa Barbara’s County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, which, btw, I just want to add my personal thank you to this man for taking a chance and trying this case against a wealthy and famous defendant.
Sneddon put up one hell of a case there and under normal circumstances I think he would have gotten a guilty verdict.
Thanks anyway for trying.
Just to quickly review Sneddon’s case (which as I mentioned above was excellent) as he even had a former child victim, now a man, actually testify for the prosecution.
The former victim laid out a very convincing case for what happened to him over ten years ago and it followed, pretty much, the same story that the current victim had laid out. Some said the two victims even LOOKED alike, same skin, hair and eye coloration, certain mannerisms, etc. Numerous other witnesses testified, who worked at the ranch or in other positions where they came in touch with the defendant while he was out and about unsupervised with the children, including a former police detective who reported his suspicions earlier; yet it appears that this jury composed of 8 women and 4 men chose to believe that EVERYBODY but the defendant lied.
Odd…
Additionally it never seemed to occur to the jury that the Neverland Ranch itself was probably created with treats, amusement park rides, and animals to specifically lure child victims into it, similar to a certain Gingerbread House we are all familiar with. Can everybody say Hansel and Gretel, Gingerbread House, witch, children in trouble and connect the damn dots here???
Obviously not…
Of course, this jury would have considered nothing less then a videotape of the actual encounter as being clear and convincing evidence and even that MIGHT have been disregarded if a woman without a perfect manicure was shown to have been involved with the production of it.
Sigh…
It appears that Phyllis Chesler in her groundbreaking book “Women’s Inhumanity to Other Women” was not off the mark when she addressed these issues back in 2002. Yet I’m not sure that enough women read her book or seriously thought about the implications for all of us in Chesler’s thesis. I still see a level of viciousness being exhibited by women against other women, particularly against vulnerable mothers…not just in this recent acquittal because other women jurors didn’t like the victim’s mother; but we only have to look at the Bridget Marks situation here in New York and what happened there to know what I’m talking about.
I mean those two girls and their mother were ONLY saved from having their lives destroyed by MEN at the appellate level that overturned the original ruling. Of course they probably only changed their ruling due to the public outrage expressed over the original court decision, but even MOST of that public outrage was generated by other men in newspaper columns and on TV ie., on the Bill O’Reilly Show and Dr. Phil’s…
Sadly, I didn’t see any women speaking out during that firestorm…
Not to mention that on a daily basis I’m emailed or confronted with stories regarding mothers being subject to vicious and unprincipled family court rulings, many handed out by female Judges or instigated by spiteful female Evaluators, GALs, etc. These women seem to have no problem whatsoever with the wanton destruction of the lives of the women and children who come into their sphere looking for justice. Instead of finding it, these mothers are set upon and subject to what can best be described as psychological and emotional abuse at the hands of other women who appear to have no other agenda, but hatred of women. I mean I sometimes watch a TV show, the name I won’t mention, where a female Judge presides over a court that is so vicious to women coming in front of her (particularly if they are mothers) that’s it is terrifying…and the really really scary thing is that this Judge practiced in New York family court for YEARS…I mean I shudder to think of what the mothers went through who were forced in front of this woman…
Anyway, let’s take a look at an interview here with Phyllis Chesler discussing some of the women-on-women cruelty issues she discussed in her book "Women's Inhumanity to Other Women":
"The cruelty you document ranges from mothers-in-law burning their daughters-in-law because of dowry disagreements to women stealing each other's boyfriends. Can it all really be lumped together?
It helps to understand that in these non-Western countries where you have mothers-in-law dousing daughters-in-law with kerosene for their dowries and we say ''how shocking,'' we have a version here. You have here mothers who think their daughters have to be thin, their daughters have to be pretty and their daughters need to have plastic surgery and their daughters have to focus mainly on the outward appearance and not on inner strength or inner self. It's not genital mutilation but it's ultimately a concern with outward appearance for the sake of marriageability.
Although you note that women don't have as much power as men, you view them as equally culpable for many of society's ills.
I'm thinking back to the civil rights era and the faces of white mothers who did not want little black children to integrate schools. What should we say about those women who joined the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi party? You have a lot of women groaning under the yoke of oppression. Nevertheless, there are women who warm the beds and are the partners of men who create orphans. Women are best at collaborating with men who run the world because then we can buy pretty trinkets and have safe homes and nests for ourselves.
You say that women are the ones who police and monitor one another and silence dissent.
Women are silenced not because men beat up on us but because we don't want to be shunned by our little cliques. That applies to all age groups. That's one of the reasons that women are so conformist and so indirect: we end up sabotaging her rather than risking the loss of her intimate companionship. Women stealing each other's lovers and spouses and jobs is pandemic.”
What can I say about Phyllis Chesler…
Clearly the woman is a genius…
Buy her book, read it, study it, live it…Okay…
Anyway, I think that the reason behind the not guilty verdict of Michael Jackson needs to be closely examined by us. Personally I think Jackson is guilty but I don’t ultimately care if he winds up in prison or in a mental hospital. If his family has any concern for him, they’ll take the steps to get him some help NOW before he gets in trouble again, because maybe next time he won’t be lucky enough to have mostly women hating other women on his jury.
But no matter what happens to him, WE, women, need to examine why this happened for our own sakes. We need to make ourselves aware of our capacity for savaging other women, to make other women aware of it when they are doing it and most of all to control our own behavior as it’s happening…
Women should not have to worry when they walk into a courtroom (or other situations) and see women there, that they are going to be mistreated because some of us cannot control the auto remote biological trigger that tells us to immediately savage other female competitors in our vicinity. We’re been out of the jungle for a while now and can relax, there is plenty of resources for ALL…so get over that retro sh*t already…
Peace!!!
