I don't know if this has been posted before or not (couldn't find it via the site search engine). It's ny John Karrys, who is, apparently, an English teacher, former prosecutor, and a professor at Loyola Law School. I don't know much about this guy so if anyone else does, let me know. If he isn't some 'screeching biased lunatic ', and even if he is, it's interesting...
http://www.cjbrief.com/webextras6.htm
“At this point, the case is looking like a smear campaign. It’s a legal free-for-all.”
Former Prosecutor, Laurie Levenson, Loyola Law School Professor
Michael JacksonThe anointed media “experts could not have imagined, even in the worst of possible scenarios, that District Attorney Tom Sneddon’s case would sink into this quagmire of libellous quicksand. If this isn’t a smear campaign, then where are the legions of outraged, child-abuse moral advocates crying out for a public hanging? Were this a legitimate and plausible, circumstantial case, wouldn’t one think that the media would have at least that to advertise? Something doesn’t seem right with this disturbing snapshot. History has showcased to us, on too many occasions, the consequences where the partnership between state and media is blatantly obvious. It’s time for all of us to step out of our fantasy bubbles and acknowledge, at this moment in history, our civic institutions are at a dangerous precipice. The graveyards are rumbling with warning sirens from our ancestors who suffered mercilessly under such partnerships.
The ad homonym attacks against Michael Jackson and anyone who dares to support him have intensified as establishment media shifts its tactics to save face and restore its crumbling credibility. Let us not forget that America is a nation born out of its distrust of the absolute power of the State, as well as the interference of the State in the lives of private citizens. If we are living in a society where cases such as this are being tried, with these poorly coached witnesses, then let us confess that we do not have any real educational standards. We have neither the moral base to assert legal standards, nor do we have the common, decent values to dialogue about morality.
Are we to believe that this kind of conduct is acceptable in our courts? Is this something to take pride in? Is this what we salute to? What Grand Jury testimony or evidence rationally convinced Judge Melville that this was adequate enough to warrant a trial? Where is the accountability?
It is a façade, and no law professor can dare to rationalize otherwise. Yet, the media have rationalized, haven’t they? Witness after witness, the media bronzes into headlines carefully coached slogans or statements, yet, leaves out the context and trivializes the impact of the contradictions. Anyone who studies some history be it political, economic or legal, would not be surprised to find out that this selective historiography is a common occurrence.
Does anyone think that journalists report exactly what they see without bias, concision, or exclusion? Most Americans don’t, and most scholars have confirmed that. The rampant censorship disguised as political correctness across University campuses was bound to filter into institutional mass media. Is it because Michael Jackson asserted his right not to be a typical icon that enrages so many? Chose not to be that stereotypical idol that has been marketed to us as cool and has branded our psyche. Michael Jackson has chosen to be self-made rather than be manufactured. He certainly doesn’t solicit public opinion to define who he is. Does he?
Reading the headlines alone would make one think that Tom Sneddon has a strong case, along with credible witnesses and damaging testimony. The reality is that there is no timetable for these alleged molestations and we have a bunch of key witnesses who are strapped for cash and have every reason to be lured into suddenly remembering new testimony. How I wish there were an agency, not unlike the Consumer Protection Agency, for journalists and pundits. There, a viewer or a reader could check a credibility rating and compare the lying averages. Now would be a good time to set that up.
Let’s make one thing clear: the free-marketplace of ideas is a battleground for control over the spheres of influence of the mind. Just like we expect a juror to deliberate through a logical process when rendering a verdict, everyone needs to learn how to manage information and take into account a narrator’s biases, agendas and vendettas. It is a war and the consequences are as fatal. You think Michael Jackson is guilty? Examine the nature of that claim. Are the sources credible? Is their even quasi-circumstantial evidence to convict him in a court of law? Think of how easily a jealous or vindictive person could implicate you using the same standard you think is “fair game” by which judge to Michael. Is this a standard you can live with?
The grave consequences being showcased to the world are much bigger than Michael Jackson. Whether one likes him or not, at this point in the trial, is irrelevant. To look the other way at this Jacobin version of justice clearly highlights that institutional journalists are successfully doing their job in nurturing ignorance and managing opinions.
In America, are the real prosecutors, law professors and journalists ready to step forward and bring to justice those who have maliciously molested the constitution and have perverted their duties as officers of the law? This is the new frontier.
John Karrys
, it is just really sad when people feel that they have to leave. 
I'm a relative newcomer to this particular area of the forum. I mean, we're all bound to disagree strongly on many things, but disrespecting people is no way to "win" an argument. I dunno - that's my Thought For The Day.
As for the OJ case... well, there's another can of worms. The British 'Justice' System is unbelievably up shit creek (JUSTICE, MY ARSE), so God knows what goes on in the US.
. 
