So perhaps you've heard...
Michael Jackson is dead.
I figured, seeing as many of my earliest posts on this blog surrounded his infamous trial that I should probably say something.
No secret, I have no love for Jacko. I've pretty much never been a fan and I think that as much as his life was a disaster caused by his surroundings and success that he has to be held somewhat responsible for himself. He was an adult. There was a world of examples of healthy living surrounding him. If reality wasn't enough of a cue to him that he was way off the rails it doesn't fall to us to make everything alright for him.
I found the response to his death fascinating though. We'd all started the day shocked and tossed into mourning of Farrah (You know Farrah Fawcett died yesterday, don't you?) and then all of a sudden the grandaddy of thunder-heists occurs...
At roughly 3:30 I took a 'picture' of the trending words on Twitter:
according aim alive angeles arrest attack believe believing breathing cardiac cnn condition confirm confirmation confirmed confirming confirms cpr credible dead death deaths die died entertainer flash heart hospital hospitalized icons jacko jackson jacksons king legend los mcmahon michael michaeljackson micheal mike msnbc news overdose paramedics passed pop pray prayers reliable reported reporting reports rip rumors rushed sad saying shock shocked source sources suffered threes thriller tmz trending true ucla unconfirmed
I'm not sure about 'aim' or 'flash', but every other word on the list is somehow related to MJ's (then rumoured) death. Let's see what the list is RIGHT NOW (1:30 June 26th):
11k 2gb 5pm alley alot amar amendment att attempting attsucks bastard bb10 bitch bono boyz brown canada charge chatter chris cilic copy cubs district doubles dragon eastenders feat fees file gaga game glasto glastonbury haas hott hun jack kirk lady lakers lisa mack marie mario max messaging myhotwife mythbusters picked pls polo praising rite roaming robbery savage sharpton shut similar size specials stoudemire supernatural surfing taylor uploads voting wed winans
Hmmm... Sharpton, that's about Michael (more on Rev. Al in a moment). 'Lisa' and 'Marie' may be about Michael in tandem with one another... but I think Twitter is relatively done. But yesterday, his death practically broke Twitter.
That said, TweetDeck posts another 100 MJ tweets every 30 seconds.
Those who know me, know that I hold very little sacred. Death is not one of the things I do. Death is the most ubiquitous fact of life, yet we treat it with kids gloves. This is not to say that life is not precious, and it doesn't mean I would go spouting inappropriate comments to bereaved families. I just think that if we give death too much deference we give it too much power over our lives. Yes, this is an open invitation to treat my death with humour and irony and hopefully instant irreverence. I'm not promising a death worthy of the number of jokes I got out of Michael's demise yesterday - that would be a real challenge.
So there I was taking flak for my irreverent treatment of Farrah on Facebook when news of Michael came in....
I immediately switched to Michael and managed to come up with in the range of five times the amount of inappropriate comments... how many people complained about that? Not one. I find that interesting. Even I must admit that Jacko's accomplishments leave a long shadow across Farrah's, and yet it appears to be open season on him. Go figure.
A few more thoughts before I put this to bed for the moment...
A few absurd pieces of info... once again the "People die in threes" canard surfaces. It took all of five minutes before someone connected Ed McMahon, Farrah and Jacko on Twitter - if that long. So I guess the claims of three deaths at Noon that included David Carradine are now irrelevant? So what about David Carradine dying alone? (I mean without two others, not in the sense that he DID die alone.) What about David Wells? was he too unknown to count...? Or would that inconveniently make it four? What if someone dies today? Will that knock Ed McMahon off the trio 'cause he's too far away? - oh what a difference 24 hours can make! (June 28th Edit: Check and Mate - Billy Mays, obnoxious TV pitchman who you may not know the name of, but you know from commericals died.)
There was a similar tweeting of a list of celebrities who died on the 25th... of any month, not just June and of ABSOLUTELY ANY YEAR. Many of the lists only included African Americans, musicians, or African American Musicians (James Brown Dec 25th, Aaliyah Aug 25th, Left Eye Lopez, April 25th, Static Major Feb 25th.) Accompanying comments include "How random is dat?" "Creepy, huh?" "WTF? Is it a conspiracy?" "Weird, huh?" Allow me to answers those in order.... It's not random, it's cherry-picking. I'm betting I can find approximately 30 times the number of people who have died on different numbered days from exactly the same demographic sub-sets you are using. / Creepy? Fuck off and quit trying to make something of your cherry picked information that totally ignores the laws of large numbers. / No, it's not a fucking conspiracy. Why do you feel the need to victimize yourself by the thinnest of associations? You are just embarrassing yourself. / Weird? Yes. It is. It's weird that anyone can be bothered to make something out of such a meaningless and ultimately imagined pattern. But if you really want to talk about weird, let's go back to Michael Jackson...
In his address outside the Apollo, the Rev. Al Sharpton began with "I hope that finally Michael will be given the respect that he is due..." Let me put aside my acknowledged lack of respect and begin with "What the fuck are you on about? You mean, being labelled the King of Pop, being the fourth biggest selling artist of all time including the biggest selling album of all time (which incidentally rose to #1 on iTunes in the course of hours yesterday after the news broke.) isn't enough? But I just want to peek at one major boner - later on CNN he claimed "Michael Jackson did 'We are the World' before Live Aid." While technically correct, it implicitly skips right over the facts. 'We are the World' followed on the heels of the original famine-relief song by Band Aid on the UK 'Do They Know it's Christmas?' Sure, Reverend, let's make him out to be something more than what he was. Sigh.
I'm going to be curious what kind of information about his life gets revealed over the next several years. I think I'd prefer to not find out that his dealings with children were more questionable than the current official legal version, but I have no faith that that ground is safe. Similarly, I'm going to be curious to see how the trajectory of his children's lives go now that he is not a direct influence.
One last thing that amused me... the approximate time it took CNN to compare his death to Princess Diana's - one hour. Yeesh!
Okay, that's it, I'm off to go and respectfully listen to some Alien Ant Farm and jerk-off to a certain 70s pin-up poster, but for larfs... 3:10 PM... here's the latest trending topics on Twitter... Hmmm Jacksonville, but no Jackson.
allow amendment ana beck blue blvd boehner cocktail cspan cubs damage detention dinner dre executive filibuster findingthegood frank glenn gods hail helped hhrs hoyer indefinite jacksonville jax kaberle kisses leader leads lightning mythbuster netflix newsnight nhl plays preparing producer pulled punk rain raining recap rehearsal remembering reportedly revolt ross savage shade shine sirens springs stimulus storm suspects terror thunder thunderstorm tila tix tornado tornadoes tornados trial tsn unlimited warning waxman
Showing posts with label michael jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michael jackson. Show all posts
Friday, June 26, 2009
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Jackson Beat It
Not much to say that I haven't already said - and I'm ill and leaving work early, so I don't have time for much anyhow.
I am a little surprised that he got off on all charges. I thought that he might at least have got the slap of the administering alcohol charge. But he didn't.
Insufficent evidence - regardless of the truth.
Nice to see the justice system working properly.
I am a little surprised that he got off on all charges. I thought that he might at least have got the slap of the administering alcohol charge. But he didn't.
Insufficent evidence - regardless of the truth.
Nice to see the justice system working properly.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
FREE JACKO
Yeah that's right.
I'm flipping.
Michael Jackson should not be found guilty of molestation.
Not because he didn't - I am not totally convinced he is innocent. But that is just it, I'm not convinced he did either. In a system where reasonable doubt is the benchmark by which justice is measured against, he cannot be found guilty of molestation charges.
Of course I say this without knowledge of any number of details that did not come to light due to the partial publication ban. But from the news reports this is the feeling I have.
Enough doubt has been placed upon the Arvizo family's intentions to undermine my confidence in Jackson's alleged actions against young Gavin.
The entire trial has become a war of integrity. Jackson would not be in this position if he had fostered a better image in the first place, and if after the first time he was accused of wrong doings he had done the wise thing and KEPT HIS FUCKING DISTANCE from young boys. He is certainly guilty of severe foolhardiness on that count. Guilty or innocent, his naivete with regards to how the world views him is an issue he has GOT to address. He has got to get some 'no' men in his camp.
On the other side of the table, Gavin's Mother is practically without a doubt a charlatan of some degree. If her son has actually been abused, then it is her fault if justice is not served. It's a classic case of wolf calling.
But barring some significant un-revealed detail that tips the balance, the jury cannot convict Michael. Certainly not on the molestation account. Perhaps on the conspiracy charges - the specific details of that have been ignored to some degree or another (let's face it, in a 'bleeds it leads' news environment, molestation wins over flying someone to Brazil) - he could be found guilty. It's hard to judge that one. If anything, the misdemeanor of giving alcohol to a minor sounds like a liklihood. Not only does it allow the jury to do something, but of all of the charges it sounds like the one which he is at the least guilty of by negligence, if not complicity or even direct action.
What surpises me the most is that the jury did not return practically immediately. I would have expected that the process would have involved a straw vote off the top wherein a 'not guilty' would have been levelled on virtually all charges. Perhaps they are deliberating on whether he deserves a slap on the wrist for the Jesus Juice.
The unfortunate thing is that if found innocent that Michael will be free to do as he pleases. What he needs is a good shake. He may not be deserving of jail time, but he needs disciplining. He needs someone to sit him down and explain to him that no matter how many records he has sold, no matter how many Beatles songs he buys, no matter how elitely famous his is, he is just another dude on the big blue marble, no less fallible than the rest of us. And no matter how hard he proclaims that 'people just don't understand' the sad fact is that it is he who just doesn't understand.
I'm flipping.
Michael Jackson should not be found guilty of molestation.
Not because he didn't - I am not totally convinced he is innocent. But that is just it, I'm not convinced he did either. In a system where reasonable doubt is the benchmark by which justice is measured against, he cannot be found guilty of molestation charges.
Of course I say this without knowledge of any number of details that did not come to light due to the partial publication ban. But from the news reports this is the feeling I have.
Enough doubt has been placed upon the Arvizo family's intentions to undermine my confidence in Jackson's alleged actions against young Gavin.
The entire trial has become a war of integrity. Jackson would not be in this position if he had fostered a better image in the first place, and if after the first time he was accused of wrong doings he had done the wise thing and KEPT HIS FUCKING DISTANCE from young boys. He is certainly guilty of severe foolhardiness on that count. Guilty or innocent, his naivete with regards to how the world views him is an issue he has GOT to address. He has got to get some 'no' men in his camp.
On the other side of the table, Gavin's Mother is practically without a doubt a charlatan of some degree. If her son has actually been abused, then it is her fault if justice is not served. It's a classic case of wolf calling.
But barring some significant un-revealed detail that tips the balance, the jury cannot convict Michael. Certainly not on the molestation account. Perhaps on the conspiracy charges - the specific details of that have been ignored to some degree or another (let's face it, in a 'bleeds it leads' news environment, molestation wins over flying someone to Brazil) - he could be found guilty. It's hard to judge that one. If anything, the misdemeanor of giving alcohol to a minor sounds like a liklihood. Not only does it allow the jury to do something, but of all of the charges it sounds like the one which he is at the least guilty of by negligence, if not complicity or even direct action.
What surpises me the most is that the jury did not return practically immediately. I would have expected that the process would have involved a straw vote off the top wherein a 'not guilty' would have been levelled on virtually all charges. Perhaps they are deliberating on whether he deserves a slap on the wrist for the Jesus Juice.
The unfortunate thing is that if found innocent that Michael will be free to do as he pleases. What he needs is a good shake. He may not be deserving of jail time, but he needs disciplining. He needs someone to sit him down and explain to him that no matter how many records he has sold, no matter how many Beatles songs he buys, no matter how elitely famous his is, he is just another dude on the big blue marble, no less fallible than the rest of us. And no matter how hard he proclaims that 'people just don't understand' the sad fact is that it is he who just doesn't understand.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Back to Jack
Well, that sure looks bad...
Sister's Testimony
What leaps out is the editing and prompting on the tape of Michael Jackson. The fabrication of a public statement about how wonderful Jackson is to kids... not cool.
I suppose that it's clear that Jackson obviously needed to do some image cleansing after the Bashir tape came out... and it's also clear that the family is not pleased with the nature of the Bashir documentary. Obviously they were willing participants in the making of the tape, but the prompting that was going on from off-screen... bad. No matter how you look at it.
Ugly ugly ugly.
It's a far cry from ultimately damning, but it certainly is not looking good.
Sister's Testimony
What leaps out is the editing and prompting on the tape of Michael Jackson. The fabrication of a public statement about how wonderful Jackson is to kids... not cool.
I suppose that it's clear that Jackson obviously needed to do some image cleansing after the Bashir tape came out... and it's also clear that the family is not pleased with the nature of the Bashir documentary. Obviously they were willing participants in the making of the tape, but the prompting that was going on from off-screen... bad. No matter how you look at it.
Ugly ugly ugly.
It's a far cry from ultimately damning, but it certainly is not looking good.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Jury Suitability
Back to Jack...
I probably would have made a good O.J. juror - apart from being Canadian. I could have cared less about the trial, and knew relative diddly-squat about it when it started. I was a real rarity.
For Jackson, I'm pretty confident I'd be a lousy juror. I know too much already. I didn't like M.J. from the outset. I have largely made up my mind already. About the only thing going in my favour is that I really do think he deserves as unbiased a trial as possible - which is exactly why I don't think I'd be a good juror, kind of a paradox there.
My voracious need for Jackson trial data has temporarily been stalled by his 'sickness' - oh to be in the limo for that. "Oh, Tito, I think I'm feeling a little...*cough* - *cough*... could we turn the car around please? I don't think I can go to court today."
Jesus. Jackson on trial. It'd be easier to play football with a Fabrege egg.
The trickle of news items about his illness are about as exciting as sitting around the castle watching your arrows warp. So in the meantime, I've dug up the pre-trial questionairre for prospective jurors. And just for fun, and in these earliest days of my blog to offer a crash course in getting to know me...
1) Juror Number: 44 (Let's just call it a favourite number of sorts.)
2) Gender: Male
3) Please stat your age: 35
4) Is English your first language? Yes.
5) How long have you lived in Santa Barbra county? (Let's make that the Lower Mainland.) 9 1/2 years. In California? (Make that British Columbia.) 35 years.
6) What is your current area (I.E. city) of residence including your zip code? Vancouver - V5E 1L6
7) How long have you lived at your current residence? 9 months
8) Do you Own, Rent, Neither? Rent.
9) Marital Status (Single - Never married, Married, Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Single - Living with significant other)? Single - Never married
10) If married, how long have you been married? N/A
11) If living with a significant other, how long have you lived with this person? N/A
12) If married of living with a significant other, what is your spouse's or significant other's occupation? N/A
a. If he or she is retired or unemployed, what was his or her occupation before retiring or being unemployed? N/A
b. If married or living with a partner, what is his or her level of education? N/A
c. If previously married, what was your former spouse's occupation? N/A
13) Do you have children, step-children or foster children, and if so do any live at home? No, and by extension, no.
14) Please list the age, sex, occupation or area of study and marital status of each of your children or step-children: N/A
15) What are/were your parent's occupations? Mother: Educator (Teacher & Administrator) & City Councillor Father: Financial Comptroller for an airline.
16) If anyone else is living in your home, what is his or her relationship to you, age and occupation? N/A
17) Where do you fall in terms of age in relation to your siblings? Naturally, oldest. If step-siblings are considered, 2nd youngest of five.
18) What is your highest level of education completed? Bachelor of Fine Arts
19) Have you ever taken any law courses? No
20) Have you ever worked or volunteered for a child advocacy group or for a group dealing with child saftey, child abuse or mistreatment, or children's rights? No.
21) Have you ever had any training, education or jobs or have you ever done any volunteer work in any of the following areas? Banking/Finance; Corrections/Jail/Prison; Drugs/Alcohol; Engineering; Entertainment/Performing Arts; Handwriting Analysis; Forensic sciences; Firearms/guns; Genetics/DNA; Journalism/News; Investigations; Laboratory science; Justice systems/courts; Local/state government; law enforcement; Pathology; medicine nursing; statistics; Mental health; TV/Radio; Police Proceedures; Telecommunications; Science or Biology; Victims of crimes; Security; Women's Rights Organizations: Whew! Well... Corrections/Jail/Prison, Entertainment/Performing Arts, Journalism/News, TV/Radio
22) What is your present employment status? Full-time job plus self-employed activities.
23) What is your present occupation? No simple answer here - the waged job I have is in the horse racing industry - the betting portion of it. That's as far as I'm going at the moment. Not because it's illegal - it's totally legit. But I'm going to play paranoid about all the people getting fired for talking about work in their blogs...
My self-employed work is all in the entertainment industry - variously acting, writing for stage and screen as well as directing, producing and editing film... why I can't make ends meet doing all that is beyond me.
24) Have you, your relatives, or anybody close to you ever been diagnosed with any form of cancer? Yes. (How many people can honestly answer 'no' to this?)
25) Do you think your feelings about or experiences with people from different races might affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? I don't think so. But by the same token I know that I've found that a lot of people who I would classify as racist don't think that they are, so I could be deluding myself. I often find potentially racially offensive jokes funny - but I can say that I find (admittedly rare) Irish jokes as funny as any that are directed at people of races that I am not a member of. The degree to which I am a racist, I am with impunity - everyone's a little bit racist some times, right Avenue Q?
26) Were you or a close family member ever in the military or reserves? No.
If yes, answer the following:
a. Who was in the military? N/A
b. What branch? N/A
c. Date of service? N/A
27) Have you ever served on a jury before? No.
If you have served on a jury before, please answer the following:
a. Please provide the following information for each case in which you served: Year; Civil or Criminal; Verdict Reached. N/A
b. Were you ever the foreperson? N/A
c. Have you ever served on a GRAND JURY before? N/A
If yes, please describe where and when: N/A
28) Have you or a family member ever made any type of claim for money damages? No
If yes, please explain: N/A
29) Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit (other than a divorce proceeding), including giving a deposition? Yes.
If yes, were you the Plaintiff; Defendant; Witness or Other? Witness
Please explain: Two separate occassions. Both car accidents. In the first case the defendant was representing himself and called me in to testify as a witness to the accident. I was the sole witness to the event. There was never any real doubt in my mind as to the fault - I suspect that the forensic evidence would have supported my belief. The defendant was utterly at fault. Yet he was under the misconception that because I ran to his aid that I was 'on his side.' The other driver was ambulatory immediately after the accident, the defendant was not - I ran to help the one who appeared to be in jeopardy. On the court date, the defendant did not show for trial.
In the second case, I was one of several witnesses. Two young-teen girls on a joy-ride narrowly missed the vehicle I was in, side-swiped a parked car and took off around the corner... where they immediately ran into (literally) a police car. Again, there wasn't really much question as to the guilt. On the court date she pleaded guilty and I never had to testify.
30) Have you, any friends or relatives ever been involved in law enforcement (for example, F.B.I., D.E.A., Sheriff's Department, County Prosecutor's Office, California Highway Patrol, Attorney General's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office) or been emploted by any such agency? No... I guess. Not in the U.S. A close friend was in the Canadian Military Police. My Mother's cousin (is that my second cousin?) is in the V.P.D. I haven't seen him in... 7 years.
31) Have you, any relatives, or close friends ever been ARRESTED or ACCUSED of a criminal offense (other than minor traffic violations)? No.
32) Have you or any member of your family, or close friends, ever been the VICTIM of or WITNESS to a serious crime? No.
33) Have you or any relative of close friend ever been ACCUSED OF inappropriate sexual behavior? No.
34) Have you or any relative or close friend ever been THE VICTIM OF inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind? A qualified 'no.' Above and beyond the 'not that I know of' caveat, I did have a teacher in high-school who, the year I graduated was arrested and convicted of sexually abusing his young male students. Naturally I was questioned as to whether I experienced any similar attention. I hadn't. But in the light of the revelation that it had been going on around me, I certainly looked at a few incidents in my time as a student of the person in question a little differently. Perhaps even as 'close calls.' Luckily I was far too goofy back when he was my teacher. I blossomed later.
35) How much have you read or watched about the current Michael Jackson case? Lots. Like, lots and lots, 'lots.'
36) How frequently have you discussed this case with frineds, co-workers, or family members? Lots.
37) Do you know, or have you read, seen, or heard ANYTHING about the publicity regarding the 1993-1994 investigation against Michael Jackson? Yes.
38) Do you or any family members or close friends know Michael Jackson? No.
If yes, please explain: N/A
39) Have you ever known anyone who has met Michael Jackson or spent any time at Neverland? No.
40) Do you have any religious or other beliefs that would make it difficult for you to sit in judgment of another person? Not at all.
If yes, please explain: N/A
41) Do you have specific health, hearing, or vision problems of a serious nature that might make it difficult for you to sit as a juror on this case? I do have aproblem that makes it difficult for me to literally sit for long periods of time. I had a roller-blade accident that caused permanent damge to my sciatic nerve. It's way better now than it has been in the six years since the accident, but still... day after day of sitting only makes it worse again, this is demonstratable.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY SIGNING MY JUROR NUMBER BELOW THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THIS DECLARATION WAS EXECUTED THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005, AT.... MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.
Juror number 44.
I probably would have made a good O.J. juror - apart from being Canadian. I could have cared less about the trial, and knew relative diddly-squat about it when it started. I was a real rarity.
For Jackson, I'm pretty confident I'd be a lousy juror. I know too much already. I didn't like M.J. from the outset. I have largely made up my mind already. About the only thing going in my favour is that I really do think he deserves as unbiased a trial as possible - which is exactly why I don't think I'd be a good juror, kind of a paradox there.
My voracious need for Jackson trial data has temporarily been stalled by his 'sickness' - oh to be in the limo for that. "Oh, Tito, I think I'm feeling a little...*cough* - *cough*... could we turn the car around please? I don't think I can go to court today."
Jesus. Jackson on trial. It'd be easier to play football with a Fabrege egg.
The trickle of news items about his illness are about as exciting as sitting around the castle watching your arrows warp. So in the meantime, I've dug up the pre-trial questionairre for prospective jurors. And just for fun, and in these earliest days of my blog to offer a crash course in getting to know me...
1) Juror Number: 44 (Let's just call it a favourite number of sorts.)
2) Gender: Male
3) Please stat your age: 35
4) Is English your first language? Yes.
5) How long have you lived in Santa Barbra county? (Let's make that the Lower Mainland.) 9 1/2 years. In California? (Make that British Columbia.) 35 years.
6) What is your current area (I.E. city) of residence including your zip code? Vancouver - V5E 1L6
7) How long have you lived at your current residence? 9 months
8) Do you Own, Rent, Neither? Rent.
9) Marital Status (Single - Never married, Married, Separated, Divorced, Widowed, Single - Living with significant other)? Single - Never married
10) If married, how long have you been married? N/A
11) If living with a significant other, how long have you lived with this person? N/A
12) If married of living with a significant other, what is your spouse's or significant other's occupation? N/A
a. If he or she is retired or unemployed, what was his or her occupation before retiring or being unemployed? N/A
b. If married or living with a partner, what is his or her level of education? N/A
c. If previously married, what was your former spouse's occupation? N/A
13) Do you have children, step-children or foster children, and if so do any live at home? No, and by extension, no.
14) Please list the age, sex, occupation or area of study and marital status of each of your children or step-children: N/A
15) What are/were your parent's occupations? Mother: Educator (Teacher & Administrator) & City Councillor Father: Financial Comptroller for an airline.
16) If anyone else is living in your home, what is his or her relationship to you, age and occupation? N/A
17) Where do you fall in terms of age in relation to your siblings? Naturally, oldest. If step-siblings are considered, 2nd youngest of five.
18) What is your highest level of education completed? Bachelor of Fine Arts
19) Have you ever taken any law courses? No
20) Have you ever worked or volunteered for a child advocacy group or for a group dealing with child saftey, child abuse or mistreatment, or children's rights? No.
21) Have you ever had any training, education or jobs or have you ever done any volunteer work in any of the following areas? Banking/Finance; Corrections/Jail/Prison; Drugs/Alcohol; Engineering; Entertainment/Performing Arts; Handwriting Analysis; Forensic sciences; Firearms/guns; Genetics/DNA; Journalism/News; Investigations; Laboratory science; Justice systems/courts; Local/state government; law enforcement; Pathology; medicine nursing; statistics; Mental health; TV/Radio; Police Proceedures; Telecommunications; Science or Biology; Victims of crimes; Security; Women's Rights Organizations: Whew! Well... Corrections/Jail/Prison, Entertainment/Performing Arts, Journalism/News, TV/Radio
22) What is your present employment status? Full-time job plus self-employed activities.
23) What is your present occupation? No simple answer here - the waged job I have is in the horse racing industry - the betting portion of it. That's as far as I'm going at the moment. Not because it's illegal - it's totally legit. But I'm going to play paranoid about all the people getting fired for talking about work in their blogs...
My self-employed work is all in the entertainment industry - variously acting, writing for stage and screen as well as directing, producing and editing film... why I can't make ends meet doing all that is beyond me.
24) Have you, your relatives, or anybody close to you ever been diagnosed with any form of cancer? Yes. (How many people can honestly answer 'no' to this?)
25) Do you think your feelings about or experiences with people from different races might affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? I don't think so. But by the same token I know that I've found that a lot of people who I would classify as racist don't think that they are, so I could be deluding myself. I often find potentially racially offensive jokes funny - but I can say that I find (admittedly rare) Irish jokes as funny as any that are directed at people of races that I am not a member of. The degree to which I am a racist, I am with impunity - everyone's a little bit racist some times, right Avenue Q?
26) Were you or a close family member ever in the military or reserves? No.
If yes, answer the following:
a. Who was in the military? N/A
b. What branch? N/A
c. Date of service? N/A
27) Have you ever served on a jury before? No.
If you have served on a jury before, please answer the following:
a. Please provide the following information for each case in which you served: Year; Civil or Criminal; Verdict Reached. N/A
b. Were you ever the foreperson? N/A
c. Have you ever served on a GRAND JURY before? N/A
If yes, please describe where and when: N/A
28) Have you or a family member ever made any type of claim for money damages? No
If yes, please explain: N/A
29) Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit (other than a divorce proceeding), including giving a deposition? Yes.
If yes, were you the Plaintiff; Defendant; Witness or Other? Witness
Please explain: Two separate occassions. Both car accidents. In the first case the defendant was representing himself and called me in to testify as a witness to the accident. I was the sole witness to the event. There was never any real doubt in my mind as to the fault - I suspect that the forensic evidence would have supported my belief. The defendant was utterly at fault. Yet he was under the misconception that because I ran to his aid that I was 'on his side.' The other driver was ambulatory immediately after the accident, the defendant was not - I ran to help the one who appeared to be in jeopardy. On the court date, the defendant did not show for trial.
In the second case, I was one of several witnesses. Two young-teen girls on a joy-ride narrowly missed the vehicle I was in, side-swiped a parked car and took off around the corner... where they immediately ran into (literally) a police car. Again, there wasn't really much question as to the guilt. On the court date she pleaded guilty and I never had to testify.
30) Have you, any friends or relatives ever been involved in law enforcement (for example, F.B.I., D.E.A., Sheriff's Department, County Prosecutor's Office, California Highway Patrol, Attorney General's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office) or been emploted by any such agency? No... I guess. Not in the U.S. A close friend was in the Canadian Military Police. My Mother's cousin (is that my second cousin?) is in the V.P.D. I haven't seen him in... 7 years.
31) Have you, any relatives, or close friends ever been ARRESTED or ACCUSED of a criminal offense (other than minor traffic violations)? No.
32) Have you or any member of your family, or close friends, ever been the VICTIM of or WITNESS to a serious crime? No.
33) Have you or any relative of close friend ever been ACCUSED OF inappropriate sexual behavior? No.
34) Have you or any relative or close friend ever been THE VICTIM OF inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind? A qualified 'no.' Above and beyond the 'not that I know of' caveat, I did have a teacher in high-school who, the year I graduated was arrested and convicted of sexually abusing his young male students. Naturally I was questioned as to whether I experienced any similar attention. I hadn't. But in the light of the revelation that it had been going on around me, I certainly looked at a few incidents in my time as a student of the person in question a little differently. Perhaps even as 'close calls.' Luckily I was far too goofy back when he was my teacher. I blossomed later.
35) How much have you read or watched about the current Michael Jackson case? Lots. Like, lots and lots, 'lots.'
36) How frequently have you discussed this case with frineds, co-workers, or family members? Lots.
37) Do you know, or have you read, seen, or heard ANYTHING about the publicity regarding the 1993-1994 investigation against Michael Jackson? Yes.
38) Do you or any family members or close friends know Michael Jackson? No.
If yes, please explain: N/A
39) Have you ever known anyone who has met Michael Jackson or spent any time at Neverland? No.
40) Do you have any religious or other beliefs that would make it difficult for you to sit in judgment of another person? Not at all.
If yes, please explain: N/A
41) Do you have specific health, hearing, or vision problems of a serious nature that might make it difficult for you to sit as a juror on this case? I do have aproblem that makes it difficult for me to literally sit for long periods of time. I had a roller-blade accident that caused permanent damge to my sciatic nerve. It's way better now than it has been in the six years since the accident, but still... day after day of sitting only makes it worse again, this is demonstratable.
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY SIGNING MY JUROR NUMBER BELOW THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THIS DECLARATION WAS EXECUTED THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005, AT.... MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA.
Juror number 44.
Jacko-Wacker
I avoid the O.J. trial like the plague. Mind you, by some weird twist of fate, I managed to miss the initial incident of the O.J. trial completely too, so I got off to a good start.
I had been on tour with a comedy troupe - The Juanabees - and the morning of the infamous slow-speed white-bronco chase, The Juanabees left Montreal for a four day drive to Minneapolis which has since become infamous in it's own right in certain circles. (Perhaps I'll illuminate that some day.) On our way down the Death-Star Trench known as the de Carie expressway, our radio lost it's signal just as the first glimmer of news about something involving O.J. Simpson was aired. It was taken over by static. We turned off the radio and as happened so often when we were on tour, we dissappeared into a two-week news-less vacuum. (Three years earlier it took me ten days to find out that the Soviet Union had politically disintegrated. A fact all the more remarkable by right of us being on tour with a group of Russians!)
The similarity in the Blake trial has left me cold... and it seems that many people are reacting similarly.
But then there's Michael Jackson...
I can't stop watching. I'm reading everything I can get my hands on about it.
My sister must have played two copies of 'Thriller' into the ground when we were kids. Maybe even three. My University room mate listened to some of the most egregious music I can think of - including a (ahem) healthy dose of M.J. (Hall and Oates and anything by Prince - not just his scattered brilliant stuff - we're also on his aural menu.) The man really had no sense of the obligations university students have to listen to cutting edge music. (Admitting that what I listened to in my first years of university was within a few years mocked by the phrase "Alternative to what?") But I digress...
I loathed Michael Jackson. And the incessant subjection to him that I endured only made it worse.
I managed to avoid Michael Jackson for years - excepting a brief window where I played in a band that did a kick-ass country and western version of 'Beat It' - we argued that it was about a gun-fight. And while I had my back turned, Michael just got weirder and weirder. I'm sure you've noticed. I barely even raised my head for the first round of alleged pedophillia.
But then the Bashir interview/documentary came out. I don't know if it was by accident, or by design, but it got recorded in my household. My then fiancee, if she recorded it, practically forgot about it - but once I started watching, I never stopped.
I guess it's part schadenfreude. But I think part of it is revenge. I feel like this is my retribution towards M.J. for every time I had to listen to P.Y.T. or Black/White. It's me getting to indulge my Self-Righteousness Junkie tendencies and be right about Jacko all along.
It's akin to me wishing that I could have been a fly on the wall when all the head-banger dick-heads from high-school found out that Rob Halford was gay. What a laugh that would have been! What were they thinking? "London Leather Boys?" It was always there. Tee hee.
I guess it sounds like I've already made up my mind. Well, I guess I have. I do have an extremely strong suspicion. It looks bad. (No pun intended.) Even if he is innocent, he needs to have someone sit him down and explain to him that it doesn't matter what he believes is sweet and good; that it doesn't matter how much money he has and how many 'yes-men' he has in his court, majority of us on this planet... hell, you don't even have to go that far... the majority of us on this continent - even just the U.S. - DO NOT THINK IT'S SWEET. And the second he had even ONE suggestion that something innappropriate was happening, the only right thing to do was to from that moment on ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS make certain that any children in his presence were ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS accompanied by an adult who was neither Jackson nor under his employ.
He has said "people don't understand." No, Michael. The score is YOU don't understand. Even if you are innocent, it looks bad. Even if every staunch Jackson fan-come-supporter could be counted in favour of molesting children he'd still be out numbered - probably millions to one. It's absurd to suggest that the majority is wrong - especially in the light of what now is daily becoming more and more overwhelming evidence.
This has been a long pre-amble for where I was heading...
I think I'll call this a post, and make my original thought a separate one.
Ta.
I had been on tour with a comedy troupe - The Juanabees - and the morning of the infamous slow-speed white-bronco chase, The Juanabees left Montreal for a four day drive to Minneapolis which has since become infamous in it's own right in certain circles. (Perhaps I'll illuminate that some day.) On our way down the Death-Star Trench known as the de Carie expressway, our radio lost it's signal just as the first glimmer of news about something involving O.J. Simpson was aired. It was taken over by static. We turned off the radio and as happened so often when we were on tour, we dissappeared into a two-week news-less vacuum. (Three years earlier it took me ten days to find out that the Soviet Union had politically disintegrated. A fact all the more remarkable by right of us being on tour with a group of Russians!)
The similarity in the Blake trial has left me cold... and it seems that many people are reacting similarly.
But then there's Michael Jackson...
I can't stop watching. I'm reading everything I can get my hands on about it.
My sister must have played two copies of 'Thriller' into the ground when we were kids. Maybe even three. My University room mate listened to some of the most egregious music I can think of - including a (ahem) healthy dose of M.J. (Hall and Oates and anything by Prince - not just his scattered brilliant stuff - we're also on his aural menu.) The man really had no sense of the obligations university students have to listen to cutting edge music. (Admitting that what I listened to in my first years of university was within a few years mocked by the phrase "Alternative to what?") But I digress...
I loathed Michael Jackson. And the incessant subjection to him that I endured only made it worse.
I managed to avoid Michael Jackson for years - excepting a brief window where I played in a band that did a kick-ass country and western version of 'Beat It' - we argued that it was about a gun-fight. And while I had my back turned, Michael just got weirder and weirder. I'm sure you've noticed. I barely even raised my head for the first round of alleged pedophillia.
But then the Bashir interview/documentary came out. I don't know if it was by accident, or by design, but it got recorded in my household. My then fiancee, if she recorded it, practically forgot about it - but once I started watching, I never stopped.
I guess it's part schadenfreude. But I think part of it is revenge. I feel like this is my retribution towards M.J. for every time I had to listen to P.Y.T. or Black/White. It's me getting to indulge my Self-Righteousness Junkie tendencies and be right about Jacko all along.
It's akin to me wishing that I could have been a fly on the wall when all the head-banger dick-heads from high-school found out that Rob Halford was gay. What a laugh that would have been! What were they thinking? "London Leather Boys?" It was always there. Tee hee.
I guess it sounds like I've already made up my mind. Well, I guess I have. I do have an extremely strong suspicion. It looks bad. (No pun intended.) Even if he is innocent, he needs to have someone sit him down and explain to him that it doesn't matter what he believes is sweet and good; that it doesn't matter how much money he has and how many 'yes-men' he has in his court, majority of us on this planet... hell, you don't even have to go that far... the majority of us on this continent - even just the U.S. - DO NOT THINK IT'S SWEET. And the second he had even ONE suggestion that something innappropriate was happening, the only right thing to do was to from that moment on ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS make certain that any children in his presence were ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS accompanied by an adult who was neither Jackson nor under his employ.
He has said "people don't understand." No, Michael. The score is YOU don't understand. Even if you are innocent, it looks bad. Even if every staunch Jackson fan-come-supporter could be counted in favour of molesting children he'd still be out numbered - probably millions to one. It's absurd to suggest that the majority is wrong - especially in the light of what now is daily becoming more and more overwhelming evidence.
This has been a long pre-amble for where I was heading...
I think I'll call this a post, and make my original thought a separate one.
Ta.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)