WHY MICHAEL JACKSON BEAT IT

In the beginning there was OJ. Then came Robert Blake. Now we have the Under-Roo clad, heir apparent to the Elephant Man. I need no further proof that California juries are incapable of convicting those who possess even a modicum of celebrity. It seems your garden variety Californian is star struck, ignoring the blatant, glaring and obvious any time one of their icons is confronted with crimes either minor or heinous. The west coast obsession with appearing politically correct and tolerant has rendered California juries impotent when the time comes to make a simple, common sense decision. They are terrified of rendering a judgment, least they appear judgmental. Only non-celebrities are fair game. Though he likely killed his wife and unborn child, there was far, far less evidence of guilt in the Scott Peterson trial than there was in the trials of OJ, Baretta and Freak.

If you listen to the comments of the Jacko jurors, it becomes very clear that the prosecution made their case. But, because a "superstar's" noggin was on the chopping block, they chose to ignore the evidence.

"I feel that Michael Jackson has probably molested boys. To be in your bedroom 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn, that doesn't make sense to me," said juror Raymond Hultman, who apparently feels that believing the defendant was a child molester does not mean he should be convicted of molesting a child. "But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented."

No, what made him guilty was that Jackson brags of dragging little boys into his bedroom. If Joe Six Pack revealed that he slept with children, had a playground in his front yard and pedophilic porn in his bedroom, he would be locked up for life. All a normal jury needed to know for conviction was that Jackson admitted preying on kids with twisted parents, that he had paid off accusers in the past, that his lifestyle is of the most bizarre sort. However, the term "normal" does not apply to a California jury, which cares more for book deals and fame by association than it does for rationality and justice.

Another juror, an unemployed mother, made an observation that would be laughed out of the sheltered workshop. "What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen. Just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone. That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with," she said.

The lack of a logic gene is evident in this woman, as she never once considered "what kind of deviant monster would seek out little boys, sleep with them, and flaunt his disgusting behavior during an internationally broadcast TV special?" Get a grip woman. Judging by the amount of child abuse in this country, there are plenty of mothers not in their right minds. Apparently more than a few horrible mothers allowed sleepovers with Michael Jackson. They did it partially to be around the fame, partially in the hopes of being showered with gifts and cash. They are nothing but pimps.

But that Jackson was invited to sleep with children, and jumped at the chance, is an indisputable fact which came straight from his plastically-enhanced lips. Of course the mother is unfit, and should be brought up on charges herself. But the trial was not about debating her flaws and criminality. It was about convicting the guy who seeks out dysfunctional parents and revels at the chance to experience his version of childhood romance with their offspring.

The jury thinks Michael Jackson is weird. By their own admission they think he is a child molester, a predator. But, and almost all jurors said this outright, the basis of their decision was that they hated the accuser's mother. They thought her to be a con artist, and used those feelings as an excuse to avoid thinking about her son. In their little pea brains, they made the following non-intellectual leap. We hate her, and we think he molests kids. But he's a star, and she's just in it for the money. Poor Michael, he's a victim.

Several of the jurors made comments to the effect that they didn't like how the mother looked at them. Now there's a good reason for acquittal. The worst, a 79 year old great grandmother (who on TV has the look of a "six pack before breakfast" type of gal) gave her brilliant legal opinion.

"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me, lady,'"

And then the old bag gave a coquettish wink to the camera, thrilled to finally have a national audience and bask in her moment of celebrity.

Our judicial system, at least as practiced in California, is a joke. Jackson moonwalked out of the courtroom because of who he is, what he has, and the pitifully weak spines of those who saw him first as a celebrity and second as the worst kind of pervert. Shallow as their thought process seems to be, I doubt if these people would have convicted Jackson if they'd witnessed his alleged sexual abuse with their own eyes.

"You're hoping you can find a smoking gun, and in this case we had difficulty finding that," stated juror Raymond Hultman.

No, Raymond, you just ignored the smoking gun.

But I'm damned certain you were smoking something.

Ron Marr