Here we go.
News just in that Michael Jackson's trial is to start tomorrow - for definite. The jury selection picking started back on January 31 ... and you could just hear Sky News salivating over the imminent court case / ratings.
Sky News and E! (if I recall correctly) have joined together and intend to recreate the jackson trial, every morning at 9:30, London time, using actors
as there are no cameras in court. They will be using the court transcript as script - edited.
Awful though I feel, I'm sure I'm going to be tuning in regularly - just as I did with the Holly and Jessica trial that was reconstructed. But I shouldn't
feel awful really, visibility and transparency of the justice system, the courts doing their job, the juries serving us all, should surely be on show if
at all possible? But I'm mixing up my arguments because this is a US trial and the judge has kept the cameras out of court for, waht seems to me, sensible
I just can't get it into my head that Jackson 'does it wiv kids'. He can't, surely? And if he does, wasn't the early 90s brush with the law enough to make
him steer well clear? Isn't that what turned him on to chimps over small humans? And people of short stature too if I'm remembering correctly. I always
thought kids (dwarves and monkeys too) were part of his image ... not part of his pornography or lust life.
Little high voiced squeaky child-like character-flawed Michael Jackson? Rockin twiddley dee Robin? Feed the world, make it a better place?
Then again, who'd have thought the catholic church would be having to apologise for en masse child shagging by priests?
Michael ... all I can say is that if you have done this you're not just letting the whole world down, you're not just letting yourself down ... you're letting Uri Geller