Michael Jackson:Why all the crap thrown at him?

[Warrior Kitana]

I've just finished watching "Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood" on VH1 and I have to say Michael Jackson is sincerely a misunderstood and troubled young man. Although, I must say that he was very much a popular child star when he was younger, he was also an abused and secretly tormented person. I felt his family, uptight religious upbring, and fame added to the problems in his adult life? He was never allowed to be a child himself, I mean he became a phenomenon when he was like 10 not to mention his over-dominant father Joesph. He never had many friends his own age, never had much of a social life, never finished middle school (just had tutors), and didn't know how to deal with fame at that age.

I personally think MJ's dad is a truly sick man. He wanted to live his dream through his kids and through that process mentally troubled and disturbed his children. Why his wife chose to stay with him is beyond me.

Instead of people constantly dissing MJ, I think they should try to understand him. He's a very talented man, but mentally screwed I feel. I don't know whether he's guilty of those child molestation charges or not, but I feel he needs to see some type of therapy and help.

[Discloner]

A part of me thinks he's guilty, and another part of me think people are just out to get him because he's odd and they can get money by capitalizing on his oddities. For all I know...it could be a little of both.

Frankly...at this point I'm just getting tired of it all. I used to care, but there's just been so much coverage, information, and rumors as to what he's done, what he hasn't done, and what he plans to do...I just don't care anymore. I do however agree with you that the man does need help, guilty or not. He's obviously not in-touch with reality...I mean...dangling a baby out a window, dancing on your SUV at a Child Molestation court meeting? Please...:rolleyes:

[Sandoz]

Michael Jackson:Why all the crap thrown at him?
Umm, because many people have reason to believe he's a child molester...?

But that ugly business aside (I'm not sure where to stand on the "did he or didn't he?" issue), Michael Jackson is indeed someone to be pitied. He's literally stuck in his "Neverland" dreamworld. It's very obvious he's a troubled individual, but he's exhibited no signs of ever wanting help or facing up to the reality of his behavior, so I find it difficult to feel sorry for him anymore.

[Mr. Pedro]

Joe Jackson is a piece of work, ain't he? I tell ya, I felt like strangling the guy after watching The Jacksons: An American Dream.

As far as Michael goes, I don't think that there's too much that hasn't already been said. The man has the emotional maturity of a child, and he surrounds himself with people that'll never tell him "no". Maybe he wouldn't be in the type of mess he's in today if he only had someone to tell him that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to keep inviting 14-year olds to Neverland.

[Eidan]

You admit that you find him to be delusional, but find fault in the fact that he doesn't believe he is?

I don't get it.

[SirLemming]

He is to be pitied, but so is an old sick dog with rabies that needs to be shot.

I'm not suggesting that he needs to be shot, of course, but just that I can understand both the pity and the "crap" that he gets.

[JLApe]

I've just finished watching "Michael Jackson's Secret Childhood" on VH1 and I have to say Michael Jackson is sincerely a misunderstood and troubled young man. Is that the one starring Flex Alexander as Michael Jackson?

[Mr. Pedro]

Is that the one starring Flex Alexander as Michael Jackson?No, that was a made for TV movie. This program was more of a news/doc type of deal.

[Fone Bone]

To quote The Boondocks Huey Freeman: "Because he sleeps in the same bed as young boys and then casually discusses it on national television."

[Phantasm]

I was never a Micheal Jackson fan but I do feel sorry for him.Mentally disturbed he is indeed and instead of helping his way out of the **** he's in, people exploit his instability. Another sick example which speaks to the fact that humans can be VERY cruel to one another.:sad:

[Wesyeed]

Doinkhttp://www.undergroundhumor.com/movies/images/evil_dead2_vhs_large.jpg Grooooovy...

He's priveleged, rich, and has a theme park in his backyard... and he's rich. Has the finest doctors, and psychiatrists money can buy. Michael Jackson is a great man. And he loves children. There's nothing wrong with saying you're peter pan. I'm peter pan and I can fly too.


Heeee Heee!

[TimTwoFace]

Sad thing is, I could care less about Michael Jackson now, because it seems that every week there's some "shocking new revelation" about his life. I don't care. If he were shot dead in the street tomorrow, I wouldn't care. This isn't because I hate the guy - I don't, really - but the media that swarms him day in, day out, has just made me sick and I bored to tears hearing about it. Besides, we went through all this back in 1993.

I don't believe Michael Jackson is a child molester; however, he's doing nothing to help his plight, either, because he's just so shamelessly weird and different, and doesn't really explain anything at all.

-Tim

[Classic Speedy]

I miss the good old days when he had catchy hits like "Bad", "Beat It", "Smooth Criminal", "Billie Jean", etc. Back before all this controversy with Neverland ranch, the child molesting rumors, and hanging a baby out the window. I think too many cosmetic surgery operations (which, ironically, made him uglier) got to his head.

Which reminds me, must go play Michael Jackson's Moonwalker on Genesis. :D

[James]

I try and disassociate his personal issues from practical ones.

I'm sure he's had a harsh life and for that I sympathise. I'm sure he has genuine issues. That said, I'm pretty convinced the charges are legitimate, and even if there is a slightest uncertainity it's best for the sake of the children we err in their favour and prevent him for being near kids.

I don't like his music, more because he has a messiah complex which is clear in his stage performances and videos which I don't subscribe to, but my issues on him are fairly simple. If people want to buy his records, remain convinced he's innocent. So be it. However he needs to stand on these offenses as any normal man round.

Society wouldn't accept a fat ugly 40 year old who said he sleeps with children and assume he's innocent or has a peter pan complex. Jackson is no different. Men don't sleep with children to feel like children. It doesn't work like that. And by the sounds of the complaints it isn't like that anyhow. I must admit I was worried that his money might have made him above the law, I'm glad that it's not looking like it's the case.

So yes, it's good to disassociate his personal issues from the music. If you like his stuff, it should stand on it's own credit and not on the man behind it.

However, as much as it's good to empathise and understand that there is more to anyman than being an "evil pervert" it's also important to deal with the practical issues and not let sympathy for a man with a hard and painful background get in the way of making sure that children are protected from the potential danger of Mr Jackson. Let him be tried and treated fairly without the system being complicated by either lawyers trying to get him off or media exposure making it a witch hunt.

As long as kids are safe, that's all that really matters, bottom line. It disturbs me when I see people supporting him blindly when I know they wouldn't offer such benefit of the doubt to an "ordinary guy" and would be willing to allow his unique pop status and bad family history to cloud the issue of child security.

[Master Moron]

I have to agree with SSJ. The fact is, most child molesters were abused themselves. Whenever someone posts an article in the cafe about someone molesting a kid it's always "They should hang him!" or "They should shoot him!" No one ever considers the horrible life that probably scarred them emotionally and turned them into child molesters. And the only reason people are sympathizing with Micheal Jackson is because he's famous. That being said, I'm not a hateful person, and I can sympathize with Micheal Jackson, and I can sympathize with all people who have committed horrible acts. However, at the same time, just because someone's had a tough life doesn't give them the right to commit horrible acts. Micheal Jackson may have had a horrible life, and I sympathize with him, but under no circumstances does that permit him to molest children, and he should be held accountable for it.

[Jave]

He has given us many reasons to believe he's a child molester, so... there. I honestly try to stay neutral on this since I really don't care what happens or might happen to him.

I admit he has some nice, catchy songs, though.

[Spongebrain2.0]

He should be locked up somewhere...where he can't harm kids. Simple as that;)

[James]

Been a couple of documentaries on this week in the UK. I didn't realise there is evidence of such potential child abuse spanning 20 years.

Sometimes I see the details on TV and I wonder how as a society we've let this happen. A grown man doesn't have a massive theme park to entice children just for harmless fun. It's the biggest lure I've ever seen to the point when you think about it, it's almost surreal. Private time with other people's kids in his own fantasy land which he controls with no parents.

I think I find the most shocking thing is how the public tend to be more willing to believe him over children. "They are just after his money"... is the common argument when they know neither him or the kids. The fact that they are kids potentially at risk doesn't seem to equate to much when evaluating the circumstance. Even if you aren't sure, or you think it's unlikely, there is a chance and that should be enough to shut his Neverland operation down.

I mean that kid in 93, is still in hiding. The money he got from settling out of court he uses to hide from the death threats he has had. They don't even the target the parents, they target the kid who was in his early teens when he made the allegations. So even if you REALLY believe he was lying, it's hardly an age to deem in liable that he should die. Some settlement, poor kid. It's crazy enough to be in a Garth Ennis graphic novel.

[Warrior Kitana]

I don't know whether he's a child molester or not? As for the reasons, yeah it could be because he never had a normal childhood of his own or that he views children as non-threatening and innocence (sorta like he was when he was a child).

Personally, I think the families should share some blame. Yeah, they might have not known that he might was a child molester, but he was convicted even way back in 1993, so why would you take that chance and risk or him possibly doing that to your children. Plus, it isn't normal for a grown 46-47 year old man to enjoy the company of children to the extent of letting them sleep in his bed and sleep over and all. I find it hard to believe the parents weren't getting anything outta this as well.

I always knew MJ's childhood was pretty disfunctional, but not to the extent of what they showed in "MJ's Secret Childhood", such as him fearing God because of his Jehovah's Witness upbringing, being scared to date possibly because he was exposed to sex at a young age, how deeply he was affected by his father's affairs with other women, and his resentment of his family. I thought "The Jacksons: An American Dream" was more kid-friendly. The movie really didn't go into much detail about his teenage years. I mean Jason Weaver played MJ from age 8 to about 13 or 14 years old and afterwards skipped up to him being 18. Also, the movie only shows one of Joesph's affairs on MJ's mother, when in reality he had numerous affairs, some even with his sons groupies.

[Chris Wood]

I liked Michael Jackson, but not that weird alien dude who uses the name now. Perhaps he's been possessed by some other-worldly intelligence that seeks world domination through brainwashing the young.

[Tobias]

This is my personal opinion: I feel sorry but Micheal, but I think he might be guilty.

BUT

I also blame the PARENTS. Micheal's been accused of this since, what, the early 90's? Why would parents allow their children to continue going to Neverland Ranch, knowing the controversy that surrounds Micheal?

Is it because he buys them off? Is it because they think 'well, he has kids of his own, we can trust him with ours'? Or maybe it's because they're ignorant, or just aren't 'informed', although in this day and age, that's a pretty hard feat.

It all boils down to this: Micheal may be guilty, but the parents are guiltier for allowing their children to go there in the first place, knowing full well what Micheal's been accused of in the past.

[Hurricane V1]

I honestly don't think he's guilty of doing anything illegal to a child, though I do believe he probably let them sleep in his bed with him, but only that far. From what I heard, the family who accused him last had pretty questionable backgrounds. I also like to keep in mind how many families have stood up for him, since they would know him a lot better than any of us.

I just believe him to be incredibly stupid and naive, especially after going through this fiasco before. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge MJ fan, but man has he fallen; the charges, the face beyond repair, the careless spending of money, his 'Invincible' album was less than great, etc....
If I ever met MJ, I'd offer to pay for a few hookers and a night on the town. The situation would leave me seriously broke and it would be a little unethical, but it'd be worth it if he started acting more like a normal middle aged man. I mean, I grew up idolizing that guy. There will never be a performer like him again. There's a lot of complaining about pop music in general, but I could never say I hate pop music, because MJ and others before the recent boy bands & pop divas, well they put out some really cool tunes. He definately didn't base a whole album on love & heartbreak songs with generic lyrics and simple rhymes.

[TheBaldOneMpls]

Personally, I think the families should share some blame. Yeah, they might have not known that he might was a child molester, but he was convicted even way back in 1993, so why would you take that chance and risk or him possibly doing that to your children.Actually, he was never convicted. He was charged, but he paid the accusor's family an undisclosed amount (reportedly $20,000,000... 8-9 mil. pounds if my conversion skills are accurate) and the family stopped cooperating with police.

[James]

I honestly don't think he's guilty of doing anything illegal to a child, though I do believe he probably let them sleep in his bed with him, but only that far.
And would you be so forgiving if an ugly 45 year old neighbour claimed he was sleeping with boys to recapture his youth? Sleeping with boys in no way captures ones youth. As far as I recall, when I had fun with my male friends as a kid, I didn't sleep with them. Interesting, my neighbour who has had to work with Pedophile cases says, in his opinon, he shows inherant behaviour associated with the type. I won't go into the details, I think this isn't really the best board to do so. It's all nasty stuff.


From what I heard, the family who accused him last had pretty questionable backgrounds. I also like to keep in mind how many families have stood up for him, since they would know him a lot better than any of us.
Familes won't have any idea. In fact it's questionable how much his own family will believe regardless of what they know. Denial is one thing. Furthermore, child abuse is a very subtle and manipulative process. If they weren't subtle there would be no child abuse as people would pick up on it instantly. It's not something you can just point out. It's secretive, but those who have studied it say there are key signs like with all human behaviour. As for family background, do you really think that background should come before the chance of there being child abuse - one of the most damaging interactions in human sociaity. Even if it's a small chance.


I just believe him to be incredibly stupid and naive, especially after going through this fiasco before.

Seems he's more likely - like his parents - he believed his own myth. He's shown a messiah complex on several stage shows and his demands to be titled "King Of Pop" seem to point that way also. I don't think he thought he would be caught. The reason he didn't stop after the last fiasco seems more indicitive that he is. If it's a sexual issue, it's hard for people to stop regardless of their interest. Watch some of the documentaries on this, it seems he's far from naive.



Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge MJ fan, but man has he fallen; the charges, the face beyond repair, the careless spending of money, his 'Invincible' album was less than great, etc....

Well regardless, I hope this doesn't stop you from enjoying his music however the case turns out. It's always good if you can seperate the art from the man and he has made some extremely strong contributions to music over the last 30 years or so.



If I ever met MJ, I'd offer to pay for a few hookers and a night on the town. The situation would leave me seriously broke and it would be a little unethical, but it'd be worth it if he started acting more like a normal middle aged man.
Problem is, an interest in kids is an interest in kids. He could go with hookers, but it wouldn't stop his fixation. That's the sad thing, if it is true (and while I'm pretty sure it is, I wouldn't be so arrogant to say it definately is) then the issue is far deeper than a night on the time could cure!


I mean, I grew up idolizing that guy. There will never be a performer like him again. There's a lot of complaining about pop music in general, but I could never say I hate pop music, because MJ and others before the recent boy bands & pop divas, well they put out some really cool tunes. He definately didn't base a whole album on love & heartbreak songs with generic lyrics and simple rhymes.
I sympathise and sort of understand where you are coming from. No one likes the risk of losing a hero. Maybe this is a reminder to people not to over idolize, but then one cannot help admire mentors or heroes. We want to be as cool or amazing as they are.. we don't like to except they maybe just as failed and flawed as "normal" people.

We'd be happy to believe an ugly guy down the road abused children if it was rumoured. Even if he declared he wanted to be a child again and his small fairground attraction in his background wasn't a lure but a need to be "young". In such a scenerio on the basis he was sleeping in the same bed with other boys it would be enough for a full enquiry.

However we idolise our heroes and so we end up being more leinient with them. Afterall, what makes legends and heroes so exciting is the fact they are so... fantastical. Take away the fantasy and expose them as normal people and suddenly the world doesn't seem quite as exciting anymore. Sort of like losing faith in the tooth fairy or dragons and unicorns. Celebrities are that sort of untouchable myth from far away. No one likes to think such weird and abstract people are no different from us.

Peace.

[SonGoku V3]

All speculation (baseless or not) aside, will crap get thrown at him if he's found innocent? If this trial shows that he's not the pedophile MANY people would love him to be, will people continue to trash him in the way that they have been since...the late 80s? I think so...

[AF$]

All speculation (baseless or not) aside, will crap get thrown at him if he's found innocent? If this trial shows that he's not the pedophile MANY people would love him to be, will people continue to trash him in the way that they have been since...the late 80s? I think so...Probably, because where there's smoke...

[SonGoku V3]

Probably, because where there's smoke... That doesn't make sense, atleast as it relates to my question. A jury finds him innocent, and people still consider him guilty or a pedophile (all of this, hypothetically, of course)?

Heh, sad...

[James]

That doesn't make sense, atleast as it relates to my question. A jury finds him innocent, and people still consider him guilty or a pedophile (all of this, hypothetically, of course)?

Heh, sad...
It's a fair question. While I try and be objective, I know deep down I really am sure he's guilty. I'll try and remind myself there is a chance, however my reason's aren't through dislike for Jackson it's because the characteristics and he behaviour he presents falls into the catagory he's accused of. If a jury lets him off I don't think I'll end up being convinced that the jury was right and I was wrong, just that he has some of the best lawyers in the world to protect him.

So I try and make sure I underline in my posts I could be wrong, but deep down I don't think I am - if that makes sense. Again my opinion isn't stead fast, because I want him to abusing kids, just because I really think he has been and has managed to evade justice.

IMO if the Jury aquit him it won't be long before it happens again. He's already shown that even after 93 he continued on as normal - despite the media attention and the evidence, parents still let him spend time with their kids unsupervised. Considering even a teacher would not be expected to sleep with children (without dismissal and lawsuits on the way) I'm still incredulous that people have no problem with a man under no supervision, with no credentials, no background checks, an abuse case hanging over their heads and enclosed on his property would let him take their kids. To let him openly sleep with them is just... bizzare.

Whatever he was doing. If it abuse, he'll do it again, I doubt he'll be able to help himself. So I think even if he's found innocent, the circumstances will reoccur.

I think I'm more angry with society for letting a non supervised 48 year old with a record of potential child abuse, have private access to kids on his property than I am with Michael or his parents.

[NinjaJack]

The home alone kid use to hang with him alot, but he`s almost as strange as he is. I know Micheal has had a tough life, but so has most pedophila. Tell me, what do any of you think of R. Kelly?

[Hurricane V1]

The home alone kid use to hang with him alot, but he`s almost as strange as he is. I know Micheal has had a tough life, but so has most pedophila. Tell me, what do any of you think of R. Kelly?
He's a source of good material for comedians. Dave Chappelle in particular.

[The Guitar Slayer]

I remember when the Martin Bashir documentary aired on ABC two years to nearly the day. We discussed this in my journalism class the morning after. It was interesting, because there was a fair mix of races and economic situations there. Regardless of race (which included African-American, Caucasian, and Hispanic) or home location (inner city, suburbs), we were split down the middle as to whether or not Jackson molested these kids. Like people have said before, one of the main reasons for his innocence for some people is "But it's MICHAEL! He did "Heal the World" and "Thriller." He made great music. How could he be so stupid to give that up?"

Not stupid, necessarily. Perhaps overly naive and just not mentally all together. He is sane enough to stand trial, since he does understand the charges pressed against him and their severity.

The one argument we did find absolutely ridiculous was the one regarding race. You can't tell anymore what race he is/was due to his cosmetic surgeries and his elective skin bleaching.

Did he do it? Rather, the bigger question is, can he be convicted? Is it even possible, given his godlike status? He's not as much a musician now as he is a "sideshow freak" as some have called him. His fans have become older, wiser, and fewer in number He also has money troubles, despite his prior fortune and the Beatles catalog. He may not have enough to pay off his lawyers, so even if they do win the case, he will lose massively and will likely have to sell the catalog and possibly Neverland Ranch if the trial drags on as long as I think it will. I've heard various rumors about the mother of the child with cancer and how her character may be less than reputable, but as long as she stands her ground and isn't bought out, this will be a trial where the ending isn't known until the last moments.

[Master Moron]

Not stupid, necessarily. Perhaps overly naive and just not mentally all together. He is sane enough to stand trial, since he does understand the charges pressed against him and their severity.

Well, even if he's smart enough to know he shouldn't be molesting kids, chances are he can't help himself. From what I understand most pedophiliacs are compelled to molest kids even though they know it's wrong. I often wonder if pedophilia should be treated more as a disease than a crime. It seems like most pedophilia's have an addiction to it, whereas they can't stop molesting kids even though they know it's wrong. Unfortunately, unless you're Micheal Jackson, most pedophiliac's get little to no sympathy, hence, I don't think too many people even care about finding ways to treat them.


The one argument we did find absolutely ridiculous was the one regarding race. You can't tell anymore what race he is/was due to his cosmetic surgeries and his elective skin bleaching.


Interesting, I remember learning in Sociology class that race doesn't actually exist, meaning there actually isn't a gene for being white or being asian or whatever. We, as a society assign people a race even when one doesn't naturally exist.

[SonGoku V3]

You can't tell anymore what race he is/was due to his cosmetic surgeries and his elective skin bleaching. Skin color being black or not, Michael Jackson will always be of African descent. He will always be African-American...though I don't think this relates to the main topic.:sweat:



Did he do it? Rather, the bigger question is, can he be convicted? Is it even possible, given his godlike status? What godlike status? You say in your next sentence that he's a sideshow freak...that's, IMO, why jury selection is probably going to be insanely hard. If people in this thread were the representation of mainstream thought (which I think it can be argued that it is), then Michael would be convicted before the case even began. No evidence, no defense, no nothing. Only hearsay, tabloid information, and the fact that he's a "sideshow freak". Now is that fair?

As for his monetary issues, I have no idea. Again, aside from tabloid info and rumors, nothing concrete has ever been said regarding how much money Michael may or may not have.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Skin color being black or not, Michael Jackson will always be of African descent. He will always be African-American...though I don't think this relates to the main topic.:sweat:
I'm not arguing that at all. It's just that we tend to say a person is "black" or "white" because of their color, not because of their actual descent. Because he has changed his appearance so much, you can't say he's a "black guy" any more. You can say he's an African American.



What godlike status? You say in your next sentence that he's a sideshow freak...that's, IMO, why jury selection is probably going to be insanely hard. If people in this thread were the representation of mainstream thought (which I think it can be argued that it is), then Michael would be convicted before the case even began. No evidence, no defense, no nothing. Only hearsay, tabloid information, and the fact that he's a "sideshow freak". Now is that fair?
I referred to his former godlike status, and the fact that he is indeed an icon to numerous people. They are the ones screaming outside the court that he is innocent. However, since the original 1993 accusation as well as several bombed albums, he has fallen and his face has also changed due to excess surgery as well. He has become a "freak show." I was trying to suggest that perhaps he will not have the advanatages that he did back in 1993. Money, time, the majority of the public and media, and his star power have left him, for the most part.

As for it being fair, I would say it would be logical that charges be brought against him and that a conviction is completely possible and likely. He has been accused by multiple boys of similar deeds over the past ten years. Given his erratic behavior as well, I think it would be foolish not to investigate and, if enough evidence is found, prosecute. The people here have expressed their opinions based upon the information that has been leaked from the court in various ways.

[Wesyeed]

He literally is a white man..

But (Wesyeed puts on his serious mask), the orginal question for this topic is a very simple one to answer.

ANS: Because he's famous.

All celebrities have to deal with us, the polarizing public, at one point or another. It's history baby. As for MJ being godlike? In some respects yes which is precisely why he's recieving this widespread backlash, the same way mr. Jesus himself got persecuted for whatever accusations were brought up against him; of course we know that was just some ancient historical tale, but this case is real-in the present- and being found guilty or not guilty wont make a difference. Some people will jump on the hate train, evidence or no evidence. Perhaps to them, the tv doesn't lie, OJ didn't bribe the jury, and Mr. Bush is fighting terrorists abroad from his cozy office in the white house. But why...

I think it is because, like so many have said, he's a strange guy doing strange things. His loyal fans let a lot of things slide: The excessive plastic surgery, the first molestation case, the crazy masks on his kids, and even the baby dangling thing... though that alone should be a glaring sign that something's not quite right in Neverland.

So in conclusion, whatever his history with his parents or family, his brothers aren't doing as bad as he is right now, and I seriously hope that if he is found guilty that he will be delt with in the proper manner. (That no amount of money can save him from.) On the other hand, if he's found innocent of all wrong doing, put him on probabtion and give him counseling... for the sake of protecting his kids. No children should be brought up by a parent like him. That's my opinon and I'm sticking to it today. Maybe not so much tomorrow.

Heeeeeeee! Heeee!

[Dogbert]

I don't have much of an opinion of Michael Jackson, but I'd still like to throw in my two cents. I think the media is being very unfair to him. How many people have heard that he hasn't actually been charged with child molestation? He has been charged with 4 counts of taking part in lewd acts with a child, 4 counts of a administering an intoxicating agent to a minor, and 1 count of attempted child abduction. Keep in mind, "lewd acts" could include molestation, but are more likely sleeping in the same bed with children - molestation would likely be a different charge if they could prove it.


Society wouldn't accept a fat ugly 40 year old who said he sleeps with children and assume he's innocent or has a peter pan complex. Jackson is no different. Men don't sleep with children to feel like children.Society would not accept it if you put it like that. Should parents be arrested for sleeping with their children when they have a bad dream? I'm not saying that he should be allowed to continue with this behavior, just that it is entirely possible to sleep with children without it being sexual. What about a parent who knows her child is sleeping in the same bed as a middle-aged man and continues to allow it? How many people would think that parent should lose custody for allowing her child to be put in a dangerous situation?

[James]

Keep in mind, "lewd acts" could include molestation, but are more likely sleeping in the same bed with children - molestation would likely be a different charge if they could prove it.
That's because it's very hard to prove in court. That's a dangerous bit of law logic you have there! :) The concern is that all the smaller elements are very much recognizes attributes to child abuse. The splicing of drinks is a method of grooming, the identification of marks on the accused body (in areas a kid shouldn't be looking at...). Some reports of books of nude boys being found in his home in 1993. No illegal in itself, but if he is proved to have had sexual relations with the kids, then that material is redefined as erotica. So a lot of stuff there.

I do expect that the law works objectively here, I also hope that the defense doesn't try and seperate the evidence out so much it seems unrelated.


Should parents be arrested for sleeping with their children when they have a bad dream? I'm not saying that he should be allowed to continue with this behavior, just that it is entirely possible to sleep with children without it being sexual.
It is if you are a child or on the most occasions, a parent then I see a non sexual situation. If it's a one off, and circumstances arise in which presents that scenerio then fine. Sleeping with kids specifically over a potenial length of two decades... that's not right.



What about a parent who knows her child is sleeping in the same bed as a middle-aged man and continues to allow it? How many people would think that parent should lose custody for allowing her child to be put in a dangerous situation?
I agree with you there. There were even cases of parents willing to fly their kids to stay with Michael to prove he was innocent. That's sick, risking your own kids mental health for a principle. No one can EVER be totally sure.. especially when these people knew charges had been once made. Even though those charges were settled, it should show that there is a chance he maybe dangerous.. so how can you send your own flesh and blood to stay with him? To prove something? Media attention? Either way, a terrible thing to do.

I certainly wouldn't let my kid stay overnight at a 46 year old man's house. A man who admits sleeping with kids, who has had accusations of child abuse, who has lawyers which stop you getting near him, who has no credentials in child behaviour and who has a tendency to hang kids out of windows. Aside from the sexual element, he's hardly been caring with his own ambigious children.

[Dogbert]

That's because it's very hard to prove in court. That's a dangerous bit of law logic you have there!I certainally agree that it would be hard to prove and that could be why he was not charged with molestation. However, my main point for that paragraph was not to claim Jackson did not molest the child because he was not charged, but rather that the media has been unfair to Jackson. I only pointed out the difference between the two crimes because most media organizations are reporting this as a molestation trial, which it is not. I should have made that point a little more clear.


It is if you are a child or on the most occasions, a parent then I see a non sexual situation. If it's a one off, and circumstances arise in which presents that scenerio then fine. Sleeping with kids specifically over a potenial length of two decades... that's not right.I agree. That's why I said his behavior should not continue in the manor it has in the past.


I certainly wouldn't let my kid stay overnight at a 46 year old man's house. A man who admits sleeping with kids, who has had accusations of child abuse, who has lawyers which stop you getting near him, who has no credentials in child behaviour and who has a tendency to hang kids out of windows.Nor will I (when I have kids anyway).

[James]

I certainally agree that it would be hard to prove and that could be why he was not charged with molestation. However, my main point for that paragraph was not to claim Jackson did not molest the child because he was not charged, but rather that the media has been unfair to Jackson. I only pointed out the difference between the two crimes because most media organizations are reporting this as a molestation trial, which it is not. I should have made that point a little more clear.

I got dancing to the wrong rhythm in your beat. My apologies. My bad, not yours. Gotcha :)

[Beat]

If he seriously has a problem with children, and all these child issues, then the man doesn't need prison time.

He needs psychiatric help, especially for something as serious as pedophelia. Of course, it will be a cold day in hell before Jacko pleads insanity.

[SilverKnight]

Hmmm. Why all the crap through at MJ? Well, for starters, he leaves himself open for it. The man simply does not live in reality, and his family and friends enable him to continue his reckless, dangerous, clearly unstable behavior for reasons beyond my comprehension. (Maybe it's not weird to them? Who knows.) Whatever the case, he's an extremely screwed up person that heralds from an even more screwed up family, and I feel pity for all the crap that he's had to live with due to his family. Now that I've said that, I don't feel pity for all the crap that he's had to live with due to his own stupidity and lack of mental stability. 'Misunderstood', 'naive', or whatever you call it, the behavior he has exhibited over the last decade or so ranges from troubling to downright criminal. Dangling a baby out a window? Yeah, guy, you should be in jail right now, playing Billy Jean with Bubba Joe in D-block. The only reason he's not there now is simply because he's Michael Jackson, and I'm not sure a single person on this Earth could ever provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary. A lot of blind MJ supporters forget this: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Being misunderstood don't mean jack if someone winds up dead or scarred for life because of it. It's that simple.

As for the case going on now, I've been careful to keep that vile over-information away from my eyes and ears. The media coverage has spiraled out of control, at the detriment to everyone and everything it's covering, but I guess that's the Information Age, for you. Insta-damnation, story at 11. From what I've heard, though, I wouldn't doubt if he had done something inappropriate at the least, what with him being 'misunderstood' and all. I guess he misunderstood that grown men don't court hordes of children to recapture their fading youth.

Pardon me, my bitter is showing.

Liked his music, though.

[Fresh V]

He literally is a white man..
LOL. Yeah, kinda looks like his sister now.....

Well, time will tell if Michael is really a...... guy who..... does wrong stuffs with children.......

[SirLemming]

"I'll be fine in prison; I'm a big, strapping black man! From now on, call me by my Muslim name: Jacko-Shebaz-al-Neverland! That's right, don't you be gettin' in what's left of my face!"

--Late Night with Conan O'Brien

[RAINMAN]

so just because a guy like kids mean hes like to take advantage of kids? That just stupid. I don`t think he did it. So hes a bit mess up but who`s not? Kids are fun to hangout whit. They are clueless and innercnet toward the world. However, they are soem sick people who would take advantage of that and those sick people needs to be put under the jail....But I strongly dought MJ is one them. Why did the parents of 93 took the money intead of pressing changes? Death letter from the MJ fans sound too sample. If your kid life is runied then as a parant you do whatever it takes to make sure it won`t happend again or to another kid. Then again what kind of parants leave their kids alone in a big place like never land for hours? Maybe they should take a look at the bad parants. People are always coming up whit some get rich fast sceme and famous people are the targets. Just a couple week ago some lady clame that MJ two kids are hers and not his wife? People like that make me sick cause their too lazy to get a job and earn money on their own.:mad:

[James]

so just because a guy like kids mean hes like to take advantage of kids? No, it's the claims from the kids that he touched them. The issue that marks on his private areas have been identified, that he has allegedly laced drinks, that he's had a safe full of nude boy material (albeit artistic) and that that experts in the field of child abuse see signs in his behaviour akin to abusers.

No one is just leveling complaints, they are offering evidence.


That just stupid. I don`t think he did it. So hes a bit mess up but who`s not? Kids are fun to hangout whit. They are clueless and innercnet toward the world. I did many things as a kid which I am nostalgic about, sleeping with them isn't one of them. Men don't sleep with other people's children. Yes they are clueless and innocent which is precisely why we should make an extra effort to protect them. Certainly shouldn't be letting them into the private home of people previously accused of child abuse with no supervision who admits to sleeping with them - even just on that simple level, how can anyone attest that's right?



However, they are soem sick people who would take advantage of that and those sick people needs to be put under the jail....But I strongly dought MJ is one them. Why did the parents of 93 took the money intead of pressing changes?Strange that allegedly the kid whose parents took that payout does not talk to them anymore. The kid in question now lives in hiding and he has said he woes the day he met Jackson.


Death letter from the MJ fans sound too sample. If your kid life is runied then as a parant you do whatever it takes to make sure it won`t happend again or to another kid. Those simple death threats have been actioned. Jordie was almost run over by a crazied fan and has had to take to hiding so deep, the press can't find him. The press have a reward for finding him and they still can't. People don't do that unless they GENUINELY fear for their life. The reason no one speaks out is because there is a genuine threat from fans.


Then again what kind of parants leave their kids alone in a big place like never land for hours? Parents who are wooed by celebrity power. You yourself said he was innocent, maybe they think like you clearly do.


Maybe they should take a look at the bad parants. People are always coming up whit some get rich fast sceme and famous people are the targets.And because the parents come from a bad background we should dismiss the fact that these kids MIGHT have been abused. Do we take that background and the fact he's a star over the word of these kids. If there is a chance he has touched children don't we owe it to those kids to stop the risk of it happening again?


Just a couple week ago some lady clame that MJ two kids are hers and not his wife? People like that make me sick cause their too lazy to get a job and earn money on their own.:mad:Strange how all his kids are white. Considering the gene pool, three utterly white children seems odd to me. The fact there has been no positive proof as I recall where those kids came from (I recall his Lawyers have blocked attempts to verify them) I wouldn't dismiss this too quickly.

Have a look at his background RAINMAN, do a little reading into the nature and signs of child abuse. Then have a look into Jackson's background. Then come back and tell me there is not even a chance children are at risk around him.

These death threats from fans are very real. Why don't people speak up? After Jordie is now in fear for his life from his parents pay off (he was 14 and had no right to accept the pay off himself) he's not exactly had justice.

Again, while I personally see barely a doubt in his guilt I'm not saying everyone should feel the same. Nevertheless, one has to see at the very least there are signs as well as evidence that these kids are in danger with him.

On tha basis of making sure children are safe, we owe it to them to look into this as intensely as we would if it was a 45 year builder who lives down the street who sleeps with kids and been reported for it.

[SonGoku V3]

I didn't want to get involed too deep in this thread, but I question some of the info some of you are posting and are getting (aka, this is gonna be a long one :D ).

The people here have expressed their opinions based upon the information that has been leaked from the court in various ways. All that has been leaked from the current case was the prosecution's side of the story. Have we heard ANYTHING from the defense? NO. They did not cross examine the boy in question...in fact, what HAVE we heard in defense of Michael? So how can anyone express an informed opinion when the only information that has been leaked and released is one-sided?

On the other hand, if he's found innocent of all wrong doing, put him on probabtion and give him counseling... for the sake of protecting his kids. So....if he's found innocent, treat him like he's guilty anyway? I couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or not, so excuse me if I misinterpreted this comment.


I certainly wouldn't let my kid stay overnight at a 46 year old man's house. A man who admits sleeping with kids, who has had accusations of child abuse, who has lawyers which stop you getting near him, who has no credentials in child behaviour and who has a tendency to hang kids out of windows. Aside from the sexual element, he's hardly been caring with his own ambigious children. Unless he was convicted of these accusations, what would the problem be? If a person who WASN'T a thief accused of being a thief (falsly), would you always be weary of that person just because they were accused? That's unfair to the person, and it's unfair to Michael UNTIL he is found guilty of anything. As for having lawyers stopping you from getting near him, where did you get this info from? Sure, I've heard it in the National Inquirer, but yeah, that's a truly reliable source of information. You paint him out as if he hangs kids out of windows every thursday, and he's like the character "Michael Jefferson" many people saw on South Park. Considering that all you know from this guy is stuff you get from Tabloid papers and television shows, how can you tell me how he is with his children when you only get a biased view of him anyway?


Well, time will tell if Michael is really a...... guy who..... does wrong stuffs with children....... LOL...this is the ONLY thing that's irrefutable in this thread. Too bad he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion. He's weird looking and eccentric...he MUST be guilty! Everything reported in tabloids, from him sleeping in hyperbolic chambers to him feeding children "Jesus Juice" is absolutely true. It's from tabloids, it can't be wrong.

I'll seperate the rest of my response to another post, because this is getting pretty long. Though, I will say now that my main point in both is to consider ALL of the facts before judging him. Literally ask yourselves, "what if this guy is innocent", and do some research from there. I've been looking at the Drudge report recently, and I'm just curious, what does HE know that YOU don't know to say things that side with Michael Jackson? I've been listening to Geraldo Rivera discuss this case, and I dare some of you to ask, what does HE know that I don't know to side with Michael Jackson in this case? ...then do some research. There is alot of information out there that makes me question the validity of these accusations (and SJJ knows this as this has been discussed multiple times on this forum since MJ's been charged). If you believe he is guilty, all I ask is for you is to let this continue to develop and to let him "have his day in court". Look at all sides of this case, not just leaks from the prosecution, rumored evidence, and things that might not be there. Find out what's really going on instead of accepting the picture majority of the media outlets have already painted for you.

[SonGoku V3]

Part II of my response, and probably, my final response in this thread. Only reason it might be my final response because I've learned in arguing about this case in the past is that what I say probably won't change your opinions. If some of you already find him guilty, you'll probably continue to find him guilty even if he's found innocent. So part of me asks "what's the point of this topic", but I really only defend because I feel that there always needs to be two sides heard, especially in this topic where only one side is believed and agreed upon (that he's weird and that he's guilty).


No, it's the claims from the kids that he touched them. The issue that marks on his private areas have been identified, that he has allegedly laced drinks, that he's had a safe full of nude boy material (albeit artistic) and that that experts in the field of child abuse see signs in his behaviour akin to abusers. The only thing that, from what I understand, is concrete is what you say about the experts. I never heard about the safe full of "nude boy material" being true OR confirmed. All that has been discussed is Michael having heterosexual pornography, and having his prints AND the boy's prints on it. I also question where you got the information from about marks on his privates being correctly identified. I don't believe that was confirmed either, but if you can tell me where you heard those two facts, I'll try and look them up.


Those simple death threats have been actioned. Jordie was almost run over by a crazied fan and has had to take to hiding so deep, the press can't find him. The press have a reward for finding him and they still can't. People don't do that unless they GENUINELY fear for their life. The reason no one speaks out is because there is a genuine threat from fans. What's your source for this? I KNOW there have been some things against the kid's father, but I believe that your info for this may be incorrect. Especially considering that some European tabloids have even posted pictures of the former kid in recent years. He's NOT allowed to speak on the 93 case, THAT is why people can't find him, so to speak. I'd like to see this reward the press has out, and I'd like to see some of the threats.



And because the parents come from a bad background we should dismiss the fact that these kids MIGHT have been abused. Do we take that background and the fact he's a star over the word of these kids. If there is a chance he has touched children don't we owe it to those kids to stop the risk of it happening again? To flip everything you said, just because MJ is a freak, we should dismiss the fact that he MIGHT be innocent? Come on, we shouldn't take ANYTHING until we've heard both sides of the story, but it sounds like you're saying to basically to take what the child (because only one is accusing him) says and barely even consider what the defense has to say. Maybe there is something wrong with the accuser and his family's background...maybe there isn't. What's wrong with taking that into as much consideration as we do anything else involving this case?



Have a look at his background RAINMAN, do a little reading into the nature and signs of child abuse. Then have a look into Jackson's background. Then come back and tell me there is not even a chance children are at risk around him. Then you do some research on Michael Jackson. Do some research on both this case and the 93 case, do some research on BOTH sides of the story. Don't leave any stone unturned, and tell me that there isn't a chance that he could have been innocent in BOTH cases.


These death threats from fans are very real. Why don't people speak up? After Jordie is now in fear for his life from his parents pay off (he was 14 and had no right to accept the pay off himself) he's not exactly had justice. Niether has Michael...if the 93 case played out, atleast we'd have some answers, but we don't. So let this case play out before we start placing where justice belongs.


On tha basis of making sure children are safe, we owe it to them to look into this as intensely as we would if it was a 45 year builder who lives down the street who sleeps with kids and been reported for it. And even if it was a 45 year old builder, we should remember that he's innocent until proven guilty. Sure, let's look at this case intensely, but let's look at more than just one side of the case. Let's atleast entertain the idea of him being innocent and do some research on that before we make opinions on a serious situation (for both the accuser AND the accused) such as this.

[Wesyeed]

Something something..etc...etc...
So....if he's found innocent, treat him like he's guilty anyway? I couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or not, so excuse me if I misinterpreted this comment.
etc... etc....No you are not excused; we must fight to the death. Here, you may use this rubber chicken. I will use this knife and bazooka. ha ha ha ha... But seriously, I'd give his kids to someone who doesn't live his life. Or keep an eye on him some how. Those funny things called laws might get in the way of course.

[James]

Part II of my response, and probably, my final response in this thread. Only reason it might be my final response because I've learned in arguing about this case in the past is that what I say probably won't change your opinions. If some of you already find him guilty, you'll probably continue to find him guilty even if he's found innocent. So part of me asks "what's the point of this topic", but I really only defend because I feel that there always needs to be two sides heard, especially in this topic where only one side is believed and agreed upon (that he's weird and that he's guilty). Sensible and understandable. Bear in mind some of the general comments are not directed at you. I know I can "take over" threads with my long debates - I personally am glad that you are willing to counter without feeling daunted by that! :)



The only thing that, from what I understand, is concrete is what you say about the experts. I never heard about the safe full of "nude boy material" being true OR confirmed. They were confirmed however because they are art, they aren't considered pornography until there he is charged with a form of sexual abuse. These were found in 1993 but since the case never went full term, their criteria was never relevant.

Let us not underplay the expert opinion. People had to admit it, but we are not so individual, even those who commit extensive plastic surgery. We work in similar ways and behavioural patterns are extremely relevant. You'd be hard pushed to find an expert who didn't objectively find concern in the pattern of relationships Michael has with kids.



All that has been discussed is Michael having heterosexual pornography, and having his prints AND the boy's prints on it. I also question where you got the information from about marks on his privates being correctly identified. I don't believe that was confirmed either, but if you can tell me where you heard those two facts, I'll try and look them up. The confirmation came from a documentary I believe yet to be shown in the US. "Michael Jackson's Boys". The marks are on the underside of the genitalia. I don't think I need to throw any more conotations on than that.



What's your source for this? I KNOW there have been some things against the kid's father, but I believe that your info for this may be incorrect. Especially considering that some European tabloids have even posted pictures of the former kid in recent years. He's NOT allowed to speak on the 93 case, THAT is why people can't find him, so to speak. I'd like to see this reward the press has out, and I'd like to see some of the threats.

The information isn't incorrect. He is in hiding. You won't find pictures of him in the last past years. European or American as the media can't locate him. Yes, he's blanketed from speaking about the US case, the only member who can I believe is his uncle. People can't find him is because he's spent a great deal of money hiding himself after death threats and at least one actual attempt I am aware of.

The media have a bounty effectively to try and get photos. This isn't just a court gag, this is the guy hiding himself as deep as he can for fearing for his life. Not from Jackson, but from hardcore fans.



To flip everything you said, just because MJ is a freak, we should dismiss the fact that he MIGHT be innocent? Come on, we shouldn't take ANYTHING until we've heard both sides of the story, but it sounds like you're saying to basically to take what the child (because only one is accusing him) says and barely even consider what the defense has to say. Maybe there is something wrong with the accuser and his family's background...maybe there isn't. What's wrong with taking that into as much consideration as we do anything else involving this case?
Because background of a parent cannot be taken used as a way to dispell the story of the kid. It's a VERY dangerous road to go down. Same sort of road which has been used to dispell all sorts of crime. "Well, look at their background - it's terrible, they must have stolen/raped/beaten that person."

People are using the family to dismiss what the KID says. The kid makes the allegations not the family and if we start to assume that it's the parents influence in cases such as this we might as well throw away childrens rights because they are only going to be taken on the validity of the parents.


Then you do some research on Michael Jackson. Do some research on both this case and the 93 case, do some research on BOTH sides of the story. Don't leave any stone unturned, and tell me that there isn't a chance that he could have been innocent in BOTH cases.
I never, ever argued he is 100% guilty. I've said I think he's guilty, but not once have I tried to argue that everyone should believe 100% he is.

Furthermore, all my arguements have been on a personal opinion and never once said the court should be impartial to all evidence. In all honesty my concerns that the letter of the law will be used to defeat the spirit. Expensive lawyers are paid to do just that.

I've said quite clearly one needs to really look at the potential issue here at the very least. Instead of people dispelling the kid on the basis of his parental background they should look on the worst case scenerio and ask, if this child is telling the truth, what is the potential harm being done here?

A teacher who has one allegation of sexual misconduct - minor or adult in the UK can kiss their teaching career goodbye. It doesn't have to be a lost case. Having that on their record is enough to keep them away for school for life.

So, it's interesting that at best, this is just an allegation of child abuse, that he should have no access to kids who aren't his own unsupervised again. There is a double standard in society, and I don't think it's to do with race or profession it's to do with money and control.

As I've said before, I expect a fair trial. I'm not calling for hanging. I don't even care if he's not jailed. This isn't me looking for some sort of vengence, I see a potentially dangerous man using money and power to escape justice no other person would have. When children are involved you don't mess around, if there is a risk to a child you remove that risk. Preventing access to children, whatever. I'm not picky how. This isn't a Michael Jackson witch hunt. I have no interest in Jackson as a person. I like some of his music, that's as far as it goes. My concern is perversion of justice and the continual risk of minors in his presense.

I do question whether those pushing for his innocence are doing it for objective reasons or because they don't want to believe that someone like Jackson is commiting one of society's biggest crimes. I think those who say he's innocent need to question objectively their reasons to do so.



And even if it was a 45 year old builder, we should remember that he's innocent until proven guilty. Sure, let's look at this case intensely, but let's look at more than just one side of the case. Let's atleast entertain the idea of him being innocent and do some research on that before we make opinions on a serious situation (for both the accuser AND the accused) such as this. My question is whether people would bother supporting him so valiantly if the information on him was a damning as Jackson. Is this really about people worried about Jackson's rights being abused in court (which I personally doubt considering the high profile of the case and the strict non sensational attitude of the judge) or simply people not wanting to believe that one of the most influential characters in pop history has been doing something so degrading?

I think when there is far more concern for the well being of an "innocent" pop icon than the potential damage done to countless "innocent" children, there is a need for concern within our culture. Not saying that's you, but I think that's always been an issue - particularly in 1993.

[SilverKnight]

All that has been leaked from the current case was the prosecution's side of the story. Have we heard ANYTHING from the defense? NO. They did not cross examine the boy in question...in fact, what HAVE we heard in defense of Michael? So how can anyone express an informed opinion when the only information that has been leaked and released is one-sided?Odd. What bits I've caught on CNN have levied very many key points in MJ's defense strategy; mainly smearing the kids' and their families reputations, citing they were "the guests from hell", and that they brought their own alcoholic beverages and porn with them. As for Jackson himself remaining quiet, why shouldn't he? He's been acting increasingly deranged, and although the media blows it all out of proportion, if I were his lawyer, I wouldn't want him to speak either. It's simply good sense. A defendant doesn't speak to the press for fear that they could say something that could be used against them.


So....if he's found innocent, treat him like he's guilty anyway? I couldn't tell if that was sarcasm or not, so excuse me if I misinterpreted this comment.Guilty of the crime in question or not, it is blatantly obvious that the man has psychological issues of some sort, and needs to be given professional help. I don't see Jackson's behavior going anywhere but down.


Unless he was convicted of these accusations, what would the problem be? If a person who WASN'T a thief accused of being a thief (falsly), would you always be weary of that person just because they were accused? That's unfair to the person, and it's unfair to Michael UNTIL he is found guilty of anything. As for having lawyers stopping you from getting near him, where did you get this info from? Sure, I've heard it in the National Inquirer, but yeah, that's a truly reliable source of information. You paint him out as if he hangs kids out of windows every thursday, and he's like the character "Michael Jefferson" many people saw on South Park.Slight problem in your reasoning there, SonGoku. If Jackson had gone to court, been tested by a jury of his peers, and been acquitted of his crime, your argument would be completely valid. As it stands, and someone please back me up with this, the kid in 93 accused him, the police arrested MJ on charges (they arrested him, that means they had enough physical evidence to issue a warrant, now), the kid's parents settled out of court for several million dollars, and then dropped the charges. I'm not sure about you, but I consider that wholesale bribery. How do the lawyers keep people away from him? The same way they got the kid's parents to shut up about the whole thing in the first place--money. They have the rich legal prowess to work their legal magic.


Considering that all you know from this guy is stuff you get from Tabloid papers and television shows,A word of advice: if you really, honestly want to discuss this in an adult manner, then you would be best to trash that kind of hot-headed fannish smacktalk. You're only making your position worse.

To answer your question, I don't get all my information from Tabloid papers. I don't read tabloid papers, I certainly don't trust tabloid papers, and anyone who does shouldn't be listened to, anyway. I suppose I get some of my information from television shows, but those shows consist of CNN, and BBC. Where do you get your information from, since we're asking?


how can you tell me how he is with his children when you only get a biased view of him anyway?Quid pro quo: Have you seen him with children? Have you been to Neverland Ranch? Have you even met him before? If not, then please explain to me how you can tell me how he is with children when you only get a biased view of him, anyway.


LOL...this is the ONLY thing that's irrefutable in this thread. Too bad he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion. He's weird looking and eccentric...he MUST be guilty!No, he's been accused of this before, bought the parents off with several million dollars, and now stands accused of doing it again. He isn't defacto guilty, but this certainly isn't helping.


Everything reported in tabloids, from him sleeping in hyperbolic chambers to him feeding children "Jesus Juice" is absolutely true. It's from tabloids, it can't be wrong.Again with the smacktalk. Get your facts straight before you go shooting your mouth off.


Though, I will say now that my main point in both is to consider ALL of the facts before judging him.Pfft. Pot, meet Kettle. Don't take this as a personal affront, but I believe I am considering all the facts, but it seems like the only thing you're doing is dismissing them. He's Michael Jackson, he MUST be innoncent! Right? :p


Literally ask yourselves, "what if this guy is innocent", and do some research from there. I've been looking at the Drudge report recently, and I'm just curious, what does HE know that YOU don't know to say things that side with Michael Jackson? I've been listening to Geraldo Rivera discuss this case, and I dare some of you to ask, what does HE know that I don't know to side with Michael Jackson in this case? ...then do some research. There is alot of information out there that makes me question the validity of these accusations (and SJJ knows this as this has been discussed multiple times on this forum since MJ's been charged). Wow. Research. Never thought of that. :p And, personally, I don't know about you, but I'd take the word of a police officer over that of Geraldo Rivera any day. Now, it's not to say that I think he's guilty without a shadow of a doubt; I'm not in that court, I don't know all the information, but my point is that neither do you, so you can't lecture us on our ignorance if you're in the same boat.

[SonGoku V3]

I think when there is far more concern for the well being of an "innocent" pop icon than the potential damage done to countless "innocent" children, there is a need for concern within our culture. Not saying that's you, but I think that's always been an issue - particularly in 1993. I think this is what seperates our way of thinking...I never saw him as an "innocent" pop icon. If I were to watch channels like/programs on CNN, FoxNews, ABC etc., I'd be immediately led to believe that he's guilty. If I saw "Michael Jackson's Boys" or documentaries similar, my mind would be made up. Especially being that I see little or nothing in his defense. You're right to bring up that issue, that some people might be concerned just because he is Michael Jackson and "he can't possibly do it", but my way of thinking is, "innocent, atleast until the evidence is presented in court from both sides". My position might change 6 months down the line when this case has been though everything and is near closing, but now, I'm not considering too much that is rumored, that was on a television show, etc., until or unless it's going to be presented in the case.


The media have a bounty effectively to try and get photos. This isn't just a court gag, this is the guy hiding himself as deep as he can for fearing for his life. Not from Jackson, but from hardcore fans. Heh, that's why I questioned whether what you say is incorrect or not. What has been reported is that the DA in this case is going to bring up issues from 93, and if he's going to do that - he needs Jordan Chandler (the 93 accuser). So I thought that there might have been a gag on him as of late, but like someone else said, time will tell...


People are using the family to dismiss what the KID says. The kid makes the allegations not the family and if we start to assume that it's the parents influence in cases such as this we might as well throw away childrens rights because they are only going to be taken on the validity of the parents. Actually, this is incorrect...or better yet, it's not just the one kid involved. The mother is saying that she saw MJ give these kids wine and lick the (former?) cancer patient's head. She is also stating that MJ kept the family prisoner, and the brother is stating that he saw MJ inappropiately touch his brother. Along with the child accusing MJ, the main family members have interjected themselves just as much. That is why, or atleast one of the main reasons, why the family is getting scrutinized by the defense. There is also the fact that this family went to the same psychiatrist and the same civil lawyer as the 93 victim prior to filing criminal charges against Jackson. That's just another one of the reasons why the defense is looking at the whole family. They've also accused their biological father of some untrue things (I'll try to find more info on this if you want to learn more). There are more, but it's not some kind of smear campaign against the mother just to ignore what the kid is saying, atleast it's not the kind you might be thinking it is.


Instead of people dispelling the kid on the basis of his parental background they should look on the worst case scenerio and ask, if this child is telling the truth, what is the potential harm being done here? I think that both my question of "What if MJ is innocent" and your question of "What if children really are getting hurt here" is getting lost in the sensationalism of the fact that it IS Michael Jackson/Wacko Jacko/Sideshow freak/Pop icon/however you may see him. To take something you've been saying, if it had been some 45 year old construction worker, both sides would be looked at and taken seriously before any kind of opinion is formed. Because this is a former pop megastar who's still insanely rich and is known for his weirdness, you're going to have opinions ranging from favorable to loathesome no matter how ill informed those opinions may be. That alone is overshadowing the importance of this case and this topic, and in my opinion, that is hurting both Michael's side of the story, and the accuser/possible victim's side of the story.

Finally,

Sensible and understandable. Bear in mind some of the general comments are not directed at you. I know I can "take over" threads with my long debates - I personally am glad that you are willing to counter without feeling daunted by that! :) LOL...I respect your opinion, particularly on this issue. I've seen people argue this topic up and down both pro and con, and IMO, you're one of the "cons" who keep "pros" like me objective. Like you, I don't say he's 100% innocent because not everything has been revealed on both sides, but I like to keep the idea out that he might be innocent...that he hasn't been found guilty yet.:)

[dtemplar]

I can't believe who'll might be witnesses at his trial from an article on E!Online:


If the lawyers don't watch out, Michael Jackson (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,7727,00.html)'s child molestation trial (http://www.eonline.com/News/Specials/Jackson/index.html) could turn into a Love Boat episode.

As juror questioning began Monday, Jackson's lawyers released a list of potential witnesses that reads like the Hollywood phone book and includes the likes of Elizabeth Taylor (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,15440,00.html), Kobe Bryant (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,68323,00.html), David Blaine (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,71482,00.html), Jay Leno (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,9239,00.html) and 60 Minutes newsman Ed Bradley (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,70765,00.html).

Thomas Mesereau Jr. unveiled the star-heavy list while grilling prospective jurors who will ultimately decide whether the pop star is guilty of 10 counts (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,13948,00.html) of child molestation, conspiracy, plying the boy with wine, false imprisonment and extortion.
Jackson's camp released the names to ensure that the 243 potential panelists did not have any connection to witnesses before the lawyers on both sides whittled the field down to a 12-person jury--already dubbed the "Jackson 12"--plus eight alternates.

Other marquee names that could make courtroom cameos on Jackson's behalf: Backstreet Boy Nick Carter (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,68516,00.html) and little bro Aaron (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,68609,00.html), Chris Tucker (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,32662,00.html), Barry Gibb (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/0,12,6032,00.html), Larry King (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,222,00.html), Maury Povich (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,46078,00.html) and lifestyle guru Deepak Chopra (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/0,12,34141,00.html). There could be a mini-Motown reunion--Stevie Wonder (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,17000,00.html) and Diana Ross (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,13579,00.html) are both on the roster. Quincy Jones (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,8054,00.html), who produced "Thriller" and "We Are the World," could be taking the stand, along with relatives of the late Marlon Brando (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,54,00.html), a longtime Jackson ally.

Two of Jackson's children, Paris and Prince Michael, are also listed as potential witnesses.

About the only name missing was Bubbles the Chimp.

On the flip side, the prosecution witness list lacked the name value, but gives a hint into possible trial strategies. District Attorney Tom Sneddon is aiming to call former child star Corey Feldman (http://www.eonline.com/Facts/People/Bio/0,128,5240,00.html), who has already admitted that Jackson once showed him pornography; ABC journalist Martin Bashir (whose documentary Living with Michael Jackson got this whole circus rolling to begin with and has already shot a sequel); ex-Jackson attorney Mark Geragos; ex-wife Debbie Rowe, with whom Jackson is engaged in a custody spat; Jamie Masada, the comedy club owner who introduced Jackson and his alleged victim; and the young man who was at the center of 1993 molestation allegations against Jackson that the singer settled out of court.

The former King of Pop was in the Santa Maria, California, courtroom to watch the second phase of jury selection kick off Monday. He wore a black suit with a medallion and smiled at his would-be peers.

The judge, meanwhile, cautioned all prospective jurors to be open-minded. "I have not made up my mind in this case and I want to select a jury that feels exactly the same way," Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville told the jury pool at the beginning of the session.

Melville and attorneys for both sides are expected to quiz jurors over the next two weeks before a jury is finally empanelled, weeding out so-called "stealth jurors" who may be biased for or against Jackson. This "voir dire" phase was supposed to begin last week but was postponed (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15869,00.html) following the death of Mesereau's sister. The trial itself could last upward of six months.

The postponement gave Jackson's attorneys and prosecutors extra time to study juror questionnaires (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15839,00.html) filled out two weeks ago.

Per the questionnaires, nine out of 10 would-be jurors said they had either read or watched news reports about the case, while 67 said they had either friends or acquaintances who had either known or previously met Jackson or paid a visit to his Neverland Ranch.

Of the 243 members (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15825,00.html) of the jury pool, which ranges in age from 18 to mid-80s, a majority are white, one-third are Hispanics and only a handful are African-American.

Sixteen potential jurors admitted not being able to judge someone fairly because of their race (apparently it matters to them if you're "black or white"); others confessed to being a victim of "inappropriate sexual behavior of any kind" or knowing someone who was.

Both sides have 10 peremptory challenges, in which they can dismiss jurors without offering a reason. They can also challenge and remove as many times as needed those candidates whom they feel has an obvious bias.

As of Monday afternoon, only one person had been dismissed--an 82-year-old man was allowed to leave for health reasons.
All is missing from the list are Brooke Shields, Macaulay Culkin, Rodney Allen Rippy, and Emmanuel Lewis.

[Fone Bone]

Corey Feldman admitted Jackson showed him porn? Sorry, that is a HUGE sign that a guy is a child molester when he shows a child porn.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

[Tobias]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck.

I'd give MJ about three more surgeries before this happens...

[SonGoku V3]

Corey Feldman admitted Jackson showed him porn? Sorry, that is a HUGE sign that a guy is a child molester when he shows a child porn.
Incorrect. Corey stated that Michael showed him a book on STDs.


All is missing from the list are Brooke Shields, Macaulay Culkin, Rodney Allen Rippy, and Emmanuel Lewis. The most surprising for me is Kobe and Jay Leno (WTF?!?! LOL). The most interesting is going to be Prince and Paris...these are HIS kids. They're going to show their faces and they're going to speak on their father. I think I've mentioned it here before, but yeah, this is going to be crazy.

[Fone Bone]

Incorrect. Corey stated that Michael showed him a book on STDs.
That's what the article above stated. Can you blame me for getting my facts wrong?








I'd give MJ about three more surgeries before this happens... Eeek!:eek:

[SonGoku V3]

That's what the article above stated. Can you blame me for getting my facts wrong? Considering that it's from E! Online, no:p But here's where I'm getting my info from:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/News/story?id=481709


Feldman says he had such an encounter at Jackson's home when he says they stopped there on the way to Disneyland. "We went to his apartment, and I noticed a book that he had out on his coffee table. The book contained pictures of grown men and women naked. And the book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia." Feldman said the singer sat down with him and explained the photos to him. Feldman said, "I was kind of grossed out by it. I didn't think of it as a big deal. And for all these years, I probably never thought twice about it … But in light of recent evidence … I have to say that if my son was 14 years old — 13 years old, and went to a man's apartment that was 35, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass."

[Dogbert]

That's what the article above stated. Can you blame me for getting my facts wrong?That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say the media are treating him unfairly.

[ArtificialIdiot]

I haven't read through the entire topic (although, I did enjoy the crack about the Garth Ennis novels SSJ ;)), so this may have been pointed out before. However, it's all good and well saying Jackson was abused as a child, is a mentally ill man who isn't capable of such a thing... but really, I've never seen any of his siblings being put on trial for child abuse. Nor have they lived anywhere near the insane lifestyle he has. And weren't they as equally abused as he was?

Seriously, I don't think that argument stands. Yes, he is a mentally ill man, but isn't that all the more reason he shouldn't be alone, unsupervised, with children? Seriously, he's a grown man. He should take responsibility for his own actions, and if he's too ill to even do that, then why isn't he being given the help he obviously needs? Why are people still pandering to his fantasies, making him worse not better?

[The Guitar Slayer]

If the prosecution is smart, they'll get Lisa Marie Presley. She married and divorced Jackson within two years. It's believed by many that he married her not only because she was the King's daughter, but also to do salvage work on his image after the 1993 accusations. To be fair, she may have been motivated to marry him in order to push her career forward; he was the King of Pop at the time and had a lot of industry sway. However, she ultimately divorced him for being too controlling as well as other things which haven't been specified; she got paid a pile of money to be quiet. That all said, it would be interesting to have her in there.

[Fone Bone]

I haven't read through the entire topic (although, I did enjoy the crack about the Garth Ennis novels SSJ ;)), so this may have been pointed out before. However, it's all good and well saying Jackson was abused as a child, is a mentally ill man who isn't capable of such a thing... but really, I've never seen any of his siblings being put on trial for child abuse. Nor have they lived anywhere near the insane lifestyle he has. And weren't they as equally abused as he was?

Seriously, I don't think that argument stands. Yes, he is a mentally ill man, but isn't that all the more reason he shouldn't be alone, unsupervised, with children? Seriously, he's a grown man. He should take responsibility for his own actions, and if he's too ill to even do that, then why isn't he being given the help he obviously needs? Why are people still pandering to his fantasies, making him worse not better?Why should having a mental illness mean you can't spend any time alone with children? I really hope people who know me don't think I'd hurt my neice whenever I was alone with her just because I was mentally ill.:(

[Spongebrain2.0]

I really hope people who know me don't think I'd hurt my neice whenever I was alone with her just because I was mentally ill.:(

You arn't a pedophile who molests little boys though

[Fone Bone]

You arn't a pedophile who molests little boys thoughI know. I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't make blanket statements that every person who is mentally ill should not be left alone with children. I know quite a few single mothers who are mentally ill and they would never think of hurting their children.

[ArtificialIdiot]

Why should having a mental illness mean you can't spend any time alone with children? I really hope people who know me don't think I'd hurt my neice whenever I was alone with her just because I was mentally ill.:(

Apologies there, made too much of a generalisation in a heat of the moment kind of mood I was in. I'm prone to do that. Sorry.

Anyway, to rephrase, what I was trying to get at is that if Jackson is an ill man, then isn't that all the more reason he shouldn't be allowed to have these children overnight, for long periods of time, unsupervised? I mean, these aren't even realatives we're talking about really.

I think suspicions would be high if a sane man or woman did that on as regular basis as Jackson *seems* to do it, let along somebody as obviously unstable as himself.

But meh, at the end of the day, who am I to judge?

[Fone Bone]

Apologies there, made too much of a generalisation in a heat of the moment kind of mood I was in. I'm prone to do that. Sorry.

Anyway, to rephrase, what I was trying to get at is that if Jackson is an ill man, then isn't that all the more reason he shouldn't be allowed to have these children overnight, for long periods of time, unsupervised? I mean, these aren't even realatives we're talking about really.

I think suspicions would be high if a sane man or woman did that on as regular basis as Jackson *seems* to do it, let along somebody as obviously unstable as himself.

But meh, at the end of the day, who am I to judge?Apology accepted. I think Jackson should not be allowed near children, not because he may be mentally ill, but because his behavior is weird and alarming.

[The Weed Of Cri]

I don't have a lick of pity for him. It's not like his weirdness just snuck up on him in the last couple of months. He was weird 20 years ago and has been getting progressively weirder ever since. Even if we accept as a given that his father is a creep and may have left lasting scars on his psyche, he's had a lifetime of family, friends, employees, consultants, lawyers, hangers-on and fans who have been witness to his degeneration. Are we expected to believe not one of these people ever thought to take him aside and say, "Michael, we need to talk about the little boys....now!" Even if he is mentally ill, he wasn't always so, and ultimately is responsible for most of the choices that made him what he is today.

Only a truly dedicated pedophile builds an entire amusement park on his property to entice his victims.

[dtemplar]

Macaulay Culkin, Eddie Murphy, and Smokey Robinson are now added to the list of people testifying for Michael Jackson.

[James]

Macaulay Culkin, Eddie Murphy, and Smokey Robinson are now added to the list of people testifying for Michael Jackson. That's the idea, when fighting criminal allegations, always best to bring out your star witness.. or witnesses.. and in this case literally. :p

Thing that annoys me, is child abuse isn't an obvious characteristic.. hence parents get away with it for years.. abusers don't wear dirty macs.. they don't put signs on their heads that say "I am an abuser".

In fact, most are very manipulative by nature - you have to be to encourage kids to do things which are not general kid habits. You have to gain trust.. you have to "groom" them.

So people who know him won't know what he does. You can't really tell if someone abuses kids from ones own adult relationship with a guy. I know one guy myself who since I parted company with him (I used to be in a band 10 years ago) has now got child rumours clinging to him from other sources... in fact, he was allegedly (since this comes through other sources who still know him) beaten up a few years ago for unknown reasons... part of me still can't accept he would have any interest in kids like that. He was sometimes a bit weird, but he had his girlfriends, he was fun to chat to. You just can't tell.

So despite being a movie star, Eddie, Smokie et al will have no more idea than anyone else to whether he is guilty. The only people who can really tell are children and maybe those who have experience in abuse.

Those kids who have been in such situations may not want to put themselves at the hands of livid Jackson fans as the previous kid has discovered..

In the end, if anyone was complaining about a fair trial, this is just a perfect attempt by the prosecution to distort it.

[Ekkostar]

There's a lot wrong with Michael and he needs the proper therapy and sex offender registration just like any other child molester and he needs to have his kids taken away like anybody who has been guilty of child endangerment. He's been pretty much convicted of both crimes.
I don't know if he's innocent or not, although he'll probably get away with it because he's a big, rich celebrity.

BTW, did Michael hang around Paul Rubens and Jeffrey Jones (I cannot BELIEVE that I was a fan of his for a while)? That might give me some further insight. I know that those two are accused of A LOT of odd stuff and neither one of them are as celebrated as Michael.
Is it just me or did 1980s pop culture churn out quite a few child molesters?

[Fone Bone]

There's a lot wrong with Michael and he needs the proper therapy and sex offender registration just like any other child molester and he needs to have his kids taken away like anybody who has been guilty of child endangerment. He's been pretty much convicted of both crimes.
I don't know if he's innocent or not, although he'll probably get away with it because he's a big, rich celebrity.

BTW, did Michael hang around Paul Rubens and Jeffrey Jones (I cannot BELIEVE that I was a fan of his for a while)? That might give me some further insight. I know that those two are accused of A LOT of odd stuff and neither one of them are as celebrated as Michael.
Is it just me or did 1980s pop culture churn out quite a few child molesters?As far as I know Paul Ruebens just has a penchance for erotica. What did Jeffrey Jones do?

[James]

Incorrect. Corey stated that Michael showed him a book on STDs. That is true, however, if you are grooming a child for trust, you don't start showing them major porn/your own body parts. One starts by looking at making the issue of genitalia less shocking. It's a slow gentle process. Some such people will take years to gain that trust slowly. One programme my sister saw the other day implied some will start younger than the age they like as to get that trust at their target age. That to me is a scary thought, but it highlights the methodical and careful nature of those who abuse. I'm sure not all are, but I think to be successful as an abuser - or any human criminal activity, one has to be good at manipulating and controlling.

As a manipulation technique, and with any grooming, the process is slow. Introducing subject matter generally and non specifically.

Of course it could be utter co-incidence and he may have had some urge to get Corey to start thinking about genitalia. Corey knows the details, and as the article listed quotes him of saying: "But in light of recent evidence … I have to say that if my son was 14 years old — 13 years old, and went to a man's apartment that was 35, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass."

So he thinks it's odd too.

I think the reason it's good to press on the negative aspects of this case is because as people find it easier to see the good in "stars" than the bad. They can happily read about the offender who lives far away because they don't know them, but in a way, I guess we feel we know "stars". We see them on TV and in our books. We perhaps know their lives better than those of our uncles and distant family. Part of us doesn't want to believe that people we know, who in a way we look at as "extended family" could be involved in crimes we associate with pictures in papers, of the abstract "sick perverts" we imagine living in the recesses of our society and not running parks for kids.

I think for that reason a lot of people refuse to believe in the notion of guilt and will sway in favour of Jackson over the families and more specifically, the child.

Personally, I can't see much evidence from his history/profiling/actions for Jackson's innocence, and I'll be dumbstruck if in some afterlife if I find out he was. In which case, he'll get a written apology from myself. :P

[Sandoz]

As far as I know Paul Ruebens just has a penchance for erotica. What did Jeffrey Jones do? A couple years ago Jeffrey Jones was convicted (not just accused) of possessing child pornography and employing a minor to pose for pornographic pictures. He's now a registered sex offender.

[Ekkostar]

A couple years ago Jeffrey Jones was convicted (not just accused) of possessing child pornography and employing a minor to pose for pornographic pictures. He's now a registered sex offender.

It was in 2002 because that was the year I discovered his film work (Stay Tuned, Easy Money, Houseguest and Beetlejuice among quite a few). For a few months I thought he was a good actor, but the whole molestation thing made me embarrased to be a fan, even a closet one.

[dtemplar]

All I'm saying is that it ain't no trial, it's more out of an episode of The Love Boat.

[Fone Bone]

A couple years ago Jeffrey Jones was convicted (not just accused) of possessing child pornography and employing a minor to pose for pornographic pictures. He's now a registered sex offender.Then I'm glad Ferris Bueller won.

Ooooooh, Yeeeeaaaahhh!

[Dogbert]

There's a lot wrong with Michael and he needs the proper therapy and sex offender registration just like any other child molester and he needs to have his kids taken away like anybody who has been guilty of child endangerment.So I take it you think he's guilty. At least wait to see what happens in the trial. All you're going on is reports by media filled with bias.


I don't know if he's innocent or not, although he'll probably get away with it because he's a big, rich celebrity.If you don't know if he's guilty they why are you saying he needs sex offend reg. and that he'll get away with "it."

I'm not trying to argue with you, Dinkadoo. I just think that your post is a perfect example of how the media have influenced public opinion. Especially because of what you said about him getting off because he's a celebrity. Even if he's found not guilty, he'll still be guilty in the public's eye because of the media.

[SilverKnight]

Even if he's found not guilty, he'll still be guilty in the public's eye because of the media.That type of problem existed long before the "media" ever did.

"The breath of accusation kills an innocent name." -Mary Shelley

[Dogbert]

That type of problem existed long before the "media" ever did.

"The breath of accusation kills an innocent name." -Mary ShelleyYou are right there, but having big media news made the problem worse. What would be the community thinking someone is guilty without proof is now the entire world being led to that conclusion.

[dtemplar]

UPDATE: The jury has been selected for the trial.

[James]

You are right there, but having big media news made the problem worse. What would be the community thinking someone is guilty without proof is now the entire world being led to that conclusion.
I don't think that is utterly true. I think there is far more than conjecture here. The difference is whether it can be proved in a court of law. Remember that a court of law is not absolute, merely a way of establishing a verdict to the best of ability for which the issue to conform within social law.

I mean, look at the jury. The defense are hoping to appeal to the independent thinker according to reports, not playing race but aiming for people who have had false accusations or have had issues with authority/government. The prosecution is looking for jury members with family history of child abuse or molestation.

Neither side aims to be objective. Heck, a star cast of witnesses who have no idea into the defendant's life is hardly making for a fair trial. They are up there for star status.

So in the end, the court legal system isn't absolute, so waiting on their verdict will be neither total proof or guilt or innocence. In the end, you go with your gut and as much of the evidence you can personally find to decide for yourself. The more educated and details you aqquire the more likely you'll find an answer. Child abuse is a lot more clear cut than "did x murder y". Motive is less ambiguous and characteristics in abuse are more inherant than the many reasons for murder. So in the end, this isn't like OJ. The battle of the courts will more likely be a battle of who has the better legal team than any definitive truth behind a verdict.

For me, I've heard nothing yet that makes me doubt objectively he's guility of charges. The outcome of the court may vindicate that belief but it will make it no more absolute. That's the nature of our Western Legal system folks!

[Ekkostar]

So I take it you think he's guilty. At least wait to see what happens in the trial. All you're going on is reports by media filled with bias.

If you don't know if he's guilty they why are you saying he needs sex offend reg. and that he'll get away with "it."

I'm not trying to argue with you, Dinkadoo. I just think that your post is a perfect example of how the media have influenced public opinion. Especially because of what you said about him getting off because he's a celebrity. Even if he's found not guilty, he'll still be guilty in the public's eye because of the media.

Sure, but look at it this way, O.J. got off free and he's out there playing golf somewhere.

[Dogbert]

So in the end, the court legal system isn't absolute, so waiting on their verdict will be neither total proof or guilt or innocence. In the end, you go with your gut and as much of the evidence you can personally find to decide for yourself.Exactly. "In the end..." is the key part of that. People are judging without hearing evidence first. All the court will decide is if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt or not. I don't have a problem with people believing Jackson is guilty, but I think it's way to early to make such a conclusion.


Sure, but look at it this way, O.J. got off free and he's out there playing golf somewhere."O.J." didn't get off free because he was a celebrity. The court case was a mess. Improper chain of evidence, racist/lying police officers, and just general mistakes resulted in his not guilty verdict. And, technically, thanks to civil court, he got off for several million dollars, not free. :p

[dtemplar]

Since the jury has already been selected as well as the alternates. They say the trial will start on Monday.

[SonGoku V3]

Since the jury has already been selected as well as the alternates. They say the trial will start on Monday. Yep, no more speculation, biased television shows with Bashir, no more media spin anymore (well, there will probably still be media spin either way :sweat: )...time for the actual case, and actual facts.

[James]

Exactly. "In the end..." is the key part of that. People are judging without hearing evidence first. All the court will decide is if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt or not. I don't have a problem with people believing Jackson is guilty, but I think it's way to early to make such a conclusion.
I'm not seeing much of that. In fact, a few years ago, the public were in far greater support. A similar thread here was conducted and there was FAR more supporters. The tide has changed because of the substance in allegations, I don't think people are judging beyond evidence, I think people are judging on the fact that various sources are supporting a similar scenerio. As I said, I don't think a court is ever the be all and end all truth anyhow, simply by how the system conducts the event as a "battle" with both defense and prosecution trying to distort and manipulate in each's favour.



Yep, no more speculation, biased television shows with Bashir, no more media spin anymore (well, there will probably still be media spin either way :sweat: )...time for the actual case, and actual facts.
You will be hard pushed to get "facts" which is why it will to some degree always be speculative and down to personal opinion. Substantiating any activity which happens singularly - especially with children and after a period of time - is hard. In the end I think it will always come down to whether you feel that people who provide the evidence - for either side - is legitimate in what they say.