Indeed, we're going to need to amend Godwin's Law to include the Jackson family now, no doubt ... [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]To me it's all water under the bridge now anyway. He's dead; even IF, through the most twisted and undetectable of circumstances, he was indeed a pedophile... he is now a dead pedophile. Case closed.[/QUOTE]
pma · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
True - I don't. A "profile" does not prove anything. In a courtroom you need solid proof. It's totally unnecessary for you to have trusted MJ, it was up to the jury to evaluate the presented evidence and come to a verdict. It's the ultimate nightmare to be charged with a crime you did not commit and be dragged through a public trial. I happen to believe that the verdict was correct (innocent until proven guilty) but even if I would not believe it was correct I would still respect the jury's decision. It would be totally different if they had found someone guilty and I would not believe it - in this case I would challenge the verdict because the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt anytime.
The golden casket - you can hardly blame MJ for that :-)
[/QUOTE]
Barb, they had superb evidence. Just read through this document
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf
where the prosecution demonstrates the defendant's (Jackson) intent, plan, scheme and motive to molest boys. I especially enjoy the evidence mentioned on page 5
Item #347a: Power Mac G4 located in Jackson's master bedroom; which contained:
19 graphic nude female images
Records of multiple visits to the following websites:
www.varsityteens.com
www.adoptablekids.com
www.adoption.com
Oh my GOD! Adoption.com and and adoptablekids and a legal pornsite, nude female images!
Now if you ever visited an adoption website, you clearly did it because
a) you wanted to adopt a kid
b) were planning on adopting a kid
c) you wanted to molest a kid
d) you wanted to adopt a kid and molest him
e) all of the above
Legal gay/straight porn and collectible art books that contain nudes etc. various books owned by people, who mostly do not engage in sex with children. Is that really the best they came up with? I'm just glad that when I was single, I was never suspected of something like this, since I'm sure with all that porn I had on my pc etc. I could have been profiled in a similar fashion. And I have been nude in saunas with other people's children... So they probably would have had a better case against me anyway.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]pma wrote: [/b]
"Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help
the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on
the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple
wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many
magazines and books..."
So now he is SELFISH since he spent money no himself.
Other people with money never do that, right? They give it away, don't they? None of them bathe in luxury, live in luxurious homes. In fact most wealthy people are communists and share their wealth to poor working-class people after a hard days work, right... They all feel the sorrow of the world on their shoulders when they fall asleep in their fancy homes.
Let's just ignore the charity work which far superceeds the contributions of most wealthy people.
Let's ignore the entry into the GUinness Book of records as he Pop Star who supports the most number of charity organizations. Let's face it, he was a selfish child-molester and we all knew him well enough to judge him and concentrate on tearing his kids apart so they can't possible grow up sane.
Oh but let's all remember to speculate and judge thathis kids are not his, because that's certainly any of our business. We have the right to know, don't we as he was like family to us, in the "perverted Uncle"-sense. Or perhaps we could all go and fuck ourselves up the arse, I know we would if we could.
Why is there such a lack of common sense when people express their views on Michael Jackson? I mean, not even Hitler or Stalin can raise such pointless debate and exaggerated emotions within people as Jackson can.
[/QUOTE]
What a bizzare reply. "Other people" quite happily spend money without claiming to be some sort of savior. His wealth and fame hides some pretty disturbing things but it's clear that because he's a good singer with a "cute" image some are prepared to ignore the more disturbing aspects of his life. If he was some average joe, I doubt there would be as much of a defence of hime. To give some examples, people defend him because he had a disturbed chidlhood. However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation.
I have no particular 'bone to pick' with MJ -- he was a great entertainer and great self-publiciser -- but a lot of people appear to be being manipulated by the image. As I said, if he wasn't a wealthy singer, I doubt anyone would be defending him with the same blinkered mindset. Look at it this way: he's someone you've never met, he's not a brother or friend, all you know about him is what he wants you to know, and the only "relationship" you've ever had with him is a business transaction, conducted via a third party (you bought his cd from a record store). And yet people are gnashing and wailing with grief in the streets as if their wife/husband/child has just died. Total media manipulation in the post-modern world. Nothing is real any more, it's all false emotion created by ad agencies. Hence the gold coffin: nice touch, should sell a lot of copy. now what's the next angle the media and the Jacksons can exploit?
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
During the trial an expert on child molesters said they have a profile: child molesters win the trust of parents, put themselves in a position where they can be alone with children, and then they prey on them. Jackson fits this profile: he wins trust through his "backstory" (the non-sexual child who never grew up), he has a home that's been turned into a child's theme park (even though he wasn't a parent when the rides were built), and then there were the accusations of child abuse which, first time round, he bought himself out of.
He admitted in the Martin bashir interview that he slept in the same bed as "many kids" (a direct quote from MJ)that weren't his.
I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.
[/QUOTE]
Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... MJ was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public.
And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again.
It's interesting - and sad - to note how each side sees it so clearly depending on the way their personal views have colored it.
Holly2003 · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b]
Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... M
[b]Do you sleep with them in the same bed too? Sorry to be blunt, but that's what MJ did. That's the least of what he did.
[/b]
J was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public.
[b]MJ put himself in that position. Why he did it is what we're talking about. There's certainly enough evidence there, from his own mouth, for me not to trust him with my kids.[/b]
And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again.
[b]The truth is you have no idea why she was on stage apart from what youv'e been told by the Jacksons. For all you know, her words could've been scripted. As I said, you disbelieve one above, who you say "victimised" MJ, and chose to believe the words of another at face value. And she is being paraded in front of the media: how can she not be, standing on stage in front of an audience of 17000 and TV audeince in the billions (if you beleive the hype).[/b]
[/QUOTE]
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b]
Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... M
[b]Do you sleep with them in the same bed too? Sorry to be blunt, but that's what MJ did. That's the least of what he did.
[/b]
J was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public.
[b]MJ put himself in that position. Why he did it is what we're talking about. There's certainly enough evidence there, from his own mouth, for me not to trust him with my kids.[/b]
And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again.
[b]The truth is you have no idea why she was on stage apart from what youv'e been told by the Jacksons. For all you know, her words could've been scripted. As I said, you disbelieve one above, who you say "victimised" MJ, and chose to believe the words of another at face value. And she is being paraded in front of the media: how can she not be, standing on stage in front of an audience of 17000 and TV audeince in the billions (if you beleive the hype).[/b]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I don't choose to believe what I've been told by the Jacksons. In fact, the Jacksons haven't said anything. Instead, I watched it occur and Paris clearly said she wanted to speak, so I choose to believe my own eyes. However, you choose to believe she was forced to go up there. As I said, each side sees it the way their personal views have colored it.
As for me or any adult sleeping in the same bed with someone else's kids... that wasn't part of the profile as you explained it. You said he fit the profile because he gained the trust of the parents and found time to be alone with the kids. My point was that I and countless others fit that profile. It would be the child's word against the adult's.
And it wasn't only MJ who put himself in that position. It was also the parents who allowed their children to sleepover. It seemed there was trust on both sides. However, trust or not, if my daughter were not at home I would not have someone else's kid sleepover. Period. So did he place himself in the position to be accused? Yes. Does that mean the accusation is accurate? No. But, obviously, you and many others will see it as perverse regardless what the jury or people like me have to say about it.
YourValentine · Member since
Great posts, Pete - I agree with every word.
Holly wrote the following:
"What a bizzare reply. "Other people" quite happily spend money without claiming to be some sort of savior. His wealth and fame hides some pretty disturbing things but it's clear that because he's a good singer with a "cute" image some are prepared to ignore the more disturbing aspects of his life. If he was some average joe, I doubt there would be as much of a defence of hime. To give some examples, people defend him because he had a disturbed chidlhood. However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation."
Well the published image I saw the last 15 years was not a good singer with a cute image - he was protrayed as a freak and no allegation and story was too outrageous to be published: the alleged affair with a chimp, the alleged oxygen tent, his marriages, plastic surgeries - the list has no end. Please do not tell me he had any advantage over the average Joe. Certainly he was unusual to say the least, maybe paranoid and hypochondric, I do not know. But he was NOT everybody's darling, mainly not in his home country. If Joe Public had been acquitted that would have been it. Nobody would have appeared on TV after his death to repeat the dismissed charges.
About his kids at the memorial service: in my family we take our children to the service from the age of six approx. We feel we should not keep them away from what is essential in life and they have a right to say good bye as any adult family member, too. The fact that the Jackson memorial was huge and millions of people were watching does not take away the right of the children to be present at their fathers's memorial service. I do not remeber that people were particularly pissed off when Princes William and Harry had to lwalk behind the casket of their mother in the most prominent spot of the whole funeral. I do not remember that the family was accused of parading the boys for some hidden agenda. It's nobody's business and a pure family decision.
Holly wrote:
"I have no particular 'bone to pick' with MJ -- he was a great entertainer and great self-publiciser -- but a lot of people appear to be being manipulated by the image. As I said, if he wasn't a wealthy singer, I doubt anyone would be defending him with the same blinkered mindset. Look at it this way: he's someone you've never met, he's not a brother or friend, all you know about him is what he wants you to know, and the only "relationship" you've ever had with him is a business transaction, conducted via a third party (you bought his cd from a record store). And yet people are gnashing and wailing with grief in the streets as if their wife/husband/child has just died. Total media manipulation in the post-modern world. Nothing is real any more, it's all false emotion created by ad agencies. Hence the gold coffin: nice touch, should sell a lot of copy. now what's the next angle the media and the Jacksons can exploit?"
Just for the record: I do not own a single MJ record and I am not planning to buy any. I can see the genius of the musician but it's just not my music. I am in no grief about the death of MJ but I am majorly annoyed by all the mud throwing and sensationalising the death of Michael Jackson. I just think it's not right and that's my only reason to voice my opinion.
pma · Member since
[b]Holly wrote: "However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation."
[/b]
Well, I for one fail to see the similarity in comparing a girl saying she loved her recently
deceased father and praised his ability as a father with someone accusing the same person of child molestation. I would find these two comparable, if Paris Jackson's speech was allegedly on her by her parent, and her confession of love was possibly extracted from her under the influence of sodium amytal and later elaborated under evaluation by a psychologist. Sorry, out of line there. The point is, we have no actual reason to disbelieve Paris Jackson, but we have some reason to disbelieve the father and son pairing of Evan & Jordan (that would be the other testimonies in behalf of Jackson from the likes of Culkin, Robson etc.). The two simply are not comparable and I find comparing them outrageous at best. But perhaps I miss the point.
[b]"all you know about him is what he wants you to know,"[/b]
In honesty, all I know about him is what the Santa Barbara County Superior Court wants me to know about him through their public record. Yes, as if MJ or any celebrity had total control of his public image anyway...
YourValentine wrote:
[b]"Just for the record: I do not own a single MJ record and I am not
planning to buy any. I can see the genius of the musician but it's just
not my music. I am in no grief about the death of MJ but I am
majorly annoyed by all the mud throwing and sensationalising the death
of Michael Jackson. I just think it's not right and that's my only
reason to voice my opinion."[/b]
Couldn't have said it better myself. As for owning records, although now that my local vinyl
shops have already on a few occasions added extra euro's into their MJ
record prices, I probably won't buy my first MJ record either. That is unless I give into buying a cd...
-fatty- 2850 · Member since
I've just had the most almighty row with my missus. We were supposed to be going to a wedding this weekend and she left it to me to organise a baby-sitter. This morning she asked if had found anyone yet and I told her to relax as I'd organised it weeks ago and arranged for a 50 year old man to sit with the kids. She thought it was a bit strange for a middle aged guy to be a babysitter but I told her she was being stupid. This is the 21st century after all.
I then told her the guy was black to see if that would rattle her cage and I could accuse her of being a racist, but she didn't bite.
She asked if this guy had any experience looking after kids and I assured her that before the trial he had kids round his house all the time. Then she started screaming at me to explain what I meant by "the trial". I told her that the guy had been accused of molesting kids a few years back but he was found not guilty.
Then she starts going on about there being no smoke without fire, you know, the way hysterical women do. I had to slap her around the face to calm her down and when I awoke three hours later in the accident & emergency department she was still going on about it. Women, eh?
I explained to her that just because a guy has a bunch of kids around his house for a sleep-over, it doesn't make him a peadophile. But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake.
By then she was crying and talking about moving back to her mother's so I put an arm around her and told her not to worry. The whole thing probably only came about because of the young lad he paid the money to. She looked at me as if I was some kind of nutter and asked me to explain myself.
Speaking slowly and taking care not to use any big words I explained how a few years before he went to trial (and was found not guilty, I reminded her) another young guy had accused him of sexual molestation. She asked if he had been found not guilty of that charge. I just tousled her hair and explained that he had done even better than that by paying the kid $22million on the condition that he dropped the charges and kept his mouth shut.
It was at this point that my wife tried to smother me with a pillow and had to be restrained by three nurses and a hospital porter.
Well it's all academic now as I've since discovered that the baby-sitter died last week so we wont be able to go to the wedding after all. The wife still isn't speaking to me and says I'm a liar because I told her the guy was black.
fatty.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]
But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake.
[/QUOTE]
I see the general point you're trying to make, but what does this paragraph have to do with Michael Jackson?
-fatty- 2850 · Member since
It was a reference to the books which the police seized from Michael Jackson's bedroom, the one he shared with children during those innocent sleep-overs.
[b]'Boys Will Be Boys,' Containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. the book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson;
'In Search Of Young Beauty,' containing photographs of children, boys and girls; some nude;
'The Boy, A Photographic Essay," containing black-and-white photos of boys; some nude;
[/b]I haven't seen the books myself but, given the description of the titles in MJ's library. I'm guessing that they hail from a time when it was considered avant garde to have children pose for erotic photographs and due to some legal loophole they're not technically considered to be child pornography. The fact remains that MJ kept naked photographs of children in his bedroom. Of course he kept a lot of gay and straight porn too and I'm not going to judge the guy on that but I think it's naive to think that MJ's interest in children was entirely innocent.
fatty.
john bodega · Member since
I still think MJ was at least a tiny bit dodgy. I've done so much reading and heard so much doubletalk, conflicting testimony and wobbly hearsay that I no longer have an opinion on just how dodgy he was. As he's dead and has been for a few weeks now, it's not a problem anymore. If people truly have any concern for the kids involved in this, then they should limit their statements to "I hope somebody takes them away from that hideous witch of an ex-wife".
April · Member since
Do you consider Michael Jackson the greatest artist of the 80s? The symbol of the 80s? I am starting to believe he was.
Major Tom · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]
I've just had the most almighty row with my missus. We were supposed to be going to a wedding this weekend and she left it to me to organise a baby-sitter. This morning she asked if had found anyone yet and I told her to relax as I'd organised it weeks ago and arranged for a 50 year old man to sit with the kids. She thought it was a bit strange for a middle aged guy to be a babysitter but I told her she was being stupid. This is the 21st century after all.
I then told her the guy was black to see if that would rattle her cage and I could accuse her of being a racist, but she didn't bite.
She asked if this guy had any experience looking after kids and I assured her that before the trial he had kids round his house all the time. Then she started screaming at me to explain what I meant by "the trial". I told her that the guy had been accused of molesting kids a few years back but he was found not guilty.
Then she starts going on about there being no smoke without fire, you know, the way hysterical women do. I had to slap her around the face to calm her down and when I awoke three hours later in the accident & emergency department she was still going on about it. Women, eh?
I explained to her that just because a guy has a bunch of kids around his house for a sleep-over, it doesn't make him a peadophile. But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake.
By then she was crying and talking about moving back to her mother's so I put an arm around her and told her not to worry. The whole thing probably only came about because of the young lad he paid the money to. She looked at me as if I was some kind of nutter and asked me to explain myself.
Speaking slowly and taking care not to use any big words I explained how a few years before he went to trial (and was found not guilty, I reminded her) another young guy had accused him of sexual molestation. She asked if he had been found not guilty of that charge. I just tousled her hair and explained that he had done even better than that by paying the kid $22million on the condition that he dropped the charges and kept his mouth shut.
It was at this point that my wife tried to smother me with a pillow and had to be restrained by three nurses and a hospital porter.
Well it's all academic now as I've since discovered that the baby-sitter died last week so we wont be able to go to the wedding after all. The wife still isn't speaking to me and says I'm a liar because I told her the guy was black.
fatty.
[/QUOTE]
There were never any PROOF. Caughing up 22$ not to go through that OJ-circus seems like a good deal to me.
Sure he was strange, sure he had SUSPICIOS litterature in his bedroom, sure he lived a life not many would get away with. But that´s who he was.
OJ's trial was only a circus because he got away with it. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]Honestly. OJ "I Didn't Kill My Wife But Here's How I Would Have Done It If I Did" "I've Never Seen So Much Blood" Simpson. There's justice![/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]I'm glad he's finally put away. Even if it's for something unrelated.[/QUOTE]
