Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Michael Jackson
Does anybody think that Michael Jackson is guilty?
Some people say he's innocent until proven guilty. But I don't get it when the guy admits to allowing young boys to sleep in his bed and holds their hands on Bashir's interview.
Also, I don't understand why he paid that child so much money a few years back to keep quiet - Surely Michael would want to prove is innocence. (I know I would want to prove I was innocent, especially with such allogations being made).
Any opinions? :-)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mowbray. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In view of the intense interest in the Michael Jackson court case and because the legal position in relation to comments about ongoing trials in the USA is more relaxed, we are making an exception to our general rule that you may not post anything relating to any ongoing or pending court case or where there are court imposed restrictions on identification in place in any English speaking jurisdiction. It is acceptable to comment on the Michael Jackson trial and issues surrounding it but please remember that the site terms and conditions still apply and we reserve the right to suspend or terminate the accounts of anyone breaching these.
I think he's innocent until proven guilty. Personnally, I do think he's a complete weirdo and am no fan of his music, but whether or not he's done anything illegal is another matter. I agree the previous pay-off is dubious - who would pay to keep something quiet if it never happened, or was an outright lie? To not learn any lessons from that first claim, but to continue with ill-advised behaviour such as he has, shows the man has no grasp on reality. I find the whole thing (court case, hero worship surrounding him, his facial features, his demeanour) deeply unsettling.
I totally agree with Kick, he has no grasp on reality therefore thinks its ok to act in a childlike way for instance blowing a kiss to the court-room when he appeared yesterday (crackers!). He has no idea how serious this case is as he obviously presumes he will be vindicated.
Whatever happens it does not excuse the fact that a 44 yr old guy has been sharing beds with kids. If this wasn't Michael Jackson we would would expect the offender to get a lengthy sentence.
if you go to silentlambs.org you can read about his childhood and see that he thinks his behaviour is normal..as thats what sort of behaviour he knows is right..i personally dont think its right and he probably has mental health issues..i wouldnt let my children share a room with him and thats for sure..as you say why pay someone off if you are innocent..no doubt all the sordid details will be revealed..
Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty - that is his right under law, so my opinion doesn't really come into it.
I am aware, as is anyone who either likes music, or reads nespapers, that MJ likes to put forward this 'childlike' image, but it is totally at odds with his feared reputation as a negotiator, as Sony found out apres 'Thriller', when he screwed the highest artist royalty rate in history out of the company for his new contract - nothing 'childlike' about that.
The worrying aspect of this case is that Mr Jackson appears not to acknowledge the reasons why society as a whole regards aspects of his 'childlike' behaviour as unacceptable, and his inability or unwillingness to accept that he is the one who is out of step with the world, not the other way round.
At best his behaviour has been seriously inappropriate, and at worst, criminal, but the wider picture implicates the parents of the children involved and the employees at Neverland, all of whom must have been aware of the situations these children were in, and no-one seems to have been willing or able to call a halt to it - with or without Mr Jackson's co-operation.
Michael Jackson may be judged guilty, or not, but there are plenty of others who are not on trial, but whose guilt is clear in the creation and tacit agreement with the circumstances that have resulted in this trial.
Innocent until guilty. And I do find it sad that a man cannot be in the same bed with a child without certain allegations being made. He paid the money to avoid a lengthy and horrific trial. It could easily be turned around and asked what parent would accept money in lieu of punishing a man who abused their child. Swings and roundabouts and I await the verdict (I predict not guilty for various reasons) with interest.
EL D - you find it abit sad that such allegations are being made when a grown man sleeps with a boy.
WHy on earth would a grown man want to sleep with a boy????? I am not saying that Jackson 'did' anything, but in this day of age this should not happen. Michael Jackson should behave like a responsible adult.
El D - why would any man want to be in bed with a child that is not his son/nephew/godson etc? And why ONLY boys??? How many men do youknwo of who would liek to share a bed with a child who is nto a relative?? Do you have friends like that? Somehow I seriously doubt it. You can show love and caring for any child in several hundred ways without sleeping with them. That a grown man (be it MJ or anyone else) does not realise that this will raise questions is, frankly, unbelieveable. That's not being childlike, that's being dangerously niaive.
I am surprised that no one seems to know why he paid vast amounts of money to buy out his last accuser. he did so because the police took detailed pictures of his genitalia including when it is aroused, as his accuser, a child, had stated that he will be able to describe any blemishes (Jackson with his skin condition is likely to have a few) in Michael Jacksons genital area including underside of his penis. When Jackson knew that this was the case he took out his chequebook. This was revealed in a documentary shown on channel 4. So it was not to avoid a lengthy cortcase that he bought his way out it was because of the certainty of a conviction. This time around i dnot think that evidence is presentable....and remember OJ.....i rest my case.
Just a thought........
Is there anything wrong with a father or mother sleeping in the same bed with theirchild? Is this dependent on the age? Does it depend on the sex of the parent / child? Does this depend on biology (eg stepfather / adoptive parents etc).
Personally, I think not (on the assumption that there is no incest involved and it is purely an act of protection / love etc)
If someone feels they are the father of all children around the world - is there a difference.
I also think that it is a shame that everyones first reaction is that he must be a paedophile. Someone I once worked with was once arrested outside a school on charges of kidnapping. It actually turned out that he was just trying to get access to his daugther and the ex wife called the police. It was amazing to watch everyone at work suddenly say how 'they thought he was a bit weird' etc.
Parents now have to be so careful about the situations they can get themselves into - I am sure that most people are aware of the over zealous Boots store that contacted police after developing photos of a girl in the bath tub.
It seems a sad world, where innocence and fun are second string to attempted paedophilia.
And Dom Tuk......firstly after one of your previous posts I am unsure as to your accuracy of anything you post, and secondly, if the police took pictures, it would still involve a lenghty court case, so not really sure of your point?
I suspect that in the last case where he paid off - it would be the equivalent of you accusing me, and me paying you �1000.00 (about my equivalent to what he would have paid- me not having the millions in the bank) An inconvenient amount, but hardly a major amount.
Oneeyedvic you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion about what i post and the accuracy of it. I merely provided a point that was raised in a recent documentary and if you wish not to believe it you are welcome to that too. As for just a blanket statement about some previous post and its inaccuracy....well i am sorry but the concepts that i raised in previous questions are not inaccurate and come from my daily dealings with such situations. Needless to say i meet very very nasty people regularly in my line of work. this perhaps makes me very sceptical about humanity on the whole.....so i would not be very certain that taking a view that you suggest in your post that innocence and fun in this life are somehow lost is entirely correct.
(The following is all hypothetical, not about Michael Jackson)
The trial is not about Michael Jackson (who gives a ****?), it's about those kids and those like them. Sleeping in bed with kids should never be about the perpetrator (ooh, is he bad, is he good, was it for fun, was it innocent?) it should be about the kids. Who cares what his motive was? When these kids hit 18, THEY suddenly have to start resolving for themselves the fact that among the adults-who-loved-them-for-themselves, were some who quite probably (or even in their minds possibly) liked to share their beds. How would you feel if I told you now that when you were 4, some guy (we put up with him cos he was a bit weird), liked to come and share your bed.
WTF????? When did adults sleeping with kids become acceptable. If I found an adult who liked to share beds with kids and went around admitting it, I would put them on a 'RISK TO CHILDREN' register immediately just on that basis alone. It's not about degree of sexual action: its about conformance with accepted boundaries.
The trial is not about Michael Jackson (who gives a ****?), it's about those kids and those like them. Sleeping in bed with kids should never be about the perpetrator (ooh, is he bad, is he good, was it for fun, was it innocent?) it should be about the kids. Who cares what his motive was? When these kids hit 18, THEY suddenly have to start resolving for themselves the fact that among the adults-who-loved-them-for-themselves, were some who quite probably (or even in their minds possibly) liked to share their beds. How would you feel if I told you now that when you were 4, some guy (we put up with him cos he was a bit weird), liked to come and share your bed.
WTF????? When did adults sleeping with kids become acceptable. If I found an adult who liked to share beds with kids and went around admitting it, I would put them on a 'RISK TO CHILDREN' register immediately just on that basis alone. It's not about degree of sexual action: its about conformance with accepted boundaries.
I would like to think he is innoncent but have my doubts.Why does he invite boys into his room? why not adults to stay over and just have children there during the daytime with adult supervision.He is a grown man for heaven sakes. What does he think hes playing at? has he not learnt from his earlier allegation? I feel reas really sorry for the man and hop to gd hope to god he gets help whether he is fond guilty or not!
Okay Dom Tuk, I apologise - point is that in the last case,it is doubtful that anyone will ever know the full story. Fact is he paid the kid off - there has been much speculation in the media, but as in previous post, if you believed what you read in the papers, well.......
Everyone deals with scumbags all the time (lucky I guess) that you have never served on a jury and obviously believe in trial by media.
Personally, I believe that he is innocent until proven guilty (but then I don't read Tabloid trash either).
Oh, and MargeB - sorry, at 18 if I told you that you had to share a bed with your mother until you were 6 do you think you would be scared for life? What about if you shared a bed with another child? What about if the lodger gave you a bath? These were all common things hat happened in poorer parts of this country until around 40 - 50 years ago. People will only think something is bad if society tells them it is bad.
Children now think they are living in poverty (and are scarred for life) if they only have 2 tvs. Tell a kid 20 years ago the same thing.......(or maybe I was emotionally scarred as a child)
I agree with previous posts in that people are quck to think the worst re sleeping with children. But the fact is that the first case with MJ - whether based on truth or lies - damaged his reputation hugely. You would think that somebody, somewhere in his hgue and overpaid advisory team would point this out to MJ, and perhaps advise that he curb his ways. If only for the very reason that othes have alluded to....ie the world is a suspicious and accusatiory place now.
"If someone feels they are the father of all children around the world there is a difference" OK, but why no girls sharing his bed??? If you love all children, and want to make them happy and loved, why mostly boys?
I'm not saying this makes him guilty or innocent. I think it's just weird, and at odds with the defence that is often parroted out by those how support him.
Oneyedvic, that's obviously not what I meant. I was talking within context, ie grown mature adults sleeping with kids, especially 40 something men with young kids who are more or less strangers (not that I think it should go on with relatives, but this is even worse). Not talking of some 6 year old lassie sleeping with her mum.
I can see where you are coming from Vic, and I do think that that we are all far to wary and quick to call people paediophiles and perverts these days, which is a great shame. However, in this particular case I personally feel that Michael Jackson had very suspect motives - sleeping with strange boys in the same bed was never acceptable, not even when I was young (a long time ago!). But equally suspect are the parents and families of the children that were allegedly mollested.
