OT - Michael Jackson

[Munchlaxatives]

I guess no one really minds the whole pedophilia thing? Odd... I must be the only one bothered by that stuff.

He was never convicted, I was never convinced by the evidence produced.

[fisterkev]

Of course. And I suppose if the guy down the street sunk millions of dollars into a kiddie playland, explicitly said that he preferred the company of children, had frequent sleepovers with children, who slept in his bed, and drank his wine and other alcoholic bevereges... You'd be fine with that? I mean, if it was just some guy down the street and not a famous musician?

I suppose you'd be just fine sending your kid over for one of those "sleepovers"? He's about as innocent as O.J., so I'd hope you'd sleep real well knowing your child was sharing that man's bed.

Please. Dude was a pedophile who paid off his victims families. They went to great pains to extort him ($20 million is a pretty big payoff to alot of folks who don't value their own children's purity).

I've seen enough death in my lifetime and want no more of it, but I won't mourn those who preyed upon others for their fulfillment, especially one who took advantage of children. Sorry if that makes be a bad guy, but I for one will not glorify his actions.

*BAM* someone said it.

[HTown_TMac]

Innocent until proven guilty...

Well, he was never proven guilty.

[fisterkev]

In a court of law, no. Neither was OJ. Not proven guilty in a court of law does not equal innocence in fact.

[aznkillabeezZz]

Nah i dont think that Jackson molested any kids. First, they had no proof. Not one witness except for that boy who accused him. And 1000's of kids went to neverland did not comeup with a bogus story either. The accuser was some poor extortionist trying to get money from Mj. the father was recorded saying “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever"

I dont think that someone who's kid just got molested would use the word "win or lose" and "Get everything they want" .. instead seek some justice .

[fisterkev]

Then you'd be cool with your kid sleeping with him in his bed? Really?

And didn't the kid have knowledge of some "unique features" of his anatomy? Hmm... He also wasn't the only one to make such accusations. Others were paid off, if memory serves.

[aznkillabeezZz]

yeah and all his accusers happen to be in debt and poor. Right. One of them was quoted he wanted to extort as much money as he can. It's easier to lie when there's money involved. I dont buy it.

LOL sure , if i know what my friends anatomy looks like , it definitely means i molested her or him. Makes sense.

For the accusers to "accept" the money and lose their allegations can also mean that they don't want justice, and they just wanted the money. If my child was molested, i wouldnt accept any money , i'd want the court to go through with the guilty verdict and punishment. You're just too ignorant to see that.

[fisterkev]

LOL sure , if i know what my friends anatomy looks like , it definitely means i molested her or him. Makes sense.

There is NO innocent way that any child should be able to identify "unique features" of a man's manhood. NONE, zip, nada. There is NO good way that a child ever gets close enough to it to identify such features. The fact that one of the accusers could do it is pretty damning evidence, whether he got off on a technicality or not (actually, in that case he paid them off to drop the case).

For the accusers to "accept" the money and lose their allegations can also mean that they don't want justice, and they just wanted the money. If my child was molested, i wouldnt accept any money , i'd want the court to go through with the guilty verdict and punishment. You're just too ignorant to see that.

For one, I doubt that you have any children at all, and I doubt that you have any real idea what one would feel if their child were molested. Actually, you strike me as a kid yourself. Second, I personally know of one case where a family was paid off for a molestation that did occur, so I know that it does happen. Justice, while desired, is often less easily attained than a cash settlement.

I don't deny that the parents of these kids are money-grubbing leeches. But that does not itself make the allegations untrue, and is irrelevant to the cases against him. Things like the fact that pornographic media with the kids' fingerprints on them were found in his residence, along with books showing naked pictures of children, are more relevant than the possible motives or desires of the accusers. Does it make the accusers' parents jacka*ses? Sure. Does it mean that the charges are untrue? Nope.

Ignorant? Please, you've got no logic here so you've got to throw out the personal insults. You'd let your kids sleep over at a grown man's house, let them sleep in a bed with him (by his own admission), even knowing of prior allegations made against him of child molestation? And I'm the ignorant one? My kids (2) would never be put in such a position.

[moofs]

Personally, I think the parents are every bit as guilty as Jackson in whatever may or may not have happened, if not moreso. I think he did it, but that's irrelevant because there's no way to prove that before the law without overextending the ability of the law - which has some downright scary ramifications. This is an unfortunate situation, and the kids were caught in the middle of two sets of twisted people, and a third set (and fourth, and fifth) of opportunistic vultures looking to scrape whatever was available off the carcass.

The only people who didn't lose in this situation were the media and lawyers, as always.

(deja vu at having said this before)

I suppose you'd be just fine sending your kid over for one of those "sleepovers"? He's about as innocent as O.J., so I'd hope you'd sleep real well knowing your child was sharing that man's bed.

Easy solution! Don't send your kids there. I think you'll have an even easier time not doing it now than you were before. The only thing that bugs me is when people support enforcing this through legislation - at which point you're a false accusation and opportunistic slimeball away from losing your kids.

[aznkillabeezZz]

Again, if my child was molested, I would not settle for a cash settlement. I don't care if its more easily attained. I want the guy who molested my child to serve as many years in jail and suffer, and more importantly kept off the streets where they have the opportunity to prey on other kids. The fact that all the accusers accepted the cash settlements proves that their allegations have less credibility. And it increases the probability that the parents were doing it for the money.

Since we both agree that child molestation is a grave crime, maybe just as bad as rape or murder, How can anyone rationalize it by saying its ok/normal for the accusers to receive cash settlement because "it's the easier attained" option. Imagine an accused rapist or murderer offering you money to drop a case. If he really raped, molested or killed your daughter.. would you accept the cash settlement to let the perpetrator get away with it? ..Nope ... If you did like all the accusers, i only have more doubt that their allegations were not true.

[fisterkev]

Again, if my child was molested, I would not settle for a cash settlement. I don't care if its more easily attained. I want the guy who molested my child to serve as many years in jail and suffer, and more importantly kept off the streets where they have the opportunity to prey on other kids.

Well, at least we can agree on something... I wouldn't seek any money either. To be perfectly honest there's a good chance that I'd simply kill someone who molested one of my kids. I'm frankly not sure whether I'd do that or simply call the cops and go the legal / criminal justice route. I sure wouldn't try and profit from it.

But what you or I'd do is irrelevant. There are people out there who can be bought off, and there are people out there who would sell their own kids for enough money. These parents are undoubtedly those types of people, and while I find it disgusting, it does not mean that the crime never took place.

The fact that all the accusers accepted the cash settlements proves that their allegations have less credibility.

It indicates a lack of integrity and a disturbing lack of morality on their part, but it has no bearing of the credibility of the case against the accused. It doesn't impact any of the actual evidence, and it does not negate the testimony of witnesses (or victims).

And it increases the probability that the parents were doing it for the money.

There's no question that the parents were in it for the money; if it were otherwisethey wouldn't have bothered with threats of civil litigation and blackmail, they'd have just gone straight to the police. They likely found out their kids had been molested by a multimillionaire, and the dollar signs just kept dancing right before their eyes... They decided to cash in on it, which is morally repugnant, but - and I can't say this enough times - does not mean the the actual crime did not occur.

Since we both agree that child molestation is a grave crime, maybe just as bad as rape or murder

Most parents (me included) will say it's worse. There's a reason that child molesters get buttraped in prison by the other inmates as a matter of course; even the rapists and murderers there look down upon them. Children cannot defend themselves against the advances of an adult, and once taken away, that innocence can never be regained.

How can anyone rationalize it by saying its ok/normal for the accusers to receive cash settlement because "it's the easier attained" option.

No one here said it was OK or normal. I said it happens, and it does. Doesn't make it right or normal, but to deny it happens is silly, and to assume innocence on the part of the accused simply because the victims seek to cash in is erroneous.

If you did like all the accusers, i only have more doubt that their allegations were not true.

The accusers did damage their own credibility a bit through their actions, but that's why one must look at all of the evidence in a case when determining innocence or guilt. In MJ's case, there was victim and witness testimony as well as physical evidence. There was actually quite a bit more evidence from the first one, but that case was dropped after the parents cashed in.

You still haven't answered this question, even though I've asked it twice: Would you let your kids sleep over at MJ's house, knowing what you know? Really?

[aznkillabeezZz]

You still haven't answered this question, even though I've asked it twice: Would you let your kids sleep over at MJ's house, knowing what you know? Really?

I don't know what happened. Neither do you. We agree that it was money motivated. And as far as the accusations, they could or not have been all lies because "the dollar signs just kept dancing before their eyes". We agree that the accusers have lack of integrity and a disturbing lack of morality. And we've seen how many times the same type of people take advantage of rich people and create false accusations to hit the jackpot in court. SO its hard for me to trust their word for it, from what they have said and done.

As for your question. I wouldn't let my child sleep with any strangers, period. But I've slept in the same room with a close family friend when we were traveling and didn't want to rent the extra room. There's nothing wrong with sleeping on separate beds in the same room. Or sleeping in the same bed without anything sexual happening. But it's the parents choice when they allowed their kids to sleepover at Neverland. Whether or not it happened, I was never convinced with the evidence produced, or the validity/actions of the accusers. I don't know so i'm not going to incriminate someone who could be innocent.

[fisterkev]

I don't know what happened. Neither do you.

We probably wouldn't be debating this if we did, would we? All we can do is look at evidence and make a judgment.

We agree that it was money motivated.

I think it's clear that the parents tried to profit from it, but there are also indications that the father of at least one of the boys was also motivated by revenge (the last one, who did proceed with the criminal trial) as well. Interesting, that; why try and get everything out in the open like that if it's just a shakedown anyway? There was no hope they'd get a dime once it went to a criminal court. Perhaps money wasn't the only motivator?

And as far as the accusations, they could or not have been all lies because "the dollar signs just kept dancing before their eyes"

If they were all lies, then why go to trial over it? You forget that the police did have actual evidence as well, just not enough to obtain a conviction. Good lawyers can have that effect (ask OJ).

But we've seen how many times the same type of people take advantage of rich people and create false accusations to hit the jackpot in court.

Yes, it happens, but as I said there was actual evidence, and anyway the parents didn't file civil suit, they went to the criminal courts, where obtaining a favorable verdict is more difficult. The first ones just settled out of court. And again, their testimony - the parents' - was not even really relevant; what was relevant was the witness testimony (you had security guards, household staff, and others testimony), the victims' testimony, as well as physical evidence, and in the first case a verbal description of his unique genitalia. It's more than just the parents' accusations.

Couple all of that with the obvious screwy stufflike what the hella grown man is doing having small children over for "sleepovers" and such in the first place, and a pattern emerges.

I wouldn't let my child sleep with any strangers, period.

Way to dodge the question.

But I've slept in the same room with a close family friend when we were traveling and didn't want to rent the extra room. There's nothing wrong with sleeping on separate beds in the same room.

Well that's great but hardly relevant (unless that family friend was an adult and you were the small child, in which case it's both relevant and sorta freaky).

Or sleeping in the same bed without anything sexual happening.

Yeah, MJ didn't seem to understand what was so wierd about it either... FAIL on so many counts, but suffice it to say that it is inappropriate to sleep with someone else's child, not a relative, in the same bed. MEGAFAIL.

But it's the parents choice when they allowed their kids to sleepover at Neverland.

Parenting FAIL.

Whether or not it happened, I was never convinced with the evidence produced, or the validity/actions of the accusers. I don't know so i'm not going to incriminate someone who could be innocent.

That is your prerogative, and you are free to believe in OJ's innocence as well. You are also free to believe in puffy-eared superintelligent Pop Tarts who secretly rule the universe, as well as middle-aged men surrounding themselves with and sleeping with children yet who never touch them inappropriately...

I am convinced by 1) the undeniably odd behavior concerning children, 2) the repeated accusations, and 3) the evidence presented by the accusers that he is guilty, regardless of how jacked up the parents of the victims may be. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that...