Originally Posted By danyoung You've been very clear. And you know what? Your "knowledge", while seemingly damning, is still second hand conjecture. You can bet that the prosecutors were angry, and I'm sure the police had already made up their minds about him. You can make all the statements you want, but it still doesn't make them factual.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You've been very clear. And you know what? Your "knowledge", while seemingly damning, is still second hand conjecture. You can bet that the prosecutors were angry, and I'm sure the police had already made up their minds about him. You can make all the statements you want, but it still doesn't make them factual." For someone who claims not to "have a dog in this fight", you sure are feeding one.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>For someone who claims not to "have a dog in this fight", you sure are feeding one.<< I claimed not to have a dog in this fight. danyoung did not. Honestly, I'm not spoiling for a fight. I'm genuinely curious as to what makes some people so certain Michael Jackson was guilty. From my perspective, there's a few plausible scenarios: 1) Jackson is guilty; the parents of the children were outraged and wanted justice. 2) Jackson is guilty; the parents of the children smelled money and went after him. 3) Jackson is innocent; the parents of the children heard about his odd relationships with children and thought they could exploit it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones danyoung, child molestation accusations are difficult to prove or disprove. You will rarely have anything but second hand conjecture, especially if it involves touching. There was no such sympathy for this illegal alien who was beat to retardation in an Orange County jail: <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-ramirez-eisenberg-2370202-chamberlain-jail" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...ain-jail</a> The man, who was at a school to pick up his little brother, was accused of molesting a child. The officers didn't wait for the trial, they allowed him to be mixed in with the general population of the jail despite the allegation. He ended up beaten and brain damaged before he even had his day in court. Look at the comments under the OCRegister story. They've all made up their minds. There's no, "We don't know for sure..." or "The only ones who know are Ramirez, that girl and God..." Sound familiar? The illegal alien is beaten and most people thinks he deserves it (probably just because he's an illegal alien), but the King of Pop is given the benefit of the doubt.
Originally Posted By barboy ///He bought his way out of convictions. People from the judge in the first case, to the prosecutors, to the police were furious./// I don't 'buy' that theory. If the state had the goods then Jackson would have been charged, tried and ultimately convicted or acquitted back in the 90's. Here's just one angle I look at: In the US crimes are deemed wrongs against society as a whole(not for you SPP-- that was for others who might not know that) and California lacked enough evidence to go forward irrespective of a complaining witness's/"victim's" willful testimony. If California **knew**(as opposed to safely speculated) he committed unspeakable crimes then why did it not compel the "victim" to testify against Jackson? If California knew Jackson was dirty then it would have tried to put a stop to him (via charges and trial) even at the expense of the 'victim' so that future lives of children would not be adversely affected. The point of this angle/theory is that California must not have truly known whether Jackson committed crimes or not.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Screwed up childhood and warped in the head in no way whatsoever excuses pedophilia.*** Not sure what you mean by "warped in the head", but mental illness certainly SHOULD mitigate it if it's indeed true. As I said before, he was nuts pure and simple. He didn't simply act like a child, he was deranged enough that his brain really DID function at the level of a child. 24/7. No "excuse", sure, but he shouldn't have rotted in jail either. If the allegations were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he still should've been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and probably sent to John Hinkley land far away from any kids. All of that is just my observations, of course, YMMV. The thing I find interesting here (not only LP but around the 'nets, and particularly on more "liberal" cites for some reason) is we have a really extreme element of people who have decided he was a cold blooded monster and not only do THEY not mourn his passing, but they find anyone who does have any compassion or sympathy to be just as despicable and in need of an attitude adjustment (how can you support such a MONSTER! you're a monster TOO!). I guess I just don't get the vitriol on this one. Almost seems as if their wish is that his actual accomplishments and good deeds and efforts (and they were many) should be marginalized and forgotten and all copies of Thriller burned in effigy or something, and I just don't see it that way. Put it another way, of course I would hate and condemn a cold blooded murderer and sympathize only with his victim. But I can also understand an insanity defense for one who is NOT necessarily a cold blooded monster but instead perhaps suffers from extreme schizophrenia and kills someone in a fit of delusional paranoia. Do I still feel sympathy for the victim? Of course. But unlike example A, in example B I can also find some measure of understanding and compassion for the criminally insane person as well.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Just like OJ the proof as a whole is significent. Over time the truth will come out as those paid hush money open up." Right. Now Jordan Chandler, the boy who started the whole pedophile thing in 1994 is speaking out. It was all a lie. His Dad made him accuse MJ for money. And they ruined MJ's life. <a href="http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/" target="_blank">http://awkwardstar.wordpress.c...jackson/</a>
Originally Posted By barboy ///1) Jackson is guilty; the parents of the children were outraged and wanted justice. 2) Jackson is guilty; the parents of the children smelled money and went after him. 3) Jackson is innocent; the parents of the children heard about his odd relationships with children and thought they could exploit it./// All 3 of those scenarios make perfect sense to me too--- and I say any one of the 3 is possible based on what we know(and don't know). If I were pressed to place a bet I would have to go with scenario #2. And X I'm totally with you on the "insanity" angle. If indeed Jackson committed some lascivious acts on children under 14 I wonder if he even had the capacity to appreciate/understand what he was doing and the ramifications of those actions. A "12 year old" playing doctor or house with another 12 year old doesn't sound criminal to me. ((I'm not saying that Jackson truly believed that he himself was 12 because I don't know either way))
Originally Posted By barboy If true dshyates, then I'd love to see "victim" and dad sharing the same prison cell for many years.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm not saying he "believed" he was 12, I'm just guessing that's exactly where his brain was functioning (or dysfunctioning rather) based on interviews and of course..that's hardly a diagnosis but he seemed awfully sick to me. But post 186...interesting.
Originally Posted By Mr X So now that the kid admitted lying, does he still get to keep the $25 million bucks? Is there some way the estate could sue to get it back? If so, they should...definitely (would be the best way to clear Jackson's name in any case...which would make the estate a lot more valuable).
Originally Posted By Labuda Ok, so I'm coming to this thread with 190 posts before me, but let me say this before I read... RIP, Michael. I never believed the accusations, and I think you were an amazing talent. And, oddly, I didn't realize until the morning after you died what your music means to me. I was listening to the radio on my way into work, and was fine when they were talking about you, then when they played "Human Nature" I lost it. May your soul rest in peace, and my best to your family and children.
Originally Posted By Labuda "Back to the Martin Bashir interview, I think it clearly showed that Michael Jackson was not an emotionally well person. So, I don't know what he did or didnt do. But I often wonder about the parents of the kids he allegedly molestated...I think if they knew he did it they would have pushed for a conviction and then have still gotten the cash in a civil suit." Very nicely put. The fact that the parents opted to settle each time is why I don't believe he did what he was accused of. If I had a child and I was certain someone had abused that child, I would stop at NOTHING to ensure that person got their legal comeuppance. No amount of money is more important to me than my family.
Originally Posted By ecdc From the same blog: <a href="http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/jordan-chandler-hoax/" target="_blank">http://awkwardstar.wordpress.c...er-hoax/</a> Here's one that's saying the story might be a hoax. The story that this blog linked to was written yesterday. I'd better plenty that if it was the real deal, the rest of the media would've jumped on it like wildfire. Hey, maybe the kid did confess to lying. But I'll reserve judgment until it shows up in the New York Times or CNN. Or, apparently now, TMZ.
Originally Posted By mele Not sure how much of this is true... <a href="http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/381773/Mother-of-Michael-Jackons-children-Debbie-Rowe-confesses-he-was-not-their-father.html" target="_blank">http://www.newsoftheworld.co.u...her.html</a>
Originally Posted By Kira Mele I would take that article with a grain of salt as it comes from news of the world, which is worse than the national enquirer, from what I've heard.
Originally Posted By Mr X Did you really think otherwise Mele? You've SEEN the kids haven't you? Not a black chromosome in their bodies, for sure! <a href="http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_05/jackson3SPLASH_759x1000.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/p...1000.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By mele No, I don't doubt that the kids aren't biologically Michael's, just the content of the article seems...unreliable.
Originally Posted By mele Kira, yes, that's what I mean. It's an 'interesting' article but, like all of the other info out there right now, nothing I'll take at face value. I also heard that Joe Jackson was at the BET awards. Gross.
Originally Posted By Kira He was there and he did a mini interview with CNN beforehand. The interview was disgusting and shows that mans true colors.
