The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY! (page 10)

Gill

Hi LT - all in all I'm saying it's UNCOMFORTABLE to share a bed with A CHILD.

A partner is a different matter all together. Sorry your wife was so aggresive during the night!

LittleToe

Nic:
I think we're about on the same page. Thrashing these things out is good for clearing up misunderstandings

What I meant was that not having clear lines in such circumstances can lead to misunderstandings, questions that can damage reputations when no wrong was done, perceptions that are innacurate and so on.

Agreed, which is probably why Western culture usually demarks the bedroom as sacrosanct. Then again, it could have been more to do with our victorian forebearers.

I do believe that such clearly defined boundaries are beneficial for children and adults and would not impede the natural, wholesome display of love and affection that we all need.

It can certainly be a safeguard, and one which I wish MJ had respected.

There's ample evidence on this site, and Silentlambs, to show that this simple safeguard has not been afforded to a great number of children

LittleToe

Gill:
S'ok, you probably got hit by shrapnel

Whilst it may not be comfortable or prudent, I just draw the line at calling it "unnatural" or "unconscionable", is all

scotsman

Agreed, which is probably why Western culture usually demarks the bedroom as sacrosanct. ; Then again, it could have been more to do with our victorian forebearers.

How right you are LT. Slum clearances of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were, in part, an effort to address perceptions of incest amongst the poor because entire families lived in one room flats.

fleaman uk

Abbadd

Abaddon

nicolaou

I'm with Ross; your argument is made from a specific culture where the luxery of seperate beds is taken for granted. To assume that something which is not wrong 'cause you don't have two beds is suddenly wrong if you do have two beds is illogical. I understand you feel disquiet over it, which I share, but the moral absolutism simply doesn't bear examination.

Hell, I've shared a tiny igloo tent with a 15 year-old sister of a friend. I've let three teenage kids stranded after the last bus had gone crash in my living room and woken up to find one had moved to my bed in the night. That doesn't fit in with moral absolutism over sharing a sleeping space... or does it?

...

In general it seems those who feel that MJ is guilty no matter what the verdict was are basing their, er, opinions on a very superficial level of knowledge about both the '93 case and this one.

This should make you think long and hard about 'smoke' being proof of guilt, LOL;

From Mary Fishers 1994 GQ article;

"After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found. (In June 1994, still determined to find even one corroborating witness, three prosecutors and two police detectives flew to Australia to again question Wade Robson, the boy who had acknowledged that he'd slept in the same bed with Jackson. Once again, the boy said that nothing bad had happened.)
The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been give a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion."

One boy and his family are not even smoke if all the other boys and family don't back it up, especially given the acusation was made under the influence of drugs.

And consider this; Chandler's father FIRST filed a civil case claiming damages for his son being sexually abused BEFORE going to the police. How believable and credible is that?

Yet people are pretty eager to accuse someone of child rape when one case was so ludicrous as to defy belief and after they've been found not guilty in a criminal case where the prosecution failed to provide one credible witness to abuse. Gosh, I wish I was that clever, I obviously lack the wisdom and insight some have

http://bluemasklover.i8.com/Michael/2003_Dec.html

http://www.mjnewsonline.com/mj.txt

Oh, and before some idiot suggests I'm a MJ fan, get a grip! The only MJ I like is Mary Jane (Marijuana), LOL

Being DIFFERENT, even being WEIRD, is not a crime. Get over it. Biggest mistake he made was not braving court with the Chandlers; he probably thought $20 m would make the lies stop, poor fool...

I'm just glad those people will never sit in judgement of me in a court of law; it would seem evidence, proof, reasonable doubt, yah know, foundations of the legal system, would mean nothing to them, as they would not deliver a fair trial unless they had decided I was a nice normal man beforehand.

Oooo! Look at that pasty-faced plastic man with the funny voice and the too-short trousers! He likes being with kids far too much for a grown man, and out of the thousands of kids he's had close contact with over the years, the two with dodgy disfuctional parents with a track-record of extortion MUST be the ones telling the truth! He has to be guilty with all that evidence! He has fairground rides in his garden, he must be guilty. Lord knows there are rent boys YOUNGER than the one's he's been accused of abusing in any major city, but hell, a multi-millionaire would far rather sexually abuse house guests! And disgruntled employees who were fired, unsuccessfully sued Jackson, and then were in turn succesfully prosecuted for theft are the BEST sort of witness (for a publicity whore of a Assistant DA)! Get the rope, the courts don't know what they're doing, we the people who only know what we've heard in the news have enough information to determine he deserved what he had coming! In fact, let's burn him; burning someone is the traditonal punishment for someone being different; it worked on witches - THEY were different, even if they hadn't committed any crime, technically speaking, and burning worked! Not one person burned as a witch has ever been offensively and blatently different afterwards. Gotta be starting something? Ha! Let's finish off what the Pepsi commercial failed to do...

LOL... sorry if anyone is offended by being lampooned, but bwoy, you've earned it...!

LittleToe

Scotsman:
Cool, I got something right for once!!!
Do I get a gold star?

flats

Translated as "apartments" for our 'Mercan friends, though I don't know if even that would be an appropriate description of them

fleaman uk

Abbaddon

Ive just read your posts from this morning.Absolutely encapsulates how i feel too.

Avishai.Your question to me was pathetic.Do i have Kids?As a matter of fact..no.So bloody what?You work with abused Kids (i think you may have mentioned it once or twice)so you know everything.Congratulations to you my Friend.You remind me of the "mob rules"in Viz Magazine.

Simon

In general it seems those who feel that MJ is guilty no matter what the verdict was are basing their, er, opinions on a very superficial level of knowledge about both the '93 case and this one.

Actually, I'm not.

I'm basing it on common sense ... a 40+ year old freaky guy who sleeps with kids (boys only? ... hmmnn). Occams razor ...

Now, given that the Jacksons are incredibly litigious and end up in court with practically everyone they have any dealings with it seems bizzarre that he would pay someone twenty million dollars *not* to go to court if he was innocent.

It just doesn't make sense to any sensible person.

144001

And consider this; Chandler's father FIRST filed a civil case claiming damages for his son being sexually abused BEFORE going to the police. How believable and credible is that? -- Abaddon

This claim, assuming it is true, is irrelevant to the issue of whether MJ molested the Chandler's son. Implicit in this claim is the notion that the 1993 charges were somehow inspired by greed. The Chandlers were wealthy well before the 1993 allegations. Their lives were shattered as a result of making the allegations, and all the proceeds of the settlement went to their son. Michael didn't pay $30 million to their son as a result of a lack of evidence. Where there's smoke, fire can frequently be found nearby.

Now, posters like 144,001 have misquoted me saying "you are the person who appears to be making the case that this (minor children sleeping with 46 year old men) is not legal. The burden is on you to provide the legal authority that supports your claim that this would be an illegal act. Everything is legal here unless proscribed by law."

Nicolaou, this is pure horsepoop. You have now admitted that you knew the issue was the legality of sleeping in the same bed with children when you originally responded to my post, but you are now trying to say that your response referred to the morality of it. Why didn't you clarify that when you had the opportunity?

Nicolao, Are you disagreeing on that point? Can you cite any legal authority to support your position? -- 144001 Legal authority my arse! Are you saying it would be "ok" for me to let my 11 year old child sleep with a 46 year old man? Get a grip man -- Nicolaou


I think your words demonstrate that you knew exactly what the issue being debated was, despite your recent effort to obfuscate this fact.

The verdict is in! Michael Jackson is . . . . . . . . NOT GUILTY!

Share this