No, I’m just saying there haven’t been lots of trials against him. There’s been one trial. They could have gone through with the trial the first time but there was no way they’d have a case if Jordie Chandler didn’t testify.
I never said I thought prudent parents wait for a stranger before warning them. I’m just saying I would take accusations of child molestation as well as the adult in question saying they liked hanging around kids as a sign that this is someone that my (hypo) kid should stay away from. Sure, he could be innocent and there could be a massive conspiracy against him. But I’m not going to take my chances. Is that so weird?
If he had copies of the Anarchist’s Cookbook lying around, regularly discussed in public how much he hates America and thinks that bombing public places isn’t such a bad idea, was on the FBI’s most wanted list, and had been witnessed building bombs by others, then yeah.
Ok, well, for one, MJ didn’t announce in public that he loves all little children and having sex with them isn’t a bad idea. He didn’t have lying around his house “How to Molest Children: a how to guild”.
So you’d be cool with sending your kid to hang out with a guy who has pictures of naked boys and who’s said he loves sleeping with boys, but it’s all platonic, really? And you don’t think that’s weird?
Okay, either you really do believe this tripe or Jermaine and the boys have signed up for SDMB accounts. I don’t think there’s any point in going further–if you genuinely believe this is all some trumped up conspiracy theory, more power to you.
Sigh. Your reasoning escapes me. I said so now you want evidence.
And you asserted that nothing was different between your MJ views and the hypothetical evidence you wanted on the bomber: to wit; you wanted a book explaining how to do it; several public statements saying how it’s not a bad idea . . .
None of those are present in the MJ case. Essentially, you’re just rationalizing. Believe what you want; you are clearly immune to reasoning.
First, you make entirely too much of the siezed books. They searched his entire estate and The Boy: A Photographic Essay and a Bruce Weber book is the best evidence they were able to present to suggest that he had a sexual interest in children? Why do you think it is that the jury examined this evidence and remained unconvinced?
I am willing to bet that a thorough search of your house would turn up material that could be as plausibly said to be the wank-stash of a kiddie perv. Probably moreso. Don’t be insulted by that, this is true of just about anyone.
Seriously, does this look like kiddie porn to you? (Youtube trailer.) Or are you just willing to accept the assertion that it is somehow incrimininating without thinking crtically about it?
It is not just the boys porn. it is not the people who said they saw him performing bad acts with children. It is not the 2 payoffs we know of. It is not the 2 trials. It is not the really stupid interview saying it is ok to share your bed with kids.
It is all of it together. If you lived down the street from someone who had that track record, you would not allow your kids near him.
Right but “all of it together” only exists because of a select group of extortionists. And many of those things only came about because of a few parents telling their kids to make crap up.
When you subjectively look at all the available evidence, it becomes quite evident that these people claimed outrageous crap to get money. They knew Jackson was financially loaded and his natural strangeness would make their accusations appear more valid.
I think at the bottom of it was a man who was never allowed to have a childhood trying to have one later in life (which obviously made him appear odd) but he was a person who truly cared about kids (and his kids) and was probably naive regarding some of the social faux pas he danced around, such as letting kids (with their parents permission) sleep in the same *room *(not in the same bed). Macauley Culkin backs up Jackson’s innocence. Now, why would someone already-financially-well-off agree that MJ was innocent while poor leeches who knew they could at least get a settlment say he was guilty… Hmmm…
It’s sad that there are people who would make up stories and lie to hurt an entertainer’s career just so they could become instant millionaires and live in mansions and do nothing the rest of their life, but that’s exactly what some people are doing.
There’s a reason he was acquitted of every charge against him. Lack of any kind of evidence whatsoever and the accuser’s past had a lot to do with it.
And he himself had the creepy books, admitted to sleeping with in the same bed with boys, and went on national TV snuggling with a boy. Extortionists made him do all that?
ETA: Jordie Chandler’s father was already quite well off when they accused MJ. Yes, I think he was out for money, but I do think something happened.
The level of proof in a trial is a lot more than a parent would require. I would not let my kid near him.
Paying people off is an admission of guilt to most people. Why give 10 million to some kid’s family that made a false claim? It would encourage many more to do it. Yet he only paid off 2 or 3. You would expect a line up at a cashier window if it were merely people taking advantage of a rich and powerful celebrity. He had a lot of money and power. You are walking into a hornets nest when you accuse the rich and powerful.
This evokes a lurid image of an adult man spooning under the covers with a juvenile, which is a much different picture than that I have from facts admitted into evidence.
How creepy are those books, again? Bruce Weber? Give me a break; I have some of his work. A book of “Boys’ Life” type photos that incidentally featuires a couple of shots of boys in underwear? BFD. I doubt that there are very many people with substantial libraries that are free from this standard of “creepy.”
If you apply a little logic to the situation, his frankness in the Bashir documentary and subsequently tends to be exonerating, rather than damning. This shows a complete lack of consciousness of guilt. This only begins to make sense if (as there was plenty of credible testimony to suggest) there was no hanky panky going on at these times.
Michael Jackson’s reaction to Mr. Bashir’s line of questioning on that subject was consistent with that of a true innocent (and the somewhat pejorative connotation of this* is *intended.) It’s comically absurd that he seemed ignorant of how this whole tableau would generally appear to the world at large, but that does appear to be the case.
Really, does it seem credible to you that Michael Jackson groomed Gavin Arviso for sexual purposes, presented him prominently for a documentary, and then after the universal cry of “Holy shuddering fuck, what the hell is that about?!” went up, that’s when he decided the time was ripe to make his move? This was the prosecution’s assertion, and it doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Or that he really thought he was above the law and could do whatever he wanted. Lots of very rich powerful people do things that make absolutely no sense and yet they seem to think that they can.
No, the books alone wouldn’t be damning. But when a person who goes on TV (in that documentary) and says he likes having sleepovers with thirteen year old boys and has some scantily clad boy pics…all together it just starts to fit a pattern of a predator. No, I don’t have any hard evidence and that’s where this falls apart, according to you. But if you knew a guy who was doing all these things, would it suddenly be okay if he admitted to it? The only reason why you think it’s normal is because he’s acting as though it is?
I certainly don’t think that his behaviour was “normal” by any common metric - but there is an awful lot of ground between “normal” and “pederast.” I am unwilling to brand someone a child molestor without any credible evidence - and, given the size and scope of the investigation and the resources that went into making the case that he was a pedophile, I would fully expect some tangible evidence to turn up if he was.
I think that any reasonable person would have their suspicions aroused by his behaviour as represented in Living With Michael Jackson.
We were presented with two possible explanations for his behavior, which can be roughly summarized as: [list=a][li]He was a filthy child molestor.[*]He was a pathetic man-boy with a (non-sexual) preoccupation with youth and childhood.[/list]The preponderance of evidence points to “b.” Testimony to the contrary is so laughably shaky that it is actually something of a wonder that Tom Sneddon wasn’t formally accused of suborning perjury. There was plenty of testimony in support of “b,” for which there was no demonstrable ulterior motivation.[/li]
If he was a child molestor, we really would expect some reliable evidence. On the strength of prosecution witnesses’ testimony about events alleged to take place in Mr. Jackson’s bed, they tore his mattress up and submitted it to a battery of forensic tests - and yet – nothing.
No, I wouldn’t leave my children unsupervised with Michael Jackson - I would prefer that they be properly socialized and enculturated with values that are more in line with living in the real world. Personally, I think that 12 -13 is the age for people to begin to put childish things aside and make the transition into the adult world. This is not a good time to be hanging around with someone who was apparently never able to make that step.
I don’t think he was a kiddy diddler, though. I would feel somewhat less anxious about that specific threat than I would leaving them with a random daycare provider.
Yes, that’s why pedophiles are always so obvious: they go about parading their victims and announcing it and such like. For a pattern, it’s kind of odd that you dismiss away the inconvenient parts and keep only those which you think support your view.
A pattern is something which, well, is regular and recurring; a theme if you will.