Read all about it here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html
All of you fuckers that bought into the notion that he was guilty, I pit thee. Get a clue, you brainless sheep!
That must have been one fun memo to write.
Bah! You’re right about the fact that someone needs to get a clue. Guilty in this specific case, or not, the fact of the matter is that Michael Jackson just can’t get enough of sleepovers with attractive, young adolescent and younger male children, and has pursued this behavior for decades, despite extreme social disapproval. For a 46 year old man to be doing this is creepy in the extreme, and parents offering thir children up to him for this purpose is beyond disgusting.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, so now there mysteriously was NO contact?
Wonder how much he paid out this time?
Hmmm, let’s see- that’s an LA county memo concerning an investigation/interview of the mother of the alleged victim, and whether she was acting inappropriately in bringing her child around MJ. *
That’s a bit different from the Santa Barbara investigation of Michael Jackson himself.
*The whole business came to light through information revealed in therapy, so it’s no big surprise the mother would tell authorities she believed that nothing was going on.
It’s not the same investigation, dude. They investigated these claims earlier and at that time found no grounds to file charges. New evidence has cropped up since then and the investigation was reopened. . The current investigation and pending charges are still going strong. There is nothing new here. MJ will still be charged.
Dude, read your own document. It says:
IOW, he said one thing then, he says another thing now. This obviously throws his credibility into some question, but it certainly doesn’t establish that that allegations aren’t true – or that they are, for that matter.
So who’s the brainless sheep now, dawg?
I did NOT have sex with that …[fill in the blank]!
:rolleyes:
Well… it’s not quite that cut-and-dried:
From here.
For all I know, maybe Michael didn’t do it. But according to the LAPD, that memo hardly proves his innocence.
Baaaaaa!
Guess what, there are times when a child who IS being sexually
abused will lie if asked about it. There are a lot of reasons for it, sometimes it is out of fear of the abuser, shame because the child may feel that it is his/her fault this happened. Some will lie about it because they may have found some of the physical sensations enjoyable and are ashamed of that. Even fear that they (the child) will be in trouble with the law, family members or someone else. And sadly sometimes a child will lie about it because the abuser is someone that the child loves and wants to protect. Over time whatever reasons the child had for saying it did not happen when it did may change and the child is able to tell the truth.
It is also possible that the child was telling the truth about nothing happening and under pressure and/or coaching from someone will change their story.
My personal opinion is that any parent who allows their child to spend one half of an instant with someone who has the very public … um shall we say, reputation, that MJ has is as much to blame as the pervert himself should that child be molested. Because the parent(s) put the child in the place and position to be molested. Again, that is my opinion.
There was a piece on this on NPR yesterday. The gist of this was that “unfounded” doesn’t equate to “untrue.” Instead, it means that the charges could not be proven based on the results of their investigation. The speaker (whose name escapes me) pointed out that the sherriff’s department, which ran a separate investigation has a whole lot more culpatory (is that a word) evidence. I tried looking for the story on NPR’s website, but no luck.
"…when the child was questioned in February by a social worker… he said that he never “slept in the same bed as the entertainer… During the February 6 program, the child was seen holding hands with Jackson and resting his head against the singer’s shoulder.”
I could be wrong… But I seem to remember that VERY interview (and reruns with the boys face now blurred). I’m almost positive the BOY HIMSELF said that they slept in the same bed together. The first time, I just thought “That’s just too weird” and dismissed it. The second time, after MJ’s arrest, I noticed that MJ looked at the boy and smiled after he said that. And I thought to myself, “You didn’t want that to come out, did ya?”
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Given the “new” circumstances, I either read too much into that look, or noticed something new. One way or the other, I’m almost sure the boy even said they slept in the same bed. I could be wrong, but I’d love to see a transcript.
Perhaps if we ever find out what evidence was found in the sweep of his home, the situation will become more clear.
Even if (and I do mean a mighty big IF) MJ did not technically diddle any kids, his behavior with underage boys is still deeply inappropriate. Middle-aged men have no business sleeping in bed with young boys. Does Easy Phil see no impropriety in MJ’s actions? Does he not see how closely MJ fits the classic profile for pedophiles?
And IMO any parent who allowed their kid to spend unsupervised time with MJ ought to be arraigned as an accessory to molestation.
Until he’s done something wrong, he’s done nothing wrong.
I’m sure most people would be torn up about a caring guy with lots of money making a huge area for kids to play at. That’s terrible. Any self-respecting parent would look the other way at something like that, obviously. What will they think of next, some strange “Disney” land where children’s movies come to life?
Or is it, “At least Disney rapes people’s wallets for it”?
Better my wallet than my son.
Why, exactly, is it deeply inappropriate?
Michael Jackson is creepy, and possibly a child molester. But your attitude does not seem to be supported by a rational analysis of your statements.
Yeah, that’s kinda the point. That’s why he’s not in jail at this time. No one has proven he has done “wrong” by legal standards.
Now, by society’s standards, he’s done a lot of “weird.” “Wrong” is in there, too, for some (perhaps many) folks – a 46-year-old man sleeping with children is going to get looked at askance and judged by a goodly chunk of this society.
If you seriously think folks are mad/upset/weirded out by Michael Jackson creating a large play area, you’re waaaay off base. That ain’t the issue here.
Do you even read your own posts? Look at your first sentence, then reflect on a 46-year-old man soliciting prepubescent boys to sleep with.
TVAA, could you explain this statement of yours in somewhat more detail, because try as I might, I can’t get it to make any sense whatsoever. Please indicate how you are “rationally analyzing” gobear’s statements, and deeming them insupportable of the conclusion that Michael Jackson’s behavior with young boys is “deeply inappropriate”.
Gobear said:
1: Even if (and I do mean a mighty big IF) MJ did not technically diddle any kids, his behavior with underage boys is still deeply inappropriate.
2: Middle-aged men have no business sleeping in bed with young boys.
3: Does Easy Phil see no impropriety in MJ’s actions?
4: Does he not see how closely MJ fits the classic profile for pedophiles?
5: And IMO any parent who allowed their kid to spend unsupervised time with MJ ought to be arraigned as an accessory to molestation.