erislover, if I had children, even ambiguous evidence would be enough to not leave them unsupervised with anybody.
What’s the harm? Jacko can go play with adults is he has to.
Why not err on the side of caution when it comes to your kids, for Christ’s sake?
And bullshit yourself. The reason there was no case was because the family agreed not to testify after being paid. If there was no case to begin with, there would have been no reason to pay them off.
See, here’s the problem I have with Michael Jackson in this instance. It’s possible that the 1993 molestation case was completely false. But one cannot deny the fact that it had a terribly detrimental effect on Jackson’s career and public image. (Not to mention the horrible scarring I suffered seeing Michael Jackson talking about photos of his penis on national television.)
So now, 10 years later, he’s accused of molesting a child once again, under almost identical circumstances. He knows what happened the last time he went through this, and he knows exactly what type of behaviors led to the previous accusation (i.e., being alone with a child, sleeping in the same bed, etc.). He may be as innocent as the day is long, but anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn’t put himself in that position again. And yet he did so.
Either Jackson is a child molester, or he’s truly idiotic. Either way, I would not want my children to be around him.
Actually, there are sometimes valid reasons to settle out of court, even if you did nothing wrong. Usually this is done to avoid a protracted (and possibly messy) civil trial. Johnnie Cochran (Jackson’s lawyer for the 1993 lawsuit) probably felt that Jackson would have no chance when a 13-year-old boy took the stand and tearfully told about his experience. Even if the boy was lying, Jackson would have had a hard time winning that lawsuit. Hence, an out-of-court settlement.
Makes sense Sauron, I stand corrected. Thanks.
Well, I don’t believe MJ is totally innocent. I’m not sure he’s guilty, either, but feel like we’ll find that out soon enough.
I’m no expert, but I think pedophiles are a particularly sneaky bunch.
On the DCFS report (linked in the OP) “the child denied he ever slept in the same bed as the entertainer”. Perhaps they weren’t “sleeping”. I didn’t see or read the TV interview with Jackson, but didn’t the boy say they did sleep in the same bed then? Is that statement not what caused his problems at school that then caused a report to be made?
In the DCFS report, the boy denied sexual abuse. Perhaps he didn’t consider it “abuse” (which does not make it O.K.).
I don’t know what it is called when one plays with words like “sleeping” or “abuse” in these situations, but I have a definate feeling of deceit in this case. When MJ sidesteps a direct question by saying things like “The world needs more love”, my BS alarm goes off.
Also the boys reported they like to go to Neverland for video games, rides in the park, and movies. I’m sure they felt very special about being guests there. Perhaps they wanted to protect their “special guest” status.
I understand the realtionship that develops between the pedophile and victim can become very entangled and conflcicting sometimes. Would a boy be willing to protect a pedophile if there was a larger reward in doing so? I could see that happening.
Anyway, I think it’s too soon to be celebrating MJ’s innocence. There will be lots more informatin available in the next few months.
Even when the child is 12 YEARS OLD! When I was that age, I felt very uncomfortable when some old relative wanted me to sit on his lap. Well before that age, that behavior was creepy.
“Come here, nephew. Sit in Uncle’s lap and let me read you a story. Who know’s what exitement will come up!”
And here’s MY problem with the allegations in THIS instance-
With these allegatyions being “almost identical” to the first round of allegations, and the family being less than credible and essentially survivng on blackmail, I don’t trust these allegations.
He might have been guilty last time, I honestly don’t know, but if the media and people let the case come to trial instead of throwing about wild-ass guesses, maybe we’ll find out the truth. More likely though, we never will know the truth.
Sam
Well, if you have those kind of thoughts at 12 and even now when having a 12 year old show you affection, perhaps the focus of questionable candor and moral substance is MISDIRECTED. :dubious:
And If their plight was unfounded, why did he pay? Because of many reasons, his career, his reputation. People cop pleas to things they don’t do EVERY day, wake up and look at the judicial system and read up on stats before assuming anything.
Until he has done something, he has done nothing.
Several things bother me about this case:
a) A few years back, she reportedly accused a dept. store security guard of sexually assaulting her after she and her sons were followed out of the store on suspicion of shoplifting, and received an award of ~$2000, partially based on the testimony of her and her children.
Acc. to her ex-husband, she also accused HIM of sexually abusing her son, a charge which he denies.
She then allows her son, who she says was already sexually abused by his father, to live unsupervised with a man previously and very publicly accused of molesting another pre-teen.
Hmmmm, either she has INCREDIBLY bad luck in the sexual molestation department or she’s a habitual liar who realizes that there’s money to be made on accusations that can neither be proven or disproven. And it’s very plausible that she’s taught her sons to lie as well.
Even if the abuses DID occur, she should be arrested for child endangerment for allowing her precious son to be in the unsupervised company of a reputed child molester.
a) He’s already allegedy paid out $20m to a family who accused him of molesting their child. He proclaims his innocence, yet goes on national t.v. and admits that he still sleeps with little boys.
b) He dangles his children from balconies.
c) He has turned himself into a surgically induced freak.
So we have a defendant who cannot seem to pick out a toothpaste without fucking up. Clearly, he is his own worst enemy. If he is not molesting little boys, he ought to acquire some freaking sense and listen to the people who keep telling him to quit obsessing with little boys.
a) There is pretty strong evidence that the mother and both sons have previously denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s case. If what is reported about them is true, you have reasonable doubt before they even take the witness stand. He’d better have something more than a he-said or Jacko’s going to walk.
b) This is the same prosecutor who was unsuccessful in bringing two other cases to trial because the defendant refused to prosecute. The D.A. denies that he has a personal vendetta against Jackson, however he HAPPENS to choose the date that Jackson’s new album is being released to announce that he will soon be arrested for child molestation. How very convenient.
Very good points Punditlisa, where in the name of God is the parental responsibility here? And everyone against the guy want’s to know why did he pay? Why do the parents sell out, there isn’t enough money in that mans account to pay me off for hurting my child, there in lies the REAL concern. She is a cash hound, all at the expense of her children.
(bolding mine)
The key words here are YOUR and FAMILY MEMBERS.
The boys that MJ is sleeping with are NOT his relatives and are for all intents and purposes, strangers that he picks off of the street based on their looks and family situation.
There is always the possibility that he is innocent, (based on the indicators, I find that unlikely, but I’ll concede that anything is possible), however, even if he IS just suffering from “arrested development” or whatever.
The act of sleeping in the same bed with strange, young, pre-adolescent men is weird and creepy at best, and it IS DEEPLY inappropriate bordering on perverse at worst. Particilarly if you consider the allegations brought against him 10 years ago.
ANYONE with half a brain would say “hey…maybe, even if I AM innocent, I shouldn’t get involved in activities that make me look suspect, and which might, at some point, get me into trouble again later”.
Well, I remember still sitting on my dad’s lap when I was thirteen-it was Christmas and our house is kind of small, so all of our relatives are squished into one room. There was no where to sit, so I just perched on my dad’s knee. Of course, Dad’s huge-he’s six-three and I’m little-five three. Plus, he still calls me “Bean”-even now. He would have seen me as “Daddy’s Little Girl.”
But I get what you mean. They were all out cuddling there-I mean, I still hug my folks and stuff, but they’re my parents-NOT some strange has-been popstar.
If he’s innocent, he’s a freaking dumbass. And he so obviously needs some serious psychiatric evaluation!
However, I will say that personally, the idea of sleeping in the same bed as Michael is creepy even without the molestation thing. Imagine waking up to THAT FACE!!!
:eek:
My nephews are eight and nine. They still run up to hug, but are starting to put in some serious cuddling resistance. I’ll keep cuddling on them as long as they let me. I won’t ever tell them that if they love me, they’ll cuddle me.
All that indicates is that I don’t know many people with children. One of my friend’s daughter is cuddly. He doesn’t seem to suspect any ulterior motive. I wonder why?
Maybe because your friend actually knows you, and is there when you interact with his daughter? Maybe because you don’t have a child molestation case settled out of court in your history? Maybe because you don’t conform to many of the attributes of a child molester?
There are numerous answers to your question that do not also apply in Michael Jackson’s case.
Which means we question the wisdom of the parents, not assume that MJ is a child molester, Sauron.
eris I believe where the confusion lies is with the underlaying issue.
“Is MJ a child molester” is a question to which none of us has a provable correct answer to, at this point. He’s not been convicted, insufficient evidence has been provided, we’re not privvy to what is there etc.
But that’s not the underlaying question many of the posters here are asking.
They’re (essentially) asking “is it reasonable to suspect that MJ may be a molester, and if so, what should a reasonably prudent parent do under the circumstances?” So, for example, while a person who is currently on trial for child molesting may fall into that same category as above wrt the legal status, the full condemnation/certainty etc, they would (I would assume for most) definately fall into the positive in this other category - that is, while we cannot at this point reasonably prove/assert that yes, he is, it is reasonable to act as if he were likely to be and take precautionary measures.
it’s the same thing as taking reasonable precautions wrt your personal safety by insisting on safe sex practices, until you are absolutely certain of your partner (and your) health.
Many of us are saying that, while we must (legally) stop short of saying/asserting/claiming that MJ is a molester, there is sufficient suspicion/issues to suggest that if he is not, he certainly has some similarities with them, so that reasonable precautions should be taken (both, IMHO by parents of children, and by MJ hissownself).
Once again - there is a difference between claiming legal certainty of guilt/being able to prove same; and actual guilt. As well as a distinct difference between asserting the legal standard of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ and reasonable precautions to take.
Yup, what wring said.
The parent(s) of the child is/are morons, no doubt. Jackson himself is either a child molester, or hopelessly idiotic for continuing to engage in behavior that got the “child molester” tag first applied to him.
Do you know any parents with 12 year old girls? Ask them if you can have their daughters over to sleep in the same bed with you. see what those parents say then.
“We unjustly called him a child molester, so he should know better and submit to the slander so we don’t slander him any more unjustly.” I don’t buy it Sauron.
wring, I agree with that assessment of prudency. Were I a parent, I think I would certainly shy away from that until I knew him better, or unless I was there with my child.
That is not my perception of the talk in this thread.