Because the man is your FRIEND? And presumably knows and trusts you?
MJ is a STRANGER to these folks, until he picks out their son and say “say, can he come out to play and sleepover at my house”? I mean, YUCK…just the thought of such a scenario is creepy and raises red flags the size of Texas.
No parent in their right mind is going to allow their underaged child to go to an unsupervised, “cuddling allowed” sleepover at a strange adult’s home.
That’s a big difference.
Also, I find it highly suspect that MJ chooses, as his little sleepover buddies, the children whose parents may not speak the language well, and those that are poverty stricken and uneducated.
That’s not what I said, and if you think it is, you’ve got some serious comprehension problems.
We don’t know if the “child molester” tag was applied justly or unjustly in the original case. In other words, we don’t know if he’s guilty or not.
For better or worse, Jackson is now tagged with the “child molester” tag for a great number of people. It doesn’t help that he exhibits many of the characteristics of the child-molester profile.
Given 2) and 3), Jackson is stupid for continuing to engage in the behavior that originated the first lawsuit.
Look, I’m all about “benefit of the doubt” and “innocent until proven guilty.” Jackson has never been convicted of child molestation. By the same token, I would not let my children sleep over at Neverland Ranch.
You said he was “hopelessly idiotic” for not discontinuing behavior that “got the child molester tag first applied to him.” Sounds to me like you want him to regulate his behavior based on the court of public opinion, and I’ve got to say I think that’s BS.
I don’t know how you expect an inconclusive lawsuit to be at the center of your claim in that post.
I am skeptical of that claim. You should not engage in behavior that continues to raise my skepticism. If you do anyway, you’re an idiot.
Gee, sound advice. Thanks for introducing me to it.
I want him to regulate his behavior based on what our society considers acceptable, particularly after a civil lawsuit has let him know that some of his behavior is generally frowned upon. He can let kiddies play on Neverland Ranch until the cows come home. Sleeping in the same bed with them is waaaay over the bounds of “socially acceptable.”
erislover, you’re familiar with the concept of a “strawman,” right? Tell you what – show me in this thread where I’ve stated that Jackson is guilty of child molestation. Show me a valid example that would lead you to be skeptical of my assertion that I believe he is innocent until proven guilty.
You obviously feel Jackson is innocent. He may very well be; I don’t know. But can you at least admit that the man is exercising poor judgement in continuing to engage in the exact same behaviors that have gotten him punished financially in the past?
Oh, I didn’t say you didn’t support innocent until proven guilty. I just said I was skeptical. It would be prudent for me to not automatically think your motivations are in judicial fairness, that’s all. For all I know you really are motivated by it. But if I were you, I’d be on my best behavior, that’s all.
I feel no such thing.
Here’s a syllogism that states my opinion:
From what I know, he did nothing wrong.
We should not judge people negatively who didn’t do anything wrong.
So I shall not judge him negatively by what I know.
Yes, I consider “his behavior was idiotic” to be a negative judgment. I’m petty like that.
If you had prior reason to suspect I might not support “innocent until proven guilty” (such as, say, very public accusations from others, and a vigilantism case that I’d settled out of court), your skepticism would be merited. If you don’t have those things, you’re constructing a strawman.
In one sentence in your previous post, you indicate you don’t believe Jackson is innocent, and then in the next sentence you say as far as you know he did nothing wrong. I’m having a hard time reconciling those two statements.
Of COURSE that’s a negative judgement. Are you telling me he was WISE to continue to have children sleep in the same bed with him after he’d settled a child-molestation case?
I would continue this discussion, but I’m having an extremely difficult time understanding what your position is.
How could he possibly be guilty with people like Dr. Firpo Carr (_____as-a-bag-of-hammers) on his side (yes, I know he has a PhD (in computers). He undoubtedly got that at The University of Phoenix where he teaches.
Does anyone else think that this whole thing is just part of the total “play” being put on by Mark Geragos. Where does he find these people anyway.
Something odd was certainly going on in Neverland, even the (now former) security chief became suspicious and started compiling notes. Robert Wegner was the Cheif of Security at the time of the first allegations but, like all Neverland employees, was contractually obligated to keep his mouth shut while employed there and for five years afterwards.
I assume those confidentiality contracts do not apply to illegal behavior, do they? I mean, if an employee tells the police they saw illegal activity, Jackson couldn’t sue for breach of contract, could he?
I don’t know about illegal behavior but word is the language in the contracts allows for employees to be fined if they’re ever quoted in the media during empolyment + five years. For print media, fines are determined on the media’s circulation and start at a million bucks.
Wegner doesn’t claim to have seen illegal behavior, just suspicious/inappropriate behavior such as Michael habitually putting his hands on the thighs of his young guests, disappearing for extended periods of time into Michael’s private movie theater without watching movies and one occasion in which he saw (at a distance) a boy struggle out of Michael’s embrace, scream “get the fuck away from me!” and run away.
Wegner claims he was trying to get something solid to go to the cops with when he was disabled on the job and had to leave Neverland.
Which he was doing prior to the first investigation. He also says that he was in the hosptial at the time of that grand jury and could have testified from a wheelchair but nobody told him about it until after the indictment came down.