Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: CU_AMiGA on February 02, 2005, 03:19:25 PM
-
Hello,
Well, Mr Jackson has started his trial against child abuse. It all seems very fishy, that so many people (victims) are involved in this against a guy who has been linked with this sort of thing for years. What do you think?
The Michael Jackson Trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/entertainment/2005/michael_jackson_on_trial/default.stm)
Regards,
-
I really hope to god that he is innocent of these charges. Not because i like him, because i don't, but because if someone who has done so much for children all over the world for so long is capable of doing such things to a child, then there is no hope for for ever stopping child abuse. :-(
-
....and his music is good as well. Maybe i should dig 'em out again and listen to them before i have to trash 'em after the trial. :-(
Regards,
-
CU_AMiGA wrote:
....and his music is good as well. Maybe i should dig 'em out again and listen to them before i have to trash 'em after the trial. :-(
Regards,
His early music was good. I can't say anything he released after 1989 is my cup of tea.
Billie Jean is his best work IMNSHO.
-
I agree with MDMA, I sincerely hope he's innocent because if he isn't then he's got away with it for so long.
On a side issue, he's clearly self-deluded having proclaimed that he suffers from Vitiligo (hence his white skin) and has denied having much in the way of cosmetic surgery. That doesn't bode well for public perception of him, and I fear that if he proves to be innocent, many people won't believe it.
To have undergone so much cosmetic mutilation, he must have some serious self-image problems IMHO.
-
The man is quite obviously mentally ill, and if he is guilty then he could very easily plead insanity and get away with it.
It's a horrible and messy situation.
-
Michael Jackson can afford the most expensive lawyers in the business. The question is whether he'd allow vanity to damage his defence. My theory is that anyone who'd undergo that much cosmetic surgery wouldn't plead insanity for fear of damaging his public image even more - remember his legal bill won't be cheap and he'll need to sell some records (provided he's found innocent) to pay for the case.
Expect him to make himself out as a victim at some point during the trial... I know I sound like a cynic, but I remember all the media furore during the 80's when he was supposed to sleep in an oxygen tent, have bought the skeleton of John Merrick had a chimp as a best pal etc and then released "Leave Me Alone" which featured them all in a video...
-
Is he guilty? Well usually.. If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
They changed the law in California because of Jackson after the first molestation case was settled out of court for millions. Now there can be no such settlement, this is going to court. The police also claim to have rock solid evidence. This probably partially has to do with the kid being able to describe some abnormal feature of Jackson's penis.
This should be a slam dunk case, unless the jury is stacked with star struck fans like the abomination OJ trial :-x
-
I hope -- strictly for the sake of the children -- that he is innocent, but the reported "facts" do seem to mount up against him.
Though I like his older music, I think Jackson is a deeply mentally disturbed child who desperately needs an older role model. I have very little interest for most of their family, having resigned them to the same level of interest as yet another Paris Hilton clone.
I will admit however that at the age of 13, The Jackson 5 concert was the first concert I ever went to see. (October 6th, 1979, Huntsville, AL). I walked up to the counter and paid for the concert myself with literally $13.50 in nickels, dimes, and quarters that I had saved for months -- much to the chagrin of the ticket lady. It was the first case of my parents saying "if you want to go see them, you have to pay for it". They didn't so much as give me a dime for popcorn, but it was my first real achievement growing up.
As such, whether or not Jackson is proven guilty of pedophilia in a court of law, I guess I'm a little sad to see how twisted someone with so much potential turned out.
Wayne
-
I don't doubt for a minute he's mentally ill. However, that doesn't make him a paedophile.
I'm somewhat struck by the symbolic loss of innocence in this case - both of Jackson's public persona as portrayed in the media and the idea that an adult can have a benevolent interest in a child. It's a sign of the times.
His is certainly a tragic tale, but if he's guilty of the most disgusting crimes against those most vulnernable then I'll have no further sympathy for him.
-
The police also claim to have rock solid evidence. This probably partially has to do with the kid being able to describe some abnormal feature of Jackson's penis.
yeah, like....maybe he's got one?
yuk, the whole thing is revolting. pardon me while i go vomit! :-(
-
because of Jackson after the first molestation case was settled out of court for millions
so yes he is guilty, he is a child molester.
Why didn't they treat him for this after the case was settled?
(http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
-
Well, we can't judge on what we don't know... The first case was settled out of court, but we don't know what happened because it never came out in a court of law.
Having said that, handing over millions of dollars to someone who's accused you of abusing their child isn't reassuring of innocence.
-
Can mass-murderers also settle their cases? :nervous:
-
Not now the California law's been changed, no.
-
PMC wrote:
Having said that, handing over millions of dollars to someone who's accused you of abusing their child isn't reassuring of innocence.
True, but that cuts both ways too. I could imagine that as the parent of an abused child, you'd want to see genuine justice done and not just paying to keep quiet. After all, how much money is enough to assuage the anguish caused? How much money is enough for you to allow the person you have accused their freedom to do it to someone elses child?
I'm not saying either way if I think MJ is guilty or not. He sure seems to have some serious personal issues but that doesn't make him a child molester. Let a court of law establish the facts.
-
Karlos wrote:
Let a court of law establish the facts.
As it should be
but too many cases show that courts cannot be trusted either :-(
-
He sure seems to have some serious personal issues but that doesn't make him a child molester. Let a court of law establish the facts.
I certainly agree with that ideal, but then again, how many independently reported incidents do there have to be before at least one of them is true.
"Boy cries wolf" 10 times, he's pretty much assured that he's going to get bitten by the wolf at least once.
The simple fact that Michael Jackson appears creepy to most "normal" adults won't help him at all.
Wayne
-
Wayne wrote:
He sure seems to have some serious personal issues but that doesn't make him a child molester. Let a court of law establish the facts.
I certainly agree with that ideal, but then again, how many independently reported incidents do there have to be before at least one of them is true.
Not necessarily, I mean, one can bring others to the idea, and it'll spread like fire...
-
Not necessarily, I mean, one can bring others to the idea, and it'll spread like fire...
You mean just like the moronic idea that since someone doesn't lick Bill McEwen's boots, the rumor is started and heavily promoted that they're a Genesi supporter (or visa-versa)?
Just an analogy to better put the idea into perspective.
-
Even without this ordeal and if he'd never even been in the presence of other children, my opinion of Michael Jackson on a personal level would not change. He's a weird duck, that one..
-
Let a court of law establish the facts.
Oh they will. We are just armchair jurors on an Amiga forum, not a real life angry mob;-)
You have to admit, the evidence that has compounded over the last ~20 years is pretty frightening. This dates all the way back to the 80's with the Emanuale Lewis speculations. Recently even people unrelated to this case(with no financial stakes) have come forward with stories, such as a former Neverland Ranch security officer hearing Mcculley Culcin(HTF do you spell that? The home alone brat) yell "Get your hands off me, don't touch me!". MJ has the entrance to his wine cellar IN THE KIDS GAME ROOM.
We'll see..
BTW About the title Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?. The author of Peter Pan was a paedophile, after he died they found child porn in his possesion.
-
I'm not saying either way if I think MJ is guilty or not. He sure seems to have some serious personal issues but that doesn't make him a child molester. Let a court of law establish the facts.
I believe that was the gist of my post, but having paid an out of court settlement to an accuser's family isn't a great way of convincing people you're innocent.
We'll see what happens in court, but speculate the media will...
-
And then there's the parents who've been nothng but pimps since the beginning, I hope child protective investigates these wierdo's too. Everyone else has known he's a wacko for years, what's THEIR problem?
Of course he's a Paedophile. Did he act on it? Probably.
-
And then there's the parents who've been nothng but pimps since the beginning, I hope child protective investigates these wierdo's too. Everyone else has known he's a wacko for years, what's THEIR problem?
and THAT's exactly what has weirded ME out for years!!! :-o
I wouldn't let a child in the same state as that guy, never mind the same house. and certainly not the same room, overnight!!!
sheesh! that's just weird!!!
and if they do it because they are in love with notoriety ("Oh, look, it's Micheal Jackson"!!!) that just makes them despicable. they shouldn't even have children with that kind of repulsive attitude!
-
what's THEIR problem?
Conspiracy theorie; they framed Wacko Jacko so they could get a few mil in a settlement out of court.
Well, you gotta admit, not that unbelieveable..
-
seer wrote:
what's THEIR problem?
Conspiracy theorie; they framed Wacko Jacko so they could get a few mil in a settlement out of court.
Well, you gotta admit, not that unbelieveable..
Oh I completely agree the parents were whoring their children in the hopes of a windfall, I don't think I'd call it a set up though. You can tempt someone, but you can't make them commit a crime.
He's not a criminal because he's a Paedophile, he's a criminal because he molests children. Sexual preference shouldn't predispose one of a criminal behavior any more than it does with hetereosexuals, IM(revised)O
If we call it anything that even smells like a set up, it's the short skirt defence for rapists all over again. I admit I'd like to see these children removed from their parents if there's any monetary compensation though, they shouldn't have any reward for heir role, but I don't know how to word it without setting a portable precident for other crimes.
OT: In that book I just finished (Odd Thomas), Elvis appeared as a ghost to the main character, the ghosts only appear when they have unfinished business on earth that must be taken care of, they never did get around to what exactly that was though, I hate loose ends in stories, he should have had him stick around to kick Michael Jacksons ass for touching his daughter! :lol: "Get back here you moonwalking freak! I'm not done with you yet!"
Googlefight! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=elvis&q2=michael+jackson&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)
elvis
(14 100 000 results)
versus
michael jackson
(14 200 000 results)
The winner is: michael jackson
Damn, nevermind.
-
T_Bone wrote:
And then there's the parents who've been nothng but pimps since the beginning, I hope child protective investigates these wierdo's too. Everyone else has known he's a wacko for years, what's THEIR problem?
Of course he's a Paedophile. Did he act on it? Probably.
Am I the only one who thinks we are maybe being a little too hard on the parents?
A lot of these folks appear to be in a vulnerale state with seriously unwell kids.
Along comes a guy (a superstar btw) who can bring a little happiness to their kids. And here's the clincher, he befriends the parents too. He gets under their skin and their guard goes down. It's the classic behaviour of a molester.
If he has done anything, I'm pretty sure these parents are beating themselves up enough as it is. They won't be the first to be duped, and sadly they probably won't be the last.
@redrumola
I wasn't aware such evidence existed about JM Barrie, though an unhealthy interest has always been speculated upon. There's no way I'm gonna google this as I can only imagine the sick links some of the keywords would return! :-(
I do know that he donated the Peter Pan novel and all associated financial rights to the Great Ormond Street (Children's Hospital) in London. I wonder what his motivation was for this action.
-
Am I the only one who thinks we are maybe being a little too hard on the parents?
parents are the first line of defense in protecting children.
if they don't take their responibility seriously, no one else will. and we see the results of that everyday in the news. and that can only be a small percentage of stories about abused children around the world.
if you can't be a parent - distrusting EVERYONE first - then don't have children. if you are gullible and stupid don't have kids.
and if everyone felt as I do, you would never see one child abused, uneducated, unfed, unloved. but people are lazy, selfish and stupid.
-
ajlwalker wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks we are maybe being a little too hard on the parents?
They need it. They arn't the victims, the children are. The only thing enticing the parents is money. Money and nothing else. These children are left alone, without their family present, with a stranger, which wouldn't happen if it wern't for the money. I'd try to be sympathetic to the parents if I could see an angle that suggested something other than this scenario, but I don't see it.
A lot of these folks appear to be in a vulnerale state with seriously unwell kids.
Which makes the excuse that the money is in the childs best interest LESS of an issue. If my child were dying there'd be nothing more valueable than time spent with that child, I'd be less likely to give up this free time to some stranger.
The parents arn't vunerable, the children are.
I don't know, maybe there's things I don't see, but most of what's been made public about the parents of most of the children, they appear as nothing more than pimps.
Hell, one of the fathers, when learning about advances from the wierd one, demanded more money to "Continue the relationship" (his own words)
-
redrumloa wrote:
We'll see..
BTW About the title Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?. The author of Peter Pan was a paedophile, after he died they found child porn in his possesion.
FUD!!! :-P :-D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Barrie
-
bloodline wrote:
redrumloa wrote:
We'll see..
BTW About the title Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?. The author of Peter Pan was a paedophile, after he died they found child porn in his possesion.
FUD!!! :-P :-D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Barrie
:lol: (oh i shouldn't really laugh though :sealed: )
Seriously, i really woudn't like to think Michael was capable of doing this type of stuff. I really like is music (i am not a "Wacko Jacko" fan though). Maybe we should assign the name "Paedo-Pan" to him :-)
Regards,
-
Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?
Pandaphile? (Keep him well away from black and white bears and goths) ;-p
Seriously, I'd rather not comment until they reach a verdict.
-
Wilse wrote:
Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?
Pandaphile? (Keep him well away from black and white bears and goths) ;-p
Seriously, I'd rather not comment until they reach a verdict.
May I ask why?
-
@mdma:
May I ask why?
A few reasons, I suppose.
One is that I don't know all the details. It certainly looks fishy but I'm not entirely convinced.
Add to that a reluctance to research the details, which is based on selfish rationing of my time.
On top of all that, while paedophilia is a horrible problem, the only thing that separates this case from countless others is the fame of the suspect.
But now that I've started talking about it I might as well comment:
My guess is he's guilty. I really hope I'm wrong.
I also agree with cecilia; anyone letting their children anywhere near that guy, after all the previous accusations, is more to blame than Jackson, regardless of whether he is guilty or not.
If a father flings his kid into a pool with a hungry shark in it, he really shouldn't be surprised to see little Johnny being munched, since we know the nature of the shark.
As far as I'm concerned, these parents (the recent ones) did exactly that. Anyone who didn't know there were child-abuse allegations connected to Jackson, doesn't know who Jackson is.
If such a person even exists, get them on that jury. ;-)
-
Everyone here seems to be pretty sensible, I'm really amazed the news shows so many supports showing up to rally support at the courthouse. I guess there are nut bags out there, I've yet to meet anyone who believes blindly he is innocent.. This time.. But they are out there..
the only thing that separates this case from countless others is the fame of the suspect.
Agreed. If this was some backwoods carnival clown trying to lure young boys to his trailer for overnight stays things wold be 100% different. Hell a carny clown makes kids laugh, thus makes them happy. People say MJ brings joy to kids. MJ is rich and is famous. A carny clown isn't and probably smells bad. So what's the major difference? Money. The parents are pimps.
-
Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?
Paedophile.
I rest my case.
-
I am just wandering, will he get a fair trial?
Or does some one out there want there pound of flesh no matter if he is guilty or not.
I think if the press sees him as guilty then he is f****** no matter what.
Or could it be that certain parents have ideas on a big money payout?
Are certain parents manipulating the child/children to say things?
After all its America isnt it, where the Doller is the main God of there system.
Parents have been caught out in the past for manipulating there children to gain money.
So if this is the case then the parents arent worth jack S*** if all they see is the allmighty doller.
Who knows this may be the case it may not be the case.
But it has been proven in the past that it has been the case in other lay suits. And letts not forget the fat greedy money grabing lawyers who will make this last.
Yep there big money to be made out of this......
And if MJ is NOT guilty then that dont matter as long as there is big money to be made, some one from some where will find a way to MAKE him guilty.
As for me, I just dont know...... I think he is a little odd yes but a pedo, hmmm well perhaps not.
The trouble is if you are seen to be a little odd then yes some one will make something out of it, especialy if money is to be made.
So looking at it that way, who gives a s*** for real justice.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
@swift240
First off let me start with a:
:roll:
Next let me ask you this. Would you let your child stay the night alone with MJ? How about in some carnival clown's trailer?
BTW the media has not seemed to lean one way or another with one exception. Heraldo Rivera has spoken out that he thinks MJ is innocent. You seem to fall into the category of he's fabulously wealthy and famous, he must be innocent.
-
OK, look, I DONT think just because he is famouse and wealthy that he MUST be inocent.
I just think that the American law system is mostly based on big bucks. And who can gain the most out of it.
Would I let my child stay with him over night or some carnival clown?
No of course not.
But listen..... I am simply saying this and no more, when it comes to some one like him, and big bucks, then it dont matter about a fair trial does it?
A lot of people will get him no matter what, if he is not guilty or guilty that dont come into it, some one wants him sent away no matter what.
Thats why i said " will he get a fair trial"
And why wouldnt I let my child stay with him or any other... very simple......I wouldnt let any of my kids stay with any one, no matter who they are. full stop.
And if the parents let there children stay over night with him then they must have total trust in him.
As for me I wouldnt trust any one with my kids, but thats just me.
A fair trial or not, will he get it?
Just because you are a little odd in this world then does that make you guilty?
I suppose to some yes it does.
I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.
And that comes down to the same question, wil he get a fair trial.
After all if a person is to be found guilty then 100% proof must be seen in order to make him guilty, as with any other person.
Or do we just say, "ohhhh f*** it he must be guilty"
-
swift240 wrote:
I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.
Of course, but why spending millions for avoiding legal system?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
swift240 wrote:
I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.
Of course, but why spending millions for avoiding legal system?
What do you mean?
-
T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?
I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.
-
redrumloa wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?
I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.
Oh, yea, the "Why does he keep making millionaires out of Boyscouts" factor.
:lol:
-
T_Bone wrote:
redrumloa wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?
I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.
Oh, yea, the "Why does he keep making millionaires out of Boyscouts" factor.
:lol:
:lol:
btw. Red's right..