Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?

[PMC]

Not now the California law's been changed, no.

[Karlos]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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..

[redrumloa]

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.

[PMC]

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...  

[T_Bone]

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.

 

[cecilia]

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!

[seer]

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..

[T_Bone]

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!

elvis
(14 100 000 results)
versus
michael jackson
(14 200 000 results)
The winner is:    michael jackson

Damn, nevermind.

[ajlwalker]

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.

[cecilia]

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.

[T_Bone]

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)