Since when is prejudice a good basis for labeling someone a pedophile?

Yes I'm talking to you if you are applying that label to Micheal Jackson.

Micheal Jackson was aquitted of charges of pedophilia by a jury who were presented with the best evidence for and against. Courts can be wrong, but if you think this court was wrong and the source isn't something demonstrably wrong with the facts of the procedure of the court, maybe you should reflect on that. Or maybe you should consider that we actually have courts (flawed as they may be) to protect people from punishment for things that aren't actually crimes, like being misunderstood or resented for your success.

Prejudice is when you have a feeling about someone that superscedes factual discussion. Micheal Jackson was a magnet for prejudice because he was weird, black, and phenomenally sucessful. It doesn't surprise me that I'm seeing prejudiced accusations made against him on the day of his death. But if you are finding yourself brimming with irrational hatred and needing to attack him today maybe you should consider why you feel that way rather than nurturing it and venting it on other people.

Just a thought.

That's called hush money. Just because he was an outstanding singer/artist - does not exempt him from the harm he caused children.

PS> OJ was innocent, too.

I know OJ was "innocent". He was also found liable for civil penalties, and there were demonstrable problems with the criminal case.


I think Micheal Jackson was a crappy artist. I just get pissed off when I hear people talking about who is "really innocent" without demonstrating an understanding of anything other than sensationalized media coverage.

"JUNE 16--Michael Jackson agreed to pay $15.3 million to settle child molestation charges leveled against him in 1993 by a California boy, according to a confidential legal agreement. A heavily redacted version of the 31-page document, a copy of which you'll find below, was obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond."


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

from people like I've seen on DU. Since people still claimed he was guilty he THEN went to trial, and allowed a full search of his house, interviews with children that have visited his ranch, testimonies by children who are now adults who have visited his ranch and declared him not to have taken inappropriate actions. So on, and so on, and so on.

He let everything be aired in an EXTENSIVE trial that was then transcript ed and presented to the public and it did nothing but prove his innocence. He could have settled with that family too but he was sick of these rumors and wanted the trial so people would see there was no evidence supporting them. Yet some people want to ignore that he was thoroughly investigated and ignore that he was vetted completely down to his very bones and no evidence was found. They would instead like to believe he was a child molester because they find his poor judgement, and eccentric lifestyle non-kosher with societal norms. Not because he was guilty of child molestation.

To these people, being proven innocent in a court of law means nothing. Testimonies, and evidence of his innocence means nothing, sadly :(

carry on living in a dream world.

you just use things like "yeah right" and "if you believe that..."

You use ARGUEMENTATIVE FALLACIES (look that up) such as "if you don't have kids you can't have an opinion" or "where there is smoke there is fire" rather than argue as a proper debate with new information that counteracts the valid information out there.

Nothing I said in my post was untrue. But you'd rather live in YOUR dream world of hate. I have no dog in this fight. I don't like Jackson's music. I'm not a fan of pop music to start with. I'm not black so I'm not defending him because of race. However, I do have an IQ of 138 evaluated at UNC and pride myself on always approaching situations objectively and based on facts not "gut feelings" like George Bush.

hyperbole much? i provided a link thats it. if you want to think that innocent people pay out multi millions because a trial would inconvenience them thats your business.

if the person is 100% innocent. Once his face has been on papers for a year under the headline of claiming he's on trial for pedophilia... no amount of innocent verdict can over come that. Nor can it return the money lost, the friends lost, the dreams lost.

Just like my dad settled with an insurance company for thousands less than his car was worth because it would be too much time away from the office and too many hours to push the issue.

If you want to believe that because someone settles out of court for millions of dollars that it makes him guilty... that's your business and your ignorance of how the world works.

the payoff in question was to settle a civil suit in 93, not a trial "for pedophilia" you might get your facts straight BEFORE launching into a hysterical defense of a likely pedophile.

he DID go to trial for accusation of child molestation and was proven innocent. I never claimed it was for the 93 suit. It came AFTER the 93 suit but the suit was investigated as well as his entire relationship with children during that trial. It wasn't the same family lying to leech off of money and fame... that sparked the trial but the rumors caused by that first settlement is the reason he didn't settle the second time. Because of people like you. He wanted to have his innocence proven flat out and he did.

You might want to get some of your facts straight before you accuse someone of being a pedophile based on nothing but your personal opinions. Can you not admit that you might be wrong in this situation? Is there no amount of evidence that can be presented to you that would let you accept something other than the conclusion you've jumped to?

I used to believe he was a pedophile until the trial ... but after carefully looking at all the information in an unbiased fashion, a reasonable person would conclude that he was rather unbalanced, very eccentric, had horrible judgement, and probably shouldn't be a father based on his inability to determine what was "safe" and what was not (ie dangling children off a balcony) but that person, looking at the evidence, would not be able to conclude he was a pedophile unless they already had a previous bias.

i dont really care what ridiculous lengths you'll go to to defend jackson. in my mind he is a pedophile who had enough money to buy himself out of jail, end of story.

And that's what I'm trying to say. You're basing your opinion on your "gut feelings" and not on your facts. I'm not going to ridiculous lenghts to defend Jackson. I don't care about that much about Jackson individually. He's a good musician I'm sure though I don't own his CDs. But it just bothers me a lot when I see people ignore facts for "gut feelings".

But you're right. If no evidence I provide can change your mind then that is the end of the story. It's a lot like talking to people with strong religious beliefs who don't want to believe in evolution.

Nothing more.

whether he is or isn't actually innocent, he was not "proven innocent".

the criminal finder of fact,the jury, is not even authorized to decide that, and they don't.

they decide guilty or NOT guilty.

that is NOT the same as INNOCENT.

whether or not he WAS innocent, it was not "proven".

occasionally, somebody is PROVEN INNOCENT. a perfect example is the duke case, where the frigging AG came straight out and said they were clearly innocent. that's rare, once somebody is charged, but it happens.

please be accurate. juries do not make a determination of INNOCENCE.

You are technically correct then. He was found NOT guilty of child molestation. The people in the Duke case were not proven innocent anymore than Jackson was. The AG came out and said clearly that they were innocent and they were. But just like in the Duke case, someone lied about an innocent person. The only difference with Jackson was it took a trial to show that he was not guilty and that the accusations against him were false.

EOM

a lot of people did, even after the trial.

There is no finding of "innocence" in our justice system. It's "guilty" or "not guilty". He was found NOT GUILTY.
Jesus, I'm going to have to stay off of these threads.
Hard to believe sometimes that this is a progressive sight, isn't it?

how much money would it take to shut you up? These parents were looking for fame and money and nothing more.

which was evaluated by a jury that was likely bias against him (like the majority of DU) from the get go... and then when looking at all the evidence, no matter how badly they wanted to, there was no way they could conclude that he was guilty. In civil court you don't have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All they had to prove was that he PROBABLY did it WITH a reasonable doubt. And they couldn't even do that.

Are you talking about Bush or MJ?

There is a big difference.

Give it up. You can worship his music all you want, but his personal life was fucked up - and he fucked up the lives of others in the process.

However, I am a realistic person who looks at evidence in an unbiased fashion.

And I have pointed out the MAJOR differences between OJ and Michael Jackson several times in this thread. Which you have choosen to ignore. I suposse there is no evidence that could convince you of a person's innocence is there? Since not even a trial by jury and they very people making the accusations retracting their statements would be enough?

a civil case....so did MJ the minute he paid off to get out of a civil case which likely would have cost him far more than the 15 million he paid to settle the civil case. settle a civil case = lost a civil case.

You can search my posts and see I haven't stated a position on this, I don't give a shit. But to act as though people who believe MJ was a pedophile are making shit up is simply blindness.

They should have said no to the money and moved forward with the accusations. But whatever, that's all in the past. I thought it was strange for MJ to be sleeping in the same bed with other folks kids that were not related to you. I don't understand why his family or someone in his family didn't step in to talk to him about that.

instead of going to trial. To suggest that someone is guilty because they settled a matter is ridiculous. Ignorant people think, if he really didn't do it, why did he pay. That reminds me of the other stupid saying, if you got nothing to hide, why do you care about phone taps and illegal searches.

If and when you find yourself in the situation of being sued or accused, there will come a point when you will have to weigh the cost, both financial and emotional, etc. of a long drawn out trial where anything can happen, or keeping control of the matter yourself by settling.

You might as well ask the accuser, why did he take the money, as to ask why the alleged perp paid.

Obviously there are other considerations beyond guilt or innocence.

he settled out of court.

and people here use that to state definitively that he sexually harassed that woman (see: loofah incident).

tons of posts.

i just find the double standard ironic. ok when it's a right winger, but not when it's michael jackson.

I have certainly never claimed OReilly making a settlement was proof he was guilty.

there's just metric assloads of posts that accept that he is a sexual harasser and that the loofah incident happened as alleged.

Though I would have been more surprised to hear that BEFORE reading all these posts claiming Jackson's settlement is proof he commited the crime. :(

NO amount of money would cause me to ask that the charge be dropped. NO AMOUNT.

And what the heck does OJ have to do with this? Another black person cheats the system?

Think about what you could do with all that money... versus the alternative of putting your kid through a lenghty trial against his accuser, and only a few years in prison for the perp. What is more satisfying? A little prison time or lots of money?

If they weren't, the courts would be jammed up even worse. It would take 20 years to get to trial.

Civil suits are expensive, especially when the defendant is a deep pocket.

Maybe you want MJ to be guilty, but his settling civil suits is no proof whatsoever.

with them. Sounds like a date to me.

Or provided them alcohol? All I've heard has been speculation.

That was aired out in the trial. The original rumor was he gave them wine in a coke can and called it Jesus Juice which was determined to be false. But people don't care what the trial found... of course. Because no amount of proof otherwise would change their minds. He looks "freaky" after all, and he DID have very poor judgement and was very koo koo... which leads people to prejudice in and of itself.

says. Think OJ Simpson. The payoffs, etc., that Michael Jackson paid to parents of his "victims" speak loudly.

He was a great entertainer, but had serous flaws. We shouldn't be deifying this man. Whitewashing his flaws is a poor idea, in my opinion.

but the payoffs would have been immensely better for his career than a long drawn out court case in the headlines and may have been on advice from his lawyers. I don't see where that proves guilt or not.

I said that we all make our own judgements in such cases.

Michael Jackson does not deserve deification, any more than does any popular entertainer. He sang and danced well. That's what he did, and celebrating that is fine.

Beyond that, he was not an exemplary person. I would not wish that my young relatives turn out like Michael Jackson. He's a poor role model.

Those who liked his performances have every right to be sad at his passing. Deification is another matter.

I've made no judgments, over the years, about Jackson's obvious dysfunctions other than to think that he was a tortured soul.

I left the rest up to the system.

As far as payoffs go... Whether the payoff was to silence truth, or to make false accusations go away, I couldn't say. But:

If the payoffs were silencing truth, then that makes the parents of his victims pimps. Were they pimping their kids before the accusations as well as after?

What kind of parent takes money from their child's abuser? What kind of parent lets the abuser go for pay? What kind of parent leaves their kids alone with someone who is clearly not balanced or emotionally healthy, to begin with?

As long as we're serving as judge and jury, let's throw ALL the abusers into the mix.

Or not. Not, for me. I'll refrain from judging, again.

It isn't prejudice, it's considering the evidence without prejudice that makes many call a duck a duck.

Or when they decide the money is worth less than the time and energy of going through civil proceedings. Really if that is the only evidence you have of a duck you might be closing your case prematurely. Swans and quails also have feathers. :hi:

Or just what was gleaned from the MSM when it was in the news? If you have more then just a personal opinion, any hard evidence that the rest of us never got to see, please be so kind as to provide a link to it.

I have no opinion on guilt or innocence, just wanted to point out a possiblity.

Or did you just make that decision based on rumor and innuendo.


-nnnm

HOWEVER, you forget that after making that settlement, when Jackson saw how the rumors grew... he allowed the second set of accusations to go to trial and clear his name. That's exactly what happened. He was found innocent. You don't say that the fact he wanted to take the second accusation to trial as proof that he is innocent but you do say his desire not to be drug before the public like that and humiliated on TV is a sign of guilt.

You know very well that if someone's face is put in the papers for months on end and it says in the headline that he is on trial as a pedophile, that the damage is already done and it won't matter one way or the other if he is proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just as it doesn't matter to the people here that Jackson was proven innocent of this matter in a court of law ...

...and since the law evolved to blur the double standards that benefit the very rich.

It's barely conceivable that Mr. Jackson was innocent of all the charges, official and muttered. If I had millions, and better things to do with my time than sit in court, presumably I would buy my way out of suits, too.

I hope, though, that I would muster the grit to oppose mere blackmail. Paying the Danegeld is rarely a permanent solution.

It is naive to think that just being innocent means you don't have to do anything.

You have to be innocent of the realities of the court system to think that.

If you are ever accused and are innocent, you're in great danger if you think that is the time to do nothing and rely on your innocence alone.

And thousands of people settle out of court every year.

:shrug: doesn't mean he didn't do it

Once again it is all about the why.

but he knew who did, and he was trying to protect that person.

Black? You think people here are attacking him because he's Black? Weird and successful maybe, but Black?

I certainly haven't read all the posts about him, but I have a hard time believing that people here are "brimming with irrational hatred" because of his race. :eyes:

But why don't you go over to stormfront.org and see what they are saying about him?

What I am saying is that there exist, in a general sense, racial reasons for him to be a target of prejucice.

If that is where you find the racism, maybe you should post this over there instead.

who ARE using 'weird and successful' because it's not PC say in public what they want to say.

A great many of the statements here mirror statements on that other site which will not be named, and there is little doubt that many of THEM are based on race.

Michael Jackson paid off people and he is innocent. DUer's paid off no one and have not had a trial but they are guilty of being racists even though we backed a black guy for President!

I did not follow the Jackson trial but I can address the payoff issue. You say that people pay off others to avoid a trial and save time. I say they can also pay off people because they are guilty and do not want to go to trial. Neither of us can prove why he did it but one is as likely as the other.

What I can speak with authority on is to the sleeping with kids aspect. You do not do things that can be misconstrued, especially with kids, when you are rich enough to become a financial target. Just because a jury finds you not guilty does not mean you actually did nothing. Our system is not infallible. As a Mom I would not declare him innocent and let my children sleep with him. I would not even let them spend time alone with him. This is not because he is black it is the same precaution I take all the time with my children.

We recently found out there is a pedophile in our family and we will not let our children go to any events that this pedophile attends. The pedophile is NOT black. He is the same color we are but I will not take chances where my children are concerned. It only takes one sexual act to ruin a child's life. I am my children's protector (as is my husband) and we will not take chances because they would have to live with the ramifications of our decisions. We will not even meet our family pedophile in a public family gathering lest our children go to the bathroom the same time as the pedophile. We have told the family we will let our children attend the same family functions, as the pedophile, when they are 17 and can punch his lights out. Yes, we said it exactly like that!

Let me ask you, I am not sure if you have children but if you did, would you feel comfortable letting them share a bed with Michael Jackson? It only takes once to ruin a child's life. My young relative has been in therapy for quite a while now. His grades are finally back up and he is finally adjusting but he will have to deal with this for a long time to come. Would you truly be willing to gamble away your child's innocence?

oh, I guess OJ is innocent, too.
I've seen it probably 100 times in the last two days. What is the relevance of that remark? They're both black...they both cheated the system? Why OJ?

O.J. Simpson was aquitted of charges of murder by a jury who were presented with the best evidence for and against.

that is why he lost the civil trial. In Jackson's Trial they were not even able to prove he "probably did it" WITH a reasonable doubt. Even after searching his residence and interviewing countless individuals who had stayed at Neverland Ranch and who had spent time and nights in Jackson's room.

is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

He settled in a civil trial with a lower standard of proof -- a preponderance of the evidence.

IMO, It is inconceivable that an innocent person would settle in a case involving accusations of such reprehensible conduct.

...he's being labelled a pedophile because of inappropriate physical contact with children.


Geezus....

toward hate, WHY???? This has got to be something about you more than anything else.

Was he ever convicted??? forget about what you believe for a minute and answer the
question. WAS HE EVER CONVICTED????

having to fork out millions of dollars...get a grip.

he could not have settled out of court to protect his name...Right(?)

You've just taken a hearsay and use it as evidence for him being a pedophile,
says a lot more about you than him.

Was he convicted in the court of Law?

to disprove what they WANT to believe. Society has to have its demons. It isn't about whether he did it or not. It's about them needing someone to vent hatered towards.

When an innocent person is accused of reprehensible conduct, it is inconceivable that they would rather pay off the accuser if there is no evidence.

of the infamous murders, that is?

is it "prejudice" to think he most likely DID kill them?

Lots of people buy or cajole their way out of convictions.


My argument skewered toward hate? I'm the biggest Obama-defender on this site - against the hate directed at our President by others.

:eyes:

provided to disprove that claim... including a court trial that was VERY different from OJ's MURDER trial. Where the requirements to prove guilt were more lenient.

He admitted those things. Sorry...just going by what he admitted, he's a dangerous sex-offender. It's a bigger reach to believe there wasn't also touching than to believe there was.


You can stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la-la I can't hear you" all you want. Live in denial for all I care.


But Michael Jackson was a sick fuck. A very TALENTED sick fuck. But a sick fuck nonetheless.

Having unrelated children sleeping in his bed does not mean he had sex with children, or touched them inappropriately. I'm sorry you can't accept that he just had mental problems and believed on the inside he himself was a child. The man obviously had a large lack of judgement and plenty of evidence he would develop non-sexual relationships and friendships with children for those needs. It's funny that you look at such information and the first thing you think is "he must be a pedophile" despite evidence against the contrary.

It looks like you are living in denial. Most of the posts you make on this board are insulting. Be they insulting to Hillary, or Michael Jackson, or anyone who you don't approve of. They also often tend to disregard facts. Because of that, you are the one poster in this entire thread that I am uninterested in responding to further. I usually try and ignore your posts specifically in other threads on other topics.

I'm sure you're a great person, but you and I obviously have very, very different personalities that aren't going to work together in a debate. This can probably be shown by your responding to this in an attempt to grab a last world after I've now ended the conversation.

Let me tell you about the pedophile in our family. He has never been convicted. The first incident, we know of, happened when he was 12. He did VERY inappropriate things with my nephew. Almost four years later he approached the same little boy and asked to do the actions again. The boy turned him down. He then offered the boy money to do the same thing again. He was turned down once again.

We also know of him, at 16, kissing a 12 year old girl at his church. Oh, and groping a 60 something year old woman. By the way, this does not make him any less of a pedophile. Check the definition and you will see why. Especially when the young child in questions was about 5 when this first happened.

My relative has never been convicted. Make no mistake about it, he is a pedophile.

You do know what an anecdotal fallacy is correct? It's something you learn when educating yourself on how to hold a valid debate.

The point I was making is that just because he was not convicted does not conclusively mean he is in no way a child molester. Can you say otherwise?

most of it is a reflection of the individual themselves, which is something that most of them
don't understand.


"If you wanna make that change, look at yourself in the mirror and make that change"
Michael Jackson - Man In The Mirror

You have no evidence other than your opinion. But we have an entire court trial, and not an "OJ" style trial where guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If court trials aren't good enough for you, if the testimony of children who have stayed in his room and his ranch aren't good enough for you, if a search of his house, his belongings, and a federal investigation isn't good enough to clear his name. Then what is?

Having bad judgement, being bit mentally off balance, and looking like a cartoon character doesn't make someone a pedophile.

of his own "Neverland eternal youth". He was not a little boy sleeping in a bed with children he virtually bought from their parents. He was a grown man. It is being incredibly or deliberately naive to think his great wealth didn't buy the lawyers that saved him from jail and enabled him to continue his activities.

He was a grown man not a man-child and it's an insult to black men, who may be wrongly imprisoned and don't have the money or power to attain freedom, to compare them to a pedophile with unlimited resources.

So in a way I agree with you. If every black man in prison had dyed themselves white and had their face cut up to look like a caucasian they might have gotten a better deal. Act like a little boy and wear pajamas, add several million in legal fees and you might walk too!

I just think some of the knee-jerk hate that I'm seeing around here is a bit much.

Thats really all I'm saying.

or at least a poor application of it to this case.

in this case there is evidence, albeit circumstantial, that paint a disturbing image. it may not be conclusive but there is certainly enough evidence for people to form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions.

my understanding of the court procedings was that it was a criminal charge, and therefore the standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt". even without getting into the particular advantages of having access to the kind of legal team only the super wealthy can afford, nevermind the advantages of celebrity itself, that standard is a high one. perhaps there was not enough compelling evidence to reach that standard.

the public, however, is entitled to use their own standards, and "more likely than not" is a fairly reasonable one. that is essentially the standard in a civil lawsuit, and mj settled more than one of those by paying money to avoid going to court. that in and of itself could be taken as practically a confession. there are obviously pragmatic reasons to settle any lawsuit, but most people would fight tooth and nail any accusation of pedophilia.

as for him being "weird", imho, the weirdest thing he did was sleep as an adult in the same bed as children not his own.

that's like finding someone at the murder scene holding a smoking gun. not conclusive, but damn disturbing.

I am seeing people who are disrupting threads that mourn Jackson with screeds concerning behavior of which he was aquitted. They are showing no sense of doubt or propriety, and to me that would seem to indicate some level of prejudice. I don't consider myself a fan or admirer of Jackson, and I think the Neverland business was more than a little creepy, but I also don't feel compelled to shit on him at his funeral.

You may believe that Jackson was engaging in pedophilia, but you are arguing it in a reasonable tone rather than railing against him, and acknowledging doubts. So my OP isn't referring to you. Maybe my OP is overly broad, but I've seen a lot of people hate on Micheal Jackson in my life, and not just after the allegations about pedophilia. I think a lot of the vitriol I've seen today has been that same prejudicial outlook that I've seen previously.

Maybe you agree with my OP and you don't even know it.

MJ was a danger to children.

I think the people who are seeking out threads related to Micheal Jackson today and spewing a lot of vitriol about pedophilia are motivated by something other than a fair minded assessment of the facts of his criminal trial.

Some people are interpreting me as calling them racist. I don't think you have to be racist to be prejudiced against Micheal Jackson so that isn't precisely what I mean by "prejudiced", if that is what you are asking.

Jackson admitted taking other people's children to bed, but never admitted having sexual contact. I don't know the word for someone who likes to take young children to bed but doesn't have sex with them, but pedophile comes damned close.

I wouldnt send my child to spend the night with any adult.



-nnnm

Blame the fucking victims instead of the pedophile who paid off the victims.

:eyes:

In the spirit of the theme of your ridiculous OP:


...you are a racist.

If you don't understand the difference you have no business calling anyone else ridiculous.

"Blame" implies that sexual abuse actually happened, and as I've said, I'm agnostic about that. I generally think someone acquitted by their peers deserves the benefit of the doubt.

often with little regard to their gender.

A crazy guy who thinks he's still a child and has poor judgement is not a pedophile. Just as many people who have slept in Jackson's room have attested, as adults, that nothing sexual went on in there.

You have grounds to call him weird, koo koo, mentally imbalanced, and a person of poor judgement. But not a pedophile. You can even say you think he MIGHT have been a pedophile, but acknowledge the evidence shows he likely was not but that you feel there is more evindence that hasn't been seen.

To claim that he is a pedophile because he was weird... not very accurate judgement. Similar to Bush going on those "gut feelings"

If you think that success and color trumps that, I feel sorry for you. Send your young family members to sleep in the same bed as a naked adult male (black brown or white) if that type of behavior is part of your norms but do not accuse other of racism when they think it is very wrong a d very sick.

Especially after you admit upthread that you think it is unwise to leave your kids around him.


How many sides of this debate are you going to take?

to support their quick judgements.

It's very similar to a witch hunt really.

I have a beautiful 20 something girlfriend, and people are entitled to be jealous.

:hi:

Just because I don't know that someone is a pedophile doesn't mean I trust them unsupervised with my children. I don't know why that is such a big leap for people.

Seriously. I sure as hell wouldn't. There were far too many allegations, too many payoffs documented.

much to do with those allegations brought against him and they got what they were seeking. Money. I think it was a set up from the word go and Michael, being naive, was an easy mark. Secondly, as pointed out up thread, if I had any inkling my child had been molested, there is no amount of money in the world that would make me drop charges. I never believed he was a pedophile and never will.

In the Santa Barbara case in 2005, Jackson was acquitted, even though there was a lot evidence and I can't see any parents dragging their kid through a criminal trial unless the allegations were true. Those parents got NO money and weren't out for any. Clearly, something happened to make this trial worthwhile. The parents couldn't sue Jackson civilly during the trial, and after the trial, Jackson went off to Bahrain.

The jury in the Santa Barbara case seems to have transferred the blame from Jackson to his mother.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/national/12cnd-jackson.html?ex=1276315200&en=56ccc8a8249b230c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Santa Barbara prosecutor had been working 13 years to bring Jackson to justice and celebrity won out. If you're a celebrity in California, it's hard to get convicted. (Look at Ron Spector: it took two trials and countless taxpayer dollars to finally convict on what would have been, for you or me, an open and shut case.)

allegations that were never proven to be criminal. Evidently, that 'evidence' wasn't strong enough to corroborate the allegations made against him. That says plenty to me regarding his innocence in that case and the money paid out in the second case only proves my initial point or suspicion relating to gold digging parents. Consequently, it comes down to what one chooses to believe and I think he was innocent.

I bet, for all your believing, you wouldn't have.

who'll kick your ass and ask questions later.

There doesn't seem to be a burden of proof necessary with that one, unlike rape, murder, theft, fraud, and other crimes.

Founded or not, the label tends to stick.

It doesn't matter how innocent they prove you. Once you're face has been in the paper for a year under the headline "on trial for child molestation" the damage is done and it will never go away.

The fear of pedophiles has become the new witch hunt and it's sad. The only difference is that there ARE real pedophiles out there that need to be locked in jail or insane asylums to keep them from hurting others and to punish them for ruining lives. But society has used this to create a hysteria where it is a witch hunt.

And if you say anything against the witch hunt tactics then they imply you might be a witch (pedophile) too ...

pedophilia should be treated just like a murder charge, a rape charge, etc. It should be put on trial and people should accept the verdict and move on. It shouldn't be a hysterical case of guilty until proven innocent and even then... still not innocent.

The idea that one who settles a civil suit admits guilt is so naive it's unbelievable.

I have no sympathy for that piece of human garbage, his family, his handlers, the leaches that made up his entourage or his fans. Why? Because all excused his hideous behavior and looked the other way and made excuses for him, just like you are doing. Jackson was a sick fucking pervert. It sickens me that he has so rapidly become glorified since his death.

THAT'S the difference. If he had been convicted of child molestation then there would be no problem saying such things.

when all of the evidence POINTED to him being a sick freak. Not being convicted in a court of law doesn't mean diddly, when he paid out more than 25 million to several families for hush money. I know for a fact that if it were me accused of being a pedophile, and the charges were made up, I'd spend my last dollar fighting it in court. I damned sure wouldn't pay millions to make the "bad" publicity go away. And, if I am wrong, and he was innocent, then I can't think much of someone who has such little respect for themselves and their family name that they would pay people off and allow suspicion to swirl around them.

A good rule of thumb: When there is as much smoke around Michael Jackson as there was, concerning child molestation rumors, then there is fire.

And you can talk until you are blue in the face, but you may as well be spitting into the wind.

I have to say, if I were faced with untrue charges of pedophilia and I had the money to pay off the person so I wouldn't have to go through the trial and humiliation... I probably would. Makes me a bit ashamed to admit. But it's human nature there.

And evidence does not point towards him being a pedophile. Your assumptions point towards that.

"And you can talk until you are blue in the face, but you may as well be spitting into the wind."

^^^ That statement right there proves my point. You are interested in any new information, you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what is told to you. Similar to people who debate 9/11 conspiracies, or debating evolution with far-right wing christians. If I were to substitute just a few words in your post with words relating to those topics then you might very well see what I meant. But since you say that nothing I have to offer, no new information at all can change your mind... I guess that will be that and you may have that opinion.

So you know, I'm not a big fan of Michael Jackson and do not own his CDs. I am, however, a very rational person who looks at all the information before jumping to an assumption.

BTW, that's a pretty sorry confession to make. Anybody accuses me of something I had nothing at all to do with, and I would fight them with every resource at my disposal.

That's my human nature.

All I can say is that you are very easily fooled. Nothing rational about that.

I think he was a WEIRD dude. He certainly had inappropriate relationships with children, and he was certainly a mentally disturbed individual. But I don't know that he was a monster. I didn't know him, you know?

I feel for his family.

to conclusions without looking at all the information. I've found people here aren't even willing to consider the possibility that he might be innocent, much less research that possibility themselves.

And for my part all the information I needed to know was in '93 when an "innocent" man paid off a family to avoid embarrassment(read justice).

So you admit that you aren't basing it on real world evidence? Such as the real world evidence that such settlements are common because the worst thing that can happen to you is a trial for child molestation.

For example:

It doesn't matter if you are proven innocent a hundered times, after a year of having your face on the papers under the headline "on trial for child molestation" the damage has been done and that damage is well worth sucking it up and settling the case even though you know you're innocent. If you don't believe that then you should ask how the boys at Duke are doing. Because I know many, many, many people who still believe they are rapists. And I live in North Carolina.

Here is some information on the 1993 case from Wikipedia:

"However, Chacon's (the supossed witness and bitter-ex employee) reliability is disputed, as he has had past conflicts with Jackson. Chacon's testimony also contradicted Chandler's (the boy) affidavit, he claimed having seen Jackson molest Chandler in early 1993, while according to Chandler's own testimony Jackson didn't start abusing him until May 1993 in Monaco. Chandler's mother has also testified and contradicted known facts about the case."

There's more I can provide if you're at all interested.

n/t

So I would agree the ped. accusations unfounded, at least if one has faith in court process, and/or jury.

On the other hand, a responsible jury of knowledgable music lovers (as in Beethoven-lovers, not Bee-gees) would certainly have found Jacko guilty of serious crimes against musical taste and propriety.

oreilly was never found guilty in a criminal court, or responsible in a civil court for sex harassment.

it is true he settled out of court.

that's exactly what happened with one of jackson's civil suits in regards to child molestation. he settled out of court.

so, is there a double standard? are you one of those people who accuses oreilly of sexual harassment with the loofah?

just being fair here. does the political ideology of the target matter?

see also: bush and cocaine, etc.

though I do not know about the original poster. I'd assume it wouldn't matter to him either but I haven't researched his/her previous posts.

...and I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, is that he was desperately trying to re-create the childhood he never had. Thus the whole fantasy-Neverland amusement park and zoo. Thus also his fascination with young boys, IMO - he may have been trying to give them the childhood he never had, but lacking a good example and being bereft of the usual social skills, he just botched the process badly. While having boys sleep in bed with him is majorly weird and creepy from the standpoint of our usual modern worldview, I could see it from his upside-down perspective as his way of providing them with nurturance and acceptance, and thus trying to heal his own wounds.

Whether he actually molested them, we will never know. If he did, then even a shitty childhood is no excuse for it. But I tend to suspect he didn't; he seemed so alienated from adulthood and from his own sexuality that it's very possible there was never any sexual element in it at all, for him. But the circumstances were so warped, I could also see the parents being quick to jump on an opportunity to extract money. Remember that this was in the era where sexual abuse was just starting to be majorly publicized, and "recovered memories" were all the rage (and many of them turned out to be false memories, as it turned out later). It was the nature of the time, and any major celebrity will attract their share of vultures. When that celebrity is someone so ill-equipped to deal with modern adult life as Michael Jackson, it was perhaps only a matter of time that someone would take advantage.

Again, what really happened or didn't happen, we will never know. What each of us chooses to believe on the matter, is perhaps more reflective of ourselves and our own viewpoints and histories, than it is of the events themselves.

Especially the last line. You even make points I hadn't thought of.

I read the major summaries in the Los Angeles Times, which then was a respectable news source. Other than that, I did not follow the trial closely, as it creeped me out and didn't give me any thrills -- just remember that I relied on a well-respected newspaper as well as my knowledge of my own area.

First let me say that at the Santa Barbara end of the county, where I live, people are used to celebrities and have a pretty live and let live attitude -- they walk among us, but they are not us (i.e. the overly-modest middle class), and they deserve their privacy, not people pointing and gawking and asking for autographs. By the same token, I don't think residents at this more urban and sophisticated end of the county are particularly impressed by celebrities.

I am not so sure about Santa Maria, where the Jackson legal team insisted the trial be held on the grounds that Neverland Ranch is closer to SM -- actually I think it's a tossup, distance-wise, but culturally it is indeed far from Santa Barbara. 70+ miles, over a mountain range, and into a demonstrably more rural and conservative area.

I believe MJ's legal team was looking to choose a jury that WOULD be impressed by celebrity, and they got their wish. Michael Jackson gave them a show every single day, complete with different costumes for each day, dancing on top of a car, his entourage, you-name-it. I think the jury was bedazzled. Beyond that the boy's mother was abrasive, and poor Michael looked so frail and fragile and prone to collapse at the big mean legal system and the big mean momma. One day he even showed up in his pajamas, he felt so bad. The rest of the time he had a tailor make him something new every single day.

Second, let me say that DA Tom Sneddon has a good reputation here. As it happens, he believed the first boy (whose family dropped the case upon payment of $20 million dollars) and he believed the second boy. As District Attorney he had a sworn job to do, and he did it. The circus was not Tom Sneddon's doing: that would be Michael Jackson's team, the news media with their helicopters and sound trucks, and the paparazzi.

MJ may have been a dancing musical genius, but by the end of that episode, all I could say for sure was that Michael Jackson literally wore his sickness on his surgically devastated face.

Do I sound prejudiced to you? As shorthand I may say that if it quacks like a duck it probably is a duck and if it the evidence points to pedophilia it probably is. But my opinion is based on enough publicly available information that it is a judgment, not a pre-judgment.

May he and all he affected find peace in this or another lifetime. My condolences on your loss.

Hekate

edited to add that Post #117 by Invisible Touch is very well thought out, and I appreciate it.

Thanks for the informed and honest take.

the mother/family might have wanted to cash in as well--and they did receive a few million. Plus, the grandstanding DA got a lot of publicity as a moralist/crimefighter against a fairly obvious target.

I don't really care for MJ or his music, but I suspect the Santa Barbara good 'ol boys (and girls) did not care for him or Neverland, and were looking for some way--any way-- to hang him. And even if one doesn't care for MJ, he was entitled to a fair trial, and per the laws of the land--a jury of his peers--he was found innocent.

His whiteness did it for me.

I am 100% sure the OJ Simpson killed his wife for instance.

As for Jackson..I don't know. The fact that he continually found himself in compromising situations is telling however. You would have thought that we would have learned the 1st time.

but to be fair I've been mostly avoiding them so I may have missed a few other sane posts.

Anyway,

:thumbsup:

Yes I'm talking to you if you are applying that label to Micheal Jackson.


:crazy:

We're just all racists.

does not prove that they are guilty of the crime they are charged with. It could be argued (and has been, repeatedly) that the amount of money he had was the reason for the allegations. So in essence, without the oodles of money, he might never have been accused of the crime in the first place and therefore would not have needed to spend oodles defending himself.

Personally I think he used poor judgment and set himself up for the charge. Having not reviewed all the evidence that the jury reviewed, I can't say how I would have voted. I can't even say how I would have voted had I been an O.J. juror - but I suspect I might have voted the same way, regardless of my belief that he is most likely guilty, due to our system of justice which is imperfect.

MJ and OJ are two entirely different situations and should not be lumped together IMO. As far as his innocence or guilt, only he and the children know for sure (and with the way it's possible for adults to confuse and brainwash children, perhaps even they don't really know).

None of this is either here nor there. Either you believe he was innocent or you don't, I'm certainly not gonna weigh in 'cause I don't know. He was found not guilty on every single count, of which there were many. He did not later lose a civil suit, as OJ did. Why he settled the first one is anyone's guess. He hadn't ever experienced such accusations before and perhaps just mistakenly felt it was the best course of action. I won't say absolutely that he was innocent, but I won't condemn him either and I will say that I believe it's more likely he was not guilty.

I feel that his life has essentially been a personal tragedy, and I hope he may rest in peace.

Finally, somebody rational who doesn't jump to conclusions and use knee jerk reactions. That's all I'm really asking for here. :(

and since we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in this country, then Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. Creepy? probably. But a pedophile? nope.

It is possible he was a pedophile that got away with it by paying off his accusers. It's also possible he never inappropriately touched anyone.

David

prejudice.

Stop playing the race card.

I used to like MJ until he committed his crimes and that's when I had to ACCEPT the ugly truth about him even though I didn't want to. The evidence was just too obvious.

If Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks or Elton John or Justin Timberlake or other white male stars were having children over to sleep in their beds, you'd be as outraged as the rest of the country.

Hell, even Oprah thought MJ was guilty. :eyes:

May I please see the "damning" evidence you have that makes you SO certain he did what they say he did?

on child molesters, I really never felt that MJ was guilty or capable of it. I never ever did. I was not a fan but appreciated his abilities and I thought it a circus and a money grab as well as an intentional smearing. I thought him, even though messed up emotionally, incapable of doing what the charges said he did. I do think he may have had boundary issues and it left him a target. He led a sad lonely messed up life with little support around him to shake him into reality. To me, the word "pedophile", is taken quite seriously. I was hugely saddened when Palan insinuated Letterman was one.

your if/then is faulty and wrong