Why do we mourn Michael Jackson?

[RobAce]

Okay, this is a huge stretch (yes there is a pun in there if you can find it)....what IF the kid walked in on MJ in the shower stroking it, and MJ didn't notice and the kid so horrified/amused/confused over the event (much like kids walking in on their parents) it stuck in his mind and the kid stood there a little longer than he should have. When he told his parents about it, his parents blew it out of proportion and changed it to something that could get them some "ca-ching".

Instead of admitting he was jerking it in the shower while singing "Ain't no mountain high enough", he decided to pay because to him 20 mil was worth the silence.

Now I am not saying that IS what happened, but it is certainly plausible.

Rob

 

[c7_assassin]

Unless of course he paid off hundreds of others to keep them quiet, but then again we would have heard about that as well...

So no, John there is no evidence...again, you are welcome to your opinion but it is not based on anything that you can back it up with.....so it pretty much falls apart under minimal scrutiny....

I've never claimed there was 100% conclusive proof that I alone possessed, I've only ever said that the evidence we have is good enough for me, and good enough for people who don't have an emotional investment in believing he was innocent. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I can see someone making the claim you just made about the Catholic Church about 15 years ago, too.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

You're...you're kidding, right? So me showing off my erect penis to a kid isn't crossing the line in some way?

It crosses a line but it doesn't mean you molested the kid.

 

[primetime]

It is crossing the line, but like Robace said, what if the kid walked in on Michael in the bedroom changing? Or do you think the kid was playing Sega Genesis (during the early 90's..) and Michael walked in and said "Hey, want to see my penis?"

It is very plausible that the incident was an accident but blown out of proportion because Michael is a world wide icon. Like others have said, if Michael was a true pedophile, we would hear a lot more stories. Only two kids have said something. The 2nd kid was lying, which just leaves this first kid.

C'mon c7, you got to do better than that. If there was sufficient evidence, there would have been a first trial. The settlement wouldn't stop the criminal trial.

 

[syzygy]

He's still dodging the craiglist question brought up by Venray. Why would you ever, ever use Craigslist as a reputable source?

 

[venray]

I've never claimed there was 100% conclusive proof that I alone possessed, I've only ever said that the evidence we have is good enough for me, and good enough for people who don't have an emotional investment in believing he was innocent. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I can see someone making the claim you just made about the Catholic Church about 15 years ago, too.

The evidence we have is none....if that is good enough for you than I am glad you do not sit as a judge somewhere as the results would be a mockery of justice...

And I have no emotional investment here...I believe in innocent until proven guilty....you obviously do not....

 

[BrightEyes1082]

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but really. The kids who could
describe the intricate details of Jackson's penis, the book of naked
little boys he kept under his coffee table (which is NOT art), and the
fact that he lived in an amusement park where only children, but no
adults, were allowed, is evidence enough for me that he's a pedophile.
Why is that so hard for some people to admit? Sometimes you just know
that someone is/was guilty. OJ was a great football player. Does that
take away from the fact that he's a cold-blooded killer? Sorry, but no.
Plenty of famous people break the law. Yeah, they may be famous. But
they're not above the law, and being an incredibly talented musician or
king of the world does not give you a free pass to molest kids. Look past
the technicalities of the legal system. Look past the talent. What do you
honestly see?

 

[syzygy]

I see a sad, confused man-child. A kid who was performing at the age of five, looking out the recording studio window, seeing kids on the playground, wishing he could be with them. I see a man who had a disturbed child-hood, who didn't experience what it was like to be a kid.

 

[venray]

I see a sad, confused man-child. A kid who was performing at the age of five, looking out the recording studio window, seeing kids on the playground, wishing he could be with them. I see a man who had a disturbed child-hood, who didn't experience what it was like to be a kid.

So do I...

Mandy...there is no evidence of any molestation or pedophilia....To say that he is one based on what the sensationalized trash media says is ludicrous...

As for "knowing" someone is guilty of something....no...you can believe it based on the opinions of others.....but without evidence there is no knowing......otherwise thousands of others would be convicted of crimes based on what the judge and jury "know" instead of the facts or lack thereof and this country might just as well dump the constitution and become a police state...

 

[BrightEyes1082]

That may explain what he did and why he did it, but does it excuse it?
Does that make it okay? "I'm sorry for raping the little boy, Your Honor.
My father beat me when I was a child, and I never got to really be a kid.
That makes me want to molest little boys, because I never got to be one."
Seriously? I don't buy that. I know it causes damage, I was abused too and
I've dealt with my share of demons. But I never once have had the urge or
felt the need to take my hurts, my sufferings, and dump them onto others.
It isn't okay, it isn't right, and it isn't acceptable.

 

[Tamia78]

I see that he had some serious issues. I'm not saying he was perfectly innocent. If he indeed had pics of naked boys.......that's not cool, I agree with that. I'm also not saying we should just overlook it. Based on what evidence they do have, MJ made some really stupid judgement calls while the boys were with him. Still doesn't mean that he actually has sex with them. The boy can describe his penis, okay, but what exactly does that prove? NO, MJ shouldn't have been naked in front of adolescent boys, you're absolutely right. But, as stated before, there IS a difference of being accused of sexual molestation or assault and ACTUALLY doing it.

On another note, why would the families just "take the money and run?" If MJ was indeed a pedophile, why would parents continue to let their children come to Neverland? If I had an inkling that was happening, you better believe my kids would be far FAR away from that place, and MJ would be dead, either by my hand or someone I paid to kill him.

--T

 

[lemoncake]

about the books that he had.....
On the inventory, Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department officials reported seizing "The Chop Suey Club" a book described as containing "photos of nude young boys." While it may sound to the uninitiated like some Asian rough trade volume, the book is actually by famed fashion photographer Bruce Weber.
The book "Poo-Chi," detectives wrote, contained "photographs of female groin area." Officers, they only look like the female groin area! The volume is the, um, inventive work of Mayumi Lake, who photographs underarms and knees to create the illusion that you are looking at a woman's nether region. Some photo titles: "Wetting Porn," "Puffy Pink Porn," and "Cheerleader Porn."

There's a lot of art books with naked children in them.

 

[BrightEyes1082]

Ray... the police even said that the book of naked children was a staple
in the possession of almost every pedophile. Now, I think the Anne Geddes
bare baby butts are precious, but a book of children prancing around naked?
That's just not normal. What reason does one have for possessing something
like that? Or are you denying that he had the book? Are you denying that the
little boy was able to describe Jackson's penis? How is that not evidence?

 

[syzygy]

That's the thing that gets me. If he indeed do unspeakable things with the kids, then why on earth would the parents allow their kids over there? It just doesn't make sense. This isn't Fool me once, Fool me Twice, Fool me a Third time. This is Fool me a hundred times. You'd figure IF something did happen then parents would've stopped sending their kids there.

 

[BrightEyes1082]

The parents allow them there because they are living below poverty.
And they are willing to look the other way in hopes that their children
can have a financial future - education, etc. That's my guess anyway.
Who knows what the reason is. What does it matter? What matters is
the existing evidence looks pretty darn strong, at least to me.

 

[venray]

None of it was evidence that anything happened....you cant convict on a "gut feeling" or OJ would have fried...

 

[BrightEyes1082]

None of it was evidence that anything happened....you cant convict on a "gut feeling" or OJ would have fried...

That's exactly my point. OJ was never convicted, but we all know
he's guilty! My feeling is the same about Jackson.

 

[Tamia78]

The parents allow them there because they are living below poverty.
And they are willing to look the other way in hopes that their children
can have a financial future - education, etc. That's my guess anyway.
Who knows what the reason is. What does it matter? What matters is
the existing evidence looks pretty darn strong, at least to me.

What does it matter? Parents looking the other way while their kids are getting molested??? That matters alot, in my opinion. If parents are looking the other way while this is happening, poor or not, THEY are the ones who need to be arrested.

--T

 

[syzygy]

But there was over-whelming proof OJ did it. Not to mention his book. Now maybe if Jackson wrote a book, "If I was a Pedobear.", then there would be no doubt.

 

[BrightEyes1082]

What does it matter? Parents looking the other way while their kids are getting molested??? That matters alot, in my opinion. If parents are looking the other way while this is happening, poor or not, THEY are the ones who need to be arrested.

--T

Well yeah, it matters in that sense, but it doesn't make what Jackson
did okay. It doesn't mean that Jackson didn't molest the kids. Does it
make the parents shitty if they indeed looked the other way? Abso-
fucking-lutely.

Off to bed. Night kids.

 

[venray]

That's exactly my point. OJ was never convicted, but we all know
he's guilty! My feeling is the same about Jackson.

No...we do not know that OJ was guilty of murder....


He was known to stalk Nicole.....so he is out there doing his thing dressed in black and she hears a noise and gets spooked.... she picks up a knife, goes outside, confronts him and loses her cool and strikes out at him...

He easily takes the knife away but she begins to smack him punch him and he loses his short temper and lashes out...

He kills her and suddenly someone is all over him from behind and he turns and lashes out again and Ron is dead...

Now...knowing his history, he knows the cops would never believe that she attacked him first so he runs and tries to cover up the crime...



Just as plausible as the story presented by the prosecution....

Do most believe he was guilty of murder...yes....but that does not make it so....

 

[Fangz]

I wonder if in a few years they'll be rumors that Jacko is still alive and faked his own death like there was about Elvis?

 

[c7_assassin]

No...we do not know that OJ was guilty of murder....


He was known to stalk Nicole.....so he is out there doing his thing dressed in black and she hears a noise and gets spooked.... she picks up a knife, goes outside, confronts him and loses her cool and strikes out at him...

He easily takes the knife away but she begins to smack him punch him and he loses his short temper and lashes out...

He kills her and suddenly someone is all over him from behind and he turns and lashes out again and Ron is dead...

Now...knowing his history, he knows the cops would never believe that she attacked him first so he runs and tries to cover up the crime...



Just as plausible as the story presented by the prosecution....

Do most believe he was guilty of murder...yes....but that does not make it so....

Even if it happened exactly like that, that's still murder...

No one is saying "Just because we believe it, that should be good enough for the courts." Michael got away with it, plain and simple. Sometimes that happens.

But don't say there's no evidence; there's a lot! People saying "we know" OJ and Michael are guilty doesn't make America a police state!

 

[venray]

LOL it makes me nervous when people make decisions based on emotional reactions instead of logically looking at the facts and real evidence or lack thereof....

That is the way most Americans vote which is why we always have to deal with the disasters our elected officials create because people dont take time to analyze issues and make informed decisions...

MJ "got away" with nothing...he was crucified by the media and the rumors sensationalized with no evidence at all to back them up and the gullible believe...

so be it....that is why the celeb rag magazines and "news" shows do so well and rake in so much cash from those that want to deflate celebs and make them out to be monsters.....jealousy feeds the fires...and the stuff printed and reported is 90 % false yet taken as gospel by those that enjoy seeing others trashed...

in a perfect world people would use more common sense...this is far from a perfect world....

I stand by my opinion that there is no evidence here and only the innuendo and rumors spread across web land.....show me facts reported by reputable sources with no agenda, and I may change my mind, but nothing has been presented here to do so....just a lot of "I believe it so it is true"....lol

People who say they "know" someone is guilty of something when they have no direct knowlege of what took place, are people that are wrong most of the time and the reason we need to abolish the death penalty so we dont murder people who are wrongfully convicted....

 

[kis123]

The parents allow them there because they are living below poverty.
And they are willing to look the other way in hopes that their children
can have a financial future - education, etc. That's my guess anyway.
Who knows what the reason is. What does it matter? What matters is
the existing evidence looks pretty darn strong, at least to me.

You obviously don't have children.

I live in a low income neighborhood; I can go up and down the street and aske every single parent (even those who I wouldn't let watch my dog let alone a kid) and ask them would they let their sons have sleepovers with a grown man and I'd get a resounding "hell no" as an answer!

Anyone looking the other way and ignoring their child's safety is not a parent, they're a pimp! And they don't deserve the children they have, plain and simple.

You know, the term "reasonable doubt" comes to mind. If the evidence was that strong, the DA's office would've taken over and prosecuted him anyway. Sorry, I'm not completely sold, based on evidence alone. I do suspect something might have happened, but in a court of law, my opinion is moot isn't it?