Ok I GIVE IN!

[Bouncy Ball]

Someone convince me one way or the other about Micheal Jackson. See how short you can make it. Fifty words or less or something, because I'm afraid I might regret even asking this.

I know very very little about his case. I don't really care about him one way or the other. So I'm about as neutral as you can get for living in the US.

So did he do it or what? If you say yes, why? SHORT. If you say no, why? SHORT.

Demanding little poster I am today.

[Pirate Smile]

1. The Jury saw the evidence and they said Not Guilty. Why the hell

would any of us think we know better?

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Exactly. n/t

[neweurope]

2. Simple. The law says he's not guilty. So we have to consider

him not being guilty.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Bouncy Ball]

3. Thanks to you and Pirate Smile!

:hi:

[jobycom]

4. Innocent until proven guilty. Still hasn't happened.

[kanrok]

5. One word: Pedophile

[donheld]

8. Two words

Prove it.

[kanrok]

25. Three words:

Sleeps with boys.

[Misunderestimator]

29. Four words:

Was found not guilty.

[kanrok]

33. Five words:

He was not found "innocent"

[Kraklen]

35. Six words:

Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

[kanrok]

38. Seven words:

Not in the court of public opinion.

(Hey! this is fun!)

Welcome to DU!

[rug]

76. eight words

The court of public opinion elected bush twice.

[Misunderestimator]

37. Six words:

No one is ever "found innocent"

[kanrok]

39. One word reply:

Precisely.

[LiberallyInclined]

21. two more words:

NOT guilty.

[kanrok]

26. Another two words:

NOT innocent.

[LiberallyInclined]

27. who's not innocent?

and what PROOF do you have?

Michael Jackson has been found NOT Guilty by a jury of his peers, so you obviously aren't talking about him.

[kanrok]

28. You want PROOF?

(By the way, I'm totally capable of getting the gist of your post without CAPS). Michael Jackson is a pedophile. It matters not one whit that he was found not guilty. He sleeps with boys. (or as his attorney spins it: "shares his bed"). What more do you need to come to this conclusion? You can downplay this behavior and ask for more proof if you want, that's what makes this country great, but let's get our head out of the sand. He may be "not guilty" but he surely is not innocent as well. I trust that the jury did it's job, and hearing some of what they had to say solidifies my belief that our justice system is the best on the planet. Juries mostly get it right. But just because the prosecution failed to meet its substantial burden, doesn't mean Jackson is innocent.

[barb162]

36. well said

Big Diff between not guilty and innocent. There were real credibility problems with the witnesses but the fact is we have all seen on TV the Jackson interview talking about how he shares his bed with the boys. He will be brought up on charges again sometime in the future as pedophiles can't stop themselves.

[LiberallyInclined]

43. in this country- the U.S.A., one is innocent until proven guilty.

apparently that's not how it works in whatever country you're in.

[kanrok]

44. My, how condescending of you!

Actually, I am a lawyer. An ex-prosecutor. I prosecuted a number of scumbag pedophiles. I'm acutely aware of the constitutional concept of "innocent until proven guilty." Michael Jackson is a pedophile. It's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply in the court of public opinion, which is where you and I happen to dwell.

[LiberallyInclined]

62. well, now seeing as you're a lawyer...

your opinion means even less to me than it did two minutes ago.

and it didn't mean much two minutes ago.

[kanrok]

65. Oh no! How will I ever live with myself?

My opinion is worthless to "LiberallInclined!" What will I do now?
Let me guess...you were unjustly accused of being a pedophile? No, wait...you were bitten by a lawyer at a young age? No...you are the president of the Michael Jackson fan club? Ahhh...heck...I give up. Anyway, thanks for playing, and I guess I'll just have to live with the burden of knowing you, whoever you are, don't value my opinion. Sniff.

[gmoney]

48. Let's say he never touches them...

Let's say he just shares his bed with these boys (and girls) and he does nothing sexual or touches them in any inappropriate manner, BUT...

Let's say after the kids leave, if he were to take "gratification" after the fact in the privacy of his home, would that still make him a pedophile? I'm not saying this is what MJ did, but in general, would this behavior be considered that of a pedophile?

(Note the distinction from child molester, which I believe would apply if he actually did touch them inappropriately...)

I'm reminded of the Buck Henry character from the old days of SNL, who would come to "babysit" the little girls and play all these little games that the girls took to be perfectly innocent fun, but which the character was clearly deriving great pleasure. He didn't actually touch the girls, but did encourage them to act in ways he would fantasize about later, and took photos of them, and maybe swiped their dirty undies. ("Littler things... dirtier things...") I would say that character is a pedophile, and I certainly wouldn't want my kids (or anyone I know) to be anywhere near him. But I guess what I don't know is where the line falls between "perverse" behavior and "criminal" behavior.

I'm not defending or attacking MJ or his actions, but I'm just looking for a clarification, maybe from our lawyer friend.

So much for being brief.

[kanrok]

52. The short answer is "yes"

There is more than one definition of "pedophile." The colloquial definition is an adult who is sexually attracted to a child. It should be distinguished from a pederast. Technically a pedophile is an adult who is attracted to pre-pubescent children. A pederast is an adult attracted to post-pubescent children. It should also be considered that "pedophile" is not a legal definition. The law (at least in the state in which I practice) makes certain sexual acts illegal. The law (here) does not really carry a per se provision using the term "pedophile." The person who commits a sexual act with a child will be prosecuted under a number of different statutes, i.e., aggravated criminal sexual assault (with penetration) or aggravated criminal sexual abuse (touching without penetration). An adult who commits one of these crimes with a minor could properly be called a pedophile (or a pederast) but it's not a legal finding. Now, look at the allegations made against MJ (or as I like to call him, "The Fucking Sick Perverted Pedophile") by a young man who accepted millions of dollars from FSPP: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html. I think it's clear from these allegations that, if true, MJ is a true pedophile. Hope this helps clear up your question (which actually is a pretty good hypothetical...are you sure you're not legally trained?).

[Radio_Lady]

59. kanrok, I'm the daughter of a lawyer -- but isn't a principle of the law

that a person cannot be re-tried for the same crime if found not guilty?

Your hypothesis that a pedophile will continue with that behavior seems to tread in a psychiatric area. Are you trained in that, too?

I feel sorry for that black person who never accepted the fact that childhood ends and normal adults (if there is such a thing) do not sleep with youngsters. Michael Jackson will never be a white man with a small nose, no matter what he does to himself. I hope his aberrant behavior is quelled with whatever it takes. The fact remains that the jurors didn't come to the same conclusion as you did. That's it.

[kanrok]

63. Yes, that's true

The concept of double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried after being acquitted. But, respectfully, you miss my point. I think the jury made the right decision in this case. Based upon what they had to say afterwards, it appears that they arrived at a just decision. Hearing their reasoning re-affirms my belief that our system of justice is the best in the world. But it does not change my opinion that Jackson is a pedophile. It also does not change my opinon that just because Jackson was found not guilty does not mean he is not innocent.

I am not trained in psychiatry. My information regarding these issues comes from what I learned prosecuting cases similar to Jackson's. I am a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer currently. In my position I still occasionally handle cases where children have been sexually assaulted. As a consequence I learned (and continue to learn) about the psychology behind this behavior, albeit now more slanted towards the effects of sexual assault on the victim.

[Radio_Lady]

67. Kanrok, if I had to hazard a guess, I would say the man is --

a pedophile. It's the old story about "where there's smoke, there's fire." Michael Jackson claims in his interviews that he views himself as "Peter Pan," the boy who never grew up. It seems charming in books and movies, but it does have a rather odd and dark undertone when he plays it out in our society.

Whether or not it is treatable as a mental illness I will leave to others much more qualified than I am. I took a minor in Psychology in college, but it did not include much about this condition. As I recall, I avoided the class in Abnormal Psychology!

You might be interested to read this link from the UK in 2002. The article seems to indicate that other cultures might condone and even encourage adult/child sexuality.

http://www.mhamic.org/sources/green.htm

There are many instances of older women initiating younger men into sexual activity. Do we draw the line at puberty? At the age of consent (18 or 21)?

I must admit that we are rather puritanical in this culture -- however, on this issue, especially with the recent revelations about child abuse in the Catholic Church, I am with you. Older people who prey on youngsters are just revolting.

By the way, I am a 66-year-old grandmother, stepmother, wife and mother. During my lifetime, I have been preyed upon personally by older heterosexual men, including my own father.

I find all of this sort of behavior, including Michael Jackson's extreme plastic surgery, and drug use to bleach his skin to white -- just revolting. At the very least, it is evidence of a truly warped personality.

Nice chatting with you. You sounds like an interesting person. I wanted to be a lawyer (or a doctor), but my lawyer father did not encourage me in that pursuit when I went to college in 1956. However, I have had a long career in communications, primarily as a radio talk show host(one of the first women to do it). I have always enjoyed discussing legal and medical issues.

[kanrok]

69. It's a pleasure to meet you

I have a strong dislike for pedophiles. I've seen the effects on victims. It's not pretty. As a consequence I have strong (and unapologetic) opinions regarding these criminals. Sorry to hear about your past problems. If anyone would know the effects these predators cause, you would. Have to respect the opinion of a person with your experience.

[xray s]

6. When a con artist is your main witness you have a problem

what is it with California DA's anyway?

[tigereye]

7. insane

poor judgment
attention whore
no insight
Keep him away from kids
In need of serious help!

sorry. That's my take.

[Bouncy Ball]

11. That was almost haiku-like!

[tigereye]

12. not sure I want to go there!

I had written a longer rant about it elsewhere... but you said short.


;)

[alphafemale]

9. Here's the "Weekly World News" type guess. He's a hermaphrodite.

And the kid didn't describe that.

Hell.

I don't know.

[Bouncy Ball]

10. LOL

that sounds about as good as a guess from me at this point...

[Lex]

13. Read this

http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html

I guess the State didn't meet its burden of proof in this case, but as to whether he is a pedophile, that document is convincing proof to me that he is.

[Bouncy Ball]

14. Uh, BLECH,

ick, eck.

[Lex]

16. It is terrible.

But I do not think that kid is lying. Nope, not at all.

[BikeWriter]

41. It sounds truthful to me.

[fleabert]

58. damn.

I have reasonable doubt that he's innocent of sexually abusing children.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

15. Not my job...

I didn't hear all the evidence; and for that I am truly thankful.

The jury was selected to do the job, and I give them the benefit of the doubt. So I believe he's not guilty.

Would I leave my kid alone with him?
No way in hell.

[Radio_Lady]

60. Two women jurors said they would not leave their children alone

with him at Neverland.

Perhaps mothers around the country will heed their warning. But money and celebrity are very powerful and seductive in their own right.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

68. You're right about that...

People don't want to think that their favorite celebrity may be a jerk. And I've heard many stories about kindly neighborhood pedophiles who shower their oftentimes impoverished victims with gifts.

It's difficult for me to fathom how a parent could fall for that though. I'm remembering the lectures I received as a kid..."If a stranger offers candy, don't talk to him. Yell 'NO!' and run away."
So you don't accept candy, but it's ok to accept theme park tickets?:wtf:

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. As a bona fide liberal, I have to trust the process of law

which process says he's not guilty.

In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. I thank God for that system, because if trials were done by the media (and on DU) like they are, we'd have a lot of innocents going to jail, and a lot of criminals going free.

I have to trust that the system works.

It was up to the state to prove that Jackson was a criminal beyond a resonable doubt. It was not up to Jackson to prove that he was innocent.

I stand by the beauty and sheer pro-common-man attitude of that system.

[Bouncy Ball]

18. Okay then!

That settles it.

Thanks!

:hi:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Try not to beg him to sleep with your kid

[Bouncy Ball]

22. Eh?

Um, okay, I won't. No worries there.

:shrug:

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. Thanks for agreeing with me!

Not to say the system doesn't work occasionally, but I believe in it and trust it, and if a jury of peers says "not guilty" then I, as an American, have to agree with and accept the decision of that jury.

Still, I wouldn't let my children hang out with him.

Whether he's guilty or not, I think he definitely exhibits a propensity toward inappropriate decisions and weirdness.

[Maddy McCall]

23. One of the jurors said, "What kind of mom would let her child..

spend the night at Michael Jackson's house."

Sounds like, to me, the jury was more concerned with the mother than the child being molested.

I pity the child. If Jackson really was guilty, imagine the burden he will carry the reset of his life.

If Jackson is not guilty, and the mother is a shyster, imagine the burden the child will carry the rest of his life.

I'm undecided, too, but one thing's for sure. I feel horrible for the boy. I hope he can recover from whichever adult victimized him. One thing is for sure...either Jackson or his mother has harmed him.

[underpants]

30. That seemed to be the key (Link to my GD take on it)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3854968&mesg_id=3854968

[LynneSin]

31. Here's all you need to know about MJ: Don't let your kids have sleepovers

at MJ's place

m'Kay

Oh, and don't overload the onions in those migas either!

[BikeWriter]

42. No such thing as too many onions.

[AussieDave]

32. He didn't do it this time

but he HAS done it and would do it again if given the chance.

The prosecutor, in his blind haste, picked the wrong victim with which to go to trial.

[barb162]

34. Okay, you know the drawing of the Jackson

penis the kid did? How did he do that if he didn't see Jackson's? (This is the drawing thrown out by the judge as violating a rule that sensational evidence is not to be presented right before the case is closing).

[Beware the Beast Man]

40. In my opinion, probably not.

It's all circumstantial: while his companionship with children is not doubt odd, I think that's as far as it went.

[GalleryGod]

45. Thanks Loads. We really needed this discourse,

:argh: :wtf:

[Floogeldy]

46. He didn't do what the prosecutor said he did.

The jury decided that. At least one juror thinks MJ has molested kids in the past, but that was not the issue before the jury.

God bless the United States justice system, in this case.

B-)

[RandomKoolzip]

47. He's a creepy plastic-surgery addicted creep who

creepily sleeps with little boys, has a "peter pan" fixation, looks creepy, and makes the very creepy Howard Hughes look like Tony Robbins.

And just because he's not guilty of THIS particular crime doesn't mean he hasn't committed similar crimes in the past.

[Floogeldy]

50. Jackson's lead attorney is on the Larry King Show replay right now.

He says the "sleeps with boys" allegation is a lie made up by the prosecutor.

[Lex]

51. Jackson himself admitted that he did this in the documentary that aired.

"In the TV documentary, which was filmed over an eight-month period and aired in this country on ABC, Jackson defended his habit of letting children sleep in his bed as "sweet" and non-sexual."

http://www.courttv.com/people/2003/1204/jackson_ap.html

[Floogeldy]

55. Get control over your imagination

That a child may have slept in MJ's bed, does not mean that MJ "sleeps with boys."

Have you ever let anyone "sleep in your bed?" Does that mean that you were there at the same time and sexually molesting them?

No.

[Lex]

66. ???

I was only saying that MJ admitted to sleeping with boys in his bed.

I have no idea if he sexually molested them--you brought that up yourself.

[Floogeldy]

77. No he didn't

Jackson did not admit to sleeping with boys in his bed. He said he let children sleep in his bed. He did not say he slept with them. In fact, he has stated that he slept on the floor.

[nini]

72. Adult males should not be sleeping with minor boys

regardless of one's imagination. This is not 'normal' adult male behavior.

He admitted he does and do so often.

[Floogeldy]

78. I agree that it is not normal

But he has not admitted to sleeping with minor boys, to my knowledge.

Nevertheless, it does not mean that MJ commited the acts accused by the prosecutor in the case. In fact, the jury decided that he did not.

[Lex]

79. Exactly.

[Old_Fart]

54. He paid tons of money to look just like the scream and now he does

n/t

[Skittles]

49. I bet there were improprieties but they did not prove them

and in that case the jury would be correct to find him not guilty. That's what I think. But you cannot tell me that there is not something seriously up with a grown man who wants to sleep with little boys - and no, that is not meant to be pun. :o

[Old_Fart]

53. Why hasn't someone charged the mother with child endangerment?

Who are we to say if he did or didn't do "it". We weren't in the courtroom and we didn't see the evidence. Passing judgment is right wing common practice isn't it?

The mother left her kid in the hands of MJ so shouldn't she be accused of child endangerment?

[dxstone]

56. This wasn't the first allegation!

There have been about a dozen over the years; he's payed off a number of 'em...
He payed nearly 25 MILLION to one accuser to get them to drop the case...
And I don't see this happening to ANY other rich entertainers...

But the fact is, we don't know.
All we can say for certain is:

Michael Jackson Has 17 Assholes!
http://presidentevilonline.com/holes.html

...and there's no law against THAT, is there?

[Old_Fart]

57. Would you leave your kid with him?

n/t

[dxstone]

61. NO!

Perhaps you missed the antic sarcasm of my post, or the fact that I mentioned this is NOT the first allegation against that talented but highly suspicious little shriek-weasel...
Didja follow the link?

No, I'm no fan of serial child molesters, not at all...
Here's another story that appeared on my site about 2 months ago...

Doctor Says Jacko Is "Much Too Sick a Fuck" To Stand Trial
http://presidentevilonline.com/sn_jacko.html

read it and weep!
d
ps: I'm guessing now that you might've meant that response for the original poster...

[Old_Fart]

64. "I wouldn't either"

I was being sarcastic myself.

[merh]

70. I thought you gave in days ago?

They won't let you "give in" given this is still hanging around. :shrug:

What would happen if you said you couldn't let it go? :crazy:

[nini]

71. He was acquited, yet a questionable person to have around boys

the mom was a money grubbbing lying slimeball.


By his own admission of sleeping with boys I do believe there is probably behavior that would convict him in other circumstances, but that's not what this trial was about and that's all we can expect our legal system to do. IF he had been found guilty in a case of reasonable doubt then we really have something to worry about.


The system worked in THIS case.

[LibraLiz1973]

73. My 10 cents

Perhaps not guilty THIS time... but he did it in 1993. There is no human on the face of this earth who would give someone 25 MILLION dollars to keep their mouth shut if something hadn't happened.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

Also... the 1993 boy (then a 12 yr old) was able to accurately describe Mr. Jackson's penis to a sketch artist.. down to and including "bleach spots". It's interesting that right after Mr. Jackson had to take his pants off and allow the police to photograph his genitalia- thereby proving the child correct- that a settlement was reached.


Face it- almost every "parent" that allowed their child to spend the night at MJ's house (especially after 1993) was an IDIOT! You would NEVER allow "Dave" the weird Peter Pan wanna-be from down the street unmonitored access to your child! People are ridiculous. Does the fact that he wrote a few good songs mean that he wouldn't molest someone? His behavior was and is inappropriate & it makes me sick that people make excuses for him. I guess the children just aren't as important as the fact that MJ is a famous name and a news story.

SICK SICK SICK. I understand innocent until proven guilty.. but do you REALLY believe that he just gave that kid 25 million dollars for no reason? How about the other boy he paid off in 1994, for a grand total of 10 million dollars. No one talks very much about that kid.
I dont know very many people, millionaires or otherwise, who hand out huge chunks of money like that without a reason.

Michael has some serious problems and he needs some serious help. The boys who have fallen victim to his sickness need help too. Any parent who sends their child to Neverland needs to have their head examined.

If you believe he never did a thing wrong to a child, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is? Trust him with your child for days at a time, with no monitoring? Would it be ok for him to sleep with your child in a bed? If so, WHY? Would you allow any male adult that kind of access- or only someone who was rich and famous?

It's a sick world we live in

[dxstone]

75. I'm with you, LibraLiz...

TOTALLY! Well said!

When the damage is already done?... 25 mill can buy a whole helluva lot of counseling and such...
And people can rationalize ANYTHING!

Sick world indeed...
d

[Jamastiene]

74. Didn't do it

He's weird, but if he was really a child molestor, the parents of the first accuser from back in the 90's wouldn't have taken the money/settlement/payoff. If anyone stops to think about it, no parent would take money if they really thought their kid had been molested.

[LibraLiz1973]

80. THe parents from the 90s wanted the money

But he didnt give them 25 million because he DIDN'T do anything.