Michael Jackson

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:12 am

Well...let me say this. if he did not molest the boy, then he's still guilty of a ridiculous lack of common sense.

I mean really, would you tell a TV station, "Yes, I sleep with 13 year old boys in the same bed."

IMO you are just asking for something like this. (I have a bit of a problem anyway with any grown man who's only friends are children.)

As an educator, I have to be extremely careful to not generate even the slightest hint of impropriety. If I have to meet with a student by myself, I either leave the door of the classroom open or invite a witness in while I talk to the student. I will never give a student a ride home in my car, even though I have seen students sitting out in the rain and the snow because their parents neglected them. (I usually let them use a phone to call someone.)

I NEVER, EVER touch any of the students for any reason. Not even a pat on the back for a good job done. I do all that verbally. this may seem a little over the top, but that is the environment that is in operation today. With child molestation charges, you are guilty until proven innocent in the public's eye.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:17 am

this really is a subject for the Crimes and Trials forum since his trial has commenced with jury selection. i fear the trial will be the OJ case of this decade, in that it will be nearly impossible to get a conviction. heck, i'll be surprised if they can seat a jury within the month. what honest potential juror can say they know nothing about the case? if it were illegal to be weird he'd get life without parole. and let me tell you if he goes to prison that nose WILL fall off, they don't provide plastic surgery. yes, i believe he is a pedophile who has deluded himself it is "love" , not a crime, and that the rules don't apply to him.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:25 am

don't worry about it, if Admin. wants to they will. it's not a big deal.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:27 am

tmbsgrl wrote: Do you believe he molested the little boy? I am not sure what to think. I believe he has done it before.. I thought he did it to this little boy and just paid off the parents to keep their mouth shut. what do you all think?

The truth will out - he's being prosecuted.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:28 am

Bill Sikes wrote: The truth will out - he's being prosecuted.
unfortunately the truth does not always will out in the case of celebrities.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:33 am

I have always believed he is guilty. I think he perceives himdelf as a child and feels that it is not wrong because of that...and what Ladycop said.

If it is not an illness he would have taken extreme precautions to protect himself after the first time this happened. ie) never being alone with the children

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:57 am

lady cop wrote: if he goes to prison that nose WILL fall off, they don't provide plastic surgery

ROFL@LadyCop!

yes, i believe he is a pedophile who has convinced himself it is "love" , not a crime.

That is really, really........CREEPY!

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:10 pm

So...is pedophilia a real mental illness? Like say sociopathic psychosis? or serial killing?Shouldn't people who are found guilty of this be separated from society more or less permanently? Or can it be cured? I'm afraid I don't know much about the subject, other than it's disgusting and gross.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:42 pm

Did anyone see the interview he gave a few years back? There is something VERY wrong with this "person". He was so obviously lying about so many things, not the least if which is the number of surgeries he's had. He claimed to only have had 1 surgery on his nose, which over the years, I recall seeing change shape several times. Now, if this moron thinks people are so ignorant as to believe these lies, he is seriously deluded. To sit there and expect a person with an IQ over 25 to buy that load of crap, is insanity. He gives the public no more credit than he gives himself, and that is something to think about. Do I think he's guilty? I'd bet my last dollar on it. Someone asked me about this the other day..."Would you leave YOUR kid alone with him?" they asked. I said yes. Why? Because my son would probably beat the crap out of him. Which is more justice than this maggot will see in court.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:09 pm

I think this guy is A-Sexual. No I cannot believe that he is a pedophile. From here, it seems there are people in the US who will go all the way to get a few $$bucks.And the US love shows-The Michael Jackson Road Show is making a fortune for the media and others.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:15 pm

He is a weird-o no doubt about it. I never though he was gay, he seemed to have a liking for children, but i don't think he is guilty of the molestation he is being accused of. I am just not completely sure he did that? The trial will decide, then we will all know the truth. He is a confused person who has had his share of troubles, and to not have a nose left, well that sucks?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:21 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: I think this guy is A-Sexual. No I cannot believe that he is a pedophile. From here, it seems there are people in the US who will go all the way to get a few $$bucks.And the US love shows-The Michael Jackson Road Show is making a fortune for the media and others.

Captain, are you saying that the parents of these kids are looking to bilk a few bucks from the Jackson millions? I would have to agree that it is a possibility, because that's what people do here. (Sickening.) But the fact remains, this guy is seriously OFF. I wonder if LadyCop saw the interview, and what she thought if she did. (I'm beginning to rely heavily on LC's instincts, her BS detector being so accute.)

I doubt that we will ever really know the whole truth about this story, and I seriously doubt that MJ will do any time, either way. It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:25 pm

BabyRider wrote: Captain, are you saying that the parents of these kids are looking to bilk a few bucks from the Jackson millions? I would have to agree that it is a possibility, because that's what people do here. (Sickening.) But the fact remains, this guy is seriously OFF. I wonder if LadyCop saw the interview, and what she thought if she did. (I'm beginning to rely heavily on LC's instincts, her BS detector being so accute.)

I doubt that we will ever really know the whole truth about this story, and I seriously doubt that MJ will do any time, either way. It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.I'm also saying that the parents of those kids are opening large bank accounts today.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:31 pm

yes i saw the interview. in fact the defense is upset it is going to be allowed into evidence. i thought that jackson was practically deranged in his stubborn insistance that what he did was "normal". i think he has himself convinced because he thinks HE is a juvenile.to wit, peter pan. what was more disturbing to me was the young boy in question and his comments. that was brain-washing if i've ever seen it! the kid was an automaton. clearly drilled, grilled and coached.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:36 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: I'm also saying that the parents of those kids are opening large bank accounts today.
Absolutely. But does that mean that MJ is innocent? Hypothetical situation: My son is molested by MJ. If he somehow eludes me and my family hunting him down like the dog he is and survives, then offers me money, I take it. I then secure my son's future, his education, and use the rest to hire the best attorneys I can find and pursue a jail sentence for the longest time allowed by the law. If the money comes with the condition that I not press charges, I allow my son to press the charges. If it's a pay-off to keep my mouth shut, forget it, I'll just hunt him down and kill him in his own kitchen. That's my vigilante persona coming out. I do believe he's guilty, and I also believe he'll get off.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:40 pm

lady cop wrote: yes i saw the interview. in fact the defense is upset it is going to be allowed into evidence. i thought that jackson was practically deranged in his stubborn insistance that what he did was "normal". i think he has himself convinced because he thinks HE is a juvenile.to wit, peter pan. what was more disturbing to me was the young boy in question and his comments. that was brain-washing if i've ever seen it! the kid was an automaton. clearly drilled, grilled and coached.
I did not know the interview would be allowed into evidence. That is good news. The people in the jury will see him for the lying worm that he is. He is so clearly unbalanced. Did you believe the end of that scene, with the monkey? What the hell was that all about? Psycho. I may be reaching, here, but did it seem like he was on something? Like an overdose of Prozac?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:39 pm

tmbsgrl wrote: Do you believe he molested the little boy? I am not sure what to think. I believe he has done it before.. I thought he did it to this little boy and just paid off the parents to keep their mouth shut. what do you all think?
I have heard a couple of black stand up comics make comments about Jacko in their routines. The comments are such, that they seem to indicate he is a child molester. Quien sabe?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:58 pm

Well, I guess I could be on this jury (which is predominently white after all ) because I really don't know mcuh about this case.

Here's what I know:

First of all, Michael spends WAY more time with children than most normal adults. He says this is because he helps sick children and their familes. I can't find him guilty on just that alone, because Hey! I'm a teacher and I spend my whole day with teenagers too!

2. Apparently, one of the charges is that he supplied alcohol to one of the underage boys. Well, if true, that's a felony in New Mexico, and rightly so. There's nothing redeeming about getting children drunk. Nothing good can come of it.

3. I've seen aerial shots of his Neverland Ranch. To me, it just looks like a trap for children in a weird "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" way.I think LC is right when she says:

i think he has himself convinced because he thinks HE is a juvenile.to wit, peter pan.

He certainly acts like one. And as for blaming the parents for being greedy, why not just indict the entire judicial system that makes it possible to get huge settlements for frivolous lawsuits. Are they any more greddy than the lady that sued McDonald's for the hot coffee incident? Wouldn't you want a little revenge if it was your kid that this had happened to? What better revenge that to rake in a couple of million dollars off ol jacko?

BTW I do not condone this kind of behavior myself. I've turned down large settlements because I have to look at this face in the morning if you you what I mean.

As for the trial....bring on the elephants and the big tent! I love a circus as much as anybody!!

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:29 pm

Jives wrote: Well, I guess I could be on this jury (which is predominently white after all ) because I really don't know mcuh about this case.

Here's what I know:

First of all, Michael spends WAY more time with children than most normal adults. He says this is because he helps sick children and their familes. I can't find him guilty on just that alone, because Hey! I'm a teacher and I spend my whole day with teenagers too!

2. Apparently, one of the charges is that he supplied alcohol to one of the underage boys. Well, if true, that's a felony in New Mexico, and rightly so. There's nothing redeeming about getting children drunk. Nothing good can come of it.

3. I've seen aerial shots of his Neverland Ranch. To me, it just looks like a trap for children in a weird "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" way.I think LC is right when she says:

He certainly acts like one. And as for blaming the parents for being greedy, why not just indict the entire judicial system that makes it possible to get huge settlements for frivolous lawsuits. Are they any more greddy than the lady that sued McDonald's for the hot coffee incident? Wouldn't you want a little revenge if it was your kid that this had happened to? What better revenge that to rake in a couple of million dollars off ol jacko?

BTW I do not condone this kind of behavior myself. I've turned down large settlements because I have to look at this face in the morning if you you what I mean.

As for the trial....bring on the elephants and the big tent! I love a circus as much as anybody!!

Michael is a child himself that doesn't want to grow up.Look at his life, the Jackson Five, How old was he back then? He never was allowed to be a child back then

rachelg · Post by **rachelg** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:46 pm

No one may really ever know, but I don't believe MJ sexually molested any kids. I think he is very eccentric, doesn't want to grow up and is not displaying much intelligence by not learning from the past accusation. He doesn't seem like a sexual person at all to me. I think when he says he sleeps with children that is literally all that happens. I think in his mind he is just one of the kids, and from some earlier (before any accusations were made) interviews, it seems he's obsessed with staying a child. I am not condoning staying in your childhood, but I don't think anything more has been done, other than a couple of sets of parents finding a gold mine. To me it is a shame that the world is so obsessed with sex that any display of affection could be a potential lawsuit. When a teacher can't even take a child home if he misses the bus, it says to me that we are victims of paranoia brought on by our legal system.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:50 pm

rachelg wrote: No one may really ever know, but I don't believe MJ sexually molested any kids. I think he is very eccentric, doesn't want to grow up and is not displaying much intelligence by not learning from the past accusation. He doesn't seem like a sexual person at all to me. I think when he says he sleeps with children that is literally all that happens. I think in his mind he is just one of the kids, and from some earlier (before any accusations were made) interviews, it seems he's obsessed with staying a child. I am not condoning staying in your childhood, but I don't think anything more has been done, other than a couple of sets of parents finding a gold mine. To me it is a shame that the world is so obsessed with sex that any display of affection could be a potential lawsuit. When a teacher can't even take a child home if he misses the bus, it says to me that we are victims of paranoia brought on by our legal system. :(I agree.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:57 pm

i don't believe michael is asexual , as evidenced by the materials found in his home having to do with sexualizing adult males on boys and boys on boys, they will be admitted into evidence and are indicative of a mind-set. and it isn't tinkerbell! i don't buy that he is innocently childlike. his whole lifestyle was bait for kiddies. further, if he did indeed give alcohol to the boy to reduce inhibitions, that is plain vicious pedophilia. why is it so difficult for some to believe that this rich whack-job could be a criminal? it may well be due to his aborted childhood... who cares? i don't. if this guy lived on main st. usa and had no money, he would have been run out of town by now. or in the sex offender registry for the first incidents that wouldn't have been paid off if he were a garden-variety pervert without a ferris wheel and a fleet of plastic surgeons.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:00 pm

[QUOTE=lady cop]i don't believe michael is asexual , as evidenced by the materials found in his home having to do with sexualizing adult males on boys and boys on boys, they will be admitted into evidence and are indicative of a mind-set. and it isn't tinkerbell! i don't buy that he is innocently childlike. his whole lifestyle was bait for kiddies. further, if he did indeed give alcohol to the boy to reduce inhibitions, that is plain vicious pedophilia. why is it so difficult for some to believe that this rich whack-job could be a criminal? it may well be due to his aborted childhood... who cares? i don't. if this guy lived on main st. usa and had no money, he would have been run out of town by now. or in the sex offender registry for the first incidents that wouldn't have been paid off if he were a garden-variety pervert without a ferris wheel and a fleet of plastic surgeons.[/QUOTE Well we will have to wait and see.But will the Truth,the whole truth and nothing but the Truth be revealed? Ladycop

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:04 pm

the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth NEVER comes out in court...that's why we have defense attorneys...to prevent that from happening.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:17 pm

Florrie wrote: Lady cop

I recall lady cop's mention of 'gut feelings' on another thread somewhere which hit a cord.

I guess when one is involved long term in a particular line of work which requires a problem solving approach this ol 'gut feeling' is akin to instant accumlation of tell tale facts, otherwise known as involuntary experiential knowledge reaction.

My opinion for what it's worth, is will money and fame camouflage Quilty secrets!!! This experiential involuntary knowledge was used on Adult children that were raped in Religious run institutions in Canada and Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church state run hell holes where children were beaten,raped by Christian Brothers in Ireland from 1930s to the 1980s. The Church refused to have open public courts. They wanted it to be conducted in secret.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:56 pm

"involuntary experiential knowledge reaction"...or, if you prefer, using your experience to make assessments. works for me. and most people.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:01 pm

lady cop wrote: "involuntary experiential knowledge reaction"...or, if you prefer, using your experience to make assessments. works for me. and most people.Not when its setup by religious institutions to protect their own.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:11 pm

capt_buzzard wrote: Not when its setup by religious institutions to protect their own.
i was strictly referring to the topic of the thread and criminality assessment.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:54 pm

Michael has PINS, persons in need of supervision?

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:03 pm

lady cop wrote: i was strictly referring to the topic of the thread and criminality assessment.ok My Lady

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:22 pm

I had occasion to be around him a little (in a work-related situation) back

in I think it was '84 or '85... and while he was very nice to me as just a worker,

it was really, really weird. He had a small entourage with him, and it included

this young (8 or 9? Not sure) boy. One of the entourage people explained it

away as "Oh that's Michael's little friend, they play games and stuff". That's

as nearly a direct quote as I can give after 20 years... and we were all

"Oooookaaaaaay". Before Michael left, he stuck his head in my room and

smiled and said "Thank you" which in my experience you didn't get a lot of, but

it was difficult to just take that for what it was when you still are weirded out

by the fact of him having this little playmate running around.

:yh_questn

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:09 pm

valerie wrote: I had occasion to be around him a little (in a work-related situation) back

in I think it was '84 or '85... and while he was very nice to me as just a worker,

it was really, really weird. He had a small entourage with him, and it included

this young (8 or 9? Not sure) boy. One of the entourage people explained it

away as "Oh that's Michael's little friend, they play games and stuff". That's

as nearly a direct quote as I can give after 20 years... and we were all

"Oooookaaaaaay". Before Michael left, he stuck his head in my room and

smiled and said "Thank you" which in my experience you didn't get a lot of, but

it was difficult to just take that for what it was when you still are weirded out

by the fact of him having this little playmate running around.

:yh_questn
Now THAT'S just friggin' spooky...

Oh, darn, I missed the phone ringing...I couldn't hear it over the sound of MY SKIN CRAWLING!!!!! :yh_ooooo

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:30 pm

lady cop wrote: "involuntary experiential knowledge reaction"...or, if you prefer, using your experience to make assessments. works for me. and most people.

If it's involuntary can you be held accountable for it?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:31 am

I am so sick of bleeding hearts banging on about this paedophile, he's not Peter pan and does'nt live a peter pan existence, he's a 46 year old MAN living on a ranch specificly designed to groom children!

The question was do we think he's guilty, darn right i think he's guilty and if there is any justice in this world he'll be sentenced to the maximum term in prison and his children allocated to normal familys, hopefuly where they're not dangled out of hotel windows and live in a wonderland where their fathers "freinds" are older than them.

Let the farce commence.......

Attached files

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:43 am

lady cop wrote: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth NEVER comes out in court...that's why we have defense attorneys...to prevent that from happening.

One would have hoped that the prescence of witnesses, collected evidence, the defence, prosecution, judge, and jury to weigh the facts would all go together to produce the correct verdict - even in the drama-laden and theatrical system that seems to prevail.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:47 am

Paula wrote: He is a weird-o no doubt about it. I never though he was gay, he seemed to have a liking for children, but i don't think he is guilty of the molestation he is being accused of. I am just not completely sure he did that? The trial will decide, then we will all know the truth. He is a confused person who has had his share of troubles, and to not have a nose left, well that sucks?

Hurrah! Sanity!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:08 am

LinasK wrote: Why don't you think he is guilty? You admit he's a wierdo who likes children, so is your average pedophile.

Yeah, I know a paediatrician who's a wierdo, he likes children, too.

Bothwell · Post by **Bothwell** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:14 am

ABBEY, exactly, IMO he has built a perfect grooming shrine in neverland.

If I was the prosecution attornet I would just ask a couple of questions and sit down.

"Mr Jackson did you pay several million dollars some years ago to the family of a boy who accused you of sexual molestation"

"Yes"

"If you were not guilty why did you do that rather than face them in open court and quash these rumours that have dogged you ever since"

"Errrrrrrrrrrrrr"

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:36 am

Bothwell wrote: ABBEY, exactly, IMO he has built a perfect grooming shrine in neverland.

If I was the prosecution attornet I would just ask a couple of questions and sit down.

"Mr Jackson did you pay several million dollars some years ago to the family of a boy who accused you of sexual molestation"

"Yes"

"If you were not guilty why did you do that rather than face them in open court and quash these rumours that have dogged you ever since"

"Errrrrrrrrrrrrr"

That could well be what will happen - however, it needs to go through the process, else where are we?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:37 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Yeah, I know a paediatrician who's a wierdo, he likes children, too.
True but i'm betting he did'nt build a fairground in his backyard & let his charges sleep in his bed though!

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:20 am

abbey wrote: True but i'm betting he did'nt build a fairground in his backyard & let his charges sleep in his bed though!

I take it you "got" my reference to the casse of Yvette Cloete, whose house was vandalised after locals discovered she was a paediatrician? See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... paed03.xml

However, it appears that the judge in Mr. Jackson's trial is on the ball:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... world.html

No cameras in the court, for a start. That should make it a bit less of a circus!

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:20 am

Bill Sikes wrote: I take it you "got" my reference to the casse of Yvette Cloete, whose house was vandalised after locals discovered she was a paediatrician? See: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... paed03.xml[/url
Nope did'nt "get" that Bill i dont take the Telegraph, i'm more your Daily Mirror kind of girl. :p

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:29 am

abbey wrote: Nope did'nt "get" that Bill i dont take the Telegraph, i'm more your Daily Mirror kind of girl.

Ah, well it was in the Mirror too!

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:41 pm

it has been reported today that debbie rowe, jackson's former wife, will be a prosecution witness in his trial. now THAT should be edifying.