BS: Jacko is innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:51 AM

Martin you would agree with jOhn on a great many things. he is a great man. Maybe the english sense of humour throws you a bit.

One thing our two societies do seem to have in common - you definitely get a more sympathetic hearing if you are rich. they would not be agonising over the motives of anybody who had taken young children to his bed if they were in a normal income bracket.

If michael had any sense he would piss off now in his private jet. Perhaps they would have him in Iceland with Bobby fischer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 03:49 AM

Was anyone really surprised at the news that the defence were not going to place Michael Jackson on the stand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:36 PM

chopping sopmeone's balls off is not going to stop pedophilia - it's still all happening in their mind, and pedophiles will use some replacement object to penetrate, or can inflict abuse in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:33 PM

Is he gonna get a trial first?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:19 PM

John from Hull! We agree on something!

Ta DA!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 07:01 PM

You aren't with the curry wagon anymore then, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 May 05 - 06:21 PM

chop em off anyway, just to make sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 06:20 PM

If indeed he 'sexually interfered' with a child, then by all means chop his balls off. Maybe, however, we could see what the courts determine before we slice and dice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:58 PM

they should chop his balls off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:32 PM

Strollin Johnny - I agree with you entirely. Maybe it should be called parental neglect or perhaps reckless endangerment. In any case, if he is guilty, the parents share the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:13 PM

strolling read the above posts. You will see plenty from people justifying his actions. In some cases these are parents and some might be in the future. I guess they fall into the same camp as the idiots who sent their kids to jacko for a sleepover.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 May 05 - 03:07 PM

Why aren't the parents of these kids also in the dock for deliberately putting their children in harm's way? Would any of you be happy to send your kids to stay over, unsupervised, with a guy you don't know personally, who's already been the subject of one court-case concerning alleged sexual abuse of a minor, and who's believed to have psychiatric problems stemming from his own abused childhood?
If MJ's guilty (and none of us know yet whether he is or not), then so are they.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 05 - 01:57 PM

martin if all gay men also like to mess with little boys, it follows you like to mess with little girls. Is that where your problems stem from?

Homosexuality is not paedophilia.

I have just called myself a douche bag to save you the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 May 05 - 01:45 PM

homophobic racism

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 May 05 - 11:08 AM

El Grecko Touchy-feely?

I hope they find this fag guilty, put him in jail and let him take it in the rear daily from a 300 pound black in-mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 22 May 05 - 09:08 AM

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could be a plover.

When smoke machines are used there's no fire. It's not even real smoke.

Everything is not always as it seems in the tabloids. In fact it's very rarely as it seems in the tabloids. The more the crowd bays for his blood the more I'm inclined to think he's not guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 07:11 PM

I have a sinking feeling that what Michael Jackson did was probably not considered wierd by his peers. Knowing that he is perpetually immature, lonely and insecure; sleeping in the same room with those boys probably seemed like a harmless, sleep-over. Maybe it was.

If Liz Taylor (as an adult) wished to share Michael Jackson's bed in harmless sleep-overs - that would be a matter for the two adults involved. Did she?

But who would it be harmless for? The lawyer who was employed after the first video - set about protecting Michael Jackson by investigating with a view to discrediting the child involved and their parents. When he was asked if he was at all concerned about the child involved - he answered that the child was not his client.

If Michael Jackson gains some sympathy from the idea that he was abused as a child - perhaps some sympathy should also be shown towards all the children he chose to involve in his now adult confusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 05:13 PM

OK, gotcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 05 - 05:00 PM

Brucie see the post of 20/05/05 3.40pm re 'feeling sorry' for the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 May 05 - 04:05 PM

Maybe they should have one set of laws for hollywood and another for the rest of the U.S.

I have a sinking feeling that what Michael Jackson did was probably not considered wierd by his peers. Knowing that he is perpetually immature, lonely and insecure; sleeping in the same room with those boys probably seemed like a harmless, sleep-over. Maybe it was.

I am not defending Michael Jackson. I, too, think he is a strange one but the last time I looked, it wasn't against the law to be strange. Like I've said before: If you are poor you are called crazy, if you are rich you are called eccentric.

Lets face it - extortion and witch hunts are nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:48 PM

I don't think anyone's feeling sorry for MJ. But maybe it's a tad early to be buying the rope if ya know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:26 PM

Scary how some people can 'feel sorry' for a guy who dangled a baby from a 4th floor window.

And others who excuse his behaviour because of his career and wealth.

However did Jodie Foster manage to live her life without sleeping with minors?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:06 PM

Did anybody else watch the friggin' video?

Yes Jeri and they probably noticed from your first post that you found it funny and well done....No need to repeat yourself..(or do Catspaw impressions) *Smiles*

I am beginning to think that compared to some of our posters - who seem to think they are qualified to judge what everyone elses posts - Michael Jackson is not weird at all.

There is plenty of new evidence and information coming daily from the trial - those poster who do not find this interesting can perhaps not post simply to judge those who do find it interesting but just leave the discussion to those who do? Or is the next step for our volunteers to delete or close this thread too?

It could turn-out that despite using all the same classic 'grooming' patterns of pedophiles - that Michael Jackson has not in fact sexually abused any young boys. That outcome would be of just as interesting. Anything that brings this issue into the open and prevents child abuse - will be welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Tam the man
Date: 21 May 05 - 11:21 AM

THERE'S NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE

I beleive he's guilty, I mean he is a grown man that sleeps with young boys, I mean is that not a pedophile or what, its ok if he was their dad or something, but they are strangers, I mean if anyone else did that, they be slung in Jail, but because he's 'famous' there are people that will alow a strange man sleep with their child.

these people are off their heads, but that's up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: heric
Date: 21 May 05 - 10:33 AM

For what it's worth, Jermaine gives his kids a normal life in a modest middle class home in the SF Valley, is well liked by all his neighhbors and is a great little league coach. Gives a bit of perspective, I think. As bizarre as it all appears, Michael is only one degree away from pure normalcy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 May 05 - 09:23 AM

Did anybody else watch the friggin' video?

The whole "he's guilty - he's innocent" thing has been done repeatedly here and everywhere else. I'm sorry, but there are only so many variations on the way the dicussion plays out without any new information.   Michael Jackson is weird: does anybody want to argue about that? The video wasn't really information, but it WAS new.

...and it was funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: *Laura*
Date: 21 May 05 - 08:23 AM

I think he's ill. If he was a 'normal' person (i.e. not Michael Jackson) he would have been given medical help by now.
And Diva - I think you're right. Whether he's guilty or not - it's unlikely a jury will convict him.

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Diva
Date: 21 May 05 - 04:08 AM

We won't really know until the trial is done, unfortunately the cult of celebrty will win and I think he'll get off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Sidewinder.
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:16 AM

When you hear a 40 something man sing "have you seen my childhood?" you know there is a problem, a very deep rooted problem that stems from the fact the guy has been a performing flea in a flea circus from being 5 years old and all the times he wanted to simply play; "they" made him work. Society is to blame so burn the almighty dollar and tell Randy,Tito,Jermaine and the other one that dreams really don't come true. Joe should have carried on procreating and followed basketball then none of this would have happened and Justin Timberlake would have disappeared into anonimity after The Mickey Mouse Club -isn't conjecture and speculation so self gratifying and edifying? Next Episode -Adolf Hitler stayed in Austria and gilded the lily.

Regards.

Sidewinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 02:48 AM

The trial would lead you to think that the (real) children involved are guilty. But of course they do not have the money - only that which Michael Jackson gave them.

Dunno if he's innocent or not - but I do think he's messed up. I think it's quite likely that if he is guilty - then he didn't understand clearly the effects of what he was doing.

The victim of this trial (whatever its outcome) is not Michael Jackson. The victims are still those young boys (9 or 10 years +) who have to all the rest of their lives (in the public eye) - with what has happened to them or what people will now assume happened to them.

Hopefully there will never be any more young victims to our society's double standards to be "messed-up" by the many adults who claim not to understand the affects of their actions. Young victims who grow-up to simply repeat the same callous and irresponsible acts upon other young victims and excuse them in turn.

That is possible too much to expect but perhaps Michael Jackson anyway will not be creating (or allowed to create by his wealth) any more young victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:32 AM

Fact is, Jacko IS innocent until the courts declare otherwise. That's the nature of American jurisprudence. At least it is on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:00 AM

Martin Gibson touchy-feely?
You heard it hear first!
The thread unravels, the real personality shines through...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Jacinto in San Antonio
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:54 PM

There is the thing of CONTEXT. Superficially, Jacko the Wacko is no wierder than you or me. How "normal" would YOU act with fanatical stage-parents, 1 trillion bucks in the bank, fear of the adoring mob trying to rip your skin off, gangstas always trying to shake you down, and ownership of the Beatles songs? Someone with no job and a lot of time to kill can sleep when ever. where ever he/she/it wants to. I sense a puritanical, anti touchy-feely sentiment from my male anglo friends when I smother-kiss my darling little six year old girl or my 26 year old son (formerly of a band called "Soda Pop Fuck You"- the best ska-punk band from Santa Cruz) My mexican bretheran (is that how it's spelled?) tend to shy away from their maturing daughters at a time when they most need love and acceptance. My chinese friends make you cold, stuffy brits look like passionate italians! I hear these "obvious" reasons why Mike is guilty from anti-touch sickos who want to burn Mike-o the phycho at the more-moral-than-thou stake. Doesn't anyone see that the "victim" parents are playing to the lowest common denominator so they can get a million bucks and be "REAL AMERICANS" who don't work for a living and find ways to live off some one else?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:15 PM

Do perverts stick up for other perverts?

I'm beginning to think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Boab
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:14 PM

Is he as guilty as those who are charging him? It's not the impression that I'm getting-----

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 May 05 - 05:30 PM

I still think it was well done and funny. It obviously isn't something people expect, but it was well done and funny.

I also think it was pretty funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: *Laura*
Date: 20 May 05 - 05:16 PM

Dunno if he's innocent or not - but I do think he's messed up. I think it's quite likely that if he is guilty - then he didn't understand clearly the effects of what he was doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:40 PM

Jackson doesn't seem to have had "normal" access with regular folks. I feel sorry for the guy. I don't believe the charges--it sounds like there is a zealot prosecutor and an opportunistic family who know that they have nothing to lose in pressing these charges and Jackson has everything to lose. They're playing the odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: mg
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:40 PM

regardless of guilt or innocence, he should have been told long ago by CPS when allegations first came out that he was not to have young boys over and sharing his bedroom, much less his bed. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:17 PM

GUEST, thanks - it's well done and funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:08 PM

Yeah. Child endangerment not a crime in Germany or what? As for him queering little boys, strange as he may be, I don't believe a word of it. Of course, regarding "sharing his bed" with children, someone has to help him get a grip on reality, if it's not too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:01 PM

I think the sonuvabitch should have been tossed in jail when he held the infant over the railing while on a fourth floor veranda/gallery/porch thingy. Why he got away with THAT is beyond me.

Curious as to whether the parents who sent their kids there are facing any charges. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:48 PM

el greko vegetables shaped like genitalia are wierd. His admitted behaviour is dangerous. Maybe you don't have kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:44 PM

Did you see the Bashir interview where he categorically denied having cosmetic surgery? Is this man believable?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:44 PM

If MJ is indeed innocent, all that means is that he habitually sleeps and cuddles with highly vulnerable young boys ~ admitted regular activities ~ without actually performing overtly sexual acts.

Is this really that much less disturbing?

This is a person who endured the most bizarre childhood imaginable, and a person with huge financial resources. His power and influence over the boys and their families make it just about impossible for their relations to be entirely "innocent." The very real possibility that the families might well be motivated by the possibility of a gigantic reward or settlement persuant to a lawsuit is also a complicating factor, of course.

I am willing to concede that MJ may well be truly "not guilty by reason of mental defect." But could he conceivably be absolutely, completely innocent? Gimme a break!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:42 PM

All the above notwithstanding, I think I will wait for the courts to rule and both the prosecution and the defence to say what they gotta say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:40 PM

I agree GUEST that Jacko's behaviour is weird at best.
What I don't know with any certainty yet, is whether it is also criminal. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:32 PM

How many grown men on this forum think it is ok to invite unaccompanied young boys to their homes, then let them sleep in their beds, while they sleep next to them on the floor? He has admitted this himself.

His judgement is severely impaired, as are the parents who send their kids to his home. And no, he shouldn't be the sole parent of his own kids. If he was a road sweeper he would be jailed by now.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (and Jacko does both) then it's a bloody duck!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:28 PM

With you, Mike. And like Alba, I find it disturbing when people so clearly want to find guilt proven in cases like this - there is something voyeuristic about the attitude. Interestingly, not even those who would normally scream "unfair" when others appear to judge them publically, are immune to this.

It's not that I want MJ to be innocent, I don't care for him any more than I would for anyone on the street. It is rather that I don't want such horrible actions to be proven to have taken place.

But if they are proven to HAVE taken place, then indeed throw away the key.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:14 PM

Amazing how everyone seems to make themselves the judge..I guess we'll never know whether he is really guilty or not. What may I ask would happen if someone wrongly accused you?...as in many of these cases..people are so irate about the crime that they "believe" the person is guilty anyway, whoever it is and it seems that such people have to disprove their guilt somehow rather than being innocent until proven guilty.. If Michael Jackson is innocent then I am sad that he has been put through this because of his niaivety. If he is guilty, then I hope he is found so and justice is truly served. I don't know if he's guilty or not and nor do you!
Best wishes, Mike.