Michael Jackson On Trial In Blogcritics - Page 4

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

— go to most recent comments Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - NancyGail

  Jan 29, 2005 at 7:44 pm

  What amazes me is that is family is unwilling to step in and take appropriate action.

• 2 - John Ess

  Jan 29, 2005 at 8:55 pm

  Look at Michael Jackson's faces here -->
  
  http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video.asp?video=Faces-of-Michael-Jackson
  
  Yikes!

• 3 - Lono

  Feb 09, 2005 at 2:27 am

  The evidence seems to be absolutely enormous, and that was not a dick joke. Assuming he is guilty, why would he put himself and his image through this kind of public flogging? Jackson would be wise to flee, then the insane and stupid people who think he is innocent can continue to support him.
  
  Yup, I believe he is guilty. Remember, the justice system is predicated on innocence until proven guilt. I am not the justice system though, and nor a juror.
  
  Most importantly, as all his assets are going to be liquidated (even if he is innocent... dude is completely broke) I hope to see the Beatle's catalogue sold back to the Beatles.

• 4 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 09, 2005 at 2:34 pm

  if you look at the huge wad of accusations that have accumulated over the last 15 years, there appear to be certain patterns and reoccurences that would be exceptionally hard to explain away, even if you assume bad will from all who have accused. I think he genuinely does not know where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behavior toward children, and in particluar, toward boys.

• 5 - Aaman

  Feb 09, 2005 at 2:55 pm

  We seem to be Jacko-lytes on blogcritics - no dearth of reading material - a book in itself:)

• 6 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 09, 2005 at 4:13 pm

  the story is fascinating and disturbing on so many levels, plus it is so THERE - I hadn't realized how much we have done on him, and this is just the last year.

• 7 - Lono

  Feb 10, 2005 at 2:53 am

  Eric,
  
  This Jackson thing is perfect writer & blogger fodder. Sort of like how comedians regarded Clinton's sex addiction. They all call it the golden age of political comedy because the material just kept coming.
  
  I feel confident that this Jackson story will be water cooler fodder for years... and that, frankly, is where we come in.

• 8 - Lono

  Feb 10, 2005 at 3:17 am

  one last thing:
  
  How do you know when it is bedtime at Neverland Ranch?
  
  When the big hand is on the little hand

• 9 - Dave Nalle

  Feb 10, 2005 at 3:25 am

  >>What amazes me is that is family is unwilling to step in and take appropriate action.<<
  
  What, like a muslim-style castration and stoning?
  
  Dave

• 10 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 10, 2005 at 9:20 am

  no, more like an "intervention" as in, "enough with the fucking plastic surgery, freak" about 20 years ago; "enough with the creepy fixation on little kids, especially boys - perhaps you should talk to someone about that"; "enough with the paying people off shit - if you didn't do it, say so, stick with it, and prove the fuckers wrong."
  
  Do you think my parents and brothers and sister wouldn't have intervened if I behaved and lived my life like that? You bet your dyed-white, "dressed to lead a marching band through the streets of St-Tropez," child-luring, self-mutilating ass they would have.

• 11 - Z.Z.Bachman

  Feb 12, 2005 at 12:10 am

  Yes... Jacko Wacko will give us plenty to write about. Remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the media? Day 12, 13, etc... You can run something like that with blogged updates! This should be a very deep well indeed !

• 12 - Sandra Smallson

  Feb 12, 2005 at 4:05 am

  What Evidence? Have the defense presented their case to any of you in private that the rest of us were not privy to? Are any of you aware of the fact that there are two sides to each story? Has it entered any of your brains that perhaps you should wait to hear how Jackson would counter these so called allegations? No. Smoking Gun, Leaked Grand Jury testimony which we all know is just the prosecutions side, Jacksons face, his eccentricities and bam..he must be guilty.
  
  Well, we'd better hope it's not folks like you that make up the Jury if not we might as well save ourselves the drama and go straight to sentencing.
  
  Sneddon started this investigation after Bashir's Tv hatchet job. If MJ had not been naive enough to say that he sleeps with the kids on the bed when they come to visit..we would not be here. That comment galvanised Sneddon to hunt down this boy whose mother went to a civil lawyer several months before she considered Sneddon. They were kidnapped? To travel round the world and live in the lap of luxury and they wanted to get out to live in the poverty stricken lives they now lead and are trying to improve via Jackson?
  
  I think the sensible person will wait for the case to start before jumping to conclusions or at the very least wait till some defense points are also leaked. The sensationalist Reporters amongst us though, will carry the prosecutors so called large heap of evidence and run with it. I can't imagine how MJ is going to have a fair trial. Sneddon has contaminated the Jury and any Law student knows that Grand Jury testimony is never leaked just for the hell of it.
  
  Now, Corey Feldman has been subpoenaed because he said Jackson showed him nude pics when he was 13. Nevermind that he also said, Jackson never touched him and he never saw Jackson do anything with any other boys. The Prosecution are so desperate. How anyone can say they have a strong case is a mystery to me.
  
  I am no specialist on American Law but I can't imagine why anyone would think the prosecutions case is strong, with the desperation they are showing so far. It is very IMPORTANT to bear in mind that this case would NEVER have been brought up but for Bashir's hatchet job and Mj's naive comments on camera. Since then, Sneddon and his cronies have been trying to give credibility and legitimacy to their allegations.
  
  I look forward to all your posts when Jackson is found innocent of these charges. They will be amusing to read. I have presumed the man innocent and I can not imagine what the prosecutors have that would lead anyone to believe beyond reasonable doubt that MJ molested that kid. They've leaked so much that if this is the bulk of their evidence it is no wonder they are trying to contaminate the Jury and judge it in the court of public opinion. It is all rubbish with huge holes in the bulk of it and Sneddon knows that if that is the extent of his evidence, he and his gang will be shown for the incompetent caricatures that they are in the real Court of Law.

• 13 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 14, 2005 at 3:44 pm

  Sandra, my MJ apologist friend, I have no idea if a) Jackson committed the crimes with which he is charged, or b) if he will be found guilty or innocent of said crimes.
  
  There is plenty else going on here without trying to prejudge the vagaries of a jury trial. At a minimum, however, I believe (just my opinion, no legal weight whatsoever) he IS guilty of inappropriate relationships with boys

• 14 - bhw

  Feb 14, 2005 at 4:11 pm

  I look forward to all your posts when Jackson is found innocent of these charges.
  
  It's gonna be a long wait, Sandra. He'll never be found innocent, only not guilty, and there's a difference. Doubt will always exist, whether he's found guilty or not.
  
  I don't know if he's guilty of sexual molestation. I just know that I'd never let my son near him, never mind let him sleep at the guy's house.
  
  If you don't think there's anything wrong with MJ, then why is he always fixating on BOYS, specifically? If he loved all children [in the platonic sense] equally, where are all the sleepovers for girls?

• 15 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 14, 2005 at 4:17 pm

  I can't help but have the sense that his defenders doth protest too much: not that it shouldn't be reiterated "innocent until proved guilty" over and over - it should. But the whole "naive innocent adrift in the uncomprehending, heartless, judgmental world" sound delusional at best to my ears

• 16 - Dawn

  Feb 14, 2005 at 4:45 pm

  With all due respect Sandra, you must be living under a rock somewhere if you harbor no doubt to MJ's innocence.
  
  I doubt he violently raped anyone, but there is zero doubt in my mind that he has an unnatural proclivity towards yound boys, and that in itself is a crime in my book.
  
  But hey, I am a parent and a human being who heavily frowns on child molestation and the ramifications of such.

• 17 - Rodney Welch

  Feb 14, 2005 at 4:58 pm

  Ever since Michael Jackson said on camera that sharing your bed with someone is the most loving thing you can do, I've never been sure if he is arrogant or has a death wish. The way he keeps defending himself on camera, the absolute refusal to put any limits on his behavior -- you just think either here's a guy who thinks he can buy his way out of anything or is just waiting for the judicial system to stop him before he strikes again.
  

• 18 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 14, 2005 at 5:10 pm

  good point Rodney, there is pathology is all directions with the guy

• 19 - Sandra Smallson

  Feb 17, 2005 at 2:00 am

  Me? An MJ Apologist? Never! Surely not. Whatever for?! Eric, the way you post every development on this case, one would think you actually knew the facts of the case. The Charge, my friend, is not “inappropriate relationships” . The Charge is, Child molestation, kidnapping and whatever else, Sneddon has imagined.
  
  Even he, has not been disingenuous enough to level a charge of “inappropriate relationships” . If every person in an inappropriate relationship was taken to Court, the Courts of the Land would collapse and you be assured that there might be no Judges or Lawyers to handle the matter as they would be the “accused” in many cases. Please, try to stick to the facts. You can have your opinion on MJ. However, when you want to discuss the case, it is best to stick to the case and not suffer this unfortunate epidemic of being unable to distinguish between personal opinions of MJ as a person and the ACTUAL FACTS of the case before us. As far as his supporters protesting too much, Eric, you start a topic on the slightest development of his case. It would be more astute to state that his attackers have itchy pants and won’t let the case start at all. They are already trying him in the Court of Public opinion. It is no wonder his supporters have to protest.
  
  BHW, when Mj is pronounced not guilty, I will consider him innocent. If MJ were to be found Guilty, would you say, “he isn’t guilty but the Jury just said so in Court”? Hmm? There is a reason different Standards of proof are put in certain circumstances. In this case, it is a standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. If Sneddon is unable to prove that, then MJ is innocent. We can not let people run around leveling accusations on every person they dislike with no standard to prove if their accusations are actually true. Quite frankly, for a person like you, the Trial is a waste of time. You have two opinions. Guilty or Guilty but not proven. So, what’s news there? You have already made up your mind. How many sleepovers did you have with 10-13 year old boys when you were that age? Surely, all your friends were girls(I am assuming you are a girl). MJ is a child in a man’s body. Yes, there is something wrong with him. He certainly has psychological problems. However, Do I think he sexually molested that cancer patient? Absofuckinglutely not!
  
  Dawn, then I must be living under a rock. I’ll tell you, it’s a very comfy and beautiful rock. Look, I am certain that MJ did not molest this boy. Am I disappointed with his naivety? YES. Am I troubled that he has more 10 year old friends than fourty-something year old friends? Absolutely. Do I think, he sexually molests these young boys that come to NeverLand? NO. It is inappropriate because we are “normal” but to MJ’s troubled mind, it is not inappropriate for him to have more “child” friends than adult friends. Still, if the Charge is “inappropriate” relationships, everybody better duck.
  
  Rodney, MJ’s comments on TV is just a clear example of how naïve this man is. He said it without a moment’s thought and did not see anything wrong with it. This man has psychological problems. He is not a pedophile. Eric, to use that example as some sign of pathology is really scraping the bottom of the gutter. Goodness Gracious!
  

• 20 - Sandra Smallson

  Feb 17, 2005 at 2:10 am

  remove apostrophe from moments

• 21 - bhw

  Feb 17, 2005 at 2:16 am

  BHW, when Mj is pronounced not guilty, I will consider him innocent.
  
  You already consider him innocent.
  
  Quite frankly, for a person like you, the Trial is a waste of time. You have two opinions. Guilty or Guilty but not proven.
  
  No. I said that I don't know if he's guilty or not. Aren't you a lawyer? Then you should know that a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily prove innocence. It's often an "inconclusive" verdict on the case presented.
  
  How many sleepovers did you have with 10-13 year old boys when you were that age?
  
  What age? An adult, in my 30s and 40s? Um, NONE.
  
  MJ is a child in a man’s body.
  
  That's your opinion. No factual information there.
  
  However, Do I think he sexually molested that cancer patient? Absofuckinglutely not!
  
  Well, I'm glad that you've made up your mind before all the evidence has been presented. Ironically, that's what you wrongly accused me of.

• 22 - Sandra Smallson

  Feb 17, 2005 at 2:46 am

  BHW: You already consider him innocent.
  
  Sandra: As is the right and sensible thing to do.
  I am also aware that a "not guilty" verdict does not mean the person is actually "innocent". I think OJ killed Nicole but he was found "not guilty". My point is, putting your post in context with that comment, you approach it with a presumption of guilt. So, whatever the finding, you will stick to it. I disagree with the use of the word "often". It is sometimes an inconclusive verdict, but not often. This takes us back to the "Standard of proof" point I made.
  
  No, I meant when you were 10 or 13. If it isn't clear, my point is that MJ is the child who never grew up. He had a deprived childhood. From the age of 5 he was an adult. Now, he wants to be a child. Thus, he sees nothing wrong in having 10 year old friends jumping all over his bed, sleeping over, playing with trains and going on rides. We think, wierd. He thinks, not so wierd. None of this means he is sexually molesting anybody.
  
  Well, if you can not see that MJ has issues regarding his childhood, and refer to it as just my opinion, but you are able to presume the man guilty of child molestation, having not heard the evidence, let our different thought processing abilities be a reflection of how much or how little common sense either of us have, respectively.
  
  BHW, I do not think for a moment that MJ molested that boy. There is no evidence that raises any doubt in my mind. Mind you, we have had nothing but the Prosecution evidence so if anything I should have some doubts by now. Should the Trial start and I begin to have doubts, I will be the first person to state them clearly. You can bet on that.
  
  I don't think, I wrongly accused you, BHW. You are just on the wrong side of the Law. The Law is, innocent until proven guilty. The policy of free countries and civilised countries is a presumption of innocence. I can not abide this presumption of guilt that MJ is having to fight simply because he is "wierd".
  
  Woody Allen is wierd but I am not going to think he is guilty if a girl who had spent sometime in his house suddenly accused him of sexual harassment. Even if she is found to be Soon Yi's adopted daughter and it's de ja vu all over again. I need more evidence than my personal opinion that a certain person has flown over the cuckoo's nest.

• 23 - bhw

  Feb 17, 2005 at 3:08 am

  My point is, putting your post in context with that comment, you approach it with a presumption of guilt.
  
  Wrong. I don't know if he's guilty or not. Now that's three times I've said it.
  
  You are just on the wrong side of the Law. The Law is, innocent until proven guilty. The policy of free countries and civilised countries is a presumption of innocence.
  
  Yes, but that is a legal standard that refers to how juries must approach the trial and how the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; it doesn't refer to the general public or whether or not they may opine about his guilt or innocence. He is innocent in the eyes of the law, but he may be guilty in fact. Nobody knows for sure but the accuser and MJ.
  
  I don't know if MJ is innocent or guilty, but as someone not eligible for his jury, I'm not obligated to presume one way or the other.
  
  That said, his fixation on young boys and having them sleep in his bed means that I would never let my own son anywhere near the guy. It's not worth the risk.
  
  I can not abide this presumption of guilt that MJ is having to fight simply because he is "wierd".
  
  He is fighting the presumption of guilt by many because 1) he has been accused before and settled out of court rather than defend his innocence before a jury. He bought the accuser's silence, rather than defend himself. That doesn't look good. And 2) he just simply doesn't think there's anything wrong with him sleeping with other people's kids in his bed. That's not naivete. That's a fundamental ignorance, possibly willful, of what his relationship to/with children should or shouldn't be.
  
  Would it help if he hadn't carved his face to bits and didn't walk around wearing a hospital mask and wasn't seen in public with all sorts of animals and kids? Would it help if he wasn't so weird? Yes, it would. The weirdness is contributing to people's willingness to believe he's guilty before they hear all the evidence. But it's not the only thing that's leading them in that direction.

• 24 - Sandra Smallson

  Feb 17, 2005 at 10:41 am

  The Jury is made up of the public, BHW. These are not special people kept aside to be rolled out during Trials. They ARE part of the general public. So, it would do society well if we could all learn to cultivate the habit of presuming people innocent until it's proven otherwise.
  
  If everyone who has settled out of Court over one matter or the other is to be presumed guilty of whatever charge it was, then the free world is choc-a-bloc with guilty people roaming the land.
  Sometimes, it's a nuisance BHW. Sometimes, you just pay to get this nonsense off your back. 20mill, the alleged amount might seem like far too much to pay to get rid of a nuisance to you and I, but to MJ, it's the equivalent of 200 dollars. You are a mother. Would you take ANY amount of money from a man you believe has molested your son? I can't imagine any mother wouldn't want to see that child molester locked up to prevent future children from being abused. Yet, the boy of 1993 went straight to Civil Lawyer and when that didn't pressure MJ, they threatened the long outdrawn criminal Trial..the man paid up. Of course it looks bad, but it also looks bad for the 1993 boy. I do hope he is called by the Prosecution for this case. He and his parents will have to tell us why they accepted the money when they could have had both. They could have continued with criminal proceedings and then had their civil proceedings afterwards. You can look at it two ways, BH. It makes you wonder why MJ paid, it makes me wonder if he did anything at all because I can not imagine a mother or father taking money to shut up about the man that allegedly molested her son.
  
  Yeah, he doesn't think there is anything wrong in sharing a bed with young boys. Is there anything wrong in a father sharing a bed with his 13 year old son? Is there anything wrong in an older brother sharing a bed with his younger brother? MJ, stupidly took these children as his own. He took them as his friends. This particular cancer patient lived in that house for a long period. Travelled with MJ. His mother and the rest of his family present. They played computer games, etc. MJ even said sometimes he slept on the floor while the kids slept on the bed. Even the way he talks is child like. Should a 40 something year old man be sharing a bed with a 10 year old boy? Depends. Probably not. Should MJ be sharing a bed with these boys? Probably not. In sharing that bed, did he touch them in any sexual way? THAT, is the question. The word "inappropriate" or what some consider abnormal or wierd varies from community to community. Some people find homosexuality weird. Some people find cousins getting married weird. There are all sorts of weird and inappropriate things in this life we lead. Certainly, a majority would find MJ's friendship with young boys abnormal. It might be. However, I find it understandable and I certainly need a lot more than what you have said to lead me to believe that sexuial activities took place b/w MJ and some little boys. Especially this particular ungrateful one in question.

• 25 - Eric Olsen

  Feb 17, 2005 at 10:56 am

  Sandra, we've gone over and over this. We all agree: we don't know if he did or did not do what he has been accused of in this case, AND innocent until proven guilty. What I don't get is why are you so SURE he didn't do what he is accused of? Do you have inside knowledge, or are you just assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is something else entirely. I am willing to suspend judgment until the case has run its course, but you seem certain, before the trial runs its course, that he DIDN'T do it. Why is that?
  
  And as bhw and others have said, his guilt in this specific case and his overall behavior are two different things. We are free to discuss and pass judgment on his behavior while awaiting the facts on this particular case.
  
  Is it possible that there has never been any sexual aspect to his relationship with children, and specifically boys? Yes it is, but to me it seems unlikely and contrary to the facts that ARE known.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.