Apart from Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence, the enormous question hanging over the trial proceedings like a poisonous cloud is why on earth did parents — and in particular, mothers — essentially turn their young boys over to the care of the grown man who expressed intense, and in retrospect, alarming interest in their sons?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - DRS
***Eric***: "the attention given to girls mentioned above is simply part of the "appeasing the family" angle he has played since he realized doing so would give him much greater access to boys"
That is false. Jackson dealt with many familities which have no girls, at all.
And You try to ignore the fact that boys have friendships with boys, not with girls. Otherwise, if boy hangs out with girls, he is most probably gay. Boys and girls have little common interest. Jackson sees himself as Peter Pan, in most of the time, and if You would read the book, You would know that Peter Pan hanged out with boys, not with girls -- as any other typical boy in the world.
Also, please do not try to ignore girls thing. There were many girls in Jacksons two-store bedroom (of course, much less than boys), including sister of Macaulay Culkin.
So please do not try to make it sound suspicious. Also, Jackson never asked any boy to sleep with him, despite what June Chandler and Janet Arvizo, Gavin tried to imply. They all money-biased and proven giving contradicting statements, and lies.
27 - Eric Olsen
DRS, um, how do you know "Jackson never asked any boy to sleep with him"?
28 - DRS
***Eric***: "not sure what you mean Jack, it HAS all been coming out over the last 15 years: why do you think Jackson paid somewhere around $25 million in the '90s, if not to try to stop it all from coming out. But it has anyway because he doesn't seem to be able to stop himself - that is a pathology"
Why do You think parents decided to prostite their children so wishfully? Because never ever happened.
And, to Your knowledge, those two settelements did not ever include points that accusers would be prohibited to testify in criminal court.
Also, what You call "all" is
1) drugged "memories" of 1993 accuser, arranged by his father who owed $68 000 aliments and was never interested in his son until he befriended with Michael Jackson.
2) son of the maid, who gave every kind of nonsense and contradicting statements about why he did not tell anyone about "tickling" in 1987, 1988 and 1990, and discovered this only in 1993, after his mother sold his photos and molestation stories she admitted later be false to tabloids, and after police raped his memory.
a) For Your information, real victims of genitalia touching and tickling molestation always tell about their reaction on this as wanting to pee. Nothing similar to this Jason described.
2) Jason said he was small and did not pay attention to tickling. That is very uncredible, if something indeed happen, children of age 7-10 years are perfectly understand where their balls are and that other people should not go with their hands there to tickle them. So if this happened -- the more so numerously, Jason undestood that it was wrong. Why he did not tell to his mother, other servants, guards and/or authorities? For $100? Ridiculous.
Jason said he repressed his memory about those incidents. This directly contradicts his earlier explanation that he was just very little and did not understand what was going actually on.
Later Jason said he firsly confessed to "God" that those ticklings were actually molestation. When this happened, he did not say.
Either way, he lived for 3 years after last alleged molestation tickling, with no sign of distress or any complaints, or any therapy needed.
In 1993, when Jordan Chalder scandal broke, Jason's mother drawed him into molestation, selling stories and even his photo with her and Jackson to tabloids. She lated admitted that she never saw anything about her son. Jason said that she never witnessed any thing and he never talked to her about it.
In the first multihour interview to police, Jason did not tell any thing, and wanted to hit policemen for pushing him in inventing lies.
One of the first things that stood out was covered by the Associated Press in an article dated today (April 5 2005) titled "Jackson witness pleads poor memory". From the court transcript:
Q. Do you remember stating in that interview, "They made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn't want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head"? Do you remember that?
A. No.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript of that?
A. Probably not. But you can show it to me anyway.
MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ZONEN: What page, Counsel?
MR. MESEREAU: 30.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of the transcript?
A. I have.
Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you've said?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Do you remember anything you said in that interview at the moment?
A. Not really.
(4908-4909 (20-15))
They “made him come out with a lot more stuff” that he didn’t want to say? Huh? They “kept pushing” him so much that he wanted to “hit them in the head”?? These are not the words of someone simply trying to hide a molestation. This appears to be a flat-out admission.
Many observers who chimed in were completely stunned that this witness would make a statement like that. This also fits with the defense’s theory that these adults were leaning heavily on this kid back in 1993 to make an allegation against Jackson.
***Another*** bright example of Jason's credibility:
Mesereau:
Q. In your second interview in 1994, you were asked, "Did you ever have any discussion with Michael Jackson about whether you should tell anybody about the things you described?" Remember that?
A. (Shakes head from side to side.)
Q. You don't? Okay.
A. No, I don't.
Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the interviewers, when you were asked do you remember anything that he said, you said, "No, I'm working on that"?
A. No.
…
Q. In the second interview -- let me rephrase the question. I'll withdraw it. In the second interview in 1994 - okay? --
A. Okay.
Q. -- that was recorded - all right? - when asked if Mr. Jackson said anything to you about whether you should discuss what happened, do you remember telling the interviewers, "No, but I'm working on that"?
A. I do not remember that.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript?
A. No. But -- you could bring it over.
Q. Well, I can't unless you're willing to see if it refreshes your recollection.
A. Okay. Bring it over. I'll give it a shot. I'll read it just to see if it refreshes my memory.
(4941 (11-23|28), 4942 (1-16))
He’s “working on that”? Working on what?? Getting his story straight? Or coming up with a story that police wanted to hear? This is not a standard response to the question he was asked by police in 1994.
Someone asks a supposed “victim” if he was ever told not to tell anyone about abuse, the last response would be “No, I’m working on that.”
Apparently, the sheriffs also complained that Jackson has a lot of money and called him a molester in front of J. Francia in 1993. And still, Francia said Jackson never touched him in his genital area.
29 - DrPat
Yes, Eric, don't you know anything? Or are you just reading the biased news? Michael Jackson never even enjoyed sleeping with those boys, and even if he did, he never asked the mothers to let him. And even if he did, they're all lying about his begging and pleading with them and threatening them until they agreed, because even if he did that, he still gave them lots of $$$ and presents, and was nice to the little girls too.
Why can't you see how innocent and natural his behavior is, huh?
30 - DRS
Jason told he refused to testify in criminal court in 1994 because he was "ashamed" and afraid that fellow schoolers will mock him.
Policement explained him numerously that his name and image will be unknown to media, ones are protected by law. The only way how Jason could be ridiculed by fellow schoolers if he himself confessed to them. And Jason understood this all, he was 14, and he was informed numerously by police that it is totally safe for him to testify.
So he refused to testify not because he was embarrased and ashamed. Jason told his story to therapists in sessions, to policemen, to lawyers. But all of sudden he was shy to tell about in court with full personality protection to jail his molester once for good.
Is this because mother and son were not shy or embarrassed to meet FIVE civil plaintiff lawyers in 1994-1996 years (Jason admitted talking to lawyers), starting from Larry Feldman, threatening to file civil suit against Jackson with nasty hearings that would last for 7 years?
Is this because Jason got $2m and his mother $400 000 -- the sum she earns, as maid, in 20 years?
31 - Eric Olsen
as natural as Peter Pan
32 - DRS
The most interesting thing came from Jason's and the mother's lawyer, who arranged settlemnt in 1996. He said that they wanted to have civil trial, and Jackson did not, so his people came and offered money.
If Jason's mother and lawyers were threatening to sue Jackson, if he will not settle, and one of their lawyers testified that they really wanted to have civil trial, this means ***Jason was very well ready to testify on civil court*** and was not "embarrased" in 1994-1996 years. As well as he was not eventually embarrased in 1993 and 1994 to numerously tell the police and lawyers abuot his "recollections".
Why Jason testified now? Because if Jackson will be somehow convicted, he will almost automatically win news civil molestation lawsuit. $2m is not that big money, after all.
Jordan Chandler decided he has enough money and he does not want to jail his "molester", even having name/image protection. "Embarrassed", too. Very telling.
33 - DRS
***Eric***: "DRS, um, how do you know "Jackson never asked any boy to sleep with him"?"
That because Jackson himself said this in 1995, in 2002, in 2003 interviews. Jackson was never afraid to admit sleepovers (child molesters do not do that) -- to Diane Sawyer, to Bashir, to Edward Bradly, whoever. But he always pointed that sleepovers have nothing to do with sex, and can happen only if child asks, and his/her parents are all right with it.
Also, all "victims" but those two said that Jackson never aksed them to sleep with him or even stay in his bedroom (Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, others). The same is with other people who slept with Jackson and not considered by prosecution to be "victims".
Jackson even never asked for sleepover for Jason -- even though Michae did this during whole 80s with many children, including Emmanual Lewis.
34 - Eric Olsen
I am now confused: when I said "sleep with" I didn't mean anything other than in the "sleepover" sense, which Jackson has freely admitted, so obviously he asked these boys to sleep with him.
The point is, you, DRS, and the other Jackophiles believe it is "all innocent" and I think even just what Jackson has himself publicly admitted is not "all innocent"
35 - keyz
Eric Olsen all i have read from u is pathetic recounts of what has been shown in the media. You are obviously uninformed of the matter and if we wanted to hear ur crap we would watch entertainment tonite, for christ sake u are just another mj hater with a vendetta. its quite sad how all the ppl involved in the prosecution are out to sponge of mjs fame (which he built himself). the only reason why judge melville has allowed past cases into the trial is coz he realised how embarrassing it was to have presented such a weak case (gavins)in the first place - what a desparate attempt to regain some credibility.
36 - swingingpuss
kezy, you are nothing but a jack off of a has been Jack. MJ's 80's glitter is still glimmering in your eyes. Wake up and smell the coffee...no one in their grown up minds would do sleep overs with little boys.
37 - keyz
swingingpuss - u talk alot of crap aswell, this is not about mj the performer, its about a man who looks innocent to me being tried in front of a prosecution who are clearly clutching at straws with no evidence. Give me some hard core evidence that he has committed these crimes and i will condsider his guilt. just because he enjoys the company of children doesnt mean its dirty or illegal so get ur mind out of the gutter
38 - swingingpuss
Keyz, I am a mother and no mother in her right mind would let her child sleep with a grown man. If you cant understand that then then there isnt much that I can do to explain it further to you.
Maybe the court will release him but in the eyes of society his reputation has been blown to smithers but again that is the price 'grown men' pay when they try to play house with little boys and if he was doing this with little girls your reaction would surely be different.
39 - keyz
i no hanging out with boys is not normal but MJ is like nobody else in this world, he had no childhood himself and was not allowed to associate with other children. he is just childlike and is living his life how it should have been, and it may not be "normal" for u but if that what he has to do then so be it. Not u or anyone in this world can judge this man because nobody nos what its like to be him. imagine if ur identity was taken away at 10?
40 - swingingpuss
keyz, I appreciate your argument but even if the explanation given was true the world is just too cynical and jaded to believe it and Michael should realize that.
In Rome do as the Romans do.
He should have seeked mental help to deal with this problem knowing the public scrutiny he is always under and that there would always be those who would take advantage of him.
Further more it isnt as if he has the mind of a two year old and doesnt understand the ramifications of playing Dr Hook to kiddie Peter Pan.
41 - rob
An anology: a mom lets her teenage daughter go to work for an escort service. At first she's happy to see the daughter brining in $250/hour (beats babysitting). But, she's suddenly horrified when the daughter says that the clients expect to have sex with her. Horrified she demands her daughter quit the job. After "trying" to get her daughter "out" of the job, she's finally able to do so (she would have quit earlier but they kept on paying).
The mother is so horrified about this she seeks financial compensation. Failing to receive any, she contacts the police to report sexual abuse of a minor. When asked to testify about the her role, she refuses to testify due to the fact it may tend to incriminate her.
side story: many people keep point out that there is no reliable evidence that sex actually occurred. They insist the one hour visits in the clients motel rooms was merely companionship, and that hiring an escort is entirely different from hiring a prostitute. Prostitution requires one to be 18, but being an escort is suitable for all ages.
The problem with the MJ case is that everybody is a lier, and only the kids are innocent.
42 - DRS
***Eric***: "I am now confused: when I said "sleep with" I didn't mean anything other than in the "sleepover" sense, which Jackson has freely admitted, so obviously he asked these boys to sleep with him"
What does it mean "obviously"? There is no witness who or child who would confirm that Jackson ever asked a child to sleep with him or even simply to come in to his two store bedroom.
Only one of many tens of children who slept with Jackson said it was his to ask. Even though Gavin Arvizo said himself it was his idea to sleep in Jackson's bedroom. Now he tells stories that it was Michael who said to him to tell it this way.
Jordan never claimed this, June Chadler did.
Just so happened that all Jordan, June, Gavin had and have financial interests for their claims.
43 - DRS
***Eric***: "I think even just what Jackson has himself publicly admitted is not "all innocent""
You have lost Your memory. Too early for Altzheimer desease.
Jackson always pointed that sleepovers have nothing to do with sex, those are innocent and pure, and can happen only if child asks, and his/her parents are all right with it.
Whole concept of Neverland is that this is the land of no "nos" to a child, if his/her wish is harmless, pure and innocent.
Jackson dreamed about Neverland since early childhood, when he read books about Roy Disney. Jackson, as child, spent all his pocket money his father gave him to buy and give away ice-cream for all kids around their house in Gary.
Not quite fits into paedophile activity. Children-paedophiles do not know that they will be paedophiles, and when they suddenly discover their nature, being sexually mature already, they come to be priests, coaches, Boy Scout leaders -- where they will have boys alone without their parents to have chance to molest them, to have sex with them.
Jackson's habit to invite tens of whole familities into Neverland has hardly fit to that pattern, at all.
Also, rich child molesters, do not have habit to hire tens of former cheriffs and policemen as their guards and firemen. They do not have habit to hire certified child-care nannies who oblidged to report any abuse to authorities.
44 - DRS
***rob***: "The problem with the MJ case is that everybody is a lier, and only the kids are innocent."
You are right: every single witness who said something against Jackson in court has monetary interest. And "kids" no less, they all undestand that they will win big money, if Jackson will be convicted.
45 - sandra smallson
DRS, comment 21 is fantastic. It is a proper response to the likes of Eric. Eric, I have stated in another post that I find the similarities in the 93 case and Arvizo case orchestrated by the Prosecution.
What are the similarities anyway? Buying gifts? He does that to any and everyone. Let's remember that the 93 case only has the prosecution's view on show. As it never came to trial, the defense do not have their view on show.
This is why I find this effort to mesh both cases together like we are fixing a puzzle totally ridiculous. If Jordy can do us all a favour and show up to be cross examined, it would help us all out. I can not understand why Sneddon won't subpoena him.
As for the 11 years silence, it could easily be that Jordy has realised that his parents used him to get money from MJ who had become his good friend and he has now lost a friend by the greed of his parents. He can't say anything now because MJ would be entitled to restitution, so he has disappeared completely, refusing to speak to his parents and wants nothing to do with it. DID THAT THOUGHT CROSS ANY OF YOUR MINDS? Or is it always, MJ is guilty that runs rampant in your heads?!
The mother has not been punished for 11 years. She knows exactly why her son wants nothing to do with her. I'm afraid that the idea that he refuses to speak to her for ELEVEN years because he feels she did not protect him does not hold water. After all, he got his money which is what he is living on now. Why isn't he talking to mommy, daddy, step daddy, uncle that wrote a book, etc?
Ms Chandler knows why and only Jordy can tell us because his lying, thieving mother will not. Then again, the apple does not fall too far from the tree so maybe Jordy is just angry that he did not get a large enough sum from mama and uncle and step dad and daddy and whoever else shared the bonanza.
46 - salmoncatchingbear
I think it's great that people are arguing for both sides of the story. It's something that is not seen enough in the media.
I am saddened by the whole case, i feel incredibly sorry for the children involved, as they have either been pawns in a sexual game, or they are pawns in a legal battle to take down Michael Jackson.
I believe that IF michael jackson did anything, then he may not have been aware that it was wrong. if you look at the evidence presented, even down to his Courtroom appearances, it seems that he is not actually an adult.
Young boys, and girls, play "doctors and nurses" as a way of finding out about their bodies, and what they do. It appears that IF michael Jackson has done the things that he has been accused of then they were examples of this behaviour "you show me yours, I'll show you mine".
The way that he has spent his money, the fact that he has a theme-park, the way that he has destroyed his face, the fact that he thinks he can get the sympathy vote by turning up to court in PJ's after "falling out of the shower", they all smack of school-boy tricks and games, a school-boy with a credit card. kind of like Tom Hanks in Big... he looks like a man, but really isnt.
This man is NOT well, i feel huge sympathy for him. I believe that if he has committed these crimes then he does not deserve to be put onto a prison ward with people who will attack him, he needs to be locked up in a hospital where there are staff who can look after his well being, and get to the bottom of his problems, even if he is never released back into society.
I believe that if these children were molested, then they too need our sympathy and support, or they may well end up in the same position as Jackson.
To anyone who says that abusers do not openly admit that children sleep in their beds/rooms, then that is a lie. An adult in an adults body who is abusing children KNOWS what they are doing, and they get paranoid about being found out. even with the thickest blinds, they will wonder if anyone saw. they will happily admit that on occasion "she woke up in a terrible state and had to come to bed with me, she wouldnt settle".
i believe that there are 2 types of abuser. the sicko who gets a kick out of doing something wrong(sexual abuse/murder etc), that category needs to be punished severely. the other type is the person who is ILL who needs to be locked away for the safety of the community and themselves, locked away in a hospital where they get the care and therapy that they deserve.
May the truth come out, and may all the victims of this trial have peace in the end.
47 - Eric Olsen
SCB, I see much truth in what you say and basically agree, although my level of sympathy for Jacko does not rise to your level. But I do agree he is disturbed and should be treated as such rather than being sent to prison, which will likely kill him. Unfortunately, he did not plead insanity so I'm not sure hospitalization is an option for the court. I agree entirely about the kids all being victims of one kind or another, and all the parents involved are scum for allowing any of this to occur - all were blinded by emotional blackmail, fear, greed, or likely, all of the above
48 - salmoncatchingbear
absolutely.
i dont have any children, the idea of being responsible for something so precious scares the life out of me.
the fact that these kids were in school, and they will have told their friends that they were staying at MJ's house, and no-one ever thought to ask the mothers what the hell they thought they were doing?
i cannot believe that people can eb so shallow that they would rather have money than their child.
every week, it seems, a high publicity case comes to our attention, another child has gone missing. the child is usually abused and then murdered. the parents of those children would rather have their child than any of the money in the world. how must they feel to witness this slavery and abuse?
if MJ goes to prison, or hospital(sometimes the totally deranged dont realise they are, so dont admit it... but he is obviously not well), then the children's parents and guardians must be investigated also. it's easy to say that MJ groomed the children.... but surely the parents played a huge part in grooming them too?!
49 - Eric Olsen
I do not wish for the culpability of the parents, however, to impinge upon tha of Jackson, who is the predator here.
50 - salmoncatchingbear
he appears to be a predator, if takent hat he is sound of mind, but if he's not actually more than 10 years old in his head, then he's actually just being a boy who wants friends.
NOT thant i'm in ANY way defending ANY kind of sexual abuse. If he has been predatory, then he deserves horrible things to happen to him(and i mean that). if he's been a bit retarded(sorry about the turn of phrase, i'm not well today at all, have a horrible cold) then he deserves to be locked up and treated.
does any of this make sense? sorry, i'm really feeling rough!
51 - DRS
***Eric***: "I do not wish for the culpability of the parents, however, to impinge upon tha of Jackson, who is the predator here."
To be correct, facts say that predators here are greedy parent who used their children to get millions of dollars.
There is nothing what can connect Jackson to be predator. He is less match to "profile" of paedophile than any of us.
See comments 43, 30-33 for details.
52 - Eric Olsen
whether his profile fits that of a predator or pedophile is purely a function of how you look at the available "information": I'd say he looks like a classic case of both
53 - rob
drs, Let's remember, that just because everybody is a lier some of the time, does not mean Jackson should not be convicted. All the witnesses in the Gotti case were probably liers (some killers). In fact bringing down the heads of criminal organizations means using the partners in crime to testify against them. Criminals associate with criminals. They don't let honest people see them commit crimes. They make sure there is never an honest witness to a crime.
Jackson is a pedophile. We all know this. This man pays parents to sleep with their kids. Even after one incident cost him $20 million dollars, he kept up his behaviour. Now if someobdy paid somebody $200 to sleep with them, you'ld know it was for sex. How about $20 million? This man really likes sleeping with boys a lot. Why?
Now, we here all know these parents are gold diggers. Jackson knows to. So why does he keep bring gold-diggers and their boys to his home. Why does he keep doing the same thing. He wants sex with boys. That's why. There is no other explanation.
Jackson makes sure the only people around him are slime-balls. Remember, it was Jackson who used this most recent victim as his "character witness" in the rebuttal video. In other words, of all the many, many, many boys, Jackson knows, this boy is the best character witness he could come up with.
Also, if Jackson truly loves the boys he sees in a non-sexual way, why does he toss them aside at 14, and get new 10 year olds, from new gold-digger parents?
Frankly, I don't care about the criminal verdict, as much as I care about stopping the abuse of children, by everybody, parents, Jackson, everybody. Let's pass a law: paying to sleep with somebody's chld should be illegal (for parent, pimp, and customer). It's illegal to hire young child for most jobs, surely "companionship" is one job not suited to young kids.
54 - Eric Olsen
Rob, that was an exceptional and logical portrait of the situation at hand - very well done. I agree with you on all points
55 - DRS
***Rob***: "Jackson is a pedophile. We all know this. This man pays parents to sleep with their kids. ... Now if someobdy paid somebody $200 to sleep with them, you'ld know it was for sex. How about $20 million? This man really likes sleeping with boys a lot. Why?"
You are misinformed. Jackson did not pay those money, insurance company did. Jackson admitted "neglect" in the settlement.
Also, You have to have more accurate picture of the sum. $15 million to accuser, $3 million to the parents, and $5 million to Larry Feldman.
Sleeping with children (not boys, bodyguard said that were girls too, though essentually more rare) does not indicate molesters.
In fact, researches say that molesters are not even interested in sleepovers. They interested in active fondling and sex. And even if they sleep with children, they try to lie tight near them so their could get erections and even masturbate while child sleeps.
And among tens of children, mostly boys, who slept in Jackson's bed(room), no one said Jackson tried to sleep with them enfolding. On the contrary, Jackson slept on the floor, or children were sleeping on the other stage/level/store of his huge bedroom. Even those children who slept exactly on Jackson's bed, they said he slept on the one side, and they on another.
Also, Jackson never confirmed to giving $100/$200 or whatever to Jason or anyone else. BTW, funny how the maid said she found those money in her son's pockets while Jason himself said he had no pockets in his pink shorts.
Even more funny that Jackson supposedly said to Jason that the money were for that Jason never tell mother about what happened, and still maid said she heard exactly this explanation from Jason about why would he have $100 in his non-existing pocket.
And, after that, Jason returned for more balls tickling after one year, and for the final dose of tickling in 1990, every time receiving $100.
People who think this story is believable have no idea how much lust paedophiles have for children. Real life, actual molestation shows that children engaged sexually much more quickly and deeply than one tickling per year.
Besides, real life unvirile victims of molestation say they felt feeling as if they want to pee, when their balls tickled -- and Jason did not. This tells he was not actually tickled in genitals, at all.
"Even after one incident cost him $20 million dollars, he kept up his behaviour."
That because he was innocent, and never thought he should say no to child if he asks. Many children ask to sleep with adults, that is ususal. And Neverland was conceptually created as place with no "Nos" for child -- if his/her wish is innocent, pure and harmless. And Jackson dreamed of Neverland from his own childhood, not just made it up being adult.
Also, there is no places in Bible, Koran or Torah where innocent sleepovers with children were condemned. Pure sleepovers are perfectly moral. So Jackson did not find reason why he should turn away children.
And, remember, Jackson practiced "sleepovers" for more than two decades with probably hundreds of children, and only one of them claimed he was molested (Jordan Chandler). Gavin Arvizo never slept in Jackson's bed simultaneously with Michael.
56 - DRS
Also, as I said, real-life child molesters do not need sleepovers to molest, at all. They actually never even molest this way.
Because actual molesters work as priest, coaches, Boy Scaut leaders, sometimes school teachers -- everywhere where they can have child ALONE withou parents, with abusive control over them.
Jackson invites whole families, not children only, and about 15 people of his staff have keys/codes to every room, including all parts of bedroom, and Michael is not way anyway is abusive and controlling. Also, Jackson employs tens of former sheriffs, policemen as bodyguards and firemen, and he has staff of certified day-care nannies and medical personnel who all obligded to report on any kind of abuse they suspect. Also, witnesses say that all doors in Jackson's main mansion at Neverland almost never closed.
Yes, Jackson is naive and has no concept of reality. But, anyway, if sleepovers would not even exist, he would be prosecuted by Sneddon any way -- because of vendetta, hidden racism, and hidden land interest in SB area.
57 - Eric Olsen
DRS, you are repeating yourself. Saying that a person doesn't fit some stereotyped composite of an ur-molester has little or no bearing on any individual case: the composite is made up from individuals, not the other way around. It's never either/or, every individual is different.
58 - rob
drs, the fact that many people didn't report abuse is nothing. The vast majority of molestation is never reported at all. There is a lot more witness testimony against Jackson than the vast majority of pervs sitting in jail. Many people in jail are there soley on the testimony one person (this very true here in Canada).
Also, why would anybody want to come forward. Look at how terribly they are attacked in the media, and the 'net. Instead, they take hush money. Remember, everybody who gets in sight of MJ's bed has signed a legal contract to keep silent.
There's a lot more money for people to keep silent, and *not* press charges. If Jackson gets convicted, he may go bankrupt. Look at OJ Simpson, who paid sweet tweet after a civil judgement. Most of the gold-digging parents made and kept private deals with Jackson to keep quiet.
My bigger point, is hard to explain, but I'll try. Certain "adult" relationships are for adults only, not kids. Just as two adults can have an appropriate loving/romantic relationship that doesn't involve sex (boyfriend/girfriend). An adult/child can have an inappropriate relationship that doesn"t involve the physical act of sex. This relationship is inherently exploitive and harmful. When the child gets "to old", and is tossed aside, they realize how they were used and abused.
Finally, I hate to get biblical, but since drs did:
The kj bible uses the phrase "lay(s) with" as a euphamism for sexual-intercourse. In fact in one story, a daughter "laid" with her father. The bible made clear such a "laying=sleepover=sex" was innappropriate.
59 - salmoncatchingbear
rob, eric, i'm with you.
DRS, you're making me so frustrated. I know that children who are abused say that they slept on one side of the bed, and that the abuser slept on the other. i know that the abused very rarely tell anyone, as the abuser has such a strangle hold of power over them. i know this for a fact, i dont think i need to spell out how, but it is frightening for the child.
when you start to grow up you realise that you should not have let the abuser get away with it, and you realise that your memory has started to fug up a little about dates and times, but that you remember instances. however, what eveidene can you give? for a girl, chances are yo've already had a sexual relationship with a man, or used tampons, so the hymen could well have been broken anyway. for a boy, what eveidence can he give it the fondling was only ever of his genitalia and not his anus?(a fissure could be proof)
none of us know for sure what happened, none of us can influence the trial either way, but we should look at that law of rob's, look at implementing something to safegaurd our children. support your national charities that protect kids, volunteer, step in if children in the community appear to be subject to abuse(because when they dont, even though they talk about it, know that it's happening, blood is also on their hands).
All most of us want is to protect children. lets make a start with the millions of abused all over the world.
60 - Eric Olsen
very nice Rob and SCB, I think the key to all this is "inappropriate," which most people have a keen sense of even if they can't readily define it, and the vast majority of the population feel that Jackson's relationships with these boys is absolutely inappropriate whether or not he is legally guilty of the specific charges in this case. I find it astonishing that the Jackophiles don't get this.
61 - salmoncatchingbear
me too Eric, me too. it's scary when people are deified in this manner and masses of people cannot for the life of them see that they may NOT be wonderful people.
anyone remember what happened with the Manson Family?!
besides, Prince is way more talented(that'll go down well)
62 - DRS
***Eric***: "the vast majority of the population feel that Jackson's relationships with these boys is absolutely inappropriate"
They see relationships with children (Jordan's sister travelled around the world with Jackson, as well as sat on his lap during World Music Awards ceremony, and she was carried on his arms often) as inappropriate only because they think Jackson is paedophile.
But, as of now, with all testimonies, there is no single witness/victim without monetary interest in accusing Jackson, and all of them were cought in inconsestences of their stories, or with frauds, documented perjury, and so on.
So, objectively, there is not credible evidence that Jackson could be paedophile.
63 - DRS
***Eric/Rob***:Jackson's relationships with children (without presumption of molestation) are totally appropriate, because in most time, Jackson sees himself as child, and NONE of children preceives him as adult -- that is why they adore him.
There is no places in Bible, Torah or Koran where innocent sleepovers, if child wishes and parents approval, are prohibited and/or condemned.
Only sick, preverted minds of currect society make everything sound sinister. This has nothing to do with morals but has to do with society's obsession with paedophilia. It started with Nabokov's "Lolita", and only grews stronger after.
When people say that Jackson should not have relationship with non-related children, because it is "sign" of paedophile, they are ignorant. Most of molestation happens with related children, not alien -- because they get much easily controlled and intimidated.
And Michael have about 30 of nephews and nieces, and he slept with them many times -- if they wanted and his brothers were all right with it. By the way, Jackson and his brothers (and sisters) had only 1 small bedrooms to sleep in Gary (second bedroom was for parents), Indiana, and sometimes two of them even slept in one bed, and it was all right.
So *how come that Jackson with 30 years of his sexual maturity never tried to molest absolutely everyone of his nephews* and tens of other non-related boys, -- and all of sudden molested three children with decade-long gap, each and every of which was not embarrassed to tell about "molestation" to multiple civil money plaintiff lawyers, therapists, policemen, and all of sudden become embarrassed to repeat their words in court, with full anonymity protection, but expecting millions of dollars from financial settements?
Do real victims of molestation act this way? No: in reality, they either totally silent (for a very, very long time), or tell everything and testify in court because their anonymity is protected, and ***they really want to jail their molester***. Notice how Jason lost his embarrasement when his mother and his lawyers knew that if Jackson is convicted, they can almost automatically receive millions of dollars.
Among real life molestation victims, there is no "Jackson's "victims"" phenomenon -- when "victims" remember molestation, admit it, tell about it many, many times to many civil lawyers, therapits, and policemen, but with all the protection of anonymity they refuse to testify in court and jail their molester once for good, simultaneously seeking for millions of dollars from Jackson.
***Real life victims do not prostitute themselves, the more so their parents do not. What a coincidence that parents of all the three "victims" appeared to be documenter frauders, prerjures, greedy manipulators -- and they all wanted money and NEVER called police.***
So we have three of SUCH "victims" among tens of boys who asked to sleep in Jackson's bedroom and never were molested, nor were attempted to, in whole 30 years of Jackson's sexual maturity.
Real life aging acting paedophiles have TENS of victims, some even hundreds. And Jackson has three monetary driven "victims" with THOUSANDS of children visiting Neverland, and many tens of them being in relationships with Jackson.
How much all this makes Jackson paedophile? Do the math. Given all facts, probability that Jackson is paedophile is lower than You, Eric, or You, Rob, or me.
64 - DRS
"besides, Prince is way more talented(that'll go down well)"
Really? It looks right You have no knowledge about Jackson:
Concise resume on Mr. Michael Joseph Jackson:
Michael Joseph Jackson is a writer; poet; philosopher; script-writer; art-critic; actor; director; stylist; costume designer; set designer; dance stager; choreographer; dancer; mime; composer; arranger; singer; musician multiinstrumentalist; music, videos and theatrical producer; painter; architect; sportsman; philanthropist; businessman, international investor.
(all listed kinds of activity are professionally differ from each other, even which seem to be the same thing; for example, "dance stager" means that Mr. Jackson created dance routines for full stage dance crew and directed it; "choreographer" means that Mr. Jackson personally taught and trained dancers to perform a dance, conceived by him -- that is another work as it requires to split the routine for "steps"; "dancer" means Mr. Jackson personally performs a dance)
In his forty six years, Michael Jackson has become a holder of the most quantity of absolute worldwide and local records, ever concerning to single person*1; one of the most known human ever among six billion people of worldwide community*2; the most image-reproduction popular man ever*3; the most awarded man ever*4; the biggest selling artist of all time*5; a honorary doctor of philosophy of several leading universities; a connoisseur of mid centuries and ancient music and art; a producer of one of the most awarded musical ever; an innovator of new principal dance movement methods and mimic poses; a developer of singing to the top of art with use of his four octaves voice as a the most complex music instrument; one of the greatest composers ever, creating with popular dance, rock, soul, gospel, funk, industrial, neoclassical music, playing piano, acoustic and electric guitars, keyboards, synthesizers, drums, percussion, writing parties for symphonic orchestra and choirs; a developer of simultaneous stage dance performing and singing, an innovator of mini-movie music video clip concept; a developer of one of the most original fashion and style image; a designer of his almost three thousand acres home ranch Neverland; an owner of Kata black belt and the fifth degree skill, one of the biggest philanthropists with more than two hundred million dollars raised for the true charity; a visitor of hundreds hospitals in tens of countries around the world; the most worth personality ever (no stocks and no shares, only personal talents fertility is estimated), a billionaire, an owner, co-owner and president of tens companies.
All the assertions are factual here, except for ones marked with the sign "*", which can not be proven or denied strictly, but have factual substantiation and statistic estimation, as well social and cultural significance:
*1: More than 80 absolute worldwide records, hundreds of absolute local records;
*2: In such countries as China, India, Indonesia or even Iraq there are billions people who often know nobody of outer world than Mr. Jackson with his moonwalk: neither Pope, nor Beatles, nor even the President of USA;
*3: (excluding paper money reproductions) since 1969 to 2003 Mr. Jackson's images were reprinted more than any
other person ever lived on the planet, including papers, books, and 480 million reprints in his music solo and group records;
*4: More than 300 awards, others not specified;
*5: Cumulative sales of SME/ER and UMG/Motown solo and group records with Jackson's voice and name are about 480 million records.
65 - salmoncatchingbear
DRS: So, objectively, there is not credible evidence that Jackson could be paedophile.
of course there is evidence that shows that he could be a paedophile! it isnt necessarily so, but there is evidence that he forms close friendships with children, and that these friendships are inapproriate for a number of reasons.
not least, it leaves them open to abuse from other parties. if a small child gets used to being in bed with a man in his forties, gets used to being touched and hugged(as you have stated is ok so long as it's not in a sexual way) then it puts the children in a vulnerable position.
it is possible, and i know you dont want to think it, but it really is possible that Michael Jackson has had sexual relations with children.
DRT, i am prepared to keep an open mind and not condemn a man in my own mind before i have assessed for myself ALL of the evidence. If you continue to assert Michael Jackson's innocence on his behalf then you are as guilty as the people who are trying to damn him.
66 - Eric Olsen
1) who says Jackson GETS to view himself as a child? This is the kind of self-delusion that has created his problems. He is not a child, he's a 46 year-old man.
2) again with the rules about pedophiles. There are no rules. He could very easily have compartmentalized all this and have a very firm distinction between family and "other children." He doesn't have to be the "classic pedophile" in order to have molested those who have come forth.
3) And by your definition, anyone who ever came forth would have a financial interest in doing so and would therefore be suspect!
4) Prince has continued to evolve and create - MJ has not
67 - DrPat
Michael Joseph Jackson is a writer; poet; philosopher; script-writer; art-critic; actor; director; stylist; costume designer; set designer; dance stager; choreographer; dancer; mime; composer;...
'Nuff said. Let's put him behind bars. For the children's sake!
[grin]
68 - Eric Olsen
I should add: I am a huge fan of J5, Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad - that was all a long time ago
69 - james mclafferty
So whats changed between now and then eric there were allegations in the eighties and the song "leave me alone".Was a statement of that time if you were such a big fan of him back then you should know what he is about if youv'e still got the bad album read the lyrics and you'll find they are very revealing,mj's songs aren't off the top of his head they are a story of his life and who he is.Look mate i might be wrong about him being innocent just as well as you might be wrong about him being guilty.But i think his religous upbringing goes against all these allegations.Iv'e probably lost the plot of what i was saying but youv'e got to give me the fact that the prosecutions case is looking very weak the sooner this trial is over the better.
70 - Eric Olsen
I think the case looks weak re kidnapping-related charges, but not sure how it looks for molestation - the testimony establishing "pattern of behavior" I think was very powerful
71 - james mclafferty
Yes, but does that not come from years of experience and combatting in court on the part of tom sneddon?,he's close to retiring and probably handled god knows how many cases so will know how to put a case forward in a strong way,my problem is i can't see what has been proven against the defence yet?,could it not be just that he see's himself as a fathering figure i admit it would look strange to us,believe me i don't have kids but i have a 13yr old sister and believe me if i thought anybody had harmed her in any way i would find them and kick the crap out of them. So fiddling with kids is definately a nono and at risk of repeating myself a i can't see anything thus far that i would be seriously worried about.I just hope if he found innocent that he proves the fact and doesn't personnally get involved anymore,doesn't mean he shouldn't have families for day trips,but it would mean no more stopovers.What do you reckon?
72 - Eric Olsen
totally agree - either way on the verdict his habits have to change
73 - james mclafferty
Allright mate have a good day or night whatever the time is over there(im in britain),16:29pm at the moment.
74 - Eric Olsen
day, we're 5 hours behind - you too!
75 - DRS
*** salmoncatchingbear ***:
"If you continue to assert Michael Jackson's innocence on his behalf then you are as guilty as the people who are trying to damn him."
Do you know such little thing as constitution? Jackson IS absolutely innocent until proven otherwise.
You are right, all of us should keep open mind and see until the end of the trial what evidence will be presented -- and if prosecution's evidence will be credible, THEN we can agree that Jackson is paedophile.
As of now, it is not credible yet, and we know whole content of 2004's year Grand Jury proceedings, where Sneddon presented his case without Jackson's lawyers. So we can make proper and reliable estimation that we know what else Sneddon will show, and there is nothing credible left. You are right, we can not make final judgement now, but we can do proper estimation very well.