Oops, 7 Days. Hey look I don't update on weekends.

Michael jacksons innocence...

this is the best they can do to convict him?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3204586a1860,00.html

the story doesn't make sense, and the mother of the child has a history of falsely suing people for sexual abuse, i mean, wtf?

there must be more....or else hes innocent as hell...
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 2nd, 2005
I'd wait till the evidence was in, quite a lot of it will no doubt be circumstantial and it may be a sting whether for gain or whatever reason but if you saw the original documentary there are some difficult questions to be answered.

Bashir hasn't helped things by listening to lawyerly advice about depending upon California's protection laws for journalists and not answering any questions from the defence.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 2nd, 2005
"there are some difficult questions to be answered."

oh?
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 2nd, 2005
He talks about taking young boys into his bed, the toys and paraphenalia. He rejects or forgets them once they've become older. He has an alarm wired to the staircase up to his room which tells him when someone is approaching the door.

And so on.

Now it could all be entirely innocent but given accusations have been made and he admits that the circumstances under which abuse could have taken place did exist then yes there are serious and difficult questions to answer.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 2nd, 2005
In my opinion he is probably innocent of the charges but does seem to engage in somewhat inappropriate behaviour that leaves himself wide open to these kind accusations. He seems to think that being who he is renders him immune to the law.

Even Yuri Geller (a friend of Jackson) is on record as saying he wouldn't leave his kid at Jackson's.

A comedian over here recently quipped (while refusing to comment on guilt/innocence):

'If I was a multi-millionare paedophile, I'd have a fun-fair in my back garden'
Permalink  
March 2nd, 2005
Right or wrong, if someone has made false accusations like that before, their credibility is pretty much shot.

They will have to show some pretty hard evidence to win this.
Permalink Eric Debois 
March 2nd, 2005
"He talks about taking young boys into his bed, the toys and paraphenalia. "

toys and paraphenalia? I caught the tail end of a doco wher ehe basically said that he saw no problem with sleeping in the same bed with children.

put like that, neither do I....its the strong purient mind of the media that turned it into some kind of confession.


"He rejects or forgets them once they've become older. "

right, thats interesting. where did you read it?

"He has an alarm wired to the staircase up to his room which tells him when someone is approaching the door."

<g> he *also* wears a mask when he goes outside, the man is a freak, so having the alarm is just as likely to be a part of that.


"Now it could all be entirely innocent but given accusations have been made and he admits that the circumstances under which abuse could have taken place did exist then yes there are serious and difficult questions to answer."

he admits that circumstances under which abuse could have taken place did exist? I hope to christ you dont mean that...its not hard to find circumstances under which "abuse could have taken place"

...if thats in any way suspicious then the world is in real trouble...
Permalink FullNameRequired 
March 2nd, 2005
The last trial had some kid describing Jackson's penis in detail. He eventually paid the family off so they'd drop the charges. Something like that is pretty damning.
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 2nd, 2005
"police who raided Neverland found dozens of pornographic magazines [in his bedroom] &#8211; and it was there the singer brought his young accuser"

Of course, any father that gets Playboy stores them in his bedroom, and I'm guessing that any children with a father like that has "been in a room with porn."

I would even find it feasible that the Playboy would have a child's fingerprints on it, even though the dad would open up a can of whoop-ass if he found out about it...

Does that mean that every father that buys Playboy is, by default, a child molester?

Now the real question; Did MJ just have porn under his bed, or was it illegal porn (like pictures of naked boys having sex)? I have only ever heard that it was "porn".

I also heard the family interview were they said that MJ told them that if they wanted help getting away from the media, he would pay for it-including paying to establish them in another country. Is that what they are turning into "attempted kidnapping"?
Permalink Steamrolla 
March 2nd, 2005
Of course it might look completely different now...;-)

As to sharing a bed- if someone lets their small child sleep in the same bed because they're frightened of the dark I wouldn't bat an eyelid. When it's someone else's 10 year old, who's come over to play with his 35 year old friend - I would.

I haven't seen all the evidence and don't consider the case proved. It is also worth remembering that "legal" guilt or innocence is about the law and not always about the facts. It is possible that he was set up and still did it. It is possible that he is as naive as he claims, is mentally at the age of 10 and doesn't really understand what's going on. However, there is a case to answer and whether he's a perv or just a prat I wouldn't let my kids near him.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
March 2nd, 2005
The commentary on this board shows exactly why Jackson will be acquitted. A celebrity multi-millionaire can get away with anything short of sodomizing a boy on a busy sidewalk because jurors think "reasonable doubt" requires that they check their common sense at the door of the courthouse. This thanks to idiotic legal dramas on TV and movies.
Permalink  
March 2nd, 2005
I'm actually surprised so many people here think he's innocent. I suspect another, similar thread about a month from now will get responses that are entirely different.
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 2nd, 2005
Remember that he is on trial for molesting children. He's allowed to be a freak, and it's not even illegal for a grown man to play with kids. Until he puts his hands on them in places they're not supposed to be, he's broken no law.

He may even have pedophilic tendencies and assuages them by just having kids around then masturbating furiously after they leave the room. Not illegal.

The human psyche is a very strange thing - for criminal cases you have to check your assumptions at the door because you don't normalize curves. A man can have 99/100 of the same traits as every child molester in the world, but until he TOUCHES THE KID, he has broken no law. And that may be where he has enough sanity and willpower to draw the line.

An interesting thought experiment - pull Michael Jackson out of the case and insert George Clooney. With all the same facts in evidence, I think the general consensus would be "it's kinda weird but let's not jump to conclusions." But when it's Sideshow Mike, then we're ready to believe he's weird across the board.

The prosecution has to PROVE, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that Michael touched those kids. If they can't, he's not guilty. Based on their restraint to date, I'm hoping they have a very++ strong case - I'd hate to have another case of "the prosecution figured the defense couldn't prove him innocent"

Philo
Permalink Philo 
March 2nd, 2005
It's not becaus Michael is weird, it's because he has a history of going to trial for this, and the evidence of the last case was pretty strong.
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 2nd, 2005
Well, in Scotland there's a verdict "unproven"...

To be honest *I* think he's nonce - although whether it can be proved in this case is another matter.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
March 2nd, 2005
MarkTAW

I really think that most people here think MJ is weird, but are waiting for the evidence before coming to a judgment on guilt or innocence.

Philo

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think most people here would give a very slightly bigger benefit of the doubt to MJ than to George Clooney because of the MJ weirdness factor. I would. No I would not allow my children any where near MJ. I doubt that anyone here would either.
Permalink SSG Sam Eaton AUS ret 
March 2nd, 2005
Maybe, but the evidence of the 1993 trial speaks volumes.

http://thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 2nd, 2005
+++but I think most people here would give a very slightly bigger benefit of the doubt to MJ than to George Clooney because of the MJ weirdness factor+++

You mean most neo-con, Bush-loving, inside-out brained freaks like yourself?

:)
Permalink muppet 
March 2nd, 2005
As I said originally, I'm waiting for the evidence to come in, all I think at the moment is that there is a set of questions to answer.

There were plenty of people that couldn't believe it of Gary Glitter before he was convicted, many people assumed it about Jonathan King before hand and many accepted Pete Townshend's explanation that he was doing research.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 2nd, 2005
I always find it amusing when someone delivers an internet comment that would probably earn them a knuckle sandwich in "real life", and then tops it off with a smiley face.

In regard to the topic, even if Jackson isn't sent to prison, I can't believe he'll ever make a hit record again. He's spent so much money already that I predict he'll be penniless within a decade. Then the real fun begins: when Sideshow Mike can't afford a private estate and horde of sycophants to insulate him from reality any longer.
Permalink freak 
March 2nd, 2005
muppet

While Liberal Freedom and Justice lovers like you want to convict and execute him before the trial? :)

Seriously, painful as it is lets just agree to agree on this one
Permalink SSG Sam Eaton AUS ret 
March 2nd, 2005
I never said I was certain he was guilty, I just don't buy into your "George Clooney gets less benefit-of-doubt than MJ" thinking, which is just plain nuts.
Permalink muppet 
March 2nd, 2005
muppet

Prejudice, is a human failing that I admit to. In my experience those who deny having any prejudice are the biggest bigots around. On something as important as a trial, I will bend over backwards to make sure that my prejudice doesn't adversely affect the outcome.

I am prejudiced against anyone that is as weird as MJ. As a result I will make every effort to insure that I treat the evidence at LEAST as favorably to him as I would for some one who came closer to sharing my values.

I honestly think that most of the people here, including muppet, have sufficient moral honesty that they would do the same thing.
Permalink SSG Sam Eaton AUS ret 
March 2nd, 2005
Some might thing that spending millions on a trial and asking for twenty years for giving a kid a couple of wanks is much weirder than anything Michael Jackson ever got up to.

But when you realize this is in the State where you pwople have been sentenced to life without parole for stealing a pizza, and the governor that passed the propostition was thrown out because he wasn't as tough as Terminator.....
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 2nd, 2005
You think 20 years for molesting a child is too much??!
Permalink muppet 
March 2nd, 2005
While we might disagree about his guilt/innocence, I think we can all agree that we wouldn't let our kids stay overnight at his house. This makes you wonder a bit about the motives of the current plaintiffs mother.
Permalink  
March 3rd, 2005
-------" You think 20 years for molesting a child is too much??!"----

Considering all the other things that happen to children, such as being physically assualted, left out in the cold, forcibly taken away from their school and friends and deported to countries they don't know about, losing limbs or more as collateral damage, being left to sleep out in the cold because authorities refuse to let them work and won't give them benefits, until yesterday being stuck on death row and sometimes even executed, publicly humiliated and placed on the sex-offenders register (believe it or not, in the US< a significant proportion of registered sex offenders are teenagers and the majority are under the age of twenty-five) and a slew of other things, most of which do not produce the vast balloon of self-rigthteous hysteria, and many of which are carried out by governments in the name of protecting public morality, then yes.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 3rd, 2005
Whilst I'm in favour of long prison terms for predatory adult sex offenders there are cases where they're inappropriate. In the UK roughly 1/3rd of sexual offences against children are committed by other children. I know of a case where a 5 year old was introduced to sex by a 9 year old sibling, who had been raped for most of her life by various adults and didn't understand there was a problem.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2005
Stephen -

I think fucking up a kid's head for life is just as bad or worse than physically brutalizing him. You scare me.
Permalink muppet 
March 3rd, 2005
How many witnesses are there?

If he's supposed to have molested kids plural, how come the only key witness (that I know of) is one with dodgy credibility?
Permalink Katie Lucas 
March 3rd, 2005
Could that be because he didn't do it in front of witnesses? How unthinkable!!
Permalink muppet 
March 3rd, 2005
"In the UK roughly 1/3rd of sexual offences against children are committed by other children"

I'm not sure it is an offence, because it's between minors???? What about all those pre-16 pregnancies? You never hear of any of the <16yo lads getting sent down. (Note to foreigners: age of consent is 16 in the UK).

About MJ himself: It's like philo said, he has to have touched the kid. Someone will have to provide evidence that this happened for the specific complainant. Whether the Bashir interview is sufficient, I don't know, I recall the bit about bed-sharing being in relatively general terms.

Note to muppet: Just about *everything* on this forum seems to scare you. You seem to be scared as often as Tony Blair is "deeply shocked and saddened." Anyhow, 20 years for kiddy-fiddling is a lot by British (ahem) standards, when people convicted of manslaughter get away with 4-year sentences over here.

From what I've heard at the moment (ok, it's not much!), my money is on an acquittal for Mr Jackson.
Permalink Jonathan 
March 3rd, 2005
Jonathan -

So clearly British standards are all fucked up, but I think it's the manslaughter sentence which ought be adjusted, not the molestation one.

And Jonathan, I think it's perfectly healthy to be profoundly frightened by psycho-/socio-paths, and I see plenty of them on this board.
Permalink muppet 
March 3rd, 2005
Johnathan - it would only *maybe* not count as an offence *if* the offender were under 10 (which I dimly remember as the age of criminal responsibility) - as in the case I quoted. The fact that the police can't be arsed to arrest every spotty oik that's sleeping with his girlfriend doesn't really make a difference.

I know of cases of 14 year olds with a 34 year old "boyfriends" and no charges brought. Mainly it must be said because of the difficulty obtaining a conviction where it's consensual. They have enough trouble getting a conviction when it isn't.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
March 3rd, 2005
---"And Jonathan, I think it's perfectly healthy to be profoundly frightened by psycho-/socio-paths, and I see plenty of them on this board."----

Post less and you won't see so many of them.
Permalink Stephen Jones 
March 3rd, 2005
I love you too, Steven.

Kisses!
Permalink muppet 
March 3rd, 2005
Stephen Jones

Point of fact. The punishment for sexual offenders in America, like in the UK is mostly of the slap on the wrist verity.

What scares me is that on this subject muppet seems to be taking the words out of my mouth. This leaves me with little to say because muppet has already said it.

Scary!
Permalink SSG Sam Eaton AUS ret 
March 3rd, 2005
The sentences for rape and sexual violence against women may seem paradoxically light but those for under age sexual abuse are quite high and the social consequences far far worse. It's unlikely that anyone can survive the stigma of being caught and convicted of it.

One of the policemen acting as liaison to the families in the Soham murders was caught with child pornography on his notebook computer and was originally let off because of the lack of evidence of continual posession, ie someone else could have put it there. In the end that was blown away in the police getting his g/f (defence lawyer) to admit that he did know of it and did use it (whatever that means).

This is probably one of the last significant and wide ranging taboos we have and now we treat the consumption of porn as equivalent to the original offence being depicted (the argument being that consumption encourages production and abuse). That some of the images are captured from knitting patterns and the like is conveniently forgotten or not referred to as the horrendous pictures are the ones that everyone concentrates on (reasonably enough) and the public assumes in all cases that the images themselves are vile rather than the intent in viewing otherwise innocent images.

Some time ago I had some entirely innocent images of my daughter dressing up (entirely clothed) and I discovered them being remote linked and that it was becoming the hottest link on the server. Naturally I removed it.

At the age of 12 I was very mildly, extremely mildly, sexually molested by two different men within a few months, one a nurse and the other a truck driver I hitched a lift from. I don't know about the first, but I think it was the second's first time and he was more worried about being found out than anything. Occasionally I wonder if he ever escalated into something much worse, like murder.

Human behaviour has very few norms but we erect elaborate stories and rituals to describe a lot of it and so make it either normal or repellent. That's not to say that there is anything positive to say about molesting children there isn't but there are other forms of abuse which are even worse.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2005
Harm of sexual abuse is real.

A young child does not understand the difference between love and sex. Getting them confused causes many other problems.

So it is particularly bad if someone the child trusts is the offender -- teacher, (step) parents, scout masters, clergies...
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 3rd, 2005
A lot of the "harm" of sexual contact between adults and children is projected onto the children by adults who find it offends their sense of prudishness.

The reality is the children develop a growing sexual awareness starting from quite a young age, and that leaves them open to sex play. It is wrong for adults to exploit that curiosity and overstep bounds, and it is appropriate for society to disallow adults from doing so. It is even more wrong for adults to force children into things they don't want to do that causes them pain and physical harm. The latter should be treated as a physical attack and rightly considered a criminal matter, just like an attack on anyone is treated so.

Where society gets it wrong is in projecting this image onto children of being innocents, pure as the driven snow and totally unaware of sex until they reach the age of consent. Then suddenly everything changes and they are considered capable of full physical expression of love with another person, just like that, without any prior understanding or awareness of what it all means.

So to say that someone aged 15 will be mentally harmed or have their mind screwed up by a sexual contact is totally ludicrous. Someone aged 15, or 14, or even younger, is perfectly capable of consenting to sexual activity. (This is proven by the prevalence of young teenage pregnancies.) We may consider it is not good for them to do so, but "not good" is a long way from "damaging". It is obviously wrong for adults to abuse their position of trust and seniority in such a way, but is it 20 years in jail wrong with a social stigma for life?
Permalink Ian Boys 
March 3rd, 2005
I agree with Ian Boys on this one. The same goes for responsibility - parents that take care of everything for their children and then don't understand why they can't make responsible choices later in life are making a huge mistake.

I read about a study recently that said that people who were molested as children are just as likely to grow up to be happy adults as people who weren't. We worry way too much about "damaging" children.

I'm in no way condoning this behaviour, but complete isolation and shunning them for being human and having human desires isn't the answer either.

===
What most studies of sexual abuse show is that if you gauge the psychological health of young adults&#8212;typically college students&#8212;using various measures of mental health (alcohol problems, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, social adjustment, sleeping problems, suicidal thoughts and behavior, and so on), those with a history of childhood sexual abuse will have more problems across the board than those who weren&#8217;t abused. That makes intuitive sense. But Rind and his colleagues wanted to answer that question more specifically: how much worse off were the sexually abused? The fifty-nine studies were run through a series of sophisticated statistical tests. Studies from different times and places were put on the same scale. The results were surprising. The difference between the psychological health of those who had been abused and those who hadn&#8217;t, they found, was marginal. It was two-tenths of a standard deviation. &#8220;That&#8217;s like the difference between someone with an I.Q. of 100 and someone with an I.Q. of 97,&#8221; Rind says. &#8220;Ninety-seven is statistically different from 100. But it&#8217;s a trivial difference.&#8221;

http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/041108fa_fact1
===
Permalink MarkTAW 
March 3rd, 2005
Young children != 14 and 15 years old.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 3rd, 2005
As a christian, I don't think any person is 'damaged' by incidents in their lives.

Choosing college students as sample of course is biased towards people who deal with problems better -- those 'damaged' the most would not even go on to college.

As valid as Kinsey used samples with high proportion of prison inmates to infer the sexualiy of average americans.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 3rd, 2005
+++ As a christian, I don't think any person is 'damaged' by incidents in their lives.+++

I don't know as this has anything to do with being Christian.
Permalink muppet 
March 3rd, 2005
What damages people damages them assuming what does or does not isn't going to change that.

Would I want either of the two inadequate men prosecuted for sticking their hands down my trousers and fertling around (odd how they both did the same thing)? Yes I would.

In fact the nurse involved did far worse with some of the other older lads and eventually other staff heard us discussing it and insisted the police came in. The police tood statements and disappeared and nothing was done.

This was not unusual in the 60's. I was not damaged by either event but that is entirely beside the point.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
March 3rd, 2005
" What damages people damages them assuming what does or does not isn't going to change that"

Maybe true to other animals.
Permalink Rick Tang 
March 3rd, 2005
"I don't know as this has anything to do with being Christian."

Obviously, to Rick it does.
Permalink Jim Rankin 
March 4th, 2005
Well, Jim, I could say that as a Christian, I enjoy sodomizing tabby cats, but that would be just as ridiculous.
Permalink muppet 
March 5th, 2005
I don't think he did it. I don't think there is anyway to prove it.
I don't think so.
Permalink <image source="http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/greencheck.gif" 
March 15th, 2005
test
Permalink <image source="greencheck.gif"></image> 
March 15th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: March, 2005 Other topics: March, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics