Please ignore any spelling or grammatical errors. I wrote this with passion and am not going to proof any of it.
I have contemplated the issues in the Michael Jackson case and have found that I do not think he is guilty in any way. Obviously I do not have any evidence but if you think back to when he was very popular he has always wanted to do things for children. Many of his songs have lyrics that pertain to helping children and people. He built a place where children can go and feel like they are in a fairy tale as well as meet someone famous. Some people may think that this is odd or that his appearance is odd but that is just an opinion and should not be used against him. The kids are lucky that he has this place for them to go to. Obviously the parents of some of these children are not reasonable. If a parent thought that Michael Jackson was a child molestor they would never send their child to his home even if they thought there was other supervision. A good parent would not want to subject their children to danger. Even in the last case in the end all these parents have wanted was money. How could money ever fix the scars a child would have if they were molested and then the whole world knew about it? I feel that these parents just want a slice of the luxuries that Michael has and planned that when they first sent their boy to his home.
On another note, I have listened to some of the reporters on tv saying that Michael only speaks of himself and doesn't think of anyone else. I think that is ridiculous. If i was innocent and the police ransacked my home and hurt me in any way I would want people to know. He doesn't need to apologize to the family for something that did not take place. He probably feels bad enough for the boy having to go through this ordeal when he was not truly molested.
Another point I would like to make is that I am a female and I love children. I have on occasion had my friends kids over and they crawl in my bed if their parents are their or not. Kids love to play in a bed when they are young. When I was a kid I wanted to sleep in bed with my mom until I was 12. My grandfather wiped my butt until I was 7 because I was scared to get my hands dirty. Would they throw him in jail since he isn't a true blood relative? Would a 45 year-old woman who is babysitting be arrested if a young girl was found to be sleeping in her bed on occasion?
Great post. Lizarna, I feel the same way. When I was growing up, there was nothing wrong with non related kids sleeping in the same bed with an adult, but now, all has changed and you are now a preditor if you allow kids to sleep in your bed. I think we are sending a bad message, you are only a child molester if you sleep in the same bed with a non related child and we all know relatives and priest have/will molest and they are/were trusted by the community.
No offense...but exactly how many times did you find yourselves sleeping with a 45 year old man at his house without your parents present?
Umm.....I never did that.....and I dont know how old you both are, but as a 38 year old woman...I never remember anytime in my lifetime that it was okay to that.
And Pizie...you say that when you were growing up that it wasnt wrong to sleep in a non related man's bed (okay adult's bed..)...ummm....exactly where did you grow up?
If I would have EVER asked my parents if I could sleep over at an adults house and sleep in their bed with them...Im certain they would have questioned me as to why I wanted to do that......you know...now that I think about it...when I was 10-13 yrs old, the only thing I ever wanted to do was hang out with friends my own age...and when I spent the night at their house...it never would have occurred to me to ask their parents if I could sleep with them instead.....
mystic said this in post #3 :Umm.....I never did that.....and I dont know how old you both are, but as a 38 year old woman...I never remember anytime in my lifetime that it was okay to that.
Hi again Ken!! Ive come to give you grief again this wonderful New Years Day! LOL! Just kidding.[/B]
Mystic, I thought that looked like you holding the "innocent love" sign outside the PD. Perhaps, you're shorter. LOL
mystic said this in post #7 : Jackson loves little kids of the world.
Yes he does...but how "much" does he love them?
It's difficult to measure and quantify a subjective matter, such as affection. I'm not sure how to answer that for Michael to the kids of the world. It's easier for Kobe, since immediately after (besides giving the $4M ring,) he showed his love to Venessa by getting a big tatto so that any groupie can see that he loves Venessa only. (if you believe that, there are oceanfront beaches in Arizona for sale LOL)
KJ said this in post #9 : I am not saying that MJ is guilty... but just because he has done a lot for children, this does not mean that he is innocent!!!
Come on KJ, just because some "cotton picking trash" seeking money and crying wolf doesn't mean MJ is guilty either. It's at best a circumstantial case based on flimsy evidence. It is so easy to make an accusation , but it is more difficult to maintain an impartial view. I have a difficult time in looking at all the circumstantial facts (which includes MJ's long lists of contributions to kids around the world) and comparing that to some isolated personal greed incidents. If Jacko had no money, and if he wasn't $$$$ so generous in giving it all away to kids,$$$ then these same isolated incidents wouldn't have been over-exposed AND the humanitarian being dragged into court. It's a paradox that is so difficult to understand.
Ken, be careful with how you make your statements. Just because those of us that aren't saying, "We don't know if he's guilty or innocent," that does not constitute you saying that we are saying that he did it. You may be of the absolute opinion that he did not commit any crime. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that we have to be.
KJ said this in post #11 : Ken, be careful with how you make your statements. Just because those of us that aren't saying, "We don't know if he's guilty or innocent," that does not constitute you saying that we are saying that he did it. You may be of the absolute opinion that he did not commit any crime. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that we have to be.
KJ said this in post #9 :
I am not saying that MJ is guilty... but just because he has done a lot for children, this does not mean that he is innocent!!!
Okay, one of my New Years resolution..... to be more clear and concise.
You said "this does not mean that he is innocent." You agreed with his contributions to kids, but no verdict on proving he being guilty. Therefore, doesn't it remain "presumed innocent." Or you take it "presumed NOT guilty?"
Either way.....the logic goes...., right? I'm trying to be nice.....
You have to agree with Ken.. the saying goes.. You are presumed innocent unless/until the court of law finds that you are guilty...
I found this in an interesting article about the Peterson case:
"The presumption of innocence is not something that can simply materialize inside a courtroom at the time of trial. Instead, it is a premise which must be cultivated and protected from the very birth of a criminal investigation, and all involved must honor it if it is to truly exist. "
This is a direct quote from: Guilty Until Proven Innocent?:
Why Scott Peterson's Guilt Remains Far From Obvious
By JONNA M. SPILBOR
I always find that website give great legal analysis to some complex section of the law. Spilbor is an excellent legal analysts with interesting articles. Jonna's bio goes like this - a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV and other television news networks, where she has covered many of the nation's high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. In 1998, she earned certification as a Court Appointed Special Advocate with the San Diego Juvenile Court. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.
quote:
http://images.findlaw.com/writ/jonna.spilbor.jpg The presumption of innocence is not merely a legal fiction buried in an obscure jury instruction for us to recite and ignore. It is part of what it means to have a fair trial. And a systems in which trials are fair benefits us all, for a fair trial not only ensures that those who are innocent go free, but also that those who are guilty do not.
I never did answer the question posed to me in the greenroom: "How can you possibly defend someone so guilty?" Actually, I wouldn't know how to answer it. Why? Because all of my clients are innocent.
Certainly, they may be guilty someday, if a jury so finds and appeals courts agree, but not a moment before.
lizarna said this in post #16 : You have to agree with Ken.. the saying goes.. You are presumed innocent unless/until the court of law finds that you are guilty...
Thanks for the law lesson but I believe people realize that....but this is not the courtroom and people have the right to believe what they want...and that is called the court of PUBLIC OPINION. (def...(1) personal view not necessarily based on fact or (2) knowledge or the views of people in general)
A matter of opinion is something that cannot be proven either way...which is what you have also.
And for the record...many people here debate differently...that doesnt mean we believe one way or another...
AND I realize that sleeping with young children doesnt make him guilty...but he is guilty of immoral and unethical behavior...sleeping with young boys is not okay....I dont care what anyone says...this is my opinion...and there is nothing you can do to change that.
mystic said this in post #18 : And for the record...many people here debate differently...that doesnt mean we believe one way or another...
AND I realize that sleeping with young children doesnt make him guilty...but he is guilty of immoral and unethical behavior...sleeping with young boys is not okay....I dont care what anyone says...this is my opinion...and there is nothing you can do to change that.
Do you think immorality and failing ethics require filling up the jailhouses Mystic? If so, how large is the local cellblock in your neighborhood? I think those issues should be reserved for the bible thumping activities under own church/synague/temple roofs, not the PDs. They have a difficult enough job without all these morality distractions.
Of course, anyone can post and spew their guts in the court of public opinion.....and there are people who would take them up on those vomit, reserved for their own private bathroom. They're not healthy for public consumption.
[QUOTE]Ken NJ said this in post #19 :
[B] Do you think immorality and failing ethics require filling up the jailhouses Mystic?
What was it about my post that you didnt understand? I will say it ONE MORE TIME so that you get it.....and say it slowly out loud so that you can understand...
Just because he sleeps with young boys DOES NOT make him guilty, however, he is guilty of immoral and unethical behavior....
Now...did you see ANYTHING about me putting jail time for that? I dont recall saying that....nor do I see that I said that.
Sleeping with young boys is wrong....okay....if he isnt guilty of molestation, then he must stop his behavior of having pajama parties with young boys.
Do you understand what I am saying now?
Please stop twisting my words around...if you dont get it the first time, dont respond.
mystic said this in post #20 : What was it about my post that you didnt understand? ...Do you understand what I am saying now?...if you dont get it the first time, dont respond. [/B]
