Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

garret wrote:I find this whole "even though he was found not guilty he still is" argument.
because if the same case happend to one of there reletives and they got of they would agree with the cour.
such a double standerd for a celebrity.
point is he didnt do it. he still slept in a bed that had little boys but he didnt "sleep" with them.

The point is you don't know if he did it. A court is a legal process based around a lot of things, and 'finding the truth' is only one. This is good because it serves as a strong check on the powers of government. But it means you can't take a court decision as a statement of absolute truth.

We don't know if Michael Jackson did it. If he did, I'm not sure it's worth even condemning him over it as it was the product of a crazy mind. But you can't matter of factly state that he didn't do it.

yes that is a point.
but then people still say he did.
Right know all that matters is the legacy of music and dances he left behind not the bad stuff

No garret, the bad stuff matters too. If the claims of pedophilia and child molestation are true, then that's a serious black mark against his memory. To me, molesting a child is one of the worst crimes imaginable, and no doubt the molestees (is that right?) are mentally and emotionally scarred.

sebster wrote:

garret wrote:
The point is you don't know if he did it. A court is a legal process based around a lot of things, and 'finding the truth' is only one. This is good because it serves as a strong check on the powers of government. But it means you can't take a court decision as a statement of absolute truth.

We don't know if Michael Jackson did it. If he did, I'm not sure it's worth even condemning him over it as it was the product of a crazy mind. But you can't matter of factly state that he didn't do it.

What are you saying? How terrible would it be that you were accused of the most hideous, outrageous crime. Of course you would be found not guilty. You're not that kind of person. But simply becuase you have been accused, you would be damned by society? Hardly fair.

We must rely on the law as the truth. Yes, it CAN make mistakes, but what is the alternative? To damn anyone that falls under the baleful gaze of mob rule? It would sound a lot more like the inquisition than justice. Where people could be killed by a ridiculous rumour.

Michaelm Jackson was scum and a freak, and thats assuming he WASN"T a pedophile. This media frenzy making him to be a great person is utter hollywood gutter tripe.

If he hadn't been uber rich he'd be alive today, in prison.

That is the sort of thinking that gets people lynched. Mob rule sucks.

You don't really KNOW the truth. No one here does. The court found him not guilty and AQUITTED him. He didn't damn well do it.

So the thread got to page two and nobody has mentioned that he was accused of pedophilia twice, but only went to trial once. He settled out of court with the boy's family the first time.

I dunno about the trial. Like others have pointed out the wealthy have another system of justice. OJ was found innocent for Federal Murder charges, but guilty in the civil case. How is that? He claimed he had nothing to do with the crime. Can one say that he was in fact guilty, but can't be called back for the crime due to double jepordy? I don't know enough about the law to say. To lesser degrees... a celeb gets his/her third, forth fifth DUI with a suspended license and could have even hurt somebody and what happens? The most we've seen is what? Paris Hilton's three weeks in jail? The average person would be put away for years. Drugs... how many celebs got a slap on the wrist while their not so famous counterparts went to prison for 2-5 years? Fame, money and the media/fanbase reaction all seem to play a part in the outcome.

MJ was an incredibly talented man, of that there is no doubt. It's my opinion that one does not pay large sums of money to keep people quiet unless there's something to hide. Even the "he did it to avoid bad press" argument is thin given the status of his career at the time of the accusations. MJ had already withdrawn from the public by that time.

Whatever the truth is, at least he doesn't have to deal with his fear of the press/public or his discomfort with his own body anymore.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That is the sort of thinking that gets people lynched. Mob rule sucks.

You don't really KNOW the truth. No one here does. The court found him not guilty and AQUITTED him. He didn't damn well do it.

You're forgetting all the other laswsuits settled out of courts for tens of millions of dollars.
Get real. Failing to convict doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. It means he had a lot of money to throw and a a jury of slackjawed LA types.

Al Capone was never convicted of murder either.

If it was settled out of court, that casts a poor light on the child's parents. It seems to me that the parents weren't convinced that anything wrong or illegal had happened and were in it for the money. No way were they not intending to blackmail and squeeze as much out of him as possible.

@Frazzled: What is the alternative? mob rule? where an outrageous rumour gets people killed? If that were the case, we would still be burning witches becuase they tripped as they walked inside.

Redbeard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Hmmm. Lets see.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson accused of child molestation murder.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is tried before a jury of 12 people.

Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is found not guilty on the accusation of child molestation murder.

Ergo, Michael Jackson OJ Simpson is not a Child Molestor Murderer.

Don't you realize that rich people buy their way out of trouble?

I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest. If I'm wrong, the child is denied an opportunity to meet a really weird man. If I'm right, the child is spared a lifetime of reliving the event. Risk/Reward - the risk isn't worth it.

Don't you realize that rich people buy their way out of trouble?
Maybe, but in both cases no conviction was made so the accused has the RIGHT to be considered innocent.

I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest.
Would you get kids to avoid blacks in case they get mugged, or moslems in case they get suicide bombed? Where do you draw the line? It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care. You have to look at individuals, very very few catholic priests are peadophiles but what is the the risk/reward of the child coming away from your care without an infusion of bigotry if this is how you think.

Orlanth wrote:
It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care.

Oh SNAP!

It seems the point of the politician has gotten lost because he threw in the usual accusation against MJ. Too bad he didn't stick to the fact that the media is ignoring more serious stories for endless speculation around the death of a celebrity.

MJs death doesn't matter to the course of world history. People are standing up for their rights in Iran, there is unrest in and the exile of a president in Honduras, mass protests and a crackdown in China, North Korea (led by a mobster) is testing missiles to deliver nukes. I think these warrant much more attention than "Bubbles" the effin' chimp and his sidekick. No?

Maybe, but in both cases no conviction was made so the accused has the RIGHT to be considered innocent.

A somewhat major correction. He has the right to be considered not convicted. Thats all he had a right to.

He had admitted to literally sleeping in the same bed with children not related to them.
He had admitted to giving them colas with booze in it.

He was a perv.

MJs death doesn't matter to the course of world history. People are standing up for their rights in Iran, there is unrest in and the exile of a president in Honduras, mass protests and a crackdown in China, North Korea (led by a mobster) is testing missiles to deliver nukes. I think these warrant much more attention than "Bubbles" the effin' chimp and his sidekick. No?

Utan wins the thread.

Cases like this never ceases to amaze me. I guess it only goes to show how vile some crimes are considered to be
by the general audience. People can be acquitted of murder, and life goes on. Someone is accused (rightly or not) of
child molestation, and their life and reputation is forfeit, regardless of how the trial goes.

We do know that Michael Jackson was found "not guilty" during both cases. There's the case of a vast amount of money
being payed out to the alleged victim in the first case, but that has been explained. Given that, how long are people
going to drag this up in the media? At some point, they should realise that they are beating the proverbial dead horse with
a 2-by-4 with rusty nails driven through it (also, it's on fire). But then again, nothing gets you a couple of minutes in the media
like being controversial.

al-Majid Agandhjin bin Ahfal al-Rashid

We will drag it up everytime some wannabe fanboy screams about how aweseme he was.

He made some good albums and sold gobs and gobs ofr ecords, and helped revolutionize music videos. Leave it at that. Anything about how awesome he was personally and then you have to look at the full record.

The media and attention seekers are just going for the easy news and besides dead people don't talk back.

I agree that Jackson was a Pedo and he shouldn't be this covered on national news, but King shows a lack of understanding of the the importance of Jackson to music. At the end of the day, Americans don't really give two gaks about what's going on overseas. King probably thinks that politics are the great saviors of America. He says this "focus on the real heros" bs when I'm certain he's saying just to bolster his image.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's an interesting one:

Wikipedia wrote:Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, and O.J. Simpson.

That happened in an English libel trial some years ago.

The jury found against the plaintiff on the grounds that he had no reputation to defame.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's an interesting one:

Wikipedia wrote:Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement. Examples of celebrities considered libel-proof include Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, and O.J. Simpson.

That happened in an English libel trial some years ago.

The jury found against the plaintiff on the grounds that he had no reputation to defame.

That was a Piers "Morgan" Moron case vs. good old Private Eye, wasn't it?

Orlanth wrote:
I would not leave a child with that man, anymore than I would leave a child with a catholic priest.
Would you get kids to avoid blacks in case they get mugged, or moslems in case they get suicide bombed?

There's a name for this sort of falacy, I'm sure you can look it up on your own.

Where do you draw the line? It sounds like highest risk is leaving the child in your care. You have to look at individuals, very very few catholic priests are peadophiles but what is the the risk/reward of the child coming away from your care without an infusion of bigotry if this is how you think.

I agree that you look at people as individuals - Michael Jackson was a perverted individual.

You also look at people based on choices they make. In the case of Catholic priests, perhaps you're not aware of how endemic pedophilia is within that organization. Perhaps you should read the report recently published by The commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, I think you'll find the evidence damning. Perhaps you should consider that more than one archdiocese declared bankruptcy to avoid further trials for abuse by their priests. This isn't one, or even two isolated cases, this is systemic abuse that has gone on for generations, that is known about by the leaders of the organization, and where the organization has gone out of its way to protect the abusers.

One quote from the study above:

The Conclusions on sexual abuse which are outlined at Paragraph 7.549 were that sexual abuse of boys in Artane by Brothers was a chronic problem. Complaints were not handled properly and the steps taken by the Congregation to avoid scandal and publicity protected perpetrators of abuse. The safety of children was not a priority at any time during the relevant period.

The period covered by this study started in 1936!

People have no choice as to what race they're born to. They have choices about what organizations they belong to. When you have an organization that has gone out of its way to cover up child abuse and that has enabled it's leaders to commit these abuses for generations, that organization deserves all the contempt and distrust possible. If that's bigotry, then I'm a bigot. It's better than tolerating pedophiles.

Seriously? He's a pedophile.

The man could barely contain his lust for children in public, imagine his actions in private.

Point 1: You don't have to be a conservative to dislike or disprove of MJ.
Point 2: MJ had some serious mental problems, this can't be denied.
Point 3: Just because he had mental problems doesn't automatically = pedophile
Point 4: MJ was rich and had mental problems, therefore easy target for money grubbing parents
Point 5: MJ taunted the california DA which increased the allready large target on his forehead
Point 6: The fact that parents allowed the kids to stay with someone that had mental problems is an indication of people trying to gain something. whether he was a pedo or not.

I'm not an MJ fanboy, but I am also very aware that people can look at something one way and see something that isn't really there.

BY the way the Politician was wrong to say what he said, end of story.

GG

I think MJ was a pedophile, but I also think the Politician is making a shameless grab for headlines by bashing the guy. And my guess is that the Politician has plenty of skeletons in his closet, I hope that someone starts pulling them out.

Could not be more precicse, the freak was just horribel. Like a nurgling in human form, good ridance

Question 1: Do I believe that he was a pedophile?
Answer: Jesus Juice, nuff said

Question 2: Was he convicted for previously stated crimes?
Answer: No

Question 3: Should Politicians, Hollywood types, etc... be able to say what they want regarding one's innocense (sp) or guilt?
Answer: No (see Question 2)

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Anshal wrote:Could not be more precicse, the freak was just horribel. Like a nurgling in human form, good ridance

Oh, please. If Micheal Jackson were a follower of Chaos, he would be dedicated to Slaneesh, period.

grizgrin wrote:

Orlanth wrote: ...Where do you draw the line?...

Those of us who are parents are responsible for drawing the line exactly where we see fit and in the best interests of our children. Everyone else can go to hell in their own fashion.

Respect.

Are we sure that Michael Jackson is a pedophile?

Or someone who is mentally damage.

Yes - you are as old as you are physically - only if your mind matches.


MJ's did not match his age - proof?


Neverland ranch.

His friends - even at a young age were younger children.

His father abused him - prevented him from also enjoying his adolescent years.
He grew up too fast in the high life of entertainment.


If you watch the interview videos of 'Living with Michael Jackson' and also the fixed version Part 2, where they interviewed him.

You could see him as two different things - either he IS a pedo.

Or he is just a little boy in the mind.


Look at the way that he normally speaks.

Wearing pajamas.

If you also look in the interview - he likes to do childish thing.

He also invited misfortunate children to Neverland by the busloads monthly.

(if you watched the videos).

And he pretty much let them go around neverland for free. MJ also joins them in rides and etc.

I mean - look at his face - he denies it. There is always a reasoning behind everything.
There was something behind why he fixed/messed with his face.

If his face alteration is not considered normal behavior - and from there off - you can see that he is simply mentally derranged more so than a master pedophile
like PEE WEE HERMAN.

IDK - I could be wrong.

I just see him as a 50 year old with a little kid mind.
Due to mental hammering and such.

He got stuck with his young ages that he was never able to have.



Thats just my oppinion.

I didn't really like MJ as a person. I did like some of his music though.
As for this 'KING' fellow, i am not going to pretend to know anything about American politics or politicians.
I think i should be in charge. The world would be a much nicer place. Free hot muffins for everyone one daily & a full days work that starts at 12 & ends at 1pm!
What does this have to do with Warhammer again?
LoL!

Roguemarket wrote:If his face alteration is not considered normal behavior - and from there off - you can see that he is simply mentally derranged more so than a master pedophile
like PEE WEE HERMAN.

Not to nit-pick, but I believe Pee-Wee just liked to jerk it in public. Then again my Pedo-knowledge is not up-to-date.