Comments on: Interpreting Michael Jackson

By: Me

Me — Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:31:07 +0000

You now read that Michael was “man handled” when they arrested him. Well, by looking at all of the photos, all you see is him waving his arm to his fans, and smiling. And, his attourney said that he was treated fairly in jail. C’mon Michael, tell the truth already. If you were treated so poorly, then why did you act like that?
No grown man will sleep with children. What else do you do, shower with them too?? Is that normal? Not in a million years. I grew up watching you, and over the years you have turned out to be so weird. I think you need some major help!

By: the fact

the fact — Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:20:45 +0000

i just want to say that i think these alligations are false. it is just like the 1993 case all they want is money . i have went around asking people what they think and all of them say”i don’t think he did it he cares about the children to much”. also if it were my child i would of went straight to the police instead of just trying to keep it a secret they are just madd because michael cut off all his money from gabe. and why would the father of the child say that he is on michael side because the boy’s mother is a lunitic. and she is scisofrantic. to me michael is innocent intill proven guilty. O.k. michael may have gave the kid wine and they think it is bad but look at r.kelly and all the others. they just want micheal’s money . Ask your self this ” why would michael want to harm a little boy who just recovered from cancer” that is plain sick and yeah he may call his self peter pan he just want his childhod back look at all he has been through in his life getting beat and abused. not being able to have a childhood u would want your childhood back to and he want his children to grow up having a childhood not forcing them to do things when they want to go out and ride a bike or play basketball. i would want to relive my childhood to. and don’t u think that with all the staff he has and they notice something funny going on they would have told someone. i mean look at it this way he has children right don’t u think that he would have done something to them as well and for him dangling blanket of the balcony yeah that was dumb of him but u have to look at it this way he didn’t no what he was doing he didn’t think that he would drop him and he new that it was kinda of dangerous. and as my last qoute,”HE IS INNOCENT INTILL PROVEN GUILTY,AND I HOPE THAT HE IS INNOCENT.” i am also researching this case and if any of u have any information please send it to me at (glendayates1225@msn.com)

By: The Advocate

The Advocate — Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:03:51 +0000

Whatever happened to “guilty until proven innocent”? So he was accused 10 years ago. How many children have come and gone without any concomitant accusations of molestation or wrongdoing? Further, a settlement of a legal action does NOT equate to an admission of guilt. Indeed, if we are going to point the finger at ANYONE after the settlement 10 years ago, let’s point it at the parents who were willing to accept money, rather than prosecute the man that allegedly molested their son. If the molestation/abuse truly occurred as the parents alleged, why did they settle the matter? Correct me if I am wrong ( and I am not), but you can bring both civil and criminal charges against someone and win BOTH!!! In fact, a win in the criminal arena would have actually BOLSTERED the parents’ chances of winning the civil matter. There are MANY sides to every story. I hope Michael is afforded the opportunity to share his!

By: FilteringCraig

FilteringCraig — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:23:00 +0000

Two different allegations by two different children in two different time periods is stupid. Anyone who gets themselves caught up like this twice is dumb. Plus we have heard his proclamations about sleeping with kids who are not his own and how it is “innocent.” Sally as a social worker you, of all people, should know that this is an unacceptable behavior for adults in relation to children. It is unnatural and if nothing else, purely bad form because it opens an adult up to a whole mess of liability.

By: Sally

Sally — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:26:01 +0000

I think that we do need to give him the benefit of a doubt for now. With the media the way it is, you never know anything accurately. If all the stories are true about Michael’s childhood, then chances are he is guilty of at least part of what he is being accused. We should also remember that there is always a reason for people’s actions. Along with the physical and emotional abuse that Michael experienced, it’s not too much of a stretch that he was sexually abused. This would make him likely to be an abuser. However, it is possible that he is just a strange, loving man like he presents himself. And people in this world are money-hungry and wouldn’t think twice about taking advantage of him. Also, I think that some kids can be coached into believing that they experienced something that they did not. But can you imagine damaging your kids for money? With the first case, I can understand how you would see him as guilty. Maybe he is. But it also may be that he didn’t want more media attention and felt that instead of putting the child through a trial, he would pay them off.

By: FilteringCraig

FilteringCraig — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:04:06 +0000

Yeah, what else would I have meant by fish? Duh!

By: deezo feezo

deezo feezo — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:38:29 +0000

If by fish you mean cocaine, your damn straight!!!

Dizzil

By: FilteringCraig

FilteringCraig — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:57:56 +0000

Yeah, I would say the fact that he lightened his wallet the first time this happened in 1993 doesn’t really help my confidence in his case. You will have to excuse me for confusing paying a victim to be quiet with his nearly admitting guilt.

Deezo is right. If you are accused of stealing from the fish market aren’t you going to obtain your fish elsewhere?

By: deezo feezo

deezo feezo — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:52:24 +0000

Comparing someone who repeatedly has been accused of Kiddy diddiling & who readily admits to sleeping with children in the same bed, to the Salem Witch Trials is at best a stretch.

Hmmm, the last Jackson Accuser never went to trial and was paid a hefty sum of money, but MJ was innocent? If he was innocent why pay for the family of the victim to keep quiet? If you are innocent why have a secret room in your house?

If anyone falsely accused me of kiddy diddling, my days of hanging out with young kids and having slumber parties would be over. If anyone accused me of beating my wife, I would be a little extra careful when arguing with her not to even so much as rasie my voice.

The fact that Jackson was accused of so serious a crime and still has children around him constantly points to an outlying sickness, or pedophilia. If you doubt his lack of respect for the lives of young children look how he handled his own child in Germany, and look at what he puts his own children through with the constant wearing of masks in public.

It is time to forget about treading lightly and being PC. This guy has sex with young children, he has a sickness and needs to be reprimanded and rehabillitated.

I recant your closing with my own, If you are going to hang someone for pedophilia, make sure the noose is extra tight!!!

Dizzil Fizzil

By: azmattachine

azmattachine — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:31:36 +0000

Alot of people seem to know the facts of this case, and alot more seem to want it to be a certain way regardless of the facts.
I don’t claim to have the facts, but I do know from my own personal experience with having been charged with things people don’t like and understand even less, that not all charges and accusations are facts.
I can remember many instances where cases brought against suspects (both unknown and infamous) ultimately were shown to be very different than what was initially reported or generally perceived. In the face of so much emotionalism I try to remain fair and balanced.
To be fair I think it is important that the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” be stringently applied, especially in a case where the suspect may be disliked for reasons unrelated to the matter under discussion. As a member of religious, racial, social and sexual minorities, perhaps I am more acutely sensitive to this kind of thing, but I would hope that were I more a part of the majority I would still hold this principle dear.
One balancing factor to keep in mind is that charges are not made more true simply because it is a child–or an adult acting on behalf of a child–who makes them. Even the numbers of people making may not change this. This is a central point gleaned from “The Crucible”. And who can forget the multitues of abuse, molestation and satanic practices charges brought in the ’80s–all later shown to be groundless.
Whenever you hang someone, I hope you are right.