Michael Jackson and Farrah died today

[RLENT]

It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

Yup - undoubtedly that is it.

Of course, it is just beyond the realm of possibility that he was falsely and unjustly accused of crimes he did not commit.

One can certainly hope, that if you are an ex-LEO (I seem to remember something about that - how about it - ya wanna answer up ?) you can appreciate the magnitude of the injustice done to an individual by having such accusations falsely leveled at them - and then having the mechanisms of the state (think nearly unlimited resources - money and manpower) directed at you, and being in the position of having to prove a negative, in the eyes of the public, if not in the eyes of the law.

Or I dunno .... maybe having that background would prevent one from seeing it .....

BTW, I do agree with you that the truth about him is elusive ..... we will never really know ... the only ones that will, are those that were there ....

[aristotle]

LOL .... anytime 'stotle ... I'm equal-opportunity abuser .... friend and foe alike ....


It's not so much an affinity for Michael Jackson, as it is a willingness to consider that there might be some other reasonable explanation for his conduct - however bizarre the average man on the street might find it - rather than just seeing how odd or different he was than me, and then ascribing some sick and perverted motivation to it.

Of course, I did have some admiration for the man's talent - you would have to be a rock not to .....

FWIW, in the interests of full disclosure, both my sons slept with my wife and I, just about every night, until they were at least 5 years old .... and on and off for some years after that - because they wanted to - not because we desired that they do so (believe me there were times that we both would have really preferred they did not want to sleep with us - especially with the older one, who was prone to jamming his elbow into ya while he slept)

And, by the way, both were also on the teet until that time as well .... (God bless the old lady - she was a saint for putting up with them .... just imagine being in the mall .... and your 6 year-old decides he's hungry .... )

At some point, as time went on, they just naturally grew disinterested in both .... we didn't kick them or force them out of our bed, and tried to avoid doing anything that would make them feel unloved or unwanted, although we often failed. They turned out to be perfectly normal young men (whatever that is ..)

Nothing remotely deviant, perverted, or sexual about it - although I'm sure that some folks would see it that way, and perhaps would be unable come to any other conclusion.

I don't know if it was the case that or not, but it certainly doesn't seem entirely out of the realm to me that for Michael Jackson, with all his riches and fame, that any kind of relationship could be ..... complicated ..... to put it mildly.

That he might want someone that he could be friends with, and would accept and love him for whoever he was, and that he could love in return - in a platonic sense - that didn't want alot back in return, didn't want to complicate things and just wanted to be friends, doesn't seem too far a stretch for me.

For some folks, even inspite of society's current fixation on it, sex just isn't that big a deal (as in not much interest in) ..... given the current state of things, they might, in a sense, be lucky. He might have been one of them folks .... dunno.


Naw .... it's too hard to type and drive at the same time .... but other than that though, I have very little trouble driving while rational ...


Always - you too.

You give a plausible defense for Mr. Jackson, but it is a bridge too far. I understand parents sleeping with their young children, but Mr. Jackson's conduct was not of a parental nature. Mr. Jackson's accusers say the relationships were not platonic, and that is the key point. I cannot prove Mr. Jackson molested young children. In light of what I have read, seen and heard... I believe his accusers.

I wish Jackson could have been proven decisively innocent. But, the "truth" surrounding him is too inflammatory, too emotionally driven and too murky. It is my opinion Mr. Jackson harmed many young boys.

[layoutshooter]

Don't take this wrong layout, but maybe it will help you see things differently if you look at the pre-employment drug testing as the "trial" in which you prove your innocence? The same could be said about the background checks that are done prior to a gun purchase. Consider those asking for the tests and checks as the prosecution, the tests and checks as the judge and the results as the jury. It all works out in the end.

I know you are thinking and I don't take it wrong, Just remember, in EVERY trial it is the job of the prosecution to PROVE my guilt, I am ALREADY innocent under the law, it is NOT my job to PROVE my innocence. Every ones rights should be the same. The scope of the crime is NOT relevent. Presumed innocence. Anytime testing or checks are done without probable cause they are ASSUMING YOUR guilt. Everytime we submit our rights ARE diminished.

[aristotle]

Yup - undoubtedly that is it.

Of course, it is just beyond the realm of possibility that he was falsely and unjustly accused of crimes he did not commit.

One can certainly hope, that if you are an ex-LEO (I seem to remember something about that - how about it - ya wanna answer up ?) you can appreciate the magnitude of the injustice done to an individual by having such accusations falsely leveled at them - and then having the mechanisms of the state (think nearly unlimited resources - money and manpower) directed at you, and being in the position of having to prove a negative, in the eyes of the public, if not in the eyes of the law.

Or I dunno .... maybe having that background would prevent one from seeing it .....

BTW, I do agree with you that the truth about him is elusive ..... we will never really know ... the only ones that will, are those that were there ....

Feds Creek High School...valedictorian
Morehead State University... magna cum laude
Salmon P. Chase College of Law

Never been a Law Enforcement Officer. Having watched our courts and LEO's up close, I have ambivalence for both.

[inkasnana]

I never said you were wrong. I said you believe Michael Jackson and I do not.

You are correct and I apologize. My bad. It was an assumption on my part based on a subconscious suggestion that that was what you were inferring.

You say your "views" are based on facts. A view is nothing more than an opinion. I contend we do not know the real facts as alleged against Michael Jackson. That is my view or opinion. Have you considered your facts may be false, and therefore, not facts at all? You don't have exclusive ownership of the "facts" and neither do I.

I know the facts as they stand and as they have been decided by a court of law. The facts in the case disprove and far outweigh any circumstantial "evidence" that there might have been. It was a fact, yes, that he slept in the same bed as the boys but it was not a fact that he molested any of them. That is purely hearsay, rumor and gossip. It was a fact that he was eccentric and "different" that what mainstream society considers to be "normal", but it was not a fact that he was ever a pedophile. That is purely hearsay, rumor and gossip. There are many other facts that are reported in the article that I linked to. Too many to go into here. Read the article and judge for yourself, or don't and continue to believe what you want.

Why would you trust a judicial system that has a very spotty record in ascertaining truth?

Why would I not believe in our judicial system? A jury of regular American citizens found him not guilty. Should I go around believing that every verdict that is made is wrong unless the verdict matches the way that I feel and believe about the accused? Am I to have no faith in truth and justice in this country at all simply because a jury reached a different conclusion than what some feel they should have? To me your question makes no sense at all and is just based on the fact that you disagree with the jury's findings.

The truth about Michael Jackson is elusive and the debate over his misconduct with children will go on for years. It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

Thank you for informing me of your opinion, and now you know mine. We can agree to disagree and call it a night.

[Pilgrim]

Having had a long day in the saddle and being too tired to make another lengthy argument, I'll just refer the participants in this forum to a couple of articles that make some good points about Michael Jackson's aberrant behavior.

Quoting from the article:
"I understand 'innocent until proven guilty.' But I sure the hell wouldn’t have had him anywhere near my children. And the children that he did bring around him were oftentimes hugely vulnerable (cancer patients; boys of poor single mothers). An adult single male obsessed with Peter Pan and decorating his bedroom with children’s toys was bringing kids into his bedroom for 'sleep-overs.' That should set off five alarm predator worries in any sane parent who is not stupid or tempted by greed. And Jackson showed zero evidence of having any serious impulse control."

Michael Jackson Pedophile Reality Check: Is It Mean to Suspect that Michael Jackson Might Have Been a Pedophile? Prometheus Unbound

Then there's this article from a former chief of police:

Is Michael Jackson a Pedophile? - Jim Kouri - MensNewsDaily.com™

I think a lot of the points being made so far are not really comparing apples to apples. Spending the night with your grandchildren is just not the same thing as a 45 year-old man recruiting 10-12 year-old boys from outside his family for "sleepovers." Also, don't give me the circular logic that anyone that accuses or suspects this type of activity in Jackson's case is guilty of the same activity or inclinations themselves - that's just a lame attempt at rebuttal that doesn't hold water. Jackson was a unique case - no other contemporary eccentric celebrity has been even suspected of this type of activity to the extent Jackson has. The point is that if an average guy had been involved in as many incidents as Jackson he'd be in prison or a mental institution. Jackson or his lawyers paid his problems to go away.

[aristotle]

Pilgrim... you give hope in a desolate place that common sense will prevail.

[Turtle]

You would think that someone who went to Chase Law School would know that, except for hearsay, circumstantial evidence is the weakest of all evidence. It is a type of evidence that demands correlations be drawn based on incomplete or missing facts. Hearsay is the absolutely worst because anyone can make up anything, literally, for their own unknown motives, and it means absolutely nothing. When you combine circumstantial evidence and hearsay to reach a conclusion, you have a conclusion that is deeply, deeply, disturbingly deeply flawed.

Yes, Michael Jackson was weird, very weird. His life was weird, everything he did was weird. But you can't draw any sound conclusions from that. But there are people who want to use all that weirdness to conclude a very unweirdness of the classic pedestrian pedophile. That doesn't even make sense. What makes more sense is that his pedophilia was equally weird, so weird that it might not have even been pedophilia at all, especially in the light of him having the mentality of an 8-year old in the first place.

Yes, he could have paid off the apparently thousands of accusers, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and reporters, because, as we all know, famous people with deep pockets are never falsely accused of anything. <snort>

[aristotle]

Et tu, Turtle? Sometimes you leave me baffled by snide remarks. Grumpy old man.

[RLENT]

Having had a long day in the saddle and being too tired to make another lengthy argument,

Hallejuah, for the small things in life ....

I'll just refer the participants in this forum to a couple of articles that make some good points about Michael Jackson's aberrant behavior.

But instead of pointing them to opinion pieces that just happen dovetail nicely with what you want to believe, why not just send them here:

People_v._Jackson

Granted, it's a rather dry dissertation of the MJ case, but at least it does contain actual cites .... rather than just some so-called "authority" (one with rather questionable credentials ..... to be polite) spouting off their opinions.

It also sheds some light onto the some of the characters involved, and their possibly less-than-savory motivations ...

Quoting from the article: "I understand 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Really Santi .... do ya now ? .... Really ?

Interesting you would quote Santi Tafarella .... of all people ....

Just so folks understand, Santi is a professor of writing and literature at a California college ..... which of course undoubtedly makes him eminently qualified to render judgements on Michael Jackson, pedophilia, and many other matters.

I'll skip responding to the rest of it, since it is largely all opinion and hearsay - nothing factual there.

Then there's this article from a former chief of police:

Yeah ... that's sounds really, really good .... until you start checking out who this guy really is:

The Daily Irratant: Jim Kouri

Hmmm ...... and then there's:

MichNews Peddles Satanic Panic

For anyone who is unfamiliar with what the "Satanic Panic" was, just go here:

Satanic Ritual Abuse

You find it an interesting read about how when people get all frothy on something (unreal and imagined), strange things start to happen ....

Sadly there are those folks who like to try and make a living selling the fact that there is a dangerous environment out there - the more dangerous the better - they will go out of their way to make things seem alot of worse than they actually are - even if they have to make stuff up that isn't true .... simply because that's how they survive - on your fear.

It appears ole Jimbo is one of them ..... seen him - and a hundred other like him - all before ..... (anyone remember Waco and the Branch Davidians ? .... look into who was really responsible for advising and getting the ATF/FBI/DOJ all whipped up and frothy on that one ....)

And just as sadly there are the gulible .... who without actually knowing who these jokers really are, unwittingly parrot their tripe .... just cause it seems "right" ....

Pilgrim, my advice would be next time try Google before you hit that "Submit Reply" button ....

Spending the night with your grandchildren is just not the same thing as a 45 year-old man recruiting 10-12 year-old boys from outside his family for "sleepovers."

Ahhh .... but is that really what happened - that he "recruited" them ?

Or did opportunistic and greedy adults, with their own agendas (mainly financial) push their children on someone who was too timid to say "Get lost ....."

Also, don't give me the circular logic that anyone that accuses or suspects this type of activity in Jackson's case is guilty of the same activity or inclinations themselves - that's just a lame attempt at rebuttal that doesn't hold water.

Nah, I won't give ya that logic - what I will give is this however:

Anyone who is incapable of allowing that it could have been something other than what Jackson was accused of (however bizarre you or I might find it), is someone who has no business sitting on any jury IMHO.

I can allow that it is certainly possible that he was guilty (however a jury apparently didn't think so, when presented with the evidence), but can you allow the possibility that he might have been innocent ?

Jackson was a unique case - no other contemporary eccentric celebrity has been even suspected of this type of activity to the extent Jackson has.

They are all "unique cases" .... besides .... what's your point ?

The point is that if an average guy had been involved in as many incidents as Jackson he'd be in prison or a mental institution. Jackson or his lawyers paid his problems to go away.

Ahhh yeah .... I get it now .... if someone is different or weird ..... or just merely accused of something .... then lock 'em up - in prison ...... or worse yet: in a mental institution - regardless of whether they have actually been convicted of anything.

To you sir, I would suggest that you might find the former Soviet Union as a more ideal place to reside, as I understand that their practices are apparently more in-line with your way of thinking.

[Turtle]

Et tu, Turtle? Sometimes you leave me baffled by snide remarks. Grumpy old man.

Well, while I won't call you names, I do think you are wrong to reach the conclusions you have reached based on the evidence available. I think it's wrong to put any credence in illusory corollaries since they are far more often detemined to be incorrect rather than correct. Reaching a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay is a nasty business.

I'm 51, by the way, and rarely grumpy.

[pjjjjj]

It just really irritates the heck out of me when people are so adamant about believing hearsay, rumor and gossip that they can't accept any other explanation. That in itself is childish behavior.

I completely agree, and wanted to add a few of my own ponderings, even tho long-winded, sorry..

i) During what I have seen/heard in my lifetime, I believe that if authorities seek damaging evidence thoroughly enough, they're going to find something, anything, that can be used to support their preconceived belief, and make it fit.. and yet.. these authorities (and did you actually read how MANY officers were involved in this quest??) were not able to find any corroborating evidence or witnesses; to me, this is saying a LOT.

ii)

Equally contemptible are the starstruck parents who offered up their young children for Jackson's enjoyment.... Their children's bodies and souls were the price of admission.

Unless these parents had every reason to believe these activities were purely innocent, they would NOT have allowed their children to participate; sadly the family in question had parents, or at least a dad, who was just the type of leech who saw it as an incredible opportunity to cash in BIGTIME by making false and unprovable accusations.

I believe the accuser's soul was offered up by his own father for the smell of money. That boy's innocence is forever gone, by being coached by his dad on what to say, and having to learn that these things even exist. I do think it will be interesting to see if that boy ever comes forward with the truth, rather than who will come forward with more lies now that MJ cannot defend himself.

Recently my youngest boy was asked to a school friend's birthday sleepover outside in a tent; I didn't know the family, so I did my due diligence, made an enquiry to another respected parent whose child was also attending, and also called the mom of the party boy; she informed me that her husband, the father, would also be sleeping in the tent with the party boys. Altho I had a pang of discomfort when she said this, I had to give myself a kick, realizing the simple pleasures of childhood are now spoiled by the likes of a very few men.

Society has brought us between a rock and a hard place, because if the father does NOT sleep out there with the boys, the boys are not being supervised/looked after, and if anything were to happen, like one of them sleepwalking in the night and getting killed by a car (just happened a few days ago), or a wild animal ravaging them in the tent, or maybe there is a pond or pool to fall into on a trip into the house to the bathroom, that would be considered unacceptable risk, the family would be sued, their lives would be ruined; and conversely, if the father DOES sleep out there with the boys, the other parents naturally have fleeting thoughts of .. what iffffff.. life is just plain ridiculous nowadays.

iii) As a person who has had the opportunity to receive even just minimal training on how to protect oneself from potential liability risk arising from potential child or parental accusations, even tho they're false, I can say that it is a sad state of affairs. I was shocked, honestly, to learn of the things that go on, the things that can be, and are, said, the things that can happen as a result, and the things innocent people must now think about in order to protect themselves from scavengers with a motive. Hard to believe that MJ would not have been trained in risk management of this sort, but considering his childlike nature and mindset, perhaps it is not that hard to believe. When you are not the kind of person to think in the money-hungry ways some of these low-lifes think, it is hard to imagine, and quite faith-shattering to learn about. And there is no doubt MJ was completely shattered by that whole experience. Contrary to Aristotle's statement,

It is my OPINION that Michael Jackson died indirectly from guilt.

It is my opinion that MJ died indirectly from the toll this whole accusation spectacle took on him emotionally, because he was not guilty, and the allegations being made were so abhorrent to him.

I can imagine all these 'sleepovers' being like a boy's best days of his life, an event to remember forever.. wild pyjama parties with all the perks of childhood imaginable. Pillowfights, junkfood, movies, animals, rides, toys, games, other kids to play with.. wow! In my mind, MJ was able to create and live out the best parts of the childhood he never had, while also sharing it with other kids who may have also been less than privileged in their childhoods for one reason or another. Sure it was inappropriate to 'us', but I believe he was as a child. Has anyone here ever heard of that theory where humans are unable to move past a certain emotional maturity level until the previous level has been experienced? (ie Maslow's Hierarchy/ ERG Theory/et al)

iv) Perhaps it is against our principles to just pay someone off to get out of your life, rather than go through a long and expensive proving-of-truth, but that is exactly what is recommended sometimes, due to the alternative stress, damage to reputation by being prolonged in the news, etc. We would all hope that in the same situation we would have the strength, money, and time to follow it through indefinitely, but until we are actually IN that situation, how can we judge? One thing for sure though, it is not an indication of guilt.

BTW, I do agree with you that the truth about him is elusive ..... we will never really know ... the only ones that will, are those that were there ....

And really, when you think about THAT, if there were hundreds of boys there, as there reportedly were over time, and each of those boys' families had not only the opportunity to discover their child had been abused, if they hadn't already known, but to also get revenge, AND to become wealthy doing so, don't y'all think ALL, or at least MANY would have come out of the woodwork at that point, rather than NONE? C'mon now, really? Although the money-sucker method employed by the accuser's family might be disgusting to 'normal' people, it certainly isn't above the morals of most people to pursue a lawsuit when they have in fact been horribly wronged, especially with the stakes being their children, and the opportunity presented on a platter in front of them.

I wish Jackson could have been proven decisively innocent. But, the "truth" surrounding him is too inflammatory, too emotionally driven and too murky. It is my opinion Mr. Jackson harmed many young boys.

After those kinds of allegations, accusations, media hype, and length of time in the news, I don't believe that would ever be possible, no matter how certainly he was able to prove it. That is why that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is so important.

Is anyone familiar with the saying.. 'There, but for the grace of God, go I'? C'mon people, do you really need to have a horrible allegation made against you personally, and to experience first-hand, the impossibility of living it down, before you comprehend the problem here? As a couple here have mentioned, whether you liked him or not, there is more to this issue than MJ himself.

[aristotle]

I hold a contrary opinion. It is surprising to see the level of support for Michael Jackson's supposed innocence.

[OntarioVanMan]

Turtle... I hold a contrary opinion. It is surprising to see the level of support for Michael Jackson's supposed innocence.

Maybe because non-ultra-conservatives can look beyond their staunch unwaivering opinions?

What surprises me is the ultra-conservatives who are willing to convict on news stories and rumour...when you are a supporter of the American way, the Constitution..."innocent till proven guilty" in a legal courtroom....not the press.

So all we are left with is "opinion"

So whos' opinion is the correct one?

[aristotle]

OVM... mine is a minority opinion with a constituency of one. Michael Jackson not only moonwalks, he skates.