jackson verdict at 4:30

[Kaidy Mae]

i dont have time right now for a post of that length, but you echoed just about all my thoughts, right down to going out and spending some money on Michael Jackson stuff...

Are you serious? Was this supposed to be purple? I really don't mean to be a smart ass (or to get too involved in this debate), but what does giving Jacko your hard-earned dollars have anything to do with how his court case turned out?

Are you talking pro-MJ T-shirts or something? Was their merch you previously had passed up just in case a group of his peers decided that he had a history with a minor?

Can you only support him with dollars? Forgive me, but I fail to see the sense in providing a wealthy icon* a monetary reward for not doing something wrong.

*True, MJ is in a great deal of debt from this trial. However, I'm sure he has enough property, monkies and ferris wheels that he could liquidate so that he may live a pretty comfortable life. Let us not forget who owns the Beatles catalogue here people...the FUCKING BEATLES CATALOGUE!!!

[PalacePrincess]

aw, i like that quote ollie. i'd buy that shirt in a second too.

i think my favourite moment of trial footage is a video clip of a girl standing outside the courthouse wearing a shirt that simply states LEAVE HIM ALONE, MEDIA SCUM!

I'm actually surprised anyone cares about Michael Jackson anymore... He hasn't done anything popular in music since - what? Bad? He's a washed up has been...

yeah, what's that paul mccartney guy been up to lately?

I will say that a child crawling into bed with their parents because of a thunderstorm is considerably different then a child crawling in an adult strangers bed ("stranger" as in non family) for a "sleep over".

so, only non-family members molest kids? if a child sleeping in an adult's bed is dead wrong, and morally unacceptable, then what difference do the reasons behind it make? maybe the kids at neverland were scared to sleep alone? and if the PARENTS of the children are comfortable and okay with it, and the children themselves are comfortable and okay with it, then how can that still be "wrong"... but other circumstances okay?

I am equally shocked at the extent to which people will defend eccentric behaviour involving intimate situations with children.

perhaps because there is NO PROOF there is anything sinister or damaging in any of the "eccentric behaviour" mentioned, and there is a lot of hate being spewed towards a man DEEMED INNOCENT BY TRIAL AND JURY, when all of the information these judgements are based on is from media sources that may as well be the national enquirer or the weekly world news. i suspect the passionate nature of the defense of michael jackson in this thread is mainly in reaction to the equally if not more passionate attacking remarks against him. and besides, michael jackson has been picked on enough in his life, and has had to endure much of it though international media.

i'm not saying i think it was the smartest idea for michael jackson to invite children to sleep in his bed. i am saying that i don't think it's the huge deal everyone has made it out to be, and i don't think there were any evil intentions behind it. in many ways, michael jackson is very much a kid himself, which is why i don't think his interaction with children is creepy at all. children are the only people who have never judged or hurt him, he loves them and would do anything for them. i cannot think of one other public figure alive today who has done more for children than this man and the extent to which he is continually attacked and ridiculed saddens me greatly.

[Esau]

I will say that a child crawling into bed with their parents because of a thunderstorm is considerably different then a child crawling in an adult strangers bed ("stranger" as in non family) for a "sleep over".

so, only non-family members molest kids?

First that is an accusation I never made.Twist away.

if a child sleeping in an adult's bed is dead wrong, and morally unacceptable, then what difference do the reasons behind it make? maybe the kids at neverland were scared to sleep alone? and if the PARENTS of the children are comfortable and okay with it, and the children themselves are comfortable and okay with it, then how can that still be "wrong"... but other circumstances okay?

Maybes & what ifs....

Name a non family male over 40 you would let your child sleep with.

I gave my opinion on one issue,I never made any accusations of molestation.Why is it so hard to grasp that I feel its wrong,as does a couple other people in this thread you failed to quote & tear into.

[secondtube]

Are you serious? Was this supposed to be purple? I really don't mean to be a smart ass (or to get too involved in this debate), but what does giving Jacko your hard-earned dollars have anything to do with how his court case turned out?

yes i was serious, 100%. Giving him my money shows support...and WHO i give my money to (physically, like a store employee) shows support as well...

Go Michael!

[MarcO]

yeah, what's that paul mccartney guy been up to lately?

Mourning his wife of 30 years, getting re-married, going on world tours and recording his new album with Nigel Goderich, Radiohead's producer. Also getting ready to release his first children's book.

there is NO PROOF there is anything sinister or damaging in any of the "eccentric behaviour" mentioned, and there is a lot of hate being spewed towards a man DEEMED INNOCENT BY TRIAL AND JURY, when all of the information these judgements are based on is from media sources that may as well be the national enquirer or the weekly world news.

Jackson got benefit of jurors' doubt

By Newsday and The Associated Press

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2002336464_jacko15.html

SANTA MARIA, Calif. — Michael Jackson may have been acquitted, but if jurors' words are anything to go by, he was not exonerated.

In post-trial comments, several hinted — and some said bluntly — that they suspected he had indeed molested children. But faced with instructions to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, though, they conceded that they had to vote not guilty. Many who followed the case say that was a victory for the justice system but not necessarily for Jackson, 46, who remained holed up at his Neverland Ranch yesterday.

"Not guilty is not the same as innocent," said former Santa Barbara prosecutor Craig Smith, who followed the trial from the start. "But our whole system is based on the premise that it's better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man."

Jackson did not release a statement, but his attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., said the pop star is going to be more careful from now on and not let children into his bed anymore because "it makes him vulnerable to false charges."

Outside Neverland, fans' cars lined the narrow country road leading to the estate, and pro-Jackson signs indicated the international flavor of his fan base. "Iran is here for Michael!" read one posted near the huge gates that opened every few minutes to allow Jackson associates into the heavily guarded compound. "From Italy, Michael We Stand 4U," read another, alongside a sign with Japanese lettering and a message in English: "Make Love Your Weapon."

In a news conference and in interviews after Jackson was acquitted on all 10 counts, jurors sent a clear message that they were not so much convinced of Jackson's innocence as unconvinced of his guilt, based on faulty evidence and flaky witnesses.

Prosecutors were allowed to support the allegations that Jackson abused the 13-year-old in 2003 by bringing in evidence of inappropriate behavior with other boys, even though those purported incidents never led to criminal charges.

Some jurors indicated that they were inclined to believe Jackson had such a past, but that it did not prove the current allegations against Jackson.

"He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with," said juror Ray Hultman. "He probably has molested boys at some point."

Two other jurors and one alternate who appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America" raised their hands when asked if they thought Jackson may have molested other children but not the accuser in this trial.

"We had our suspicions, but we couldn't judge on that because it wasn't what we were there to do," said Eleanor Cook, 79.

[Kaidy Mae]

Outside Neverland, fans' cars lined the narrow country road leading to the estate, and pro-Jackson signs indicated the international flavor of his fan base. "Iran is here for Michael!" read one posted near the huge gates that opened every few minutes to allow Jackson associates into the heavily guarded compound. "From Italy, Michael We Stand 4U," read another, alongside a sign with Japanese lettering and a message in English: "Make Love Your Weapon."

Jesus! I think this is the scariest part of the whole thing. I can understand supporting someone, defending them and even purchasing their albums to show your support. HOWEVER, hopping on a plane from fucking Japan in order to hang out at the gates of a "Neverland" ranch waving signs goes a hop, step and a jump beyond sanity for me. Whew!

[PalacePrincess]

esau, come on. i apologize if you thought i was "tearing into you", that was not my intention, and i'm sorry you interpreted it that way. you referenced a comment i made, i quoted your remark merely to clarify what i was replying to, which was mainly asking you to expound on your statement. there is no personal attack against you, and not only it is not "hard for [me] to wrap my head around" (a phrase that in itself is more of a personal attack than anything i said) the fact you, and whoever else, thinks it is wrong, but i fully respect that you have those opinions. if it is okay for you and whoever else to state it is wrong, however passionately you desire, then it is okay for me to voice why i think it is not all *that* bad.

and as for "twisting" anything, i'm sorry, from what you said, i took that to mean it was wrong because of the possibility of molestation. if that's absolutely not what you meant, then what did you mean?

i can't honestly answer your question because i don't have any kids and i don't know that many men over 40 who are not related to me.

******************

interesting article marco, thank you for posting that. by the way, i hope you don't think i was yelling at *you* personally, just voicing my reaction to your statement.

[Esau]

Also,my comment was in reply moreless to your comparing a 12 year old sleeping in MJs bed to sleepin with your own parents during a thuderstorm.Not molestation.I resent that comment actually.

and the children themselves are comfortable and okay with it, then how can that still be "wrong"...

Are you saying that a 12 year old or even younger has the mental comprehension to realize that this is not a normal action taken by an adult?

I would argue that they don't, based only on what I know (from books/daytime talk shows or whatnot) since it seems alot of children that are molested by family or otherwise don't comprehend or realize that it is wrong until in their mid-teens or even later.

[MarcO]

by the way, i hope you don't think i was yelling at *you* personally, just voicing my reaction to your statement.

hey it's just sprited debate - yell at me all you like, I'll still love ya!

But Greg does present (correctly, I feel) the dilemma of kids not necessarily being the best judges of what is ok and what isn't. Factor in a children's paradise, cancer recovery and a man who admits to feeling more like a child than an adult and you have an extremely questionable situation.

You also may have noticed that nowhere have I said that I believe Jackson is a child molester or not. How could I really know that? My main issue with him is his complete lack of good judgement, not a great quality for someone who associates so closely (very closely if you share a bed) with children. I'll bet he hasn't learned a damn thing from this trial other than further developing a feeling of being victimized by people's failure to understand why he spends nights in bed with young boys.

As a total aside, allow me to say that "Off The Wall" is a glorious piece of art and his talent is/was immense.

[Del]

I'm a big fan of his earlier, and believe it or not, later work...(up to the mid 90's, dont recognize the album del posted...)

Well 'tube, pick up MJ's Blood On The Dancefloor and you'll see why I said he's a washed up has been, who hasn't had a genuine music career for years now... I give the guy credit for his earlier work, but I think the creativity has been lost... People's tastes in music have moved on, Michael Jackson is stuck living in the 80's when he was on top of the world... No one wants to hear him going "Woo!" and grabbing his crotch anymore...

[secondtube]

i do, and many others do also...

i've never seen him perform live, but it is on my list of MUST SEE PERFORMERS...

i'm sure you'd not enjoy others on my list...

Elton John for one...

just cause they aren't popular in our scene, doesn't mean they wouldn't put on one helluva show...

which is why i go...entertainment.

[gentlemonkey]

don't stop til you get enough!!

[MarcO]

Live 8 Eyes Jacko

By staff reporters

15jun05

MICHAEL Jackson's plans to revitalise his music career received a much needed boost today, following reports he may be invited to perform at the Philadelphia Live 8 concert on July 2.

Interviewed on radio station Capital FM in the US, Live 8 promoter Harvey Goldsmith said: "Obviously we'd consider it."

He added: "Whether it's appropriate or not is another issue, whether he's in a fit state to work is another issue, whether he can work is another issue and whether he can work live is another issue."

Britain's The Sun newspaper online reports Jackson may launch a three-pronged attack to put his finances in order. These include: launching a world-wide greatest hits tour; writing a book on the trial; and selling his stake in Sony and ownership rights to The Beatles back catalogue.

The Live 8 gig is being hosted by Will Smith and the line-up includes 50 Cent, P Diddy, Bon Jovi and the British band Kaiser Chiefs.

A Live 8 source told The Sun: "There are obviously concerns about Jackson playing ? but now he's in the clear there?s no reason why he can't join the line-up. No matter what's happened, he?s a music legend."

Yesterday it was reported sales of Jacko albums had jumped 40 per cent following his trial victory.

[PalacePrincess]

and you could also argue that michael jackson himself is not an "adult".

i actually agree with much of what you've said (both of you). i will also admit that a portion of these tirades is written purely in a devil's advocate seat (although i do stand by my statements -- in my gut, i just don't believe he molested anyone). but the fact of the matter is, without actually being there to witness the events, without personally knowing the parties involved, there is not much i or anyone can say, since we just don't know. one could even argue that there is no more basis in insisting he's innocent than there is in insisting he's guilty.

as for children at the age of 12 not knowing what is right & wrong, i am inclined to agree, but not completely. i wholly agree that until they are older, they will not know the full extent of how "wrong" something is... but i think they do have the capacity to realize that something isn't quite right. and i am speaking from personal experience on this, having experienced a completely inappropriate interaction with a male teacher when i was 12 years old.

and i would also like to clarify that i am not a huge advocate of adults & children sharing a bed or anything like that. i have already stated that i think much of attachment parenting (including the co-sleeping, which in some families lasts well into the teenage years) is kind of creepy. but i do think there is a distinction between that occurring every night, and that happening once or a couple of times in a -- what i perceive to be -- innocent sleepover setting at neverland valley. and as secondtube pointed out, parents of the children at neverland are welcome to come with them... and i honestly think if the parents didn't feel quite right about their kids being there, then they would have either not let them or made adjustments (i.e. disallowing them to share his bed).

okay, i'm done ranting & raving about this now, i have work to finish up!

launching a world-wide greatest hits tour

now THAT would be awesome. i don't care how freaky he is, he's still motherfucking michael jackson. hello, i don't even care if he lip synches the whole show, i would go just to see him dance!

[Del]

"Whether it's appropriate or not is another issue, whether he's in a fit state to work is another issue, whether he can work is another issue and whether he can work live is another issue."

I think at this point it's more a case of he HAS to work... $10 million in legal fees for a guy who's in finacial trouble means we'll be subjected to more of Michael's tripe than we have been forced to endure in the last few years...

And 'tube, most people in the scene will gladly get down to Jackson's older, funkier stuff... I don't think too many people would request Bad or Black Or White though...

[Diggzz]

See I don't think having their parents at Neverland justifies them being allowed to sleep in his bed. He and his lawyers have already admitted that the situation "looks" bad and that he will no longer be allowing children to sleep with him because it leaves him "vulnerable" to lawsuits. EXACTLY, if I were I a parent I'd take my kids there too (well if I were a Lawsuit-happy American parent), because either A) The kid has a good time and meets a "former" pop idol or MJ puts himself in an akward position whereby I can sue his ass off. And make no mistake, it is MJ who is opening himself up to this, i can see that he wants to help kids and he obviuosly has past issues, but he has got to deal with these issues first, rather than trying to deal with it by pretending he is still a kid. GET HELP.

[Esau]

and you could also argue that michael jackson himself is not an "adult".

He's 46.

That arguement alone makes it an even more unsuitable action.

[Del]

He's 46.

Post of the day!

[Douglas]

I haven't read through all of these posts, but I do hope to at some point this evening.

All I can say is that if he was found guilty, I would have been very sad for him because the proof just wasn't there. Imagine, for just 1 moment, that he actually is innocent (ie: the accusations were utter lies). And now imagine him being convicted of those charges.

Sure there are criminals that don't get caught, but there are also innocent people that get nailed.

Another thought I have is that just because there isn't a law against something, does not mean it isn't wrong.

[backbacon]

He's 46.

Post of the day!

I'd say this one still wins' date=' Del:

Whining about a lineup before it is even announced. I believe that's a new record.

I'm looking forward to seeing MJ in concert!

[secondtube]

hello, i don't even care if he lip synches the whole show, i would go just to see him dance!

I'd be right beside ya, dancin' and lip synching along...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Sure there are criminals that don't get caught, but there are also innocent people that get nailed.

Not a chance. They're all guilty as sin. The trick is to come in to the thing with a lock on the definition of sin.