Jury Clears Jackson

[DominO123]

And another thing, for those that see nothing wrong with a grown up man sleeping with boys... there are research regarding such behavours and their impacts on the developpement of a child character. It is unhealthy. Regardless of the fact that in many Hindu sects, or new age Hindu inspired sects, this is a common thing.

[Sasun]

But what is so wrong with sleeping with kids? It is a big mistake to equate sleeping with sex. He has a great affection for kids. Is that a crime? A parent hugs and kisses his kids, and sleeps with them, should we also suspect a wrongdoing? Why is it so impossible for a non parent do the same? It is obvious that Jackson cared about sick kids, paid lots of money to help them, yet some took it granted and tried to abuse. The society doesn't pay attention to it, but as soon as they hear the word "sleep" they imagine sex. That's just disgusting, shows that the society's cosciousness is at that level, that is they think if they slept with somebody else's child they would be having sex.

I think Jackson got lucky that the accuser mother had a history of squezing out money with accusations, otherwise I think the jurors would still doubt and convict him.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Just to clarify my position on this, I don't think constantly sleeping with children is normal or right or should be practiced. However, it is not abuse, sexual or otherwise. If the children are happy to do it and are not forced or coerced then it is fine. On the other hand, a person who longs constant child company in bed or out of bed is likely to have psychological disorders, such as immaturity or what not.

Everything is fine and normal in its limits, but when it is excessive it is not normal. Often we see strangers trying to talk or caress little children on the street. That is normal. Hugging and kissing a kid is normal and healthy, you are showing your love through that. But doing it excessively or out of place is not normal. Imagine a parent wants to hug and sleep with his children, that is parental affection and is normal. But if the parent does that all the time, though it is not abuse it is not normal.

Now, Jackson is not a normal person. But he appears to be genuinely loving children. That should not be punishable. Once again, I agree that he needs help, not punishment.

[armjan]

But what is so wrong with sleeping with kids? It is a big mistake to equate sleeping with sex. He has a great affection for kids. Is that a crime? A parent hugs and kisses his kids, and sleeps with them, should we also suspect a wrongdoing? Why is it so impossible for a non parent do the same? It is obvious that Jackson cared about sick kids, paid lots of money to help them, yet some took it granted and tried to abuse. The society doesn't pay attention to it, but as soon as they hear the word "sleep" they imagine sex. That's just disgusting, shows that the society's cosciousness is at that level, that is they think if they slept with somebody else's child they would be having sex.

I think Jackson got lucky that the accuser mother had a history of squezing out money with accusations, otherwise I think the jurors would still doubt and convict him.

style_images/master/snapback.png

without psychiatric diagnosis of MJ, neither u nor I will be able to be certain of what's actually happening.

[Sasun]

without psychiatric diagnosis of MJ, neither u nor I will be able to be certain of what's actually happening.

style_images/master/snapback.png

In HyeForum one is entitled to issue a psychiatric diagnosis to any individual on earth

[Anoushik]

Just to clarify my position on this, I don't think constantly sleeping with children is normal or right or should be practiced. However, it is not abuse, sexual or otherwise. If the children are happy to do it and are not forced or coerced then it is fine. On the other hand, a person who longs constant child company in bed or out of bed is likely to have psychological disorders, such as immaturity or what not.

Everything is fine and normal in its limits, but when it is excessive it is not normal. Often we see strangers trying to talk or caress little children on the street. That is normal. Hugging and kissing a kid is normal and healthy, you are showing your love through that. But doing it excessively or out of place is not normal. Imagine a parent wants to hug and sleep with his children, that is parental affection and is normal. But if the parent does that all the time, though it is not abuse it is not normal.

Now, Jackson is not a normal person. But he appears to be genuinely loving children. That should not be punishable. Once again, I agree that he needs help, not punishment.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I completely agree with Sasun in this matter. There is nothing wrong with sleeping with children, especially when it's your child. Kids long for it - I remember my brother and I rushing to my parents bedroom every morning when we were eight, and spending lazy mornings in bed, hugging our parents. Well, we didn't really sleep in their beds because my mom always thought it was unhealthy, as she had read of numerous accounts of kids suffocating under their parents weight, but this is another issue.

 

I guess the problem here is that Jackson is very affectionate with kids that don't have much history with him. They are not family members or close family friends. It is disturbing. Only very close family members, close friends, and the babysitter should be allowed to change kids' clothes, take them to bathroom, or bathe them.

[Anoushik]

He should have passed the penile pressure test. They place something on his penile, and show him nacked kids picture and study his reaction. This test exist, I don't know if it is used in the US, but it is used here.

style_images/master/snapback.png

What a disturbing, discusting test.

[armjan]

In HyeForum one is entitled to issue a psychiatric diagnosis to any individual on earth

style_images/master/snapback.png

for the sake of laughs, haha.

but on a more serious note, one would be alarmingly surprised how many people diagnose positively for having distressful symptoms of psychological illness, its all a matter of severity=>need for medication, but let's not assume that just b/c one doesn't take medication, none are needed.

 

so would any of you who believe that he isn't a child molester send your kid to spend a few nights with MJ?

*if u say no, think really hard about why your saying no.

 

it's often hard for some to understand how child molesters think, but consider if "peter-pan" lifestyle is a front for something potentially more.

 

Child molesters often travel to remote parts of the world(thailand...) where they put themselves in very similar circumstatnces as MJ(role of care taker) and do very hurtful things.

 

After all, which of you would invite kids over to their bedroom at nights with bunch of pornography and alcohol.

 

I mean WTH would u need porno & alcohol just b/c u were lonely growning up.

None of us had a picture perfect childhood, but we came along ok for the most part.

Edited June 15, 2005 by armjan

[Sasun]

After all, which of you would invite kids over to their bedroom at nights with bunch of pornography and alcohol.

 

I mean WTH would u need porno & alcohol just b/c u were lonely growning up.

None of us had a picture perfect childhood, but we came along ok for the most part.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Armjan, you are making a logical point. But was not he cleared of alcohol charges? BTW, I have not heard of pornography charges. Was there really such a charge?

At any rate, one should really be careful to sort out facts from allegations. Of course the accusers will say whatever supports their case.

[armjan]

Armjan, you are making a logical point. But was not he cleared of alcohol charges? BTW, I have not heard of pornography charges. Was there really such a charge?

At any rate, one should really be careful to sort out facts from allegations. Of course the accusers will say whatever supports their case.

style_images/master/snapback.png

the defense also akknowledged that the 2 kids, accuser and younger brother saw porno in MJ's room.

 

As the day wore on, the four detectives were questioned about the kinds of material they found at Neverland and where they found it. Jurors saw a photograph of the inside of the drawer of Jackson's night table, where there was an adult magazine and two photographs. One appeared to be a Polaroid photo of a young child sitting in a metal washtub with a puppy, in the kind of quaint pose you'd see on a calendar.

name of the titles

"Pimps Up, Ho's Down,"

Penthouse

Barely Legal

 

now these are things that Kids SHOUD NOT see.

 

as far as alcohol...

The defense claims that the Arvizo children broke into Jackson's wine cellar and drank his alcohol when he was not at Neverland.

and from the outcome it appears that the jurors thought so.

Edited June 15, 2005 by armjan

[Sasun]

the defense also akknowledged that the 2 kids, accuser and younger brother saw porno in MJ's room.

name of the titles

"Pimps Up, Ho's Down,"

Penthouse

Barely Legal

 

now these are things that Kids SHOUD NOT see.

I really don't know about that, but apparently there was not enough evidence to charge him. So suppose he keeps porn material in his home, and kids somehow saw it. That doesn't mean he showed it to them or wanted the kids to see that. If that was the case I am sure he would be convicted.

Not that he has no fault. Yes, he should be more responsible than that, there are many things wrong with him.

as far as alcohol...

The defense claims that the Arvizo children broke into Jackson's wine cellar and drank his alcohol when he was not at Neverland.

and from the outcome it appears that the jurors thought so.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I really don't know the details, we are not in the position to have a serious and objective investigation, the court and jurors are. It is pointless to have an argument on the internet, because that is the domain of the court. The court has done their job, and no matter how imperfect the justice system is I have much more trust in the court than what we hear in the media.

I was expecting Jackson to be convicted of alcohol charges but not on molestation charges. My opinion was based on what I heard on the media and my own analysis. Our opinions are biased, they cannot be objective. That is why there is a court, and the court found him not guilty on all charges. I am not going to be a fool and say that my analysis and opinion are right and the court is wrong.

[vava]

just to follow up on the last couple of posts:

 

1. It is not illegal to own or view porno mags. America would be chock full of criminals if that were the case. The investigators found pornography IN HIS DRAWER... it's not like it was out on display.

 

2. It is not illegal to drink, nor is it an offence to own alcohol. How many underage kids do you know that have managed to sneak a drink or two incognito? Plenty. In the states, underage drinking has been increasing exponentially, including kids as young as 9 or 10 - and in most cases without the knowledge of their guardian. Why should kids behave any differently because they're at MJ's residence?

 

I just want to point that out before we demonize MJ for owning alcohol and pornography, lest we become highly hypocritical as a society.

Edited June 15, 2005 by vava

[DominO123]

He was not cleared from the alcohol and pornography charges.(there was no such charges to be cleared from, they were just evidences)

 

He was cleared for having given alcohol to kids as a tool to abuse them sexually.(which is different) The fact that the kids were really drinking alcohol, or that he offered them alcohol alone still stick, and from the defense reaction it appeared that they accepted that.

 

As for the pornography, it was even not rejected by the defence.

 

I do believe still because of those evidences, that there are chances that there was some truth in the story.

 

Peter Pan syndrome can not be fully applied, why is it that he only shared his bed with boys? Why did he have pornographic magazines,(this shows he actualy can have orgasm) why did he share them with the kids? While Peter Pan syndrome won't explain this, pedophily would.(selectivity)

 

I think what made the differences is the credibility of the mother and the kid, the defence was able to turn the attention on the mother, and make this cases as if it was the mothers cases. The prosecutor did not prepare the mother to behave the right way, and seems he did little with the child. The prosecutor made claims he could not support which were contradicted later, leaving on the shadow evidences that were serious enought to be included in the charges, but were not included(another mistake).

 

Jackson, regardless of the sexual abuses did criminal things which were not included in the charges. Like pornography magazines to a minor, giving alcohol to a minor. With this add his weird and psycho character.

Edited June 15, 2005 by QueBeceR

[DominO123]

just to follow up on the last couple of posts:

 

1. It is not illegal to own or view porno mags. America would be chock full of criminals if that were the case. The investigators found pornography IN HIS DRAWER... it's not like it was out on display.

 

2. It is not illegal to drink, nor is it an offence to own alcohol. How many underage kids do you know that have managed to sneak a drink or two incognito? Plenty. In the states,  underage drinking has been increasing exponentially, including kids as young as 9 or 10 - and in most cases without the knowledge of their guardian. Why should kids behave any differently because they're at MJ's residence?

 

I just want to point that out before we demonize MJ for owning alcohol and pornography, lest we become highly hypocritical as a society.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Vava, it is not illegal to own pornography, but it is illegal to give access to it to a minor. It is not illegal to own alcohol, but it is illegal to give access to it, to a minor. This is the distinction I believe. The pornographic magazines were magazines "barly 18" sorts, which shows that Jackson get pleasure with the lowest ages permitted legally. And he even shared them with the kids.

 

I think the next time there is a cases like this, the parents of the kid should be sued for having left his kid with the fool.

[DominO123]

Did anyone read this new book?

 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...590790723&itm=1

 

[DominO123]

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/nightlife/...s/mating/11610/

[armjan]

just to follow up on the last couple of posts:

 

1. It is not illegal to own or view porno mags. America would be chock full of criminals if that were the case. The investigators found pornography IN HIS DRAWER... it's not like it was out on display.

 

2. It is not illegal to drink, nor is it an offence to own alcohol. How many underage kids do you know that have managed to sneak a drink or two incognito? Plenty. In the states,  underage drinking has been increasing exponentially, including kids as young as 9 or 10 - and in most cases without the knowledge of their guardian. Why should kids behave any differently because they're at MJ's residence?

 

I just want to point that out before we demonize MJ for owning alcohol and pornography, lest we become highly hypocritical as a society.

style_images/master/snapback.png

no one has suggested the two things above

[phantom22]

The jury in the Jackson case was thought to be not leaning toward his side of the story. The jury were not a liberal bunch. After sitting in the court for weeks and getting information from the judge, they did not convict him on any of the counts. They had all the information upon which to make a call. Did the members of this forum?

 

There was testimony from staff that the Arvizo boys ransacked the house. The booze and porno found had been put away, and was not in view.

 

Jackson speaks with an effeminate voice and wears makeup. He has disfigured himself through excessive plastic surgery. He has had boys sleeping in his bed and has held their hands in public.

 

Things looked very bad on the surface. Why did this jury exhonerate him? After weighing the evidence, they did not believe that he had molested this boy.

Edited June 16, 2005 by phantom22