OT - 60 MINUTES Michael Jackson Interview

[supapimp]

re read his post, he was speaking theoretically.

[COI]

re read his post, he was speaking theoretically.

 

Actually, there is video documented evidence of those pics being hung up in the house. There was nothing pornographic about them, but regardless, I think it's inapropriate to have a whole bunch of pictures of other people's children, that have no relation to you.

[COI]

Another thing is that even if the kids were just "sleeping over", and nothing was going on, it's still inapropriate, and he's opening himself up to "gold diggers". So I don't feel sorry for him. It's idiotic for a guy who is worth hundreds of millions, to very openly push social conventions(especially when it involves children), and not expect to take some heat.

[supapimp]

well i must reiterate that either way it's not in my hands.

[COI]

well i must reiterate that either way it's not in my hands.

 

I agree. None of us have had the whole case presented infront of us, so it's impossible to make the call. I just think that some people let his celebrity cloud their judgement, and that fans of his should prepare themselves for the possibility.

[Mephisto]

well i must reiterate that either way it's not in my hands.

 

Well if you were a little younger you might be in MJ's hands.

[supapimp]

[Timely]

re read his post, he was speaking theoretically.

 

Actually, there is video documented evidence of those pics being hung up in the house. There was nothing pornographic about them, but regardless, I think it's inapropriate to have a whole bunch of pictures of other people's children, that have no relation to you.

 

It's hard to say, if Jackson considered these kids his friends then it is appropriate to hvae pictures of your friends in your house. And for all we know these boys with their shirts off...could be kids who were just in his pool...again...appropriate attire. There are too many possibilities, maybe's and possibly's to be sure at this point.

 

Timely

[Mephisto]

re read his post, he was speaking theoretically.

 

Actually, there is video documented evidence of those pics being hung up in the house. There was nothing pornographic about them, but regardless, I think it's inapropriate to have a whole bunch of pictures of other people's children, that have no relation to you.

 

It's hard to say, if Jackson considered these kids his friends then it is appropriate to hvae pictures of your friends in your house. And for all we know these boys with their shirts off...could be kids who were just in his pool...again...appropriate attire. There are too many possibilities, maybe's and possibly's to be sure at this point.

 

Timely

 

Or maybe the Governor was out at the ranch and he was teaching the kids how to pose for body building.

[comicartfan]

Sure, the guy is an oddball but I do believe that he is innocent and once that he is found not guilty I surely hope that the media gives THAT the attention that it deserves.

 

yeah, him and OJ and Mike Tyson can share court room horror stories about how "THE MAN" set him up, how they were framed, how come everybody is always picking on me,

[THE_BEYONDER]

well i must reiterate that either way it's not in my hands.

 

Well if you were a little younger you might be in MJ's hands.

 

[seank]

If Michael's case goes to trial, he will have a jury. As far as the victim's testimony goes, the jury will make a determination as to his credibility. In California, there's rules of evidence regarding underage witnesses, but since crim law isn't my forte and I'm weak on the rules of evidence (blame a lousy evidence professor for that one), I couldn't tell you what they are.

 

For all of you who think Michael Jackson is innocent of molesting children, remember that ten years ago he settled out of court for quite a few million dollars. That many zeros buys a lot of silence.

 

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

 

Q: What's Michael Jackson's idea of a perfect "10"?

 

A. Two five-year-olds.

 

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

[mrwoogieman]

Yes, an accused is entitled to be tried before a jury of his peers in our country.

 

And, no, regardless of what you've heard from the TV talking heads, the State of California cannot force the underage accuser to testify in the criminal trial against Jacko. Imagine this scenario: accuser refuses to testify because Jacko bought his silence. What can the State do to compel the accuser to testify? Hold him in contempt of court/fine him/put him in jail? Just imagine the public response and it's clear that there is no way on earth a recalitrant victim of a crime can ever be forced to testify against the accused.

 

Also, an accord between the victim and the accused has no impact on whether the accused will be prosecuted or not; that decision is left to the prosecutor on the case. Remember, it's the People of the State of California v. Jacko, not accused v. Jacko. Certainly a monetary settlement with the victim would negatively impact the prosecution's case, but it would not prevent it from going forward in and of itself.

 

Disclaimer: I am not a criminal defense attorney nor am I qualified to practice law in the State of California. (but yes, I am a lawyer).

 

 

[Bronty]

Ah, thank you, that makes things more clear... I thought it was accuser v Jacko but yeah if it's state v Jacko any settlement would be irrelevant. Thanks for clearing that up

[THE_BEYONDER]

[HarrisonJohn]

I'm so tired of hearing him defend what he does. It's not OK for children to be sleeping with adults who are not relatives because, hello, there are plenty of child abusers out there who would just love for the world to work that way! He should be put in prison just for trying to promote that! "It's not sexual." Please! Take the kids to a friggin' zoo and call it a day. I also think the whole insanity act is just that, an act, so he can get away with sick stuff like sleeping with little boys and hanging pictures of them around his house. "Oh he's just a weirdo, leave him alone..." Yeah I'm sure this stuff would go over real well if the guy down the block who wore the wig and make-up was doing it. People are so stupid and it really upsets me when children are harmed as a result. Someone asked why only two out of thousands have come forward over the years... it's not a matter of pulling a 5 year old off a pony and abusing them, it's pre-teens who know right from wrong and take time to phychologically abuse first. Both kids came from messed up homes and were probably already half-way there! Someone else mentioned the kid(s) saying they wanted to sleep in bed with MJ. This fits in perfectly with mental abuse and manipulation. It's all their falt!

[supapimp]

did you watch the 60 minutes interview? it seems like to me you've already judged jacko, have you already judge kobe too? what about the parents letting their children hang out/sleep over with jacko, shouldn't they be partially at fault too knowing about his questionable past with a molestation charge? i'm just trying to be impartial to judgement.

[THE_BEYONDER]

What's there to be impartial about?

 

IT IS NOT OKAY FOR CHILDREN TO SLEEP IN MICHEAL JACKSON'S BED.........period.

[supapimp]

i'm not god, are you?

[Illiterati-migration]

i'm not god, are you?

 

You're a [!@#%^&^] sociopath. You know that you filthy pervert?

 

 

But perhaps I'm missing your sarcasm... you ARE being sarcastic, aren't you? Surely you're not defending the position of a child molester?