Michael Jackson is a poor sob if there ever was one. Every week, day, or hour, someone makes allegations about Jackson which everyone seems to just assume to be true without any verification or proof there of, because "he is weird after all".
People cling to the theory of him "trying to change his race" like it was a bad rash, too tempting to leave it be. He's got vitiligo for fucks sake. Surgeons, whose stories about his facial surgery the same people think of as the embodiment of truth, have confirmed it.
Michael Jackson isn't given the benefit of even a fraction of doubt, instead he is assumed to be an awful child-molesting father because he's wearing a face mask, and worries about his children being recognized in public. So he's not like most folks, so what, that doesn't make him anti-christ. Heck, even Satan gets more respect than Jacko does.
It doesn't matter if Jackson is guilty or not, the point is that he is never given the benefit of doubt. What odds does he have against a jury of "peers", each of which are familiar with his hate of his own race, him being an awful father and him bying the elephant-man's corpse? Who would do that? A child molester, that's who.
Comments
Unfortunately, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is more of a "guideline" than "constitution".
On the other hand, if Jacko was an average Joe (or Catholic Priest) and got accused of sexual abusing children, he will be sitting in the jail the moment the accusation came out. Instead he was given a delayed arrest, allowed to post $3 million bail, and free to leave.
In 1993, he was accused by and settled with "Kevin"'s parents for unconfirmed amount of money. Anyone with half brain cell would learn from the terrible experience (regardless if guilty or not) and stay away from activities that would lead to future accusations, yet Mr. Jackson continued with his "child loving sleeping over".
During the interview between Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir, instead of answering the questions addressed to Mr. Jackson intellegently, Mr. Jackson rambled, changed subject, and completely ignored the questions. That indeed gave the viewers the impression of "if he has nothing to hide, why wouldn't he answer the questions?"
I understand that Mr. Jackson has done many humanitarian deeds in the past, but if he is guilty of current accusation, then his past deeds should be overlooked.
Comment by tian at 20:58, 30 Nov, 2003 #
Anybody who invites other people's children to sleep in their bed on a regular basis with them should be regarded as a pedophile.
Non-pedophiles do not do this.
Comment by Doug at 15:28, 01 Dec, 2003 #
Doug: What reliable sources do you have for this information? That Michael "invites children to sleep in his bed (I assume you also mean with him)"?
Comment by Tomas at 15:30, 01 Dec, 2003 #
He's a witch! Burn him! Burn! Burn!
Comment by beerzie boy at 17:44, 01 Dec, 2003 #
He did an interview about 3 months ago that is STILL running on VH1 in which Michael actually says he has children sleep in his be with him.
Comment by Doug at 18:11, 01 Dec, 2003 #
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/michael_jackson_doc_030206.html
Comment by Doug at 18:12, 01 Dec, 2003 #
Doug: Michael says he himself sleeps on the floor, in that same interview. Other than that, he also says it's nothing sexual; if you trust his word on one thing, why not an other?
I certainly don't know if he is a pedophile or not, but there are two things that doesn't seem right:
1. Pedophiles usually don't flaunt "sharing their bed" with children.
2. Michael Jackson don't seem like the sexually active type, for all I know he could just be what he claims to be, their friend.
All things considered, he's got my benefit of doubt, regarding everything, not just these allegations.
Comment by Tomas at 19:15, 01 Dec, 2003 #
"In a later interview, Jackson also said he slept on the floor that night, but he added, "I have slept in a bed with many children," including former child actor Macaulay Culkin together with his siblings."
Do you honestly think it is appropriate for a 40 year old man to sleep in a bed with a minor?
Comment by Doug at 21:23, 01 Dec, 2003 #
The Question begs to be asked, Tomas, would you let your child spend the night in Jackson's bed?
Comment by Doug at 21:31, 01 Dec, 2003 #
Doug: How is it that you trust Michael when he says one thing, and mistrusts him when he says another?
I don't have a child, but no, I wouldn't want my child to sleep with Michael, or any other adult. That doesn't mean I assume he is guilty of child molestation though, any more than any other adult I wouldn't want my child to sleep with, including you.
What adults don't you want your child to sleep in the same bed as? Do you assume they are all guilty of child molestation?
Like I mentioned earlier, I give Michael the benefit of doubt, not just regarding these allegations, but regarding everything; buying the elephant-man's sceleton, sleeping in an oxygen chamber, etc, the works. A headline in a cheesy tabloid magazine is not proof enough for me.
Comment by Tomas at 09:54, 02 Dec, 2003 #
I used to sleep in my parents bed (I think last time was when I was about 7, I had a bad dream), but they never molested me. But judging by your definition, they are pedophiles, or am I wrong Doug?
Comment by Marcus Stade at 15:33, 07 Dec, 2003 #
Marcus: I feel inclined to answer your question (about being wrong). Yes, you are. They are not pedophiles -are they?-, they are your parents. One thing is to sleep on your parents bed and another is sleep with a total stranger, weird, with previous "pedophile history", like that thing (I am not sure if MJ can be called a guy, girl, whatever)...
Comment by David Collantes at 04:44, 11 Dec, 2003 #
David:
Correction: that should be previous "history of being accused". You're assuming he was guilty of that, too. Why?
Comment by Tomas at 11:02, 11 Dec, 2003 #
Tomas: On his "previous history", he paid off the people. I stick to the truth and do not let anyone blackmail me: if I have no guilt I will not pay. In the eyes of the law, he has recognized, by paying off the accusers, that he was guilty.
Comment by David Collantes at 13:14, 12 Dec, 2003 #
David: If you knew for sure that your son had been sexually abused by a pedophile, would you have wanted the pedophile creep to go to jail, or would you take his money so he could walk free and molest more children?
Comment by Tomas at 13:18, 12 Dec, 2003 #
The latest. Unfortunately (and fortunately!!), I am not the parent of the kid(s) he abused, otherwise there will be no money in the world to pay me off.
Comment by David Collantes at 23:50, 12 Dec, 2003 #
Ops! I meant, the first: sent it to rot in jail and cut off his genitals.
Comment by David Collantes at 23:51, 12 Dec, 2003 #
David: If Michael is presumed guilty because he "paid off" his accusers, what do you presume about the child's parents who, if so, sold their son's sexual favors to Michael? Would you presume they are honest, reliable people, for instance?
Comment by Tomas at 01:30, 13 Dec, 2003 #
It is not about honesty. They are as bad as MJ. But that doesn't make MJ innocent.
Comment by David Collantes at 14:10, 13 Dec, 2003 #
David:
So, we can establish that the family he paid off are unreliable and greedy, since they, if they tell the truth, actually sold their son's sexual services to a pedophile.
Michael is presumed to be guilty of accusations brought fourth by greedy unreliable people because he is presumed to be guilty of anything and everything anyone can accuse him of.
This is exactly why he had to pay off his accusers to begin with, because his "jury of peers" is likely to be just like you; to presume he is guilty regardless of how unreliable or greedy his accusers are. Michael is always, always, presumed to be guilty. Of everything. That disgusts me.
Comment by Tomas at 16:40, 13 Dec, 2003 #
The discussion has been closed on this entry. Thanks to everybody who participated.