Prosecutors in the Michael Jackson alleged molestation case say that they have over a decade's worth of evidence to show that Michael Jackson is a chronic pedophile. A 1995 law allows them to discuss such evidence even if convictions never happened.
Other legal analysts say Jackson's high powered legal team will overcome the allegations and win him an acquittal. It is up to Judge Rodney Melville to decide if past allegations can be brought up. This will happen after jury selection.
The prosecutors feel they have already won a victory now that Judge Melville is allowing an expert on the behavior of child abuse victims to testify. Testimony against Jacko from the 15 y.o. boy with cancer and his brother may be heard privately.
If they had so much evidence of previous situations why didn't they charge him then? How come there is so much mystery behind this 'evidence' yet there hasn't been anything shown?
Using this method. Someone could falsely accuse people for years until enough was raised to prosecute on historical evidence. This doesn't sound remotely like justice to me.
The entire world knows he's a homosexual pedophile
However, just watch. The race card will be played and he will get aquitted...just like O.J. Only in California can you slaughter people and bone kids...IF you have enough money and fame.
By using a law which allows past evidence to count against an individual alleged crime, prosecutors may score a victory in round one but the defense can easily appeal. And then appeals courts will probably say its ridiculous to use evidence not associated with what one is accused of. And then what looks like a pedophile will walk free.
hm. possible, unfortunately. but i think they'll be using his past to establish a precedent and character for him as someone inclined towards molesting children, and they'll get a psych to testify about the child-molester pattern of repeat and continued offenses. they won't be convicting him on any old evidence and it won't be included in the current charges against him. it'll just go to character. i hope.
any defense can find something to appeal over... that's a given.
child molestation is legal because the gov't shouldn't be putting it's nose into what people do behind closed doors, no matter the ages of the people involved
Michael Jackson, a 47 year old popular American pop singer says : I share my bed with small underage boys, we cuddle up, hug, i play with their hair its magical, we both really enjoy it. We also look at pornography together.
Michael Kapowski, a 47 year old car mechanic says: I share my bed with small underage boys, we cuddle up, hug, i play with their hair its magical, we both really enjoy it. We also look at pornography together.
Why is it that for some people there is a distinction between these two characters? Why is it that because Michael Jackson used to be popular, some people despite a mountainload of evidence, seem to think he's innocent.
Why do they ignore the fact Michael Jackson has paid hush money to other small underage boys he's shared a bed with in the past to shut them up?
Michael Jackson is a nonce, he's slept with little boys for years and years and can no longer pay them off with money, and is going to be convicted of molesting children.
He already hurt the hell out of himself when he casually admitted to sleeping with little boys that are not his family. The only way he can get off by claiming racism is if he can convince a jury that he is being picked on for being plastic.
The parents knew of his tendencies. A gratuitous ignorant could not deny knowledge of his tendencies.
The parents sent their children to be "molested" by a one Mr.Micheal Jackson, the defendant, under the belief that he would take lewd and indecent liberties with them.
Unsurprisingly, he did. Many children were priviledged to be fiddled by Mr.Jackson. An extreme minority complained. Those who complained were paid amounts of money more obscene than anything in act Mr.Jackson did to them, and went, or more properly; their parents went happily, retired, whistling along their merry ways.
"One night in the tub with Michael Jackson for you, a lifetime of freedom from work for me!"
It was worth it to them, apparently.
Gratutious ignorants who have lived in holes since the early 90's knew he did what he did.
They sent their children to have "The Michael Jackson experience" in knowledge, or at least, if they were any sort of decent, diligent, discriminating parents, in understanding of the ALLUSION that such experiences might occur as had they been reported to in the past.
It was a means of extortion, and the children were little more than whores to a wealthy pop-star client with pimps as parents.
The exact arrangment was a bit impromptu; altar-boy style; the money and agreement for it to change hands came AFTER the priest, er.. Michael did, er.. rather, after "the fact." But it was extortion none the less.
He, if this were a police exercise, would be able to rightly point to it as entrapment -- as it is he is the victim of a private extortion scheme.
This young "victim" was not absent unto his self, either. I have a feeling that whatever he felt of the experience initially, the parents supplemented later their own version and opinions of it.
Michael Jackson may be many things, but he is no child molester. I believe he loves the children dearly, perhaps, even into the realm of "queerly" -- which is to say he may show inappropriate affections towards these young people.
Granted, they may prove unprepared for the nature of affection he shows to them, and of course, this is wrong on his part.
I don't believe he has ever had penetrative sex with any of the children. That is the only sex I consider to be sex.
The rest is... "a rather elaborate and involved showing of affection" -- but not sex.
I have an Ex-President who will attest to this fact, in case anyone is doubting. Oral sex is not sex, depending on what the definition of the word "is" is. (irrelevant)
Case being, he should have known better than to bathe/sleep(as in sleeping) with/shower with/look at porn with/etc young males. It simply isn't popularly acceptable.
sjava: The Libertarian Party takes the position that unconsensual sex is rape and rape is unlawful. It has no position on intergenerational relationships. My personal belief is that provided you have two sane, cognizant parties, and both are wanting to engage in a personal relationship, let them to it. Consensual relationships are not the realm of Law, in the enforced sense. Only when one is violated, when acted upon against one's consent does such action become necessary, and only then after proving the case it has occured can it be said to.
Consenting adults, as you will note in the appropriate liturature is the aim of the removal of legal obstacles insofar as the LP is concerned. Young people are left in the cold a bit, but then, there are so many who would sooner see them treated like dirt, sooner imprisoned, sooner put to labor... than see them loved or made love to, that even within so liberal an organization as the LP it is unlikely that such a reform will come to pass that will see such relationships be undelegitimized.
Violent rape, taking advantage of incompetents, these are disgusting things and deserve prosecution and worse, if applicable.
I don't believe you can rightly throw a person in jail for nibbling on the ear of a young person, sleeping with them, or bathing with them. The temptation exists, but most likely out of jealousy.
No one is supposed to spoil another person, particularly such a young person in such a way. It is a subconsciously held social sacred cow/rule.
Even addressing the subject is something of taboo. I find it immature of society, and its individual constituent members that it has progressed so little, and been so loathed a topic of discussion all these years.
The Greeks did worse; they thought nothing of it. I consider the Greeks an enlightened people, retrospectively.
Ignorants of history, human nature... and the complexities of human emotion will say all intimate affections manifest towards young people are evil, deviant, wrong, etc, etc...
For one; they are jealous. This is the primary motivation for these critcisms.
For another, they will claim the young person is being taken advantage of. This can only be the case in ignorance of the circumstances surrounding
For another, they will claim the young person is being taken advantage of. This can only be the case in ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the relationship. If the younger party is well aware of this, and can express it to a reasonable measure, there should be no further interference.
Whether "they know what they are doing or not" is a proper standard of measurement beyond that is farcical. No one does; that's the point. The whole point of experiencing that is to experience it. It's all exploratory.
In any event, let it be said my stated views reflect only my own. Most people in and out of every political party believe that young people should be given a sober, somber, second-class cold-shoulder.
I believe young people are, with lack of knowledge and ability, in most cases; that changing with every day; equals. And as equals, they are entitled all the benefits and due all the demands of equal persons.
They have to be responsible and look after themselves like everyone else. That includes in all their personal affairs, and that includes their sexual activities.
Exploitation should never be tolerated, nor should abuse or rape.
Comparing that to concensual love is like comparing genocide to a civil rights movement.
And I'll say it again, in case it was missed: I think Michael Jackson raped no-one. That's all that I need to believe to personally say he's innocent.
I think he definitly did something that society would frown upon. No doubt a number of times. However, I do believe that he did it out of affection for the child... in a "friendly" way, and not in a crazy, sex-starved lunatic who can only get children. Not to say that he is doing the right thing at all of course.
you're a sick f&%ker. You just sat there and gave a treatise on why molesting a child should not be illegal. And your big finishing is that it's illegal because people are jealous. Is this because you're a pedophile yourself or are you just a wannabe pedo? The fact that you feel that the ancient Greeks were "enlightened" because they did worse than molest children just solidifies your mental instability.
You claim that since there was no penetration of the children, there was no sex... and you use Bill Clinton as an example.
You're pathetic, ignorant, and quite likely a serious danger to any children who live near you. If I knew your name and where you lived I would gladly report you to the authorities as someone to keep an eye on the next time a child is molested.
I know 100% what you mean with the parents, its the equivalent of a parent throwing their kid into a pit of lions, the kid is shockingly enough going to get hurt.
but imho, I think he's guilty, but but, I also think the parents should be charged with negligence.
Not enough money to pay off his 'victims' is a good point. How many parties have been paid off that we don't even know about?
MJ is obviously a screwed-up individual-- he's cut himself to look like Diana Ross and E.T.'s lovechild-- he's basically admitted to 'sleeping' with kids. He built a multi-million dollar lure called 'Neverland' to draw in large numbers of children onto his private property... hell, even his monkey couldn't stand him. MJ has obviously been using some sort of narcotic....
any hope of rehab, after conviction, for that guy is doubtful. Say what you will, I don't think hes going to get off this time. For one thing, he has lost too much money already....
If and when you do get that information, please also report me as a possible murderer for my support of abortion, and as a likely abuser of animals because I do not believe they have "rights."
You are a sanctamonious fool, and you have no right to judge who I am by what I've said here. You know nothing of me.
I am in fact a geriphile.
I find they have more resources and connections than do young people. It suits my lifestyle needs better -- As for apparences, there's nothing surgery can't fix.
But I understand WHY some people go for that. The same way people are made for each other; the Munchausen-by-Proxys find people who believe they are sick and need to be taken care of; like peas in a neurotic pod those two will be.
Some people feel their "peers" are children; you see this in the 40-someodd year old men who believe the next right thing is to dress in ratty jeans and cargo pants marketed to teenagers and young twentysomethings.
Or in 35 the year-old women whose style of dress approaches a women in her 60's. Older.
This is how people are built, or come to be built, rather.
Frankly, again, if the young person believes it of their own free will and pursuit they are engaged in a relationship of a certain intensity, and the adult is equally as willing and open a participant, then I see nothing wrong with it.
Love is an odd thing. It knows no bounds, and knows no decency, often enough.
What starts as an immature fling with a teenager has potential to be a very meaningful relationship, depending. Some marry that way.
You can marry at 12 in some States in the U.S. And married partners in those States generally are precluded from possible prosecution because of their married status.
Because you find it personally distasteful does not make it "wrong" or any other such thing. It simply is.
Rape is rape, and I wouldn't have it judged any other way. What is less than that, and "statutory" is social, cultural control and interference into the lives of private citizens.
I specifically want children protected, which is why I support moving an inflexible, constraining Law from atop them in recognition of that it is only by using one's own sense and developing one's own judgement that one is truly protected, and using it and having that judgement respected.
If you dismiss children, you are as guilty of their rape as their rapist.
The child was purposefully, in this instance, as it occured "endangered" (whatwith the hottub, the porn) by the parent's knowingful actions with, as I believe it, essentially that intention.
The parents should be prosecuted, if anyone. Not negligance; willful endangerment.
Ironically enough, something I believe Michael Jackson, roles reversed, would never do.
Now you tell me again how I am an evil pedophile for saying what I've said and go and report me as such as well as for being a murderer and animal abuser.
so because some states say that a married man is "entitled" to sex with his wife whether or not she agrees to it, it's not rape? You also ramble on about how one's judgement should be used and respected. Just how is it to be determined that one's judgement is significantly developed enough to handle the responsibility of sex, or anything else for that matter? Please, enlighten me since you are so obviously all knowing.
You claim that "rape is rape". Is murder then murder? Should there not be varying degrees of murder? What about manslaughter? Hell, in that case, forget assigning levels of depth to crimes, from now on, ALL speeding tickets are equal, whether you were 10 mph over or 100. Why stop there, why not just eradicate all categories of law-breaking and just have one penalty be applied, regardless of which law was broken, since, according to your utopia, "rape is rape" and there are no shades of grey.
To try and condone sex with a 6yr old child by comparing how a 40yr old dresses is ludicrous.
The fact that some states have antiquated laws which allow 12yr olds to marry does not legitimize an 34yr old having sex with a 13yr old. Many of these same states have laws which also state that husbands may beat their wives as long as the strap is less than 2" in width.
"if the young person believes it of their own free will and pursuit.." So as long as said young person believe it is of their own free will it's ok? What happens when said young person is brainwashed into believing that it's alright? It's not hard to do, I know many divorce cases where children have been turned against another parent by a vengeful parent and made to believe all sorts of terrible things about the other parent. "If mommy says it's true, it must be." Even adults are susceptible to being brainwashed by enough forceful and repetitive teachings. How then is it to be determined that the child has made a "good judgement" call?
Your writings have more holes in them than Bush's war in Iraq stories do.
