Peter Pan is Free

[Megashrap]

Micheal Jackson hasn't molested anyone or given alcohol to any minors, it was proven in a court of law.

I disagree, the only thing proven in that case was the prosecution relied far too much on thier star witnesses. What gets me were people outside the courthouse releasing dove's, crying etc. like that verdict was some sort of instant demon to angel transformation that cannot ever be questioned again, and the earth is now in great harmony. Do you really think that the case proved that he didn't or could never have done just some of those things, given the fact that for one, he said himself that he slept in the same bed with kids and felt it was "normal"? For me, that admission alone is enough to send red flags screaming up a pole. Take away the stardom, the plastic surguries, money etc..etc. and imagine it's just your nieghbor for instance that said he sleeps with kids and finds it a "normal" thing to do. any way you look at it that is some disturbing behavior.

[Wolf]

Devil, I'm not saying that Michael Jackson is a criminal on the order of Al Capone, I was simply making the example that, Jackson, being a celebrity, has the resources to keep lawyers in court for four months and muddle facts, bring in hundreds of witnesses, and easily cast "more than a reasonable dount." Any regular man, in any state of the union, would probably have been found guilty of this. Listen, there were several hundred "witnesses" called. Witnesses to what? The alleged rape? No, they were simply all of Jackson's friends and contacts. That makes them legal experts on his molestation? I don't think so. Back to my original point. If there is sufficient evidence to condemn a man, but that man makes use of his resources as a celebrity, or wealthy individual, or whatever -- I compared him to Capone here because Capone had his network of threats and bribes, and, yes, Jackson is not as bad, but Jackson's method of escaping punishment was also beyond-the-usual-conduct-of-law -- to escape condemnation, then a court of law must use the crimes that he committed that are easiest to condemn him for to send him away for the punishment that he deserves. Does that make sense? I think so. And, yes, I know that parents serve alcohol to minors everyday on this wonderful planet, Devil, and I did not mean to say that everyone who does that deserves twenty years in jail! You put those words in my mouth, what I meant to say I said up above in this post -- and further, read the laws of some US states. If an individual serves alcohol to a minor in a case of alleged sexual misconduct that adult is almost always found guilty. *In New York state, it's expressly state that if a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct *when either of them was under the influence of alcohol* the man is almost always found guilty. This isn't some parent giving their kid a glass of wine, this is an individual giving an unrelated child who was placed in their care a glass of wine before allegedly sexually stimulating him. Those situations are different.

Now, to make things clear, Devil, I really don't feel as strongly about this as you do. Mainly, that's because of what I see here as an obvious act of karma. Jackson was able to rally a large base of funds with which to defend himself in court. However, he's essentially bankrupted himself as a result. Now, we all know his career is shot to pieces, and he won't be making that money back. So, was the man punished? Sure. In fact, and I feel perfectly right in saying this, anyone who is subjected -- on either side -- to a civil law case in which the media is involved is already punished enough.

And lastly, guys, the Neverland Ranch is across the street from an elementary school.

That sure wasn't an accident.

*EDIT: And, yes, 20 years is too much. Whatever the sentance for molesting children should be is, I don't know it.

[Khan]

I disagree, the only thing proven in that case was the prosecution relied far too much on thier star witnesses. What gets me were people outside the courthouse releasing dove's, crying etc. like that verdict was some sort of instant demon to angel transformation that cannot ever be questioned again, and the earth is now in great harmony. Do you really think that the case proved that he didn't or could never have done just some of those things, given the fact that for one, he said himself that he slept in the same bed with kids and felt it was "normal"? For me, that admission alone is enough to send red flags screaming up a pole. Take away the stardom, the plastic surguries, money etc..etc. and imagine it's just your nieghbor for instance that said he sleeps with kids and finds it a "normal" thing to do. any way you look at it that is some disturbing behavior.

Well actually, technically the court case did prove that it never happened, that's kind of the point. But yeah I agree those people with the doves were a bit creepy, especially that irish bloke. Also not being normal isn't a crime, and sleeping in the same bed as children isn't illegal or immoral, and whether people would accept it from anyone else isn't really the issue, besides most people don't seem to accept it as something normal from Jackson, only his hardcore fans who were outside the courthouse, the only people American media seemed to bother with.

[Voodoo Daddy]

Well actually, technically the court case did prove that it never happened, that's kind of the point.

Well, no not really, technically the outcome means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a resonable doubt" that he did. Which is necessary to convict. They did not "prove" that it never happened.

[VigilVirus]

*In New York state, it's expressly state that if a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct *when either of them was under the influence of alcohol* the man is almost always found guilty. This isn't some parent giving their kid a glass of wine, this is an individual giving an unrelated child who was placed in their care a glass of wine before allegedly sexually stimulating him. Those situations are different.

Now, to make things clear, Devil, I really don't feel as strongly about this as you do. Mainly, that's because of what I see here as an obvious act of karma. Jackson was able to rally a large base of funds with which to defend himself in court. However, he's essentially bankrupted himself as a result. Now, we all know his career is shot to pieces, and he won't be making that money back. So, was the man punished? Sure. In fact, and I feel perfectly right in saying this, anyone who is subjected -- on either side -- to a civil law case in which the media is involved is already punished enough.

And lastly, guys, the Neverland Ranch is across the street from an elementary school.

That sure wasn't an accident.

*EDIT: And, yes, 20 years is too much. Whatever the sentance for molesting children should be is, I don't know it.

You're arguing for exactly the point I'm arguing against. Those "victims" completely ruined Jackson's career and almost bankrupted him. They deserve to be punished for that. Have you thought of the possibility that Michael Jackson is completely innocent? Despite the minor allegation of alcohol and sleeping in the same bed with children - those two things aren't on top of the list for his alleged crimes. There was not a single witness that could prove or even keep their story straight in the case of the actual charge - molestation. No one truly cares if Michael Jackson serves alcohol to children, all that people will care about are all those newspaper headlines that brand him as child molester. That's what's truly unfair.

Also to be frank, I have no faith in child witnesses. They are too easily corruptible by their parents or guardians, who have their own agendas in the trial. All minors in these kinds of cases must testify under a lie detector test first before this kind of case is even opened.

And as for proving it never happened - no one has to do that. You should never have to prove your innocence. That's not what justice is about.

[Voodoo Daddy]

Those "victims" completely ruined Jackson's career and almost bankrupted him. They deserve to be punished for that.

I disagree, In order to have a career in todays throw away society, you MUST produce. (look at U2 for example) what has Michael done that is relevant to the youth today? And "they" didn't almost bankrupt him, his own actions did, between his behaviour, which if you are a celebrity, you MUST consider, and his firing of the smart financial advisors who were keeping him "afloat" even though he was no longer "producing", and surronding himself with yes men.  Hell, the Bank that was keeping him afloat with loans finally took a long hard look at him and decided that it wasn't worth the risk, not because of some lawsuit, which in the days he was producing, would of been "chump change",  but because of the low probability that he can produce anything that will generate revenue.

No one truly cares if Michael Jackson serves alcohol to children, all that people will care about are all those newspaper headlines that brand him as child molester. That's what's truly unfair.

You gotta be kidding, some maybe, but no one? you forget just how fat and wide the "Bible Belt" is in this country, and as for the newspaper headlines, at this point I think that the P.T.Barnum effect has definitely come into play- "There is no such thing as bad publicity" I mean what else has he done? he is no longer a pop star, he isn't even an working entertainer, he has reduced himself to the status of a freak show, and all thru his OWN actions.

Also to be frank, I have no faith in child witnesses. They are too easily corruptible by their parents or guardians, who have their own agendas in the trial. All minors in these kinds of cases must testify under a lie detector test first before this kind of case is even opened.

I agree

And as for proving it never happened - no one has to do that. You should never have to prove your innocence. That's not what justice is about.

Very True, however in this country, if you feel you, or someone you are a guardian of has been wronged, you do have the recourse of legal action. The accuser had the right to bring him to trial once the court determined there was sufficent evidence to proceed. That is ALSO what justice is about.  So if you don't want to wind up in this predicament, don't engage in dangerous behaviour, especially when you live under a microscope of your own making.

[Dude_Doc]

What buggs me is that Michael Jackson already in the 1990's was accused of molestation. Would you send your kid to anyone, no matter if that person is a celebirty or not, who has been accused of molestation? I wouldn't. Not a chance.

So - I think the parents made the mistake of sending their kid to Michael even though it was well documented of his "first molesteral-accusation", and I believe it is also Michael's fault that he, even if he were innocent, defied the very clear sign: Stay Away From Children!

[VigilVirus]

Being accused of a child molester is never good publicity... Some crimes might cause good publicity - such as Martha Stewart's charges of fraud, she's richer than ever now. But some crimes and/or charges are too abhorrent to lead to anything but hatred.

Cyborg, did you ever consider, assuming Michael Jackson was innocent, that some of the parents sent their children to his ranch on purpose, with an already planned false allegations of molestation?

[ps501]

Those "victims" completely ruined Jackson's career and almost bankrupted him. They deserve to be punished for that.

His career was over years ago.  Thriller was the last "popular" album he released,  since then sales have declined.

[Dude_Doc]

Cyborg, did you ever consider, assuming Michael Jackson was innocent, that some of the parents sent their children to his ranch on purpose, with an already planned false allegations of molestation?

Exactly my point. They used both Michael and their own child. What wouldn't one do for money, now?

[Voodoo Daddy]

Cyborg, did you ever consider, assuming Michael Jackson was innocent, that some of the parents sent their children to his ranch on purpose, with an already planned false allegations of molestation?

So, if you guys can figure that one out, then just how stupid is Michael?.......or, Just how obsessed is he?

[Acriku]

In my opinion, at the very least, Michael Jackson should've been checked in. I don't think he has a healthy psyche and it's even endangering his own children (hanging them over a rail and whatnot).

[Dude_Doc]

In my opinion, at the very least, Michael Jackson should've been checked in. I don't think he has a healthy psyche and it's even endangering his own children (hanging them over a rail and whatnot).

Agreed. I remember that MTV showed a program where one of Michael's supporters (or someone close to him) said to Michael that he "didn't have to do this" (directed at the changes he did on his body, whitening it and all), but Michael just "looked the other way, like he was ignoring what I said".

[VigilVirus]

It's his choice. No one can judge him on what he decides to do with his own body. And the whole issue of hanging his child over the balcony - as far as I know nothing traumatic came of that, so that's not an issue.

[Acriku]

It's his choice. No one can judge him on what he decides to do with his own body. And the whole issue of hanging his child over the balcony - as far as I know nothing traumatic came of that, so that's not an issue.

Not an issue? I'm sorry, but hanging a child over a balcony only reveals how unhealthy Michael is.

[Dude_Doc]

It's his choice. No one can judge him on what he decides to do with his own body.

Of course, but white people would get more respect...  ::)