Michael Jackson Trial
Posted by: Malky on 26 May 2005
I now realise it was naive to post comments on Jackson's music in the music room and expect replies uninfluenced by current events.
'Off The Wall' was/is/will remain a classic work. However, people's enjoyment of his music will be irreversibly affected by current events.
Is Jacko a nonce? I don't know. He is certainly an extremely screwed-up man. By his own admission, he invited children to sleep in his bed, regardless of his intentions, this alone should constitue an act of abuse due to the disproportionate power in the relationship.
Is he just naive? I don't know. What is certain is he is unimaginably wealthy compared to most people on the planet, let alone an average American black man. This has allowed him to indulge in what, for most other people, remain fantasies. In my view this has led to, at best, an dangerous blurring of boundaries in relation to what is an acceptable relationship with a child. He certainly seems to fit the classic profile of an abuser. i.e. emotionally deprived childhood, attempts to rationalise his behaviour to himself etc... To respond to an oft asked question, no I certainly would not allow my ten year old child to be alone in his company.
I understand the trial is now in its closing stages so we will soon know what the jury has decided.
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Malky:
he is unimaginably wealthy compared to most people on the planet
That's not what I heard. Barring his assets (back catalogue, Neverland) I heard he was $38k in debt when the trial started...
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
I think those who are mouthing off about Michael Jackson would do well to await the verdict.
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by graham55
Really, Nigel?
What is your take on a man who, over (shall we say 15 years) has entertained eight, nine or ten year old boys (not girls, so far as I understand it) in his bed or bedroom, unaccompanied by a reponsible adult? Oh, and then pays their families multi-million dollar settlements to dispose of litigation.
It seems to me that, if this were the case of just about anyone else, it would not be seen as a sign of naievety ("Michael is just a child" for f*ck's sake), but as an indication that the man is a predatory, serial paedophile. I hope to goodness that he gets sent away for a very long time indeed, but I fear that he may get off. Whatever happens, he sure as f*ck won't be entertaining underage boys in his bedroom in the future, so maybe that will save a few Californian youngsters from his abuse in the years to come.
G
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
Yes, Graham, really.
What you believe is hardly the point, it is what the jury says that really counts.
You have the lynch mob mentality.
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by Malky
Graham55, he is on trial and the jury will come to their conclusions based on the evidence presented to them. My original post in the music room credited Quincy Jones, I believe a re-reading will confirm this. My reference to the black man on the cover indicated that 'Off the wall' was the last true black pop/soul album he produced before starting to go seriously off the rails. Your comparison with Charles Manson is, frankly, silly.
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by graham55
Nigel
Possibly not a lyncher.
I'm a lawyer by training and profession - civil, not criminal, but I've met and been closely involved with characters such as Asil Nadir and Robert Maxwell, to name but two. I (and others) realised that they were both wrong 'uns well before this came to the public attention. Jackson is no better, whatever the jury decides (and don't let his many million dollar defence attornies blind you to what is staring you in the face).
G
Posted on: 26 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by domfjbrown:
quote:
Originally posted by Malky:
he is unimaginably wealthy compared to most people on the planet
That's not what I heard. Barring his assets (back catalogue, Neverland) I heard he was $38k in debt when the trial started...
"Barring his assets" ?! That's rather the point isn't it? He has that debt covered by assets many times over. He will recover from his financial situation, apparently, by restraining the expenditure on his lifestyle to a mere 8m USD per year!
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
He has that debt covered by assets many times over. He will recover from his financial situation, apparently, by restraining the expenditure on his lifestyle to a mere 8m USD per year!
Wow! What the hell does he spend it on? Not sure I could live on that - tough call!
IF he has so much money, why didn't he just go to Thailand and pay for underage boy love - assuming of course that he IS a pedder-ass.
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by graham55:
Nigel
Possibly not a lyncher.
I'm a lawyer by training and profession ..... Jackson is no better, whatever the jury decides (and don't let his many million dollar defence attornies blind you to what is staring you in the face).
G
I said you had the lynch mob mentality, not that you were a lyncher.
You also seem to be a lawyer who does not accept legal process.
No doubt you susbscribe to Denning's dictum that it is better that 10 innocent men go to prison rather than 1 guilty man go free.
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Vultures around him spend his money, and he doesn't go the Neverland they come to him.
Fritz Von The man is as innocent as Graceland innee
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
You also seem to be a lawyer who does not accept legal process.
No doubt you susbscribe to Denning's dictum that it is better that 10 innocent men go to prison rather than 1 guilty man go free.
Nigel
Are you serious? Quite an attack you have made there. A lawyer who does not accept legal process? Or perhaps, rather, a lawyer who does not allow a legal process to tell him what is true and what is not?
BTW, how much do you actually know about the late Lord Denning?
Deane
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by garyi
What is clear is that this is a very sad man.
Also he creates a lot of emotion as indicated in this thread.
I personally agree that there is no innocence in MJ desire to have young boys staying in his bed, perhaps I am not enlightened, I don't know but it is not right.
My thoughts on this though is that MJ has the beetles back catalog, I wonder if he sold it back, weather all the hassle he gets would kind of disappear?
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by graham55
I've said elsewhere on this Forum all I have to say on the matter. I merely observe that none of you are volunteering to let your sons sleep in Jackson's bed. If it's all so innocent, why not?
G
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
You also seem to be a lawyer who does not accept legal process.
No doubt you susbscribe to Denning's dictum that it is better that 10 innocent men go to prison rather than 1 guilty man go free.
Nigel
Are you serious? Quite an attack you have made there. A lawyer who does not accept legal process? Or perhaps, rather, a lawyer who does not allow a legal process to tell him what is true and what is not?
BTW, how much do you actually know about the late Lord Denning?
Deane
I know like Aristotle that he was a bugger for the bottle
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by count.d
Graham,
You are trained as a lawyer, but seem to have a strange attitude about people. What is your profession and why are you an ex solicitor? If you are an ex solicitor why do you state that as your profession?
Michael Jackson's bedroom is on two floors and the bigger than my house. So, when kids state that they stayed in Jackson's bedroom, they really stayed over at his house.
I like my cats sleeping on my bed at night, but I don't want to shag them.
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by graham55:
I've said elsewhere on this Forum all I have to say on the matter. I merely observe that none of you are volunteering to let your sons sleep in Jackson's bed. If it's all so innocent, why not?
G
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't let any of my children sleep in
any man or woman's bed. Even were the risk of abuse very small, if it actually *does* happen the damage done to the child (and later on, the adult) is far too huge to contemplate exposing the child to that risk.
Posted on: 27 May 2005 by John K R
I don’t know what to think about this case. To be fair I have not heard enough of the evidence to make a truly informed decision. The guy is clearly “unusual” but not just for his relationship with children, chimps, remains of the elephant man, his cosmetic (for want of a better word) surgery are all what folks would consider weird. His reality is obviously not the reality of the average person, so the average person’s perception of things may not be the way to look at events.
quote:
I've met and been closely involved with characters such as Asil Nadir and Robert Maxwell, to name but two. I (and others) realised that they were both wrong 'uns well before this came to the public attention.
What has this got to do with Jacko?
Because you could weigh up a couple of “wrong ’uns” doesn’t make you a character analyst any more than the next bloke.
And no, I would not leave my ten year old alone with him, I don’t know him well enough, and that applies to leaving my ten year old alone with any adult I don’t know.
BTW I am not a Jacko fan, don’t own a single track of music, and I am not protesting his innocence just aiming to look at things without prejudice,
John.
Posted on: 28 May 2005 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
You also seem to be a lawyer who does not accept legal process.
No doubt you susbscribe to Denning's dictum that it is better that 10 innocent men go to prison rather than 1 guilty man go free.
Nigel
Or perhaps, rather, a lawyer who does not allow a legal process to tell him what is true and what is not?
BTW, how much do you actually know about the late Lord Denning?
Deane
In a criminal case the "truth" as to whether someone is guilty of a crime is to be determined by the jury - whether you, or I, agree with them is totally irrelevant.
What do I actually know about Denning? - in what way? He wasn't my uncle for example.
Posted on: 28 May 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
In a criminal case the "truth" as to whether someone is guilty of a crime is to be determined by the jury - whether you, or I, agree with them is totally irrelevant.
What do I actually know about Denning? - in what way? He wasn't my uncle for example.
A jury hears evidence the court finds admissable, weighs issues surrounding that evidence and decides whether or not the charge/s are
proven. While it may seem a fine distinction to some it is not the same as finding the "truth" about whether somebody is guilty of a crime - at least not to me.
"Denning's dictum" - was it obiter?
