|
Post by reality check on Jun 14, 2005 20:02:18 GMT 10
So do you all find it acceptable that he has shared his bed with young boys? He has admitted that he does so it's not speculation. And you wonder why so many people are going to find the 'innocent' verdict a bit of a joke.
The power of Celebrity wins again in America.
|
|
|
Post by go away on Jun 14, 2005 20:10:25 GMT 10
Get over yourself 'reality check.' Nothing or no one can ruin the joy we feel right now- so go stir the pot somewhere else- you're wasting your time here.
|
|
guyrox
Shower Crooner
Posts: 2
|
Post by guyrox on Jun 14, 2005 20:16:14 GMT 10
What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Bex on Jun 14, 2005 20:51:03 GMT 10
Wow never thought an MJ fan would complain....people can winge if they want, I dont particularly care, I felt like sharing my excitement with the board, I have no control over wether or not people reply....
|
|
|
Post by just a thought on Jun 14, 2005 21:30:42 GMT 10
Wow never thought an MJ fan would complain....people can winge if they want, I dont particularly care, I felt like sharing my excitement with the board, I have no control over wether or not people reply.... You could of put your post on the MJ thread or started a new thread in the General section but no you chose to start a new thread in this section. You knew full well that this would cause annoyance, but as you've just stated you "don't particularly care" and actually you do have a measure of control over replies to a thread - by not starting a thread in the first instance . Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jun 14, 2005 21:48:32 GMT 10
So do you all find it acceptable that he has shared his bed with young boys? He has admitted that he does so it's not speculation. And you wonder why so many people are going to find the 'innocent' verdict a bit of a joke. That's understandable. It's not typical behaviour but hardly a conclusive proof that he therefore did everything else.
|
|
|[ l i l - m i s h ]|
Karaoke Singer
"My soul's in my smile, don't frown... just GET UP GET UP!"
Posts: 66
|
Post by |[ l i l - m i s h ]| on Jun 14, 2005 22:39:50 GMT 10
no i'm not. if u interpret my post how i mean it, u would understand that i'm saying even if MJ WAS guilty (but this is besides the point because he isn't, in my eyes, fans/fam/friends & essentially a court of Law), the outcome can not take away the natural musical talent that Michael acquires. he is rare, unique & an influence to millions. altho i'm not a huge MJ fan as i've repeatedly stated, he has shaped & moulded the styles of my musical idols that i highly look up to & for this i totally respect Michael even more.
the music is what matters to me. eg: the same goes for Guy - if he did something that i truly do not personally believe in & it's serious, i'd still most likely support his music (if it's context remains the same), just not him as a person if the thing is really that bad. i hope that u understand what i mean now & i apologise if i have not effectively expressed what i do mean. anyways, i respect ur opinion & it would be nice if u could respect mine in return.
TC GB... mish
|
|
|
Post by Family5 unlogged on Jun 15, 2005 8:41:54 GMT 10
MJ was not found 'innocent'. He was found 'not guilty by virtue of reasonable doubt'.
Both mean he walks from court a free man. Both mean different things.
Basically the prosecution case had too many holes; whether those holes were because he is truly 'innocent' of the charges or because the evidence was much heresay, more of a 'he said/she said' nature and hard to prove none of us really know. Only Michael knows... and his victims (if he indeed even has any).
If he indeed does have victims though and is in fact a paedophile that has 'got away with it' then it will be reasonable to expect this will again raise it's ugly head. Paedophiles (many of) seem to re-commit no matter what a court of law determines them to be (guilty or innocent).
Time will tell. This has been an on again, off again, issue with MJ for quite some years now. I do so hope it is just money-hungry people 'victimising' a celebrity; rather than the unthinkable - that Michael may be a paedophile and is abusing his celebrity, fame and fortune to cover it up. Appearing to be eccentric and odd would be a good ruse if wealthy some may say.
To the person/s who made the comment/s that they would still support the music of a person they like; irrespective of their personal life: I agree if the celebrity's personal life is NOT hurting other people - then that's their business completely (e.g all parties involved are WILLING participants or of an age that they understand what that actually means). I completely disagree if one, or more, are UNWILLING participants. I could not knowingly contribute financially, thereby aiding and helping someone else to profit from or to continue any practice that involves unwilling participants or is illegal in the society I live in. What a hypocrite that celebrity would be - for example: singing about 'peace, love and respect' but in their 'personal' life being a rapist. I'd think myself an idiot and of no strength of character if I kept knowingly buying their music. Indirectly I would be telling them that it's 'okay'.
I just don't find it so simple as to go "because I like he/her music/acting/hot bod etc I'm glad they got off". For myself it's much more complex and yet simple (bit of an oxymoron I know) than that.
Paedophilia is disgusting to me. Besides being illegal it is immoral and inhumane. For myself, it is right up there with the worst of the worst crimes. If anyone sexually abused my children I am unsure if I would be able to sit on the stand and 'click my fingers at the jurors' (like the mother did) - I hope that's all I'd do; but I'd be tempted to click a loaded barrel right at his head.
I do however hope any accused person is given a fair and just trial - and that includes guilt being proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Again, the jury found Michael 'not guilty by virtue of reasonable doubt'. If you have faith in the U.S justice system you will accept and have faith in this finding as it is. If you are a blinded fan you will say it proves his 'innocence'. If you understand the legal system (any legal system) you may align yourself more with the view that a person's true innocence or guilt is irrespective - as long as justice is perceived to have been done then it is done. And 'justice' and 'guilt' and 'innocence' can sometimes be determined by the best lawyer with the best mouth in the court. Of course a cynic or a person disillusioned with the justice system would say the same thing. So will some lawmen...
Luckily for MJ he was trialled under the U.S's 'innocent until proven guilty' type system and not the Indonesian 'guilty until you prove your innocence' type system. Proving 'innocence' can be a lot harder than proving 'guilt' because of the premise you begin with. If that were the case he may well be looking at 20 years, life or the firing squad...
|
|
|
Post by Jess on Jun 15, 2005 9:02:05 GMT 10
Michael was found INNOCENT because there was NO evidence against him. Why was there no evidence? BECAUSE HE DIDNT COMMIT THE CRIME. I hate it when people sit back and judge what happened, they don't even know half of it. They don't see the damning evidence AGAINST the family because the media had already convicted him. They don't see that in 1993, Michael motioned to have a criminal trial BEFORE any civil matters, but that was denied, just so he WOULDNT have to pay those jerks "off" ... There's so much stuff about both cases that's always looked over... and if they were laid out before everyone every piece of exonerating evidence one by one, coupled with the pathetic story the family tried to submit, and if the defendents name wasn't Michael Jackson, the case would have been HECKLED out of court. I sat inside that freaking court room for three entire days for Michael. I saw it with MY OWN EYES. I'm not an idiotic and biased fan who would support someone alleged of committing the most hienous and disgusting crime. What I saw him enduring at the hands of the psychotic, evil and twisted bitch of a mother was UNJUST. It was a JOKE. I hope he counter sues her for every freaking thing she has including the stupid glasses on her stupid face. She's the guilty one. Her welfare fraud was turned over, her grifting of other people famous and not so famous was uncovered. EVIL is the only word that comes to mind. Pure freaking evil. Bah. I'm not discussing this anymore because he was FOUND INNOCENT OF ALL 10 CHARGES. Justice WAS SERVED. After almost THREE YEARS of this; Michael didn't just "Get off" (because he did nothing in the first place) but he was VINDICATED. ACQUITTED!!!!!!!!! And no one can take that happiness away from his fans! No matter what pitfiul and childish Michael Jackson slurs you come up with, whatever weak arguments you try to present (doesnt matter cause you weren't there so you don't know) and give it a couple of weeks, Michael will be walking around with a smile dancing across his lips like it should be. WE WON WE WON WE WON WE WON WE WON. EVIL LOSES EVIL LOSES EVIL LOSES. I would like to thank my friends.... my family.... God... hahaha. We, the fans, his family, his friends, his silent supporters, his lawyers, himself... We ALL won. The truth was his salvation. And I won't stop smiling
|
|
|
Post by Anna on Jun 15, 2005 9:17:25 GMT 10
I have no time to read this, but felt i needed to reply because I I'm still smiling too!!
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 15, 2005 9:41:52 GMT 10
I agree with everything family5 has put forward, well said.
Yes, I think he probably was innocent of the charges bought against him by that particular family but the fact remains that Michael himself has admitted that he has teenage boys share his bed with him. This cannot be excused as eccentric or being 'outside the box' behaviour. This is just plain wrong. A middle aged man should not be sharing a bed with teenage boys. He is not an eight year old having a slumber party but a grown man who should know better. If a politician did that he would be thrown out of office, if a teacher did it he/she would be sacked regardless of whether anything sexual happened or not.
And you wonder why so many people still have trouble believing his is really completely innocent. As has been mentioned in the media, his reputation is in tatters and he may wonder why but it is plainly obvious to most of the world. A middle aged man cannot share his bed with children under the age of consent and get away with his reputation intact and it would be delusional to think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Jess on Jun 15, 2005 10:31:08 GMT 10
Say what you want. He was found innocent of all 10 charges and so what if he's "different" sharing your bed with kids was maybe a stupid thing to do, fine, but it doesn't mean he is a child rapist. Whatever your argument may be, I don't care. INNOCENT OF ALL 10 CHARGES! ACQUITTED! VINDICATED!!!!!!!!!!!! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Watch his next album sell like a bitch. Bex, thanks for the call yesterday morning!!! I wanted to call you back, but by the time I finished w/ all the other calls, I left to go hang out with Anna. I will call you this week. I'm saving my phone card just for you baybeee!!! xxx
|
|
|
Post by Victoria2 on Jun 15, 2005 10:39:29 GMT 10
You idiots that say 'Oh he admitted to having boys in the bed..' Yeah, when you are doing something you know other people will crucify you for you keep it a secret. Like, if you are the type of loser that has porn in the bedroom and jacks off every night, you aren't going to tell anyone. You know? But if you have nothing to hide, you tend to not keep it a secret. A REAL pedophile would NEVER EVER had amitted that. They appear to be anything but. Michael Jackson has never tried to throw people off by trying to act like something he's not. He's free of this bullshit. Ha. HA. Ha. Eat shit.
|
|
|
Post by Family5 unlogged on Jun 15, 2005 11:00:28 GMT 10
I agree with everything family5 has put forward, well said. Yes, I think he probably was innocent of the charges bought against him by that particular family but the fact remains that Michael himself has admitted that he has teenage boys share his bed with him. This cannot be excused as eccentric or being 'outside the box' behaviour. This is just plain wrong. A middle aged man should not be sharing a bed with teenage boys. He is not an eight year old having a slumber party but a grown man who should know better. If a politician did that he would be thrown out of office, if a teacher did it he/she would be sacked regardless of whether anything sexual happened or not. And you wonder why so many people still have trouble believing his is really completely innocent. As has been mentioned in the media, his reputation is in tatters and he may wonder why but it is plainly obvious to most of the world. A middle aged man cannot share his bed with children under the age of consent and get away with his reputation intact and it would be delusional to think otherwise. Exactly. In a nutshell. However to extrapolate this out further giving my opinion: If he were the father of said children and they were jumping in/on his bed to watch the T.V with him or to have a yap I would be of a different mind. I slept in this MASSIVE bigger than king size bed once at Disneyworld and I've always said I'd love one of those where the 'kids' (being MY OWN children) could come in and snuggle up (when little); then when older come and jump on the bed and talk to me about what they got up to at the party/club/friend's place the night before. Unfortunately my bedroom is smaller than that bed! Now my teens sometimes run in and take a flying leap on top of my bed and nearly break my legs... it's not usually to give me any juicy gossip about their lives though... it's to ask 'where's my breaky Mum'! I would not want other people's children or teens to come into my bedroom though and into my bed. If they are having a sleepover or party they can have it in the family room with their friends; or in their bedroom if they are all of the same sex. Once doesn't go inviting trouble. I did not actually give my opinion on MJ's guilt or innocence, perse, as I have no idea which he is. I wasn't there and haven't shared any part of his everyday life with him; day after day, year after year to really know and understand the man. I do agree however that this particular family appears to have more evidence against them and their integrity than Michael has against him. The trial bears that out. But I still don't understand why a "middle aged man" would still be sharing a bed with teenage boys after years of this tainting him. And why only boys? What does he have against girls coming for some popcorn, playstation and a sleepover party? Why is he careful to not have little girls or teenage girls in his bed? I'd find it hard to argue he'd be worried on the basis of his 'reputation' because he's not worried about that for 10 years. He needs to get other people's boys out of his bed... and if he can't it needs to be asked what payoff is he getting from this continued behaviour. To Jessypoo... you hate it when you perceive people are 'sitting back and judging' but that is what you are doing to others is it not? Just on the other side of the fence. I loved MJ, he was one of my idols for many years, but that doesn't change the facts. The fact is he was charged because the law thought they had evidence that he had committed a crime. It was bought before a judge who also thought there was enough evidence to proceed with a criminal conviction. It 'proceeded' (the court case, trial, jurors etc) and the evidence presented in this particular case was then ultimately found to be not solid enough. You may be right - it may not be solid because it was fabricated. Or you may still be right - it may not be solid because it was fabricated in this particular instance (and the jurors can only find on what is presented to them in the courtroom in the particular case before them). Or you may not be right and he may not be innocent. He may be innocent in relation to this child but not to others. Or he may have gotten away with it. You are naive if you think that one court decision proves someone's total innocence, or total guilt for that matter. About anybody. Have some of MJ's fans given consideration to abused children's feelings? Any children? Anywhere? To the feelings of mothers or fathers with abused children? I read today in the paper a fan's words saying they were so glad he got off because he's 'cool' and so is his music. Such glib lines some espouse. To Victoria2... I follow your reasoning and logic but find it lacking a little. There are people that deliberately put stuff right out there - they are hoping you will buy into the 'no way, if they were doing that they'd keep it a secret' mentality. Have you personally lived with MJ & you are a confidante of his? If so you should be respecting your relationship with him and refraining from making comments on a public forum such as this. If you are just a fan of his with no personal, intimate knowledge of the man then making derogatory comments to other members of this board because they don't share your view (or even those who do share your view on his innocence but not your passion of opinion) in relation to something none of us could possibly know the truth of seems pointless. I would hope he was found not guilty because he is innocent... not because he's 'cool' or 'his music brings back good memories' or he's someone's 'idol' for now.
|
|
|
Post by get it right on Jun 15, 2005 11:44:17 GMT 10
You idiots that say 'Oh he admitted to having boys in the bed..' Yeah, when you are doing something you know other people will crucify you for you keep it a secret. But if you have nothing to hide, you tend to not keep it a secret. A REAL pedophile would NEVER EVER had amitted that. They appear to be anything but. Michael Jackson has never tried to throw people off by trying to act like something he's not. In actual fact, many pedophiles go out of their way to justify their behaviour and portray it as normal
|
|