Michael Jackson and Farrah died today

[RLENT]

Cheri,

You got it entirely correct.

Although you and I are possibly very different philosophically and politically in many respects, I would feel much more comfortable with you as a trier of fact, than perhaps with some others, who are closer to my own politics. I would trust you to do the right thing.

..... it's not about MJ at all - it's about the fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

That is exactly what it is about.

It's about the sad fact that folks are too quick to condemn what they don't understand, or like.

Or don't even possess the full facts about - merely what they have read "in the media".

One would think that seemingly bright folks would have a understanding that they are indeed not in full possession of the facts, or that they would be somewhat suspicious of the media, wherefrom they get their "info". Afterall - aren't some of these folks highly distrustful of the media in other instances ? Apparently only when what the media is reporting goes against what they would like to believe .....

I can certainly understand someone having suspicions, or with someone being cautious with their own children, in light of the circumstances .... and I have no problem with that whatsoever.

What I can not even remotely fathom however, is the ease with some folks would condemn another, and pronounce them unequivocally guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, when there are so many things that just don't jive in this case, and the only sources of "fact" that they are using, to base such a judgement on, is speculation, gossip, and rumors in the media.

It's about how a false accusation can ruin anyone's life, including yours or mine.

One can never truly appreciate such a situation until one has been, they themselves, falsely accused.

And one garners an entirely new understanding at a much, much higher level about such matters when they have been not only falsely accused - but also tried, and falsely convicted.

In my own case, it was a traffic offense (assured clear distance) - in terms of magnitude, it is a relatively minor and insignificant thing. But rest assured, being falsely accused of anything is no small matter - at least to the party so accused.

In my case it involved a very pretty 17 year-old young lady - who happened to be busily talking on her cellphone, rather than paying attention while she was driving, and who failed to use her turn-signals (either when she went completely left-of-center across a double yellow line, or when she executed a 135 degree turn and cut back across my lane, directly in front of me, into her driveway), a judge who was part of the "old-boy" network, that didn't seem particular interested in finding the truth or rendering justice, and the real "star" of the saga, a rather dim-witted, 50-ish cop (recently divorced, and apparently trolling ....) who repeatedly failed to follow departmental procedures regarding the use of audio, video, and still photo recording devices (conveniently failing to document anything), who lied repeatedly on the witness stand, perjuring himself, to cover his own *ss and incompetence.

This guy had been investigated previously by the DOJ and FBI for alleged civil rights violations (probably a case where the system did indeed fail, as he was cleared ) I actually got his shift supervisor to admit in a phone call that the officer was disciplined over his conduct in my case for failing to follow procedure ..... and that it wasn't the first time it had happened.

It also included the local prosecutor, who, since he was allowed to maintain a private practice outside of his official duties as the prosecutor of the City of Massillon, OH, had been retained by the other party (the 17 year-old) to represent them in a possible civil suit against me and my insurance company ..... before I was ever even tried (no conflict of interest there .... )

Yes indeed, one should not have much faith in our legal system .... not for the reasons previously posited: that the true criminals will fail to be tried and justly convicted - but for the reverse - the folks that comprise it can absolutely not be trusted to ensure that the truly innocent will go free.

That is the real and true danger to society, as it causes citizens to view the legal system with skepticism and distrust (and rightly so), when in fact that very system was created to protect the rights of honest/innocent citizens.

When intelligent folks ........ can see that the facts don't support the ONE accusation, and still pronounce the man guilty, I fear for the existence of justice in America.

And it is an entirely reasonable and justified fear.

You would think that folks would hold it as their sacred duty - as part of their compact with their fellow citizens - as members of what aspires to be a free and just society, to nearly go to the ends of the earth, before condemning anyone of such a heinous crime as was accused in this case - whether they were sitting as a juror, or merely just being a citizen.

But no, it is treated in an entirely frivolous manner - with the ill-informed rendering all manner of just downright foolish pronouncements, as to a party's guilt .... apparently based on nothing more than what they have read in the "media".

I have yet to see any party here, which holds that MJ was indeed guilty - offer up any source of credible evidence against him whatsoever ..... let alone one that isn't just irresponsible speculation on the part of some blogger, or a ex-security cop from a low-income housing project.

Cheri, when you get that call for jury-duty, please, please do your civic duty and sit if at all possible - the citizens of this country truly do need you.

Others would do well to consider whether or not they are capable of rising to the occasion, of setting aside their own preconceived notions and fixed ideas and allowing themselves to honestly consider the veracity of witness testimony, the real weight of the evidence, and then render a true and just verdict.

If ya can't, then just stay home .... where you are less likely to do harm.

 

[Pilgrim]

Absolutely. But whether the parents were paying attention or not, or were paying attention and didn't care, that doesn't mean anything. But, let's say the parents, in every case, weren't paying attention at all. What can we conclude from that? Well, we can conclude the parents weren't paying attention. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I can speculate, tho. Maybe they were playing Scrabble.

If they weren't paying attention to what was going on, then Jackson and his young guests were in effect "unchaperoned."

<GASP!> OMG! Alcohol in the bedroom of a 45 year old man?!?! I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Yeah, I had the same reaction. But I think we agree that Jackson was only 45 years old by the calendar. Otherwise, he seemed in many ways to have the approximate mentality of a 10 year-old; and we all know what happens when 10 year-olds get into the liquor cabinet - especially when they are in the company of other 10 year-olds. He couldn't on the one hand be a responsible 45 year-old when he was mixing drinks, and on the other hand be a 10 year-old the rest of the time.

If the sheriff's department found child pornography in his house, you would think they would have noted that in the nine-page inventory of siezed evidentiary items. But they didn't. They noted everything else, though, and in great detail. There was no library of kiddie porn. They cataloged some regular porn, tho, and all of it legal. They also found two coffee table art books that contained pictures of nude boys and women. One book, "The Chop Suey Club" contained nude photographs of boys, and is a book by the famed fashion photographer Bruce Weber.

Call it what you will, nude young boys are nude young boys. It doesn't matter if they're photographed in black & white or sepia tones or in living color. I guess if the photos are by a famous fashion photographer that makes it OK, and if they were in their early teens it's not kiddie porn Suppose the photo book had been done by Larry Flint - is it still art?

There were no other pictures of nude children, and his computer was also clean.

OK, so he had just a few pictures of nude young boys. Some of the other magazines and DVDs found were Club, Barely Legal, Couples and Pimps Up, Ho's Down - appropriate materials no doubt found in every middle school library.

I would't want kids hanging around with anyone who is that far out there for very long. There's a point where a fun visit to the amusement park with a Bozo-esque character for a nice memory becomes just creepy.

There you go - that's exactly my point. The booze, pictures, Jackson's odd behavior, etc. when taken by themselves are not anything illegal. Mix them all together and it's easy to come to the above conclusion.

 

[RLENT]

Call it what you will, nude young boys are nude young boys.

That's exactly what I'd call it - pictures of nude boys (actually I think at least one of the two books in question had pictures of nude females in it as well)

As has been pointed out before the two books in question were art books - not porn. Had they been pornographic in nature, rest assured the DA in the case would have wasted no time in seeking an indictment of MJ for possesion of child pornography, as that is illegal and a crime. He didn't, ya got nothin', case closed, try somethin' else ....

While I'm sure it will come as a great shock to many of our morally high-minded that seem to inhabit the forums here, such books (with actual pictures of nekid human bodies) are readily available and are perfectly legal. They are often used by artists and art students in studying the human form.

It doesn't matter if they're photographed in black & white or sepia tones or in living color

Only someone who was utterly unfamiliar with art could ever make such an ill-informed statement ... .... I'm very certain that I just heard Ansel Adams rolling over in his grave ....

I guess if the photos are by a famous fashion photographer that makes it OK, and if they were in their early teens it's not kiddie porn

No, entirely incorrect - but using your flawed logic (any nekid pics of anyone under the age of 18 is kiddie porn apparently) we'd probably never license another pediatrician .... since they would all be serving hard time ..... before ever making it out of med school ...

Yes, you are ... very ....

Suppose the photo book had been done by Larry Flint - is it still art?

Well, I guess that would really depend on what the actual content was, now wouldn't it ?

Given his past history, it certainly doesn't seem likely that Mr. Flynt would produce anything but porn .... but only a complete moron would assume that they could know with any certainty, whether any work was pornographic, simply by who the author was, and without even bothering to open the cover and actually look ....

OK, so he had just a few pictures of nude young boys.

Yup - that's right - just a few, they weren't pornographic, and there wasn't some treasure trove of kiddie porn like you falsely tried to portray previously.

Some of the other magazines and DVDs found were Club, Barely Legal, Couples and Pimps Up, Ho's Down

My gawd man - don't tell me - you are actually reading the list of evidence (even if it is only likely a sad attempt to justify fixed ideas and preconceived notions) .... there may yet be hope for the Republic ....

appropriate materials no doubt found in every middle school library.

Well, had MJ placed such materials in a middle school library I'd say you might have something there ..... otherwise I would say that those are things that one might well find in the private residences of surprising number of adults, many of them parents. (brings back memories of finding my friend's fathers' stash of Playboy under his parents bed .... I somehow managed to avoid being scarred for life .... although some might well disagree ... )

Pilgrim, I would have addressed all of what you said, and the above, in far greater depth ... but typing this much on the small screen of my iPhone does become somewhat tedious after a bit ...

 

[Turtle]

If they weren't paying attention to what was going on, then Jackson and his young guests were in effect "unchaperoned."

That's just one hypothetical, and there's still nothing that can be concluded by it. Even if they were 100% unchaperoned, that doesn't mean anything nefarious was going on. Of course, an unchaperoned group of real 10 year old boys is a recipe for problems, too. Not that I'd jump to the conclusion that a group of real 10 year old boys would do nothing but play doctor with each other, but it could happen.

Yeah, I had the same reaction. But I think we agree that Jackson was only 45 years old by the calendar. Otherwise, he seemed in many ways to have the approximate mentality of a 10 year-old; and we all know what happens when 10 year-olds get into the liquor cabinet - especially when they are in the company of other 10 year-olds. He couldn't on the one hand be a responsible 45 year-old when he was mixing drinks, and on the other hand be a 10 year-old the rest of the time.

I actually agree with you. But if you're going to hammer on the fact that he was a 45 year old man, then you have to allow that alcohol being present meant absolutely nothing, and that's why I was a little over-the-top sarcastic with that one.

I think that, in every sense that mattered, he wasn't a 45 year old man pretending to be a little boy when he wanted to, I think he was a little boy who pretended to be a 45 year old man when he needed to.

Call it what you will, nude young boys are nude young boys.

Exactly, that's all they were, nude young boys. They weren't illegal, and they weren't porn, child or otherwise. Nude pictures of anyone, regardless of how old or how young, isn't in and of itself pornographic. Or is it that you think all nudity is pornographic?

It doesn't matter if they're photographed in black & white or sepia tones or in living color.

Correct, it doesn't matter at all. Art can be in many forms.

I guess if the photos are by a famous fashion photographer that makes it OK,

Not necessarily, as fashion photographers are more than capable of shooting sleazy porn of all kinds, but in this case they weren't, and aren't porn, so yeah, it makes it OK.

... and if they were in their early teens it's not kiddie porn

I don't really know what the definition of kiddie porn is. I use kiddie porn and child pornography as meaning the same thing, namely pornography using anyone under the age of 18.

In any case, are you really that prudish? That any nudity of any kind of anyone under the age of 18 is actual porn? If they were engaged in anything sexual, then it would almost certainly be labeled as child pornography, or kiddie porn. But they weren't.

Suppose the photo book had been done by Larry Flint - is it still art?

Postulating a hypothetical and then drawing an unrelated conclusion from it rarely means a thing, and in the case of Larry Flint compared to Bruce Weber, it means even less. I don't know if child nudes by Larry Flint would be art or not, and neither does anyone else. But considering that, far as I know, he's never done anything particularly art worthy to this point, I'd say probably not.

OK, so he had just a few pictures of nude young boys.

Correct. Both of them high dollar art books, one was a gift, the other apparently about to be a gift to someone else. You'd think that if this guy was really into kiddie porn, that he'd have had some more laying around or hidden somewhere. The fact that his computer had no evidence whatsoever of child pornography is huge. Computer forensics experts pulled raw data in bits and pieces from deleted files and overwritten data, and found not a hint of child pornography anywhere.

Some of the other magazines and DVDs found were Club, Barely Legal, Couples and Pimps Up, Ho's Down - appropriate materials no doubt found in every middle school library.

Perhaps not appropriate for the middle school library, but not all that uncommon to be found under the mattresses of many a middle school boy.

Jackson also had a rather extensive collection, the single largest of any particular "subject", of fat lady porn. Extremely fat, fat lady porn.

There you go - that's exactly my point. The booze, pictures, Jackson's odd behavior, etc. when taken by themselves are not anything illegal. Mix them all together and it's easy to come to the above conclusion.

Easy for you, maybe. If you want to believe he was a pedophile, then you can put nearly anything together to support your conclusion. Jackson had a lot of porn and a lot of nude pictures ("a lot" is subjective, I know), but a miniscule amount of it was nude pictures of young boys, none of which were porn, none of which were even remotely close to being in the same league as the other porn he had. His porn and his non-porn pictures clearly did not fixate or center on children. His porn was regular porn. And he had booze in his house. And he acted odd. It's hard for me to take acting odd, alcohol, one-handed magazines and fat lady porn, and then conclude pedophilia from that. The only way I could do that would be if I considered any and all nudity as being pornographic, and then put all the emphasis on the art books as being kiddie porn.

Another conclusion which can be reached is that the 10 year old Michael Jackson got together with other 10 year old boys and they did what countless other 10 year old boys have done, got faced and looked at porn while alternating between laughing and giggling, and OMG that's awesome!

Another, more pathetic conclusion, is that he used his 45 year old calendar self to obtain these things in order to impress the kids, not in order to molest them, but to buy their friendship, because they were the only friends he had.

Imagine being accused of something horrific that you did not do. And being tried for it, and then even after being found not guilty, people still think you did it, anyway. And they accuse you of it again, repeatedly. Imagine that wearing on your mind, being ostracized and despised daily, for something you didn't do. Imagine trying to deal with that while having the mental maturity of a child. His life got weird long before the trial, but it was during the trial that his life started draining away, and ended with him dead at 112 pounds.

Some will assert that guilt killed him, but that kind of guilt doesn't fit the profile of the pedophile, as the "urge" always overcomes guilt in a pedophile. Much more likely what killed him was the people who presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even in the face of innocence proven, preferred the guilt.

The mind of a child can't deal with that. Now he's dead.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I am thinking back.....And really thinking about MJ and his life situation.....Dishonest adults lieing, cheats and deceivers, all wanting something from him...Whereas young children are honest and forthright and will speak form the heart how they feel and want nothing from you but a sense of belonging and FUN....Why would anyone want to surround themselves with us adults?

 

[highway star]

In an interview, one of his attorneys said he asked Michael about spending so much time with kids. Michael said that "they're the only ones that tell me the truth."

 

[cheri1122]

In spite of believing that people who harm children are the scum of the earth, [and anyone who harmed mine would be literally looking for the truck that ran him over], I think the whole sense of hysteria is sad. Because there are plenty of folks who no longer feel comfortable with their innocent impulse to hug a kid [not their own] sometimes, and the kids are poorer for it.
I also cannot understand the insistence that nudity equals sex - that is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Nor does sleeping together indicate sex - just ask my ex, lol [or any long married couple].

 

[cheri1122]

Cheri, when you get that call for jury-duty, please, please do your civic duty and sit if at all possible - the citizens of this country truly do need you.

Others would do well to consider whether or not they are capable of rising to the occasion, of setting aside their own preconceived notions and fixed ideas and allowing themselves to honestly consider the veracity of witness testimony, the real weight of the evidence, and then render a true and just verdict.

If ya can't, then just stay home .... where you are less likely to do harm.

Dang - there goes the perfect 'get out of jury duty' line I was planning to 'borrow' from LM.....
Seriously, thanks for the pat on the back - 'preciate it.

 

[Pilgrim]

That's exactly what I'd call it - pictures of nude boys (actually I think at least one of the two books in question had pictures of nude females in it as well)

As has been pointed out before the two books in question were art books - not porn. Had they been pornographic in nature, rest assured the DA in the case would have wasted no time in seeking an indictment of MJ for possesion of child pornography, as that is illegal and a crime. He didn't, ya got nothin', case closed, try somethin' else ....

While I'm sure it will come as a great shock to many of our morally high-minded that seem to inhabit the forums here, such books (with actual pictures of nekid human bodies) are readily available and are perfectly legal. They are often used by artists and art students in studying the human form.


Only someone who was utterly unfamiliar with art could ever make such an ill-informed statement ... .... I'm very certain that I just heard Ansel Adams rolling over in his grave ....


No, entirely incorrect - but using your flawed logic (any nekid pics of anyone under the age of 18 is kiddie porn apparently) we'd probably never license another pediatrician .... since they would all be serving hard time ..... before ever making it out of med school ...


Yes, you are ... very ....


Well, I guess that would really depend on what the actual content was, now wouldn't it ?

Given his past history, it certainly doesn't seem likely that Mr. Flynt would produce anything but porn .... but only a complete moron would assume that they could know with any certainty, whether any work was pornographic, simply by who the author was, and without even bothering to open the cover and actually look ....


Yup - that's right - just a few, they weren't pornographic, and there wasn't some treasure trove of kiddie porn like you falsely tried to portray previously.


My gawd man - don't tell me - you are actually reading the list of evidence (even if it is only likely a sad attempt to justify fixed ideas and preconceived notions) .... there may yet be hope for the Republic ....


Well, had MJ placed such materials in a middle school library I'd say you might have something there ..... otherwise I would say that those are things that one might well find in the private residences of surprising number of adults, many of them parents. (brings back memories of finding my friend's fathers' stash of Playboy under his parents bed .... I somehow managed to avoid being scarred for life .... although some might well disagree ... )

Pilgrim, I would have addressed all of what you said, and the above, in far greater depth ... but typing this much on the small screen of my iPhone does become somewhat tedious after a bit ...

I'm sure that from your position of moral and intellectual superiority you could parse every sentence - every syllable for that matter - ad infinitum, ad nauseum. After giving thanks to me the other night for not being long winded in a response you proceed to do exactly that, repeatedly. How lucky we all are for that exposure.


I'll try one more time to clarify my perspective and my OPINION - that's all we're dealing with here is OPINIONS, and both yours and mine are worth what they cost the reader.

• Given the context of Jacko's activities and behavior over the years - the strange behaviour, the plastic surgery to the point of self mutilation, the rumours and accusations of pedophilia, his obsession with young boys - it's my opinion that he was a pervert.
• He was declared not guilty in court - which applies only to the legal system and the one instance. I'm hardly the only one on earth that thinks he got off because he had the best lawyers money can buy. But I can't help but wonder what the verdict would have been if the trial had taken place in someplace like MO, ND or VA.
• Regarding the art books: if the were sitting on the credenza in the house of a normal person, I can see them as being valued as art. However, when being kept in the same collection as the meat books it's my opinion that they were used by Jackson in the same fashion - to appeal to his prurient interests.
• Although it's pure speculation as to what caused his death, it will probably be revealed that it was a drug overdose. Just today it was leaked that Diprivan was found in his house. It should be obvious that he wasn't mentally capable of dealing with the real world, and excessively used drugs to relieve stress, pain, sleeplessness - whatever.

Bottom line is that in my opinion, he was a fruitcake that should have been monitored whenever he was around kids. Odd that we hardly ever saw anything in the tabloids about him engaging in a normal social activities with other adults. Maybe other adults found him a little hard to take. At any rate, my opinions, "preconceived notions or fixed ideas" haven't yet disqualified me from jury duties over the past 40 years - no more so than your notions and ideas about conservatives would disqualify you. I just happen to look at the picture and see something different than you do.

By the way - you never did answer my question.