Michael Jackson is innocent

[MaxDepth]

Have you ever seen a grown man naked, Jimmy?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: MrBond

Fixed.

- M4H

In my original post, the death sentence was implied, because while you can't give a child molester the death sentence, it's usually carried out by other inmates. I should have typed "..see them in prison where they die violently at the hands of other prisoners"

Ususally? that's absurd. what percentage of people sent to jail for child sex offences are eventually murdered by other prisoners?

They're never murdered, they just decide to commit suicide.

- M4H

Usually they do it by hanging after stabbing themselves in the back 14 times with a pole axe.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

Well, no offense, but I've tried several molestation cases, and I take it you haven't. Every piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence is quite meaningful in a he-said, she-said case like this one, and once it's raised, it becomes incumbent on the defense to explain it. That will mean putting MJ on the stand, something that is quite likely to turn into a train wreck. Mesereau is in an unenviable position in that respect. It's ultimately MJ's choice to testify or not, but once he gets up there, if he does, this already-strange trial will turn into a complete circus.

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

of course theyre going to look if given the oppurtunity. but the question is: would you leave your porn laying around when you know you have kids coming to your house? especially if you were mj and his history with this stuff?

do you not think it odd or of ill intent that jackson made it so readily avialable to these kids?

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Remember in middle school when you were the little geek... different than everyone else. People picked on you non-stop, bullies beat up on you, you got picked last for sports teams. Yeah don't bs me... this is ATOT... 90% of you know exactly what I'm talking about.

LOL. This isn't the internet of 10, or even 5, years ago. Most people on ATOT were just your average kids growing up. The lame cliche that everyone on the internet must be a pasty geek is SOOOO tired and played out. It's a thinly veiled insult - and a poor one at that.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

I believe the alleged victim and his brother have already testified that Michael showed them the pornography. As I said, this is very common grooming behavior in child molestation cases (though, as I said above, I'm not presuming MJ's guilt - he's just too strange for me to have any confidence as to his guilt or innocence).

I have prosecuted and defended molestation cases. Fortunately the ones I've defended involved fairly minor offenders. Among others, I prosecuted what was almost certainly the worst molestation case in the history of the Air Force - the offender committed some acts that are almost unbelievably fiendish, and received life in prison.

Wow.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

I believe the alleged victim and his brother have already testified that Michael showed them the pornography. As I said, this is very common grooming behavior in child molestation cases (though, as I said above, I'm not presuming MJ's guilt - he's just too strange for me to have any confidence as to his guilt or innocence).

I have prosecuted and defended molestation cases. Fortunately the ones I've defended involved fairly minor offenders. Among others, I prosecuted what was almost certainly the worst molestation case in the history of the Air Force - the offender committed some acts that are almost unbelievably fiendish, and received life in prison.

Wow.

If you're curious, you can read about it in this thread.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: shimsham
i dont know if hes guilty or not, but all the signs are there. as much as i can make out from what ive been able to stomach on tv, i believe he is.

guilty of what, specifically? what do you perceive the charges against him to be?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

Well, no offense, but I've tried several molestation cases, and I take it you haven't. Every piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence is quite meaningful in a he-said, she-said case like this one, and once it's raised, it becomes incumbent on the defense to explain it. That will mean putting MJ on the stand, something that is quite likely to turn into a train wreck. Mesereau is in an unenviable position in that respect. It's ultimately MJ's choice to testify or not, but once he gets up there, if he does, this already-strange trial will turn into a complete circus.

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

of course theyre going to look if given the oppurtunity. but the question is: would you leave your porn laying around when you know you have kids coming to your house? especially if you were mj and his history with this stuff?

do you not think it odd or of ill intent that jackson made it so readily avialable to these kids?

I don't know. I think things can look very odd, or very normal, depending on the surrounding context. There is some porn floating about in my house. If I was baby-sitting my neices/ nephews I'd gather it up and stack it away, I guess. Hopefully I'd find it all. I also have some of the art/ fashion photography books that were found in MJ's house. These are books by Bruce Weber. Anyone interested in fashion, art, fashion photography, photography or advertising might have books by Weber on their book shelf (he is a well known contemporary photographer). But these books are being characterized as "pornographic" or containing kiddie porn images. Some of his work features images of youth, but I wouldn't describe the images featuring children as sexual. (Some of his work is sort of sexual, altho not pornographic, but that work features adult models). Basically, I think the stuff found in MJ's house is the kind of stuff you'd find in any house owned by a vaguely cosmopolitan bachelor in 2005. It only looks incriminating against the backdrop of allegations of child sexual abuse against MJ.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
If you're curious, you can read about it in this thread.

So what were the full extent of his crimes?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: Doboji
Remember in middle school when you were the little geek... different than everyone else.

Nope.

There's at this point 0 evidence to show that he did any child molestation. In FACT the evidence they're producing... ooodles of STRAIGHT ADULT PORN... shows just the opposite.

The testimony of the actual child who was molested isn't enough? Also, where do you get the idea that men who molest little boys can't also watch straight adult porn?

You must mean the testimony that kept changing.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
If you're curious, you can read about it in this thread.

So what were the full extent of his crimes?

Here's an excerpt from a document I wrote in connection with the case that lays it out. This stuff is all a matter of public record, since he was convicted, and it was all aired at trial. I have excised the names of the innocent:

a. The accused began a sexual relationship with his daughter, Briquel E, in approximately 1995, when she was 4 years old. Briquel recalls the accused vaginally penetrating her with his penis at that time, and remembers bleeding from the trauma of intercourse. She states that the accused had oral, anal, and vaginal sex with her several times per week between 1995 and the summer of 2001, during which time he was enlisted in the United States Army and stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. Most of the sexual acts occurred in Kansas, but at least one rape of Briquel occurred in Utah. The accused also molested Briquel by fondling her breasts, legs, buttocks, and private parts with his hands, by placing his mouth on her breasts, and by taking showers and baths with her. In one instance, the accused also encouraged her to have sexual intercourse with her older brother, Jason, then return and tell the accused about the sexual act. The accused showed Briquel pornographic pictures and videos on numerous occasions.

b. During the summer of 1997, the accused picked up Ashley E, his daughter from a prior marriage, from her mother?s home in Utah. Ashley, then 9 years old, was to spend several weeks with the accused and his family in Kansas. During the cross-country drive back to Kansas, and after arriving there, the accused repeatedly molested Ashley, by removing her clothes while she was sleeping and placing his finger in her vagina while masturbating himself to ejaculation, by fondling her thigh and vagina with his hands, by forcing her to fondle his penis, and by rubbing his penis on her leg and buttocks. In approximately August 1997, the accused raped Ashley in Kansas.

c. In 1999, the accused played a ?strip blackjack? card game with his daughter Briquel and a neighbor girl, Brittany G. During the game, he placed Briquel and Brittany Gon his lap and put his hand down the underpants of Brittany Gand fondled her genitals. He was subsequently charged for this conduct and tried by court-martial. He encouraged his daughter Briquel to testify falsely on his behalf at the trial, and deny the molestation had taken place. She did so, and he was acquitted.

d. The accused left active duty with the Army in June 2001, and entered the Air Force on 29 August 2001. He was assigned to the 62d Transportation Squadron, McChord AFB. He moved to Washington in September 2001, but his family remained behind while the accused awaited placement in base housing. During the fall of 2001, the accused spoke to Briquel on the telephone, and asked her to masturbate while the two spoke. When he returned to Kansas for the Christmas holiday, he engaged in more sexual acts with Briquel, including inserting a dildo into her vagina, and taking nude Polaroid photographs of her. He subsequently burned the photographs in a barbeque grill.

e. On 4 Feb 02, the accused, after a proper rights advisement, confessed to his commander, Maj Arthur B, that he had molested his daughter, Briquel, but declined to provide any additional details. On 7 Feb 02, Maj B ordered the accused to refrain from contacting his wife, Angela, or any of their children. On 21 Feb 02, the accused violated this order by calling Angela E on the telephone.

f. In addition to the foregoing, charged offenses, the accused committed additional acts that may not be charged at trial, by operation of the applicable statutes of limitations, or because they occurred during his break in military service. We anticipate offering these for consideration by the finder of fact in reaching an appropriate sentence. Specifically, the accused digitally penetrated Briquel on a number of occasions at ages 2-7, and, when she was approximately 3, placed her nude atop her infant brother in an effort to initiate intercourse. Additionally, during his break in service, the accused showed the then 9-year-old Briquel bestiality pornography depicting sex between women and dogs, then attempted to mate her with a German shepard the family was dogsitting.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Doboji
This whole thing is disgrace.... doesnt this man have the right to a private trial?

Private trial? All trials are public and are a matter of public record and for good reason.

Exactly. We've got to take the good with the bad. Open public trials help ensure fairness because everyone can see for themselves what went on.

Guilty or not, Michael Jackson made himself into a media sideshow freak. I have little sympathy for him.

 

[joecool]

sorry, he's a complete freak. his issues go way beyond just looking different. look at the way he treats his "own" children. if he's not guilty i'd be completely shocked. why the fvck is he always hanging out with (and corrupting - booze, porn, no rules) young boys anyway?

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: shimsham
i dont know if hes guilty or not, but all the signs are there. as much as i can make out from what ive been able to stomach on tv, i believe he is.

guilty of what, specifically? what do you perceive the charges against him to be?

i think hes guilty of these charges. thats old, but the quickest and easiest i could find.

im not sure on the conspiracy charges, as i think the mother never really had a problem with him going there, so i really havent paid much attention or read up on those as the media saturation is already too much. any links or opinions on the conspiracy charges?

 

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps if he hadn't already bought off one accuser, I wouldn't be so suspicious.......

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Perhaps if he hadn't already bought off one accuser, I wouldn't be so suspicious.......

You mean he paid the accuser so he'd stop with the false allegations and frivolous lawsuits?

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: shimsham

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

Well, no offense, but I've tried several molestation cases, and I take it you haven't. Every piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence is quite meaningful in a he-said, she-said case like this one, and once it's raised, it becomes incumbent on the defense to explain it. That will mean putting MJ on the stand, something that is quite likely to turn into a train wreck. Mesereau is in an unenviable position in that respect. It's ultimately MJ's choice to testify or not, but once he gets up there, if he does, this already-strange trial will turn into a complete circus.

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

of course theyre going to look if given the oppurtunity. but the question is: would you leave your porn laying around when you know you have kids coming to your house? especially if you were mj and his history with this stuff?

do you not think it odd or of ill intent that jackson made it so readily avialable to these kids?

I don't know. I think things can look very odd, or very normal, depending on the surrounding context. There is some porn floating about in my house. If I was baby-sitting my neices/ nephews I'd gather it up and stack it away, I guess. Hopefully I'd find it all. I also have some of the art/ fashion photography books that were found in MJ's house. These are books by Bruce Weber. Anyone interested in fashion, art, fashion photography, photography or advertising might have books by Weber on their book shelf (he is a well known contemporary photographer). But these books are being characterized as "pornographic" or containing kiddie porn images. Some of his work features images of youth, but I wouldn't describe the images as sexual. Basically, I think the stuff found in MJ's house is the kind of stuff you'd find in any house owned by a vaguely cosmopolitan bachelor in 2005. It only looks incriminating against the backdrop of allegations of child sexual abuse against MJ.

i agree that isnt out of the norm. but just as you and i would clean up and make sure that wasnt about when we know children are coming, it seems that jackson didnt. sure it makes it worse that this a child molestation case, but why else would something like that come up?

what if you or i were busted by someones kid? lets say a mag fell from the top shelf of the closet and a wandering kid found it when he was staying at our house. if its an older boy, id speculate he wouldnt say anything. a younger kid would maybe tell his parents, and they might mention it to us, and we would apologize and try to be sure it didnt happen again. or maybe nothing would be said, and the parents would just make sure they dont let the kid wander around. chances are it would stop there unless there were other signs pointing elswhere.

thats all worthless speculation really. my point is that i dont find it condemning that they found those things in his house, or even that a kid may be exposed to it in certain cases as the one i blathered about above. but added on with this whole debacle, and they way it was allegedly used, and its just another piece of the puzzle.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Perhaps if he hadn't already bought off one accuser, I wouldn't be so suspicious.......

You mean he paid the accuser so he'd stop with the false allegations and frivolous lawsuits?

I can't help but wonder why you're defending him so zealously. As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea if he's guilty or innocent, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't pay $15M to someone claiming I molested him unless I was seriously lacking in confidence I would be exonerated. If the case were really "frivolous," I wouldn't pay a penny. IIRC he only agreed to settle after the child was able to provide a very specific physical description of his penis.

 

[Conky]

What I find interesting is that Jackson had porno rags of any kind and that he doesn't seem to dispute this.

What happened to all the "he's really just an overgrown innocent child" stuff? How many innocent kids read Hustler? Hell, I don't even read Hustler anymore and I ain't as old as Mike. :laugh:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Perhaps if he hadn't already bought off one accuser, I wouldn't be so suspicious.......

You mean he paid the accuser so he'd stop with the false allegations and frivolous lawsuits?

I can't help but wonder why you're defending him so zealously. As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea if he's guilty or innocent, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't pay $15M to someone claiming I molested him unless I was seriously lacking in confidence I would be exonerated. If the case were really "frivolous," I wouldn't pay a penny. IIRC he only agreed to settle after the child was able to provide a very specific physical description of his penis.

Of course, thanks to the internet, the entire world can now provide a very specific physical description of Michael Jackson's penis.

I don't find dabuddha's objections to be particularly zealous (or even a defence of MJ). He's only pointing out inconsistencies or weaknesses in the prosecution's case. I don't really have a strong opinion on MJ's innocence or guilt. I am skeptical of the prosecution case, tho, and it really irritates me that so many people blithely assume he is guilty (apparently without being able to provide many specific reasons why they think that way). I also find the calls for him to be executed, murdered in jail, etc. (assuming he is guilty) to be absurd. People seem to throw reason and decency out the window, when the topic of child molestation comes up.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Perhaps if he hadn't already bought off one accuser, I wouldn't be so suspicious.......

You mean he paid the accuser so he'd stop with the false allegations and frivolous lawsuits?

I can't help but wonder why you're defending him so zealously. As I have said repeatedly, I have no idea if he's guilty or innocent, but I know I sure as hell wouldn't pay $15M to someone claiming I molested him unless I was seriously lacking in confidence I would be exonerated. If the case were really "frivolous," I wouldn't pay a penny. IIRC he only agreed to settle after the child was able to provide a very specific physical description of his penis.

Not defending him zealously. I just believe that he's innocent until proven guilty, something you should probably believe too.

 

[BAMAVOO]

I saw the dirty glove. I KNOW he is guilty!

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
I'd rather child molestors get publicly humiliated and picked on than slip under the radar.

And see this is exactly what I'm talking about.... until it's proven that he actually molested ANYONE, we can't declare him a childmolestor. Sure if the trial says he's guilty THEN the details could be released... but until he's found guilty this whole thing is a travesty.

-Max

If there's 0 evidence he did any child molestation, it never would have become a trial. His penchant and former cases against him do nothing to help/prove his innocence.

If your child was molested or raped by a neighbor, would you give him the benefit of the doubt? Continue to go over and have beers while playing poker with him, while charges were brought up against him? No, you'd judge him based off what someone else said.

So you're saying he's guilty since there's a trial. :disgust:

 

[DrPizza]

If what I read is correct, the accuser was emotionally upset when describing one instance of something MJ did that upset him (completely unrelated to any fondling)

The accuser's speech wasn't very clear - more like mumbling most of the time... except
When the accuser gave an account of the alleged fondling, no emotion was shown and he spoke very clearly - obviously coached.

Now, why would he be emotional over something like MJ not meeting him on one occasion, but have no emotion over being fondled?

 

[DrPizza]

Another thing...

MJ had adult porn, not child porn.

I don't know. Do pedophiles who are interested in little boys get off by looking at porn of adult women? It doesn't make sense to me.