The Michael Jackson interview

[Bardan the Slayer]

At this point, I guess I should add something -

In this country, we saw the documentary a few days earlier than you guys. Since then, on every breakfast, lunch or evening news programme, we have seen a (usually American) lawyer/psychologist/whaveter come on the screen, telling us how this programme is proof that MJ is some undeniably twisted deviant that is a danger to any and all children coming within 500 miles. To listen to them, you'd think he was responsible for every major atrocity committed in the past 44 years.

I think their reaction has been over-the-top, and hearing someone condemned so badly for just about everything you could think of (some American lawyer on this morning was saying that she would have his children taken away from him this moment based on the transcript alone), without any definitive proof, is really starting to grate on my nerves. Consider my first post on this thread to be a response not only to people on this thread, but to those we see on the news telling us that Tomás de Torquemada has been reborn in a thin, rather mad musician.

If this led me to go overboard on my responses here, then I apologise.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Well Bardan, I think you have definitely qualified today's "Over The Top" Response Award. Charlie was a bit "over the top" himself in saying that anybody he suspects of being a child molestor is an arse-hole...but you're response blew his completely out of the water. It also overlooked, ignored, or exaggerated several points that have been made. 1) NOBODY has accused Michael Jackson of abusing his children. Several have voiced their suspicions that he has molested children. One isn't better than the other, but they are two separate issues. 2) NOBODY is calling for Michael Jackson to be "locked away". Several people just feel it is unwise for him to be around young children that aren't related to him. Most people also feel that sleeping in the same room (and especially the same bed) with these same children is more than just wierd or eccentric. Cloudy pointed out the specific comment by Michael Jackson where he said his relationship was very "loving" and asked "What's wrong with sharing a love?" with a 12 yr old. I'm sorry, but that simply is not "normal behavior" for a 44 year old man. My coworker told me that this same 12 yr old was sitting next to Michael and holding his hand during parts of the interview. Again, this goes beyond just being "odd". 3) NOBODY has suggested anything amiss with sleeping with your own children (whether biological or adopted). That IS normal. Sleeping with the child of a stranger is NOT! The same goes for your niece and nephew. Falling asleep in front of the TV is completely normal. If you both got up and went to sleep in the same bed, I might find that a bit more odd...but it still isn't on the same scale of sleeping in the same room (or bed) with other peoples children on a regular basis. 4) NOBODY claimed that Michael Jackson had any "sinister purpose" for making his children wear masks and veils in public. You claim that he "may just be trying to protect them from the media". The only way he will be able to do that is to keep them in the house all the time. Whenever Michael Jackson leaves NeverLand, it is a media event. It's just a fact of life because of who he is. Dressing his children in feathered masks is only adding to the media's frenzy - not taking away from. Which brings me to a point that hasn't been mentioned yet. I think it's very ironic that - in trying to "protect" his children (by making them wear masks and cover themselves from head to toe) - Michael Jackson is also "stealing their childhood" just as his was stolen from him. You say that "maybe he doesn't want the media to know what they look like". Fair enough. Maybe he doesn't. But my question is "What's the purpose of hiding thier identity?" Is it so that they could go out in public un-molested? That isn't going to happen...because he never lets them go out without the obligatory mask and body garments. He isn't "hiding them" from the media at all. If anything, they are more recognizable, not less. I understand the primary point of your post, Bardan. NOBODY has anything more substantial than suspicions to base any of their child-molestation accusations on. And accusations and suspicions do not meet the "burden of proof" that the law requires. I was just surprised to see you take one statement you disagreed with and get completely carried away with it - using it to extrapolate statements and opinions into accusations that hadn't been made.

Excellent post. Child abuse issues are very emotive, this is why my opinion could be termed OTT. My primary concern is for the welfare of those children around him. Those that are currently being?, and are yet to be damaged. I think everyone has voiced the opinion of MJ's eccentricity, non normality are prevalent features of his lifestyle. I'm no longer interested in who's fault is who's. These children (possibly temporarily and imo very humble opinion) need to be removed and put in a more stable (normal) environment.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: If this led me to go overboard on my responses here, then I apologise.

You're cool, we're cool. It's only a discussion.

[Bardan the Slayer]

I always try to remember that I have a habit of overreacting. I tend not to do it in RL, where I would probably get a smack in the mush. Ah, the wonderful, intoxicating scent of invisibility that forums give you

[Mouse]

Ladies and gents - this is one of these subjects that inevitably polarises opinion. Just remember that at this moment, MJ has been convicted of no crime and (as far as I know) is not facing any criminal charges relating to his "relationships" with the young boys that have been in contact with him.

By all means, debate the rights and wrongs of MJ's lifestyle and actions, but exercise restraint when debating the more extreme speculation that follows on from this subject.

[Attalus]

Let's turn the discussion on its head. Let's take MJ and his eccentricities out of it, for a bit. Say, we have a celebrity, call him X. X never has been married, except briefly. He likes girls, but not those older ones, just young ones. He is friends with a lovely 12 year old girl. Her family, who are fans as well as friends, have no problem with Miss Y spending the night with X, even though they sleep in the same bed. After all, they live in the state of Z, where your entire social position is determined by your proximity to and relationship with, celebrities. Would you, Bardan and Timber, not assume something was going on? Even though X, Y, and Y's parents deny it?

[WillowIX]

I haven´t seen this interview and I won´t be seeing it from what I have read in here.

Is MJ a fellon? I don´t know and I don´t think anyone except the involdved parties do know.

Do I dislike MJ´s behaviour? Definitely! Most of what he does seems very strange! But do we get to see all he does? Does he behave the same way all the time? I don´t know.

Is MJ a topic to get worked up about? Hmmm... LOL!

[Bardan the Slayer]

Originally posted by Attalus: Let's turn the discussion on its head. Let's take MJ and his eccentricities out of it, for a bit. Say, we have a celebrity, call him X. X never has been married, except briefly. He likes girls, but not those older ones, just young ones. He is friends with a lovely 12 year old girl. Her family, who are fans as well as friends, have no problem with Miss Y spending the night with X, even though they sleep in the same bed. After all, they live in the state of Z, where your entire social position is determined by your proximity to and relationship with, celebrities. Would you, Bardan and Timber, not assume something was going on? Even though X, Y, and Y's parents deny it?

Yes, I would *assume* that there was somehitng going on. However, I would also remember that this was exactly that - *assumption*, and knowing only all too well that "Assumption is the mother of all ****-ups", I would withold judgement until it was proven that something illegal had been happening.

I may well *suspect* something was wrong. I might even *suspect* strongly enough to inform the police of my suspicions. However, I would not refer to X as a child abuser.

I actually have little to no problem with the people that have complain to the police about people such as X and their actions. I *do* have a problem with the whole 'assumed guilt' thing. X and Y might sleep in the same bed, but that is not to say that X and Y have sex. Assuming X is guilty of a crime because he sleeps in the same bed as Y, in spite of what X, Y and Mr. Y and Mrs Y say would lead me down the road that ends in saying that any deviation from what we would expect or assume according to our societal norms must involve criminal actions, and that the evidence of witnesses is of lesser importance than the expectations and assumptions of the public. That is very dangerous ground.

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you to say X committed a criminal act and prove it. The burden is not on X to say and prove that he did not. Until the moment where it is proved that X did indeed act illegally, then you can safely call him all the names you want. until then, saying "X is a criminal" is slander (or libellous - one of the two. I am unaware of the distinction, though Inknow there is one).

Of course I believe there is a possibility MJ is a paedophile. Of course I recognise that the evidence is enough to make people regard him with varying degrees of suspicion. However, there is no proof to back those suspicions up, and until there is I am forced to conclude that MJ is not a criminal.

Of course, then we get in to the whole area of 'what would you accept as proof', and there the waters get murky

NB - the British Government has recently started making moves towards changing the burden of proof in sexual assault cases onto the defendant and not the plaintiff. However much I despise sexual criminals for the scum they are, making someone 'prove' there was consent is in my opinion assumed guilt until proven innocence, and is a terrible thing for a civilised country to even consider. I knwo this is not directly related, but perhaps it just is part of the reason the whole 'assumption' thing is strong in my mind right now.

[Dar'tanian]

personaly the man is crazy no offense to any fan. he is a pop american and world legend for hiw music. but when someone thinks there peter pan and sleeps with children something must be wrong.

[Charlie]

[quote]Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer:

Of course I believe there is a possibility MJ is a paedophile. Of course I recognise that the evidence is enough to make people regard him with varying degrees of suspicion. However, there is no proof to back those suspicions up, and until there is I am forced to conclude that MJ is not a criminal. Of course, then we get in to the whole area of 'what would you accept as proof', and there the waters get murky

The man didn't pay a token sum, nor a large sum, nor a very large sum to keep himself out of court when allegations of child abuse were made against him. He paid a sum, the magnitude of which we can only dream of...

...Here's where the waters get murky