innocent until proven guilty
- but I found the relationship shown between him and the child currently in question extremely disturbing in the images in Martin Bashirs documentary. Prior to seeing his behaviour with this child and hearing his justifications for his behaviour I had been more inclined towards the possibility that he was innocent and the allegations were blackmail - on seeing the programme and hearing his attempts to justify his behaviour as normal I had serious concerns that he was guilty.
i certainly wouldn't have left any child of mine there unsupervised.
He was clearly mentally unwell and incredibly damaged emotionally.
The doctors who were prepared to perform the plastic surgery, that has made him look like a strange melted waxwork doll of a middle aged woman, have a lot to answer for. What sort of professional (vulture) would perform surgery again and again in this way on someone clearly not totally sane?
Everyone concerned with him has put money first and guarded their own income - staff didn't speak out until now, parents allowed their children to be put at risk for financial gain and only now protest, the doctors raked in the money performing the surgery - nowhere along the line does anyone seem to have done anything about this seriously damaged person and his mental health and wellbeing.
Abused children often grow up to be abusers and sadly this may well be the case here.
I'm with Osso in not wanting to come to any judgment before know a lot more about this. But he's clearly troubled, and that's something we should be ashamed of, not judgmental about, since we fuelled the machine which turned him into a freak.
It also worries me that IF he is not innocent, then some number of people may have known that over the years, and
the situation has continued, cushioned by celebrity and money on one side, and attraction to celebrity and money in the case of parents - this is conjecture of course on my part.
If he is actually innocent, then it still seems a strange situation for parents to be involving the children in.
Tartarin wrote:I'm with Osso in not wanting to come to any judgment before know a lot more about this. But he's clearly troubled, and that's something we should be ashamed of, not judgmental about, since we fuelled the machine which turned him into a freak.
You aren't saying that we're all responsible for Michaels' suspected deviate behavior, are you Tartarin? That's like saying that we're all responsible for Robert Downey's drug habit or Winona Ryder's penchant for stealing. I/we helped to make Michael Jackson a wealthy man, yes, but not a child molester.
I think the public helps to make creatures like Jackson, yes indeed.
Tartarin wrote:I think the public helps to make creatures like Jackson, yes indeed.
The Blame Everyone Else Mentality.
He is completely responsible, as we all are, for his own actions.
I've followed MJ pretty closely ever since the first time he was accused. The first boy supposedly described MJ's naked body in minute detail. I wanted very much for him to stand trial, as I do in the present case. In my own mind I judge him guilty. But, I would be capable of voting "Not guilty" if the facts as presented in court so warrent.
I think Michael Jackson can be considered 'wierd' by most standards of adult behavior, but to accuse him of pedophilia because one 12 year old says so is "going over the top." That accusation, whether Jackson is liable or not, destroys his reputation as a entertainer. If it's destroyed after it has been proved is the another matter. People will prejudge his innocence; that's the problem.
Sofia & eoe- Agree- Michael Jackson is responsible for Michael Jackson. Period. There is not doubt that he has gone through some terrible traumas in his life. I think that part of the bizarre look that he has adopted was because of his vitiligo. (Remember the glove, in the beginning?)
Before that period of time he was a handsome black man. I think that the skin condition, during the height of his popularity, might have caused irreperable emotional damage.
If it were the word of one boy alone, it would be much easier to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am not sure how many, but he has paid off more than one family to stay out of court. This is not a single boy; just the latest.
edgar, On the surface, even a few accusations would seem to give the charges credence. Howver, the reason I remain skeptical is because 1) the payoff for the accuser can result in a good pay back (in the millions), and 2) there needs to be incontrovertibel evidence that he is guilty.
One thing gets me. This guy has had problems with children before. If he had any sense, he would make it his business not to do ANYTHING that would even remotely suggest pedophilia.
As I have said before, he IS innocent until proven guilty. But my personal opinion is, that if he is not a pedophile, he is guilty of extremely bad judgment!
Phoenix, I agree; his judgement is not "normal."
I also agree with Phoenix.
I agree with Phoenix and CI to a degree. But there is far too much smoke for there to be no fire. I reiterate that I could still vote him innocent if I were on a jury and the evidence to convict turned out to be wanting.
edgar, The problems with this kind of accusation is that once made, it doesn't go away - even if he is innocent. I have known school teacher that have been accused, and it ruined his life before it was found that the child made a false accusation.
Different situation. I know that false accusations can be destructive to the innocent. In this instance, there is just too much damning evidence.
I think Vivien has said it best so far. It's likely Michael is more to be pitied than censured. This is one sick puppy, regardless of whether the most recent allegations are true or not. And, certainly, the parents share the blame in the event that the alegations are true.
In the event the allegations are true, I would be suppoortive of any penalty the court determines, but not before.
I agree that we don't know if he is guilty and that is what court is for and that until such time as it is proven in court he is an innocent man.
I agree that if he turns out to be guilty, he is fully responsible.
I also agree with Tartarin, that if he turns out to be guilty in fact, then his celebrity-hood enhanced his ability to manipulate a situation to his pleasure, and that we as a nation are pretty celebrity struck.
I agree thoroughly with CI that false accusations are dastardly, and believe that false accusations happen often.
The presence of lots of money in this situation can be an indicator either way, that a guilty offender can pay someone off, or that one or more guilty schemers can extort payment.
I agree with Edgarblythe in that in this instance while I don't know there is fire, smoke is accumulating.
