Do I dare bring up this topic?

Caprice- Welcome to A2K!

I don't know. I saw the story. It DOES seem unusual that he did give an interview to "60 Minutes". It seems like he wants the public to get behind him. I don't believe that people should be tried in the "court of public opinion".

I don't know if he sexually abused the children. What I DO know, is that this guy is guilty of very poor judgment, at the least.

I was appalled at the remark that he made that he saw nothing wrong with adult male non-relatives sleeping with boys. It also was curious that he mentioned that HE had slept with men as a child. Considering that he was accused of molestation ten years ago, if I were him, I would NEVER do anything that would raise suspicion in people.

At the very least, he is major league weird. I really wonder, considering his history, why a parent in their right minds would allow their kids to have overnights with him!

You might ask the parents who got 20 million dollars off him some years ago.

Wilso- I would not put my kids at risk of sexual molestation for all the money in the world.

I know you wouldn't, but there's obviously some that would. How else can you explain this freak's access to these children, knowing the history. I can't believe that all these parents were just stupid. It's just too great a leap of imagination.

I'm still up in the air and don't know what to think. I just don't know.

What I do know is that I would have never let my child be alone with the man.

He may have given the 60 Minutes interview in an effort to make it nearly impossible to get a jury for his case, or at least make it difficult to get a jury. Sneaky lawyering, but there's nothing wrong with it (after all, the press can always refuse to air the story - but we all know they won't). Essentially, his legal team is looking for not only ways to make him sympathetic but also ways to make it so that anyone asked (during jury selection) whether they know about the case will very likely say "yes". And so, jury selection will take a long time and cost massive taxpayer $$. Now, there's nothing wrong with jurors who know something about a case beforehand, but his legal team may be counting on the idea that most potential jurors will have formed an opinion prior to the selection process.

And in the meantime, of course, his side will continue to demand a jury trial, as is his right.

So, we have the following scenario: months go by as potential juror after potential juror is brought to court and questioned. With nearly no exceptions, opinions have already been formed. The process drags on and on and the ones who look bad are the prosecutors. They will look like the gang that can't shoot straight. Then, when finally a jury is chosen, the case of course takes a while (these cases do). In the meantime, Jackson goes on TV etc. (which the jury, very likely a sequestered jury, will not see) during the trial and wages a war of public opinion. Finally, at verdict time, the jury is just plain tired of it all. Verdict for Jackson? Possibly, due to not enough votes to convict on the prosecution side.

Jackson walks. If he's got any intelligence, he also leaves the country for good, but he doesn't seem to be terribly bright (after all, Phoenix is right, he should have watched himself after the earlier trouble).

Now, you can't attribute all of this to Jackson and his legal team. Even without the interview, he's still a notorious public figure, so even without the interview, many potential jurors have already made up their minds about him.

Plus, he's in need of cash. While he may or may not have been paid for the interview, the fact is that there's no such thing as bad publicity. He (and his advisors) may have seen this as a way to boost CD sales. After all, he's got to pay for his legal defense somehow.

The guy is a kook.

But he is not being charged with being a kook.

He is being charged with molesting children -- and he is protesting his innocence.

The Los Angeles area district attorney offices have a history of show boating.

We'll see what the "evidence" is soon enough. Until then, the proper thing to do is to presume him innocent.

I looked up some stats on pedophiles and it is unheard of statistically for white women to be pedophiles so I guess Michael's off the hook.......

If Michael Jackson is guilty of anything then a whole lot of other people are involved too.
I mean, would you allow your children to visit, much less stay overnight there?

I think he is more to be pitied than reviled, but people have been indulging him for too long.

Maybe because he has money, and can make money. It baffles me.

I'll suggest another reason he gave that interview: CBS had shelved their Jackson special after his latest legal problem came to light. "60 Minutes" interview led to CBS deciding to resurrect the special.

Jackson may be weird, but he's not a complete fool.

#


Myra Hindley

Bi-Polar Bear: *LOL* YOU are BAD!!!

I was hoping more people would have responded to his highly suspect comments on being abused by the police.

As for why he was arrested in the first place, it's something only the parties in question will ever truly know. I wholeheartedly agree that he's got some skewed values regarding kiddies "sleeping over". And I also add my concerns to the rest of those who wonder why a parent would allow their child to sleep in the same room as an unrelated male adult. Some poor judgement there, no doubt.

I kind of think he feels he has to say it's perfectly normal to have young children sleep in his bed. After all, if he backpedals now, wouldn't that add to the suspicion he is under? At least that may be how he is viewing it and his view of the world is definitely not the norm.

Michael Jackson gives new meaning to the term "arrested development." Though frankly, I find myself gasping with disbelief whenever anyone in that family is on the Larry King Show.

Of course, Larry King can make me gag all by himself...

I don't understand why so many people see Michael Jackson as being "a kook" or "a pervert" or "weird" etc.,etc. I don't think he's any of those things.

He never had a childhood, so he built a child's paradise for other children to enjoy. Just about every adult does something similar to make up for stuff missed out on when they were kids. They're perhaps not as wealthy, so they buy their sons trainsets or guns or expensive bikes, etc.

The problem here, as I see it, is a crazed District Attorney who is out to destroy Jackson.

I'm really sick of reading putrid, apoLogistic trash like " he never had a childhood". WHAT A STEAMING PILE OF F**KING CRAP.

Wilso, its really unhealthy for you to hold back like you do. You should really open up and let us know how you feel.

katya,

I am willing to withold judgement on whether Michael molests kids. That is for a jury to figure out.

That he is a "kook" and "weird" is beyond any doubt.

Come on! A 45 year old man who sees nothing wrong with having other peoples kids sleep with him in his bed. A man who multilates his face beyond recognition. A father who dangles his baby over a railing ... need I go on?

Did you see the interview? Michael is without doubt one very strange and sick individual.

Blaming the accusations against Michael on the DA is foolish.

The DA is doing his job. These charges are very serious. The fact that these allegations have come up more than once, and the fact they convinced a judge there is probable cause means that this case should be tried.

I want Michael to have a fair trial. However, if these allegations are true, I hope he rots in a cell for a long time.

As a parent, I want officials to take this type of crime very seriously.

Suspect comments are only suspect. We really don't know how long it took to book him, since he's been in this position before, and his 'status' as an entertainer may have influenced the time line. Let's give this guy a little slack; he was charged with child molestation, not being weird with poor judgement. The judge and jury will determine whether this guy's guilty or not.

This entire case is built on a 2-hour documentary made by a British journalist.

VH1 played it and I watched the whole thing. The suposed "victim" and his brother & sister are in that film.

The British journalist had an agenda. He later edited the film, for instance, and left out the part where Jackson said that when kids sleep in his bed, HE (Jackson) sleeps on the floor.

Michael Jackson has only one problem: he trusts abusive individuals. Which is not surprising, since his parents were abusive individuals.

Other than that, Jackson is (was) an incredibly talented performer who is (was) loved and admired throughout the entire world.

That district attorney, on the other hand, is obviously a dangerous and defective personality.