NY Rep Blasts Jackson As "Pervert"

[Drudgewire]

Apparently, Rep. King and the Rev. Al have a history of taking potshots at each other back in New York. This could be fun..two grandstanders trying to out showboat each other.

Yes, in a perfect world this would be settled by a death match which ended in a tie.

Oh, she was such a tragic figure!

 

[EvilSmurf]

Here is the deposition by the kid in the first case. Seems pretty damned convincing to me.

 

[roger]

looks like others did understand it.

when someone would abuse my CHild, i would not accept money, i want him to go to jail atleast, and the rest i would want is illegal. But accepting money to settle the case, in a case of Child abuse, is for me a sign of guilt on the part of the parrents / accusers and not on MJ side.

ETA: ah i wrote accused instead of Abused.

Okay.

What do you do when your lawyer advises you all the evidence is of the form of "he said she said" and that you will lose in court, wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, and you will probably come out looking bad? That's a hypothetical - I'm not privy to the conversations that occured between client and attorney. On the other side, imagine MJ's lawyer telling him that he'd win the case, but the months of trial would cost millions, and the sooner this got resolved, the better (clearly wrong, since we are still debating it!). I could see it playing out that way. The only way you could 'hurt' MJ in this case is to force him to settle, implying there was something for him to hide. Or, sure, it could be a pure shakedown. Who knows?

Regardless, MJ admitted to sleeping with kids while nude. He did not take the kid's welfare into account. It doesn't matter if he touched them or not - that's the kind of thing that could haunt a kid years later, wondering at MJ's motive. I consider that child abuse, even though apparently the courts didn't. If I or you tried to do that with our neighbor's kid I don't think we'd be particularly surprised to have the neighbor express his dissatisfaction with a load of buckshot. It's just so wrong. Add to that the fame of MJ and the publicity of these accusations - and it's just beyond the pale to continue doing it.

Innocent in the court of law? Absolutely. Pervert? Absolutely.

 

[headscratcher4]

Sort of a serious question...because I'm completely indifferent to Jackson...is Jackson's weirdness/perversions/debaucheries any more or less than, say, Elvis or Sinatra (I use those two because they've both had stamps). Yes, Jackson was accused of an ickey crime (though found "not guilty"), Sinatra was always "accused" as being mobbed-up, Elvis was known to be pretty constantly drugged-up.

My point is that not a one of them is particularly admirable -- outside of their talent -- but certainly if we honor the likes of Elvis and Sinatra, than MJ certainly isn't too far beyond the pale to be similarly adjulated?

 

[roger]

Sort of a serious question...because I'm completely indifferent to Jackson...is Jackson's weirdness/perversions/debaucheries any more or less than, say, Elvis or Sinatra (I use those two because they've both had stamps). Yes, Jackson was accused of an ickey crime (though found "not guilty"), Sinatra was always "accused" as being mobbed-up, Elvis was known to be pretty constantly drugged-up.

My point is that not a one of them is particularly admirable -- outside of their talent -- but certainly if we honor the likes of Elvis and Sinatra, than MJ certainly isn't too far beyond the pale to be similarly adjulated?

Violating children in any form has always been taboo in just about any society. They claim child molestors are targeted for vigilante justice in prisons - prisons were a cop killer will receive much respect. Kids are defenseless. Elvis only hurt himself and immediate family. The mob mostly extorts money and otherwise steal - killing and the such are largely confined within the family (so I understand, no cite or evidence for that claim). The effects of child molestation and abuse are well known and very damaging. So to my mind yes accusations of child molestation should be disdained more than personal drug use or friendship with felons.

 

[Alt+F4]

I really can't understand the way we glorify some marginally relevant screw-ups of questionable character (Jacko, Princess Di are the first ones to come to mind).

There's a lot less news during the summer.

What I can't understand that considering Jackson's reeputation why would any parent allow their child to stay overnight at Neverland?!

 

[headscratcher4]

MJ was only accused of the crime you write about. Horrible though the crime is, a jury found him not guilty. In our legal system that means he didn't commit the crime (well, actually, that the prosecutor failed to prove that he committed the alleged crime). In any event, it means that for all intents and purposes he didn't commit a crime...and, while it is ture that Elvis only hurt himself, he and others (like Dr. Nick) were, arguably, involved in a illegal activity.

Look, I'm not excusing Jackson. I think the mourning over his passing is completely overblown...but it is entirely in keeping, I think, with the level of public focus on the death of similarly high-level celebrities. The argument that he was a pervert (possible) and there for should not receive the kind of public adulation he is receiving, while understandable, also seems to me, as I said above, to create something of a double standard. Of the three celebs I mentioned, Jackson is the only one to be specfically found not guilty of an accusation...

 

[johnny karate]

What I can't understand that considering Jackson's reeputation why would any parent allow their child to stay overnight at Neverland?!

I can think of about 20 million reasons.

 

[roger]

MJ was only accused of the crime you write about. Horrible though the crime is, a jury found him not guilty. In our legal system that means he didn't commit the crime (well, actually, that the prosecutor failed to prove that he committed the alleged crime). In any event, it means that for all intents and purposes he didn't commit a crime...and, while it is ture that Elvis only hurt himself, he and others (like Dr. Nick) were, arguably, involved in a illegal activity.

Look, I'm not excusing Jackson. I think the mourning over his passing is completely overblown...but it is entirely in keeping, I think, with the level of public focus on the death of similarly high-level celebrities. The argument that he was a pervert (possible) and there for should not receive the kind of public adulation he is receiving, while understandable, also seems to me, as I said above, to create something of a double standard. Of the three celebs I mentioned, Jackson is the only one to be specfically found not guilty of an accusation...

It was proven that Sinatra was in the mob? (it's not illegal to be friends with a mob member, after all). This site, summarizing the released FBI files, seems to point to a lot of allegations (I only skimmed it).

FWIW, I think probably Sinatra got off lightly, not that MJ is being treated too harshly. Double standard? Sure.

 

[Alt+F4]

I can think of about 20 million reasons.

I know....I just don't like to believe a parent would do that.

 

[dudalb]

Jackson was a weirdo, but did have some good music.

Back on topic: Why would it be appropiate for people to bring up his perversion, which was pretty recent in time, and ignore his 30 plus years of incredible music?

That is like saying that we should ignore OJ's last twenty years because he was a great football player. It just ain't gonna happen, and the Jackson fanboys had better get use to this fact.

 

[Marc39]

I can think of about 20 million reasons.

Can you think of reasons why others, then, did not take advantage of the sexual molestation gravy train?

 

[dudalb]

Just saw the CNN webpage coverage of the Jackson Memorial. My respect for CNN has just gone down with the way they are pandering to the Jackson fans.

 

[timhau]

My point is that not a one of them is particularly admirable -- outside of their talent -- but certainly if we honor the likes of Elvis and Sinatra, than MJ certainly isn't too far beyond the pale to be similarly adjulated?

In addition to those two having IMO a lot more talent than Jackson, didn't Jacko also a) associate with some pretty shady people and b) use pretty exciting meds?

 

[Careyp74]

There are several stories going around that Jordan Chandler, the boy who accused MJ, is retracting his story now, saying his dad made him lie. Haven't found any reasonable sources yet.

 

[ponderingturtle]

MJ was only accused of the crime you write about. Horrible though the crime is, a jury found him not guilty. In our legal system that means he didn't commit the crime (well, actually, that the prosecutor failed to prove that he committed the alleged crime). In any event, it means that for all intents and purposes he didn't commit a crime...and, while it is ture that Elvis only hurt himself, he and others (like Dr. Nick) were, arguably, involved in a illegal activity.

So OJ was not responcible for those deaths and the civil trial verdict was wrong?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Can you think of reasons why others, then, did not take advantage of the sexual molestation gravy train?

Can you think of a good reason why someone who has had allegations of sexualy abusing childern in the past should sleep naked with children?

 

[Magyar]

It is beyond my comprehention why people end up worshipping people who have a certain talent. Whether it's MJ for his singing/dancing or any number of sports figures for their ability.

What leads people to believe that they are super human in all other aspects of their lives is baffling.

As far as Micheal goes. All I have to say is ONLY in AMERICA
could a poor black boy become a rish white woman that people worship. Go figure.

 

[SezMe]

Victimizing the victim?

No. Bringing more information to the table.

 

[headscratcher4]

So OJ was not responcible for those deaths and the civil trial verdict was wrong?

I am certainly not exonorating Jackson. I didn't get him as an entertainer (at least after the early 80s), I don't get him as an international celebrity, and harbor the suspicion that the acusations against him regarding pederasty were likely true. But, he never had a civil trial...settled the claim out of court which he may have done for a myriad of legal and liability reasons that have nothing to do with actual responsibility for the civil tort claimed. Now, you and I may think he settled because he was responsible for the tort alleged, the law makes no comment on that and the settlement can take place without admission of responsibility.

As to the criminal case. He -- like OJ -- was found not guilty. That makes him legally not guilty of the charges alleged regardless of your or my suspicions. Now, you can argue in OJ's case, that race, etc. distorted the process. With Jackson, maybe it was merely celebrity as the Jury, I think, was all white or nearly all white and relatively rural. In any event, whatever suspicions I harbor, they don't legally amount to much.

He will end up on a stamp, I predict -- just like Elvis and Sinatra. There will be an outcry about honoring a pervert. My sense is, however, that many of the same people why decry Jackson being honored because they suspect him of being a pervert, did not decry Elvis or Sinatra for being so honored. That is the double standard I'm talking about.

My conclusion is that we should not have these quasi-religious "celebrations" of the life of any entertainer. They are all pretty flawed and if you start down the perversion/legality rabit hole, it seems to me that it gets pretty complicated and the standards become more about atheitics and personal choices than actual perversions...though, I can see that Elvis' illegal drug abuse could be judged somewhat more lienently than, say, actual pederasty.