Larry Gude said:
...why are we assuming that MJ actually had sex with young boys?
Bill Clinton had his blue dress. OJ had blood everywhere.
If MJ actually had sex with any boy, especially the boys whose parents and prosecutors believed so strongly that there was sexual relations with MJ that they brought suit, where's the DNA? Where's the examination of the boy from a doctor at a hospital stating that something had happened?
Serial murderers and sexual predators and child molestors are not of the 'one and done' variety.
Anyone read murder mysteries? Do I need to get graphic? How hard would it have been to get some evidence? A pubic hair perhaps? See where this is going?
There is NO forensic evidence that Jackson had sex with any of these kids and I submit for your opinion that it just may be that Jackson is INNOCENT.
Not just aquited, innocent.
That does not make him 'normal' or healthy or anything but he may have just laid there in bed with other young kids doing young kid things; telling stories, day dreaming, being kids.
I think the guy is hyper ####ed up and where is it written that a 46 year old is incapable of being around kids and actully acting that age?
In any event, if he actually ever had sex with some kid there would be EVIDENCE. Not accusations from gold diggers, disgruntled employees or other assorted freaks, EVIDENCE.
Thoughts?
Since it was only circumstantial evidence that convicted Scott Petterson, how's about this for evidence against Jackson:
1. He's been unable to maintain anything but maternal relationships with mature women. Classic pedophile.
2. He designs his surroundings to be attractive and inviting to children. Classic pedophile again.
3. When confronted with his crimes, he'll focus on his actions being good, or not harmful, rather than wrong. Whenever MJ is asked if he's ever molested a child, he has the same answer... "I would never harm/hurt a child." Pedophiles use those terms because in their minds what they're doing isn't harmful or hurtful. It's loving and caring.
4. MJ didn't take the stand... that says a lot!
Here's the real issue with guys like MJ. Just as a wife killer like OJ doesn't go from nice guy to killer without a few stops in Abuserville, so will be the case with MJ. Child molesters habitually start with fantasies, which then are satisfied thorough pornography. But over time porno becomes routine as the fantasies become more detailed and sophisticated. This is when the pedophile moves up to molesting children, although in their eyes it's a normal sexual relationship. If they're not stopped, the fantasies and agressiveness grow, and since they cannot consumate a relationship legally, they'll build up a fantasy relationship with a child where they imagine the child really wants to be with them in the same way as they want the child, and this is when the line into child abduction is crossed. This is also when the kids get killed because the abductor is confronted with rejection and the realization that the child does not want them sexually and that they are now at risk for having a child who will surely report the incident to the police. So out of either rejection or fear of arrest, they kill the child.
MJ is following the exact MP of a classic pedophile, and he'll be back in the news before too long because I think he's past the point where he can control himself. What really worries me is why a guy who claims to be a child who never wants to grow up would want his own children... who could only possibly serve to remind him that he is grown up, thus destroying his vision of reality and illusions? My guess is that he thinks his kids will never betray him and will love him unconditionally, i.e., allow him to realize his fantasies with them without fear of arrest.
smilie isn't big enough for "justice for all". I agree with Vrai that the mother was/is a dirtbag, but that does not excuse MJ's admitted behavior with children. There is a definite history with MJ and his fondness for little boys. He managed to get enough "hush money" to his last accuser and now very convieniently this jury has no recollection of this past history. I'm sorry but there is no way the defense could have swayed my opinion.
