It doesn't get weirder than him.
Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
She held up a book that was found in Michael Jackson's house called "The Boy: A Photographic Essay".
http://lordoftheflies.org/img/B002A.JPG
If having porn at home is a proof of molestation then tens of millions are guilty of molestation. Jackson has admitted to sleeping in the same room as kids but not to molestation. The settlements are not necessarily proof of anything either. This is no more proof of molestation than living next door to an elementary school is.
Do you think it's normal for a grown man to have a book filled with pictures of naked little boys, in various poses?
Listening to the jurors after the trial, it sure sounded like the mom was on trail, not MJ.
The verdict is not surprising since it comes out of CA. Jackson's doings are part of an accepted "alternative lifestyle".
On the Hugh Hewit show, someone suggested that Saddam Husein should request a change of venue to CA. I agree. He would probably "walk" and get a lifetime pension to boot.
I noticed many years ago that there is a big difference between what is legal and what is right. Sorry to see you have to live it first hand.
"Are we really that badly infiltrated ? "
No, just an angry mob that after being fed sound bites by the media for months on end demands someone must be guilty.
What I find troubling is that here on FR I find some of the most thought provoking, experienced people I have ever had the pleasure to converse with on important subjects, and they usually tune out the media, yet, it is the media sound bites driving so much of their conclusions that Jackson is guilty. Go figure.
Nicely punctuated, I'll accept the compliment ... 391 words, I'll take your word for it and say I'm sorry it wasn't shorter (is there a word counter on FR? If so, tell me how to access it). Pantload, okay, that's your opinion and I respect it as you may be right that he's guilty, and if he is, I hope someone can prove it and nail him.
But apologetic ...??? Now them's fightin' words! ;^)
Define normal. This may shock you but not everyone sees the naked human form as inherently sexual. Without having seen the pictures I won't make a judgement as to their artistic or aesthetic values nor can I judge whether or not Jackson saw them as sexual. Many people have collections of artistic photographs which may depict nudity in some tasteful manner. While pedophiles might enjoy such a book, not everyone who enjoys such a book is necessarily a pedophile.
Having such a book does not show good character on the part of Jackson. If how ever the book was illegal then why was he not charged with posessing it? If it was not illegal then there is nothing that can be done except to change the law. The jurors did what they were suppose to do under the law. It is not about our opinions or personal feelings about Jackson. The jurors did what they were suppose to do. They did what you would want them to do if you were being accused of a crime via shabby evidence and shaddy witnesses. A crime that maybe you did not commit, but the whole world was convinced you did. Some criminals will get away. But thank God for the fact that many innocent people will not spend the rest of there life in prison. The whole purpose of "innocent until proven guilty" is to prevent false imprisonment. That is what the founders chose. They came from a place where it was "guilty until proven innocent". You can't have it both ways.
If you watch all the "cold Case" type shows on TV then you would know that many people have been falsely convicted and then many years later proven innocent by DNA. In most cases they sat in jail in for years because a Jury did not do there duty, but acted emotionaly.
Do you think it's normal for a grown man to have a book filled with pictures of naked little boys, in various poses?
I caught that remark earlier. Just how much evidence did they need? Plain and simple, they didn't like the mother, and didn't pay attention to the evidence that was produced. Regular people get convicted with no hard evidence, but lies and hearsay. Not MJ, though. Grrrr...
"Are those links safe to look at if a child walks into the room?"
Personaly since there is a chance that they are links to "described" pictures...I would never click on them.
Most of the questions posed to the jurors were kindof lame.... but at the time I couldn't think of any either. It's like everyone was still just STUNED by the verdict and didn't know what to think.
But did anyone ask the alternates... who were NOT part of the deliberations... whether they could see themselves voting the same way?
AMEN! I've heard some horrible stories of men getting railroaded by a vicious ex. They didn't have enough money to defend themselves, and have their photos plastered on websites, job opportunities are no longer there, and they have to be careful where they live.
I mentioned earlier up the thread about these people getting an attorney and filing a class action lawsuit to have their cases reviewed.
It doesn't get weirder than him.
I can't figure. And I can't understand that they don't see that what they are asking for is for themselves to be convicted of crime without being proven guilty of it. Any day it could be any one of them.
You are correct, not everyone sees the naked human form as inherently sexual but if I had to make a guess, I'd say 98 percent do. It's human nature.
My gut feeling is that MJ is guilty as sin. A 20 million settlement in '93, sleeping with little boys, some boys accurately describing Jackson's genitals, books with pics of naked little boys bending over, etc.
This case was all about who would be the most credible witness; a poor grifter or a wealthy pedophile.
I was definitely stuned, I thought he would get off on some of the charges but certainly not all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.