Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
It was pictures of little boys bend over and showing their bottoms. You didn't know this?
Those who believe Michael Jackson does NOT have a problem with his attraction to little boys are in serious denial.
When he paid millions to the last boy's family, I thought he MIGHT be a pedophile.
When he gave the damning interview saying he liked to let little boys sleep with him I thought he was MOST LIKELY a pedophile.
When another boy comes forward and says he was molested by MJ, I knew in my heart he MOST CERTAINLY WAS a pedophile.
It was not that long ago that nudity in boys was considered cute and a bit nostalgic. The summer camp that my son attended had a collection of old photo albums from the early days of the camp, and in some of them the boys were skinny dipping. Add to that the many excellent paintings of boys and men bathing from the 19th and early 20th centuries, and there is an argument to be made that many do NOT view this as sexualized.
Sure, if it's the same book, I knew an old queen that had a copy , but on the other hand I knew a married couple that were art photographers that had a copy too. I find it a bit too funky for my taste (not to mention too "posed"), but on the other hand this same married couple had a lovely and tasteful B&W photograph of their daughter, about four years old, climbing out of a bank of ferns with a seraphic smile on her face and (except for a crown of flowers) as naked as a jaybird.
If that (and all the other shots that were on the same roll of film but not selected) were introduced in evidence somewhere, would that be "proof" of anything?
Sadly, this is nothing beyond what I expected. After the travesty of OJ Simpson, nothing surprises me. I'm actually shocked Peterson got found guilty.
Michael Jackson has admitted on camera he sleeps with young boys. He's even paid hush money, but continued to sleep with boys even after that.
Some things we can conclude for ourselves, without the media.
sw
My error, ss. Previous rant should have gone to hineybona...my bad.
I was thinking of Quasimodo.
I didn't know what to expect, but I guess I didn't expect 100% either direction.
And OJ didn't kill his wife, either. They had MASSIVE amounts of evidence there and it was ignored.
I think the book they are talking about, which is out of print, crosses the line. Naked little boys bent over with their bottoms to the camera? And these aren't little bitty boys, they looked preteen to me in the pics someone posted.
I think, in this day and age, having any questionable pics of naked children is asking for trouble.
I don't think the book, by itself, proves anything. It's a combination of things makes me think MJ is guilty.
It's a different case... comparisons are more distraction than benefit.
Yes. Mom was a jerk, and the jury didn't like her, so the victim, once again, gets the shaft.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that any evidence in the OJ case wouldn't have been admissable in the Jackson case. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.
No, he said they slept in the same BED.
Please.
Well... the long and short of it is that the Prosecutor didn't make a convincing case.
Heh... there were no gloves in this trial. ;~D
There were gloves, just not the kind you put on your hands....:)
But you can't convict even a certifiable weirdo on general principles. You have to convict him of the acts charged, with THIS complaining witness. The oddball behavior, previous settlements, all the rest of it -- that's smoke for sure indicating a fire somewhere, but not necessarily here.
I think the prosecutor went in overconfident and relying on innuendo and general reputation to bolster his case.
But the judge charges the jury that they can NOT convict on reputation, or on acts not charged. Even if other acts, or porn, or that bizarre painting, came into evidence, the judge would charge the jury that Jackson was on trial for the particular charges in the indictment and no others, and that they should consider the evidence of other acts only for the limited purpose allowed (usually identity, pattern and practice, intent, etc.)
Which means that, if the jury felt proof of the acts in the indictment was insufficient, they were instructed to ignore the rest of the stuff -- which sounds unjust when you are just convinced of the guy's guilt, but that's what the jury's there to determine, not if Jackson is a weirdo and has bad taste in art.
Agreed...
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.