And they always come from dysfunctional families. I don't think that all these facts are random coincidences as you seem to.
Please point to where in anything I have ever said anywhere about MJ that I thought his choice of sleeping partners were "random coincidences".
He may have a very specific choice of what kind of kid he wants to sleep with. Maybe it even has to do with a sexual interest, but specificity does not indicate that whatsoever.
The fact that he mainly deals with kids in need often means he is dealing with dysfunctional families... go figure. Though it might be pointed out he was hanging out with child stars as well, and unless you are calling their families dysfunctional (which is a bit of a stretch) you are being arbitrary in your choices.
But let's get back to who and why he chooses to sleep with kids. We do not know why and therefore what reasoning may go into his selection. Let's say it is a sexual desire. That itself does not indicate that he goes any farther.
Maybe that's his way of handling pedophilic desires stemming from a loss of childhood sexuality due to his stardom: he reenacts what he views as "sleepovers" common to most kids where he can be close to kids and imagine himself having the experiences he wanted, or as close as he can get.
Is there something wrong with that? Is the line having sex with kids? or wanting to have sex with kids? Or repressed desire to have sex with kids?
This may be no more than circumstantial evidence, but it's overwhelming. It was, after all, circumstantial evidence that convicted Scott Peterson, who of course wasn't a celebrity.
It is less than credible circumstantial evidence. Why don't you just admit you know nothing about this man or how he lives, except what the tabloid press has been churning out, and this rather obvious extortionist family and a zealous lawyer slapped together for a court case?
What you have is multiple allegations, many of which have been thrown away even by the purported victims (which should speak volumes itself), and an admitted behavior which you do not understand and suggests a lifestyle which you hate.
Frankly I don't personally understand his desire for sleeping with kids, but having read a bit of psychological cases, there are many things I do not understand and do not mean people cross the legal line... even if their actions are driven by a desire to cross the line.
How do you KNOW this is simply not cathartic compensation?
If you had an 11 year-old son would you allow him to spend the night with MJ?
Yes and no. I don't know MJ so it's unlikely I would. If for some reason my kid ended up befriending MJ and then asked to stay at his house, yes I would let him.
That is of course a hypothetical. At this point there is no way I would on the off chance that my kid would end up getting pulled into some sort of legal fiasco like this.
For all of your stated care about kids, how many were psychologically and socially abused in the course of this trial by adults other than MJ? I would say at least two, and worse than any possible harm that would have come from the activities described by those kids.
No, they found him NOT GUILTY. There's a difference.
Get your head on straight. They found him innocent of the charges in this case. They questioned his innocence of being a child molester in general, but not regarding this particular case.
That is exactly why I am sort of disgusted with your pursuit of MJ. They did say this had no merit but saw, based on the peeks they got at other cases, that the other ones might have had merit.
You are jumping from that to say of course he was guilty of the other ones and so they are saying he was really guilty of this one too, just not necessarily provable. Why can't you leave this guy alone?
It showed a pattern, which is exactly what any ordinary Joe would have had to defend against. I'd be willing to consider that this practice might ought to be changed, but so long as any other defendant would have to deal with evidence of past acts MJ should have to deal with it as well.
You are WRONG. I guess in California they now allow that kind of thing, but it is a bad law and in this case was used out of context. At a trial you used to be, and in some states still are, supposed to face evidence about your current case alone.
There can be some evidence brought in establishing character, but there are limits.
In any case, California law or no, when you have principle actors denying the very outside cases the prosecution is bringing in, that is simply ridiculous. It forces the defence into having to contend with unreasonable amounts of charges that have no basis. It raises doubt despite no credibility.
Again, I doubt you would find it fair that a prosecutor could haul in 25 separate allegations that you are a car thief, during your trial on stealing a car which has essentially no evidence, even if you could provide witnesses for all 25 of those which deny your involvement in them. It raises doubt, where there shouldn't be any and are tangential to the case.
The defense sure wasn't shy about showing a pattern of behavior by this boy's mother. She didn't have anything to do with MJ's guilt or innocence, yet the defense didn't hesitate to bring in irrelevent information about her past actions.
Uhhhh... that was highly pertinent. The defence was that their mother was using her kids for fame, money, whatever... including similar scams as this one. That was highly pertinent to their defense of THIS PARTICULAR CASE. What they were unable to pursue was the same level of questioning on those other cases.
MJ is a celebrity with lots of celebrity friends, some of whom testified for him and many more of whom sat in the courtroom where the jurors could see them.
If you had a trial, would your friends show up? If you were a celebrity would you tell them they shouldn't, because naturally many of them are celebrities? Should we change laws barring celebrities from having their friends and family attend a trial?
I like how you are continuing to shift your reasoning around. Did the jurors state that they were affected by the celebrities in the courtroom? No. Then I guess they weren't, right?
You are picking and choosing in a very concrete way, not a random coincidence, to achieve a preset conclusion.
I said I did not know at the outset, and at the end (having seen the evidence) the guy was pretty clearly not guilty as there was no case here. You have entered saying he was and wouldn't get a fair trial and now are twisting any way you can to make a not guilty verdict be an indictment of him and the trial.
Since he is a celebrity, he wasn't subjected to the same standards that an ordinary Joe would be subjected to.
An ordinary Joe could have his friends and family come in to court, even if one happened to be a celebrity. Why are you denying this to MJ, just because he is a star?
Can't you see that you are the one asking for a separate set of standards?
The star-struck judge in this case saw to it that MJ got special treatment commensurate with his celebrity.
You keep citing these minute procedural differences that had little bearing on the jurors and what they could deliberate on.
I would not doubt that this judge was starstruck. If he had not been its likely he'd have thrown the case out on its ear, and not allowed it to be lengthened by useless extra information, as he did. He got his 15+ minutes of fame.
I don't see what the judge did that gave MJ an unfair review of the case against him... that is that the judge created a court review biased in his favor... do you?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
