Michael Jackson is dead

[QOD]

sad

I have'nt said I dont believe those children, MJ admitted to sleeping in the same bed, I'm saying I dont believe MJ is a paedophile.

The picture adds up to exactly what you describe tiredsville. Spot on.Classic case of arrested development.

And to be honest, if he had been a paedophile, there were hundreds of other parents of children who stayed with him who would have come out of the woodwork with accusations. Perfect opportunity to tell the truth. But they didn't, which says a lot. The two people who made accusations were totally discredited - one was dishonest enough and thick enough to admit in a phone call that he was getting his son to make a false allegation for money. The other was some stupid bitch who had previous form for accusing a police officer of rape, I believe, when she was caught stealing!

The irony here, is that the people who are convincing themselves that MJ was a paedophile, are more interested in whipping up a hate campaign against people who are proved not guilty than actually targeting genuine offenders.

It's not credible evidence though, Dittany, is it?

Because these kids and their parents have accused other people, not just Michael Jackson.

They are professional extortionists. There is much proof to back this up.

God, now writing about someone in the third person is rude! As well as using caps lock!

No, I don't believe people who admit to making allegations for personal profit. Or women who cry rape because they think women are somehow exempt from laws and should be able to use malicious allegations to escape justice.

And no, I don't bloody believe "the boys" when they say he sexually abused them.

Nor did the jury.

That's the whole point.

bobbysmum - I agree with your posts, but I think it's impossible trying to reason with people who have some militant personal agenda! Hey ho!

Yes I think its possible they were not telling the truth, children are as capable as lying as adults are, and I am not saying that is the case, but he was cleared of abuse, that is the only fact, the rest is speculation and opinions.

And I do have my own opinions of what a paedophile is, for example, a 16 yr old sleeping with a consenting 15 year old, is in my mind not paedophillia (sp) and neither is sharing a bed with children to sleep.

I dont think a pay out is evidence of guilt either. Surely if the parents of that boy believed he had been abused, no amount of money would settle it, why did they not want justice done? That also speaks volumes.

perhaps they thought "what is best for our child here" and concluded that taking the money would be more of a favour to their child than having him dragged through every tabloid in the world?

I wouldn't have, personally - but people differ. It doesn't mean the child was lying.

Offering that amount of money is much dodgier than accepting it, if we're looking to read something into it.

The mother of the second boy put her kids on the witness stand to accuse their father of sexual molestation. This was a few years before the Michael Jackson case. She also threatened to put them on the stand to testify against the Sears security guard who 'sexually molested' her after she (or the kids - I forget which) was caught shoplifting.

These kids were seasoned liars.

And Michael Jackson was surrounded by "advisors" his whole life - none of whom ever had his interests at heart.

It's pretty obvious that they told him to pay off Scumbag Family 1.

Violet - you're right, you just can't reason with pitchfork-waving morons.

Dittany: I wish you would stop telling me I am upset (I'm not) or that this thread is 'touching a nerve', or that I should 'think about it a bit'. This is a public forum, it is about debate, not about your personal, sly, nasty digs at people. If I had a personal issue with sexual abuse I might, or might not, choose to share it. It is really not helpful to people to go around making snidey insinuations constantly, and it's also a clear sign that you have no dignified response.

Bobby - when you've been on MN a while, you realise that there are a couple of people who have a very jaundiced and simplistic view of humankind. They see the world as:

Women = poor, inferior beings who cannot be trusted to hold their own opinion.

Men= nasty, manipulative abusers

Children= innocent little sunbeams who never lie.

I've discovered that it's impossible to reason with these people (thankfully they are in a very small minority).

Most of us realise that people are individuals - some men and women are nasty and abusive, most are lovely. Some children are devious liars, most aren't. I wish the few who hold the former view would stick to debating with other daily mail readers and leave the more intelligent and well rounded debate to the latter

I think you are setting up a 'straw man' here violethill, in your obvious drive to have something concrete to direct your neurotic bile at

who are these daily mail reading neanderthals? Which posters in particular do you feel confident in diagnosing as poorly-educated illiterate tabloid readers?

Bizarre

Whatever, don't think the apologists for Michael Jackson are going to change their mind, nor are the people who think his self-confessed behaviour was, at the very best, wrong.

But ds came home from school yesterday singing something that made me giggle:

'Don't blame it on the Doctor
Don't blame it on Martha
Don't blame it on the Tardis
Blame it on the baddies'

is this not about Jacko any more then?