Mickel Jackson

[Snow]

I'm guessing he's in the Spirit World right now, possibly standing in line to receive the gospel of Christ. Once he accepts even a portion of it, he will then be eligible for a kingdom of Glory.

He wasn't standing in line for it last week. What makes you think that he is today?

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know about Jackson specifically (obviously!); but finding oneself in some state of consciousness after dying will automatically debunk a lot of pretty widespread theories about who we are, where we came from, and where we're going--secularism ("there's nothing after this life") and elements of orthodox Christianity ("we all lose consciousness between death and the resurrection") for a start. People who bought into these theories will be experiencing a pretty big paradigm shift, and will be looking for someone who can explain what is happening to them. I suspect that we Mormons will be one of relatively few (but probably not the only) groups who can present a ready-made theology that will answer those questions.

[Winnie G]

What do you mean by pretty sinner ideals?

I don't buy in to the whole ideal when it comes to child molesters and killers I think there is a accountability right up front.

[Mahone]

I don't buy in to the whole ideal when it comes to child molesters and killers I think there is a accountability right up front.

Yet there is still no evidence that he did anything wrong at all. You seem to assume he has that label, when the whole point of the courts is to find out whether the allegations made against him are correct. Michael Jackson was an extremely famous man. The young boy who made the allegations would have become known to the world overnight as the one who put Michael Jackson in prison and received a substantial payout (due to the publicity) had he gone to prison. There is motive enough there for him to lie.

I've worked in schools, and work in a college now. I know all too well about the completely FALSE allegations the kids make against their teachers simply to get their own back on them or squeeze as much money out of the system as they can. I've seen this happen to people I know several times. Some were suspended while an investigation took place, all were eventually found innocent, though the investigation takes some time. My point is that a trial is NO evidence whatsoever of guilt and I do not believe the media should be able to report on trials until they were actually found guilty - mainly because people then believe them guilty even after they are found innocent and it ruins there lives. This has happened so many times.

Incidentally, the boy who made the allegations was watched by the media afterwards boasting about the fact that he had Michael Jackson in court to his female admirers. Yes, these are clearly the actions of someone damaged by molestation .

I think you need to leave the judging to those authorised to do it. What you are saying is highly unfair.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Mahone

[Just_A_Guy]

A trial is no evidence of guilt; but similarly, an acquittal is no evidence of innocence.

Courts are not final arbiters of truth. They're just a government mechanism for determining whether we think there's enough evidence to justify incarcerating someone.

I've seen plenty of obviously guilty people get off scot-free. Heck, some of my best friends have made a career out of doing it.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[mustang90]

If you read any of the interviews with the jurors from the 2005 trial, they will all tell you that they found the accuser and his mother utterly unbelievable. In addition there was no physical evidence (DNA etc.) and no witnesses to the crime.

In fact if you read the testimony some of it is down right ridiculous, including that Michael Jackson plotted to put the family in a hot air ballon and kidnap them. (because nothing would be a stealthier kidnapping than Michael Jackson in a hot air balloon.)

On the other hand, the accusers attempted to previously sue other celebrities, the mother of the accuser was guilty of tax fraud, and the child himself was a 13 year old ROTC kid used to working out and physical training, (hardly defenseless).

It wasn't a difficult trial. It wasn't even close to beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as for the accusers motivation, if they had won the criminal trial, a civil case would have been like getting a wish granted from a Genie. They could've asked for and probably gotten anything they wanted.

[Mahone]

A trial is no evidence of guilt; but similarly, an acquittal is no evidence of innocence.

Courts are not final arbiters of truth. They're just a government mechanism for determining whether we think there's enough evidence to justify incarcerating someone.

I've seen plenty of obviously guilty people get off scot-free. Heck, some of my best friends have made a career out of doing it.

Innocent until proven guilty. There is no more reason to suspect Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation then you yourself. The only difference is that a 13 year old boy said that Michael Jackson had abused him. I think mustang90's post above just about sums up this young lads credibility.

As I said previously, the media should be banned from reporting on court cases until the defendant(s) are found guilty (if at all). There are still many people like Winnie G who think him guilty when they were not present in the court room and do not know the man personally. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

And as for the accusers motivation, if they had won the criminal trial, a civil case would have been like getting a wish granted from a Genie. They could've asked for and probably gotten anything they wanted.

Getting a judgment and collecting on it are two different things--as the Goldman family has learned to their cost.

Innocent until proven guilty. There is no more reason to suspect Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation then you yourself. The only difference is that a 13 year old boy said that Michael Jackson had abused him.

As to Jackson specifically, I don't know--I haven't paid much attention to the charges against him (though I want to go on record as saying that I've never been (repeatedly) accused of child molestation, so I'd say there's slightly more reason to suspect Jackson than me).

My point is just that it would be pretty silly to--for example--let an accused child molester babysit your kids just because "he's innocent until proven guilty!". This idea that trials can retroactively alter reality baffles me, and it seems to be fairly common.

As for publicizing trials: I think the benefits outweigh the costs. For one thing, as a citizen I like to know what the state's prosecutors are up to--the whole idea of people being tried in secret on a routine basis kind of unnerves me. For another, at least on a local level people do often have a legitimate need to know. I want to know if the guy who is about to do my brain surgery has a DUI, or if the escrow agent on my home purchase has been accused of embezzling money, or if my next store neighbor has a pending sex offense case. Though I agree with you that when such charges become a national media circus, it's generally to no one's advantage.

[rameumptom]

He wasn't standing in line for it last week. What makes you think that he is today?

Because as I understand the Spirit World, those who have refused to repent of their sins will suffer even as Christ has suffered (D&C 19). Alma's 3 days in hell seems to be a perfect portrait of the torment suffered by those who have refused to repent in this life. After enough time torturing oneself over one's own sins, almost all people will be ready to beg for deliverance through Christ.

Even Michael Jackson and worse (Hitler, etc) will seek the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved from the 2nd death. I have no doubt but he will be standing in line for that salvation.

[funkymonkey]

So I kinda feel bad. I feel somewhat responsible for this thread's detour.

...oops...

[Snow]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong. It's "PRESUMED" innocent. If someone did the deed, they are guilty whether that are proven guilty on not.

There is no more reason to suspect Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation then you yourself. The only difference is that a 13 year old boy said that Michael Jackson had abused him. I think mustang90's post above just about sums up this young lads credibility.

WRONG. Here's a few more reasons why Jackson is more likely to be a pedophile than Just-A-Guy:

1. Michael Jackson is creepy sick weird.

2. Michael Jackson was a drug addict.

3. Michael Jackson admitted that as a grown man he invited young boys into his bed.

4. Michael Jackson was gay.

5. Michael Jackson was accused of molestation and his presumed victim testified to that effect.

6. During the trial the prosecution called witnesses who as young boys had sexual events or encounters with Jackson.

7. Employees of Jackson reported sexual events between Jackson boys.

8. In 1996 Jackson paid off a family two million dollars to make a molestation case go away.

9. In 1994 Jackson paid a family 15-20 million to prevent the boy from testifying against Jackson in a criminal molestation case.

Let's see what you have to stack up against that vis-a-vis Just-A-Guy.

As I said previously, the media should be banned from reporting on court cases until the defendant(s) are found guilty (if at all).

Yeah - there's a place for that... it's was called cold-war Russia.

Fortunately we live in a free country were the rights of the media are constitutionally protected against people who think like you.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Because as I understand the Spirit World, those who have refused to repent of their sins will suffer even as Christ has suffered (D&C 19). Alma's 3 days in hell seems to be a perfect portrait of the torment suffered by those who have refused to repent in this life. After enough time torturing oneself over one's own sins, almost all people will be ready to beg for deliverance through Christ.

Even Michael Jackson and worse (Hitler, etc) will seek the atoning sacrifice of Christ, to be saved from the 2nd death. I have no doubt but he will be standing in line for that salvation.

You are supposing that people change overnight. Die and then all the sudden you line up for salvation whereas the day before, on earth, you couldn't care less about it.

Once people die, I doubt their character disappears immediately.

[pam]

Snow why not just be honest here. Tell us what you really think about Michael Jackson. Quit beating around the bush here.

[BenRaines]

Didn't I read that the same nature that we have in this life goes with us to the next? If you like smoking you will still have that desire, if you were a jerk you will still be a jerk, if you were selfish you would still be selfish.

Death and passing over to the other side does not make all believers.

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Yet there is still no evidence that he did anything wrong at all.

That is completely and demonstrably FALSE.

Why are you making up blatantly untrue claims about Jackson?

[Snow]

Snow why not just be honest here. Tell us what you really think about Michael Jackson. Quit beating around the bush here.

He was a sad pathetic caricature who was so self-indulgent that it became a pathology. It was sad for him, sad for his family and sad for everyone who loved his talent.

[Dravin]

WRONG. Here's a few more reasons why Jackson is more likely to be a pedophile than Just-A-Guy:

4. Michael Jackson was gay.

My understanding is there wasn't significant correlation between being homosexual and being a pedophile. Though if one classifies pedophilia as a subset of heterosexuality or homosexuality then I suppose all male abusers of male children are also homosexual or bisexual and thus the fact that he was gay makes him a stronger candidate for male child abuse than Just-A-Guy (just as Just-A-Guy by virtue of his heterosexuality would be a stronger candidate than Jackson if we were talking about female children).

Anyway, I suppose I'm asking is there significant correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia or are you refering to the above?

[Guest TheLutheran]

Jackson left the Jehovah Witnesses due to a disagreement over some incident.

I thought it was because he got offended. Or maybe it was because he wanted to sin. Something like that. [Or did I just read that somewhere and get confused.]

[Snow]

My understanding is there wasn't significant correlation between being homosexual and being a pedophile. Though if one classifies pedophilia as a subset of heterosexuality or homosexuality then I suppose all male abusers of male children are also homosexual or bisexual and thus the fact that he was gay makes him a stronger candidate for male child abuse than Just-A-Guy (just as Just-A-Guy by virtue of his heterosexuality would be a stronger candidate than Jackson if we were talking about female children).

Anyway, I suppose I'm asking is there significant correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia or are you refering to the above?

You exclude item 3. (Michael Jackson admitted that as a grown man he invited young boys into his bed.)

The point was that Michael Jackson was a grown gay man who invited young boys into his bed.

[Mahone]

1. Michael Jackson is creepy sick weird.

Weasel words.

2. Michael Jackson was a drug addict.

No evidence there of molesting children. So once again, weasel words. According to wikipedia, he was a drug addict due to the stress of the allegations made against him.

3. Michael Jackson admitted that as a grown man he invited young boys into his bed.

True. He also said that he was never actually in the bed with them - he slept on the floor while they had his bed. Source

4. Michael Jackson was gay.

Do you have a verifiable source for this? I can only find rumours of it - nothing confirmed. As I've stated before, Michael Jackson was very famous and after the trial all sorts of people jumped on the bandwagon trying to get a bit of the spotlight.

5. Michael Jackson was accused of molestation and his presumed victim testified to that effect.

Already shared my thoughts on this. Also, in the 1993 allegation, the father of the boy was recorded as saying:

"If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever ... Michael's career will be over".

(source to be found on his wikipedia page)

When the official investigation began, the boys mother insisted there was no wrong doing on Jacksons part. Also multiple children and family members denied that Jackson was a pedophile. (source to be found on his wikipedia page)

In the 2003 allegations, Elizabeth Taylor said she was present while the the boy slept over at Jacksons ranch and that there was "nothing abnormal about it". She also said:

"There was no touchy-feely going on. We laughed like children and we watched a lot of Walt Disney. There was nothing odd about it".

(source to be found on his wikipedia page)

Also from wikipedia:

"Jackson was examined by mental health professional Dr. Stan Katz; the doctor spent several hours with the accuser too. Katz said Jackson was a regressed 10-year-old, and did not fit the profile of a pedophile".

6. During the trial the prosecution called witnesses who as young boys had sexual events or encounters with Jackson.

As above - there is no evidence, they just wanted a share in the spotlight (and the money).

Also from wikipedia:

Melville allowed the prosecution to present evidence regarding five men, out of seven requested who, as boys, had allegedly been involved in sexual behavior with Jackson.[22] The prosecution called a total of nine people to testify regarding this, including only one of these five alleged victims: Jason Francia; three of the five, Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes, testified for the defense and all said that Jackson had never molested them.

7. Employees of Jackson reported sexual events between Jackson boys.

These were heard and dismissed by the court. From wikipedia:

"There is question not only of the credibility of the main accuser, the mother, but also of the many witnesses called to testify in the trial. Prosecution witness Chris Carter, who had been Jackson's bodyguard from August 2002 – August 2003, was arrested in Las Vegas on February 19, 2005 after police searched his mother's house and found a handgun, and had been accused of robbing a Radio Shack in October 2003, Subway sandwich shop in August 2004, a KB Toy Store in January 2005, and a Jack in the Box restaurant in February 2005.

Another witness, a former maid in Neverland, was convicted of stealing a sketch of Elvis Presley made by Jackson. A housekeeper whose son claims he was molested once sold stories about Jackson to Hard Copy, and a chef was found to be the host of a porn site called Virtual Sin".

8. In 1996 Jackson paid off a family two million dollars to make a molestation case go away.

9. In 1994 Jackson paid a family 15-20 million to prevent the boy from testifying against Jackson in a criminal molestation case.

I can find nothing about anything like that happening in 1996. What is your source?

From wikipedia regarding the 1993 case:

He began taking painkillers and sedatives, including Valium, Ativan, and Xanax, in part to ease chronic pain resulting from an accident with stage rigging during the Dangerous Tour, and for joint inflammation associated with the lupus, but also to ease the panic attacks stemming from the allegations against him. By the fall of 1993, he was addicted.[80] His health deteriorated to such an extent that he canceled the remainder of the Dangerous World Tour and went into rehab in London for a few months, dramatically disappearing from public view with the help of Elizabeth Taylor and Elton John.[81] The stress of the allegations also caused him to stop eating, and he lost a significant amount of weight.[82] With his health in decline, his friends and legal advisers took over his defense and finances. They called on him to settle the child-abuse allegations out of court, believing he could not endure a lengthy trial.[81][82]

The tabloids painted him in an extremely unfavorable light.[83] Complaints about them included bias against Jackson, paying for stories about alleged criminal activity, and buying leaked confidential material from the police investigation.[84] On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million, after which Jordan stopped co-operating regarding criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence.[85]

Yeah - there's a place for that... it's was called cold-war Russia.

Fortunately we live in a free country were the rights of the media are constitutionally protected against people who think like you.

Unfortunately free speech doesn't mean literally that. You cannot just go around saying what you want. Much of what the media said about him was defamation. Unfortunately they often get away scot free with these types of things.

The media have ruined peoples lives just to give you your daily dose of gossip. Why do you think people were kidnapped and having their murder recorded in Iraq? Do you think they would have done it if the media were not going to tell the public about every single one of them? That is what they wanted; that is why they did it. They wanted to cause fear.

In the case of Michael Jackson, they simply wanted to ruin him. THAT is why the media should not be able to jump on these cases until he is legally guilty.

Also, some defendants are not old enough to be legally named in the media - are you also against this? Is this against your free speech biased opinions?

(BTW, wikipedia is a verifiable source as all of the statements I have quoted have original sources specified on the pages in question).

Edited July 12, 2009 by Mahone

[john doe]

No evidence there of molesting children. So once again, weasel words. According to wikipedia, he was a drug addict due to the stress of the allegations made against him.

Evidence? Yes. Proof? Not enough to convict, but the admitted circumstances are disturbing. Why is it that a celebrity gets a pass but your neighbor down the street gets a jail sentence for doing the same things? Would you let your children sleep in the bed of the weird guy down the street?

(source to be found on his wikipedia page)

In the 2003 allegations, Elizabeth Taylor said she was present while the the boy slept over at Jacksons ranch and that there was "nothing abnormal about it". She also said:

Hollywood types don't understand what 'normal' is. Using them as a standard of behavior is a sure way of being wrong.

(source to be found on his wikipedia page)

Also from wikipedia:

Also from wikipedia:

These were heard and dismissed by the court. From wikipedia:

From wikipedia regarding the 1993 case:

(BTW, wikipedia is a verifiable source as all of the statements I have quoted have original sources specified on the pages in question).

Although wikiipedia may quote sources for its references, that does not make it authoritative. Wikipedia articles containing speculation are generally slanted toward the writer's views, not truth and balance in reporting.

[Mahone]

Although wikiipedia may quote sources for its references, that does not make it authoritative. Wikipedia articles containing speculation are generally slanted toward the writer's views, not truth and balance in reporting.

Yet, only facts are allowed on wikipedia articles - facts that have to be verified by the sources. If there if no verifiable source, it gets removed. Also bear in mind that each article has prehaps thousands of public authors, all of differing opinions. As I said, if it's not a fact, it gets removed - and very quickly.

[Mahone]

Evidence? Yes. Proof? Not enough to convict, but the admitted circumstances are disturbing. Why is it that a celebrity gets a pass but your neighbor down the street gets a jail sentence for doing the same things? Would you let your children sleep in the bed of the weird guy down the street?

They knew each other, Michael would say they were friends. In the 2003 case, I believe Michael paid for chemotherapy for the kid.

An expert witness said he was a regressed 10 year old. Does a person like this deserve to go to prison? He had mental health issues - something which is vastly misunderstood and underrepresented in this world. I myself have aspergers syndome. I come across sometimes as being blunt, cold and rude. I know that I come across this way sometimes because I've been told I do, but it's not something I do consciously - I don't know when I come across that way and am shocked when people tell me that, it's a part of the syndome that I have. Basically I see things in a different light to most people, social skills and "reading between the lines" is something I struggle to understand. People who do not know I have this syndrome will simply think I am purposely being rude, when it's not the case. I believe the same applies to Michael Jackson - simply in a different way.

[Just_A_Guy]

My understanding is there wasn't significant correlation between being homosexual and being a pedophile. Though if one classifies pedophilia as a subset of heterosexuality or homosexuality then I suppose all male abusers of male children are also homosexual or bisexual and thus the fact that he was gay makes him a stronger candidate for male child abuse than Just-A-Guy (just as Just-A-Guy by virtue of his heterosexuality would be a stronger candidate than Jackson if we were talking about female children).

Anyway, I suppose I'm asking is there significant correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia or are you refering to the above?

Can I just say how weird it is to have a discussion board debating whether I'm more likely to be a pedophile than Michael Freakin' Jackson?

Where did I go wrong?

[Mahone]

Can I just say how weird it is to have a discussion board debating whether I'm more likely to be a pedophile than Michael Freakin' Jackson?

Where did I go wrong?

My apologies for initiating this. My point was that the chances of you being a pedophile are very low. Michael Jackson just happened to be very famous (hence the media coverage), did some stupid things which could give him "the appearance of evil" and had a lot of money (motive for the accusers to lie). I believe those facts are the only reasons people now believe him to be a pedophile.