A serious question about Michael Jackson and Pete Townshend

musicismylife78

PJGARDEN wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I would defend them if they went on trial and the police investigated things as thouroughly as they did with MJ.

Again, the trial was all about investigating these things. Dont you think if there had been some smoking gun, or major evidence of abuse that that would of come out, and become the biggest story in the world?

The sleepovers allegations can go both ways. As I said you have three celebrity, high profile folks, who said sleepovers happened and none of them said anything bad happened. That to me is major evidence that, maybe, just maybe, the allegations against MJ were completely and utterly false.

If your gonna accuse someone of assault of a child, I think you need to have evidence. And if you look at the facts of the case, and the evidence, it becomes clear that there was never any wrongdoing by MJ.

There were no incriminating photos, or dirty websites visited. There were no books about abuse, beyond the innocent art book I mentioned above. There were no videos. Nothing. There were no diary entries by MJ about incidents. Nothing.

I agree that you need some evidence to accuse someone of something like that. But, to me, a middle aged man sleeping in the same bed as a child he doesn't know is enough evidence for me to say my kid would't go within 10 miles of him. And actually this makes me blame the parents as much as him. He obviously had issues plus the allegations....why would you let your child near him. I don't care if he has been convicted or not.

I also wouldn't use the word of a celebrity as evidence. Maybe he didn't abuse every child, maybe they are lying, maybe he didn't abuse anyone. To me, the word of three people doesn't mean jack. If he was one of their heroes, they may just not want to accept that it ever happened. Many many children that are abused never say a word and it's never reported. It's just like women who never report being raped. Unfortunately it happens way too often.

So the word of people who said he didnt do anything is jack to you. But the word of kids who said he did do something is to be taken as fact?

Either you accept all evidence from both sides, or you dont accept evidence from either side.

The testimony of those three celebrities is just as important as anything.

And didnt Jay Leno testify as well as George Lopez, under oath that this mother tried to get money from them too?

musicismylife78

PJGARDEN wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I would defend them if they went on trial and the police investigated things as thouroughly as they did with MJ.

Again, the trial was all about investigating these things. Dont you think if there had been some smoking gun, or major evidence of abuse that that would of come out, and become the biggest story in the world?

The sleepovers allegations can go both ways. As I said you have three celebrity, high profile folks, who said sleepovers happened and none of them said anything bad happened. That to me is major evidence that, maybe, just maybe, the allegations against MJ were completely and utterly false.

If your gonna accuse someone of assault of a child, I think you need to have evidence. And if you look at the facts of the case, and the evidence, it becomes clear that there was never any wrongdoing by MJ.

There were no incriminating photos, or dirty websites visited. There were no books about abuse, beyond the innocent art book I mentioned above. There were no videos. Nothing. There were no diary entries by MJ about incidents. Nothing.

I agree that you need some evidence to accuse someone of something like that. But, to me, a middle aged man sleeping in the same bed as a child he doesn't know is enough evidence for me to say my kid would't go within 10 miles of him. And actually this makes me blame the parents as much as him. He obviously had issues plus the allegations....why would you let your child near him. I don't care if he has been convicted or not.

I also wouldn't use the word of a celebrity as evidence. Maybe he didn't abuse every child, maybe they are lying, maybe he didn't abuse anyone. To me, the word of three people doesn't mean jack. If he was one of their heroes, they may just not want to accept that it ever happened. Many many children that are abused never say a word and it's never reported. It's just like women who never report being raped. Unfortunately it happens way too often.

Your right people who are abused sometimes dont report it for years, decades even.

But that doesnt mean we can accuse people of things without evidence. if someone is accused of a crime, there needs to evidence that they did something wrong.

Thats my whole problem with the Scott Peterson thing. Did his actions amount to wierd, odd and sick behavior, sure. But there was never anything linking him to the crime beyond circumstantial evidence. In my book, there needs to be more than that to convict someone of a crime like murdering your pregnant wife.

Otherwise we are sort of arresting people for thought crimes or future crimes or crimes they didnt commit and thats wrong.

musicismylife78

the testimony of those three celebrities is evidence that he didnt commit a crime. Thats why it was allowed in court. If they had admitted that he did something to them, wouldnt you say that it does indeed "mean jack to you"?

People dont normally just out of the blue snap and become killers or molestors. Sure it happens, but it isnt likely. So to have three people who said nothing happened when they were in the exact same situation, means there is a pattern developing, and it isnt a pattern of abuse, but rather a pattern of sleepovers, innocent sleepovers

musicismylife78

you cant say michael is guilty merely based on the fact you think the three celebrities are lying or may not want to hurt their hero as you put it.

Its not acceptable to say someone is guilty merely based on the fact you think people dont report abuse.

PJGARDEN

musicismylife78 wrote:

So the word of people who said he didnt do anything is jack to you. But the word of kids who said he did do something is to be taken as fact?

Either you accept all evidence from both sides, or you dont accept evidence from either side.

The testimony of those three celebrities is just as important as anything.

And didnt Jay Leno testify as well as George Lopez, under oath that this mother tried to get money from them too?

Umm when it comes to protecting your child, yes the word of a few people doesn't mean jack to me. If there were allegations like that against anyone, my dog wouldn't go near them much less a child. And no when you are talking about children, you don't have to look at both sides of the case, you have to do what is safe for them. I'm not talking about whether he should have been convicted or not. My original question to you was would you let your kid go sleep in the same bed with him. I guess you have answered my question and that's a little scary.

Again, I never said he was guilty or he should or shouldn't have been convicted. I said my kid wouldn't go near him and I would think that a decent parent would have the same perspective. You don't gamble when it comes to children.