I’ll say it now, and I’m sure you will hear me say it again; the true test of any artist’s work is the test of time. I’ve had well over two decades to decide whether his music still sounds good today. In my opinion, it still sounds just as brilliant as the first day I heard it.

Most definitely.

You a Faith No More fan as well? Looks like we have quite a bit in common.

actually, he was found not guilty....which is a lot different than being innocent.

I'm well aware of that - the verdict itself only means that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in respect of the alleged crime as distinct from being convinced of his innocence.

Still, when I say "innocent", that's based on more than an inference from the verdict, i.e. my personal view.

that's like saying you think OJ is innocent because you liked the 1970s buffalo bills.

Not quite. I'll try to explain briefly.

MJ is obviously a very, very unique person. He was brought up very differently from most people and could not interact with people due to the extremely strong (and intrusive) public focus from a very young age. It's pertinent to note that mass media was picking up just as his career was astronomically rising and that, as a result, he always needed cover from the media who were and continued to be stuck on his life due to his stardom. As such, he felt deprived of his childhood and constantly sought to rediscover it in some way. This is evident in his music, the Neverland ranch, his wish to be some kind of Peter Pan, his like of all things Disney, etc. I would guess that it also stemmed from his growing distrust of adults not only in the media but those surrounding him. Everyone could gain from MJ, it seemed and still does. This has also been evident in his music throughout the years although the animosity was most obvious after the first allegations. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that his love of children may well be a way to rediscover his own innocence as well as a refuge from the real world.

Then there's his obvious willingness to contribute to charitable causes, including those relating to children.

I think it would be a ridiculous notion to suggest that he did all this (i.e. build Neverland, get a chimpanzee, contribute to children as he did) merely to score some kids. His entire demeanour and the way he has conducted himself suggests otherwise.

Then there are the allegations themselves. People seem to take an out of court settlement as some sort of antecedent. However, that settlement was made without any admission of liability. Let's also remember that no criminal charges were brought before him in 1993, given the lack of evidence.

With regard to the recent trial, the jury unanimously decided that MJ was not guilty. The probity (or lack thereof) of "evidence" in this regard coupled with the complete unreliability of the key prosecution witness ("kidnappers!", she said) shows that the whole thing was entirely baseless. Further, the questionable money-grabbing history of the complainant and family buttresses the fact that this was a sham.

As to the verdict, the jury is only obliged to make a finding whether the accused is guilty or not. In the circumstances of the case, as well as MJ's background, I see no basis to call him a paedophile or anything like that. Further, in light of the above in respect of his acts throughout the years, I'm convinced he's innocent.

Apologies if I haven't spent enough time on this. Just thought I'd make the main points for now.

this isnt accurate.


1. they couldnt continue to the first case because after the boy and his family were paid $20 million (hush money....wink, wink) they refused to cooperate with the prosecutors anymore. its hard to try a case when the accuser is unwilling to cooperate. the boy and his family wouldnt even cooperate for the most recent case.

very rarely if ever are settlements made with admission of liability. for example, in every one of the catholic church's settlements in connection with all the pedophile priests (including those who were convicted)....they paid billions in dollars but haven't addmitted to any liability in one case.


2. if he was really innocent it would have cost him a lost less to go to trial. not just in lawyers fees but the major damage to his career. i dont know a single innocent person who would pay what amounted to 15% of his net worth at the time....especially in situation like his. it's not like he was a nobody that no one would hear of the case or the settlement. from the moment he settled his career pretty much jumped the shark. in his case, he had to go to trial to prove his innocence (if he was really innocent) and than sue the family into bankruptcy afterwards.


3. how many adult males have boys sleeping in their beds....especially one who has already had one or two incidents in the past, already? at the very least, any innocent person who isnt developmentally disabled would never allow themselves to be in that situation ever again. while he obviously has mental disorder(s) of some kind....i am pretty sure he knows right and wrong when it comes to children....especially after earlier case(s). its almost always boys he's helping or having stay over.


4. there was a big deal made about his having only homosexual themed pornography....which really isnt a big deal. all those pictured were adults; however, he also had "artistic" pictures of naked boys.


most of his behavior is actually similar to that of a pedophile. is he one? there really is no way to be sure....but only an idiot, or parent(s) hoping he would do something in hopes of a settlement would allow their child to be alone with him....never mind, sleeping in bed with him.


5. the main reason he was found innocent in this case was the mother was a raving nut and the prosecutor was as incompetent as those in the o.j. trial.

in this particular case there really is no way to tell if he was guilty or not.

As I said, the civil proceedings were settled but the criminal proceedings weren't even instituted due to lack of evidence. True, the boy did not co-operate but an extensive investigation was conducted which included interviews with several other persons. And not even a single charge was brought. Which is odd, considering that similar charges were subsequently brought on the recommendation of the same Mr Sneddon years later in spite of the lack of credible witnesses and evidence.


That hardly means that liability should be inferred from any settlement. Settlement can be for a multitude of reasons. Costs being the most significant (though not quite applicable to MJ's case) and to spare the accused the inconvenience, trouble or trauma of going to trial. The latter would be most applicable to Jackson. The effect of the later trial on him is obvious and it certainly appears that he only went through the process since he felt it necessary to vindicate himself. As for the settlement, with hindsight, it does appear to be a mistake on his part. I think it's safe to guess that he thought on out of court settlement would lessen the media focus and that all would be forgotten sooner or later. Clearly, a trial brings everything into the public eye which is hardly what anyone would want, whether the charges are justified or not.

As to the settlement of the priests who were convicted, the fact they were even convicted tells the whole story. Where the settlement is made without going so far, it doesn't mean anything either way. Which was my point. I'm interested to know, however, whether there were concurrent civil and criminal proceedings in respect of the priests or whether they were merely civil.



I agree about the cost of going to trial. As I said earlier, however, this is clear with hindsight. Several other stars who have been involved in scandals, whether proven as fact or not, have managed to move on. R. Kelly, for example. The whole peeing on little girls thing seems to be a passing joke (see Dave Chappelle) rather than a damning criticism of the man.


Like I said, Jackson is unique. I doubt he thought he was doing anything wrong merely by sharing the same bed. You don't do the act, you don't do the crime.

In any case, how many adult males build Neverland or the like? How many enjoy receiving Super Soakers as a birthday present (from Elizabeth Taylor). How many enjoy Disney to that extent?

I think it's clear that he enjoys being a kid - reverting to his childhood. Kids are his friends - people have always known that. And he kids around with them just as other kids would. Not exactly necessary for any paedophile to "get his game on" if he really wanted to. As such, the whole sharing bed thing is akin to a sleepover - just another thing that kids do. He does the same thing with Elizabeth Taylor, who also enjoys being a kid when they're with him. Celebrities, including Diana Ross, have always remarked on that form of innocence that he has.



I read that there was normal heterosexual pornography, which some people seemed suprised by for some reason. Do you have a link to the source that says otherwise?

At the end of the day, if he possessed any pictures that could form a charge against him, why was that not done?


As for behaving like a paedophile, I'm not sure what such behaviour generally consists of. As far as I am aware, there is not distinct behavioural pattern for paedophiles. They come in all shapes and sizes and behave differently. Could be your next door neighbour - that sort of thing. Someone who spends time with kids may appear to be an easy target, but I think that in the present context, it's because he just likes to be one sometimes.



The fact that the family has created a sham case in the past for financial gain should tell you enough. The Prosecutor may have been incompetent, but where no actus reus is established (let alone mens rea), there really isn't even a starting point. All you have is the complaint, which can't be taken as conclusive or even indicative of guilt. Especially when the "victim" in this case and in the 1993 allegations have been releasing all sorts of garbage in the form of books, which, as far as I know, contain the most farfetched material that could not withstand scrutiny or examination.

with one working hand at the moment....it took several dozen edits (at least it seemed that way ) over 7 hours to break off that last response.

you're going to either have to wait until i have two working hands again for an extended posts/discussion, or we're going to have to agree to disagree on several things....although, not all.


and since we're bringing in the latin....actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea....which i agree was not shown in this case, which is why i said he had to be found not guilty when this case was discussed on here back at the time in a different thread.

I'm fine with either waiting for your response or agreeing to disagree. What happened to your hand anyway? I'm sure you've mentioned it on another thread. But since you're EVERYWHERE I thought I might ask here.

As for the presumption of innocence, it may not apply in the way the layman thinks. But then no one can truly be vindicated at the end of trial. In the case in question, the key prosecution witnesses have zero credibility which only shows that this was an entirely baseless move designed to generate cash.

If someone like that made allegations against me and those allegations fell apart completely as they did in MJ's case, I'd be damned if I let semantics like "not guilty" stand in the way of what I would regard as clear vindication. I agree with you completely in that there is a difference between the two. My view is just that the "gap" between "not guilty" and "innocent" should be regarded as closed in these types of cases.

Anyway, hope your hand gets better soon. And always nice chatting with you in these forums.

Panbient too.