Riiiiiight. So if people disagree with you, they're either uneducated or ignoring things! Gotcha! That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your open-mindedness on the issue.
You're not disagreeing with me if your willfully ignoring what the facts are. You don't have to agree with me, but I can only assume what you know based on the few comments you've made. Those comments sound like something someone who doesn't know all the facts surrounding the case would say.
I understand that the verdicts do not always match the reality, for a variety of reasons, and that was my point in bringing up OJ.
OJ is completely irrelevant. The chain of evidence for OJ was huge. There was no credible evidence against MJ, period. Just the inconsistent ramblings of proven pathological liars and opportunists. You seem to think the prosecution didn't do it's damndest to try and get a conviction. The police also. And in all that, they couldn't get any decent evidence. There was overwhelming evidence against OJ. And, notably, his victims' families didn't take a settlement or back out of going to civil court. He was found responsible for her death. Period. He got off in criminal court on a technicality basically. MJ didn't get off on a technicality, there was nothing there to begin with.
I'm not criticizing him for hiring great attorneys, I'm simply stating that you see more people of high power get away with things because they can hire great attorneys.
So because OJ got off with a high powered attorney, every celebrity that gets charged and acquitted is necessarily guilty? That's an incredibly illogical leap. OJ didn't get away with anything, really, he was just spared jail time.
In the court of public opinion, the guy is guilty.
The general consensus I'm hearing is that while people were shocked or disturbed at the charges, they were relieved to find out they weren't believable.
Add the fact that he was in possession of pornography (regardless of whether it was gay, straight, or with kids), which removes the whole notion that he was some kind of sexless Peter Pan who didn't even have impure thoughts , and that is someone with a serious psychological problem.
Whether he actually did anything about it is really a side issue; he may not have been a criminal but he's someone who had no business being a parent, a babysitter, a role model, or worthy of the kind of obnoxious, obtuse praise that we've been seeing since his death.
Who said he was a sexless Peter Pan? I didn't. Maybe sex to him was the hetero pornography he owned. That makes him unfit as a parent or babysitter? Please.
Owning pornography is impure and wrong?
.......fuck......anyone wanna buy a used harddrive?
Let he who is without sin....
In all seriousness though, I dont disagree that sleeping with someone elses children is weird and I wouldnt be caught anywhere near a bed with anyone elses kids, but that doenst make the guy a pedophile.
See...there's a bit of an issue there. What are these people thinking of when they send their children to his house for a sleepover? Let's be real, MJs bedroom is probably huge so whether or not they were asleep in the same room after having a pajama party or whatever is kindof semantics. But what parent is letting their kid go over there for a pajama party anyways!? I said it before and I'll say it again: much as I admire and respect Bono, if Bono himself called and asked if my kids wanted to come sleep over, the answer would be no. I just don't believe in that sort of thing.
That doesn't mean he wasn't sick in the head. Him talking about it so matter-of-factly just shows how unstable his mind was.
Well noone said he was completely all there. Does that make him a criminal or make his off-stage contribution to this world any less valuable? No.
Yes, I have made up my mind. But you're telling me a guy who has pornography and nude pictures of kids who likes to sleep with them has a non-sexual fixation? What more evidence do you need, besides the act of molestation itself? It might not be enough to put him in jail, but it's certainly enough to convict you in, as YLB said, the court of public opinion.
My larger point, because the legal aspect is really the least important, is that a guy with these issues and habits shouldn't be considered a role model. He should not be a legal guardian of minors. He shouldn't be left alone with other minors. Would you let your kid around someone like that, or want them emulating him?
Well obviously we wouldn't, and that's where the huge problem is. All these kids parents...they all let their kids go there - what the hell? Ok fine, they trusted him. Well so did tens of other kids who said that not only did nothing ever go on with them, they never even saw or felt any hint of it.
And yes, I expect real evidence of child molestation to convict someone of child molestation. Not someone who's willing to sell their child's dignity and soul for a dollar, not for any price.
