Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Michael Jackson Jurors Reach a Verdict

Page: 1(2)3

21:07 / 13.06.05

Er, posting in response to the 'Michael will realise it's inappropriate' post, obviously. Goodness, people are quite into all this on here, aren't we?

is there not another more sinister line of thinking which has Michael thinking that as a court of law found him innocent then his behaviour is fine- and thus continues....

..Innocently

semioticrobotic

21:09 / 13.06.05

As if. The man will interpret this as being carte blanche to continue in his weird little world of weirdness. He was found innocent, y'know? That means his behaviour is, y'know, really innocent. After all, what could be more innocent than sharing one's bed with the needy? Honestly.

Well, this might be picking nits, but I think it's important to remember he was found "not guilty" -- not "innocent."

Jacko was "not guilty" of doing the things he was accused of having done. That may or may not make him a totally innocent person, generally speaking.

semioticrobotic

21:12 / 13.06.05

Forgot to close my tag. The first paragraph was quoted material.

paranoidwriter waves hello

21:32 / 13.06.05

(I'm only trying to keep an open mind, so don't bite, please).

is there not another more sinister line of thinking which has Michael thinking that as a court of law found him innocent then his behaviour is fine- and thus continues....

..Innocently

You're right, that is, IF he's guilty. Seriously, (IMHO) hunches (etc.) aren't good enough to base a judgement in most cases, and we all know the manipulative power of the media - and by this I mean as a kind of leviathan. e.g. On the whole I hate generalisations (groan), but most of those who work within it and thus constitute it call it "the media" (which makes me think of the Dr Who line I quoted [warning:spoilers] in this thread).

Also, although this 'sleeping with children' business is suspect, we REALLY don't know what his relationship with those children was REALLY like. He MAY be almost a surrogate father-figure, for example. I know I used to creep into my Mum and Dad's bed when I was a kid. Of course, they were my parents and I chose to sleep with them, and also Michael is an adult who should know better in this paranoid, scared, and knee-jerk climate, especially seeing as he is who he is. However, he is who he is, and only Michael Jackson and the children affected know what REALLY happened. No?

We need evidence.

21:37 / 13.06.05

Worth pointing out, perhaps, that there's much related discussion in this thread and this one.

22:04 / 13.06.05

His next album should be a George Michaelesque coming out disco-pop extravaganza, produced by the Neptunes. The first video should feature his bedroom morphing Black and White-style into a kid's room, complete with Transformers bed-spread and Beneton ad demographic kiddie backing dancers wearing pyjamas, plus an all kiddie wine-tasting round Napa in which the waiters decant the highest value vintages into Coke cans.

paranoidwriter waves hello

22:15 / 13.06.05

I reckon he should do a Howard Hughes and disa-

22:22 / 13.06.05

Ah. Breaking News: Massive earthquake in Chile. I wonder what kind of coverage that's going to get.

paranoidwriter waves hello

22:23 / 13.06.05

(not directed at anyone specifically, but in response to the last post)

Irony?

Tryphena Absent

22:56 / 13.06.05

I've just been watching the BBC News 24 channel with Uri Geller talking about the Martin Bashir film on his friend: "'I yelled at Michael, you cannot have children in your room." Oh Uri, you're not his friend anymore.

01:14 / 14.06.05

Smoothly, that wasn't such a big earthquake.

I think someone's going to shoot Michael Jackson.

02:35 / 14.06.05

I assumed Jacko would get off

yes, bryan, that's what we all assumed!!

the whole thing was a farce, wasn't it? was it ever really a fair trial in a reasonable judicial system? so what now - appeals? mai oui...

03:03 / 14.06.05

They'll get him in civil court, which was their goal all along.

lonely as a cloud...

06:47 / 14.06.05

So here's a question...given that he was found not guilty, does he still have to pay his lawyer, or will the government foot the bill?

07:41 / 14.06.05

I think I remember something on the news to the tune of, "cloud from Barbelith will foot the bill." So I guess you can expect an invoice, dude.

lonely as a cloud...

08:02 / 14.06.05

'spose I don't mind...he is my *special friend*, after all. We'll probably discuss it over a nice can of coke, or summat.

wembley can change in 28 days

11:55 / 14.06.05

Call me the least cynical person ever (and by this by no means read card-carrying member of the <3 jackson brigade), but I think he was acquitted 'cause there ain't all that much going on.

The guy's weird. Really, really weird, and he has enough money to express that weirdosity any way he chooses. But I find it weird that so many people assume that an adult male who befriends children must be a paedophile.

semioticrobotic

11:58 / 14.06.05

Astro: I assumed Jacko would get off ... yes, bryan, that's what we all assumed!!

Haha, zing!

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:01 / 14.06.05

As wembley says, it may well be the case that he was found not guilty cos he was, y'know, not guilty. (At the very least, the jury at least had "reasonable doubt" of his guilt). I have no idea either way, to be honest, not having either been there or been in court every day and listened to every last bit of evidence, other than the "juicy bits" they put in the media.

12:11 / 14.06.05

Judging by the press conference with the jury (how weird was that, btw), reasonable doubt certainly seemed to be the clincher – that and the 19 pages of instructions from the judge that they appeared to have followed pretty conscientiously. This might give a clue as to how the inevitable civil action will pan out, where guilt depends on balance of probabilities (IIRC). Although the Arvizo family were characterised as ‘grifters’, so maybe this case won’t map onto OJ’s.

12:30 / 14.06.05

But I find it weird that so many people assume that an adult male who befriends children must be a paedophile.

There's befriending children, and there's inviting them to share your bed. One is generally acceptable within our society; the other is not.

I think there's a confusion around terms like "paedophile", "molester", even "sex", and this contributed, perhaps, to the balance of "reasonable doubt" going in Jackson's favour. I don't think he's necessarily a paedophile in that he's sexually attracted to children's bodies to the extent that he wants to put his cock in them. I think he's sexually attracted to (a particular version of) childhood rather than specific children: he has a pattern of befriending pre-teen or early-teens male children, then having little to do with them after the mid-teens; the children themselves are relatively interchangeable.

A more pertinent question might be, did Jackson exploit these children in a harmful way? I think he did - with the tacit collusion of their parents - but in a more subtle manner that, I suspect, didn't necessarily translate to the hard currency of "paedophilia" and "molesting".

15:39 / 14.06.05

Yes...with a more awake head on, that makes a lot of sense. Even if he doesn't actually have sex with the kids, there is still that exploitative side to this series of relationships he's had with these kids that is, definitely, very icky. I mean, he actually does use them up and throw them away, and genuinely without, perhaps, any real appreciation of what that must do to these kids psychologically.

I think a lot of my animus against Jackson is based, largely, on the fact that I really fucking hate his songs. All of them. I just plain don't like the fellow.

paranoidwriter waves hello

17:40 / 14.06.05

I owe a few debts to 'Off the Wall', and I've had to buy it a few times. I just hope I wasn't funding his habit....

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:32 / 14.06.05

Oh yeah, his treatment of these kids was, as far as I can tell, reprehensible- but he was on trial for "lewd acts" and the like, not "exploiting children". Doesn't make it any better, but means the verdict may have been the right one.

20:00 / 14.06.05

Sure, I'm aware he's been found "not guilty" of the lewd acts stuff. I was addressing the 'is he a paedophile?' thing.

21:24 / 14.06.05

I don't believe there is in fact a law against sleeping in the same bed, or the same room, as minors. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case. They didn't.

Luckily for most people on this board, being weird is not a crime in and of itself.

Mote, beam, etc.

For those upright citizens who are concerned about the plight of children:

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Support_Groups/Sexual_Abuse/

Surely those folks can suggest ways you can help. Knock yourselves out.

21:46 / 14.06.05

oh, and cloud, that't have to be over a pepsi...

apparently, pepsi hired wacko 'cause they heard he likes the taste of a new generation...

[groan...]

why, incidently, do we care about this case?

21:48 / 14.06.05

I don't believe there's a law against pointing out the social inappropriateness of a fortysomething man regularly sharing his bed with the prepubertal male children of comparative strangers - which, while admittedly not breaking any laws in and of itself, would be considered (by UK child protection services, anyway) more than simply "weird".

Naturally, a "not guilty" verdict is a "not guilty" verdict, and there's no arguing with that. Beyond it, we remain free to speculate and express opinion.

23:12 / 14.06.05

I don't believe there's a law against pointing out the social inappropriateness of a fortysomething man regularly sharing his bed with the prepubertal male children of comparative strangers - which, while admittedly not breaking any laws in and of itself, would be considered (by UK child protection services, anyway) more than simply "weird".

I totally agree, and I would go further than calling it socially inappropriate - it's exploitative and quite likely psychologically abusive. Psychological abuse, in many of its forms, is not necessarily illegal, but it's widely considering something we protect children from in this society.

As to all the "not guilty"/"innocent" hoopla, remember the jurors are not clairvoyants. They've only rendered a judgement based on a certain set of evidence, and in reference to a specific burden we call "beyond a reasonable doubt." Having served on a jury myself, I can tell you that sometimes - indeed, particularly when it's done its job properly - a jury is compelled to deliver a "not guilty" verdict even when the jurors really believe the defendent is guilty, if the evidence did not meet the burden of doubt. So, please, I don't think a jury verdict is any kind of definitive proclamation of guilt or innocence. See also: OJ Simpson.

05:09 / 15.06.05

There's befriending children, and there's inviting them to share your bed. One is generally acceptable within our society; the other is not.
Gandi used to sleep with children and it didn't seem to bother anyone.

It seems that if you are a very rich black pop idol with a self mutilation fetish...that is the problem.

Before you start...yes Gandi did sleep with children it's a fact.

06:33 / 15.06.05

A fact like you talking to Tom Coates in person or ass-fucking a vampire polar bear making you shit ice cubes, or a real fact?

07:07 / 15.06.05

Gandi used to sleep with children and it didn't seem to bother anyone.

It seems that if you are a very rich black pop idol with a self mutilation fetish...that is the problem.

Before you start...yes Gandi did sleep with children it's a fact.

Do you, perhaps, mean Gandhi?

I'm sure we're all able to provide examples of adults sharing beds with other people's children, particularly when we look to other times and cultures for examples. Within Western culture at the current time, however, actively seeking out other people's pre-pubertal children to share one's capacious bed is considered to go a little beyond "weird" and shade into "at risk".

Or that's how child protection services in the UK would view it anyway. Perhaps things are different in the US?

07:55 / 15.06.05

It seems that if you are a very rich black pop idol with a self mutilation fetish...that is the problem.

No, it's not. If I start inviting pre-pubertal boys over to spend the night in my bed, I'd be investigated a lot quicker than Jacko has been. Of course, I wouldn't have had millions to buy my way out of a court case over the Jordi Chandler business.

08:02 / 15.06.05

Well, I'm a long way from pre-pubertal but I'm willing to get on the next train...

21:21 / 15.06.05

But if I kept you prisoner in my bedroom for the next month, I could still go to prison. Probably wiser not to risk it.

I have had a few conversations about this at work with colleagues, usually middle aged black women. I am amazed thjat the majority (well, two out of three) say they would have had no problem with their kids sleeping in Jackson's bed. When I say, what about me sleeping with them, then they are not so keen. I'm much nicer than him, you must understand, but still they're not keen. Is it cos I'm not black? Am I not rich enough?

In all three cases, their kids were daughters too. Michael's chosen bedmates were all pre-pubertal male children were they not, dumped when their voices broke.

Page: 1(2)3