Michael Jackson is Innocent

26 Nov

I have been a big defender of Michael Jackson since the first allegation of 1993. A lot of people seem to think that if you are a strange / weird / eccentric person you are a child molester. People need to educate themselves about both cases.

I mean, what pedophile would only molest two kids? Especially since be has had over 500 something kids sleep over there. What pedophile would stop at 2 in the course of over 10 years? So you either believe:

1) Jackson is a molester but only molested two kids


2) Jackson is a molester but only 2 kids have come forward, despite the police intensively interviewing over 300 kids after the 1993 allegation and couldn’t find a single child who would accuse Mike also

This just came out yesterday apparently, the mom of the kid accusing Michael has a history of suing for money:

She was caught in 1998 shoplifting from J.C. Penney’s WITH HER SON (both had stolen goods on them, partners in crime hehe) and then after she was caught, she sued J.C. Penney claiming, among other things the guards sexually molested her and abused her son. J.C. Penney gave her over $100,000 to settle out of court.

Also, the father is very likely going to testify on Michael Jackson’s behalf, he has already said that she also accused him of sexual abuse to her and her son so she could win custody. This woman is friggin’ insane.

A month before the settlement, the boy’s mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse.

Mr Halpern said the father once showed him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition.

“She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script,” Halpern said. “I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me.”

The family’s past legal cases could be critical in the current molestation case, if Michael Jackson’s lawyer can show the mother or the accuser lacks credibility, said Leonard Levine, a defense attorney who specializes in sexual assault cases.

Michael Jackson aint gonna take this shit laying down, they are going to hopefully prove this woman is insane and take the poor kid away from her. It seems even Michael would be a better parent than this looney.

As for the 1993 case: educate yourself with this extensive article originally published in GQ

Turns out the boy never made any accusations until after he was given a powerful hypnotic drug, and only after the father had wrestled custody of the boy away from the mother. Interesting to note that the lawyer representing the dad in the 1993 case also represents this current accusation.

Also, there were taped conversations where the father says “Jackson is going down if I don’t get what I want”

And on top of it all, if you are a parent and really loved your kid, and really believe a person sexually abused your child..would you really take ANY sum of money rather than seeing the pervert thrown in jail to get ass-raped? Why take money and let the abuser go free to abuse other kids? Both these cases are about extortion.


18 Responses to “Michael Jackson is Innocent”

  1. dreama November 26, 2003 at 7:06 am #

    I haven’t yet decided in my mind if Jackson is guilty or not. I’ve been holding out for the evidence. So far, from what I’ve been hearing – I think the guy just might be innocent like you said, and for the reasons you’ve mentioned.
    I’d be a hypocrite in saying that just because he seems to be a freak that he’s guilty outright because of my strong support for the West Memphis Three in which their only true “crime” was that of being different from those in the town.

    • bboyneko November 26, 2003 at 7:53 am #

      I’ve heard about the WM3 case, and i can’t say 100% for sure they were innocent, but the case should be re-tried or investigated more. All I see is a badly conducted trail and police investigation, but don’t see clearly that they are innocnt.

      • dreama November 26, 2003 at 8:08 am #

        I didn’t see any evidence pointing to them other than a recording of the last 45 minutes of a 12-hour interrogation of the boy with the 72 IQ confessing.
        They didn’t see the bite marks at the first trial, but when people were looking into it they found them. Then all of the sudden the step-father of the boy who was the most brutalized made up three different stories as to how his teeth went missing after the crime? Then the knife he gave the producers of the first documentary he flip-flopped his story about how blood was found on it. A few years later his wife dies of “undetermined” causes?
        If anything – they need to take a look at the step-father.

  2. deleriumtrance November 26, 2003 at 9:06 am #

    mmm, my danny’s so smart! have you found my keys baby?

  3. thanny November 26, 2003 at 9:39 am #

    my friends’ list here always amuses me. i just responded to one of my other friends’ posts, that was all about mj’s guilt, that showed up right next to yours.
    i don’t think that people actually think he’s guilty because he’s weird or eccentric. my other friend made a good point about boy george, who’s weird, eccentric, out there, and gay, but no one thinks he’s a molester. nowhere near it. i think the 40 million dollar settlement from the first mj molestation charge clouds peoples minds a lot more. i agree with you, that a molester wouldn’t only victimize two kids. i think that if these charges are true, that there are a lot more kids out there. i haven’t read much about either cases, even with the entirity of the first charges being on the smoking gun.
    another good point my friend made is that these kids aren’t 5; they’re pre-teens, they’re vulnerable, easily manipulated. the acts described aren’t ‘violent’ that leave physical signs. they’re getting a lot of rewards; their parents and friends are getting anything they want, trips, toys, games, fun. the line gets blurry. maybe these kids feel obligated, maybe in some sick way they feel special. a lot of victims even protect their molesters. it’s such a sick and twisted manipulation and situation…
    as for the parents… ugh. i have no doubt in my mind that there are people out there that would take $40 million over justice. what i don’t get is how so many parents still let their kids stay over with michael jackson. i saw him admit that he still ‘shares a bed’ with tons of kids. i don’t care who you are, homeless guy, michael jackson, or jesus hisself– if i had a kid, there’s no way i’d let them sleep in the same bed as a grown man. no way, no how.
    with all that said, i still have no opinion on his guilt or innocence. i didn’t serve on any juries, and i have no desire to read any articles/claims/propaganda from either side. all i hope is that if these charges are true, and he really did do this sick shit, that his money doesn’t buy his way out of prison.

    • bboyneko November 26, 2003 at 10:31 am #

      [b]all i hope is that if these charges are true, and he really did do this sick shit, that his money doesn’t buy his way out of prison.[/b]
      You’ve revealed your bias with that statement. Again, look at both parents (the dad from the first case and the mom from this case) and there is a ton of evidence they are extorting. The J.C. penney thing and the script she gave her son during her divorce procedeeings already cast huge doubts over her claims.
      She is now claiming MJ kept her “a prisoner” at the ranch.

      • thanny November 26, 2003 at 6:44 pm #

        how is my statement biased? i’m not saying that’s what he did back then or what he’s doing now, but it’s no secret that people who have a lot of money are able to buy the best of defenses or pay off their victims. that’s what i’m worried about. there’s no way that a millionaire and a homeless guy will have the same kind of defenses from such charges. i wish i knew how we could lower the playing field for justice and put everyone on the same page, money or not.
        i mean you’re against anyone thinking biased against mj over past charges, right? so why aren’t this kid’s parents given that same benefit of the doubt? i totally understand what you’re saying, how we should look at motivations behind these new charges, but i really hope that this kid won’t get lost in the mess. can you imagine, if he really was molested, letting all this go because of his parents’ actions? i’m trying to remain open-minded about all of it, and i’m cautious about the sources of all of this information we hear about the case. i think both sides are going to launch massive smear campaigns, and i don’t want to see the truth get lost in all the bullshit.

    • bboyneko November 26, 2003 at 10:34 am #

      And as for boy george, no one has accused him of molesting kids duh. I guarantee if a gold digging mom accused him everyone would be like oh that boy george hes so weird looking he must be a child molestor.

      • thanny November 26, 2003 at 6:48 pm #

        i know no one ever accused boy george of molesting kids. i disagreed with your statement “A lot of people seem to think that if you are a strange / weird / eccentric person you are a child molester.” and anyone who’s trained in the field of molestation or is able to think open-mindedly without getting stereotypical knows that most molesters are average looking, middle-aged white men, not the big-bad boogiemen that wears a trench coat and lurks in an alley. there will always be simpletons who label someone just by their outside appearance, whether it be over minor things or something as horrible as child molestation, but i’m confident that they don’t speak for the majority.

  4. Anonymous November 28, 2003 at 9:40 am #

    He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
    MJ may not be guilty (I’m still waiting for the trial), but set himself up for this sort of accusation, again and again, by sharing his bed with kids and bragging about it. What did he expect? Has he not read a newspaper in the last 23 years? Is he completely unaware of our longstanding hysteria about child-molesting, where letting a kid see your bum from across the room can land you in court? Has he learned NOTHING from the 1993 case?
    The most charitable thing I can say about MJ is that he is a spoiled brat with no sense of shame, starved for attention at all costs, completely – pathetically – incapable of coming to grips with adult decision-making in the real world. He hides behind his wealth, and has allowed himself to be surrounded by unscrupulous sychophants unwilling and/or unable to tell him that his actions might not be sensible or beneficial.
    Guilty or not, MJ brought his current legal troubles on himself. Save your sympathies for people who at least try to take responsibility and live sensible lives.

    • bboyneko November 28, 2003 at 10:09 am #

      Re: He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
      still dosent make hims somehow deserving of being found guilty of something he may not be guilty of. You are right about his seperation from the common reality most of humanity shares..but again dosent make him deserving of being punished for something he didnt do.

      • Anonymous December 2, 2003 at 9:18 am #

        Re: He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
        I agree that he should not be punished for a crime he did not commit, especially a crime as serious as child-molesting. But I have to ask how much time one should spend defending someone who keeps on looking like he could have committed a crime, refuses to change that appearance, and repeatedly gets in trouble because of it. If you insist on hanging with gangsters, treating them like your best pals, and basking in their cool/dangerous aura, pretty soon people will start thinking you’re one of them, whether or not you ever fired a real gun in your life; and whose fault will that be?
        I am confident that if our courts err, they will err in MJ’s favor, based on his legal team and re$ource$, and the difficulty of finding physical evidence to support the charges. I hope the ordeal of a trial will knock some sense into him, but I doubt it. Chances are his fans and sychophants will rally ’round him, tell him he’s a saint, and make the whole experience rewarding for the attention and sympathy it gets him.

      • bboyneko December 2, 2003 at 9:45 am #

        Re: He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
        Since when did MJ hang out with Child Molestors? YOu say guilt by assosiation, but who doe she associate with? I assume you mean Kids? There are lot’s of celebrities who love kids like Rosie O’Donnel, or even jerry Lewis. Being around children isn’t guilt f itself. And as I keep telling people over and over, he’s had literally hundreds upon hundreds of kids sleep over. And only two have accused him? Both represented by same lawyer? And this latest mom sues Jc Penny for being caught shoplifting, and accused their guards of sexually molesting her!
        pedophiles dont have only 2 victims in a 20 year span, esp after having several hundred kids sleep over. So you either beleive there is a vast conspiracy among the kids to protect Jacko and keep silent, or that he only touched 2 kids, both ridiculous.
        This is a witch hunt against someone who looks different than us.
        The credibility isn’t

      • Anonymous December 3, 2003 at 6:14 am #

        Re: He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
        No, I’m not saying MJ hangs with pedophiles, nor am I alleging guilt by association. I am merely saying that MJ has brought all of his current legal troubles on himself, by refusing to take a few simple precautions that would have insulated him from these troubles. He’s not being persecuted because he “looks different” (so does Boy George, but is he being hauled into court?), but because his specific actions have aroused the kind of suspicion and disgust that give credibility to the accusations of gold-diggers.
        I suspect that MJ is allowing all this to happen in order to hog public attention and keep on playing the poor, innocent, lost, hurt child in the big bad world, and to keep his fans coddling him with pity, sympathy and lame excuses.
        I’m not buying into this pathetic, manipulative con game, and neither should you. MJ is an adult, however fervently he may pretend otherwise. He chose his actions, and is fully responsible for them. Stop pretending he’s a victim of anything other than his own adamant refusal to act his age.

      • bboyneko December 3, 2003 at 6:36 am #

        Re: He looks guilty, and that much is his own fault.
        the whole “boy george looks different but no one thinks he touched kids” thing has been repeated so many times I wonder if anyone has stopped to think about it.
        NO ONE HAS ACCUSED BOY GEORGE! If they had, you can bet people would beleive it just because he looks different and acts weird.
        However, if you accuse say, Tom Cruise, people would have a hard time accpeting that because he acts relatively normal and looks pretty normal.
        My point still stands, people are lynching him because they feel he looks so different and acts so different he must be a monster. Same kind of bully mentality that causes 6 year olds to bully on one of their classmates who maybe has a malformed back, dosent dress as ‘cool’ or has a lisp.

      • Anonymous December 3, 2003 at 8:12 am #

        MJ’s specific brand of wierdness is the problem
        Sorry, your point does not stand. MJ isn’t being accused of child-molesting because he “looks different;” he’s being accused of child-molesting because his behavior has made such charges credible – specifically, among other things: he shares his bed with children; brags about it; settled a previous lawsuit rather than fight the charges, despite having more than enough money for a protracted legal battle; and continues to share a bed with children after that lawsuit, despite the obvious image problems this causes.
        Why is this particular gold-digger accusing MJ and not Boy George? Because MJ set himself up for it, and Boy George, flaming wierdo though he is, did not. An accusation against Boy George would not work nearly as well because Boy George is not known to invite children into his bed.
        There are innocent people whose wierdness exposes them to wild accusations, and who don’t have the re$ource$ to defend themselves (Pagans, for example). Save your sympathies and attention for them, not for a pampered rich brat who knowingly chose his own troubles and has plenty of resources to dig himself out of them.

      • bboyneko December 3, 2003 at 9:41 am #

        Re: MJ’s specific brand of wierdness is the problem
        Sorry, your point does not stand. MJ isn’t being accused of
        child-molesting because he “looks different;” he’s being accused of
        child-molesting because his behavior has made such charges credible

        I didn’t say he was being accused BECAUSE he looks different I said he is being unfairly pre-judged as being guilty because he looks different and acts different.
        And he might very well be accused because of his weirdness. Any extorter who wanted to get millions out of him can be like “hmm..he looks weird and likes kids, i bet the public would beleive he is a child molestor if I got my kid to accuse him.”
        There are innocent people whose wierdness exposes them to wild
        accusations, and who don’t have the re$ource$ to defend themselves
        (Pagans, for example). Save your sympathies and attention for them, not for a pampered rich brat who knowingly chose his own troubles and has plenty of resources to dig himself out of them.

        So just because someone is rich we shouldn’t care wether they are being slandered? Only poor people? Tell that to the press and media, who have been doing nothing but blasting this story to hell, and the public who have caused ratings at news channels to skyrocket over 50%
        It is an issue worth discussing because of it’s placement right now in the public eye.
        Your points as to why the charges against Michael are beleivable are valid, but again consider the source, this mom accused JC Penny of sexually molesting her and her kid when they were caught shoplifting, and JC penny settled out of court with her.
        Using your logic, this must mean the guards really sexually molested her and her kid when they caught her shoplifting.

      • Anonymous December 4, 2003 at 8:08 am #

        Re: MJ’s specific brand of wierdness is the problem
        Yet again: no, I’m not saying we “shouldn’t care” about MJ’s troubles solely because he is rich; I’m saying we shouldn’t care because he set himself up for such charges by his own poorly-chosen actions; because he stupidly refused to take simple precautions to shield himself; because he could well be allowing this to happen in order to gain attention and sympathy; and, yes, because he is indeed rich enough that his losses, in any case, will not be nearly as great as those of (for example) poorer Pagans who have lost their jobs, their homes, custody of their children, and even their lives.
        Put in a larger perspective, MJ’s troubles aren’t worth anyone’s time, and he desperately needs to be informed of this. This relentless coddling and excusing of MJ is part of his problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: