Huge ammounts of police swarming "Neverland"...

[NYU 0]

you fail to see the point.  In his own mind, he's NOT a grown man, in his mind he's just like the boys he sleeps with.

This doesn't mean he's not guilty of something. If one person murders another, but says in his mind that God gave him permission, does that give him the right to do it? Hell, in his mind, God really DID tell him to murder this guy and that nothing was wrong with it. But he should still face the consequences. In Michael's mind, he may very well not think he is doing anything wrong if he molests a child. But the fact is that he IS doing something terribly wrong, and needs to be punished for it if it is true. It's not as if this is the first time he's hearing this. He went through the whole molestation trial before, but yet has the nerve years later to say he STILL sleeps in bed with children. It was only a matter of time before it came up to him and, even if he thought there was nothing wrong with it before, he should know by now that there IS, considering all that he went through years ago. If the accusations are true, they can't be justified by what he may think because, if he gets off free, it will only happen again.

 

Considering the situation he has set up, and his riches and fame, does it really surprise anybody that one would take adcantage of a situation like that? I doesn't surprise me.

 

Christ, I'll say it again. At this point, this has NOTHING to do with money. This is a criminal case. Not a civil case. Money will not be given out. And the truth is, many know by this point that Jackson isn't all that rich. If they were looking for money, they would have to know they would be more successful suing somebody that was more famous at this time. So please stop saying this is about getting money off Michael Jackson, when there is no indication that this case will even BECOME civil.

 

And if you use fame as an excuse.....something strange tells me that this boy doesn't exactly want to be known as "The boy that Michael Jackson supposedly molested". I doubt his mother wants the title of "The Mother of the child who Michael Jackson supposedly molested." Why is it so impossible to believe that this incident did occur, and this family wants to see Michael brought to justice? Not everything is about money or fame.

[Downhome 0]

If anyone actually believes that a civil case wont be coming up after this criminal trial, then you are fucking out of your mind.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Considering the situation he has set up, and his riches and fame, does it really surprise anybody that one would take adcantage of a situation like that? I doesn't surprise me.

 

Christ, I'll say it again. At this point, this has NOTHING to do with money. This is a criminal case. Not a civil case. Money will not be given out. And the truth is, many know by this point that Jackson isn't all that rich. If they were looking for money, they would have to know they would be more successful suing somebody that was more famous at this time. So please stop saying this is about getting money off Michael Jackson, when there is no indication that this case will even BECOME civil.

 

And if you use fame as an excuse.....something strange tells me that this boy doesn't exactly want to be known as "The boy that Michael Jackson supposedly molested". I doubt his mother wants the title of "The Mother of the child who Michael Jackson supposedly molested." Why is it so impossible to believe that this incident did occur, and this family wants to see Michael brought to justice? Not everything is about money or fame.

Agreed, MJ isn't full of money anymore, but do they really come anymore famous? Regardless of the reasons why, MJ would have to be easily in the top three of the most famous people in the world.

 

Just about everyone on the planet knows who Michael Jackson is.

 

UYI

[Guest tSlater]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

[Guest tSlater]

Sleepovers for a young boy are merely social events shared between close friends. I do believe that is all that has been going on.

 

Alright, I know that many of us here used to be young boys. I'm also fairly sure that of those, a fair number slept over at other young boys' houses.

 

So here's my question: When you went to sleepovers at a young age, did you sleep IN THE SAME BED as your young friends?

 

I know I didn't.

I never did because guess what.. there was no room on the bed for 2 people.. so instead we got sleeping bags on the floor which were *gasp* close to each other.

 

I'm sure MJ has quite a large bed which can fit more then 1 person. Therefore, it does not surprise me much that they may be sleeping on his bed.

[Styles 0]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

We're run by laws not psychology theories...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

If he molested children, as alleged, he sure does. That fault would be MOLESTING CHILDREN. "Peter Pan Syndrome" doesn't make you molest kids.

[CanadianChris 0]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

All that will do is get him incarcerated in a mental institution rather than a prison.

 

(I'm above saying "Go take a law class." Well, almost.)

[Guest tSlater]

you fail to see the point.  In his own mind, he's NOT a grown man, in his mind he's just like the boys he sleeps with.

This doesn't mean he's not guilty of something. If one person murders another, but says in his mind that God gave him permission, does that give him the right to do it? Hell, in his mind, God really DID tell him to murder this guy and that nothing was wrong with it. But he should still face the consequences. In Michael's mind, he may very well not think he is doing anything wrong if he molests a child. But the fact is that he IS doing something terribly wrong, and needs to be punished for it if it is true. It's not as if this is the first time he's hearing this. He went through the whole molestation trial before, but yet has the nerve years later to say he STILL sleeps in bed with children. It was only a matter of time before it came up to him and, even if he thought there was nothing wrong with it before, he should know by now that there IS, considering all that he went through years ago. If the accusations are true, they can't be justified by what he may think because, if he gets off free, it will only happen again.

If in fact he is just a young boy in his mind, then he most likely ISN'T molesting any of them, and therefore is not doing anything wrong at all. I never said he thought molestation was right.. you're just misconstruing my words.

[Dr. Tom 0]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

I've taken a psychology class. More than one, in fact. "Peter Pan syndrome" doesn't mean you have a problem molesting little boys.

 

You're apparently advocating that nothing happen to Jackson because of his supposed mental problems. If that's true, you're advocating a clear double standard. Go take an ethics class.

[Guest tSlater]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

If he molested children, as alleged, he sure does. That fault would be MOLESTING CHILDREN. "Peter Pan Syndrome" doesn't make you molest kids.

I'm not trying to justify any molestation that may be going on, I'm merely just saying that if he has this "Peter Pan Syndrome" he probably isn't doing any molesting, and that should not be used as evidence against him because it's stupid.

 

If he is molesting children, then by all means let him go to jail. I'm just saying, I really do not think he is molesting children and I think this is all just a "Peter Pan Syndrome".. and that it is not his fault that his social development is still equal to that of a young boy.

[CanadianChris 0]

But when looking at his childhood, can you really blame him?

Yes.

Go take a psychology class, he has no fault in having a Peter Pan Syndrome.

If he molested children, as alleged, he sure does. That fault would be MOLESTING CHILDREN. "Peter Pan Syndrome" doesn't make you molest kids.

I'm not trying to justify any molestation that may be going on, I'm merely just saying that if he has this "Peter Pan Syndrome" he probably isn't doing any molesting, and that should not be used as evidence against him because it's stupid.

 

If he is molesting children, then by all means let him go to jail. I'm just saying, I really do not think he is molesting children and I think this is all just a "Peter Pan Syndrome".. and that it is not his fault that his social development is still equal to that of a young boy.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[Guest tSlater]

I've taken a psychology class. More than one, in fact.

Oh really? Well, it certainly doesn't show through in your posts.

 

  "Peter Pan syndrome" doesn't mean you have a problem molesting little boys.

 

Again you aren't seeing the point. I'm saying that just because one has Peter Pan Syndrome, does not mean that one may be molesting children.. those two things are completely unrelated.

[Guest tSlater]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

ah, the words of one whose mind is too feeble to look deeply into a subject.

[CanadianChris 0]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

ah, the words of one whose mind is too feeble to look deeply into a subject.

Actually, the words of anyone who's seen The Princess Bride.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I've taken a psychology class.  More than one, in fact.

Oh really? Well, it certainly doesn't show through in your posts.

Because I didn't pick up on your rubbish about "Peter Pan syndrome" earlier? I've taken enough classes in psychology and done enough independent reading on it to have a dim view of the field and the people who practice it. I believe that "mental diseases" are not excuses for committing aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior, and that anyone who does a crime should do the time, regardless of which fiat-established syndrome they're supposedly suffering from.

 

I'm saying that just because one has Peter Pan Syndrome, does not mean that one may be molesting children.. those two things are completely unrelated.

You're basing what passes for your point on a supposed mental disorder. Brilliant.

[Guest tSlater]

Because I didn't pick up on your rubbish about "Peter Pan syndrome" earlier? I've taken enough classes in psychology and done enough independent reading on it to have a dim view of the field and the people who practice it. I believe that "mental diseases" are not excuses for committing aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior, and that anyone who does a crime should do the time, regardless of which fiat-established syndrome they're supposedly suffering from.

You must truly be an idiot. How plainly must I write this out. Should I spell it for you, perhaps?

 

I've said multiple times now that if he is indeed molesting children that he should obviously be sent to jail. I've also said, again, numerous times, that I am not using Peter Pan Syndrome to justify any molestation that may be going on. I feel that what everybody here is doing is looking at his Peter Pan Syndrome and assuming he molests children because of it. However, there is no reason at all something like Peter Pan Syndrome would ever cause one to molest children, it's a completely unrelated matter.

[Styles 0]

Well, isn't that special? If the testimonies say he tinker belled the kids, his Peter Pan ass is off to the neverland jail...

[Guest Brian]

It depends. Some passive aggresives have no semblance of a conscience and can't distinguish between right or wrong. Some histrionic or manic depressives who are also anti-social have absolutely no idea of how to behave in a social acceptable way.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Because I didn't pick up on your rubbish about "Peter Pan syndrome" earlier?  I've taken enough classes in psychology and done enough independent reading on it to have a dim view of the field and the people who practice it.  I believe that "mental diseases" are not excuses for committing aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior, and that anyone who does a crime should do the time, regardless of which fiat-established syndrome they're supposedly suffering from.

You must truly be an idiot. How plainly must I write this out. Should I spell it for you, perhaps?

I got your point. You seem intent on promoting the idea that Jackson has "Peter Pan syndrome," though, and isn't molesting anyone, and my point is that such a theory is rubbish.

 

Now let me spell something out for you, slugger: take that tone with me again and you won't be adding to the 33 posts you've made so far.

[Guest tSlater]

Well, isn't that special? If the testimonies say he tinker belled the kids, his Peter Pan ass is off to the neverland jail...

And now it comes back to the idea that perhaps these testimonies of molestation may be completely false and may be attempts for fame, money, or just plain causing shit. Who know what the motives could be, but I believe that those should not be ruled out.

 

And to add to my statement about money being a potential motive of the accuser, I say this: Yes, he may not be as rich as he was, but do you think the accusers would care? The accusers would want any last money he has and because of his potential Peter Pan Syndrome, he has got to be the easiest target for such an accusation.

[Styles 0]

Well, isn't that special? If the testimonies say he tinker belled the kids, his Peter Pan ass is off to the neverland jail...

And now it comes back to the idea that perhaps these testimonies of molestation may be completely false and may be attempts for fame, money, or just plain causing shit. Who know what the motives could be, but I believe that those should not be ruled out.

 

And to add to my statement about money being a potential motive of the accuser, I say this: Yes, he may not be as rich as he was, but do you think the accusers would care? The accusers would want any last money he has and because of his potential Peter Pan Syndrome, he has got to be the easiest target for such an accusation.

It's a CRIMINAL case. No money involved...

[Guest tSlater]

But there could very well be a civil suit following afterwards. Even if there are no suggestions pointing to it now, I think it will most definately happen.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

You know, for all your harping about psychology courses, you might want to look into the fact that Peter Pan Syndrome isn't medically accepted as a legitimate disorder.

 

One of many sources.

[Dr. Tom 0]

You know, for all your harping about psychology courses, you might want to look into the fact that Peter Pan Syndrome isn't medically accepted as a legitimate disorder.

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

 

This is why I referred to it as "rubbish" earlier.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

You know, for all your harping about psychology courses, you might want to look into the fact that Peter Pan Syndrome isn't medically accepted as a legitimate disorder.

Surprise, surprise, surprise...

 

This is why I referred to it as "rubbish" earlier.

Where do you get the energy to argue with people such as this Slater character?

 

No, seriously, it is obvious you dispelled his argument long before it even really took off, yet you stuck at him through the entire ordeal after he questioned whether you had taken psych-classes.

 

Who the jolly fuck cares what people like that think?

 

UYI

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

::shrug:: 3 posts and a quick Google search = a bit of knowledge for myself, with the added satisfaction that this guy will stop wasting bandwidth/people's time. Now I know that "Peter Pan Syndrome" was concocted by pop psychologist in 1983 and has never been acknowledged as much more than self-help gibberish. Self-edification is sweet.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I feel that what everybody here is doing is looking at his Peter Pan Syndrome and assuming he molests children because of it.

 

It's not his alleged Peter Pan Syndrome that makes me think he molests little kids...

 

It's the fact that he readily admits to sleeping in a bed with little kids.

 

That, and when someone is accused of something by multiple people, it makes me kinda lean towards it being true as well...

[iamsherm 0]

Why is it so impossible to believe that this incident did occur, and this family wants to see Michael brought to justice? Not everything is about money or fame.

It's definitely not impossible to believe that Michael did commit the crime he is accused of. However, is it really that impossible to believe that he didn't? The way I see it, there is plenty of angles to support Michael's defense.

 

First, I don't see the "revenge" card as being that big of a stretch. Of course, this revenge would be sought after by Tom Sneddon - you know, the man that missed out on his opportunity to put Michael away in 1993-1994, who was also the man that was personally attacked by Michael in song. The press conference he and the sherriff conducted after searching Neverland (on the same day his #1's CD/DVD was released, mind you) only serves to further my doubts, as Sneddon treated the whole situation like a joke and came across as a huge asshole (in my opinion).

 

Secondly, I do see money, fame, and outright defamation of character playing a factor. Obviously, since this is a criminal case, the accuser's family will see no compensation awarded by the courts, but is a civil case in the wake of the criminal verdict that hard to imagine? I don't think so. Hell, as the family that accused MICHAEL JACKSON of molestation, I'm hard pressed to believe that they won't be (if they're not already) in contact with various entertainment magazines - both broadcast and print - just dying to hear their story and pay them millions of dollars that could convieniently go towards the little boy's medical bills. There's always the possibility that Michael ceased giving the family money for the medical bills, the uncle's apartment, and just general survival. If you choose to believe that line of thinking, then surely wouldn't it be possible for a family to concoct the story as a method of revenge? Also, you do bring up a good point saying "not everything is about money or fame," but when the accuser's family has a history of shoplifting at local department stores and then accusing the security guards of sexual assault, they tend to lose a little bit of credibility in my mind and I have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

All that said, I still don't know what to think about the whole situation. I really want to believe he's innocent, so it angers me to see him not get a fair shake due to his appearance and neurotic behavior. Don't get me wrong, if Michael Jackson is found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, then he deserves to be locked away for a long time - no amount of child abuse or neglect will say otherwise. All I ask for is a fair trial.

Edited December 23, 2003 by iamsherm

[iamsherm 0]

It's the fact that he readily admits to sleeping in a bed with little kids.

Let's get this straight once and for all.

 

Did Michael admit to sleeping IN THE BED with the children, or did he say he slept on the floor while the kids slept in the bed? I was under the impression he claimed he slept on the floor. Of course, to some that might not make much of a difference, but I'd at least like to get the facts straight.