RIP in 2009

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Alex

MJ paid a reported $25 million to keep a civil case from actually going to trial after which the paid off family refused to participate in the criminal trial, forcing it to be abandoned (this is the accusation from the early '90s).

I don't really have strong feelings on the issue but the perception that Michael Jackson did some bad things to young boys is not without some justification.

No- it's not- but he was not convicted and there is room to believe he was the victim.

-as for the family- if someone had touched my kid I would not take a payoff. So that makes me suspect that they just wanted the money in the first place- not justice.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Curious - In your opinion Nephy, why did MJ make the huge payoff he did to the family of that one young boy?

Do you find it inappropriate for a man who isn't the father of young boys (admittedly) having cookies and milk in bed with them?

A mistake? Wanted to make it go away. MJ seemed like just a big kid- and frankly not very worldly wise- and I think the people around him hurt him more than they helped him. -and like I said, why did they take it? Because they wanted the $$$$- not justice for their kid.

-and weird, odd, unique- yes-but not inherently menacing or sexual. I think there is proof galore of his driving need to stay in childhood-at any cost. Children have sleepovers-

Was he emotionally stunted, immature- yes. A sick predator? I don't believe so-in the end, God will judge-not us.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

No- it's not- but he was not convicted and there is room to believe he was the victim.

Yes, there is. But that's true of everybody at some point who faces such charges. Yet, Michael Jackson is the only case where I've seen people bend over backwards and give such support to the idea that in the absence of a criminal conviction nothing happened.

That's not a bad idea, just one that rarely has broad support. Except when celebrities of a certain level are involved.