VeeshanVault

During the searches, Jackson was filming a music video with R&B singer R. Kelly (search), US Weekly magazine told Fox News on Wednesday.

OMG if you had been accused of child molestation in the past, why in the world would you be around R. Kelly who was charged with kiddie porn?

Siji wrote:The mother talked to a lawyer who suggesting talking to a shrink for possible legal action...

The story lost all credibility for me right there. What lawyer isn't going to see a sky full of dollar signs when someone walks in with a child that's been anywhere within 20 miles of Michael Jackson? I'd bet a lot on the probability that the lawyer handpicked the pscyh to send the kid to.

"Make this kid think he was molested and we'll be buying multiple houses in the Hamptons.."

This is the correct answer. The dramatic phychiatrist confession came after the parents allegedly already knew about it and spoke to a lawyer. A decent shrink can get anyone to pretty much remember anything that they want. I would be interested to know who hired the psychiatrist.

What right thinking parent would let their kid sleep over at Jackson's house if they were not seeing anything but dollar signs in their eyes? I am pretty sure that Jackson is _not_ a child molester, but I still would not allow it because there is enough evidence around that he may be one that the risk would not be worth taking.

The poor bastard never had a childhood. He was abused terribly as a kid and forced to perform like an animal. He is obviously obsessed with children in some attempt to capture what he lost. And yeah any criminal psychologist will tell you that when people have an obsession like that it often turns sexual, but I personally think he is just crazy. Despite his eccentricities and psychological problems, MJ is a pretty smart dude, and he most likely isn't going to put himself in a position like that.

I think the fact that you can litigate financial damages on criminal acts in the united states is a major reason stuff like this happens so often. If some kid came out and said MJ molested him, or some woman said that kobe bryant raped them, I would be a lot more likely to believe them if they couldn't sue or settle for 20 million dollars or what have you. California changed their laws after the first MJ molestation settlement so the state could force the accusor to testify even if he drops the case, but it's not enough. If people perform criminal acts on other people then they should go to prison to pay for their crimes. They shouldn't be financially responsible for the crime as well.

kyoukan wrote:If people perform criminal acts on other people then they should go to prison to pay for their crimes. They shouldn't be financially responsible for the crime as well.

At what point would you argue that financial restitution is a necessary part of the litigation process, if at all?

when someone has been financially damaged then they should be able to sue for adequate compensation.

you could say that the victim will need lots of money for extensive therapy to get over his ordeal which may or may not be true. in which case perhaps the guilty could be forced into setting up a trust fund in order to pay for the bills (hopefully run by the state or by a company/person who stands not to profit too much for administering it). the victim, however, should not have access to the money to do whatever they please with it.

but really, if a poor man molests a child he goes to prison and that's it. why should a wealthy man have to pay out huge dollars on top of going to prison for the same period of time? as soon as you add massive amounts of cash to the equation you throw the doors wide open for anyone looking to get rich quick and you dilute the justice system.

if you were wronged by someone, do you deserve to profit from it? or should society be responsible for punishing the person who wronged you?

kyoukan wrote:when someone has been financially damaged then they should be able to sue for adequate compensation.

you could say that the victim will need lots of money for extensive therapy to get over his ordeal which may or may not be true. in which case perhaps the guilty could be forced into setting up a trust fund in order to pay for the bills (hopefully run by the state or by a company/person who stands not to profit too much for administering it). the victim, however, should not have access to the money to do whatever they please with it.

That's the answer I was looking for.

Michael Jackson MugShot



Looks like an Ol Lady with that lipstick! Or is that his natural lipcolor nowadays?

I do hope he isn't guilty! He was the man back in the 80's!

Thriller! Moonwalking etc!

This picture clearly shows that Michael was molested as a child:



And pre plastics and haircuts:

Yeah Winnow!

That's what i mean!

Michael Jackson was the man back then! He should've never got rid of the 'fro!

Kylere wrote:who bought off the last people to accuse him of the same crime.

Last time he was tried was in Civil court so of course there is going to be money changing hands. In case you didn't know the US justice system has two sides to it; Civil and Criminal. As it was last time Michael was charged with this same type of crime the laws did not exist to try him in criminal court so the parents sued him in civil court and they settled outside the court to avoid all that unwanted publicity. If you ever have a chance to see the settlement, which you wont, you will see that the settlement DOES NOT say anything about Michael being guilty. Oh and on a side note the laws were changed regarding this type of stuff in California because of Michael Jackson.

Last time around I clearly remember him settling out of court a day or so after the prosecution said they would present evidence that the child could describe "distinguishing characteristics" of Jackson's penis. I can't think of any legitimate reason for the child having this kind of knowledge and when I read about it I immediately thought he'd settle out of court.

So I can't automatically subscribe to the "innocent" claim.

OMG his eyes are so.........................spooky!

vn_Tanc wrote:So I can't automatically subscribe to the "innocent" claim.

True but settling out of court does not necessarily mean that he is guilty either. A lot of people settle out of court for many reasons. Mainly time, money, and unwanted negative publicty. Mainly my response was not about guilt or innocent, but about the fact that he did not "buy" this other guy off. We, as the general public, don't and probably never will know the real reason. Personally I think it was all a publicity stunt to promote his album that was due out at about the same time.

haven't seen any printed news about it yet but this morning on the radio news I've heard that the family of the current accuser has a "history" in the sexual lawsuits department. Some time ago 2001 I think they said, they settled with some department store for few hundred thousands dollars for some incident involving a security guard and mother being sexually assaulted.

If that is true it casts a strange shadow on those people in my mind. Either it's one unlucky family or they look for easy money wherever possible.

Ennia wrote:haven't seen any printed news about it yet but this morning on the radio news I've heard that the family of the current accuser has a "history" in the sexual lawsuits department. Some time ago 2001 I think they said, they settled with some department store for few hundred thousands dollars for some incident involving a security guard and mother being sexually assaulted.

If that is true it casts a strange shadow on those people in my mind. Either it's one unlucky family or they look for easy money wherever possible.

I heard about that one yesterday as well. The part that got me thinking was that the woman alleged that both of her sons were beaten by a security guard after shoplifting, and that she was sexually assaulted. They settled for something like 150k.. You'd think a case like that would be worth more than 150k if it were true.

Meanwhile, New York's Daily News has unearthed court records that show Jackson's accuser allegedly tried to steal clothes from a California store on orders from his father when he was just eight.

Mother and son were arrested and charged with burglary after security guards nabbed the pair with the hot goods in the parking lot. Guards wound up scuffling with the boy and his parents, who later sued, claiming the young boy had suffered a "sprained arm, nightmares and emotional distress."

As part of the settlement, charges against the family were dropped and they collected more than $200,000 for their court claims.

Dad, who has blasted his ex-wife as irresponsible in the press, is a piece of work. In 2001, he pleaded no contest to a charge of wife beating and was sentenced to attend domestic-violence counseling, per a report in Newsweek. The following year, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of willful cruelty to a child in an incident involving his older daughter.

He's currently seeking custody of the three children, which includes a younger brother.

During his press conference Tuesday, Geragos again claimed the allegations were part of a scheme to get money from Jackson, who a decade ago reportedly paid between $15 million and $20 million to a child accuser to drop a civil sexual assault suit against the singer.

taken from
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... b_eo/12994

I gotta say MJ's attorney might really have a valid suspicion there

Ramius wrote:Last time he was tried was in Civil court so of course there is going to be money changing hands. In case you didn't know the US justice system has two sides to it; Civil and Criminal. As it was last time Michael was charged with this same type of crime the laws did not exist to try him in criminal court so the parents sued him in civil court and they settled outside the court to avoid all that unwanted publicity.

That isn't true. The DA in Santa Barbara was building a criminal case when the boy stated that he would refuse to testify in court after Jackson paid him off. If the kid wouldn't testify then there would be no case, so it was dropped. After that, California changed the laws so a kid could be forced to be put on the stand whether he wanted to or not.

This case is just like the last case that came out. The lawyer for the kid and his family are not looking for a criminal trial. They don't even want a civil trial. The lawyer is looking to settle to make the allegations go away. Just like the last trial, there doesn't seem to be any conviction worthy evidence that the kid was assaulted. A good litigator could still talk a jury into a guilty verdict, but he still wouldn't get paid in the long run because Jackson could appeal it in front of a judge and win. All these lawyers are looking to settle for big cash because early settlements are where the real money is in these types of litigation. Trials are expensive and time consuming.

kyoukan wrote:That isn't true. The DA in Santa Barbara was building a criminal case when the boy stated that he would refuse to testify in court after Jackson paid him off. If the kid wouldn't testify then there would be no case, so it was dropped. After that, California changed the laws so a kid could be forced to be put on the stand whether he wanted to or not.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjsearch1.html

Try reading that and then tell me it wasn't a civil lawsuit.

No criminal charges were ever filed in connection with the teenager's charges.

There was no trial last time. You are misreading everything. They may have filed a civil suit, but it never happened.

Another part you are wrong on is this:

As it was last time Michael was charged with this same type of crime the laws did not exist to try him in criminal court

Child molestation laws did exist in California in 1993.

That is a deposition, not a declaration of action in a civil law suit.

There was an attached civil suit but the state was also going after him criminally.

My point is, you shouldn't be able to do both. And if the charges are criminal in nature then criminal proceedings should take precedence.

I watched My Cousin Vinny once.