JackieBlue said:

Good points.
( Yeah, you like how I pulled out Leon Isaac Kennedy...'ol school baby, 'ol school..)

Cloudbuster said:

True...but I think that most feel that his lifestyle is perverse and unhealthy. He wouldn't be in court if it wasn't. He wouldn't have the troubles he has if he wasn't...at least slightly.

Come on...there is open mindedness...to which I think most here are. OK so MJ has kids sleep in his bed...so what as long as he isn't doing anything to them...no harm right? But should he? Really? Your own kids...fine. But other peoples? All the time? I think it'd do him a world of good to have an ADULT...male or female in his bed instead. MJ is different than most. That's ok...I apprecieate him and his ego and being eccentric. But these have bordered on or at least have led him to this.

I find it fascinating that those who are big fans of MJ have a real hard time seeing any of this. Trust me we all want him to be innocent and most consider him to be...but many of us are not blind to what got him here in the first place.

superspaceboy said:

Giddyup.

superspaceboy said:

There was an episdoe of Law & Order:SVU that was based on the MJ allegations. The subject was an eccentric childlike male who was a popular toy maker. His home was a cross between Willie Wonka's and Neverland--he had parties for kids all the time. He loved kids and they loved him. Many stayed over and he supplied them with costumes and pajamas. When criticized by the media and police he didn't see anything wrong or inappropriate with having the kids stay over, sleeping in his bed, etc. He was being investigated for a second allegation of child abuse on a young girl. During the body search they even had him strip down like MJ.

In the end, he was set up by the girl's guardian but there evidence pointing toward his guilt in the first allegation but that child would no longer cooperate. So they couldn't charge him on the first one and since the second one was a set up he there was never any indictment but the detectives were left to wonder about other possibilities.

It made you look at someone almost identical to Michael Jackson in personality and popularity with children without having any emotional attachment. An objective viewpoint really makes you sit back and wonder about the mindset of a person and how much we've given Michael the benefit of the doubt because of our emotional and familial connection to him. I suppose in many ways that can't be helped but when it's just John Doe down the street, it really makes you wonder.
[Edited 6/1/05 12:33pm]

The judge in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial decided today (June 1) to let stand an instruction that would allow jurors to potentially find Jackson guilty of a misdemeanor count of giving alcohol to a minor.

The decision came as the prosecution and defense argued for a second day over what should be included in the jury instructions, which were expected to be read to the panel later in the day. Closing arguments are set to begin tomorrow, and the jury is expected to get the case Friday.

Jackson's indictment alleges he gave alcohol to his accuser in order to commit felony molestation. But Judge Rodney S. Melville decided yesterday that the alcohol allegation could be a "lesser included offense," meaning jurors may consider convicting Jackson of simply providing alcohol to the boy.

Today, the defense revisited the issue and tried to get the instruction removed, but Melville did not change his mind.

Yesterday, Melville approved an instruction involving the TV documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," in which Jackson's future accuser appeared with the pop star and Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bed in an innocent, non-sexual way.

The judge said he was willing to tell jurors the video was "not offered for the truth of what is said except for certain identified passages." He said jurors would be told the rest of the video should be "considered hearsay." The passages the judge referred to were not specified in open court.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys also argued over what the jury should be told about judging Jackson based on allegations of past wrongdoing. Melville said he would tell the jurors they could consider alleged past acts if they "tend to show intent" on Jackson's part with regard to the crimes with which he is charged.

However, the jurors will have to decide whether the allegations of past acts -- which never resulted in any criminal charges -- were true.

"Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing the defendant committed crimes other than those for which he is on trial," the approved instructions read. "This evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of deciding if it tends to show a characteristic plan or scheme to commit acts."

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the then-13-year-old boy in February or March 2003, giving him wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut damaging aspects of the documentary.

Melville also agreed to tell the jurors they are entitled to reject the testimony of a witness who is willfully false in any material fact, but are not required to do so if they feel the witness is truthful in other regards.

NEWSFLASH!!!!! eveyone watch tonight.....

Longtime Jackson Confidant Speaks Out

Frank Tyson, Unindicted Co-Conspirator, Defends Pop Star in Molestation Case

Michael Jackson's longtime friend and confidant Frank Tyson has never talked publicly about the pop star before -- until now. (ABC News)

June 1, 2005 -- Days before jury deliberations begin in the Michael Jackson child molestation case, a longtime friend and confidant of the pop star is speaking publicly for the first time to express his belief that Jackson is innocent.

Watch Cynthia McFadden's exclusive interview on "Primetime Live" on Thursday, June 2 at 10 p.m. E.T.



Longtime Jackson Confidant Speaks Out

Frank Tyson told ABC News' "Primetime Live" co- anchor Cynthia McFadden: "[There's] not a question in my mind who's telling the truth. I know who's telling the truth and I know who's lying."

Tyson, who worked as an assistant to Jackson, attempted to cast doubt on the teen who is accusing the pop star.

"He was from the street, this kid… And he is not like a shy little boy… He is tough… If anyone pushes him the wrong way, or touches him — he is to be the first one, to push you back," Tyson said.

If the allegations were true, Tyson said, the accuser "would be the first one to knock Michael out and say, 'The hell with this. I am not doing this.' "

Jackson, 46, faces four counts of molesting a 13-year-old boy, four counts of plying him with alcohol, one count of conspiracy and one count of attempted molestation. Tyson, 24, is an alleged unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Prosecutors claim he was among a number of Jackson associates who controlled and threatened the boy's family after Jackson's accuser appeared in a documentary in which he said he slept in the pop star's bed.

Tyson said he was speaking out now because he wants to express his support for the pop star, who he described as "a father figure, a brother."

"To see him going in and out of court every day, frail, 90 pounds. See him deteriorate day by day — it's hard for me to see this," Tyson said. "To see how they're trying to destroy him, I'm not just going to sit there in my chair in my home, and watch this affect him."


Tyson: Mother Is Delusional

The prosecution has alleged that Tyson played a role in holding them at Jackson's Neverland ranch against their will, but Tyson denies that such a plot existed. "There was no such thing as keeping a family hostage, or a conspiracy," he said. "This is something that the prosecution and this mother created."

In fact, he said the accuser was angry with his mother because they were leaving.

"You would think, if [the accuser] was being touched inappropriately, he would be the first one [to say] 'Thank you Mom, for taking me away,' " said Tyson.

Tyson says he considers the accuser's mother "delusional."

"I really believe that she created this in her head," he said. "This is a family, and a mother who would do anything, to any extent to get any type of fame. Even to this extent."

The indictment also says Tyson threatened them at one point, allegedly telling the accuser sometime between February and March 2003 that "I could have your mother killed."

Tyson says the allegation is a lie. "Like I'm Frank Tyson from Jersey, from the 'Sopranos?' " he said. "Come on, man! That's crazy! I'm not that person."

No Porn, No Alcohol


Tyson also rejected the prosecution's other allegations against Jackson.

The prosecution has alleged that he and Jackson showed the accuser and his brother pornography on the Internet, but Tyson says he and Jackson were out of the room when the boys found the Web sites themselves.

He said the pop star expressed concerns when they did. "He says, "'Frank, they can't do that. I do not want this coming back on me,' " Tyson told McFadden.

Tyson also denied that Jackson has ever forced, given or offered alcohol to children. "He would never do that," he said.

He did acknowledge that Jackson drank alcohol out of soda cans when he was around children. But he said the pop star did so precisely to protect the children around him — so they would not see him drinking alcohol and feel that they should try it themselves.

"He is known all around the world," Tyson said. "He does not want to influence a child, to — especially drink alcohol."

Innocent Past


Tyson first met Jackson as a young boy two decades ago. His father worked at a hotel where the pop star stayed. Over the years, they developed a friendship, and Tyson went on to work for Jackson.

Like the accuser, Tyson says he spent nights as a boy in Jackson's bedroom, but he insists nothing improper or inappropriate happened. "My brother and I slept in the bed, he stayed on the floor. That's what happened," he said.

He says his parents were not concerned. "I never even felt uncomfortable by the slightest bit," Tyson said. "It was no cuddling or nothing like that, it wasn't like that. It was like sleeping with your college roommate."

"I'm going to tell you something," Tyson went on. "If Michael Jackson ever laid a finger on me I would not be in this chair right now. And I don't believe in what they're saying. I don't believe it, because it's not true. At all."

Asked about some of the accusers that Jackson has faced over the years — including the current accuser and two other boys, one of whom received a $20 million settlement from Jackson, and another, a $3 million settlement — Tyson responded: "They're all lying."

http://abcnews.go.com/Pri...1054&page=

lilgish said:

It's useless if he didn't testify at the trial.

90 pounds?


Sweet holy shit, that's less than I weigh, and at 4'11'' I'm considered slightly underweight!

How tall is MJ?
[Edited 6/2/05 2:20am]

Cloudy and sos,
up a tree...

michaels is 5'9 or 5'10 i think. when is the verdict being read? tomorrow or the next day?

He didn't need to be shamed at all. The one's who deserve shame are the one's who set him up. I still see no wrong with hanging out with children. Shame you're not more open-minded. Do we really need to put an age on friendship to make it acceptable?[/quote]


*****
Friendship as a mentoring adult can be perfectly acceptable, but in all fairness, we are addressing degrees of propriety here.


It is NOT acceptable for a 40 something year old man to share his bed with someone else's children 1. after they reach a certain level of maturity, and 2. particularly if they are not closely related to the family in some way or other. For me it's simply that clear.

Being a person that has volunteered extensively with survivors of sexual abuse, for Mr. Jackson to even have suggested to anyone, child or parent, that they share his bed should have immediately sent up a red flag that something was not right with this man. I do not know a single parent in my circle of friends or profesional colleaugues that would agree his behavior was acceptable. Espescially since he had already gone through the previous ordeal with Jordy Chandler; I would think that having gone through that he would have had enough sense to stop putting strangers' children in his bed; the fact that he did not clearly demonstrates to me that he either has a flagrant disregard for the welfare of children, is mentally unstable, or at worse case scenario has sexual predator tendencies where children are concerned.

You know,until my early teenage years, I had a nanny. From birth until pre-school, my mom and dad would drop me off at my nanny's place (their flat was connected to our house), and dutifully place sleepy little me into my nanny's bed with both her and her husband, actually because I was spoiled rotten and refused to sleep by myself. And spoiled little me LOVED it. Mr. & Mrs. Sims were like grandparents to me and I loved them to death, Mr. Sims in particular; he was nothing less than a 2nd father to me and my very best friend from the time I was a toddler. HOWEVER....., the time eventually came where I had to accept that I was too old to sleep with my "adopted grandparents", and eventually they kicked my spoiled little butt out of their marriage bed and made me sleep by myself. I cried incessantly for 2 mornings in a row, but as loving as they were, they were also disciplined enough FOR ALL OF US, to be like, 'you'll get over it, kiddo', and that was THAT! By the third morning I got over it indeed, slept ev'ry morning with Winnie-The-Pooh insted, and our lives went on blissfully...

When I look at situations like the one MJ is facing, there is most unfortunately a part of me that feels he has brought these troubles on himself. As the adult, he had both the opportunity and choice to not place the children of stragers in his bed. Even if he had reached a level of closeness with the families of these kids, particularly the children who weren't even small, these children had reached a certain level of maturity that makes this idea of "bed-sharing" all very discomforting. There has to be a point when you put a boundary to your need to "nuture", espcially when you are dealing with someone else's offspring.

hellomoto said:

Then I really hope 90 pounds is a misprint.

hellomoto said:

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS, PLEASE!!!!!

hellomoto said:

it depends.

after closing statements, when the verdict comes depends on how long the jury deliberate for.

Could someone who said that "it is not acceptable for a grown-up to sleep in bed with kids" explain why it isn't? It's a common opinion of course, but why? Propably because the bed(room) is where adults usually get their groove on. Or because there are grown people of course who exploit the child's innocence and do abuse them?
And if Michael Jackson doesn't? Why is it "inappropriate behaviour"? Why is he "abnormal"?

TheFrog said:

the org's jury?

You know, at the end of the day it's just one of those things that people feel very differently about. Some parents don't mind letting their child sleep in the bed with or in the bedroom of an adult, others do. Some parents don't believe in corporal punishment, others do. Same goes for at what age do you teach your child about sex, allow them to start dating or exercising certain privacy boundaries within your own household. It's a parental choice. While these things are not illegal some deem them not 'appropriate' or 'healthy'. I've heard of parents who allow their opposite sex children to shower with them. It's not illegal but some may feel it's inappropriate particularly after a certain age.

I think for the most part many parents don't want to create situations where there are certain possibilities. You can't protect children from everything but you can certainly make sure that you don't contribute to certain experiences. I'm only saying this is how some parents feel and it's really a matter of choice on how you want to raise your child. If you're a parent that's familiar with sexual abuse, you may really have strong feelings about it.

In Michael's case, I think the outrage is because this is not the first allegation and people are less tolerant of his actions. In life we often learn to ask ourselves 'what did I do to contribute to this event in my life?' It's very easy to point and blame others when bad things happen but we sometimes forget to look at ourselves. I think most of us here love and care for Michael and want the best for him but we're ultimately disappointed. This is a situation where it seems apparent that it did not have to go down this way. But it has and now we wait for the outcome.

My favourite Michael Jackson related colour is red.

Also I think that if you take out Michael Jackson's initials and try to come up with things that begin with the same letters it could be a fun game to play drunk.

And Bubbles was one goddamn ugly chimp.

calldapplwondery83 said:

And people criticize me all the time when i say that MJ's fans are fucked up...

A 44 years old man doesn't share his bed with some unknown little kids ...

Why, because some kids might be disturbing or embarassing to share their intimity with an adult, even if it's a star, even if it's Michael Jackson...

Why Mike wants so much to share his bed with some little kids ? It's very strange .. ?
It's not an adult behaviour, and it's even not a child behaviour to do that...

And it's not only inappropriate because a normal 44 years old father doesn't do that, but it's even more disturbing when this father was two times sued for child molestation in his life before...

Plus what about his kids ?? Is it good for them to see their father sleeping with other kids of the same age in the same bed ?? Of course it's not...
What kind of image he gives to them ?

Would you think it's Ok if your OWN father was sleeping with little kids, after being sued two times of child molestation ???

It's strange how you didn't seem to think of all the damages he did around him...
[Edited 6/2/05 10:13am]

a picture from yesterday


Please God, let this be over and good for Michael. I don´t know what I d do if they jailed him.

Here´s a link to KOP board where they got some info on the jurors. Made me a little more optimistic.
http://www.mjj2005.com/ko...&p=145371&

Nice glasses. The hair seems to be getting longer.

dag said:

Hopefully you would live your life (you could still continue to pray for him, ya know).

don´t worry, I don have my own life beside MJ, but I love him dearly and seeing him in jail would definately knock me down.

adoreme said:

I have been following the case very closely. At first I thought that I was concerned about Michael coz I'm a fan of Janet's. However,after some thought I really believe that my interest really has been due to the fact that Michael is a cultural icon. It is breaking my heart to see Michael being destroyed, even though it's possible that ultimately he may have been responsible for his own destruction. It just sooooo sad after his many, many years on top of the world, that now his life has all come done to this trial. Honestly, I don't know if he is or isn't a pedophile,but the prosecution has not proved its case TO ME beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the jury, so there is no telling how they will interpret the testimony as per Judge Melville's instructions. I just hope and pray that Michael is strong enough to handle the future whatever that may be. And I do agree that many, many people, are going to be saddened if Michael's is convicted, even those who believe he might be guilty. This whole situation is very tragic for all concerned.

This question that keeps coming to my mind when I see pics of Michael, so thin and fragile-looking, making his way to these final days of court: what went wrong to bring Michael to this juncture in his life?? What the hell happened??

adoreme said:

EXACTLY!

This has nothing to do with colors....