namepeace said:

It's always good to have multiple perspectives, so I threw the "Tommy Mottola" statement out there. I'm seeing Michael's arm getting twisted behind his back by the media and it makes me think of the old Public Enemy adage: "don't-d-d-don't believe the hype!"

see...if they set Michael's bail at 3Million...that will force Michael to sell his publishing.

JANFAN4L said:

"Don't believe the hype - it's a sequel!
As an equal, can I get this through to you?"

Red said:

Yeah I do not understand how the price of bails are set; That bail seemed like extortion in itself!

Marrk said:

[snippage.--Dansa]

---

no bump...I'm not stating that THIS IS the reason...and I'm not making any judgement on Michael at this point, however, I do know that the publishing has been a real issue for the past couple of years and... I do know that labels are the meanest, dirtiest, evil bunch o bastards in business. Money can pull string...look at the Simpson case, look at this idiot that just got off this week after chopping up his victim. How in the hell does does that work. I'll tell ya...it's called CASH.

i found this post on another message board and found it rather interesting:

[/i]They are, now, pretty much legally bound to bring charges in sexual molestation cases, involving a minor, once a complaint has been made.

The mother has fully cooperated, with authorities, but not under the threat of prosecution. She has not given an undertaking to never seek civil charges but has indicated she will not do so now, or in the near future. However, they are represented by the same lawyer, Larry Feldman, who represented the minor in the case in ’93 through to the civil settlement.

On the strength of this case, as compared to the one in ’93 there is probably less direct circumstantial evidence of wrong doing this time around. The fact that an arrest warrant has been issued and charges will follow is more a reflection of the change of the Californian State law with respect to child abuse. As Mr. Sneddon has made clear, following Mr. Jackson’s settlement, in 1994, the Californian legister changed the law in all child molestation cases, for alleged victims of the age of 14 and under (at the time of an alleged molestation), that if a complaint is made, regardless of any civil settlement, the complaintive is compelled to testify in a criminal case.

The boy in question was diagnosed as having terminal cancer and was given only a several months to live. His ‘last wish’ was to meet Mr. Jackson, which he did at ‘Neverland’. For the next several months he was cared for (at ‘Neverland’) and to the surprise of his doctors the cancer went into remission. During this time a close bond was formed between Mr. Jackson and the boy. Subsequent to a documentary, aired earlier in the year, - when Mr. Jackson admitted sleeping with children in his own bedroom - the boy was teased by school ‘friends’ over the nature of his relationship with Mr. Jackson. The mother moved him and his siblings out of the area that they lived in and took the boy to a psychotherapist. It was as a result of one of these sessions that the psychotherapist made a complaint to the legal authorities regarding sexual molestation (as they are duty bound under Californian law).

Now, is Mr Jackson guilty? I do not know – and this is undoubtedly for the courts to decide in due course. What I can say is there will be some problems for the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The first will be that during the said documentary the boy openly said that he insisted on sleeping in Mr Jackson’s bedroom – because he was afraid to sleep alone with the struggle he was going through – but that Mr Jackson never did anything inappropriate, and that he Mr Jackson, would give the boy his bed while he slept on the floor. The second will be the timing of the allegation – i.e. it came after the airing of the documentary and the whiplash of improper conduct that ensued. Thirdly, is the problem that dogged the original case – the lack of other victims. This was a very real problem in ’93 because the nature of pedophiles is that they keep re-offending until they are caught. Some 700 children were interviewed in ’93 and none of these children came forward to say that anything improper happened. Some ten years on pedophile experts will tell you it is inconceivable that this would ‘only’ be the second time this happened – a course of defense Mr Jackson’s legal team will undoubtedly pursue. Hence, the main purpose of the search was, as in ’93, not so much to gain physical evidence to support this charge but to gather details (via videos, letters, photos) of all minors that Mr Jackson has had at Neverland for the last ten years in order to interview them.

On a side note I, and others, watched the press conference with more than a little sense of dismay. These are allegations of the utmost seriousness and it was disturbing to see Mr Sneddon joking around. I can only presume he changed his normal persona, that of a serious man, to this because he was worried that this might look like a personal witch hunt against Mr Jackson. In retrospect I think many in the legal and law enforcement community wish that he was no longer DA, both for the perceived sense of justice for the alleged victim and Mr Jackson. He has already gone out of his way to bring in Diane Dimond (he made sure she was tipped off on what was going to go down ahead of time) who was central to bring out the allegations, yesterday, ahead of time (for those of you that don’t know she worked for Harcopy, in ’93, and was sued by Mr. Jackson for $100 million for her reporting of the case). In addition, when both the sheriff and Mr Sneddon were asked about other alleged Jackson victims since ’93 – other than this case - his answer was telling. The sheriff said he was unaware of any but Mr Sneddon replied ‘Yeah I’ve heard about few, just ask Diane’. If so, what the hell was he doing about it? Let us hope he’s more on the ball in this case.[/i]

JANFAN4L said:

I know your perspective, but Michael willingly submitted to such exposure of his personal life on national television. I can tell you, DAs are by and large elected officials, and no DA is going to let a guy who lives on his turf go on national TV and cuddle with a young boy and not look into it. My first thought after seeing that was that they were going to come after him.

So Michael was stupid for getting so close to these kids in the first place. He had been in trouble for that years before, and he knew they were out to get him. And then he handed the authorities another excuse to go after him. On a silver platter.

I have heard so many people say that the documentary was doctored. That may be true, but what he did with that boy can't be doctored. I am not going to say that he is a pedophile on that basis alone. I'm just saying that if I were his agent or his attorney I would have fainted after watching that exchange.

namepeace said:

Very well put. Of course I hope he is innocent, not for his sake as such, but for any of the kids.

But, without wanting to sound like I have convicted the man, there are two issues that bother me.

1. There is only so much smoke, before you find fire. And MJs comments seem to be lighting the match.

2. Due to the media speculation, I'd be very surprised if the CA police don't have some major evidence. Otherwise, they know they'll be making themselves look idiots.

Maybe they simply raided the "Kiddie Shine" hidden room that was shown in the UK tabloids a few months ago??

calldapplwondery83 said:

I agree. That was fucked up. Michael Jackson may have turned himself into a joke years ago, but when there are serious allegations as these on the table, it's hardly the time to be cracking jokes.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 19 23:39:05 PST 2003 by meow85]

calldapplwondery83 said:

Raven said:

Was anyone else bothered by that light-hearted press conference? These are serious charges and the DA is cracking jokes and some idiot reporter asks if they'll be served lunch.



You're right, I couldn't believe it.




I agree. That was fucked up. Michael Jackson may have turned himself into a joke years ago, but when there are serious allegations as these on the table, it's hardly the time to be cracking jokes.
[This message was edited Wed Nov 19 23:39:05 PST 2003 by meow85]

Tom sneddon the DA has a personal vendeta against MJ, possubly fueled by MJ's song D.S. Although the lryics name Dom Sheldon it sounds more like Tom Sneddon. At one point he even say Dom S. Sneddon ie pronuced Thomas Sneddon. The fact he was joking about these serious allegations says more about his own lack of credibility than it does about MJ.
Also the thing I have noticed is all of this is "inside information" ie gossip
Wait till there is confirmation before you damm this man. By the way anyone who wants to comment on this topic in my mind has no right to until they read the 94 GQ article "Was Michael (or possibly Michael Jackson) framed". Despite the title this is not a biased article there are several points which come across which you will probably not heard such as the boy's father demanding 20 million dollars before the accusations even became public. Or that the boy although admitting he could identify his genitals mantained to the end he had NOT been molested. You must read this article. There is a copy on Steve harvey's website or if you just searched for it on goolge I'm sure you would find it.

SpcMs said:

That's an interesting analysis of this case,and how it could play out.

stymie said:

Yes, I think so. It's such a natural, innocent, "look, I've got nothing to hide" thing that he just kept doing it.
Besides, I do believe that children are VERY important in his life and that he couldn't stop surrounding himself with them.