Geraldo Swoons Over Jacko - (he reports, then he decides...for you! - unfair/unbalanced)

A.I.M.ORG ^ | MARCH 3, 2005 | SHERRIE GOSSETT

[mercy]

Your tag line asks (to paraphrase) 'Why are we not in a crusade against our enemies ... the Muslims?'

I told you why. We are so lost as a society and indeed a civilization that we are not even capable of self preservation. We fiddle while Rome burns. We are sick.

[AppyPappy]

I think you mean "PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". That's only for courts

[RushCrush]

okey doke

[untrained skeptic]

"So the family may have tried to extort money from him, so therefore he didn't molest this child or any other?"

I'm saying there's no compelling evidence. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty, and the proof is lacking.

Jackson may fit a profile of a pedifile. That doesn't make him a pedifile. Sexually abusing children makes him a pedifile. That's a charge that needs to be proven, and it doesn't look like the proof is there.

If I had kids I sure wouldn't let them go anywhere near Jackson.

I tried to find the article on Men's News Daily, but their archives are listed by author and I didn't see a Charlite, so I assume that's the freeper that posted the article, not the author of the article.

[untrained skeptic]

Ok, I found the article and read it.

Yea, Jackson's actions and the accusations made against him appear to meet the profile.

Profiles aren't indicators of a person's actions. They're templates used to narrow down a field of suspects.

It's not proof. It's just conjecture based on his strange actions.

To convict someone, you're supposed to have actual evidence.

[highlandbreeze]

I'm not saying he is guilty, that will remain to be seen. However, I do believe, just simply my own opinion, that he is.

I have three boys, and there is no way that I would let Jackson within three states of my children. We had a pedophile that lived across the street from us and he was always outside with a telescope, to attract all the curious little boys( his favorite, by the way). My kids weren't allowed out the front door, without me or my husband. Sad really, this neighborhood is full of boys, and parents letting their kids run around and not knowing where their kids were. His yard was always full of kids and they were even going in his house. Unbelievable.

The article is titled, "Is Michael Jackson a Pediphile?" Just search by title, if you're interested.

By the way, I don't believe that he will be convicted. But I have to wonder how it is that children aren't afraid of him, because he scares that crap out of me. I'd be afraid that his nose would fall off in front me, then I'd be scarred forever.

=0)

[LuigiBasco]

Your tag line asks (to paraphrase) 'Why are we not in a crusade against our enemies ... the Muslims?'

I told you why. We are so lost as a society and indeed a civilization that we are not even capable of self preservation. We fiddle while Rome burns. We are sick.

I just wanted to be sure I understood what you meant.
I am in total agreement and I worry about where we are going as a country.

Luigi

[i_dont_chat]

Okay, I'll pursue this with you a bit longer. But I'm not going to continue the debate.

The child told the police where Jackson kept his pornographic material -- in 3 different places in his bedroom and lounge. The police looked -- and they found the porno, exactly where the child said it was.

I guess it was a lucky guess. Wrong. Jackson is a child molester. He gives them "Jesus juice" which is alcoholic, and he shows them porno material and he masterbates them.

He will be found guilty. He wasn't able to "buy his way" out of it this time. The law has been changed so that even IF the parents didn't pursue the charge (no matter how much money Jackson gave the parents), the government could still charge him with abuse. That is exactly what has happened.

It is true there are parents who, under these conditions, might try to exhort money from Jackson. It stands to reason that only unscrupulous parents would turn their children over to Jackson, in the first place.

But no matter the character of the parents -- it does not excuse Jackson's behavior, nor protect him from being prosecuted.

If the parents are found to be complicit in the abuse, so be it. I have no problem with the parents being charged, also. Disgusting to think of this child having to endure this treatment, whether or not his parents were involved.

I'm just curious. Are you in the camp which thinks that O.J. was wrongly charged with murder?

[LisaMalia]

Good post, I certainly couldn't have said it any better myself.

BTW, Rivera makes me almost as sick as Michael Jackson himself. He's not a reporter, he's an enabler.

I think he has a young son, wonder if he's willing to let him share a bed with Jackson?

[Dysfunctional]

Jackson is a middle-aged white woman who happens to have the same uncontrollable proclivities as some of our female school teachers; both secure victims with flaws that help give them some deniability.

Unfortunately, Jackson is a man - one so far gone that he cannot force himself to scrape off the betraying make-up each day - or slightly modify his swishy image, akin to the sad elements that bring up the rear (no pun) of the St. Patrick's day parades.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Like OJ?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The way he has jumped on any 'journalistic bandwagon' over the past years proves that he has only one goal: self promotion.

He is despicable in his self-promotion, whether it is creating a riot on the set of his show, getting the pride beat out of him by Frank Stallone on the Howard Stern show, or crawling around with a pack on his back in Afghanistan pretending to be in harm's way, it's all just a scam.

He's a big anti-gunner, too. But when he was in Afghanistan, he asked the military if they could outfit him with a rifle, untrained, not enlisted, of course. That's fine for him, he's a big important journalist. The rest of us can't be trusted, though. I'm sure his reasoning was that it would have made for great photo ops, like that picture of him racing a speedboat with his shirt off.

The best we can do is ignore him when his shows are on and then hound the networks to drop him.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

The fact that he does a feature story sympathetic of a celebrity who is on trial for child molestation is unfair to the judicial process on the whole. Don't you think this was possibly intended to sway public sentiment in order to sway the jury? How is that fair at all? Jackson's life story is irrelevant to the case and thus the piece can be taken only in this light. As the article states, why Jackson and not someone else, such as the teachers who are on trial for having had affairs with their students?

Does he plan to be 'fair' and balance this story with a feature story on the victims? Somehow I doubt that he's that 'fair.' I'm not trying to flame you. It's just that this stinks to high heaven of another OJ trial where someone blatantly guilty of a crime walks scot-free because they are a celebrity.

[SerpentDove]

"I don't know if Jackson is a pervert or not, but these particular charges don't look like they're going to hold up."

Care to elaborate? Or is that it?

[CHARLITE]

You are 100% right. I also agree with your remarks in Post #53. The problem is that he continues to insert himself into every major story. I'm sure that he gains ratings for Fox, so the prospect of bringing enough public pressure upon Fox to cause them to dump this clown isn't very realistic.

Geraldo Rivera is nothing more than another cheap lawyer, disguised as a journalist, chasing ambulances here and "around the world." .

I remember quite well how he bragged, during his coverage of our campaign at Tora Bora how he was "packing heat!" Wow! How big-time MACHO IS THAT?!!

Thanks for your comments!

Char :)

[untrained skeptic]

"The child told the police where Jackson kept his pornographic material -- in 3 different places in his bedroom and lounge. The police looked -- and they found the porno, exactly where the child said it was."

The defense's explaination is that the kids went through Jackson's things and found his porno mags. When the kids were found with the mags they were taken away from them.

Given the history of the kids being very poorly behaved, it's plausable.

"I'm just curious. Are you in the camp which thinks that O.J. was wrongly charged with murder?"

No I beleive there was sufficient evidence that O.J. deserved the death penalty, and that the jury bought into a conspiracy theory and rejected what was solid pyysical evidence.

In Jackson's case, it's the solid evidence that's missing.

If there were real evidence that he committed this crime, he should be locked up for a very long time, and never allowed around children unsupervised again.

He should never be around children unsupervised as it is even if he's not convicted, because no rational parent should allow their child to be alone with someone that strange.

However, the charges need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it sure doesn't look like the evidence is there to do that.

[untrained skeptic]

The mother has a long history as a con artist.

The only real physical evidence is some porno mags that the kid knew where they were located at Jackson's home.

Jackson's story is that the kids found the mags by going through his things when he wasn't watching them, and when they were found with the mags, the mags were taken away from them.

The kid who is the accuser isn't a shy kid who you'd think could be taken advantage of without telling people right away.

He once shot his mother in the leg with a BB gun in an argument.

He called childrens services and made false charges of abuse against his mother.

He's not a credible witness.

The mother isn't a credible witness.

The physical evidence isn't there.

There just isn't evidence that this is anything more than an effort to con millions out of Jackson.

Does that mean he didn't do it? Not really. It means that we really don't know.

[SerpentDove]

Fingerprints on a porno mag that the kid "discovered", along with the testimony about Jackson drinking alcohol with the kid, and no telling what else will come out.

All from a grown man who admits he likes to sleep with little boys, and settled with one out of court already.

And that's not supposed to be incriminating?

Sell it to some dunce down the street, I ain't buying.

[untrained skeptic]

"All from a grown man who admits he likes to sleep with little boys,"

Yea, that statement is really the only evidence in the case. The statement shows that Jackson has a really warped mind. It doesn't mean that he abused the boys.

As for the previous settlement? It's definately a cause for concern. However, rich and eccentric people are targets for cons, and the accuser and his mother sure seem to fit the bill.

The testimony about the house keeper bringing them alcohol is a bit more solid. But I believe that testimony was contradicted as well. That will come down to the credibility of that witness, and even that only shows contributing to the deliquency of a minor, which will get Jackson a slap on the wrist.

I'm not trying to support Jackson. I'm saying the case looks weak at best, and that it looks doubtful that he will be convicted.

It looks doubtful that he should be convicted based on the evidence itself.

However, the emotional effect of the crimes that Jackson is accused of could result in the jury deciding the case based on Jackson's credibility rather than the evidence, and Jackson has no credibility.

[BykrBayb]

We are so lost as a society and indeed a civilization that we are not even capable of self preservation. We fiddle while Rome burns. We are sick.

Not all of us.