quote:

---

MrEd45 wrote:

In my heart, I think so too, Pony. That's why if ever summoned, I'd disqualify myself as a potntial juror for his trial.

---

quote:

---

Coirce wrote:

He failed a lie detector test I heard.

---

quote:

---

MrEd45 wrote:

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, AT, but I'm sincere about it. I couldn't, and thus, wouldn't go into any trial - as a jurist or judge - with a pre-conceived notion about the defendant's guilt or non-guilt and be able to render as essentialy a pure and honest verdict as possible, based on only the evidence legally presented to me. In my heart, I believe he's guilty - therefore I have essentially already judged him, as a private citizen. I see no inconsistancy there.
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree about Jackson never paying anyone for their silence about alleged sexual misconduct. He paid a reported $20,000,000.00 to keep a civil suit alleging that exact thing out of the courts, with an attachment that the people he paid remain silent about the details of the suit, and the reason(s) behind the payment for evermore.
As is the case with numerous celebrities, corporations and private citizens, suits are settled quietly and out of court or before they ever reach the filing of papers with a court stage, on a daily basis, whether they be to settle what could be actually criminal or purely civil matters. Nearly all contain a "gag order" forbidding participants, particularly the ones receiving the settlement, from commenting on the details of the suit at all, or face further legal action.
My point is, for we all we know, Jackson has made numerous payments of the type that became public record, it's just the ones that didn't may have been settled before any charges were ever filed in a public court, like the ones in '93 were before being dropped. And like the current ones are that in motion as we speak. It's just something to ponder in response to your question about the lack of suits regarding sexual abuse, AT.
I do agree with you that it's quite possible to have a child sleeping in your bedroom with you without abusing the child.It's just that most adult males with an iota of common sense - of which Jackson has far more than an iota of, just depends on what area of life he chooses to employ it toward, apparently - wouldn't have adolescent boys, not even of their own blood relation, mind you, sleeping over with them IN THE SAME BED. Especially when that adult has available sleeping accomodations for not only a few guests, but dozens at any one time. Like I say, perhaps only bad judgement, but a definite example of not using common sense.
Your point about the appearance of most sexual abusers is extremely valid, AT. It's that very "normalcy" in appearance that allows them to prey on people for sadly long periods of time involving potentially hundreds of victims, in some cases, before they're ever - if ever - caught. Perhaps Jackson employs or employed the 'reverse psychology' - "I'm so freaky, nobody'll believe I could do such a thing!"
Time will definitely tell...

---