Michael Jackson committed suicide

[CigarStone]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

I think you completely missed my point, but to answer your question, based on all the other twisted, unkind, petty, spiteful, Machiavellian sorts of nonsense his entire family has been subjecting one another to for the past half century, I'd say that it probably wasn't very hard at all, though I must admit I don't even know what you're referring to...

No, I didn't miss your point. My point is that there is no gray area for me in these regards and, with respect to full disclosure, I'm a practicing attorney, in these type areas, for over a decade now. The big picture is and will remain that you just don't place children in this type of situation. There is a bigger picture than a legal standpoint, or whatever "game" you are referencing.

No gray area?

And you're an attorney? With 10+ years of experience with child witnesses and victims? And you don't acknowledge how easy it is to bend a well-intentioned child to make a misstatement--especially when being interviewed (suggestively or otherwise) by a person of authority? When the parents of his alleged victim had 20,000,000 incentives to make an accusation?

Wow.

Wow is right! What is your agenda in this discussion?

 

[The Green Monkey]

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

 

[bfisher88]

In my opinion. If you like sleeping in bed with little boys. Your a damn pedophile. Simple as that.

 

[Franco593]

In my opinion. If you like sleeping in bed with little boys. Your a damn pedophile. Simple as that.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me...well said

 

[CigarStone]

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

How bout when literally dozens of questionable incidents have a common eccentric billionaire? And how bout when all physical evidence points toward that same eccentric billionaire? And how bout the fact that the eccentric billionaire can buy his way out of allegations? And how bout when that eccentric billionaire is known to be deranged? Please tell me you're not generically defending child molesters....as in....do you know how easy it is for someone to persuade a child to levy false charges?

 

[bfreebern]

He's dead guys, can we let all this back and forth die as well? It's pointless.

 

[tsmckenney]

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

How bout when literally dozens of questionable incidents have a common eccentric billionaire? And how bout when all physical evidence points toward that same eccentric billionaire? And how bout the fact that the eccentric billionaire can buy his way out of allegations? And how bout when that eccentric billionaire is known to be deranged? Please tell me you're not generically defending child molesters....as in....do you know how easy it is for someone to persuade a child to levy false charges?

More often than not, it is investigators who screw up these cases. There are many, many studies that show how a child will react to questioning. In the past, investigators and prosecutors used to interview these children over and over. Their stories would change and eventually evolve into saying what the investigators/prosecutors wanted them to say. That's a very simplistic description, but defense attorneys have always used multiple interviews (of children) to show how the prosecution had distorted the facts of case. Often they were successful. That is changing now as some of the best child forensic interviewers for the FBI travel nationwide teaching investigators and prosecutors how to successfully interview children and minimize the defense's strategies against them.

You're certainly right about the money part though.

 

[Cparker]

It just does not seem right that NASTY tells us he has picture of himself impersonating MJ, (I imagine red jacket and single gloved hand and all), and then does not POST the picture....

Perhaps Rod could put this to a poll.

I place a motion on the floor to have Rod initiate a vote to require NASTY to post the picuture he mentioned.

Cparker

 

[Wolfie]

I would like to second the motion to consider to have a vote to have Ron hold a nasty poll. Or...something.

 

[dulaney22]

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

When you get into the real world of this, you'll see that determining whether a child is lying or not is the easiest part. People, at least here, are well trained and have a protocol for this. They determine rather quickly, along with forensic testing, whether abuse took place or not.

 

[CigarStone]

He's dead guys, can we let all this back and forth die as well? It's pointless.

:thumbs:

Sorry.....just a very sensitive subject!

 

[NASTY]

It just does not seem right that NASTY tells us he has picture of himself impersonating MJ, (I imagine red jacket and single gloved hand and all), and then does not POST the picture....

Perhaps Rod could put this to a poll.

I place a motion on the floor to have Rod initiate a vote to require NASTY to post the picuture he mentioned.

Cparker

I am not impersonating MJ. I just have a red leather on in front of a poster.
No matter what the poll, it's not getting posted at all. I would gladly accept a three day banning instead :sign:

 

[The Green Monkey]

I'll cease participating in this thread not only because it seems like bystanders may be growing annoyed, but because it seems like what I'm trying to broadcast doesn't seem to be the same as what's being received--at least by those among us who only see things in terms of Black or White.

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

When you get into the real world of this, you'll see that determining whether a child is lying or not is the easiest part. People, at least here, are well trained and have a protocol for this. They determine rather quickly, along with forensic testing, whether abuse took place or not.

I'd be curious to know which of the interview protocols you're using that seems to have such sure-fire success, so if you feel like continuing the discussion, please feel free to shoot me a PM.

 

[dulaney22]

I'll cease participating in this thread not only because it seems like bystanders may be growing annoyed, but because it seems like what I'm trying to broadcast doesn't seem to be the same as what's being received--at least by those among us who only see things in terms of Black or White.

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

When you get into the real world of this, you'll see that determining whether a child is lying or not is the easiest part. People, at least here, are well trained and have a protocol for this. They determine rather quickly, along with forensic testing, whether abuse took place or not.

I'd be curious to know which of the interview protocols you're using that seems to have such sure-fire success, so if you feel like continuing the discussion, please feel free to shoot me a PM.

No, I care nothing about continuing any discussions with you. I'm offering real world experience, and you, apparently, just want to play devil's advocate. There's no reason to discuss it further.

 

[CigarStone]

I'll cease participating in this thread not only because it seems like bystanders may be growing annoyed, but because it seems like what I'm trying to broadcast doesn't seem to be the same as what's being received--at least by those among us who only see things in terms of Black or White.

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

When you get into the real world of this, you'll see that determining whether a child is lying or not is the easiest part. People, at least here, are well trained and have a protocol for this. They determine rather quickly, along with forensic testing, whether abuse took place or not.

I'd be curious to know which of the interview protocols you're using that seems to have such sure-fire success, so if you feel like continuing the discussion, please feel free to shoot me a PM.

You just can't stop inflaming can you? First you defend child molesters and now you drop the race card? Are you trying to be funny or should I report this to Rod?

 

[Devil Doc]

Damn, the newbs are up in arms over MJ. You guys sure are entertaining. He was a kid snapper and a freak. Any other opinion is ill conceived.

Doc.

 

[CigarStone]

I could not care less about MJ, especially now that we don't have to protect our children from him anymore. I do care about the other games being played here.....but thanks for your ever-so-enlightening opinion.

 

[CigarStone]

Doc:

Not sure I understand your humor on this one but if I just stepped on you for agreeing with me I certainly do apologize.

 

[Mike33]

I'll cease participating in this thread not only because it seems like bystanders may be growing annoyed, but because it seems like what I'm trying to broadcast doesn't seem to be the same as what's being received--at least by those among us who only see things in terms of Black or White.

That our legal system exists for a reason, has a burden of proof for a reason, and that it's horribly difficult to figure out what happened in a he said/she said situation when one of the parties is a child and one of the parties is an eccentric billionaire.

When you get into the real world of this, you'll see that determining whether a child is lying or not is the easiest part. People, at least here, are well trained and have a protocol for this. They determine rather quickly, along with forensic testing, whether abuse took place or not.

I'd be curious to know which of the interview protocols you're using that seems to have such sure-fire success, so if you feel like continuing the discussion, please feel free to shoot me a PM.

You just can't stop inflaming can you? First you defend child molesters and now you drop the race card? Are you trying to be funny or should I report this to Rod?

Race card? I think he is referring to the idea of seeing the world in absolutes, not a black or white thing in terms of race.

As far as this discussion, who gives a shit. The guy's dead, let it go.

 

[The Green Monkey]

You just can't stop inflaming can you? First you defend child molesters and now you drop the race card? Are you trying to be funny or should I report this to Rod?

Defending child molesters? For your continuing clarification, I was defending the legal system and pointing out that it might be surprising to some people how easy it is for a child to make a false allegation or for an interviewer to twist words into finding a reason to bring charges. Coincidentally (or, perhaps not coincidental at all, I guess...) the same sort of thing seems to be happening here.

Dropping the race card? Like Mike33 picked up, I was referring to everyone who can't see or won't acknowledge the shades of gray involved in determining Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence due to all the various complicating factors involved in that particular case. I thought it was clever that I linked the words "Black or White" to the YouTube video of a Michael Jackson song by the same name, which, incidentally, is a song about *not* playing the race card. It's up to you whether you want to report this to Rod--don't let me stop you from making a mountain out of a molehill if you wish to continue totally mischaracterizing my statements.

No, I care nothing about continuing any discussions with you. I'm offering real world experience, and you, apparently, just want to play devil's advocate. There's no reason to discuss it further.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I know a few of the people responsible for creating several of the more highly regarded and commonly used interview protocols and none of them would ever speak in such absolute and certain terms like you did earlier. I wasn't playing devil's advocate--I was genuinely curious what system you were using and who provided your training.

*****

To everyone else--sorry for continuing to keep this thread going. I truly intended for my previous post to be the last on the matter until I read the above comments which I felt had blossomed from mischaracterizing my point (which I had decided to just concede earlier) to what I perceive to be misrepresentations of my character--something which I will not concede.