Totally agree. However, lots of paedophiles (I am NOT saying that MJ is one) have had tragic backgrounds - but it does NOT excuse their behaviour. I would just like to see him getting some treatment for his, obvious, mental problems. It's a bit like seeing a once well-respected person descending into alcoholism :(

Daisy

does anyone wonder why both children who accused MJ were both of latino origin, from broken homes and all his child 'friends' good looking?
boys? You never see him with any girls. One of his close friends is a porno mag/video tycoon. Peter Pan would never have friends like these. He should have been made to take the stand and be question just like the young boy was. Methinks another Lisa Marie Presley marriage is on the cards if he digs his way out of this one.

I think everyone agrees he is not mentally 'normal' whatever that actually is.  Also, none of us know the whole of the evidence as yet (if we ever will), and yet many seem to already have him down as guilty - and if proven innocent, then he 'got away with it'.  Believe it or not, I am not really a Michael Jackson fan but he has done a TREMENDOUS amount for charity and children in particular.  Obviously if it is proven that he has abused children then his own children must be considered.  At this point in time however, I have never seen much to give me cause of concern for his own children - he admitted himself that it was a mistake to hang his baby over the balcony, but stated that he had a firm hold of him and that he got caught up in the excitement of the crowd.

I have seen his children interacting normally with other children - I belive they only wear masks when cameras are about.  Many parents do not look after their children in 'acceptable' ways, but they are not taken away.  I know of children who are ridden with headlice, filthy dirty, go to school with no underwear, allowed to play on the streets at the age of 4 and some even beaten and none are removed from their parents. To me these seem far worse than hiding your childrens faces from cameras.

Incidentally, many white blond children have darker roots (my nephew did).

Other people have done a tremendous amount for children and STILL abused them - it doesn't make a defence, I'm afraid....

Margot

No I wasn't saying that it does, just explaining why I have good thoughts about him (at the moment) and am not particularly a fan.

Fiona

"he admitted himself that it was a mistake to hang his baby over the balcony, but stated that he had a firm hold of him and that he got caught up in the excitement of the crowd."

On what Planet, in which Universe would this sort of thing be simply 'A Mistake' ????   If Joe Ordinary from down the road did this his feet wouldn't have touched the ground on his way to Prison/the funny farm/both.  It wouldn't matter how excited the crowd had made him! or what kind of a grip he had of the child!!  The child was treated like a handbag.

Personally that kind of behaviour makes me think that he sees the children as 'things' not as children/people in their own right and that they are simply accessories to his lifestyle and part of the construct of a 'Peter Pan' who loves children.

He should have those children taken from him. You would not put your child in any danger if you truly loved them. Whenever those poor children go anywhere, he treats it like a circus outing. He is sick, if his fans support his behavior they should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes - A MISTAKE - we ALL make them at some time.  The word 'mistake' was mine - he said words to the effect that he realised he shouldn't have done it and so on...   I have seen someone pick an eleven or so year old boy up by his head - something that could have resulted in very serious injury, but I didn't demand his children be taken from him. I had a 4 year old boy run across the road in front of my car last week - playing CHICKEN with another older boy and his older sister - the mother obviously quite happy for him to be out unsupervised on what is quite a dangerous road. I would never do any of these things, but maybe (I hope not) I have/will do something that I shouldn't/regret later - I wouldn't want my children taken away, I would hope I would learn from it.  People do not always realise the danger they are putting their children in and need educating.

With regards to outings with his children being like circus outings - that could be said to be the public/press more than him.  He had a zoo shut down to the public so that he could take his children without being harrassed, but even then the crowds were almost crushing them outside - what should he do - never take them out?

Oliversmum - what behaviour is that then - he surely should have the same 'innocent until proven guilty' rights - or should he be lynched because he has such money and fame??

If he is proven guilty then his children should be removed for their own safety.

A mistake is filling in your show application with the wrong dogs name, putting salt instead of sugar in the coffee, not sure what I'd call holding a baby upside down over a huge drop, but its a bit more than a mistake.

At the time that the 'balcony incident' was shown on TV News my youngest was 6 years old, he was visibly shocked and upset at the baby put in such danger by a 'grown up'.  Its a very sad day when a 6 year old has more sense of responsibility than a 45 year old man :( :(

I can't understand why people stick up for him :( If you saw a neighbour dangling his baby out of the window, you'd call the NSPCC/police.

As for taking his children out - Princess Diana took her boys to Thorpe Park (?) and was perfectly happy for the photographers to be present. Her children didn't go around wearing veils. The Royal Family has always managed to have a private life for their children, but they aren't frightened for them to be seen in public.

Daisy

Firstly, I don't feel I am defending him, in fact I also think he was totally wrong to hang the baby over the balcony -  I'm just trying to point out that despite what he did (and I would also never knowingly put my children in danger!) I still think he loves his children.  Another thing is that Men tend to do things differently, perhaps more risky things, with children, which alot of women might cringe from.

I feel that you are very judgemental - you do not know his reasons for not wanting his children seen in public.  Did you see how the photographers were around his children - they didn't seem bothered whether they were scaring or even crushing the children, they just wanted their photos.  Maybe he does that so that if they go out without HIM they won't be recognised.  Everyone brings their children up differently and with different values - who is to say which way is best.  Princess Diana had her own agenda anyway with regard to photographers.

I remember when he was filmed feeding his baby and people were saying 'oh see how he was shaking the baby, that's not normal,'  and so on - I remember doing exactly the same to one of mine - it was the only way to sooth him at times and others have done the same (don't mean SHAKING but wiggling your leg very quickly).

Anyway, we will have to await the verdict.

This man is always making 'mistakes' . Was it a mistake to put alcohol into fizzy drinks cans, pay off Jordy Chandler instead of fighting for his innocence, a mistake to leave porno mags around the house (even though there is a rather enticing fairground outside). You do not dangle a baby over a balcony -full stop. He made a decision - not a mistake to show the public his baby in this atrocious manner. If you looked out of your window and saw your neighbour doing this would you think "oh dear, they've made a mistake" or would you do the right thing and report them? I have children, who I love very much and would NEVER put them in danger, the thought sickens me, I do not see how he can genuinely love that child if he can 'decide' to endanger it - tight grip or not.

MJ wasn't even showing his baby to the world, as it had a cloth over it's head

Daisy

Exactly. But his excuse was 'he wanted to share the baby with his fans' when I wanted to show off my children I normally send photos. with him needing the money you would have thought he would have put a picture in Hello magazine.

As I say in my above post, maybe he hides their faces when with him, so that they can go unrecognised when he is not there - who knows!

Also all these comparisons to 'Joe Public' are invalid as he is NOT 'Joe Public' and circumstances, etc are not the same.

So... he's a special case is he? Should he be treated any different because he is famous? No matter who he is, the circumstances are the same. It is classical paedo behaviour, entice children to your home with toys and having fun, then....wow, porno mags and jesus juice for everyone - only young boys mind. I know of no other 'celebrity' who cover their childs face when outside in the 'real world'. Joe publics feet wouldn't touch the ground.

You're right there!

He has

Money
Power
Influence
Celebrity/Fame

Definately NOT Joe Public then.  So one set of rules for Joe Public and another for MJ??

Also are you saying that you would report 'joe public' but not MJ if you saw both dangling their baby? Mjs fans talk like this, defending to the hilt no matter what evidence there is and no matter how his children are treated.

It's the same sort of 'mistake' that Joe Public can be seen doing every day, driving their car with the kids unstrapped in the back - or even in the front.

Guilty or not,I still feel sorry for him

If he turns out to be a paedophile no one should feel sorry for him, there nothing i hate more,

Thomas the spot is the name of my favourite boy Thomas who is indeed a spot!!!!

This should have been a response to Luvapug but has come up here!

>>Also all these comparisons to 'Joe Public' are invalid as he is NOT 'Joe Public' and circumstances, etc are not the same.

But the LAW is the same no matter who it is ;)

But MJ didn't make a 'mistake', he made a 'decision' - that he would dangle his baby from a balcony. Yes it wrong and terrible that parents decide not strap children into the car and they should be punished for it. But...you cannot say that MJ should be treated differently because he has different circumstances/needs from Joe Public. One rule for ALL.

I think *that* was my point ;)

I Totally agree one rule for all - never said any different.  the circumstances I was referring to were the reasons why he hung his baby over the balcony (as I keep saying I think he is not mentally like an adult and needs help).

I admit I personally would think very hard before reporting anyone for doing things with their children one time - unless of course I saw it happen regularly.  I have seen children hanging out of moving car windows - I admit I have not reported them - didn't even know who they were.  Was DISGUSTED that the parent could put their child at risk like that.

I HAVE had an argument with someone I know who was not going to strap their child in the car as they were only going a short distance though.  Putting it into PERSPECTIVE though - how likely is a parent to drop their baby anyway?  I know I never droppped any of mine - EVER.  I will admit though I am guilty of throwing my babies into the air and catching them - something they LOVED.  Should mine be taken away??

Edit to add - can you honestly say that you have reported EVERY single time you have seen someone doing something wrong with a child?  If so, the police/social services must be getting pretty fed up!  also you are splitting hairs saying he made a 'decision' - all actions are the result of a decision just some of them are not particularly well considered and therefore with hindsight a MISTAKE

I bet you didn't dangle them from the upstairs window just to share your joy with anyone. I have never dropped any of my children EVER. But I would NEVER do anything so stupid as to endanger my baby. If I saw a neighbour doing this sort of thing I would report them straight away, whether it was one time or not. You read all the time about child neglect and neighbours turning a blind eye "I never saw anything" I couldn't live with myself if I sat back and did nothing, the second attempt could be fatal - tight grip or not.  He treated that child like a toy. If you look carefully at the footage, he drags (not a gentle lift) the baby back, and you notice it's leg hit the balcony. You don't love a ragdoll the same as you love your child .

I don't think that *I* would compare throwing a baby a few feet into the air and catching it with dangling a baby upside down from a balcony ...

Just a thought ;)

Oh and yes, I would report a car if I saw the children were not strapped in or they were hanging out of the window...I figure that I could be saving a life but that's just me :)

Well when I have seen children dangling out of a car window, unfortunately I couldn't get the number plate, otherwise maybe I would have reported that.  However I think the police would find it difficult to do anything without evidence.  If I ever saw a child in real danger then of course I would do something immediately.  Unfortunately, the people who do put their children at risk like this need educating and sadly, where I live, there are a fair few people who do this.

I think the fact that MJ was not in trouble for the baby incident implies the official view on the matter (whether we agree or not), but I still think its a bit strong to say his children should be taken away based on that - JMO. (Paedophilia is another matter of course - but yet to be proven).

Edit to add: - at the school where I work there are a lot of children that I think are not cared for/loved properly, but when I have mentioned this to my superiors at the school they say that social services know, but there is nothing they can do? Sadly, unless a child is in real danger then SS feel they are better off with their family.

Would you leave your children in the care of another child though? Just curious really.

I wouldn't ...and I have a feeling that MJ is, in effect, a child still. In fact, that seems to have been a lot of the defence all along. He doesn't act like an adult, he seems to want to be thought of as a child....so it seems to me that a chld shouldn't not have care of other, younger children.

Not, of course, pre-empting the jury as I have no idea whether he is guilty or not and will remain innocent until prove guilty in my eyes. I can only go by what I have actually seen with my own eyes and *that* includes the dangling of a baby, by its leg, over the balcony. I am fairly sure that IF someone you knew had done the same thing on national TV, Social Services would have done a massive check up on that person and possibly removed said child.

Which brings me back to the one law for all thing ;) Fame and wealth should make no difference to justice, and this cuts BOTH ways, no one should be persecuted or prosecuted simply because they are rich and famous either ;)

I don't think I am totally convinced by this child/Peter Pan thing though. He knows how to entice children..funfair, zoo,presents. But...inside ...porno mags freely available, he knows which internet sites to log onto for twisted pleasure, alcohol (which he knows to disguise in pop cans) and at the end of that - a snuggle in his bed.
He is a child when it suits him. Whichever his persona, he should not be resposible for children.

I personally wouldn't leave my children in the care of 3/4 of the parents I see around.  (In fact I only ever leave my children with their Nan).  I can see what your point is Melody - but again there are many unsuitable parents.

Incidentally - I don't remember the baby being dangled 'by its leg'.

It seems to me that FAME, etc will always make some difference if not only because everyone will know about it and have an opinion.  Celebrities are prosecuted and found guilty however - for every 'fan' you get someone with an axe to grind so I suppose it evens out.

I think the thing that really worries me is that if he thinks that things such as:
1. dangling baby in blanket over balcony
2. buying children from their so called "mother"
3. convenience marriages to other "superstars"
4. having a theme park in the back garden and allowing children to stay over in his bedroom

are acceptable and excused under the guise of a "mistake" or "not thinking" - what else has he done that he thinks is acceptable behaviour which clearly isn't!!

'what else has he done that he thinks is acceptable behaviour which clearly isn't'

I prefer to stick to the hard evidence, not supposition - that can lead to all sorts of problems.  Do we KNOW for a FACT that he paid the mother of his children for them?  Do we even really KNOW that his marriages to other celebs were for convenience.  We all agree he is not right in his mind - how can we understand why he does things.  I can't argue that he hasn't done anything wrong - sleeping with children that are not your own is not right.  What I am trying to say is that MAYBE he doesn't think he's doing any wrong (again due to his mental illness).

Ps - my children would love a theme park in their garden and why would that not be acceptable?

Having a theme park in your back garden is perfectly acceptable, plying kids with alcohol and porno mags is not.

Well, if he is suffering from a mental illness, again, he should be receiving treatment, and, for the sake of the children, if not his own sake, the rsponsibility of his own children should be taken from him, if only temporarily.

I still maintain my position - his actions are, at the least, suspect, but the action of the parents of his victims, who allowed the situations to develop, are criminal too.

Margot

does any1 know wen the decision as to wether he is guilty will be made?

The Jury have been allowed home for the weekend.    They will be recalled tomorrow, but whether they make a decision then, or when, heavens only knows!

I just hope, whatever the legal outcome, that he gets help. His mental situation is not going to improve, only get worse. Hopefully his true friends will persuade him to seek help.

Daisy

He is probably not the only 'adult' around those children though.  If you think about it he has lots of servants - bodyguards, cooks, cleaners, etc so he is not really solely responsible for their care.  I would be the first to say they should be taken away if he is found to have abused anybody though.

The issue of sexual abuse is almost a side issue here. No normal man would have children staying at his home in the manner that Michael Jackson does. No normal parents would allow their children to stay. The problem is - what MJ wants, MJ gets His employees are just that and are probably as swayed by the money and kudos of working for him, as are the parents of the children that stayed there. This man is sick - he needs help. Whatever he may have been in the past, whatever money he has (or had) does not matter one iota. It is HIS house and HE is responsible for what goes on in there. I have sympathy for his obvious mental illness - but that is all. He can afford to get treatment - he is not like some of America's poor that do not have insurance and can't afford help.

Daisy

What I am trying to say is that MAYBE he doesn't think he's doing any wrong (again due to his mental illness).

Um, I don't believe there is any "hard evidence" of MJ having a mental illness...sounds like supposition to me.

We can only go on what we hear, and what we see. And, as someone who is so obviously in the public eye, and engages in behaviour that positively encourages speculation and comment I feel perfectly entitled to debate it.

PS - would you invite lots of other children round to use your theme park and then have them sleeping in your bed?

Exactly my point - what we hear and see (evidence) indicates he has some form of mental illness. Having children sleep in your bed is not the action of a 'normal' grown man.  Even if he is pretending to be childlike that is still not 'normal' behaviour, so to me is evidence something is wrong with him.  He needs help in my opinion and being able to afford that help is not the only issue - he has to realise he needs help to voluntarily seek it.  Maybe this case, no matter what the outcome might make him realise he does need help.

And of course Chole you are entitled to debate it - that's what we are all doing I thought :)

Of course he is solely resposible for His? children. Servants can cannot be held resposible. HE makes the decisions as to how his children are brought up. If you were lucky enough to have a cleaner working for you, and you treated your children in this way I don't think social services would say "well because you clean this house, you are also resposible". Would you let your childs teacher tell you you how to bring up your child? Because of his money (well debts now) and status he shows nothing but arrogance to the justice system, he was warned by the judge more than once. I personally do not the jury will be able to come to a decision,  I don't think people - including the jury can see past his fame.

Indeed. And what we hear and see (evidence) indicates he could well have done something he shouldn't - hence the trial in the first place!

Yes, we are all debating - but you said: "I prefer to stick to the hard evidence, not supposition" and then went on to discuss MJ's supposed mental problems - even though there is no hard evidence of it :)

Mental illness? Anyone standing trial facing a long time in prison will scream this from the rooftops - get out of jail card. Some criminals do suffer from mental illnesses and should have treatment. Mj suffers first from Peter Pan syndrome and now fans are crying out for him to have a mental illness to save him from jail. Too child like to face jail? - tough. If found guilty he deserves to rot there.

I disagree there is no evidence for mental illness - do you think his behaviour is normal then?  Only his behaviour can show whether he is mentally ill and to me his actions do indicate that. How could anyone say he is normal?

With regards to his staff - what I meant to say was he probably employs a Nanny who does most of the childcare - I chose my examples of staff badly (was in a rush).  Of course he is still responsible for the children (I thought that would be taken as said TBH), but I meant that they would still be looked after.

I never said he was too child like to face jail though - if he did the crime he can do the time (but hopefully be treated for his illness too)

Doesn't matter what I think - you said yourself you prefer to stick to hard evidence, and to my knowledge there is no hard evidence he has a mental problem.

So other than behaviour, how do you think mental illness is proven???

Fiona

By professional assessment - and not based on what is seen in the media or portrayed by the person to the outside world. The fact is that there is NO hard evidence that MJ is mentally inbalanced - one can only express an opinion. Which is what I did above and you replied by saying you preferred to go on "hard evidence" and not supposition.

There is no hard evidence. For all we know he could be a clever, cold, calculating individual who has managed to put a marketing spin on his actions in order to try to get away with them.