June 14, 2005

• Celebrities cannot be convicted of crimes in our society. Still, society has to keep trying.
• Wonder how many of the jurors would be offended if a suspected sex offender moved in next door to them. Wonder how many of them would let their own kids stay over at Neverland. Wonder how the fuck this can keep happening. How much proof do you need that a man is a pederast before you actually say "wow, this guy likes to have sex with little kids!"??? Just goes to show you once again that a black man can't get a fair trial in America. (Unless he's rich, of course.)
• Maybe it simply means he's not guilty. Disclaimer: I refused to pay any deliberate attention to this case, therefore am not informed.
• I dunno... If I were 10 years old, I'd let some rich guy do me for a cool 10 mil.... I'm sure they'll get him next time, it's not like he's going to stop.
• I think this is less a verdict of "not guilty" as it is a verdict of "we are not going to be the jury who sentences Michael Jackson to death in an American prison."
• The man looks like a true freak, has the weirdest lifestyle ever seen, and really REALLY likes kids. If a jury can see all that and still say innocent, I figure the guy's more than likely innocent.
• It looked like the prosecutors just expected Michael's weirdness to do all of the work for them. Having your star witness admit to perjury and plead the 5th on welfare fraud... Not good. The sad thing is that we'll never really know if he did it or not. Me, I was just shocked to find that he's normal where it counts and uses the intrawebs to find porn.
• From the few bits of analysis (hunh! he said anal!) I heard/read, the prosecutor was a bungler who could not have proven that the sun rises in the east (time cube notwithstanding). Having sat through a couple of trials involving chester-the-molesters, I can say that the burden of proof beyond a "reasonable" doubt is hard to achieve if the defendant maintains a not guilty stance and does not take the stand. Juries are reluctant to convict based on the testimony of a minor, especially when the testimony is so conflicting, as in this case. I knew it was over when the prosecution's "star witness" one of the former Mrs. Jacksons, Debbie 'The Beard' Roe, completely blind-sided the prosecutor. When something like that happens, the jury rolls its collective eyeballs & screams WTF! Jackson is pitiful. Let's hear him blast Tommy Mottola again for problems marketing his next recording.
• I'm with minda. Just because he's disturb[ing/ed], creepy, and obviously in need of some serious therapy to resolve the issues he carries over from childhood doesn't mean he's guilty of pedophilia. I certainly wouldn't let him move in next door or send my kids to play with him. Hopefully no one else will either, but somehow I doubt it. Now we just wait for another Law and Order episode on the subject.
• If a jury can see all that and still say innocent, I figure the guy's more than likely innocent. posted by minda25 at 10:38PM UTC on June 13, 2005 Clarification: the jury can find him guilty or not guilty/not responsible. They cannot find him "innocent," and no matter what the actual facts of this case were, no way is Jackson innocent. Just found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Does this mean we never have to hear about him again? I think he's guilty, but I didn't pay much attention to the trial. I was never really a fan of his music. I just want him to disapear forever.
• I represent people who are charged with this offense. If I ever had a case where the defendant admitted to routinely shared a bed with boys, the prosecutor would laugh at me if I told her I wanted to take it to trial. Celebrity cases keep the population wrongly informed about the criminal system.
• Count me in with those who know next to nothing about the details of the case, but creepy + really likes kids != pedophile. Perhaps they didn't want to send his fragile ass to prison, but it's at least as likely that they didn't find enough evidence to convict. I wouldn't let my kids spend the night at his place either, but suspicion/being creeped out is a far cry from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt and taking the man's life away because of it. If he did it, though, I hope he's made to pay for it someday. Much as I believe in forgiveness, you fuck with a child, all I want to do is hurt you. A lot.
• Wow, didn't take long for a bunch of people to say he's guilty, without knowing what evidence was put before the jury. But hey, he's weird, right? Here's to hoping I'm never the hermit on the edge of town.
• Does this mean we never have to hear about him again? Yes
• Rorschach is guilty.
• I could easily be wrong, but I tend to doubt that the jury had any real hesitation to send him to prison. Any sympathy or concern cannot overcome the barrier of his extreme creepiness. Destructo seems to have a good take on what went on during the trial (I avoided details myself) and sounds like a complete disaster of a prosecution.
• >Just because he's disturb[ing/ed], creepy, and obviously in need of some serious therapy to resolve the issues he carries over from childhood doesn't mean he's guilty of pedophilia. No... nor does the fact that his paid handlers bring him jars of vaseline during the night to facilitate his self-described nonsexual bed-sharing with young boys necessarily mean he's a pedophile. By the same token, if I'm found standing over the body of my most despised enemy, who's just been stabbed to death with a big bloody bread knife which I happen to be holding, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm the killer. At some point, though, surely the 'benefit of the doubt' defense begins to wear thin...
• Wow, didn't take long for a bunch of people to say he's guilty, posted by Rorschach at 11:18PM UTC on June 13, 2005 Rorschach is guilty. posted by Nickdanger at 11:30PM UTC on June 13, 2005 Hmm...12 minutes. We can do better than that.
• Stan the Bat, I should have pointed out that I've been paying zero attention to the trial. Presumably the Vaseline thing was court testimony? Gah, no, I can't take a celebrity trial seriously. I can't believe a single person in the witness stand, regardless of whom or what they're talking about.
• And flongj is guilty.
• Oh. Does this mean there will be a new MJ CD coming out soon? Crap.
• "When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
• You know what this means? It means that WE CAN ALL GET ON WITH OUR FUCKING LIVES NOW! That, and the news can report news that MATTERS again. ...Not that I think trials of pedophiliacs don't matter, but I get really pissed when the media turns something like this into a circus. If it wasn't MJ up there, it wouldn't have gotten 1/100 of the coverage. God I hate our media... /bitter
• doesn't mean he's guilty of pedophilia Hell, just because he's "guilty" of pedophilia doesn't mean he molested any children. But I'm picking nits, aren't I?
• FYI, 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'didn't do it'. It means that the evidence didn't meet up to the standards required for a guilty verdict, according to the jurors. Did he do what the prosecutor claims he did? Dunno. I haven't seen the evidence and I'm not going to throw stones based on the fact that his lifestyle is vastly different from my own. But I will say this: by all appearancess, the prosecution was pretty inept. They put up impeachable witnesses, had skimpy evidence, and just generally did not appear to do a good job. It's over. Let's get on with our lives.
• Dammit Hartigan, you fucked up again. You should have shot him when you had the chance.
• Whatever Jackson did or didnt do, this is a victory for justice- proving that someone cant be convicted by a witchunting prosecutor with a paper-thin case based on hearsay and gossip... The prosecution "did a bad job" b/c there was no case here. I honestly dont know if Jackson molested any kids or not, and I doubt anyone here does. I question whether charges would have ever been brought against an average person... much like the cowboy who went after Kobe Bryant in Colorado, this DA wanted to make his name on this. He failed, and I'm happy about that. Those kind of people disgust me far more than child molesters.
• This is the best possible news report filed on the trial. I recommend everyone read it.
• I think drjimmy is right. And Rorschach.
• Well, now that that's over, did you know there's this teenager from Alabama who is missing in Aruba????
• I think it's kind of worth a bit of thought that this guy has been caught in this situation what; four times now? And no conviction? Where there's smoke, there's fire. Burn the witch! Buuurrrrnnnnn the Wwwwwiiitttccchhhhh ! ! !
• Relax, people. It's not the end of the world. There's plenty of other news!
• Regardless of whether he ever did anything or not with those or any other children, the prosecution utterly failed to make a solid case against him and here in the US, the "shadow of a doubt" is all that is necessary to - by law - acquit. This is exactly what should have happened, regardless of whether he is actually guilty or not. If you don't like it, take it up with Sneddon.
• That, and the news can report news that MATTERS again. I really wish I could share your optimism. But at my job, there's a giant TV in the lobby running a rotation of CNN/Fox News/MSNBC all day long, so I get eight hours of coverage of the "news" a day. In that eight hour period, I'd be surprised if there's an hour of actual newsworthy content. I have officially given up hope for most TV news outlets.
• "Those kind of people disgust me far more than child molesters." come on, Dr. Jimmy... give me a break... or send your kids to live with Mikey and prove you really feel that way....
• Anyone read any good books lately?
• Now he and Tonya Harding can open the racetrack they've been talking about. She'll do the handicapping, and he'll ride the three year-olds. thank you! i'll be here all week! don't forget to tip your waitress!
• I didn't take sides either way during the course of the trial - how could I? How could any of us? I don't pretend to pass judgement on any human - regardless of how they may or may not be portrayed by the media. Michael Jackon = weird, bizarre, nutty, far-from-norm?? Yeah, so what? I trust that the jurors reached their conclusion based on the evidence that was presented to them. And that, I must trust. I would have hated to experience the pressure that the jurors were under. I commend them for coming to the decision they did. Now, I'm tired of this whacko jacko crap. All the radio stations are playing Michael non-stop. THRILLER!!
• I question whether charges would have ever been brought against an average person... Perhaps prosecutors are more virtuous in your locale. In places where I've been it seems that prosecutions for child molestation are ripe for prosecutorial abuse and intimidation of mere mortals, often forcing plea bargains in the face of ruinous legal costs, despite highly, highly questionable evidence. Hardly reassuring behaviour, considering that many of the prosecutors in question did not have to worry about re-election, simply their own ambition, and that there are solid cases against real child molesters they could be pursuing instead.
• middleclasstool I can totally relate re the constant news feed of fluff, I disconnected my cable two or three years ago. Nothing but smiles ever since. . . *Aaaaahhhhhh*
• Interesting that so many people seem to be focusing on the poor quality of the prosecution's witnesses. Perhaps it would be useful to check out an actual prosecution of a drug crime or a normal murder. EVERY witness might be a felon. Welfare fraud? Small potatoes.
• Also, predators tend to choose victims who are not the most stable, healthy people. People like to commit crimes against people whose word might not be taken very seriously by other people. These people like to prey on people who are not altogether stable. This type of victim is less likely to report the crime, and this type of victim is less likely to be believed when they do report it. Committing a sex offense against a healty, stable kid from a healthy, stable family is much more likely to result in trouble. Jackson apparently chooses well: good record producers, good lawyers, good victims.
• no matter what the actual facts of this case were, no way is Jackson innocent. No matter what the truth is, I will refuse to believe it!!! The whole point of our jury system is to help enforce our standard of innocent until proven guilty. It's really fucking sad to see so many people arguing that he's guilty regardless of the fact that a jury says otherwise. That kind of attitude will come back and bite you people in the ass when your really counting on the system.
• These people like to prey on people who are not altogether stable. Thank you, Bernockle. Predators play the odds in their favour; nobody said Michael Jackson was stupid. The guy's dirty. To what degee, exactly, we'll probably never know. Hopefully he's now bankrupt and will scuttle off and hide somewhere rather than giving "Jesus Juice" to minors and showing them porn. And nobody will let him anywhere near their kids. The guy's a serious fucking loser.
• Mr. Knickerbocker- we are not jurors. We are the court of public opinion, and we're expected to hand out irresponsible judgements. But seriously- >That kind of attitude will come back and bite you people in the ass when your really counting on the system. -which system do you mean? The one for rich people, or the one for poor people? Here's the deal you get if you wander into our criminal justice system with no cash: the courts are overloaded- they're waging the war on drugs, after all- and nobody has time for your sorry-assed tale about how you're innocent. If you were REALLY innocent, as we all know, you probably wouldn't have ended up in front of a judge . So you're given to understand that if you cop a plea, you'll be given a greatly reduced sentence in return for graciously not taking up the court's time; but if you insist on being tried, they will throw the book at you if they possibly can. So much for justice- unless, of course, it takes seventeen limousines to get your whole entourage to the courtroom, in which case you can buy yourself some reasonable doubt and be home in time to feed the giraffes. I entirely agree with you that the presumption of innocence is a beautiful thing. The whole idea is that it's better to have some guilty people go free than to have some innocent people get locked up. That is absolutely as it should be. But that means that there will be times when the presumption of innocence will be exploited, and a guilty person will go free; I happen to think this is one of those times. That's just my opinion, and it's based as much on a gut feeling as any evidence. If your gut tells you different, you're welcome to drop your kids off at Neverland Ranch Daycare; I will pass.
• >Stan the Bat, I should have pointed out that I've been paying zero attention to the trial. Presumably the Vaseline thing was court testimony? It may have been ruled inadmissible... I don't really know; I've been trying really hard not to know anything about any of this. I'm only posting about it because I figure if I practice being a crank now, on the Internet, I'll be really good at it when I'm old, and then I can sit on my porch and tell all the neighborhood kids to get out of my damn apple tree...
• bernockle, Interesting that so many people seem to be focusing on the poor quality of the prosecution's witnesses. Because that's why the case has to have failed. The family had a huge credibility problem because they made previous allegations that were proven false. It's not that they were criminals, it's that they are proven money-diggers and it's the natural effect of crying wolf. Does that mean that they shouldn't be believed, probably not. But it makes it a lot harder.
• Doesn't say much for innocent until proven guilty if "there was poor evidence, so the not guilty verdict doesn't mean a lot". On preview, what Mr. Knickerbocker said. And it is sad. and Anatinus -- it's not "shadow of a doubt" -- it's reasonable doubt. Having "shadow of a doubt" as the burden to be met would be ridiculous. No one would be convicted of anything.
• moneyjane, And nobody will let him anywhere near their kids. You would think, but some people are just plain stupid when it comes to the safety of their children. What parent would let their kids sleep over at a grown man's house? Seriously? Even if the guy was f-ing the Pope, what's he doing sharing a bed with your kid with your knowledge and permission? Then throw in that the guy bribed his way out of a molestation case 12 years ago and Social Services really should be involved with both the parents and Michael. I mean c'mon, the guy admitted that he sleeps with boys. That's just wrong. Shouldn't that be enough for the authorities to at least get an injunction keeping him out of reach of any kids until he learns how to act appropriately around them? The guy's a serious fucking loser. Amen.
• ...So you're given to understand that if you cop a plea, you'll be given a greatly reduced sentence in return for graciously not taking up the court's time; but if you insist on being tried, they will throw the book at you if they possibly can. So much for justice- unless, of course, it takes seventeen limousines to get your whole entourage to the courtroom, in which case you can buy yourself some reasonable doubt and be home in time to feed the giraffes. I agree that there's not near enough rich criminals going to jail. But the problem isn't that they are being declared not guilty, it's that they aren't being charged. Fix that. A jury's reasonable doubt isn't being bought, what's bought are the police and DA, who never charge the rich.
• >A jury's reasonable doubt isn't being bought, Well, that's fair enough. Though you CAN buy a team of lawyers who will provide a dramatic reenactment of every joke you ever heard about gross, venal amorality in lawyers. Even that's sour grapes, though. I just read some stuff that the jurors have said since the verdict was delivered. One woman said she didn't like the mother of the alleged victim, because the mother snapped her fingers at the jury. Another guy said he was pretty sure Jackson WAS a child molester, but didn't think the case had been made for this particular molestation... The whole thing is just icky. It's not just Jackson, it's the fact that his accusers have no more credibility than he has- and then there's the way the whole thing is functioning as a media smokescreen for much-vaster miscarriages of justice- I mean, here I am at the top of the food chain, living in a nation that is the (self-proclaimed) World's Greatest Superpower, owned and operated by the Dominant Lifeform on the Planet... and yet, somehow... I don't feel proud.
• The vaseline thing. I love how Jackson can be a dick to his staff, then use the fact that he fired them to discredit their testimony by saying they're "just getting back at him". There's eccentric, and then there's manipulative. This guy is an asshole who indulges himself with his eccentricity, then uses it as a distraction, saying he's misunderstood and persecuted. Watch the moving hands! I have a chimp! I think I'm Peter Pan! I don't fuck kids! What he's done is somehow used his predatory behaviour to prove he isn't a predator; "I sleep with little boys because I am so childlike and harmless" or "I inappropriately groom boys for suspicious relationships because they were poor and had shitty backgrounds and I am kind and generous to those in need". I worked a phone sex line, and had the chilling experience of talking to a few of these guys. They always 'loved' the child, and would never, ever 'hurt' them. Michael Jackson's running the same line of shit, and he's played everybody. I hope he gets his, and soon.
• I'm with moneyjane on this one. I want to trust the justice system - and maybe in this case, it really did work. As the juror said, he figured Jackson was a molestor but the prosecutor couldn't prove it. This is how juries are supposed to work, and how I'd hope they'd work if ever I got accused of something. That said, I think Jackson did it - and I think the accused's parents were out to get rich. I think this was a clusterfuck of bad people doing bad stuff, and the kid in the middle got completely screwed. Even if Jackson didn't do it, the fact that his parents coached him to accuse Jackson means that the kid was abused by someone he should have trusted. Either way, this kid is in a bad situation.
• Wow -- on preview, my last comment was completely muddled. But, it's almost 3am and hopefully ya'll can make some sort of sense out of it.
• me: no matter what the actual facts of this case were, no way is Jackson innocent. Mr. Knickerbocker (flingin' some nanners):No matter what the truth is, I will refuse to believe it!!! You miss my point Mr. K. I don't know what the truth of this case is, and neither do you--unless you were there? My point was based on Jackson's own statements and the testimony that was stipulated to or not controverted by the defense. My contention was and is that Jackson was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," which I actually have little problem with. When I think of innocent, I think of "absent of blame or intent," I think of Snow White. I don't think of a guy with a porn collection who admits to sleeping in the same bed with young boys. You can take your blinders off now, that AIN'T innocent.
• Ohh, ooh! DERAIL! Whos's got good Micheal Jackson jokes? I know there are tons, and we've all heard most of them, but let's blow the dust off and trot them out! I'll go first. *ahem* What's the difference between Micheal Jackson and a plastic bag? One is white, made of plastic, and dangerous to small children, and the other is used to carry groceries.
• Michael Jackson is used to carry groceries? WHAT?
• It's really fucking sad to see so many people arguing that he's guilty regardless of the fact that a jury says otherwise. Mr. K, I'd give you that one, except for OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, and every other rich and / or famous person who committed a crime, was arrested for it, and got off scot free because they could afford to hire shyster lawyers and buck the system, playing off of their popularity to sneak one by the jury. Innocent until proven bankrupt, that's the way it works in the justice system of the United States of Entertainment Tonight. As long as a defendant has enough cash, they can kill their spouse or screw some kids and nobody has the balls to put them in jail for it. 30 seconds after the arrest is announced, the stuffed shirts and talking heads have already blabbed 99% of the details of the case on the air. Try to find an unbiased jury after that, I dare you. It doesn't piss me off that the system works the way it does. It pisses me off that ANY one of us, having committed the same crime (or leaving the evidence that Jackson did of a potential crime, just for the tiny benefit of the doubt you're aksing for here) - ANY of us would be tossed in the slammer and left there to rot. Until the system works for me the way it does for OJ and Jackson and Blake, I have every right to say that this case represented a failure of the legal system, rather than proof that it works as intended.
• blah blah blah. Unless you can point to something that a judge and jury have to gain by letting Jackson off, aside from kow-towing to his "star power", you've certainly failed to point to HOW these rich and/or famous people escape justice. As was pointed out above, the usual case seems to be that: i) the person isn't charged, ii) the person is charged, but with inappropriate (light) charges, not reflective of the actual crime, or iii) the charges go through, a guilty verdict is found and the sentencing is laughably light. All anyone seems to be able to point to here, in dissatisfaction, are these "huckster lawyers" somehow pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. Is the jury system hopelessly flawed? I think so. But there wasn't a lot of high-science DNA-type evidence here. The prosecution didn't make its case. Period. Sorry we don't live in the old west, despite outward appearances.
• The guy's a serious fucking loser. Some might say that about you. Mind you, I'm not saying that about you specifically - but why so easy to pass judgement on someone you don't know personally? (Unless of course, you know MJackson personally and have first-hand info). It's funny to hear people say stuff like, "heck, I hope he gets what's coming to him! Did you hear what he did!?" And then they offer FoxNews as their source. I wasn't there, I haven't seen the evidence, I never met any of the people in this case... It's a sad day when I pass judgement on someone based on what I saw on my television (or other media outlet). I'm not gonna say I think MJackson is a great person. And on the flipside, I'm not gonna claim that he's a loser. I just don't know... I worked a phone sex line, and had the chilling experience of talking to a few of these guys. They always 'loved' the child, and would never, ever 'hurt' them. That's a hasty generalization if I've ever heard one. In addition, I never knew that phone sex lines were sources of information to trust. Heck, I thought phone sex lines were about expressing fantasies? There's an entire slew of fallible arguments here. Frankly, I was surprised to see this topic posted on MoFi. There are so many other issues of far greater importance - that seem more worthy of discussion than, "ooh, Michael got off! The bastard will pay!" Ok, I'll shut up now!
• One additional comment on the "you can buy the system" mythology: there IS one way in which money can make a real difference in court, but it won't satisfy your inner social critic. It doesn't have the reek of truly illicit behaviour, doesn't elicit those "tsk-tsks" you so want to deliver. Research. Money means time spent on a case, and it is possible to out-research your opponent on precedent, provided you have a decent case to begin with and there are favourable, influential precedents to be found.
• Juries, like democracies, are only as good as the people who comprise them.
• Oh boy, and now comes the civil trial. And when that's over perhaps another mofi thread where normally reasonable monkeys screech and throw shit at each other. So, how do you people feel about fat people on airplanes?
• Another guy said he was pretty sure Jackson WAS a child molester, but didn't think the case had been made for this particular molestation... And good for him. I was on a jury in a case involving a guy busted for drug dealing; it was perfectly obvious he was indeed a drug dealer (and after the trial his attorney told me he'd been convicted of it a couple of times), but the police work in the case was terrible, the evidence was all hearsay, and I would never have voted to convict. As Mr. Knickerbocker said, that's how the jury system is supposed to work, and if you're ever prosecuted for anything, you'd better hope it's still working that way. I'm tempted to say everybody who's never been on a jury should just STFU about it, but 1) that's impossible and 2) I believe in freedom of speech. But I reserve the right to ignore the opinions of anyone who is sure they know the Truth despite the fact the jury heard a lot more evidence than they did. Yes, MJ is a creep, and any parent who allows their child to spend the night with him is a moron; no, he hasn't been proven guilty of anything. Can we move on now?
• I agree with you, languagehat. I have been on two juries now, both in felony cases. The evidence and testimony we were allowed to consider was constantly argued over by the prosecution and defense. In the end, the judge decided what to allow us to use. Also, we were given strict instructions for our deliberation, and terms were clearly defined. So even if I had gone into the trials knowing details about the cases, I had to clear out whatever preconceptions I had and stick to my instructions. It actually made it easier, because things were so cut and dried -- no room for confusion.
• Maybe it's just me, but the saddest part of this was when the channels were all waiting for the verdict to be read, I was flipping around desperately trying to find something else to watch and I came across MTV's coverage. My first reaction was, "Why in the world is MTV covering the Michael Jackson trial?" It took me a minute to realize that Michael Jackson, you know, made music and that was why MTV was covering it. As someone who was in grade school when Thriller came out, it was pretty shocking to realize that I don't think of Jackson as a musician but rather as just someone always in the tabloids.
• >"you can buy the system" mythology: there IS one way in which money can make a real difference in court You gonna speak to the pleabargaining railroad, or just gloss over that one? Do you really think we have a justice system that is blind to money?
• any parent who allows their child to spend the night with him is a moron I think the more appropriate term is "pimp," though I will, of course, defer to the 'Hat in the matter, post-review.
• I'm glad Jackson was found not guilty because I never felt he was guilty in the first place. I always felt he was a victim of the pedophilia hysteria the country has been in since like the 80's. All of that AIDS hysteria that got squashed by education and information by the mid to late 80's ended up being directed towards pedophilia and satanism (the latter the FBI discovered was bullshit). But pedophilia remained the bugaboo and a couple of high profile cases like the MacMartin (sp?) School trial fanned the flames. And here's some freaky pop star ready-made for burning. Meanwhile, I've always had a suspicious feeling about Mr. Rogers (of that TV neighborhood). Something just wasn't right about that guy. Seriously.
• I never knew that phone sex lines were sources of information to trust. Heck, I thought phone sex lines were about expressing fantasies? Yeah. You don't know. Unless of course, you know MJackson personally and have first-hand info First hand info about Micheal Jackson is legit, while apparently talking directly to pedos gets you untrustworthy, fantastical information. All pedos ever wanted me to know was the "truth"; namely that that they are blameless - martyrs, really - and hurting nobody. Sounds strangely consistent with Mr. Jackson quivering falsetto whine. I especially liked it when they'd talk about the single mom 'girlfriends' they'd hooked up with so they could get a crack at her kids. These guys were so universally depised that they'd bounce from line to line, trolling for new girls, desperate for *anybody* to listen to them - to understand how what they were doing was misunderstood and that they were simply caring, loving individuals - and our job was to get them off our lines as soon as possible because we'd get fired for talking about sex with children. They'd be so whiny and persistent that I, as a trainer of new phone girls had to specifically teach them how to get pedos to hang up on us, because we'd also get fired for hanging up on any customer, regardless of what he wanted to talk about. You got pretty sharp at picking up the "pedo whine" before they even brought up the topic...the 'please like me, please understand I'm a good person who really *loves* these kids' groveling undertone. So you used it against them. You'd sound like the one girl who wasn't 'mean' like all the others, speaking sweetly, keeping the repugnance out of your voice while you talked the legal and/or time-wasting boilerplate required of all your calls. Then you'd say, in the same sweet voice, "You love kids, do you? I hope someone gutshoots you". They'd hang up immediately, after a frightened little gasp. They never argued with you, never yelled, quite unlike guys who wanted to talk about other equally prohibited topics. Why? Because they knew what they were; not misunderstood, but rather bullies unable to deal with an adult woman. And, if there's been info floating about for years and years on all kinds of media of every possible degree of respectablabilty, that I'm doing something really nasty to those I feel I can manipulate, you, Michael Jackson, and the ghost of the goddamn Pope should think I'm a serious fucking loser.
• StoryBored, "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" by Mark Bittner is wonderful and has nothing whatever to do with Michael Jackson. I recommend it. That or Fielding's "Tom Jones," which is always a ripping read no matter how many times you do it, and contains no descriptions whatever of anything about Michael. As for the sad, distorted person himself and the many others like him (Phil Spector for a start) there is a weird object lesson here about wealth, power and isolation. Dave Chappell referred to same after his recent temporary escape. Money changes things. In the US money buys incredible power, and profoundly changes how others react to you and ultimately how you see the world. Reflect on Howard Hughes. Will this sort of thing become the new American Tragedy?
• When I used to be a phone psychic, my girlfriend worked at the same company on the phone sex lines. Never once did she have a call like moneyjane has described.
• I agree with moneyjane. As a father (and someone who has seen closely the effects of rape and child abuse), not only do I not gamble with the welfare of my sons, but anyone who hurts them does so at their peril, for I have no faith that the justice system will either catch or punish them appropriately, nor do I discount the persuasive abilities of their defenders.
• Your point being?
• Fuck. I could use a phone psychic. Do you still do side jobs?
• Never once did she have a call like moneyjane has described. Sorry...my last comment was in reference to the above.
• If somebody is bragging to you about being a pedophile, don't you need to call the police or something?
• I'll assume...that what you meant was that your girlfriend, would, therefore, not have much to contribute to a discussion about talking to pedophiles on a phone sex line. Good to know.
• If somebody is bragging to you about being a pedophile, don't you need to call the police or something? No. They will claim that the fantasies they are discussing are just that - fantasies - and thus protected under the First Amendment - even going so far (as a notable Blue thread had a while back) as to protect the person's right to construct lifelike child-sized dummies for.. whatever. In any event, unless moneyjane was witness to an actual crime or the person explicitly confessed to committing an actual crime, there is little legally she can do, in my understanding.
• Money changes things. In the US money buys incredible power, and profoundly changes how others react to you and ultimately how you see the world. WORD! MCT: Oh, there's really real news out there in the world. But real news is boring. Booooring. Let's get on with the circus!
• If somebody is bragging to you about being a pedophile, don't you need to call the police or something? Sure. If I was working a Burger King drive-through, that would have been the best option. Phone sex joints don't tend to call the cops to tell them what goes on in their business. That's why we were trained on how to get rid of them ASAP instead. And, naturally, anybody calling a phone sex line can cover their ass by saying they were just 'making it up'. Work a phone line for any length of time, and you get a pretty good idea of what's fantasy, and what's an amoral asshole trying to legitimize his behaviour.
• Let's get on with the circus! Yes. It's a circus. But the circus is us, and that's why we try and figure out what it means. I'm not convinced that not wanting to talk about it is automatically the more meaningful option.
• No. They will claim that the fantasies they are discussing are just that - fantasies - and thus protected under the First Amendment But! Having the fantasies may unfortunately not be enough to lock somebody up, but shouldn't that be enough cause to probe into the guy's life and find out if there are any children around him who are potentially in danger? Find out if the guy has kids at home, a gf with kids, works as a scout leader? I guess I just think there should be much more effort placed in protecting our kids, a real threat that's happening under our noses, than there is fighting the terror bugaboo.
• but shouldn't that be enough cause to probe into the guy's life and find out if there are any children around him who are potentially in danger? Find out if the guy has kids at home, a gf with kids, works as a scout leader? That would be harassment and a violation of the person's civil rights. The limitations of the police are highlighted well here - until someone has committed a crime, until someone has been victimized, the police are pretty much powerless. The same protections that allow you and I to espouse political or religious beliefs that some may find offensive, to write provocative literature, to speak our minds in open forusm without fear fo reprisal - protect the burgeoning, but for now inexperienced, child rapist. Reality is a bit different - they can investigate, but if they find no evidence that any crime has been committed, they back off, if only in favor of crimes that *have* been committed. A cop's job may be tedious at times, but it is never lacking for things to do.
• My point being: You're pretending like your experiences are the standard. That's as ridiculous as me pretending that her experiences are the standard, and that her experiences are proof that no CMs exist anywhere. Heck, you even point out yourself that you'd jump to conclusion about the people you talked to based solely on how much you didn't like their voice, and then you pretend this makes you an authority. Your experiences are NOT the standard. There's thousands of different toll numbers that market to thousands of different walks of life. You happened to work at a company where one or more of their numbers happened to marketed to a market that happened to contain at least one molestor. She happened to work at a company which happened to have their numbers immersed in markets that didn't happen to contain at least one molestor. Neither of you are the standard. You had a bunch of calls from guys with whiny voices. Guess what? Lots of guys calling sex lines are whiny pussies. That's why they're calling. I'm shocked that you didn't realize you'd be talking to so many whiny pussies. But the fact that you talked to a bunch of whiny pussies doesn't make you an authority on molestors. The fact that you think there's a link between a whiny voice and molestation demonstrates that you are not an authority on molestation. There is no causality between someone's voice and their sexual drives, fetishes, or perversion. All kinds of voices have contain all kinds of perversions.
• I apologize I have to leave after that comment. It'll be at least four hours before I can return, read, respond, etc... Sorry.
• You gonna speak to the pleabargaining railroad, or just gloss over that one? Do you really think we have a justice system that is blind to money? posted by Stan the Bat at 04:22PM UTC on June 14, 2005 Pleabargaining is a mess for both sides, no question (look at our Homolka), but money rarely ever enters into it. I've been in a position to let people off with minor offences if they'll donate the cost of a fine to charity, or pay a lesser amount to do the same, but just who do you think is in charge of cases that doesn't answer to someone else? I'm sure it's all a big conspiracy. If you're looking for bias, you're looking in the wrong direction. The tendency is for prosecutors and police to be over-zealous with suspects, not under. You got pretty sharp at picking up the "pedo whine" before they even brought up the topic Do tell us about the "shoe fetishist" personality next, and the "rape fantasist". I'm sure they each have a distinct personality type that you can pick out. Gosh, they sure must be easy to ID and catch, then. Lucky for us.
• Me, I just looked for the "guilty eyebrow twitch". Worked every time. Well. The Judge agreed they were guilty, anyway.
• Rorschach- I didn't mean to suggest there was a big conspiracy. Big conspiracies aren't usually necessary; if you have a set of rules that favors one group over another, and a bunch of people acting in their own self-interest, things often work out the same way they would if there was a big conspiracy, without all the trouble of organizing one. 'According to the wisdom of the law, rich people and poor people alike are forbidden to sleep in the street, or to steal bread'- or however that goes. Anyway, I gather you have some practical firsthand experience of this stuff, and I respect that; being without any myself, I'm just saying how it seems to me.
• It's a good point, Stan. There are a lot of institutional tendencies that operate without the consensus of those involved. I didn't mean to play the experience card. The argument from authority is one of the things I'm trying to instill some distrust in here, with regard to who is a pedophile/guilty/etc. My honest evaluation of how money/status/social standing *could* factor into a court decision would be: i) outright illegal tampering -- bribery and the like. not terribly common, and dangerous for those with a lot to lose; ii) string-pulling -- "call to the DA/Crown" and the like. it may happen, but, as I said, the prosecution likes to get these guys, particularly those that are "untouchable" for whatever reason; iii) court fees -- filing X# of motions, ad infinitum. this DOES happen, but courts are reluctant to entertain any motion no matter how ridiculous, so it has to have some grounding. filing of frivolous motions is a breach of professional ethics for which a lawyer can be disciplined by the bar; iv) research -- a prosecutor may be handling 50 cases and researching the law on all of them. if a defendant has enough cash and inclination, he or she can hire a lawyer to research caselaw as many hours a week as he or she is awake. this can make a difference... if a critical point falls in the grey area. most important caselaw is widely known and repeated. Now, can a *bad* lawyer affect one's chances? Absolutely. A bad lawyer can send you down the river for something you may not even have done. But I am less convinced that 12 lawyers are better than 1 (except for pressuring you into settling). I don't see this case primarily as a resource battle because the prosecution had such an inordinate amount of resources put into it. Of course, there really are very smooth lawyers out there -- terrific public speakers, charismatic, smart, and capable researchers (or have capable assistants). And they often do cost a lot.
• Is this the right thread for discussing anal leakage?
• Wait, that's not fair. There is one more social status/money element that comes into play, and that's over the decision to charge, and for what. Sometimes it's only public opinion that pushes a DA to charge a popular defendant for the proper crime (witness murders in the South by white men of black men or women -- and often only if it makes it to a federal court -- popular sentiment can sway things the other way, too).
• Rorschach: I think you've nailed it.
• Although you're sadly inarticulate.
• I think you've nailed it. Well, clearly not the case here. They DID charge, and put in considerable resources to boot. But avoidance, or use of lesser charges... I'm sure it happens.
• Is this the right thread for discussing anal leakage? Paging Dr. Goatse...
• Jacko gets 5 million pounds to be a party guest.
• 5 million pounds of what though? Shrimp? Asparagus? Ooh, sugar. Yeah, gotta be sugar.