Actually Denyce, I agree with you completely. Of course he should be afforded the presumption of innocence and the judicial process should proceed with a jury of his peers, after juding the evidence, passing judgement. But, having said that, it too astounds me that anyone could deny that there is definitely something very troubling about his behavior, which has become more bizarre with time. And one would be less than truthful if she didn't admit they have some proclivity toward guilt or innocence.
One psychiatrist with a history of treating victims of child abuse was being interviewed this morning and made a comment that really put it all in perspective; for me at least. Responding to "Jackson apologists'"claims that Michael is just a kind, and loving "childlike" innocent who would never "hurt" children, the psych. set forth the following scenario for all to ponder.
Your neighbor across the street is a 45 yr. old single male. His bedroom is decorated and set up as would be that of a pre-adolescent. His backyard is filled with all sorts of games, toys, etc. that pre adolescents would find alluring. The hallway leading to his bedroom is wired with an alarm to alert him to someone's approach. He speaks freely of holding pajama parties where he, and one or many young boys share a bed. What would your reaction be?? If it were my neighbor, I doubt my response would be "he's just quirky!" What would you do? Speak with the neighbor/parents of the child(ren), report it to authorities, or ignore it?
As for Michael's inability to do harm to a child...It is well known that pedophiles honestly do not consider their sexaul assaults upon children to be doing harm at all. Rather, they feel they are lovingly expressing their feelings of caring and adoration for the child.
In 1993, when word of accusations of child molestation might be forthcoming, Michael fled across the Mexican border where he boarded his private jet and hid in Europe/England/Ireland. It was only after the US and Ireland entered into extradition procedures and his lawyer had assured him that a monetary settlement was near finalization, did he return. In 1993, under Calif. law, a child chould not be compelled to testify in such cases and so the DA was forced to drop the case. Since then, the legislataure has passed a law which would require that the child testify.
Bookmarks