Tuesday, August 09, 2005

I wonder if Michael Jackson will be kept more under surveillance from now on or not, especially after I read this article on CNN. I thought he was guilty all along, if not of the crimes in this case, at least of something similar, with other kids, simply because he himself admitted of sleeping in the same bed with young children, holding hands, and stuff like that as if they were the most normal things to do, and that just doesn't sound innocent to me. I also wonder how many parents will still stupidly send their children to his ranch, in spite of the mounting evidence that something wrong goes on there all the time. I understand that if you're poor and can't afford to buy stuff for your kids, then getting those things for free is nice, but not at the expense of letting them get abused, which could have serious mental consequences for the rest of their lives. I also wonder how long before Mr. Jackson will have to declare bankruptcy, since it looks like he's millions of dollars in debt (perhaps hundreds of millions) and keeps spending like there's no tomorrow. In any case, his latest release, what's-its-title, tanked states-side (seems like it was a hit in UK, incredibly,) and I'm not surprised, since it was I believe his 4th greatest hits release in a row, after years of no new material. Who needs four greatest hits from an artist?! Don't you already have all those songs anyway?? It's just a new packaging, that's it. How desperate can you be? Plus, don't you get it when they're just out to get you to waste money?! For what I'm concerned, I will never buy anything he makes ever again, just because some of the things I heard as evidence at the trial were just too disturbing, and because of that, I wouldn't give him my money.

2 comments:

Ray said...

I've always been hesitant to judge people, because you never know what's going in in their mind. And you never really know the truth. But in this case, it just seems so likely that he's guilty. Maybe not of this, maybe something else, but still, I don't think he should be around kids. He has no sense of boundaries, no sense of appropriate behavior.

But I'm glad the jury didn't convict him just because "he has to be guilty of something". That attitude would send a lot of innocent people to jail.

Massimo said...

That's true, if there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of these crimes, than he shouldn't have been convicted.

All I'm saying is that I hope someone keeps a close eye on this guy in the future, be it the cops, the FBI, or DCF.

Let's not forget, he has kids of his own. Soon he won't need to go look for other people's children, his own will be old enough to pry.

And he won't even have to pay them to make sure they don't tell their parents!!