NationStates Jolt Archive

Surprise, Surprise.. She was after money.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/entertainment/michael_jackson

LOS ANGELES - The woman whose son accused Michael Jackson of child molestation was charged with welfare fraud Tuesday for allegedly collecting nearly $19,000 in payments while making false claims. At Jackson's trial, the woman invoked her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and refused to testify about the welfare matter. But Jackson's lawyers presented evidence that she and her family had received a $150,000 settlement in a 2001 lawsuit against a department store at a time when she was claiming to be poor.

the boy's mother being involved in welfare fraud does not mean that it was impossible that michael jackson touched him inappropriately. bad things happen to bad people too.

sometimes a pedophile (not that im claiming jackson to be one, he has been judged not guilty by a jury of his peers) will target a vulnerable child from a bad family because he knows that if they go to the cops they will not be believed.

the boy's mother being involved in welfare fraud does not mean that it was impossible that michael jackson touched him inappropriately. bad things happen to bad people too.

sometimes a pedophile (not that im claiming jackson to be one, he has been judged not guilty by a jury of his peers) will target a vulnerable child from a bad family because he knows that if they go to the cops they will not be believed.True, but it makes the case much less trustworthy against Jackson, especially considering that they've been involved in a fraud before...

True, but it makes the case much less trustworthy against Jackson, especially considering that they've been involved in a fraud before...
which is probably the biggest reason jackson was found not guilty. im pretty sure i would have voted the same if i were on the jury.

but it still leaves that nagging thought that the man only ever invites disadvantaged children from bad homes to visit his ranch. who would ever believe any parent who were willing to let their kid sleep over with a man who had been accused of molestation?

which is probably the biggest reason jackson was found not guilty. im pretty sure i would have voted the same if i were on the jury.

but it still leaves that nagging thought that the man only ever invites disadvantaged children from bad homes to visit his ranch. who would ever believe any parent who were willing to let their kid sleep over with a man who had been accused of molestation?Good question. Just watching the bit that I did, there was nothing that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did do it. I don't know whether he did it, but I doubt it. (If I did have kids though, I wouldn't let them stay at his ranch. Wouldn't gamble with my kids' lives.)

Good question. Just watching the bit that I did, there was nothing that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did do it. I don't know whether he did it, but I doubt it. (If I did have kids though, I wouldn't let them stay at his ranch. Wouldn't gamble with my kids' lives.)

I'ld be more concerned about their rectums than their lives.

I'ld be more concerned about their rectums than their lives.Getting molested won't ruin a part of your life?

Getting molested won't ruin a part of your life?

The art of sarcasm is lost.

The art of sarcasm is lost.It needs smilies ;) (and shouldn't be used for some issues...)