for the disease of absolute fame...

This isnt a topic about what he's done or not done as a court of law shall decide that and im pretty sure most of us know whats going to happen.I in no way condone abuse either its one of the most awful things that can ever happen to a child.

Its more that it occured to me that his case is a metaphor for how power and fame can shape and destroy an individual. The pressure of fame from such a young age he started at five with the Jackson five and has lead a surreal life ever since.He never has had to wait for anything in his life he has never struggled or seemingly formed "normal?" relationships. Its kind of a tragic and sick indiitement of fame and celebrity and wealth that can send you into mental health problems if your not able to keep yourself grouned and dont come from a stable background.He has clearly been ill for over twenty years his obsessive changes in appearance ect however it is only now that he is being challenged is this because of his money and wealth?
Taking aside his musical career I believed him to be a pop genius in the 1980's the man clearly isnt well and hasnt been for many years would he have been stopped,punished or treated before now if he was just a member of joe public?
He isnt the only one either Scratch away the vaneer of holywood and all sorts of things are going on just watch Mulholland Drive for a small surreal take on this world.

i agree bill, and i think he's deteriorating mentally.

something i'd raise though, is how fame, fortune and power have had an effect on the events leading up to and preventing thus far the court case coming to light.

I think the satirical media itself is the villain of the piece. They make all sorts of assumptions about him, and his motives; as if an obsession with childlike innocence must be a cover for rather more grown-up urges. Sean Lock, on BBC1's 29 Minutes Of Fame, exclaimed, "He's got a funfair in his back garden, for fuck's sake!", and at times the satire can seem to berate Jackson for refusing to live a more 'conventional' life. The law should be guided by victims who feel they have been 'abused', rather than by the law's arbitrary notions of age of consent; such a change in focus would drag pædophilia out of the dark corner of taboo, and allow a more enlightened view to emerge, similar to the change in people's perception of homosexuality over the last forty years. Sadly, the evidence we've heard about the pornography, the crude jokes and the sexual nature of his contact with the defendant, doesn't help Jackson's case, or his Peter Pan image, one bit.

And is it just me, or will the prospect of a worldwide audience for your intimate allegations be something of a deterrent for those who also have complaints of abuse against celebrities? Either the boy is one hell of an attention-seeking liar, or a very brave victim.

Since Michael Jackson's court case began, he's been under a 7pm curfew, having to stay in a hotel room every evening from that time onwards.
One evening last week, Jackson's bodyguard suggested they get a DVD to pass the time that evening.
"Good idea! What shall we get?" pondered Jackson.
"Oh, don't ask me Jacko, you choose" said the body guard.
"Well, alright." said Jackson. "I know, shall we get Aladdin?"
"No Michael, let's just stick with a film tonight. You're in enough trouble as it is!"

Breaking news in the last 5 minutes (5pm).

"Jackson fails to turn up at court" on day 9 of the trial.

Wacko Jacko tbh

Things going well, aren't they.

Its not looking good for jackson there is too much smoke and alot of fire.Now the Judge has allowed past allegations its looking bleak very bleak.But hey its America knowing that crazy place he will get about seven years and only serve a few in a plush high security prison.He should really go into a mental health hospital in my opinion.

Forget about all of the above!! i hear that when he dies they are melting him down and making toys !!! Just so the kids can play with him for a change !!!

This trial is gonna fade and fade, then when he gets off lightly (ahem) no one will care much.
They'll still be talking about the stunning Lib Dem General Election victory.

Love Libs>You are so right about the first part (not sure about the second though)!

Jackson's trial has already dropped off the radar for most people I reckon. I for one just skim over the articles about the trial in the Metro now and don't really give a toss about the outcome.

His career is over, and he is a social outcast. Is prison necessary?

(playing devil's advocate here).

He'll probably end up in some secure unit or in some mental hospital for a couple of years the US legal system is only as fair as the amount of money you have to defend yourself.

As for him being a social lepar I dunno his music will always be played and his fans will no doubt see him as a martyr and a victim of the media/white justice system.To me its just sad that a little part of my childhood(when I liked M.Jackson's music) seems to have been tainted. Really the guy needed help over twenty years ago for a series of mental problems.But when you have money you can buy silence and people's obediance- how many YES men must he have?Didnt anyone ever say to him er Michael dont you think sleeping with kids might be seen in a bad light?

Maybe if Jackson hadn't given a toss in the first place, we'd not be talking about it.
Arf.

Good work!

So the jury finds him not guilty.
I think this is more down to the fact that the prosecution didnt prove their case rather than verdict upon M.Jackson's innocence or guilt.
Its clear he did what he did but its also clear that unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone carried out a crime they will not be convicted.It also proves that Californian law is often effected by celebrity.

I can't believe he's been found not guilty of all 10 charges. Though it's pointless now, a jury returning a 'not guilty' verdict doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Quite right too - reasonable doubt is an incredibly important principle.

I don't think it 'proves' Californian law is affected by celebrity - to prove it, we'd have to know if he'd have been found not guilty were he not famous, which we just don't know.

I don't think we can make judgements if a court finds him not guilty. The idea of people 'campaigning' for someone to be found guilty (or even innocent) has always perplexed me a bit - it's a question of whether it can be proved, not how we feel about it. And clearly it couldn't be proved.