"I
cannot bear this uncertainty!"
The Michael Jackson jury begins its first full day of deliberations today, June 6, 2005.
A man is upset
because he has a hunch that his wife might be unfaithful to him. He's
suspicious, but has no solid proof. So he hires a private eye to catch the wife
red-handed. After a few days the detective calls the husband: "Your wife
met a Mr. Hans B. yesterday." "That doesn't mean a thing", the
husband says, "that's my best friend. He'd never do that to me."
"Maybe", the detective replies, "but the two of them walked
through the park for hours, holding hands." "That's quite
innocent", the husband says, "they are childhood friends and shared
the same sandbox." - "And for lunch they had champagne and fed each
other oysters." - "I don't think that means much", says the
husband, "both are just gourmets and enjoy life to the full." -
"And then they went to the cinema, back row, and indulged in heavy
petting." - "That's indeed funny", the husband says, "my
wife never goes to the cinema, but I'm sure there will be a harmless
explanation for that as well." - "And after the cinema they went to a
hotel and booked into a room." - "Did they have any luggage?",
the husband asks. "No, not even a sponge bag", the detective replies.
Now the husband gets a bit nervous. "Okay, out with it. Tell me what
happened." - "Well, I happen to live in the same street, just
opposite the hotel", the detective says. So I went to my place and looked
through the window." - "And then? And then?" The husband is
sweating, his hands trembling. "I could see how they came into the room
and were all over each other straight away." - "On the bed?" the
husband wants to know. - "No, on the floor." - "As long as they
were fully dressed that doesn't prove a thing", says the husband. "I
don't have any more proof", the detective says, "because then the man
got up, went to the window and pulled the curtains." - "Oh my
God", the husband cries and covers his face with his hands, "I cannot
bear this uncertainty!"
Alright, let's not argue whether MJ had full blown (disgusting pun intended) sex with little boys and is, or is not, guilty in terms of the indictment. But what is largely, if not entirely, missing from the media brouhaha is the question of the responsibility of the parents.
Parents, who decided at some point in time to leave their children alone and over night with a man who has been at the center of a very public child sexual abuse case in the past and who has publicly and unabashedly admitted that he enjoys sharing his bed with little boys.
What are, in brief, the essentials of the case concerning the boy accusing MJ now? The boy was a cancer patient whom Jackson met through his charity work. Jackson paid the boy's medical bills and maybe bought the parents a new house. The result of Jackson’s magnanimousness was that it rendered the boy so troubled that psychiatric treatment was needed. He told his psychiatrist about the abuse, and the shrink — not the parents — alarmed the police.
After the boy accused Jackson of molesting him, the family remained at Neverland.
Why did the family remain in Jackson’s house after their son claimed to be abused or why did they have any further contact with him at all?
The main point is NOT whether MJ is a child molester or not. The behaviour he publicly, knowingly, even gloatingly, shows, suggests, to put it cautiously, at least a weird mental state. His private behaviour, which he openly admits, makes him a freak. Remember the Martin Bashir "Living with Michael Jackson" feature? Bashir had lived for eight months with MJ and delivered some plainly obvious findings from which the conclusion can be drawn that Jackson is, by any reasonable standard, a deviant. He may or may not be guilty of sexual child abuse in the legal meaning of the term, but a parent, who chooses someone with Jacko's... errrr... idiosyncrasies and tastes (I am trying to be as politically correct as possible here) as a companion for his children, undoubtedly IS.
Those parents are pimping their own children, no more (CAN there be a "more"?) nor less. At a time and age where an obscene obsession with sexual abuse of children is rampant so everyone who gets near a child does so at his own risk, where accusations of "child abuse" have become an arbitrarily and ruthlessly used weapon by wifes and mothers against their husbands and the fathers of their children in divorce cases, where teachers' lifes are destroyed through strategical molestation accusations by students and those little angels wouldn't lie or would they, that in such times legions of intellectually and ethically challenged busybodies are actually coming to the defense of this disgusting degenerate and specifically here in Germany Why is that?
