...and little kids is this? The third, fourth, fifth? I KNOW it's not the first, and I'm fairly sure it's not just the second either.

And he's always forced to admit he "hugged" them and "slept -- but *just slept*, mind you!" with them, "but absolutely nothing more than that!"... And then the families are bought off with generous cash settlements, on condition that they don't talk about it any more. I mean, that much is actually *cold hard fact*, AFAICR.

And if that doesn't make *you* wonder... Well, then you're just being obtuse for the sake of it. What's next, should we all lay off poor OJ, too?

...the benefit of the doubt, on the one hand; and leaning over backwards in order not to see what's right under your nose, fingers in your ears and loudly humming "nyah-nyah-nyah" so as not to hear William of Ockham screaming at the top of his lungs, on the other.


Ashton tries to excuse the inexcusable:

Let's Face It:

Mr. Jackson hapens to be one creative, quirky weird kinda guy(or wannabe-Other?)

Oh yeah, let's face it: He sure is weird, all right.

Too bad you seem so reluctant to admit the simple truth, that *one* kind of weirdness -- e.g, creativity and musical genius -- often brings with it *another*, altogether less pleasant one. Like, for instance, paedophilia.

Kids sleep with parents, sometimes to ages which the gossips would/Do cluck cluck over.

Yep -- parents (or others in loco parentis). Usually not perfect strangers, though.

*I* have -assuredly- had naps on sofas with played-out little tykes in my temporary charge; it is as natural a phenom as .. having a cat on your lap.

Sure: Naps. On sofas.

So, what does that mean, then? Here are a few guesses -- correct me if I'm wrong. I'd say it probably means,

• with your clothes on
• with the kid's clothes on
• in your, or someone else's, living room -- either way, out in plain sight
• during the day, when people are up and about
• for a short while; an hour, two or three at most, or just half an hour.

Quite a different thing than

• you being in skimpy nightclothes, or none at all
• the kid being in skimpy nightclothes, or none at all
• all alone in your bedroom
• during the night, when nobody is around
• for the whole long night,

isn't it? I very much doubt you'd let yourself get into the latter situation (if the kid *weren't* a grandchild that you were looking after for a while, or something).

But that's the scenario this weirdo gets into. With little kids that are NOT his own children or grandchildren.

REPEATEDLY. And therefore, AFAICS, obviously intentionally.

Nobody Knows - EVER! fershure - the soup of emotional and other chemical mixes inside a homo-sap's wetware.

Well, no... But we can make some educated guesses, can't we?

I can tell you a few things I'm rather sure are NOT going on in the brains of most healthy, non-pervert, adult men, though: Our "best pals" aren't little kids of ten or twelve. And we rarely sleep -- not even just-sleepy-*sleep* -- with our "best pals".

To fucking SUPPOSE that cuddling a tyke is about fucking Fucking the little bugger: is your basic Puritanism 101A [those priests know all About simulato].

To fucking SUSPECT that it could be about that AGAIN, though, when a guy HAS A HISTORY of doing exactly that, is just fucking common sense.

So how this 'trial' (now, a veritable anticlimax) 'goes' -- shall obv depend upon the weight of innuendo, the prosecutors' video-jury rehearsals about The Cheeldrun [and The $$] .. and all that will be abetted by the obv physical factoid that, this is one Weird Guy\ufffd ergo He Is Not Like You and Me. So Let's Kill'im.

Oh, bull.

He has a frigging murky history of having had to bribe little kids' families to silence several times over (what do you think it was he wanted to stop them talking *about*?), and now he's at it AGAIN. Are you seriously claiming we should think "Oh, la-di-dah, it's probably nothing", just as if it were you or me or some other up-until-now-non-offender that was accused?

Heck yeah: If he is a Weird Guy\ufffd who "Is Not Like You and Me" in the sense that he fucks little boys up the ass, then yes please, DO Let's Kill'im.

cha. cha. cha.

And the Rumba, too.

Sorry CR, but I've seen too many of our Farcical Celebrity Trials to imagine-for-a-trice, that the 'verdict' will have anything whatsoever to do with The Actual Unrecorded/Unrecordable Events.

Oh, bull.

If you actually had as little faith as all that in your judicial system, then you'd be out in the streets pro-actively vigilante-ing anyone and anything you have something against, in stead of basically living your life as a law-abiding citizen, planning -- to the extent that you've considered the possibility -- to turn to the law enforcement authorities if ever you were the victim of a crime. (Or are you going to tell us now, that all of a sudden the Ashton we thought we knew [and loved] as an Old Librul is actually a Magnum-packing Clint Eastwood-type?)

(And I believe you are familiar enough with the witch hunts a few years back, involving child care, "Satanists" and a litmus test of the Base-Puritan fucked-uppedness of Whole Murican Towns: as the "adults" spoon-fed insane fantasies for exact purpose of later regurgitation, by the traumatized tykes...)

The difference there was, the victims of those witch hunts didn't (at least in the absolute majority of cases, AFAIK) have a history of abusing children sexually. Wacko Jacko does.

Has it escaped you (I thought it hadn't) just How Utterly Fucked-up are a huge plurality? majority? of Muricans -- shit, just check out their self-loathing Guilty-at-Birth theologies one more time. Yup, they Believe this mind-fucking stuff.

Yeah yeah yeah -- but, actually, I don't believe even an American judge or jury is going to go *only* by the Bible in their deliberations. Surely the actual court proceedings they will have been witnessing must leave *some* impression on them.

What He IS is: fey.

Oh, bull. Fag, more like. (Or, as I prefer to put it, just plain silly. But I found that the alliteration -- as well as being the exact same length -- made what I actually picked a worthy first choice to replace your silly "fey".)

Muricans know only Black/White: if'n he ain't just like me

Oh, bull. (But, yes, he could make his fucking mind up, and be EITHER "Black" OR "White", or something in between, like the rest of us... In stead of, like he is apparently doing, trying to be BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.)

He Must Be {all the} Evull {crap I can imagine}.

Oh, BULL!!!

But if HE HAS A HISTORY of sleeping -- any which way -- with little kids, and HAS A HISTORY of being accused of fiddling with them, and HAS A HISTORY of having to pay off their families to make the accusations go away... THEN, yes, then QUITE PROBABLY he IS an evil bastard in the sense that he PROBABLY DOES fiddle around sexually with little kids.

(And no, before you even try it: I'm not buying any "they're all just copying each other, successfully milking an innocent man who just couldn't afford the scandal!" explanation. 'Coz if he'd been innocent the FIRST time, when he still HAD a *legitimate* [as opposed to merely pro-forma, which he has managed to reduce it to] claim to a presumtion of innocence, then he would presumably not have had to buy them off THEN, which would have meant there WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN anything for any copy-cats to copy.)

And Yes: in addition to weird, He's. Dumb. for ever [[again!]] allowing even the barest possibility of a replay of earlier Dumbth Inaction -- especially in This Puritan culture, off whom he made his megabux. Idiot!

Exactly; that, too. Although personally, I'd put that slightly differently, of course: He's dumb for ever again fiddling around sexually with little kids, after the first time he he got pretty much caught.

Be that as it may, IMO it doesn't much matter WHICH *exact* kind of dumbth it is he is exhibiting: Either way, being THAT dumb, he pretty much deserves whatever he gets.