Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway- Page 5

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:46am

TOTCSF1, I'm glad we're able to talk about this calmly. And I do respect your commitment to the show and the actor.

Barbour's lawyer went out of his way to attack a girl who was, I remind, 15, at the time. There's been absolutely no evidence that she was after his money. And neither the lawyer nor Barbour were able to produce any evidence to the contrary. She didn't ask for money before filing the case (ie, "if you don't pay me, I'll have you arrested", et al). And a criminal action does not result in any monetary payment for the victim. If anything, she probably lost money by hiring a lawyer to protect herself from attacks during the trial.

And even if she did have a motive--which she doesn't--it still doesn't excuse his actions. It doesn't matter why she chose to come forward. What he did matters.

The producers were standing by Barbour, yes, but that was before the trial came to an end. Innocent until proven guilty, and perhaps they were hoping that Barbour would be acquitted or the charges would be dropped. Supporting someone who is under suspicion of something is very different than supporting someone who has been convicted, admitted the accusation was true, and done time for it.

I'm sure Barbour has friends and family who care about him. So do the girls in this case. He was old enough and intelligent enough to know that what he was doing was wrong, and by accounts, there was more than one incident and possibly more than one victim. Mistakes don't happen again and again.

Normally I think that a performer's personal life should be separated from the professional...but when one commits this type of offense, the lines blur. Sexual abuse offenses are in my mind a deal breaker, and there's never any excuse or justification for them. None. Ever. Do I want to buy a ticket to a show knowing I'm paying his salary? No.

Just because one has talent, it does not mean they are a moral or decent person. Nor does it mean that their talent should override any of their offenses, when they are of this magnitude. In a way it just makes the situation even more unfortunate--Barbour had everything going for him, he had a substantial amount of talent and a terrific stage presence, and he chose to throw it all away with this sort of behavior. It's a shame he made the choices he did.
Updated On: 3/31/08 at 12:46 AM

[insertclevernamehere]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:51am

I don't even know where to begin...
Can you back up any of your "evidence"? Or is it all based on that one person you know in Sarasota who didn't get molested?
Also, she was a minor. He was not. Therefore it is a "black and white sex with minors case". And, have you met any 15 year old girls? Because if you did, I don't quite see how you would consider them to have the emotional maturity of a woman.

If my father or brother or uncle ever had some sort of sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl, I would be ashamed and sever all ties with them. There are several more gaping holes in your logic, but I'm tired and have classes tomorrow. It doesn't matter how good a singer or actor he is. In fact, it is irrevelant and were he not a Broadway actor, we would not be having this discussion.

[TOTCSF1]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:43am

Ok. She was born August 16, 1985, literally making her 15 and a half when she attented the theater to see him, and short of 16 when she went back for more to his apartment. She ALREADY had a boyfriend, and I was not referring to any emotional maturity(I happen to think she was 15 going on 30, myself), but referred to her "physical" development at that time--she was only a little girl in stature (she's been described as "petite").
I did not say that Mr. Barbour's actions were ethical. He was honest enough to say he acted unethically. But he saw his mistake, and stopped any further physical relationship.
The fact is that this girl continued a friendship with him, and used him as her mentor for connections and advice, LONG after the incident(which, honestly, except for the oral sex, was NOT that big of a thing), for 4 years, and then she decided to accuse him(?) If this does not sound strange to you, then I don't know what else to say, really. There is ALWAYS a motive behind accusations like these, we just don't know what hers were, yet--I don't think it was necessarily the money, but do think it had something to do with her getting ahead in her career, somehow. And I don't buy the "I did it to protect other girls" line. Had this been the case, she would have come out sooner--she was 2 years in NYC prior to accusation, and WHY wait "2 months" short of the stature of limitaions to do it? Go back to the fact she had remained friendly with him, and with no problems about what happened--she also seems to be going up in her career with no problem.
"insert...'--which "evidence"? All I have said is public information in the court accounts. You mean the Sarasota comments...? IF there had been any incidents there, believe me, it would have been ALL over the papers there, because there were certain people there watching him like a hawk(again, comments made by posters reacting to the news that he had charges against him). And I did go see TOTC(more than once), and did hear the comments, and watched it all. Hope this clears it up for you.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:44am

I eagerly await a James Barbour thread with new and original ideas and generally coherent typing.

That is my Christmas wish. Perhaps if I ask early, it will happen.

[TOTCSF1]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:50am

...Oh, and if it was my brother, etc...I would know first hand what kind of person they were, and, considering the facts, I would not turn my back on them--in the past, perhaps "one of "your" male relatives married a 15 year old(when he was 30). It was not "that" uncommon.

[TOTCSF1]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 4:53am

Lizzie--I am ALL for that! I think Barbour deserves to be discused in another context, such as his talent and work.
I also try to be as coherent as possible at this time of day...!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:36am

which, honestly, except for the oral sex, was NOT that big of a thing

Priceless.

I'm speechless.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 6:54am

So how, exactly, is TOTC related to Barbour?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 7:20am

it's not the first time he did it, it's just the first time someone came forward. he prefers girls under 16.

some fun quotes from mr. barbour:

"you seem so mature for your age."

"women my age just don't understand me."

"i won't tell if you won't."

as recounted by a 15 year-old girl who opted to pass on the james barbour reality tour.

Updated On: 3/31/08 at 07:20 AM

[Eris0303]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 9:46am

"She ALREADY had a boyfriend"

Was this boyfriend 35 as well?

[allofmylife]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:37pm

It's over.

His career is done.

Like an athlete who threw a game, or a coach who hit a player, he has no chance of ever playing in the big leagues again.

Haven't you ever seen "Hoosiers?" He'll just get a job in some small town teaching....

Oh. Uh, wait a minute.....

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:55pm

"Personally, I think the registry is corrupt and needs some major spring cleaning."

The whole thing needs to be disbanded. Personally I feel it violates the Contitution's prohibition on dual punishment (punished twice for the same crime), but it is also an inaccurate portrayal of the registrant. If you are on the list, you are immediately prohibited from ANY contact with children and restricted from places where children might congregate. Keep in mind, most of the sex offenders on the list didn't commit sex offenses against children, and a good portion of registrants were convicted of "sex crimes" like indecent exposure. In fact, the majority of sex offenders on the list where guilty of groping a woman once or making lewd gestures in public. And while groping a woman isn't harmless, it isn't the egregious crime the registry invokes in people who hear someone is on it. Look at Florida, which I believe is so severe that registrants are forced to live under a bridge because anywhere else would put them too close to children? I mean the whole thing is ridiculous.

That said, the whole Barbour incident is just disturbing. While not justifying his actions at all, it is only a 20th Century construct that girls under 18 are incapable of agreeing to sex (if a boy of 16 has sex with a girl of 15, HE will be charged with a sex crime and forced to register as well). Up until the 20th Century many older men married girls as young as 14 (look at most state laws...the ages of consent were typically 14; I think most states have changed that to 16-1. I am a firm believer in context...some people mature faster than others, and some people can be manipulative. In this case, I am not really buying Barbour's coercive influence, since Barbour really had no position of authority in her life and she went to his apartment AFTER the first encounter. That still doesn't make what he did acceptable. However, he's not on the registry because his guilty plea was to two misdemeanors which makes him ineligible for the list. She either wasn't credible enough for the felony charges to stick OR she wouldn't talk. But either way, I'd be careful of calling him a sex offendor, since he wasn't convicetd of a sex crime, and it is libelous. He was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, and unless the sentencing guidelines specifically say he cannot work with children, his parole officer cannot stop him from being in the show. The producers, on the other hand, are a different story. If this were a regular job, they also wouldn't be able to get rid of him. But because acting jobs are very particular, they could get rid of him. I doubt keeping him would be too much of a detriment. If the mother of the "victim" starts making a stink and starts getting publicity, then I could see some problems. But if she doesn't, I can't see anyone else caring either.
Updated On: 3/31/08 at 12:55 PM

[Jonny boy]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:56pm

I would sure hope his career is over! Someone who is sentenced to having sex with a minor should not be able to be a Broadway star. In my book he F*cked his chances..

[Jonny boy]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:56pm

I would sure hope his career is over! Someone who is sentenced to having sex with a minor should not be able to be a Broadway star. In my book he F*cked his chances..

[Fosse76]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 12:58pm

"I would sure hope his career is over! Someone who is sentenced to having sex with a minor should not be able to be a Broadway star. In my book he F*cked his chances..."

He wasn't convicted of having sex with a minor. He was convicted of two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor. Those are misdemeanors. My guess is they couldn't prove he had actual sex, but he had previously made statements about touching her, so they were able to plead him down.

[Jonny boy]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:06pm

Either way... I don't think that they should let it slide. There are plenty of other talented performers that could do his job and not have relations with a kid...

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:11pm

TOTCSF, if you're honestly believing the victim-blaming line you're typing here, I don't know what more to say about this. I really suggest you spend some time reading over at RAINN or any of the other national organizations for sexual assault. I also suggest that you refrain from disclosing personal information about the victim here.

When a young person is abused by an adult, particularly one in a position of authority or admiration such as a parent, teacher, coach, it is not at all uncommon for them to remain in contact or to wait years before coming forward. There are girls and boys who have been abused by sports coaches for years and still go to practice every day. They're usually groomed to believe what is happening is acceptable, and don't realize it isn't until later on.

Again, it doesn't matter if she had a boyfriend. It doesn't matter if she was pole dancing on the weekend. What matters is that this grown man initiated contact, invited her to his apartment. She's the victim here.

And Fosse76, most states do have what are known as "Romeo laws". Adults are restricted from contact with teenagers; teenagers, both above and below the age of consent, are not generally restricted from contact with each other. Because it is understood that they will be at or around the same maturity level.

In New York State, there is a clause in the law that provides that teenagers who are older that 14, and have less than a 5 year age difference, are fine. In other words, a couple comprised of a 15 year old and a 17 year old would be legal under the law. A couple comprised of a 15 year old and a 40 year old would not be.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:29pm

hopefully he can get the "help" he needs in jail. perhaps some "counseling" from his fellow inmates might be all he needs to correct what has been a regular behavior, not a one-time aberration for jimmy boy. if not, it ought to be enough to make him think twice before he taps an underage ass.

Updated On: 3/31/08 at 01:29 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 1:58pm

I do think its wrong to call him a sex offender because he isn't one. The only thing he got in trouble with was endangering the welfare of a minor which is a misdemeanor. He could have had sex with her and most likely did. But, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that so thats why he didn't get charged with it.

I do think it is wrong because of that fact to then say that he is a sex offender and therefor shouldn't be on Broadway again. There is a MAJOR difference between being a sex offender and endangering the welfare of a minor and being a sex offender.

Do I think he had sex with her? Yes, I do. But, I realize that there is a major difference the two. Which is why I am saying that it is a bit much to say that he shouldn't be in this or any broadway show because he slept with a kid. Do we all think he did? Yes most if not all of us on here do. But, do the courts agree with that statement. No, they don't. As I said, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did sleep with her or not which was why he got charged with the misdemeanor.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:00pm

were you born stupid or did you have an accident?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:05pm

The same thing crossed my mind, papa.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:15pm

Let's cut through all the co-dependent fangurl bullSH*T: HE ADMITTED TO HAVING ORAL SEX AND KNOWING SHE WAS 15.

Got that?

HE FONDLED HER IN HIS DRESSING ROOM AND THEN HAD ORAL SEX WITH HER IN HIS APARTMENT.

That's why he's in jail.

AND HE KNEW ALL ALONG SHE WAS 15--AND LIED ABOUT IT!

Snippet from the NY Times article at the time of sentencing (linked below):

===

Mr. Barbour told Justice Micki A. Scherer of State Supreme Court in Manhattan that the girl visited him in his dressing room before the final curtain call and that he fondled her, knowing that she was only 15 years old.

He also told the judge that he had oral sex with the girl in his apartment the next month. She did not come forward with her account for several years.

Under the negotiated deal, Mr. Barbour, 41, pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, both misdemeanors, in exchange for a promise that he would be sentenced to 60 days in jail and three years’ probation.

Mr. Barbour’s lawyer, Ronald Fischetti, said his client accepted the deal because if a jury had convicted him of the original felony sex charges against him he would have been forced to register as a sex offender, “which basically would have ended his career.”

His lawyer said that the prosecutor’s agreement to a misdemeanor plea showed the weaknesses of its case. But Mr. Barbour had to agree to a lengthy series of conditions of probation that are very similar to those that apply to convicted sex offenders.

While he is on probation, he must inform the manager, producer or assistant director of any theatrical, film or television project he works in that he has been convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, “having engaged in oral sexual conduct and sexual contact with a 15-year-old child.”

And he has to get permission from the court or his probation officer to participate in shows employing child actors or to give backstage tours to children.

He must also attend sex-offender treatment and cannot visit playgrounds, arcades, amusement parks, school grounds or Internet chat rooms frequented by children without permission from his probation officer.

In a signed statement to the police in April 2006, Mr. Barbour said that he was just acting as a mentor to the girl, that he had done no more than touch her knees and kiss her and that he thought that she was 16.

But in court on Thursday when asked by Justice Scherer, “Were you aware of her exact age?” Mr. Barbour replied, “Yes.”

“What was that age?” Justice Scherer pressed.

“Fifteen,” he replied.

Broadway Actor Pleads Guilty to Backstage Sex Act With Girl, 15, in 2001

Updated On: 3/31/08 at 02:15 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:21pm

So pretty much what the two of you are saying is this. Just because I am not of the mindset that even though he served time for what he did he shouldn't be dragged over the coals anymore. That makes me stupid?


I never said that what he did was right or excusable. I am saying that it is a bit much to say that his carrier is over because of this. If the cort said that he did sleep with her and they did say that he was a sexual predator and they even put him on the sexual predator list. Then I would feel differently. But, none of those things hapened.

And for the record. I am just as convinced as every one here that he slept with her.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:34pm

i'm guessing an accident, munk. gotta be. no one could be that naturally stupid.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/31/08 at 2:34pm

winston. Give it up. You're not making ANY sense. You are not even understanding what we're saying. None of us are talking about whether he did it or not, whether he slept with her or not.

No one is dragging him over the coals. We're being realistic. There's a little thing called common sense. It will get you a long way.