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

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.

---

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.

---

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...!

So how, exactly, is TOTC related to Barbour?

"She ALREADY had a boyfriend"

Was this boyfriend 35 as well?

---

"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

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..

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...

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

were you born stupid or did you have an accident?

---

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

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

---