Is James Barbour ever going to be back on Broadway- Page 9

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 12:04pm

That same girl would also be allowed to work 18 hours a day in a sweat shop!

[theaternut]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 12:27pm

Her parents should be serving the same jail time he is.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 2:32pm

and you should be wearing a helmet in a padded cell.

[amalou]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 2:50pm

Once someone is accused, they might as well be guilty in the eyes of the public no matter what the judge or court has finally ruled. Just because a few of us take the time to sort out whether or not he is a sex offender, the rest of the public just knows he's a very bad man who touches little girls. I'm not saying he is or isn't, I'm just saying that he will have that image attached to his name forever.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 3:19pm

did no one read this post?
help us paljoey

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 4:44pm

He got out of being put on the registry only due to a plea bargain. He's still a sex offender because he committed a sex-related crime.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 7:59pm

Clearly, I was wrong in thinking that it was just a misdemeanor due to lack of evidence. I didn't realize they struck a plea bargain.

This makes me ask this question. If he is being treated like a sex offender as far as the courts are concerned. With things like sex offender treatment and not being allowed to go places where children are and having a probation officer OK any project he works on. Why not just go the extra step and put him on the registry?

Or is it that all of those things are just for 3 years and if he were to be put on the registry it would be lifetime.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:18pm

1) More than one poster has stated in this thread that he struck a plea bargain. It's been started many times throughout the nine pages.

2) Pretty much the whole point of the plea bargain was to stay off the registry. If he had gone to court and been tried by a jury of his peers he probably would have been put on the registry.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:29pm

Eris, if it isn't clear to you by now. I had my head up my ass since about page 4 of this thread.


That being said. That is what I thought in terms of the whole plea bargain thing. That the plea was basically just to keep his name of the registry.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:41pm

winston: you rule! it takes major CAJONES to acknowledge that the way you did ... i admire it.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:42pm

James is scheduled to be released this Sunday.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:51pm

So, we should assume that we will hear either yes or no about two cities soon then?

[amalou]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 9:10pm

If he does end up in shows again, I wonder what the stage door scene will be like. No fans under the age of 18? AWKWARD!

[winston89]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 9:43pm

Or it could be like the set up for TV show tapings or going to sports games. For a TV studio they have signs saying that by entering your agreeing to the fact that they might show you on TV for sports your agreeing to the fact by entering the stadium there is a chance they can show you on TV.

I guess they could say that by waiting at the stage door your agreeing to waive any and all possible charges.

[whatever2]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 10:04pm

> waive any and all charges.

oh, winston -- and we were doing so good there for a minute.

actually, in a criminal case, the state is (in a few jurisdictions, "the people" are) the plaintiff. so the victim actually is not in the position to "waive charges" ... he or she can refuse to testify (or attempt to refuse, or at least be uncooperative), but it's the government that decides whether or not to bring charges.

and the last time i checked, ours is not a government that is big on waiving anything.

ETA: other than flags. =:o

Updated On: 4/2/08 at 10:04 PM

[Eris0303]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 10:04pm

Or he could go out a different door and they can make it known that he won't be available for autographs at the stage door.

But that might be too easy.

[TOTCSF1]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 2:15am

Why is this post..."in his own words"? I think it highly unfair to project that Barbour is saying anything here.
fosse...thank you for posting some facts here(and sense). NO, the girl NEVER said they had intercourse. This is because they never did, Winston89. Do you think for a minute that if this had happened, the prosecutor AND the accuser would not be all over it? Please! I agree that you should STOP ranting about him having sex with her, which never happened, or else you are retrying him and "speculating", even worse. Except for the oral sex, apparently. And I say this, because he might have had to agree to say those things in order to get the plea bargain. According to a friend of his who attended the sentencing, he was presented with this at the last minute, and HAD to do it, or else go to trial without preparation the next day. This was corraborated by a reporter who was also there that day (did anyone else read the NY Daily News comments?), regarding the age of the girl.
You know, I am having trouble reading trough some of these posts, just because of the foul language in some, and things like what Papa has posted, never mind the incoherence of Winston89. Sorry, Papa, but making viscious comments like "...he can't get it...", is really sick, considering he has being years in a relationship with his current wife, and there is more than enough accounts of other same age girlfriends, or age appropriate. This is what I call "bully" behaviour. "who" was this 15 year old? And, how long ago was this? That would be more relevant, than some misguided behaviour. let's just stick to the facts, and conduct ourselves like rational and decent human beings. The courts had more than enough "doubt" about the apparent "credibility" of the victim's statements. If he was given this plea, it was because the courts believed that he should be given it, because they also knew a trial would put him at a disadvantage in this case. Remember, his lawyer could not bring up the victim's past or sexual behaviour, since this was a "minor" sex case, putting him at the mercy of the proceedings.
However, I still think he should have gone to trial, that his lawyer should have done better by him. But, then, maybe this is fosse's arena, and perhaps he can comment here about this, as I am no legal expert.
Again, I don't believe that TOTC should be picketed at all for him being in the play. I already commented on this, regarding that in Sarasota all went fine. He is not the "sex fiend" they are protraying him to be. That he is a human male and possibly foolish in some of his behaviour, perhaps;but beyond that, it is of extreme unfairness to be trying him "over and over" again, AND libelous. I agree with Amalou's post--it is just as when at work or among a circle of people, someone starts some gossip about someone else--no matter what, this comments will follow that person, even though they are just false assertments.
I hope the next posts about TOTC will be of things like the great talent, beyond Barbour, in this play, as well, as the excellent production it would be for Broadway. If you like books, period stories, and romantic realism, this is it. The award winning talent for sets, costuming and choreography, should also be given a chance and credibility to bring this work to a high level of success.
And, may I note, that: If people would stop pointing out Mr. Barbour's case when they refer to him, well, then maybe nobody else will have it in mind at all. If someone has a big nose, you are not going to be reminding them, are you? I am sure the papers might be a different thing, but the less you mess with an animal, the less chance you have of being bitten, right? Let's stop propagating negative thoughts about someone's dream which took so many years to become a reality. Let's be kind.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 7:30am

TOTCSF--you're not just creepy, you're REALLY creepy.. Here are James Barbour's OWN words, reposted from my previous post because your blinders allow you to see ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.

===

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: 4/4/08 at 07:30 AM

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 10:57am

It's weird -- I mentioned something about this on my blog the other day, and I got comments from two different people claiming that Barbour thought the girl was over the age of consent, despite the fact that I linked to a news story that quotes him stating otherwise. Where are people getting this stuff?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 1:30pm

TOTCSF1: Bullying? We're talking about someone who committed sexual assault.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 1:50pm

barbour is in talks to play humbert humbert in a new musical adaptation of nabokov's classic.

[morganastyle]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 1:57pm

I am personally sickened that people are defending a sicko. Talented or not. IT IS NEVER OK TO TOUCH A CHILD, Even if she came on to him, ITS NEVER OK! What about the other women that came forward, who were adults, but the statue of limitations had run out, so it left one girl to stand alone, and be called, a whore and a ladder climber. I personally have a friend that decided NOT to come forward about him, because she didn't want to hurt her career, and was scared. She never told anyone what he did to her in his dressing room. She was in the cast with him. She was an adult when it happened, and felt ashamed. My friend is a victim of James Barbour, she is respected, talented, a wife and mother. One of these days James Barbour will get what is coming to people like him. Karma is a B**ch.!

[Jonny boy]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 2:01pm

"This is what I call "bully" behaviour. "who" was this 15 year old? And, how long ago was this? That would be more relevant,"

Are you kidding??


I dont think that they should let him do any shows right now. There are Plenty of talented actors who aren't child molesters who could play any role he would be considered for.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 2:23pm

TOTCSF1,

I NEVER said that he had sex with her. I said that I thought that he did. As in, I am convinced he had sex with her despite the courts saying otherwise.

You should read what Pal Joey posted as oppose to getting in your own little bubble about what happend and what didn't and start listing to the truth.

[son_of_a_gunn_25]

Posted: 4/4/08 at 2:25pm

I try to stay out of these threads but I would like to state what I have stated before.

There are children and teenagers on this website whether you agree with their presence on this site or not.

Based on the statistics, some of these children and teenagers will have been abused.

The way some board members are discussing this topic while possibly well intentioned can be detrimental to these kids. For the sake of these kids, remember that this topic needs to be discussed rationally and in a non-sensational way. We may just make the children and teenagers who have been abused even less likely to tell someone about it if we aren't careful about how this topic is discussed. I've asked for these threads be deleted before when they've become a war of emotions and I will ask it again if necessary.

I am not asking for a moratorium on the topic. I am asking that all posters be rational, and keep in mind any further damage you could cause to the kids on these boards who may have been abused. This thread started off decently, but it is starting to devolve. Please don't let it.

Updated On: 4/4/08 at 02:25 PM