Jacko demonstrates his mental breakdown

[Pyrrho]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/11/19/jackson.baby.reut/index.html

Umm...people lose custody of their children and/or go to jail for this kind of thing.

[corplinx]

People usually lose custody of their kids for being child molesters too. I guess Jackson really is "Invincible".

[Skeptic]

I dunno. Reading the article, it seems to be very different than the mental picture I formed, of Jackson holding a baby by the feet and dangling it over a rail. Apparently, he was holding the baby as most people do, and bent over for a moment with it over the rail. Stupid, yes; but not as bad as it seems at first sight.

[davidhorman]

I've seen the footage. He held the baby with one arm around the baby's chest, his hand barely under the baby's armpit. He didn't lift the baby high enough, causing the baby's legs to hit the balcony rail, and making the baby kick.

Not only was MJ laughing (he's a sick monkey, we know that already), so was a member of his entourage inside the room.

It was scary. You could hear his fans screaming for a glimpse of Jackson... then a quite different screaming set in.

David

They have been playing the clip over and over and over all day on Fox News.

The child didn't look to be in any danger. They are only sensationalizing it because it was Jacko. I suppose if he was sitting in a chair and throwing the kid up and the air and catching him, they would make a big deal of that, too.

[waitew]

Originally posted by LukeT
They have been playing the clip over and over and over all day on Fox News.

The child didn't look to be in any danger. They are only sensationalizing it because it was Jacko. I suppose if he was sitting in a chair and throwing the kid up and the air and catching him, they would make a big deal of that, too.


If that were on an episode of COPS,someone would be going to jail!!!

[gnome]

This brings up a question I've always wanted to ask:

Why is it that so many people assume Jackson was guilty of those accusations of child molestation? I wasn't following it terribly closely, but I never saw anything reported that solidly convinced me that the accusations were truthful.

IIRC, the matter was settled before any significant evidence reached the public. A classic example of buying his way out of trouble, if it was true, but an equally classic example of extorting a settlement if untrue.

Do we, the public, have enough information to judge him?

I'm not a staunch defender of Michael Jackson, I find him creepy lately, and the idea that he might have harmed a child really spooks me. But I have a hard time just assuming it's true.

Am I ignoring something really incriminating that I may have missed?

IIRC, the child described certain blotches or mottling in Jackos groin area that was confirmed by a court-mandated examination of Jacko's crotch. Soon after, MJ settled the molestation suit out of court.

So was he guilty? Let me check my magic 8 ball....

"SIGNS POINT TO YES"

[RandFan]

Originally posted by gnome
This brings up a question I've always wanted to ask:

Why is it that so many people assume Jackson was guilty of those accusations of child molestation? I wasn't following it terribly closely, but I never saw anything reported that solidly convinced me that the accusations were truthful. On the Oprah Winfrey show Michael was asked if he understood why people would be uncomfortable with the idea that he sleeps with little boys. He unapologetically said that there was nothing wrong with it and that he would continue to do so.

Now let me ask you a question, if you found out some guy down the street was sleeping with 10 - 12 year old boys from the neighborhood what would you think?

That is simply not appropriate behavior. I don't know if he is a child molester but I wouldn't let my boys go there for a sleep over would you?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by corplinx
I guess Jackson really is "Invincible".
Well, as a parent, he's definitely "Bad".

[subgenius]

He should be prosecuted for wreckless endangerment of a child. Anyone who saw the footage and didn't think the child was in danger is out of their minds. No sane parent would do such a thing. Never mind asking the question, "Why?" He's a child molesing loon that gets away with it because he's rich.

[davidhorman]

Was the amount of the settlement ever reported? If I was the parent and the evidence was as good as it sounds, I wouldn't settle for anything short of seeing him thrown into jail, preferably in the same cell as those guys from Deliverance. Not that I'd say no to a few million in damages, too.

David

Part of the settlement agreement was that the amount would not be disclosed. I believe media estimates were around $20 Million.

As for the balcony incident, it looked to me that Jackson was going to do an "unveiling" of the child. He had a towel over its head. He probably intended to introduce the child to his fans. In order to get maximum visibility, he put the kid out into space. Not the clearest of thinking, that's for sure.

I'm sure he knows he screwed up. But I've seen a lot of parents do equally and much more hazardous things with their kids.

I still don't think the kid was in any serious danger. It was stupid, and there was a one in a million chance of the kid getting dropped, yes. But this is a definite overreaction because it was Jacko, IMO.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT
Part of the settlement agreement was that the amount would not be disclosed. I believe media estimates were around $20 Million.

As for the balcony incident, it looked to me that Jackson was going to do an "unveiling" of the child. He had a towel over its head. He probably intended to introduce the child to his fans. In order to get maximum visibility, he put the kid out into space. Not the clearest of thinking, that's for sure.

I'm sure he knows he screwed up. But I've seen a lot of parents do equally and much more hazardous things with their kids.

I still don't think the kid was in any serious danger. It was stupid, and there was a one in a million chance of the kid getting dropped, yes. But this is a definite overreaction because it was Jacko, IMO.
Holding an infant over a railing is endangerment per se. Unveiling? Your guess. Underreaction, because he's rich.
Got any kids?
Because others have done worse is no excuse. He's a loon.
Especially after paying $20 mill to hush up child molestation its obvious he has no business being a parent. Those poor kids.

Originally posted by subgenius

Got any kids?


Three kids. One 13 year old boy, and two newborn twins.

I am as careful as a man can be with his kids. But I bet if you followed me around the way MJ is followed around, you'd catch me doing one unsafe thing with them at least once a week. It's just the way things are.

I doubt any parent who says they haven't made a stupid mistake or taken a foolish risk with their kids.

You try to think of everything. You try to be as careful as possible. But mistakes happen.

You learn as you go.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


Three kids. One 13 year old boy, and two newborn twins.

I am as careful as a man can be with his kids. But I bet if you followed me around the way MJ is followed around, you'd catch me doing one unsafe thing with them at least once a week. It's just the way things are.

I doubt any parent who says they haven't made a stupid mistake or taken a foolish risk with their kids.

You try to think of everything. You try to be as careful as possible. But mistakes happen.

You learn as you go.
A mistake is human. Holding a child with one arm over a balcony is wreckless. I'm sure you wouldn't do it.

[Questioninggeller]

What kind of sick freak is a Michael Jackson fan and cares about this disgusting white man.

Originally posted by subgenius

A mistake is human. Holding a child with one arm over a balcony is wreckless. I'm sure you wouldn't do it.

No, I would never dangle my kid over a balcony. But I have caught myself trying to do a task onehanded which should have been done twohanded because I had a kid in the other hand. Some might consider that reckless.

I wasn't operating a jigsaw or anything, though. :)

[Bentspoon]

Especially if your'e MJ's kids

Kidding aside, I thought I should defend subgenius here.

I have one child, 12, and I can remember a couple of stupid things that I have done where I could have been called reckless. Thank goodness there were no consequences.

None of us are perfect and certainly not MJ but one has to be reasonable and objective. With regard to this one single incident I would have to say "give him the benefit of the doubt." He admits it was stupid.

I would hate to have the world watching for every thing I have done that was stupid.

Bentspoon

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LukeT


No, I would never dangle my kid over a balcony. But I have caught myself trying to do a task onehanded which should have been done twohanded because I had a kid in the other hand. Some might consider that reckless.

I wasn't operating a jigsaw or anything, though. :)
My last word regarding this pedophile: the difference between you being negligent and this is he intentionally held the kid over the rail. Intentionally put the kid in danger. The pedophile is an unfit parent for many other reasons as well. This is not a close case.
Good luck with yours, it is hard enough to keep them from getting injured without intentionally putting them in harms way.
Twins gotta be quite a challenge, how do you ever get them to sleep at the same time? :eek:

Originally posted by subgenius

Twins gotta be quite a challenge, how do you ever get them to sleep at the same time? :eek:

Haven't, yet. :)

[waitew]

If I rape a woman ,she goes to the police, I then buy her off,she recants..........I believe the police/state still would charge me criminally based on her original report (happens all the time: domestic violence).That this was not done to MJ= special treatment!!!

[gnome]

Originally posted by RandFan
On the Oprah Winfrey show Michael was asked if he understood why people would be uncomfortable with the idea that he sleeps with little boys. He unapologetically said that there was nothing wrong with it and that he would continue to do so.

Was this the interview from February 10, 1993?

I am trying to find a reference to this statement and cannot. It sounds very much like some untrue urban legends about shocking admissions made by celebrities on the Oprah Winfrey show--for example, Liz Clairborne, Tommy Hilfiger, the president of Proctor & Gamble, etc.

Originally posted by LukeT
IIRC, the child described certain blotches or mottling in Jackos groin area that was confirmed by a court-mandated examination of Jacko's crotch. Soon after, MJ settled the molestation suit out of court.

I remember the child claimed to be able to identify features of MJ's groin area, and I found an article reporting MJ stating that he had had photographs taken as part of the investigation. What I do not recall or find is any statement regarding the results of any comparison. Maybe I can read something you have found?

Can anyone deny that there would be countless reasons for MJ to settle, even if he were innocent?

Please, don't get me wrong, if I find I'm missing out on convincing evidence here I'll be as quick to express my disgust at MJ as anyone else.

[Lisa]

I don't recall the outcome of that either. I do remember one thing about the case that sort of set off my bs meter. Originally, it wasn't the kid who brought the charges, it was the kid's father. Who at the time was involved in a nasty custody dispute with the kid's mother. IIRC, Dad was trying to prove Mom was an unfit parent.
I'm not offering an opinion as to whether MJ was guilty or innocent, it's just that the timing of the whole things was one of those things that make me say hmmm.
However, dangling the kid off the balcony was the most stupid idiotic thing I've seen in a while.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by gnome


Was this the interview from February 10, 1993?

I am trying to find a reference to this statement and cannot. It sounds very much like some untrue urban legends about shocking admissions made by celebrities on the Oprah Winfrey show--for example, Liz Clairborne, Tommy Hilfiger, the president of Proctor & Gamble, etc.



I remember the child claimed to be able to identify features of MJ's groin area, and I found an article reporting MJ stating that he had had photographs taken as part of the investigation. What I do not recall or find is any statement regarding the results of any comparison. Maybe I can read something you have found?

Can anyone deny that there would be countless reasons for MJ to settle, even if he were innocent?

Please, don't get me wrong, if I find I'm missing out on convincing evidence here I'll be as quick to express my disgust at MJ as anyone else.
Can anyone deny there would be many more reasons to defend vigorously such an accusation of such a repulsive crime. Or at least not settle for such a vast sum of money. Do an FOIA request for the investigation from the local prosecutor. He admitted to sleeping with boys including this one other than on Oprah, he's obviously mentally unstable, had an allegedly abusive childhood, but you're free to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
Why is a grown "man" in bed with young boys to begin with?
And then he dangles an infant over a balcony pretending to drop it.
"Convincing" evidence is in the mind of the beholder. What would it take for you? You're not on a jury, you can have a reasonable opinion based on what we do know.
Pull the wool over your own eyes if you want to.
Will OJ yet find the real killers?

[gnome]

Originally posted by subgenius

Can anyone deny there would be many more reasons to defend vigorously such an accusation of such a repulsive crime. Or at least not settle for such a vast sum of money.

I'm not here to second-guess his lawyers or his personal choices... I'm just pointing out that his decision is not evidence of his guilt. I consider it plausible that he found that closing the issue and minimizing further publicity was worth the money, even if he could have won in court.

Do an FOIA request for the investigation from the local prosecutor. He admitted to sleeping with boys including this one other than on Oprah, he's obviously mentally unstable, had an allegedly abusive childhood, but you're free to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

This would be going a bit far, I'm not interested enough to start filling out paperwork on it. I'm just trying to sort out the solid from the spurious, among the evidence that has everyone so convinced. A press release or reasonably independent article mentioning some of this stuff would probably convince me. Where did you find out the information that convinced you, is what I'm trying to determine.

Pull the wool over your own eyes if you want to.
Will OJ yet find the real killers?

If you must know, I think OJ did it. But I also think that the prosecution screwed up and abused their investigation so badly that acquittal was justified. Not for OJ's sake, but for the sake of the next guy who might not have done it.

This could probably be a whole new thread... if anyone really feels like dredging it up again.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by gnome
I am trying to find a reference to this statement and cannot. It sounds very much like some untrue urban legends about shocking admissions made by celebrities on the Oprah Winfrey show--for example, Liz Clairborne, Tommy Hilfiger, the president of Proctor & Gamble, etc. No, I watched it with my wife. I was a huge Michael Jackson fan until that day. I am not confusing anything or mis-remembering. I spoke with my wife after the interview and watched clips of it later on cable news. The following day I discussed it with co-workers who had also seen it. I will try to find a reference. You are free to take my word for what you will untill then.

[subgenius]

The prosecution in OJ was terrible but the evidence still overwhelming, an acquittal was not justified in that case. But stuff happens.
Talk about dredging, the MJ case is as old or older. The evidence was fresh then. And again, overwhelming. Not much to filling out paperwork if you see the need. Just type a letter saying its an FOIA request for those records, and affix the proper postage.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, I watched it with my wife. I was a huge Michael Jackson fan until that day. I am not confusing anything or mis-remembering. I spoke with my wife after the interview and watched clips of it later on cable news. The following day I discussed it with co-workers who had also seen it. I will try to find a reference. You are free to take my word for what you will untill then. Sorry, it was the Diane Sawyer interview.

Sawyer Interview (http://w1.660.telia.com/~u66002593/ptlint.htm)

Sawyer: That there are not going to be more of these sleep-overs, in which people have to wonder.

Michael: Nobody wonders when kids sleep over at my house. Nobody wonders.

Sawyer: But are they over? Are you . . . are you gonna watch out for it now?

Michael: Watch out for what?

Sawyer: Just for the sake of the children and for everything you've been through.

Michael: No! 'Cuz, it's all . . . it's all moral and it's all pure. I don't even think that way, it's not what's in my heart.....

Sawyer: So you'll, you'll do it again?

Michael: I would never ever.....Do what again?

Sawyer: I mean, you'll have a child sleeping over.

Michael: Of course! If they want.

Lisa Marie: He has ...

Michael: It's on the level of purity and love, and just innocence. Complete innocence. If you're talking about sex then that's a nut. That's not me! Go to the guy down the street 'cause it's not Michael Jackson. It's not what I'm interested in.

[gnome]

Ok, yeah, that's what kept me from finding it. That is bizarre and inappropriate.

Doesn't prove what he did, of course, but I wouldn't let any children of mine sleep there.

Few more notches on the weird-o scale for him, yep.

[Ben Shniper]

I think Michelle Malkin was right. Michael is CLAIMING that he is the father of the kid. But is he? Would he treat his own kid like that?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin.html

Also, why would he be displaying his own kids this way, instead of having normal baby showers and sending out normal birth announcements like most celebraties? I think he's trying to prove something - that he is a normal person.

But he's a freak, and he can't hide it.

-Ben

[Starfall]

Originally posted by RandFan
...Michael was asked if he understood why people would be uncomfortable with the idea that he sleeps with little boys. He unapologetically said that there was nothing wrong with it and that he would continue to do so.

Now let me ask you a question, if you found out some guy down the street was sleeping with 10 - 12 year old boys from the neighborhood what would you think?

That is simply not appropriate behavior. I don't know if he is a child molester but I wouldn't let my boys go there for a sleep over would you?

From the interview in question:
Sawyer: I mean, you'll have a child sleeping over.


Michael: Of course! If they want.



Not to be nit-picky, but there's still a big difference between a "sleep-over" (implies same house) and "sleeps with" (implies same bed). I agree that the circumstantial evidence doesn't look good at all, but the above admission still doesn't seem like the "smoking gun" that gnome is looking for.

Were the children's parents also at these "sleep-overs"? Did Michael Jackson sleep in the same bed as these kids? These still seem like important questions...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Starfall





Not to be nit-picky, but there's still a big difference between a "sleep-over" (implies same house) and "sleeps with" (implies same bed). I agree that the circumstantial evidence doesn't look good at all, but the above admission still doesn't seem like the "smoking gun" that gnome is looking for.

Were the children's parents also at these "sleep-overs"? Did Michael Jackson sleep in the same bed as these kids? These still seem like important questions...
Important questions to whom? You, or a jury, if he was charged with a crime?
There's a big difference between a child having a friend sleep over and a single adult having a child sleep over. Are you an adult, do YOU have children sleep over?
You can choose to believe what you want to believe. There's gonna be no "smoking gun". There rarely is in any crime, especially child molestation. Put it all together. You're not on a jury, there are reasonable conclusions that one can make on a preponderence of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or anything in between. You make everyday decisions all the time based on evidence less than beyond a reasonable doubt (although there's none in my mind). That's a constitutional construct with respect to depriving people of life or liberty. For a civil action its preponderence of the evidence (51%) which is more in line with how a reasonable person makes decisions daily.
Would you let your child sleep over with Michael Jackson? With any single adult? Why? It would be reasonable not to take a chance, wouldn't it? That would be based on a conclusion you made using a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
I find it interesting the lengths people go to disbelieve things for which there's reasonable evidence.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by gnome
Ok, yeah, that's what kept me from finding it. That is bizarre and inappropriate.

Doesn't prove what he did, of course, but I wouldn't let any children of mine sleep there.

Few more notches on the weird-o scale for him, yep.
I'm very glad to hear that you wouldn't let your child sleep there. Believe it or not, you have concluded its true. Maybe you wouldn't convict him on the evidence you heard, but you have reached a reasonable conclusion. Standards of proof are just weird legal mental hurdles.
Again, we don't make the thousands of decisions we have to make everyday on our behalf, and that of our children based on the very high hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I applaud your good judgement.
:)

[Starfall]

Originally posted by subgenius

Important questions to whom? You, or a jury, if he was charged with a crime?
There's a big difference between a child having a friend sleep over and a single adult having a child sleep over. Are you an adult, do YOU have children sleep over?
You can choose to believe what you want to believe. There's gonna be no "smoking gun". There rarely is in any crime, especially child molestation. Put it all together. You're not on a jury, there are reasonable conclusions that one can make on a preponderence of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or anything in between. You make everyday decisions all the time based on evidence less than beyond a reasonable doubt (although there's none in my mind). That's a constitutional construct with respect to depriving people of life or liberty. For a civil action its preponderence of the evidence (51%) which is more in line with how a reasonable person makes decisions daily.
Would you let your child sleep over with Michael Jackson? With any single adult? Why? It would be reasonable not to take a chance, wouldn't it? That would be based on a conclusion you made using a standard less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moot points, since I never said either way whether or not I personally think Jackson is guilty. Nor did I assert that others need a "smoking gun" before they are allowed to personally believe that Jackson is guilty. Gnome wondered whether or not the assumption that Jackson is guilty is based on anything "really incriminating." In response, RandFan implied that Jackson admitted to "sleeping with" children, when it turns out this is not really what Jackson said. I pointed out the discrepancy, and raised some issues that show how this quote alone is hardly a reasonable admission of child molestation.


Originally posted by subgenius
I find it interesting the lengths people go to disbelieve things for which there's reasonable evidence.

I didn't say that I disbelieved it. In fact, I wrote that "the circumstantial evidence doesn't look good at all". Michael Jackson's behavior is very strange to be sure, and is at least consistent with the accusations. Again, the point of my post was to state that despite the Diane Sawyer interview quote, it still hasn't been established by personal admission that Jackson was really guilty. You, on the other hand, are free to pass whatever judgements you want...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Starfall


Moot points, since I never said either way whether or not I personally think Jackson is guilty. Nor did I assert that others need a "smoking gun" before they are allowed to personally believe that Jackson is guilty. Gnome wondered whether or not the assumption that Jackson is guilty is based on anything "really incriminating." In response, RandFan implied that Jackson admitted to "sleeping with" children, when it turns out this is not really what Jackson said. I pointed out the discrepancy, and raised some issues that show how this quote alone is hardly a reasonable admission of child molestation.




I didn't say that I disbelieved it. In fact, I wrote that "the circumstantial evidence doesn't look good at all". Michael Jackson's behavior is very strange to be sure, and is at least consistent with the accusations. Again, the point of my post was to state that despite the Diane Sawyer interview quote, it still hasn't been established by personal admission that Jackson was really guilty. You, on the other hand, are free to pass whatever judgements you want...
Wasn't referring to you in particular.
Don't think the guy who referenced the article said it was an admission of child molestation, nor did I. Not too many child molesters make such admissions. Even sleeping with children isn't a "smoking gun" that sex took place. Puts him at the "scene of the (alleged) crime though. Just one of the usual numerous bits and pieces to put together.
A literal "smoking gun", by the way, is, in fact, circumstantial evidence. And despite popular assumption, some circumstantial evidence can often be more trustworthy, probative and convincing than "direct evidence" (eg. eyewitness, testimony). There is a difference in the legal definition between the two, but neither is inherently stronger than the other.
Hope you did get the points I was trying to make.
I hear you when you say the circumstantial evidence doesn't look too good, and I agree.
This is quite ancient history, but I had and continue to have concerns for his kids even based on his other unrelated bizarre public behavior (including the recent incident) and the circumstances surrounding his acquiring them. Don't think that there's much chance for them to turn out well-balanced. And that makes me sad.

Edited to add :
P.S. I like the thought expressed in your sig. There's a related saying about the ability to hold two opposite concepts as true being the sign of a healthy mind. F. Scott and others I believe.

[gnome]

Michael: Right. OK, when you say boys, it's not just boys, and I've never invited just boys to come in my room. C'mon, that's just ridiculous. And that's a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it . . . y'know, the answer , I'll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But . . . anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.

This one makes it clear that children were in fact allowed into his bed. On the other hand, he also claims in the interview that the photographs taken did not match the boy's description.

I do not agree that I have "concluded" that he did it. What I have concluded is that there is enough of a chance that he did it, that I wouldn't trust a child to him under those circumstances.

Those chances do not have to be very high in order for me to be wary.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

In the case Jackson settled, the amount was $14 million.

The case came about not through a police charge, nor a parent coming to the police. The young boy went to a counselor or a psychologist, and in the course of their session related the story of the molestation. Following that, the counselor dutifully reported the incident to police, as well he should have.

Police investigators looked into the matter. There was no physical evidence. By the time the boy could be questioned by detectives, Jackson (or his people) offered his family a very large sum of money. Whether they wanted more and that was the eventual agreed upon amount, I do not know, but $14 million was the final amount. Without the boy's tesimony there was no case, since the counselor's testimony would be hearsay.

In all likelihood, that was probably as good for the boy as he could expect in this case. Jackson has no criminal record. The most he would get, considering his ability to hire high powered legal help, his star status, and so on, is two or three months in jail, and maybe six months probation. $14 million dollars cash actually does him more damage than the small amount of jail time he could have received. True, there would be some "moral victory", and he would have the stigma or being convicted, but that can't compete with the stigma of being Wacko Jacko.

[subgenius]

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/50981.htm
Nobody knows where his latest child even came from. The hired mother of his 2 previous has said she wouldn't have another with him even for $100 million dollars. She was paid royally for the prior two.
Unfortunately, this story has only begun. The poor kids.

The unsettling thing is that Jackson has gone so far off the deep end without the need for drugs or booze, which he apparently doesn't use. So, not even AA/NA could help. What kind of psychological intervention do the Jehovah's Witless (sic) allow, anyway, and is Jackson still a JW?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by JRWoodward
The unsettling thing is that Jackson has gone so far off the deep end without the need for drugs or booze, which he apparently doesn't use. So, not even AA/NA could help. What kind of psychological intervention do the Jehovah's Witless (sic) allow, anyway, and is Jackson still a JW?

I think the only intervention he's had is from NAMBLA.

[davidhorman]

I think the only intervention he's had is from NAMBLA.

That's what the surgery has been about? He was trying to look like Marlon Brando?

David

[subgenius]

Originally posted by JRWoodward
The unsettling thing is that Jackson has gone so far off the deep end without the need for drugs or booze, which he apparently doesn't use. So, not even AA/NA could help. What kind of psychological intervention do the Jehovah's Witless (sic) allow, anyway, and is Jackson still a JW?
According to the article above, he's no longer JW but insists that the hired nannies and help be. Shades of Howard Hughes and the Mormons.
Re: drugs/booze, I wouldn't be surprised to find various prescribed psych drugs in his system: anti-depressants, etc.
:eek:

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by davidhorman


That's what the surgery has been about? He was trying to look like Marlon Brando?

David

I'm not sure if Marlon Brando had anything to do with the North American Man-Boy Love Alliance, but that was what I was referring to.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


I'm not sure if Marlon Brando had anything to do with the North American Man-Boy Love Alliance, but that was what I was referring to.

I think David was refering to the OTHER group that uses the name NAMBLA.... The National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Oh. No, I had in mind a different NAMBLA.

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I think David was refering to the OTHER group that uses the name NAMBLA.... The National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes.

Coincidence? We report, you decide.

[King of the Americas]

..."Dangled your child over certain death?"

Like at the zoo, ever hold you kid over the aligator pit, or as you are driving down the interstate, ever open the passanger door and pretend liek you were going to shove an unrestrained child out the door, or how about holding a child over an aquarium filled with flesh-eating pirannas?

Jacko said, "...I would never intentionally endanger the life of my child.", but that is EXACTLY what he did.

Had he dropped the child surely a 4 story fall would have resulted in a 'bad ending'...

I personally believe that he is guilty of 'child endangerment', at its most basic defination.

The closest thing I could get a parent to admitting to was throwing their child into the air, and then catching them. But even this probably wouldn't have resulted in certain death...a broken bone or two, maybe...

[davidhorman]

There has to be a first time for everything, and this is the first time I've really understood what KOA was saying - and on top of that, I agree with him.

When I was young, about 4 or 5, I saw a schoolmate's parent throw their other daughter, of about 2 or 3 years old, into the air, spinning them through 360 degrees and catching her again, over the pavement (sidewalk). Even at that young age I could hardly believe what I was seeing.

David

[RandFan]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
..."Dangled your child over certain death?"

Like at the zoo, ever hold you kid over the aligator pit, or as you are driving down the interstate, ever open the passanger door and pretend liek you were going to shove an unrestrained child out the door, or how about holding a child over an aquarium filled with flesh-eating pirannas?

Jacko said, "...I would never intentionally endanger the life of my child.", but that is EXACTLY what he did.

Had he dropped the child surely a 4 story fall would have resulted in a 'bad ending'...

I personally believe that he is guilty of 'child endangerment', at its most basic defination.

The closest thing I could get a parent to admitting to was throwing their child into the air, and then catching them. But even this probably wouldn't have resulted in certain death...a broken bone or two, maybe... I was leaning to "this was just dumb" but KOA makes a great point. I too agree with him. Good post.

[King of the Americas]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Agreeing with ME...!?!?

Who'd a thunk it?:)

---

I think Michael Jackon is one sick puppy, and wouldn't make my list of babysitters in a billion years.

I read in another post that he thinks it is okay to sleep with little boys...I am sure that he didn't mean to have 'sex with them', but rather just to have them in his bed overnight. Even at this, I am bit taken aback. I can't imagine sending my kid to a 'sleep-over' with Michael Jackson, much less a 'sleep-in'.

[subgenius]

Have promised not to start any new threads for a while, so I'm posting this MJ update here:

February 04, 2003

Jackson faces ruin after admitting: I sleep with boys
By Adam Sherwin, Media Reporter



MICHAEL JACKSON’S career lay in ruins last night after he admitted in a television documentary that he coaxed young boys into sleeping in his bed.
The star, who was accused of molesting a boy ten years ago, said that he recently encouraged a 12-year-old cancer sufferer to sleep in his bedroom. He also claimed to have slept in the same bed alongside several other young boys.
...

Jackson defended his desire to sleep in close proximity with young boys, under persistent questioning from Bashir.

He described the practice as “very charming, very sweet” and recommended that Bashir sleep in the same bed as friends of his own children. He also claimed that children like to be touched and said he would kill himself if he could not be close to them.

“It’s what the whole world should do,” he told the interviewer, Martin Bashir, when questioned about the incident during the Granada television programme, Living With Michael Jackson.
...

Jackson’s friend, Uri Geller, persuaded him to allow Bashir to become part of his entourage for eight months. But the resulting film, which has been bought by the US broadcaster ABC for £3.5 million, could lead to police action against the fallen star.

One executive described it as the “longest suicide note in history”.

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney behind the Chandler investigation, is expected to look at the new allegations after the programme is screened in the US this Friday. A spokesman from his office said: “We will be watching the programme with interest.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-565675,00.html

[Brooklyn Dodger]

This is news? I assumed this to be the case for years.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
This is news? I assumed this to be the case for years.
Believe it or not some people think OJ will find the real killer yet.
In this thread there were some who refused to believe their own eyes and ears.

The import of the article cited is that it may be his total undoing, at his own hands, and may now lead to new criminal charges.
At least his children (wards?) should be protected from this pervert.

In case the link doesn't work:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

[Brooklyn Dodger]

OK, maybe he hasn't been completely undone. He's still on the loose. But do we really want him in jail? He'd be a celebrity in prison like he is outside. Parents everywhere already know about the guy. Don't they?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
OK, maybe he hasn't been completely undone. He's still on the loose. But do we really want him in jail? He'd be a celebrity in prison like he is outside. Parents everywhere already know about the guy. Don't they?
Huh?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
OK, maybe he hasn't been completely undone. He's still on the loose. But do we really want him in jail? He'd be a celebrity in prison like he is outside. Parents everywhere already know about the guy. Don't they?

It hasn't been proven that Jackson is guilty of pedophilia.

Parents everywhere might "know about the guy", but people will do strange things for money...they've even been known to sacrifice their own children. Jacko's an example of that.

I'd say he's already in prison. He's too big a meal ticket for too many people. They'll never let him go.

[crackmonkey]

Not a chance. Book him, Dan O.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Not a chance. Book him, Dan O.
Thank you.

[Pyrrho]

Hmm, yes, there could be some money-making potential in a Michael Jackson in Prison album...the only problem would be getting the proper sets built in the country club he'd have to spend weekends locked up in, during the off-concert-season.

Hell, even if guilty, do any of you think he'd do a minute's worth of serious time?

[subgenius]

Geller defends Jackson over documentary
by agencies


Uri Geller defended his friend Michael Jackson today after the reclusive pop star admitted in a television documentary last night that he invited children to sleep in his bedroom.

Geller, who helped set up the programme – Living with Michael Jackson - on ITV1 with Martin Bashir, said that he would let his own children sleep with the pop star.
...

"Michael isn't a healer or a miracle worker but the love he gives to the children is so immense that I know some children who had cancer who went into remission. People don't talk about that. Positive thinking, just being kind and good to someone sick - that helps."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-565950,00.html

[Q-Source]

I was shocked for last night documentary.

One of the most shocking moments was when he mentioned that he took home her new born baby -still with the placenta on her- because he was so scared that Doctors could find something wrong with her health.

He said that he just wanted to run away with the baby ("I just wanted to go, go!"). :eek:

Uggg...

[subgenius]

Jackson documentary dangles more details
By Ann Oldenburg, USA TODAY

Michael Jackson says his third child — the baby he dangled over a Berlin hotel balcony in November — was the product of "a surrogate mother and my own sperm cells."
.....
Asked how he selected the mother of nearly 1-year-old Prince Michael II, Jackson said only that the surrogate mother doesn't know him. His two older children, Prince Michael I, who is 5, and Paris, 4, appeared on film wearing party masks. The pop star fed the baby, whom he has nicknamed Blanket, a bottle of milk while draping a veil over his head.

Jackson said that after his former wife, Debbie Rowe, gave birth to Paris, "I snatched (the baby) and just went home with all the placenta and everything all over her. I'm not kidding. Got her in a towel and ran. They said it was fine. ... And I got her home and washed it all off."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/televi...3-jackson_x.htm

[subgenius]

Santa Barbara Child Welfare Services considered launching an investigation into Jackson’s treatment of his three children after he held his baby son over a balcony last November.

In the wake of the programme’s broadcast in the UK, a number of children’s charities yesterday said they would have launched an inquiry if similar circumstances were reported.

Pam Hilbert, a principal policy officer at Barnardos, described Jackson’s behaviour as "totally inappropriate", while a spokesman for the NSPCC said his behaviour could be used by people who want to harm or abuse children as "an excuse for their own behaviour".

The programme contained scenes of his children being harassed and frightened by the press as they visited Berlin Zoo. The singer has a son, Prince Michael, aged five, and a daughter Paris, aged four, both born during his brief marriage to Debbie Rowe, whom he divorced in 1999.

The children, who do not go out in public without wearing masks, no longer see their mother and the eldest told Bashir he didn’t have a mother. The programme also raised questions over the parentage of Mr Jackson’s youngest child, Prince Michael II, also known as "Blanket". At one point, the singer insisted he had a relationship with the mother, but later claimed the child was conceived by a surrogate mother. "I used a surrogate mother and my own sperm cells. She doesn’t know me, I don’t know her," Jackson said. Despite the fact the baby was clearly white, he insisted the birth mother was black
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=142962003

[Reginald]

Some of the things were absolutely unacceptable in society.

It shows just how far he is "Gone" in that he sees no wrong in what he does/says.

As for if he should go to prison if he is found guilty. Yes bang him up, but do it right, no fancy airs and graces (Oxygen tent, monkey,clowns etc.) , proper hard time just like anyone else.

There has been a run of "Celebrities" in the UK accused (and in one or two cases found Guilty)of child offenses and it would serve as a half decent reminder that no matter how much money you have, no matter how "famous" you are. If you interfere with kids you pay.

If Joe Public were to come out with 1% of what Jackson was saying, he would be lucky to be alive once the local "Mums" had finished with him.

Of being a complete headcase.Guilty.
Of showing extremely poor judgement. Guilty
Of causing harm to or assaulting children. Well that we will find out...but also.....

The parents of these children in his entourage..of looking to ignore what is going on, in the hope that in some way they can make a few million dollars, either through a post assault law suit or from just sponging from the loon with more money than sense..GUILTY!!!!!GUILTY!!!!!GUILTY!!!!!

[subgenius]

pedojesus:

[Diogenes]

I thought this was going to be a new set of dance moves..


" O.K. everyone. Let's all do the ' Mental Breakdown '...":D

[subgenius]

Jacko says he's 'betrayed' by Bashir

Michael Jackson has criticised Martin Bashir and the makers of a documentary on him.


http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_747780.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
:rolleyes:

[Shane Costello]

Surely Whacko's good pal Uri Geller could have sensed all the negative vibes on the horizon, or is that Uri's scene to begin with?

[Reginald]

His official spokesman was on TV this morning waffling on about how if anyone had been to "Neverland" or what ever they would see what a lovely place it is. full of happy smiling children, bus loads in fact, all having a good time and smiling, smiling and more smiling blah blah blah.....lovely place.....smiling.

The Presenter then asked the spokesman if he had been there himself.....the answer "Erm no".


:rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Mother complains over Bashir interview
By Chris Hastings and Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 09/02/2003)


The mother of the 12-year-old boy who admitted that he had shared a bedroom with Michael Jackson has defended the singer and reported Martin Bashir's documentary to the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Janet Ventura-Arvizo said yesterday that Mr Bashir's interview with the 44-year-old American performer, entitled Living with Michael Jackson, was a "gross distortion of the truth" that breached broadcasting guidelines governing interviews with children
...
Critics, however, are bound to question Mrs Ventura-Arvizo's motives, particularly after she admitted receiving gifts from the star. She was unavailable for comment last night after being moved by the singer's aides to a secret location.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/09/njacko09.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/09/ixhome.html

(free registration may be required to access)

[subgenius]

The affadavit of the child who sued Jacko(ff):
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Reginald
His official spokesman was on TV this morning waffling on about how if anyone had been to "Neverland" or what ever they would see what a lovely place it is. full of happy smiling children, bus loads in fact, all having a good time and smiling, smiling and more smiling blah blah blah.....lovely place.....smiling.

The Presenter then asked the spokesman if he had been there himself.....the answer "Erm no".


:rolleyes:
Gee, I love it when someone asks the obvious follow up question.

[corplinx]

Knocking Jacko is like shooting fish in a barrel. Leave him for the FM deejays to criticize.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Knocking Jacko is like shooting fish in a barrel. Leave him for the FM deejays to criticize.
Why? There's children (his and others) at risk.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Why? There's children (his and others) at risk.

Im sure there are people already gearing up to investigate him since these new interviews have been done. I just feel like talking about the sick bastard is a waste of breath.

[Supercharts]

Just saw a clip on Fox where Ozzy & wife are condeming MJ. If Ozzy thinks MJ is wacko then it has to be true.

[Tmy]

I think everyones being a little to harsh on MJ. Sure he's kookey but has he done anything that bad? No one's going after Cortney Love's kid or the Osborne kids (who they show getting drunk constantly on the Osbourne show).

I didnt see anything that bad on the 20/20 special. Yeah the bedroom sleeping thing is inappropriate but there's no proof of any crime. Whats the difference if its in his bedroom (which apparently is a big complex unto itself) or if they were sharing a tent while camping? Why is one OK and not the other?

[Supercharts]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml

[subgenius]

February 10, 2003 -- The 12-year-old cancer-stricken boy who shared a bedroom with Michael Jackson was whisked into hiding last night as the youngster's dad emerged to say the sleepovers his son had at the Neverland Ranch were completely inappropriate.
"It's obvious that Gavin shouldn't be up on Jackson's ranch on his own and unsupervised," said David Arvizo, whose son Gavin claims Jackson helped cure him of his disease with constant attention.

And he blamed his ex-wife, Janet Ventura-Arvizo, for allowing Gavin, his brother Star, and sister Davelin to associate with the Gloved One.

"She just sees prestige for herself from the connection," he told London's Mirror newspaper. "Janet always dreamed of being a celebrity. That's what she thinks she has become."

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/68786.htm

[subgenius]

From Jackoff's statement:
"Michael is aware that certain former employees are, or are planning to, sell certain stories to the press."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-572877,00.html

Stay tuned.:eek: