• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jacko demonstrates his mental breakdown

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!!!
 
RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
gnome said:


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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
subgenius said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
gnome said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was the Diane Sawyer interview.

Sawyer Interview

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.
 
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 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
 
RandFan said:
...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?
Click to expand...

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


Michael: Of course! If they want.
Click to expand...


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...
 
Starfall said:





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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
gnome said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
:)
 
subgenius said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.


subgenius said:
I find it interesting the lengths people go to disbelieve things for which there's reasonable evidence.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Starfall said:


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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom