Read this about why Michael settled in 1993

http://floacist.wordpress...on/page/7/


[Edited 8/11/09 17:39pm]

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

So Elvis was a child molester too.

That 14 yo girl that dated Elvis Presley, didnt talk about abuse, those boys being with Jackson did

Riverpoet31 said:

where does he say this because I haven't heard that and I've never heard him say that he likes to sleep in the bed with young boys. I've just heard him say that he doesn't see anything wrong with sharing his bed with childrem.

funkteer said:

duh!

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

Your arguments would hold more merit if your didn't insult everyone you argued with.

Riverpoet31 said:

it doesn't matter. No 24 year old should be dating a 14 year old. BOTTOM LINE. Stop condoning it.
[Edited 8/11/09 17:34pm]

funkteer said:

I thought you were being sarcastic...sorry.

Chandler is a liar.

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

Okay.

By the way, i am not defending Elvis here in any way.

There still seem to be some people in here who think it makes sense comparing MJ to other 'sinners'. And that Michael might be 'less guilty' compared to them.

Thats not what it is about: MJ is a lunatic who has abused his so called 'own' children. It arent his own children by the way. It isnt his own sperm. It arent the egg-cells of women he love.
People in here defending MJ as a father, should be ashamed of themselves. He isnt their father on a biological and social level. A megalomaniac, drug-addicted, pedosexual moron isnt a good father.
Only in america you see superficial people defending these kind of 'dad's'

Riverpoet31 said:

When you have so-called crazy Billie Jean Jacksons coming out of the woodwork of course he has to be protective of those kids.

Riverpoet31 said:

Elvis was into prescription pills. I guess he was a bad father to Lisa Marie too right????

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

I heard Ryan blew his top when he learned MJ was interested in Tatum. Truth?

I always thought when his romance with Tatum was over.... MJ was never.... err quite the same you know?

Look at this picture of MJ! THIS is the MJ I love to remember.

prodigalfan said:

Wasn't it because Ryan didn't like the fact that Michael was black? Enlighten me on this quote.

laurarichardson said:

BULLSEYE!

StillDirrty said:

I'm sorry, but unless the context involves surgery in a hospital setting, there's nothing that "makes sense" about using propofol. I don't even want to know what all was going on in this man's spirit to be begging folks to put him in a coma each night...it's just ghastly to think about. And I already said that article was made up around a quote from the doctor's spokesperson. But if it turns out that he was on the drug, well, that's something to think about.

As far as the allegations, I used to defend Michael all day every day. And then I noticed that instead of Michael loving to be around "kids," it was basically Michael liking to be around boys. And boys of a certain age. Then I read about the porn, locks on the doors on and on. I always thought he was asexual, but the porn told a different story. I don't want to condemn someone if I have no real proof of guilt, but I will not defend someone I have doubts about either. I will say that MJ used poor judgment to put himself in that situation if he didn't do anything.

RE: Relationships. For some reason, I do not believe that marriage to Lisa Marie was anything more than some type of arrangement. I just don't buy it although I'd like to. It would be nice to think of him having at least one true love in life. As a little girl, I always tried to fantasize about him with women (projecting myself into the equation lol). My friend and I thought he'd make the cutest couple with Irene Cara and wanted them to hook up! They were like Ken & Barbie to us. LOL I watched the making of "Thriller" to see if there were any sparks between him and Ola Ray and nada...After a while it began to feel like an uphill battle.

bettybop said:

Even the doctors that were on CNN understood to a degree why he took drastic measures to do this i.e. Deepak and Gupta. I'm not saying it was right. Everyone knows it was wrong he's dead because of it but in his line of thinking I could see why he did it. He was desperate for sleep, a doctor told him that Propofol would put him to sleep and that is was ok (as told by nurse Cherilyn Lee) so he did it. But it was dangerous and he shouldn't have listened to whoever was the first doctor who told him to do it. Just like he shouldn't have listened to Hoefflin when he told him to get more surgeries. He wasn't in the right frame of mind. If he was mentally sound he would have had more sense to know that he shouldn't do these things. I don't see the point of being shocked at more evidence of Michael being crazy when everybody already knew that he was.

Okay and why did the doctor himself decline to comment?

I don't get why people insist on calling Lisa Marie a liar. He's dead now if it was a charade she has no reason to keep it up. Even when she was mad at him and talked all that shit about him she never denied the marriage being real & now after his death she still maintains that.

As for that sanity debate, since all of us who believe in his innocence are insane, than I guess the whole jury was insane as well.

I am outta this debate with those people who cannot make a point without an insult.

Michael Jackson: Bad! And very dangerous
This week, the news has been dominated by Michael Jackson. But, in this highly provocative article, the author and former music industry executive John Niven questions the adulation of the 'King of Pop', given the allegations of child abuse that emerged in recent years

Saturday, 4 July 2009
Michael Jackson was thrilling in his prime - but has recent coverage acknowledged the darker side of his story?


The barrage of utterly inane celebrity tributes ("inspirational", "a true hero", "a genius", "a gentle soul" "a treasure") was to be expected. The howling fans across the world, broken and gibbering nonsense for the rolling TV news crews ("he ... he died for all of us" etc), the inevitable autopsy results in a few weeks, with their Swiss laboratory inventory of prescription tranquilisers, all this too is standard operating procedure.

What has stunned me and truly floored me in the past week or so has been the complete sidelining by the entire media of Jackson's later life. Across the board, from every news channel to all the quality papers, there has been wholesale collusion in the notion that "he was a great artist and, yes, there was some, umm, troubling stuff later on, but let's forget all that right now and just celebrate the music".

Hang on a minute. I'm not the kind of person to start Paedogeddon-style witch-hunts gratuitously, but ... I thought I'd find some real analysis of the "troubling stuff" somewhere. But here's what we're getting: "Another beautiful boy is gone, wiped out in an instant." This was Germaine Greer in The Guardian. She made no mention at all of the multiple accusations of child abuse levelled at Jackson (although she was unintentionally hilarious when she wrote of his art no longer being fuelled by his ability to "run with the kids on the block". Uh, Germaine, love, they'd be more likely to be running away from him). Rather, she went on to wax lyrical about Dionysus and Orpheus and how we should "salute this miraculous boy who will triumph over death ... becoming immortal through his art". Well, the ancient Greeks were certainly a culture that would have sympathised with some aspects of Jackson's life.

Then there was the editorial in The Independent last Saturday which (almost reluctantly) allowed that there were "most damaging of all, the accusations of child abuse", before going on to say that "what will remain in people's minds long after memories of his sad fall have vanished" – and this "sad fall" is priceless, suggesting something tragic and completely beyond Jackson's control – "is how thrilling he was as a performer in his effervescent pomp". There are at least several young men alive today who I am sure have very different memories of what it was to be caught in Michael Jackson's force field at the height of his "effervescent pomp". I have a feeling we might be hearing from some of them in the coming weeks.

He was acquitted, we are reminded. Well, like many people in our post-OJ, post-Tyson world, I am not inclined to treat the acquittal of a celebrity with a billion-dollar legal team behind him by a Californian court as a gold-plated get-out-of-jail-free card.

But on the rolling news channels and in the print media in the days following the death perhaps a certain level of inanity was to be expected. So it was with an almost purring sense of relief that I tuned into Newsnight Review last week: good old BBC2. Kirsty Wark, Paul Morley, Miranda Sawyer fer Chrissakes. Now here would be an island of sanity, where the disgrace (let me repeat, not the "troubling stuff") would be mercilessly exposed and dissected. Over the next half-hour my jaw gradually dangled floorwards as we were treated to banal, celebratory fluff that made The Sun's tribute look like the work of Woodward and Bernstein on a particularly feverish night. Paul Morley said things like: "That's his genius – reinvention.... He was an amazing science fiction creation." Kirsty Wark called him "unique". Miranda Sawyer nodded a lot.

Then there was the playwright and singer Kwame Kwei Armah, who trotted out the old chestnut about how we must "separate the art from the artist" before going on to talk about how there was "Michael the artist and then there was Michael the celebrity with ... with all the, the attendant problems that came with it".

He went on to say, unchallenged, how there were different Michaels and that he wanted to remember "the Michael who made Thriller and Off the Wall". There were also, presumably, different Hitlers. Some people might like to remember the Hitler who reunited Germany and brought back full employment. Not the later Hitlers, with their "attendant problems". The problem is that people keep on bringing up all the bloody stuff that these other later, more troublesome, Hitlers did. You can probably make a claim for several different Peter Sutcliffes, one of whom was a model employee who was very nice to his mother. The problem is....

Another Newsnight guest called Jacqueline Springer picked up on the "different Michaels" point and ran out of the park with it. She talked about the concept of a "cookie-cutter Michael": you simply "take the bits you want and remember them". Aww diddums. Lovely. I'll take the songwriter and the dancer and just leave the paedophile thanks very much!

Finally, Kirsty Wark spoke up. Here we go, I thought. "So you wouldn't choose to remember the Michael who – say – dangled his baby off a window ledge." Wow. Nailed him there, Kirsty. Much has been made of this (of course idiotic) bit of horseplay, but, truth, you see fathers taking greater risks with their kids in London everyday as they whizz along with their children perched precariously on bicycles. Less of them, I imagine, fill kids full of booze, get them to watch online pornography and then offer to show them how to masturbate. I'd have thought the latter scenario more worthy of examination. To go back to the Nazi analogy: our Kirsty, having the chance to bring up the concentration camps, cuts in with a reference to one of the other pesky Hitlers dishonouring the Nazi/Soviet pact.

And this was Newsnight. I wanted to weep.

At this point let me state my own position baldly: I believe that, at least in his later life, Michael Jackson was an active, predatory paedophile. (In terms of focusing on this I seem to be in the minority: Google "Jackson death" and you'll get something like 65 million hits. Google "Jackson paedophile" and you'll get around 150,000.)

I am very familiar with the argument of separating the art from the artist – Philip Larkin was a compulsive masturbator with racist views who loved pornography. The poems were magisterial. Wagner was a boiling anti-Semite. The music is timeless. Now, having racist views, masturbating to pornography, I can guarantee that everyone reading this paper has had some contact with practitioners of these dark arts. I would not venture that everyone is on handshake terms with people who get little boys drunk and then try to abuse them – I'm afraid I can't embrace the good tunes and overlook the "troubling stuff" and the "attendant problems" just yet.

Anyone with me? Anyone else fancy a refresher course on the kind of man Michael Jackson really was? Good. Let's go back a few years....

"The accuser, now 15, remarked that 'Sometimes Michael would also give wine' to the New Jersey siblings ... which Jackson called 'Jesus Juice'." As a novelist you know a linguistic bullseye when you see it and "Jesus Juice" is just too good. It is exactly what a quasi-religious paedophile would call wine he has transferred to a Coke can and is trying to get a child to drink. When I heard that detail during the trial it literally stopped me in my tracks.

Jordy Chandler, Jackson's first accuser, gave detectives a detailed description of Jackson's genital area, including distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis. The boy's information was so accurate he was able to locate where the splotch moved to when Jackson's penis became erect and the fact that he was circumcised. Jackson was brought in and his genitals duly photographed. Soon after this shoot (surely one of the stranger photo sessions endured by the singer) was matched up to Chandler's description, Jackson suddenly agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim out of court for somewhere north of $20m (£12.2m).

At this juncture, some details recounted in the affidavit of Gavin Arvizo, Jackson's second accuser, are also worth remembering: "Jackson told him [Arvizo] that boys have to masturbate or they go crazy, and related a story about a boy who had sex with a dog. Jackson, he said, then told him he wanted to show him how to masturbate."

Again the writer in me responds strongly to the tawdry reality of the dialogue here. If you were going to make this stuff up this is exactly the tone you'd be shooting for: the childlike vocabulary and anecdote marshalled as supporting fact. It is just how you'd attempt to convince a child to do something.

Ultimately one is faced with two options. Either Jackson really was an innocent, a childlike man-boy who simply enjoyed hanging out with young boys, up to and including having them sleep in his bed ("There's nothing more loving you can do," he told Martin Bashir in the infamous 2003 documentary, while Arviso cuddled him adoringly), and that some of these children decided – in collusion with their money-grabbing parents – to take Jackson to the cleaners. Or Jackson was an active, predatory child molester.

Personally I believe the allegations are very real. Child sex experts will tell you the same thing over and over again: kids don't make this stuff up. For a 13-year-old, the thought of being forced to talk – in public, in detail – about sex acts is so abhorrent there isn't a cheque big enough that you could dangle. And what real concept of money does a 13-year-old have anyway?

Anyway, the eventual molestation trial was a freak show, with Arvizo's mother ending up on trial rather than Jackson, a terrible example of jurisprudence in which the prosecution just about proved that Jackson molested seemingly every little boy in Los Angeles except the one in the witness box.

Let us go down the Albert Goldman road for a moment. (And the parallels between Graceland and Neverland are expected and wholly unsurprising: it is what happens when incredible fame, fortune and near-limitless power are bestowed on young men with no real education and no intellectual interests. The pleasures of the inhabitants of the two mansions are near-identical: lying in bed, attended by lackeys, while you indulge your sensory pleasures: food, small boys, whatever.)

Let us picture what was, by all accounts – that of the staff, of the parents and siblings of various young accusers – this grown man's idea of a good time. We descend into the chilled, darkened bowels of Neverland, passing the Mickey Mouse posters, the discreet alarm systems (rigged to give advance warning of anyone approaching his chambers), we punch in the keypad security code required for access to the inner sanctum and we find the King of Pop: he lies on an enormous bed, numbed by opiates, smudged with wine or bourbon ("Jim Bean" one of the boys called it, a malapropism that might be charming in other circumstances) and surrounded by half-naked pre-pubescent boys.

A laptop is showing pornography, opened bottles of Pinot Noir and SKYY vodka are strewn around. Jackson is watching Disney's Fantasia over and over again, drifting off up to the ceiling as a wave of the Dilaudid or Demerol hits him. He cuddles the nearest boy. His newest, most special friend. The medical bag in the corner glistens darkly, filled with brown tubs of prescription candy and pre-loaded hypodermics. Man, sweet dreams for the King of Pop.

"Michael," an ex-adviser claims to have said to him once, "you're going to wind up in a lot of trouble. Why don't you stop all this stuff with the young boys?"

"I don't want to," Jackson replied.

His answer has the acrid whiff of the dismissiveness of the potentate, the emperor. It reeks of "I like not this news. Bring me some other news." Finally, thankfully, for Jackson there will be no more news of any kind.
[Edited 8/12/09 5:57am]

BoOTyLiCioUs said:

You obviously don't want to believe it at all. That is fine. Doesn't really make a difference anyway.

funkteer said:

I would take a psychologist's opinion over a "journalist" anyday. That's what I was trying to say. Maureen Orth is not a psychologist, she is a journalist. I take any article on any subject with a grain of salt now on because Journalists manipulate the truth, leave out facts and sensationalize when all we want is the true story....not one that would sell. so honestly, it is really hard to know what to believe now adays.

midnightmover said:

I thought that Michael WASN'T circumcised?

I agree, Wagner's music is timeless! Genius work! But the author should research the history of Europe during that time. Almost the whole of Europe was anti Semitic. Not just the Germans, and not just Wagner.
Anyways, it is what it is. Michael is going to be remembered for what people want to remember him for. If they want to remember him for his work then that's the way he'll be remembered.

midnightmover - get a life. Why is it so important to you to try to convince people that MJ was a paedo? It's creepy that it's THIS important to you.

The guys been dead six weeks and you're furiously scraping up salacious tabloid articles - some of which are years old... and for what purpose?

We get it, you don't like Michael Jackson. Put it to bed now because you're just making yourself look sad. Not to mention the fact that some people are actually still grieving for Mike and find your disrespect repulsive.
[Edited 8/12/09 9:03am]

mrsnet said:

exactly i agree with you.

I don't think MJ was a pedo. He was the victim of opportunists and parasites. He never should have given that kids' family 20 mill. Maybe a couple to make their lives comfortable and to forgive any ill perceptions but not 20 mill. Also, any parent asking for 20 mill is a leech and cares nothing about their child. You molest any child of mine and you are dead by my own hand.
MJ was the one abused here, abused till his last breath.


carry on.

MattyJam said:

MJ should have made a video about him called Obsessed before his death.

DesireeNevermind said:

Supa said it best - Michael was his own worst enemy for putting himself in that situation again and again.

i did NOT know that about Elvis. wow.

destinyc1 said:

yeah this is crazy