SefraNSue said:

Lol, my god you are shortsighted, aren't you? Let's see:

The lawsuits. The depositions. The closed-door COURT SETTLEMENTS. MJ admitting that he both sleeps with children, and that there's nothing wrong with it. This is enough to suggest that he may not be 100% lily-white innocent.

But it does not prove his guilt.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:43:28 PST 2003 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

THANK YOU. It doesn NOT prove his guilt. And you have yet to show me any evidense that is not simply circumstantial. Meanwhile, there ARE documents and concrete evidense that point to his innocense.

BTW, you use the term "settlements." There was ONE child molestation settlement, and if you research the case, you will find that the family ASKED for money (ney, DEMANDED) money, and never planned to contact the police. The only reason the police got involved was because they had to investegate the accusation by law. Two grand juries pored over evidense and listened to hundreds of witnesses, and decided that MJ had done no wrong. I suggest that you read the article "Was Michael JAckson Framed?" by mary A Fischer. It was published in the Oct 94 issue of GQ magazine and details exactly how that case came about.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:50:53 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

SefraNSue said:

there are reasons for people to doubt his innocence
1. He says he sleeps in the same bed with children
2. This is the second time he's been accused of this
3. He payed the first kid $2 million
4. His idiot brother plays the race card and comes up with idiotic conspiracy theories
5. MJ is seen as all around freak (and that's HIS fault, look at the documentary for christ's sake)

You are dismissing people's opinions that are different than yours.
If YOU would look at things objectively YOU'D see why some think he's guilty.

Cloudbuster said:

ROFLMFAO!!

SefraNSue said:

GQ also writes 10-page articles with titles like "Is Your Tie Too Short?". They're real authorities.

And, no, the case was processed by police, but never proceeded to criminal court because the child refused to testify (perfectly acceptable, knowing what lawyers can do on the stand to children who have been LEGITIMATELY abused). Michael tried to claim extortion, but that didn't work.

The case was tried in civil court. He paid them between $20-40 million. So, yes, there is reason for me to doubt that that was in all honesty a simple extortion.

And THERE WERE NO GRAND JURY RULINGS!!! Stop bringing that up, it's false. No criminal court case, no grand juries, no "hundreds of witnesses."

lovebizzare said:

LOL, I'm bored tonight. But I like a debate.

I can see WHY some people would be doubtful of his innocence, but I also realise that much of that doubt has to do with his public image and the perception of his charachter...which comes back to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread; Jacko and its origin.

And I repeat: Show me the evidense!

SefraNSue said:

How's about you go up to the D.A. and ask HIM for the evidence, since HE'S the one who is in possession of it?

This is the same reason I can't give you concrete evidence in the Laci Petersen case. BECAUSE IT'S CONFIDENTIAL FOR NOW!

There are however indicators that suggest MJ may be guilty. There is no "concrete" evidence that he is innocent, either.

We cannot do the impossible, and provide you with evidence that no one except the LAPD is privy to at this moment in time.

VoicesCarry said:

Yes, there were. The Chandler case did not go to criminal court, because the family refused to participate once they got the money in CIVIL court. However, the Santa Barbera Police Dept. continued their investegation into possible criminal behavior into early 1994. The DA passed the evidense seized in the first raid on MJ's home to a grand jury. They decided that there was nothing incriminating there. He then took the case to Los Angeles. Another grand jury was brought in. They dismissed the evidense as well. This IS a fact reported by the Santa Barbara police. Of course, the media chose to ignore it, as well as the subsequent lawsuits MJ filed and WON against certain people slandering his name.

SefraNSue said:

Well the perception of his public character is HIS fault. HIS actions are HIS doing. the tabloid may write some of te wall stuff, but HE does contributes a large amount to his "freak" image. At the end of the day it all goes back to him, he's his worse enemy.

I'm sick of arguing, so this'll be my last post on this thread.

Here's the GQ article if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.mjnewsonline.com/mj.txt

And a history of MJ's face

http://www.anomalies-unli...ckson.html

VoicesCarry said:

I guess you missed the memo put out by the LAPD and child protective services stating that accusations of child molestation against Michael Jackson were UNFOUNDED as of February 2003.

http://www.thesmokinggun....memo2.html

The case is now in the hands of the Santa Barbera police (again). They chose to ignore this memo AND trash the DCFS in the process. BIG mistake.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 22:10:29 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

SefraNSue said:

Correction. Put out by the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services, NOT the LAPD. Again, you misrepresent facts. And again, this does not "prove" his innocence.

SefraNSue said:

That's true.

Goodnight.

SefraNSue said:

Nope, your wrong. Michael Jackson has said he sleeps in the same bed with children. Back when he did that Primetime Live Interview with Diane Sawyer, the one with Lisa Marie, he said and I quote "Sure, a child can come into my bed." Not to mention two boys back in '94 who came out to defend MJ on CNN said they slept in the same bed as him but nothing happened. One of the boys was Brett Barnes and I forget who the other one was.

automatic said:

The other one was Wade Robson, now famed choreographer.

SefraNSue you should have called this thread the 'Here comes my very own prejudice'

Let me start with mistakes MJ made. Symbolically I choose the hyperbaric chamber. Damn, that was stupid. Messing around with journalists telling them that he tries to live longer and thinking it was funny. He never took them serious, he always thought they would just have a laugh, but they took it serious, because they knew there are crazys out there who bought it. Jokes became his image, his reputation. Very unprofessional.

I don't accept his surgerys as a mistake or craziness. I think he has problems to admit it, he want people to accept his apparent appereance as normal and natural, but it isn't. If he could admit it, a lot of talk would stop. I think with the right therapy sometime he will be able to do it. Not that I want to know everything about it, but the media would respect him for telling them the truth. He can't demand that they stop asking about it.

R Kelly, Woody Allen and Rob Lowe (I didn't know that) were good examples. Obviously they all did it. But the media and the public doesn't seem to have problem with it. R Kelly is doing Award shows accepting achievment awards, Woody Allen give speeches at the oscars and Rob Lowe, well... he was on one of the hottest and most conservative shows out there. Why in the world is nobody really complaining?! Why???

You know why? Because they are standard! They live like you want them to live, thats all!

If MJ has to stop his behavior because of no real evidence, then I want every f***ing male out of every f***ing school, every kindergarden, every religios children institution, every summer camp and I want every dad going through some kind of hearing every year. Why? Because nobody has evidence they did something wrong, just like MJ! So get every f***ing male under the microscope!

Just give me one evidence, just one, that could lead to the assumption he is guilty. Just something that is not appropriate. There is nothing! Plastic Surgery? Yeah right, then every Hollywood Star is damn Wacko!

Society has problems with men being sensitive, being vulnerable and with people who have money in such an amount that they can do whatever they want without breaking any law or rules. MJ is just doing his own thing and admire him for that.

BlueNote

"Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler" by Victor M. Gutierrez no one has heard about this book? http://le.serpent.9online...index.html
*
[This message was edited Sun Dec 28 5:52:52 PST 2003 by jn2]

jn2 said:

The one that was banned by court order and Gutierrez fled the country to avoid paying Michael Jackson $2.8m in compensation and was never heard from again. The man whose claims also bankrupted Diane Dimond due to her shoddy unprofessional reporting and subsequent loss of her job and legal costs that mounted up after her network refused to pay them for her.

If this was a woman claiming she sometimes shared her bed with children when they came to stay, nobody would bat an eyelid.

MattyJam said:

I thought it was a white woman we were talking about.

/rimshot

MattyJam said:

Exactly!

BlueNote

jn2 said:

Oh yes. The author that MJ sued all the way to south America.This Gutierrez character disappeared off the map (as did this book) after Mike took him for millions.

Jack Gordon aided and assisted in the making of this utter rubbish.That's all you really need to know.

But if you want more:

Who is Victor Gutierrez and why did Michael sue him?
Victor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who appeared on the U.S. tabloid television show "Hard Copy" to claim that there was a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Some background on his story can be found in the book Jackson Family Values, by Jermaine Jackson's ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. She writes that in early 1995,
" I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. "I wanted to warn you, Margaret," she said. "There's a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape."If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn't true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece."Hard Copy," however, decided it would. "Hard Copy" correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard.Dimond's claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I'd never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period."

After the "Hard Copy" story aired, the LAPD told the Los Angeles Times that they had seen no such videotape, they were not looking for it, and there was no renewed investigation into molestation allegations. Michael Jackson subsequently filed a $100 million slander lawsuit against Gutierrez, "Hard Copy", and KABC-AM for perpetuating the story. None of these parties ever produced the videotape or any evidence it existed. Because Jackson's lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source. Gutierrez did not, instead claiming that a host of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape (none of these people in fact supported him). Consequently, on October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez's story was false and that he had acted with malice and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages (the amount of which would be determined at a later date.) The writer then fled to Mexico.

In October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of "presumed and punitive damages" to be paid to Michael Jackson by Victor Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Jackson's lawyers stated that the assessment of such damages would be determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.

On April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against free-lance writer Victor Gutierrez. A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Michael Jackson $2.7 million for failing to prove the existence of a videotape that allegedly showed Michael in an inappropriate conduct with a young boy.

"We talked to the jurors afterwards," Michael's lawyer Mr. Modabber said. "They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this."

(Sources: Jackson Family Values, LA Times, Reuters, AP, Hollywood Reporter)
[This message was edited Sun Dec 28 7:51:39 PST 2003 by Marrk]

MJ is no where NEAR perfect, and he has done some things that I think have contributed to his current public disrespect, BUT to suggest that it is all his fault is unfair and inaccurate. Stepping away from the case a little, ponder these questions and respond:

1.MJ claims that he suffers from the skin disorder vitiligo. There are pictures of him with uneven, sometimes blotchy skin tones. His family and friends have confirmed it (although LaToya and Jermaine took shots at his skin color in the past.) His dermatologist also confirms the condition. Do you believe he has vitiligo? Why or why not?

2.MJ is quoted as saying "It wasn't until I broke...The Beatles records, I broke Elvis' records. Then overnight they started calling me a freak, a homosexual, a child molester. They said I bleached my skin. It's all a conspiracy to turn the public against me." Do you think this opinion is valid? Is there any truth to it?

3.Do you think that the coverage of MJ's arrest, including the replayed clip of him being led away in handcuffs, is appropriate?

4.Is the overall media coverage of Michael Jackson too intense? Why or why not?

5.MJ says he's only had two types of plastic surgery (not including his several scalp surgeries after the Pepsi burn incident.) In other words, he's admitted to the nose and the chin, nothing else. Why do/don't you believe him?

6.If Walt Disney were alive today, whould his proposal for a place like Disneyland be greeted with enthusiasm, ridicule, or suspicion?

7.Do you think that MJ's current physical appearance is a reflection of his mental state? Why or why not?

8.What do you think are the defining characteristics of a Black man?

9.Do you think MJ has suffered more or less racism since his skin color changed?

10.Do you feel that its appropriate for the media to discuss MJ's finances in the same breath as his charges on child molestation?

11.MJ is often mis-quoted. Do you think that this is done purposely? Why or why not?

12.If MJ never had surgeries, but still developed vitiligo/lighter skin, would you still be critical of his looks?

13.Is a camping trip involving an adult and several children, in which all of the campers sleep in the same tent, appropriate?

14.Do you believe that MJ's interaction with kids would be more or less appropriate if he were NOT a rich man?

15.Is it fair to equate artistic quality and/or sucess with sales?

16.If MJ admitted that he reconstructed his entire face over the years, would your opinion of him change?

17.If MJ admitted that he was gay, would your opinion of him change?

18.Do you think that referring to a man out of his birth name is acceptable if that man states that he doesn not like to be called out of his birth name?

19. At the end of 2002, ABC news put out an article called "men behaving badly" in which the top 10 "bad guys" were listed. Because of his strange court appearances and baby-dangling incident, MJ was listed...along with Osama Bin Laden, a man responsible for 3000 innocent lives being taken. Are you surprised by such a comparrison? What does this say about the America psyche (if anything?)

20.If MJ is eventually cleared of any and all wrongdoings with children, would you accept his innocense? Why or why not?

21. If MJ decided to make all of his charitable contributions known to the public, and announce every time that he did something "good," would you praise him as a philanthropist or dismiss him as an attention-seeker?

SefraNSue said:

1. Don't care.
2. He's trying to play the race card. Don't appreciate it. Again, his self-inflated ego reveals itself.
3. Yes. I don't think it was inaccurate or unfair of the media to show MJ being led away in handcuffs. This is standard procedure.
4. Yes. There are more important things than Michael Jackson, and he shouldn't be on the front page of the NY Times.
5. No, I don't believe him, and that's because I've seen his face.
6. Enthusiasm, because Disney was not a freak.
7. Yes. Because no sane person wants to look like that.
8. I don't know what this has to do with anything.
9. Again, I don't believe the race card matters here.
10. Yes, why would it not be? In writing an article, an author is not restricted to discussing one issue. This is why "the media" write about Jackson the person and don't focus on his molestation charges.
11. Sure it is. By you and his other acolytes, and by people who hate him. If it's to the advantage of the person doing the quotation, then they will. But general, respectable media do not misQUOTE Michael; rather, I think they misINTERPRET him. He should make himself clear instead of being so fucking ambiguous. Too often I've heard people say "oh no no no he MEANT to say this...". That does not mean he was misquoted.
12. No. I'm critical of his looks because of his extensive surgery and his fucked up face. His face is hardly the result of vitiligo alone.
13. Yes. Michael, however, has said that he sleeps in the same bed as teenage boys. This is unacceptable. Stop trying to blur the issue by presenting 'normal' incidences of FORCED confinement and relating it to Michael's unacceptable behaviour. Inviting the kidlets over for a sleepover is COMPLETELY different than a camping trip with family or friends.
14. Michael's riches are to his advantage. His fans claim he's innocent BECAUSE he's Michael Jackson, and he has the money to buy a powerful defence team. A poor guy would be behind bars at this point (who the fuck else can post 3 million bail?), and the community would not be rallying behind him a poor man like Michael Jackson's deluded fans protest this "injustice" before a trial has even occurred.
15. No, of course not. What does this have to do with anything? Invincible was still a shitty album, in my opinion.
16. No. He'd have to explain why.
17. No. Why would it? The real issue here is possible child abuse, not homesexuality.
18. WTF does this have to do with anything?
19. It's ABC News. I don't take American television seriously, thank you. There are more important things to think about.
20. If he is found innocent, no, I am not compelled to accept anything. O.J. Simpson was found innocent as well. It's called getting off scot free because you've got money.
21. It is only true generosity when it is anonymous. Michael shoves it down our throats.
[This message was edited Sun Dec 28 9:35:56 PST 2003 by VoicesCarry]

SefraNSue said:

Here we go...

Yes, I believe it. If it is not the truth, it would be one hell of a lie. Are there black folks out there who bleach their skin, because they don’t wanna be black?



I donno, I never heard of anything valid. It is just a statement, is their any evidence?



No, but it is normal as long as the name Michael Jackson comes up. Everyone says that it is a big hype about a has-been and a second later they all report about it because they see the $$$. Who is a has been here?



Of course, but it is too easy calling him wacko. And not just that, you can even build careers on it!



To be honest, I don’t care. Media needs to make money so they discuss it and a lot of people like to discuss too, because their lifes are just boring.



No, because he is the standard guy, just like Elvis. Elvis screws a 14 year old and everybody says, ‘Go King, screw her again!’



Vitiligo can be caused by stress, so... 100 % ‘yes’.



Blonde hair, blue eyes and tough like Krupp steal or red hair, light skin and always drunken. Who cares?



I guess, or was it anti-jacksonism?



The media says whats appropriate. When Fox News says Georgy is right, he damn is! Don’t you ever doubt that again!



Of course! $$$!


He would still be ‘not normal’, right?



What does the media say?



Who gives a f*** which daddy out there screws his daughter/son? Gloria Allred? I doesn’t think so... She don’t even gives a f*** what her husband did.



There are musicians out there who are far better than MJ or Prince, they are somewhere in the midwest, brazil or china, maybe even in germany, which is very unlikely, but they don’t have a camera in front of their face. What do you want? You want to persue your quality without making money and without being respected by millions, then ‘no’. If you want the appreciation, then ‘yes’. It’s still pop. Just be clear what you want. MJ wants to have sucess in the business so he has to live with critism about sale figures. It’s both art.



BS. Who gives a f***? What is so important about anybodys face?



‘MJ is gay’ written by D.S.



Ask the media.



American psyche? Do you have any idea how the whole world is on this story? American psyche needs to know that Osama killed more than 3000 on 9/11. You know the stupid guy who knows just this one joke (which isn’t even funny) and repeats it over and over again and there is this other guy who always laughs as if it’s the first time. That’s what I have to think about when I read most of the posts here.



I would. The media wouldn’t, because they need more money and the other guy still think it’s funny.



I know he helps a lot of people out there, but good news isn’t much worth these days. He would be an attention-seeker. Even his death would be an attentino-seeker.

We all know Hitler was quite a bad boy. We all know Mother Teresa was quite a good girl. Everything in between is rubba.

BlueNote

Voices Carry, once again, you have only proven my point.

SefraNSue said:

Lol, wtf are you babbling on about??? You asked the questions, I gave you my answers. Someone's opinion differs from yours. Biiiiig shocker there. GET OVER IT!

Unless your point was that you're a .
[This message was edited Sun Dec 28 11:18:15 PST 2003 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

Defensive, are we?

I don't care if you like Michael Jackson or not. You obviously don't respect him, and thats your perogative. But you also are non-receptive to anything that doesn't fit into your preconcieved notions, and that's too bad. I'm a Michael Jackson fan, but I try to at least look at his fame (or infamy) from all angles. In general,there tends to be a lack of objectivity. It's more conveniant to point fingers than to investegate. People are too quick to give an easy answer instead of seriously asking themselves "why."

I'm done with this thread...for now...