You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
Acquiesce, you're going to see him guilty no matter what, and that's your right, dude, and I respect it, even though I disagree completely. And I really didn't want to get into this debate, I just wanted to point out some facts I know that you have wrong -- not trying to sway your opinion, because you're going to think what you think anyway, no matter what... But anyway:
Dudette. 
You're right, we're not going to sway each other's opinions, but we can respectfull agree to disagree. I thank you for engaging me in an intelligent debate because I'm a nerd who likes to debate. 
The book was from a fan. It had an inscription from the fan who sent it to him and it wasn't in his collection. It was also along the lines of a Jock Sturges book and isn't anything people would be offended over. Only the Jesus freaks have a real problem with it. Again, its art, its controversial art in some circles for sure, but nothing horrible or pornographic.
Well, I wouldn't say only the Jesus freaks would have a problem with it. I mean, would you be interested in owning such a book? You are right it's not hardcore child pornography, but it's not exactly a book that most people would be interested in owning either. It's a book that clearly appears to a certain section of society if you know what I mean. Is a reasonable person supposed to believe it's a horrible coincidence that such a book was found in the home of the man who sleeps with boys?
I have to say, I hate Bill O'Reilly with a passion. I loathe him. But I'm not faulting him or accussing him of truly sexually harrassing that woman just because he settled with her. Settling a case like that isn't just for the benefit of your family, or because the humiliation, but constantly having it hanging it over your head when you're fighting it takes a huge toll on you. If you have ever been part of a law suit, you'll know why most court cases end in settlement because of the strain it causes. It is not an admission of guilt. People are paying out just to end it. Really, I've seen what lawsuits do to people and families. Its the one thing I understand the most about Axl and what it did to him.
I understand the point your making. I know for example corporations often settle just because it's often cheaper to settle than to fight a law suit, but I am not so sure how many innocent individuals facing such accusations would settle such a case. This is not just a dollars and cents issue like it is with corporations. A trial is certainly stressful for those involved, but it is any more stressful than having this cloud hanging over your head, giving in to those that are trying to extort you, and opening yourself to future extortions down the line? I certainly don't think so. Jackson was a musical icon whose image was very important to future success. His image was also important to him on a personal level. He was someone who supposedly wanted to be remembered for all the good he has done for children, so again why would you want that cloud hanging over your head if you could prove your innocence in a court and go after those who extorted you? The stress of being accused of the worst crime a personally could possibly be accused of and having that cloud hanging over your head for the rest of your life certainly seems worse than the stress of sitting through a trial especially if you thought you could win. I am someone who believes that O'Reilly was guilty becuase as I said, I am not sure how many truly innocent people feel it is to their advantage to settle, but his situation was not even the same magnitude of MJ's so I can see more of an advantage for him to settle.
He did testify. You're right. But the credibility was shot when he told police repeatedly Michael didn't do anything to him, then his mother immediately turned around, got lawyers to sue and sold her story to Hard Copy.
The only thing that was proven was that the PI got JC's father (on tape!) talking about the extortion deal. And the people JC told the story to were the ones who said that's how his father got him to remember... He gave him the sedative after pulling the kids tooth. He was a dentist and wannabe screenwriter.
As I said in my previous reply to someone else, I don't deny they are sketchy, but Michael's actions were equally as sketchy. Even if you throw their stories completely in the trash, that leaves the Arvizo family from the latest trial. They never sued and they've always maintained they never wanted money. They chose to testify in a criminal trial instead. So what exactly was their motive to lie? You may bring up the JC Penney case to mention their credibility, which is fair, but again that doesn't show a motive to lie in this case. Their actions have been consistent with someone who was looking for justice rather than a pay day.
BTW JC has completely cut his mother out of his life because he essentially believed she pimped out to MJ. Why would he do this if all of this is a lie? That is consistent with someone who has been victimized. Jason Francia was in therapy for 5 years and now works with troubled children. That is also consistent with someone who has been victimized.
Maureen Orth has been biased in most of her stories, not just MJ. It was the same coverage the tabloids did, by using unamed sources that fit their story angles without getting them substantiated, and having a very scrutinized, and really disgusting, relationship with the DA's office.
Did you read her articles? There weren't many unnamed sources that I remember. I respect your opinion, but I don't see how it is reasonable to believe everyone is lying which includes the accusers and their families, the media, the DA, and pretty much everyone except for the man who sleeps with children and has every single reason to lie.
This is basically what I have to say about that whole subject.
Michael's little girl really made me choke up today. No doubt the media are going to play that clip into the ground.
Again thank you for engaging in an intelligent and respectul debate. 
I didn't see it, but I feel terrible for those kids. I hope the media lets them have peace.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
well lets put it this way....Slash was a aquaintence and a musical collaborator with MJ....and he still said he wouldnt let Jackson hold his kids
Meanwhile, former Guns N' Roses guitarist Slash has confessed he refused to let Jackson - who was cleared of child abuse charges in 2005 - hold his son when they met in London.
Thankfully someone out there has common sense. Whether someone thinks he is guilty or innocent, it's just neglectful to leave your children with someone who has repeatedly faced such accusations and by his own admission invites children into his bed.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
He had a weird discoloration there because of a skin condition he had. So that was unusual and the kid was accurately able to describe it.
That piece of alleged evidence has always bothered me. If the kid was making it up how would he know such intimate details of his anatomy? I'm pretty sure that type of stuff would not have been released to the press.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
^^
His descriptions of Mj's genitals were wrong, though. He was only right about his splottchy skin on his body. These aren't really considered intimate details, mostly because almost all of Mj's body could be described that way.
Sorry, dudette!
My main issue with the book is that it wasn't something he went out and bought, or even part of a personal collection. It was one book sent to him by a fan. And I'm not defending the book, in that, I wouldn't own the thing, but I understand the art value and I don't think everyone who owns one is a pervert or pedophile.
See, defending a lawsuit isn't as easy at it sounds. This takes years and years, with appeal after appeal, summons after summons, mediation after mediation. These things can literally go on for decades. It is easier to settle, no matter how bad it looks. Again, this comes down to a matter of opinion.
And I'm not defending Bill O'Reilly! 
As for the last family, its not just her using her kids to shoplift stuff, they had a history of leeching off people, like George Lopez. And they didn't go to the police. They went to the same lawyer who got the first kid a settlement. It was that lawyers psychologist he sent the kid to who went to the police. And I'm sorry, but after hearing about the second boys mother, do you really think she acted like a sane person? Ever? And everyone in the first kids family appears to be shady. I'm not buying that the father was a good guy in this. The only thing I've heard about the mother is the shopping spree. But you can't just say the mother pimped the kid out (for a credit card) and not say the father did as well. Still, imo, there's enough I've read that says this kid wasn't molested.
I'm not saying everyone is lying, but do you really think everyone in the media was fair and unbiased? Didn't the media, including these people, come under scrutiny for how they reported on this? Why did she and others not report on the kid not describing the Mj's genitals correctly? Why didn't they/she report the father being caught on tape or how he got the kid to confess? Do you think its right the DA, Tom Sneddon, has such close relationships with certain people in the media, like Diane Dimond, who he had acompany the raid? That these people deliberately slanted articles against Michael? Do you know that Sneddon was sued for misconduct for prosecuting innocent people and supressing evidence that would have cleared them, including actual cofessions of other suspects, multiple times? Did you know he ignored Santa Barbra and the Los Angeles Police Departments and both the Department of Children and Family Services investigations of Mj when both concluded that complaints of molestation had been untrue? Did you know he personally staked out Michael's home, which DA's are not allowed to do? Did you know he talked to the second boys mother several times before charges were filed, which isn't exactly legal? Did you know he issued the largest raid in California history and found hardly any evidence, which is why that book was so important to his case?
This is why I'm so angry about the media coverage and what they decide to tell and what they don't.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
MJ to be Buried Wearing One White Glove
Posted Jul 9th 2009 2:00AM by TMZ Staff
Michael Jackson will be laid to rest in pure MJ fashion -- as in he will be wearing one (and only one) of his favorite gloves.
Dorothy Gaspar -- who own Gaspar Gloves in L.A. and designed gloves for the "This Is It" tour -- tells us La Toya Jackson wanted Michael to wear a glove inside the casket. Turns out La Toya chose a white leather glove Dorothy made for Michael 10-12 years ago -- a glove covered in Swarovski crystals.
Dorothy tells us she was informed of this today by Michael's stylist -- Michael Bush -- when she went to pick up 20 green gloves she had made for Michael's dancers.
http://www.tmz.com/2009/07/09/mj-to-be- … ite-glove/
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
WTF? CNN just teased Foul Play may be involved in his death.
EDIT: here is the article from ABC News:
EXCLUSIVE: Jackson Patriarch Fears 'Foul Play' in Michael Jackson Death
Joe Jackson Tell ABC News He Wants Answers in Son's Death, Will Fight to Keep Children With Jackson Family
By CHRIS CONNELLY
July 10, 2009 —
Joe Jackson suspects "foul play" may have been involved in the sudden death of his son, Michael Jackson, he told ABC News in an exclusive interview.
In fact, the 79-year-old Jackson family patriarch was dumbfounded when he learned his 50-year-old son was being rushed to the hospital after collapsing at home on June 25, he told ABC News in an exclusive interview at the Jackson family compound in Encino, Calif.
"I just couldn't believe what was happening to Michael," he said.
"I do believe it was foul play," Jackson added. "I do believe that. Yes."
For more on Chris Connelly's exclusive interview with Joe Jackson, tune into a special edition of "Primetime: Family Secrets -- The Jackson Family: Life After Michael", Tuesday, July 14, 10 p.m. ET
The Jackson patriarch's claim comes as Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton suggested that the singer's death could be treated as a homicide if autopsy reports indicate that Jackson had been given illicit amounts of powerful prescription drugs.
"We are still awaiting corroboration from the coroner's office as to cause of death. That is going to be very dependent on the toxicology reports that are due to come back," Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton told CNN. "And based on those, we will have an idea of what it is we are dealing [with]: are we dealing with a homicide or are we dealing with accidental overdose?"
Speaking amid floral tributes to the late King of Pop, Joe Jackson said he wanted to know why Michael died so suddenly. He added that a second autopsy on his late son commissioned by the Jackson family has yet to reveal any answers.
Meanwhile, as world attention turned to the fate of Michael Jackson's three children, Joe Jackson left no doubt about what he thought would be best for Prince Michael I, 12, Paris-Michael Katherine, 11, and Prince Michael II, 7, also known as Blanket.
"Their grandmother -- Katherine -- and I" should raise them, he said. "Yes, there's no one else to do what we can do for them. We should keep them all together and then make them happy, feed 'em like they're supposed to be fed, and let them get rest, plenty of sleep and grow up to be strong Jacksons."
Joe Jackson, famous for catapulting his sons into superstardom via the Jackson 5, said he already sees signs Michael Jackson's children may someday follow in their father's fast-moving footsteps.
"I don't know -- I keep watching Paris," Joe Jackson said. "She & wants to do something."
"And as far as I can see, well, they say Blanket, he can really dance," he added.
The children have been under the care of Katherine Jackson at the Hayvenhurst compound in Encino since Jackson's June 25 death from apparent cardiac arrest.
But for now the family focus is on grieving for its most famous member and pushing to find out why Michael Jackson died so young, just two months shy of his 51st birthday.
Katherine Jackson, who is gearing up for a custody battle for the three Jackson children, still has a hard time even talking about her seventh child.
"She's taking it real hard," Joe Jackson said. "When you start talking about Michael she starts crying."
How Michael Jackson's Mom Can Secure Custody
Joe Jackson, who remains married to Katherine Jackson though they are believed to be separated, was left out of their son's will, which designated Katherine Jackson as legal guardian of first choice.
Whether Katherine Jackson will get to raise the kids may begin to be determined at a hearing Monday.
However, one family law expert said Michael Jackson's will is not the last word on who eventually will get custody.
"Legally, its not a binding pronouncement by Michael Jackson," said Michael J. Kretzmer, a family law attorney. "You cannot [act] like you could with a piece of property or a car, or a boat, or a piece of jewelry. You can't give your kids away. You can't bind the court. In part, that's because kids are wholly different in nature. They're not property. You have always got to look out for the best interest of the children when you're in the court."
To that end, one of the keys may be Katherine Jackson's physical vitality.
"The lawyer for Katherine is going to go into court and is going to do her very best to tell the court why Katherine is the very best, the person best suited to care for these kids," Kretzmer said.
Katherine Jackson's lawyer, he said, likely will cover "what her relationship has been, what her knowledge of kids is, what the skills to being [a] parent are, that she has the energy, capability, and stamina to keep up with three kids who are 12, 11, and 5."
Today, the mayor of Gary, Ind., said Joe Jackson will be among those at another memorial scheduled for Friday in Michael Jackson's hometown.
Joe Jackson admitted to ABC News that he has been "very demanding" with his sons and their show business dreams. But he added no one could doubt the key role he played in molding his children into the Jackson 5, and shaping the talent of Michael Jackson, the young star who would become an international sensation.
ABC News' Michael S. James contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
I don't think foul play is involved.
I think this is a Heath Ledger situation. Michael surrounded himself with enablers, like any drug addict, and some kind of professional was administering these drugs to him, specifically the surgery dope, by IV.
Not to mention the autopsy showed tracks. So he was using something, reguarly, that was not medically prescribed, or shouldn't had been.
Nobody killed Michael Jackson, other than Michael Jackson. But this is about finding who was abusing their medical power, just like with Elvis.
As for the kids... it would really help if one of Michael's younger siblings, like Janet, would step up to take the kids. Debbie Rowe WILL NOT get the kids, bank it. Same with the Nanny.
This is going to come down imo, to someone from the Jackson family taking them in, one of the siblings.
