Bashir's Michael Jackson circus......

(The sodomy accusations -- well, if they're true that's sickening, but I don't have the information or the authority to convict him.)

Out of court settlement is tantamount to an admission of guilt, in my opinion. If not of the actual crime he was accused of, then at least guilty of something he didn't want to be exposed during the trial. Either way, a grown celebrity sleeping in the same bed as little kids is fucked up and wrong. Sorry.

This is the molestation complaint filed against MJ. Sick, sick stuff.

something to the effect of "I'd tuck them in, play a little 'music,' read stories and hug... serve some warm milk, and cookies..."

So do I, darlin'. It's not so much that I'm commending Bashir for his approach (although he exuded a lot more restraint and compassion than a lot of his American counterparts), it's just that Michael Jackson is a pretty indefensible character at this stage.

cant say i like bashir much, but ive neve had time for him

this is the same cat who ignored every single racial issue in his life than brought out sharpton when his records stopped selling.

this is ths same cat whgo took advantage of the greatest duo in pop history ( Lennon and Mccartney)by buying the rights to the beatle’s music and desecrating it by pimping the songs to major corporations.

and you want me to believe that this motherfucker is SINCERE!!?!?!

If this is your idea of refreshingly flawed, then yes, by all means, Michael Jackson is refreshingly flawed.

Maria is right: nobody over here rates Bashir highly for content or style. He is a member of the OBM (order of the Brown Nose, see Private Eye). FFS he works for ITV which compared to other British outlets is tailored for the remedial learning krew. You couldn't really dumb it down further.

But when MJ attacked Bashir in the press statement I just thought 'aw, widdums is being manipulated by the media, poor widdums'. Usually this kind of spilt milk weeping is done loudest by the biggest and most practiced of media spinfreaks and gives me zero reason to be sympathetic.

http://www.angelfire.com/music4/invinciblemj/FACTFROMFICTION/framed.htm

When did he get the rights to Beatles' music. how much money did he pay?

I don't agree with this. Nothing is tantamount to an admission of guilt, other than undeniable proof or, em, an admission of guilt! If I was wrongly accused of something, and I had the money to save me going through an emotionally-draining court case, I'd be pretty tempted to bail myself out.

As for Jacko, he struck me as being more stupid than evil. I think it was his own admissions about having 12 year olds in his bed, rather than any sly editing by Bashir, that made the documentary so unflattering. But I think this was done out of naivety. He needs someone to sit him down and tell him "Even if your intentions are good, there are some things you SHOULD NOT DO!" He needs people to discourage his creepy desire to remain a child forever, rather than indulge it. He needs help, basically, and instead of crying about how Bashir stabbed him in the back, he should get help for himself.

"MJ dripped with sincerity"

Was this the part where he said he didn't have much cosmetic surgery, or the part where he said that he had a relationship with the wife of his 3rd child, then retracted it later? And as for his desire to adopt two children from every continent, I don't think I've ever laughed so hard.

What would would be the probability that eventually greed would get the better of one of the parents and that they would sue? My guess is, certainly more than 50% and probably close to 100%.

Which doesn't prove Jackson's innocent but it should stop people jumping to conclusions.

i think the evidence points to: here is a phenomenally gifted but at the same time tremendously repressed, angry, unhappy, fucked-up, self-hating individual who's tried to compensate for all this not by finding a way to understand any of it*, but instead by constructing a fantasy paradise haven for himself and "other children like him", which in its wealth-based divorce from ordinary adult reality was only ever going to last until the money ran out, when the repressed wd return with screeching vengeance

*though unconscious stabs towards self-revelation can be found i. in many of his songs, some of which are incredibly dark and violent ("i am the damned, i am the dead, i am the agony inside a dying head"), and ii. his surgery, which is like some self-destructive punk rocker who tattoos "fuck the world" on his forehead (he wasn't consciously prettifying himself, he was unconsciously uglifying himself)

And you don't think that having had to pay an estimated out-of-court settlement of $15M might have given him at least a pointer?

As Killian pointed out above:

"This is the same cat who went up to a mentally I'll sly stone and virtually hijacked his copyrights
this is the same cat who ignored every single racial issue in his life than brought out sharpton when his records stopped selling.

this is ths same cat whgo took advantage of the greatest duo in pop history ( Lennon and Mccartney)by buying the rights to the beatle’s music and desecrating it by pimping the songs to major corporations."

.... and you want me to believe that this individual is NAIF!!?!?!

he's hardly a master of either accumulative business shrewdness or media manipulation (doing the bashir thing at all = he is naive!!) (by contrast howard hughes — who i don't think was naive at all — remained good with money and media until close to the end: in particular NEVER exposing himself....)

*rolls eyes*

the beatle’s music ... desecrating it

*rolls eyes back even further*

I know someone who has worked with Jackson, and who says that the root of all of his mental problems, aside from the child/adult stuff, is that he feels that he cannot trust anyone - absolutely anyone at all - since he thinks that everyone is trying to get something from him. A problem more than a few very famous people have faced before, but probably magnified in this case, since he has been at this outrageously uncomfortable level of fame for most of his life. Maybe this is why he thinks that children are more trustworthy than adults, for when he was a child, his reality was continually being destroyed by the adults around him - whose trust he was supposed to have had, like his father's, of course. And maybe this is why he only surrounds himself with yes-men now: by keeping himself insulated by people who will indulge his ever whim he can pretend that he has won their trust.

I think the regression aspect of "going back into childhook" is obvious enough - Peter Pan never wanted to grow up and leave Neverland, and neither does Michael Jackson. It's a neurotic condition, born out of a desperation to live what was perceived to have been lost or denied (a childhood), in the first place. The irony: his self-constructed childhoos has by now lasted longer than a regular childhood usually does. And we already know what Freud et al (of course they were correct only in the most general sense), have already said about how neuroses are sexualized, or connected to "arrested development," sexually speaking. He is quite turned on by the idea of childhood, literally; does this mean he could have been unconsciously coming onto the children ? Probably ? But was there ever any real malice in his intentions, to harm the child? Probably not. He was sadly probably unaware of how uncomfortable the child(ren) must have been...it's unconscious...

The only solution, aside from years and years of strenous therapy (in this case, hypnosis would be the only effective measure, imo), would be just to leave him alone in his fantasy world, but somehow remove the potential threat of his neurtoic behavior. Let him live in his own world, but remove the possibility of his being able to harm anyone there. In other words, remove him from the children - take all of them away from the ranch, the mansion, forever. I don't know if I feel the same way about his children, but I think they should be living with their respective mothers, not him, and that his visits should be supervised - it sounds horrile to deny a private relationship, but at least not until they are old enough to grow out of their vulnerable childhoods, they shouldn't be alone with him.

The problem, however, of removing the children from his fantasy world, would be to shatter it smewhat - he would find himself being a lonely, isolated child again, not finding anyone to share his "childhood" with, wouldn't he? But perhaps this cracking would be an evolutionary breakthrough for him, it might, it just might force him to realize that childhood is just not a place where he wants to be anymore, especially when he has to be there all by himself, bereft of other children to "share" it with. Perhaps, then, slowly (along with the intense counseling, of course), he could start to re-enter the world of adulthood (or enter it fully for the first time), after the craving for adult relationships would begin, as a result of forced loneliness. And please get rid of the yes-men. One problem: how do you ignite the genesis of an adult, normal sexuality in an individual who has been fetishing children for so long? How will the desire for adult relationships be instilled within him, when he does not have any real sexual feelings for adults... these are hard questions to answer, since I do not know even if awareness of his condition could actually foster an authentic desire to have adult sexual contact, when that desire hasn't been there for years (but was it dormant?). It's almost as if in the therapy, he's have to undergo puberty & adolescence (for the first time?), and only THEN be able to reach adulthood, the way the rest of us did - that'd be the only way he could mature out of his childlike state. It's really bizarre to think of, since the biological timing is obviously quite off, but it'd have to be mind over matter, as they say. Just imagine him calling Ms. Taylor and asking: "what's happening to my bawdy, Liz, it's strange but I'm getting these URGES when I see National Velvet now..."

The Bahsir betrayal is only going to deepen his troubles, for starters.

Why am I still writing this??????? I 've put far too much thought into Michael jackson, shoot me!!!

let's say it this way: the sandwiches MJ originally brought to the picnic were not widely or automatically available

Fair point Mark, 'though I still think there are levels of functionality to be considered here, of which "business shrewdness" and "media manipulation" must rank pretty highly, whereas recognising that most people aren't going to be happy with the idea of a single adult male sharing his bed with a succession of young children probably ranks slightly above recognising that you shouldn't play on the motorway or stick your fingers in electrical sockets, as a basic survival skill if nothing else!

I also don't think he's capabale of enough calculation to actually change his appearance/body for the sake of keeping others at bay - I think he feels cut off from them, helplessly, due to identity he has to live with day fter day. Which is why the company of children, children he can trust, is what he seeks out...innocent fun ike climibing trees and starting food fights (careful, don't hit the shnozz! it'll fall in the mashed potatos!) is what fulfills him...and the sexual feelings he experiences towards the children, if he does at all, are unconscious.

You know, thats how many fetishes and hang-ups start: wanting something so bad. Wanting to BE it. Thinking you NEED t, then realizing even your BODY craves it. Being in love with an inanimate object, or concept, you have such a strongly emotional issue with (for him, it's childhood) --> in the psyche things can get twisted, and you start desiring the object/concept in a sexual manner, without even realizing it, since its attainment is supposed to emotionally satisfy you on such a deep level in the first place. Emotions/sexuality, you know the foggy connections. It's a wonder how the mind functions, or dysfunctions.

I could almost attest in terms of first-person experience on how some fetishes work this way, but since I'm one of the least-well-known regular posters on here, I'm not going to break the imagined spell just yet =)

It seemed clear that the accusations of paedophilia really really bother him. He looked so angry and distraught when he was being asked about that. I would imagine he did the program to try and make people see him in a different light.

I just hated the way they moralized about him. Like everyone in America doesn't have a Peter Pan complex. Like every other celebrity hasn't had too much plastic surgery. Bashir was asking him about having surrogate children as if it was a bizarre crime. Kept going on about how he likes to sit in a tree and think as if this was outrageous.

I don't know. I'm speaking as someone born in the mid '70s, and obviously I didn't witness Jackson 5-mania firsthand -- still, I don't get the impression that race was ever a huge stumbling block in MJ's career path. It could just be a personal hangup he has, not any specific career move.

Again I agree to an extent Mark, although I'm not at all sure whether that's because he's testing the boundaries of his reality by getting gradually closer and closer to the traffic ; or because he's craving the oblivion of having one of those great big lorries finally splatter him all over the motorway; or because he's started believing that he controls the traffic and the lorries can't hurt him.

Some more concrete explanations for his child-fetish:

*children aren't financially savvy (they won't swindle him out of his money)

*children don't know about sex (they won't be aggressive or predatory in a way that scares him)

*children are too young to be aware of who exactly Michael Jackson is (and they won't judge him, unlike the rest of the world)

No. I know the traditional response to something like this is supposed to be [something like!] "Martha Graham!?" but I wouldn't know who it is, i just don't think he's the greatest the world has ever seen, despite how good he is. Or was. Take away the moonwalk, and how unique are his moves?

Not that uniqueness is anything significant i pop-dancing, but even in regards to traditional forms of hoofing around, he couldn't win a dance-off with Astaire. And doesn't his nose have an increased chance of falling off these days, when he performs ?

*children aren't financially savvy (they won't swindle him out of his money)

*children don't know about sex (they won't be aggressive or predatory in a way that scares him)

*children are too young to be aware of who exactly Michael Jackson is (and they won't judge him, unlike the rest of the world)"

Of course if he believes any of those things (bearing in mind that the "children" we saw on the programme / we're talking about appear to be aged between about 8 and 14) then he really *IS* naif!

How many financially savvy, sexually aggressive, Jacko-bashing eight-year-olds do you know?

That's what I figure Mark - which must means that at certain times of the day at least (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say *on some level*) he must be fully conscious that a great deal of his behaviour is at very least inappropriate.

I think this is true, and what I was trying to say anyway. Him believing this does not make him naive, on the contrary it's closer to pragmatism, really.

I don't know many who aren't capable of swindling someone out of money or being aggressive and predatory under the right circumstances - and I'd be prepared to bet that I don't know a single one who doesn't know who Michael Jackson is!

Five bucks is not a million dollars.

I caught the tail end of a documentary about a paedophile ring the other night. This could be a description of one of the men arrested - it was clear his view of what he had done was completely at odds with what the vast majority of people would think about it.

recognising that most people aren't going to be happy with the idea of a single adult male sharing his bed with a succession of young children probably ranks slightly above recognising that you shouldn't play on the motorway or stick your fingers in electrical sockets, as a basic survival skill if nothing else!

He's very very rich. He doesn't need to pay much attention to what anyone else thinks of his behaviour.

It might be to an eight year old! ;~)

Well, it works better for me than the assumption that everyone else in the world is entirely one-dimensional.

It's not proof that you aren't one, either. In the case I mentioned, the man arrested had taken part with others in some pretty horrific sex crimes, but he didn't see them as crimes, or even as being wrong. The outrage was a result of his being (as he saw it) persecuted for his "innocent" love of pre-pubescent children.

I think it's a fairly common pattern for some people to do things the rest of us would find reprehensible, and for them not even to recognise that their behaviour is wrong (see Ernest Saunders and the Guinness case for a less emotive example).

A great many 8 years olds, when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, will give you a look of wide-eyed innocence and say something along the lines of "what?".

Most of them do, however, do know that they shouldn't be pinching cookies.

Yes he does, since other people liking him is what made him rich.
At first, I withheld judgement of his sleep-overs, but I think he does have a problem and most likely is molesting people.
I tried to put myself in his position and give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I love children. I think sharing my bed is wholesome and forms a deep bond with a child (stay with me here).
But, after I got any grief for having children in my bed, after it caused my career to disintegrate, after I was investigated for my activities, I would come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. Sure, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong, but it's just too much of a hassle. After all, it's not like I need to sleep with them.
By MJ continuing to sleep w/kids after all the trouble its caused him, it shows he can't stop and leads me to believe it's not innocent.

I'm not sure I share this belief, however I really can't believe that MJ could have been in any doubt that a great many people would reach this conclusion

"(Once again, he didn't actually say he slept in the same bed with the kids.)"

Actually, as Jody Beth rightly pointed out earlier, he did specifically say that Macaulay and Kieran Culkin used to sleep one on either side of him. I'm not sure he actually stipulated whether they did so in a bed, on the floor or halfway up a tree but then, I don't think *where* they did so is really the issue.

"Yes he does, since other people liking him is what made him rich."

In fact he is rich - and in trouble - as a result of very, very desperately wanting people to like him.

Having surrogate children in itself is not a crime. Maintaining that the mothers of these children "gave" those children "as a gift" to him, and that he "snatched" the second one "still covered in the placenta" and ran because he "didn't want to hear anything bad" is pretty much bizarre to the fuckin' letter. Did you watch the footage when he was trying to feed the baby? Did you watch him during the footage at the zoo? I think one would be very hard-pressed to call him model parent.

"Kept going on about how he likes to sit in a tree and think as if this was outrageous."

Ya gotta admit......it's pretty fuckin' weird though, eh? When was the last time *YOU* climbed a tree?

Yes he did. I have the tape. Shall we go over it together?

"I climbed a mountain recently (the base of it, anyway). Why is one acceptable and the other not?"

Lots of adults regularly climb mountains therefore it's seen as acceptable behaviour for an adult. Relatively few adults regularly climb trees therefore (unless they happen to be tree surgeons) it tends to be seen as a bit weird.

I'm not saying it's right; I'm certainly not saying it's logical; I'm not even saying that the world mightn't be a better place (hey, isn't there a song in there somewhere?) if a few more adults learned to lighten up a bit and climb the ocasional tree; but nevertheless I do think you'll find it's the current "norm." in our society.

How generous can Mr Jackson be to his little friends and their parents, I wonder?

Maybe 4 months ago. Its kinda fun, mainly just to see if you are limber enough to still do it.

What is weird about MJ is that he actually makes a point of regularly climbing trees, which few adults do. And he clearly does't do it for the physical challenge like mountain climbers.

Also, how about comin' up with some new dance moves, eh?

Absolutely not - it's merely infinitely less likely to reach a prosecution

"Deteriorating before our eyes" I buy completely: the child molesting stuff I just don't. It basically boils down to "He climbs trees: burn the witch!"

I DO believe he is suffering from a number of personality disorders; not least of which is the fact that he's emotionally retarded and trying to live out a Peter Pan fantasy (complete with delusions of invulnerability and immortality).

This does mean that he is in any way *intellectually* retarded however - it seemed significant to me that, when he was playing in the fun fair with all his little friends, he actually looked every bit as awkward as most single 44 year old men would under those circumstances.

I believe that he's fully aware that much of his behaviour will be regarded as unacceptable; and I am absolutely convinced that all the stuff he came out with about the abuse he suffered as a child was planned and rehearsed in order to play on our sympathies and try to excuse his behaviour.

That doesn't mean I believe he didn't suffer abuse as a child, because I do; I just think he was using those revelations in a very calculated manner - in fact the way he came out with some of that was so bloody hammy that it almost led me to suspect that there was some sort of complex double-bluff going on.

Then why keep buying more of them?

D'OH!

s/be "This does NOT mean...." obv.!

I watched the programme with my partner who's a State Approved Social Worker who specialises in clients with learning disabilities and psychologigal problems; and she didn't seem to be in any doubt whatsoever that there was more than enough evidence to have MJ's children taken into protective custody under UK law.

She did, however, make it abundantly clear that she wouldn't like to be the poor little Social Worker who had to take responsibility for doing so, jnowing that she'd end up having to deal with Mr Jackson's lawyers - and I'm sure she wouldn't be alone in feeling like that!

Absolutely, although they should be subjected to exactly the same scrutinies as the rest of us before they're allowed to adopt / purchase one.

I don't believe any single man who had previously been accused of sexually assaulting a minor and who clearly raised a significant number of unanswered questions about his sexuality and mental stability wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of doing so in the UK at least.

Also, I believe you'll find most celebrities send their kids away to school in order to try and make their lives as normal as possible, rather than locking them away in some fairytale castle and only letting them go out waering masks!

part of the problem i guesds i have with a situation like this is that if media intrusion is a major factor in causing — or anyway exacerbating — someone's psychological disturbance, is trial-by-TV really the fairest way to gather evidence about their fitness to whatever

I agree absolutely Mark; and neither is the leap some other people (not yourself, I hasten to add) seem to be making, from NOT NECESSARILY / NOT PROVEN TO BE A CHILD MOLESTOR to PERFECTLY SUITABLE PERSON TO BE AROUND / LEFT ALONE WITH / BRING UP CHILDREN

mark s. summary=assumptive twit

You didn't answer the question, Mark.

And why isn't an out-of-court settlement an admission of guilt, again?

Because the concept of justice is often farcical in the American court system for public figures.

And, Alex... thou doth protest too much. Again, empathy for Jackson isn't apologizing for his eccentricities. Every one of your conclusions are mediated through the lens of the program's selective editing and Bashir's prefacings and postscripts. While I may share your view of Jackson as mindnumbingly weird, I don't believe that he is a criminal of any sort.

You didn't answer the question, Mark.

It's hardly the point. I wouldn't want Michael Jackson looking after my son, but then again I wouldn't want any of you lot doing it either. No offence, I don't think any of you are child molesters, but you only leave your kids with someone you know really well and can trust. Doesn't mean anyone else is necessarily dodgy.

Having said that, his attitude to kids still disturbs me. As much the commodification of them as anything. The surrogate mother situation and his comments about wanting to buy, sorry adopt, two kids from every continent seemed to me a little too close to the attitude he displayed while walking round the shop.

Record stores in Britain reported a surge in sales of Jackson's records. Virgin Megastores said sales of his 1982 Thriller album were up 473 percent from last week, while the greatest hits package HIStory was up 383 percent — sending both albums into the lower reaches of the chain's Top 100 chart.

Not bad, eh?

I wonder if Gary Glitter's records saw a similar spike in sales.

Because juries have recently been inflating damages out of all proportion. I recently sat on a federal jury in a sex harassment case. Eventually the plaintiff was awarded $750,000 in punitive damages. The "crimes" of which the defense were accused were, by universal agreement of the jury, not major, but despite this realization my fellow jurors felt the need to inflate the damages to a number that none of us had likely seen in our lives.

I can see how a defendent, would balk and simply offer a lower figure to save themselves months or years of trouble and the potential for spuriously high damages being awarded by a jury. This is something other than an admission of guilt, in my opinion.

This defeats your own argument - if he wasn't afraid of being found guilty, he wouldn't be worrying about the dollar amount a jury might award. But he feared he *would* be found guilty, on some level. Now think about that: one of the richest, most powerful entertainers in the world, who has watched people like OJ openly *buy* their freedom and innocence when they were obviously guilty, fearing that he would actually be convicted/have to pay a settlement/reveal things he'd rather not in a courtroom.

Shakey, lots of people and corporations and institutions and whatnot settle out of court to save them the time and legal fees involved in litigation, regardless or not of whether they'd win the suit. It's not always an admission of guilt (although it can be, sometimes). And a civil suit is much different from a criminal investigation and subsequent trial. F'instance, O.J. was found innocent in the criminal trial, but guilty in the civil trial. The latter just meant that he had to pay money to the victims of the crime, but didn't establish criminal guilt (i.e. he's still free to run over manatees with speedboats in Florida).

I protest.....therefore I am.

"Again, empathy for Jackson isn't apologizing for his eccentricities."

Fair enough, but where do you draw the line between empathy and accomodation?

"Every one of your conclusions are mediated through the lens of the program's selective editing and Bashir's prefacings and postscripts."

It's not like I didn't have a very strong opinion on the matter prior to the program, Maria. I don't know Bashir from a hole in the wall, but I don't think he came across as particularly sensationalist or muck-rakey. He pretty much stood back and let Michael do all the dirty work himself. In fact, I think Bashir displayed considerable restraint during some of the more bizarre passages.

Also, given Jackson's terrible fear of the public eye, isn't it understandable that he wouldn't want to spend months giving testimony in a California courtroom?

It may seem that way, but I still don't think that's an admission of guilt on his part. It's more that it's an inference of guilt on yours.

I don't really have any opinion on all this, I think MJ is pretty strange, but I also don't think that most people that have achieved even half of his level of fame/wealth aren't twisted. Which doesn't mean that he's a great guy, just that for some reason the press at this point is fixated on him, and not anyone else. I mean, our "president" is a much more nefarious and evil person, in my estimation, that MJ will ever be, and he has much more power than MJ will ever have. That MJ plays into the media's hands is pretty disgusting, but it's his own fault.

I actually think that this Bashir guy (whomever he is - I didn't see the interview) and MJ (and most celebrities/politicians/famous people) have more in common than what's been put forth on this thread: an absolute desire/craving for attention that knows no boundaries.

No, it isn't understandable, it really doesn't make sense. If MJ was truly so purely innocent, wouldn't it be the more logical course of action to go to *any lengths necessary* to prove said innocence - especially concerning the nature of the charges and his public reputation? Isn't it worse for him to have these things hanging over him, unresolved, and (most importantly) kept secret? A completely innocent person in his position would use the massive financial and legal powers at his disposal to make it utterly clear that these charges were completely unfounded (a la Tom Cruise and his countering of all those gay rumors)? And given the way the American legal system is easily manipulated by the rich and powerful, really he has nothing to fear UNLESS HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE. And I think it's absolutely clear that he does - if not outright molestation than at least wildly inappropriate behavior.

Then what does the choice indicate? It certainly doesn't indicate his innocence. It indicates that he knows people may view things that he did - things he can't deny - as inappropriate and possibly illegal.

Your prior opinion remains intact (if unfounded) after the fact, that's for sure. I didn't pay Bashir any attention before the interview, so my interest is just as unvested as your own, but it's a real stretch to say that the program was restrained. The New York Times agrees apparently. I wouldn't have expected that. Interesting.

I've spelled out my reasoning behind this conclusion.

"...and may not have."

But I'm still waiting for someone to spell out the reasoning behind this one.

But I'm still waiting for someone to spell out the reasoning behind this one.

Uh, perhaps he settled to save himself the time/money/embarassment of following through with a trial? Whether it backfired or not in the court of public opinion, or even the court of Shakey's opinion, is another matter entirely.

Look at it this way: this past fall, a number of investment banks settled with the NY Attorney General, who had brought a suit alleging fraudulent practices in the Research areas of these banks. Not all of these banks had research analysts with the well-publicized problems of a Frank Quattrone or Henry Blodgett or Jack Grubman, but they all settled in order to save themselves from litigation, because ultimately any trials brought would be more expensive/time-consuming than just settling. Not an admission of guilt, even though these firms paid serious money and restructured their research departments.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078262/

Seems to me someone who was innocent would have his attorneys focus on getting the case thrown out of court, not settlement. Particularly when such charges were guaranteed to damage their client's career unless he was completely exonerated.

"Michael's attorney's fees would certainly have been in the millions and his private life would become public record – can you blame him for paying out?"

Yes, because by paying out he bought the right to hide the truth.

hstencil: Michael Jackson is not a bank. He trades on his public image, and obviously the value to his image of being cleared of such charges is infinitely higher than having these charges dog him.

it's obviously only the "case for the defence" rather than the "facts in the case", but i still think it undermines the ABSOLUTE of "settled-out-of-court" = "must therefore be guilty" (essentially what it does is even up the no-smoke-w/o-fire cynicism, if you like) (MJ has power yes, bcz he's rich, but he's also vulnerable, bcz of the degree to which his image is his power...)

partly my judgment of it is based on the fact that the authorities didn't carry on the prosecution — in respect of other cases? — after the first guy was bought off (like i said, i assume child molesting is still illegal even if the parents say "go ahead")

my objection to alex's question is this:
i have seen a documentary in a format i despise and distrust by a journalist i have zero faith in or respect for, about a man i have never met, in a plainly intensely stressed situation: alex is asking me to make a complex personal essentially intimate decision about my attitudes to him, my possible trust in him, HERE AND NOW, RIGHT NOW!!

i think this is a completely unreasonable and ridiculous question

So, Mark, am I to believe you're turning a blind eye to the more unsavoury parts of the program because you assert they are somehow taken out of context?

Have you not read a newspaper since, oh, October 2001?

I actually agree with mark s regarding all this. I don't think it's relativist to not take a position on someone/something that has no bearing on me whatsoever. I mean, hey I like to dance to Thriller at parties, but that isn't a tacit approval of anything MJ may or may not have done.

But then aagin I like climbing trees, so what the hell do I know?

I'm not saying you have to go snap your copies of BAD, THRILLER and DANGEROUS in half, but sakes alive, man....admit that there *MIGHT* be a problem!

On the other hand, Jackson's behavior around children still strikes me as psychologically damaging and inappropriate. Of course, there's no law against that.

And no, I've never been in court for anything (besides jury duty). But then again, I've never done anything like sleep with other people's children, so I have little to fear.

(what d'you mean you "actually" agree with me, hstencil, u cheeky monkey?)

"Would you be comfortable allowing your own children to sleep in the same bed with him, Mark?"

...at which point you assumed the role of the political prisoner and accused me of rampant McCarthyism.

PS Jacko wrote most of the songs (all the great ones), sang them, and danced his ass off. I'm not sure why Gordy or Q should get the credit.

It's a manipulative question because it's impossible (not to say irresponsible) to answer with the information to hand, and you're timing my reply, or lack of it, to PROVE THAT I'M TRAPPED IN A CORNER.

I do not believe that that documentary provided the evidence to make the judgment you are asking me to make, even if I could actually get my head round all the other things I have to imagine to make such an event possible.

If this is your idea of refreshingly flawed, then yes, by all means, Michael Jackson is refreshingly flawed.

this makes me so angry and so sad that I really really wish I hadn't read it. I don't know what is wrong w/your dorm-mate, but I get a strong picture from your description. The literal-mindedness and inability to relate that you describe are both very typical symptoms of autistic spectrum disorder. You could perhaps read about this, and try to understand the world your dorm-mate inhabits, college boy. A bit of empathy might make you a better person. He very likely isn't someone you need to be afraid of. Ugly minds like yours OTOH are very scary indeed.

If my post was insensitive, I apologize. The poor guy's most likely been through more shit than I will ever have to sit through in my pampered little life. But my point stands.

If yelling is symbolized via CAPITAL LETTERS, you'll notice I did no such thing. I merely persisted after you dodged the question.

The interview disclosed in very candid, plain terms that he's a 44 year old man that sleeps in the same bed with children. What more do you need to know?

This is patently untrue. All the best Jackson 5 stuff ("ABC", "I Want You Back," "I'll Be There", et al) were written by Gordy and Motown's staff of writers. And it's pretty well-established the backing band on the recordings were session guys.

"I'm not sure why Gordy or Q should get the credit. "

Because they co-wrote and/or produced every worthwhile note he's ever made...?

Obviously Gordy and Jones played an important role in his career. Nobody does it alone. But to suggest that they were the masterminds and he was the puppet seems a bit unfair to me.

I don't think Jacko's was a "puppet" exactly - not in his solo career anyway (re: the Jackson 5 tho I would say "puppet" is an apt term) - but he's hardly a creative powerhouse. That's not exactly a wealth of great material there, 4 songs...

I think by any standard that's a pretty weird thing to do - certainly unhealthy for children psychologically - there are very few socio-cultural (abject poverty, for example) circumstances where that's acceptable.

Ben: they aren't the sole measure, but when it comes to music, for me that's a massive part of it. Certainly it's a criteria for calling anyone a "genius" (a term I also cringe at using - hell, I don't even believe there's such a thing as "talent"...)

Very sound reasoning, Shakey, but I've since lost interest in the debate, nor relish the notion of being further branded as a hate-monger.

Hmmmm....well, I didn't *KNOW* Charles Manson either, but I think it's pretty safe to assume he's a crazed wing nut....but I guess I'm just a slave to the media that way.

i do actually seriously think that the judgment whether someone is fit to look after children shd be left to something more substantial than the mass TV audience of a piece of rubbishy tabloid television, especially when the presence of camera/interviewer etc, and the stress of the specific interview situation, may be the actual cause of (apparently relevant) oddity of behaviour

I don't give a fukcing shit about either michael jax0n or m4rtin bashir, for the rekkid.

I remember a thread about whether there is such a thing as talent, but I can't find it...

"Come on, you think Quincy Jones and Berry Gordy could have made just anyone into Michael Jackson? "

Not just anybody, but somebody else? Sure. Why not? Star-making machinery is uber-powerful.

alex, manson was tried and convicted in a court of law not by a television audience based on one TV programme

Oh that's right.....we only got wind of Jackson's weirdness this week. Prior to his chat with Bashir, everything was perfectly rosey and wonderful at Neverland, with no black clouds on the horizon at all.

Also, Manson didn't have the financial means to hire legal representation of the same might that Jackson entertains.

So everyone who's famous in the industry is there because they really are the most talented people around? Not anyone could "be" Michael Jackson, you're right. You need someone especially twisted to "be" Michael Jackson. In that respect, you're right. But truly, is Britney Spears so incredibly talented that what she does no one else who's been trained since birth to do what she does couldn't do it? Or for that matter, be better at whatever it is that Britney Spears does?

Of course media is "uber-powerful". As it has proven time and time again, it can shove crap on society that it doesn't want, until through repetition, it accepts it (eg, Limp Bizkit). That doesn't mean Michael Jackson is devoid of talent or ability, but to believe that he's the only person who could have sung those songs and danced like that is absurd. Perhaps they wouldn't have sold 25 million units and made 15 minute music videos, but they could and would have been successful.

-
Alan

-
Alan

I can point you to numerous psychological studies that conclude that children who consistently sleep w/adults (usually their parents, but I'm sure it applies to non-family members even moreso) past the age of 4 or so demonstrate various developmental/emotional problems. Let me know if you want me to look some up.

and i have a friend who is 44 and great with kids who i totally trust and my kid likes him, and mom and pop have to go off somewhere but not with kid bcz of school, and my pal babysits - except my kid has a nightmare and climbs into bed with my pal

Q: should i worry about this?
A: it depends...

why i objected to the original question = it's just way too vague to make any kind of sensible judgement, despite alex's increasingly dotty frothing

Don't be so sure.
I know someone who served 12 years in prison for being at the scene of a crime and attempting to help the person.
Obviously, he is black.

When I start dottily frothing, you'll fuckin' KNOW IT, mate!

Frankly, no.

My children are not allowed out of the Skinner box.

http://sfgate.com/gallery/pod/

"Warrant Issued for Jackson's Arrest" - 751 related stories