Jesus Christ. You'd think that Michael Jackson would have learned to stop inviting the little bastards over to play by now.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

You know, I haven't been impressed by anything the guy has done since "Thriller", and I really don't give 2 shits what happens to him, but c'mon, this is getting ridiculous.

http://www.antimusic.com/dayinrock/03/nov/19.shtml

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I know what a police raid is meant to find in like, a heroin sting or something, but what is a search raid gona turn up here?

"Hey Captain, I think the K-9 unit has found the molestophone."

"Good work, officers."

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, I know what a police raid is meant to find in like, a heroin sting or something, but what is a search raid gona turn up here?

I'm hoping for an underground dungeon with cages containing chimps and kids, all the kids are numbered, the numbers are worryingly high.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, now that I think about it, I really hope they do find a Molestophone. And it would be like, I dunno, like a tuba that shoots out dildos and silly string and confetti and makes tuba sounds as well.

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I meant "spaghetti", not "confetti". Sorry bout that.

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:23 (twenty-one years ago)

>Also, I know what a police raid is meant to find in like, a heroin
> sting or something, but what is a search raid gona turn up here?

Kiddie pR0n, duh.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but that wouldn't neccessarily mean that he diddled anyone.

A Molestophone, on the other hand...

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Rip Taylor has a Molestophone, from the description of it...

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

You have to be an oficially liscensed sprinkle genie to build them.

Also, Rip Torn. That guy's hilarious.

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:31 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe mj does have the molestophone. he is the most eccentric fella' on the planet.

― gem ressurrected, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Crikey!!!! The King of Pop's now a fugitive!!!!

― Old Fart!!! (oldfart_sd), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 13:34 (twenty-one years ago)

>Yeah, but that wouldn't neccessarily mean that he diddled anyone.

Kiddie pR0n is illegal in and of itself.

Plus I am betting its self-produced.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"Jackson's lawyers have said that the search on Tuesday was a smear campaign timed to hit the singer's new album."

.. Uh, why?

"We cannot comment on law enforcement's investigation because we do not yet know what it is about"

It's a smear campaign, dumbass.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)

What a dickboat.

― Spinktor the Unmerciful (mawill5), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Coming soon - "Micheael Jackson's Dangerous.....Naked"

― Pete S, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 15:21 (twenty-one years ago)

"Jackson's lawyers have said that the search on Tuesday was a smear campaign timed to hit the singer's new album."

That would be awesome if every high profile album that was critically dismissed resulted in a police raid.

Seriously though, the guy needs to be stopped.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

So when do they send him to Guantanamo Bay?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

In 1994, Jackson reached a multimillion dollar out of court
settlement with a 14-year-old boy who accused him of sexual
molestation. No criminal charges were brought and Jackson
denied any wrongdoing.

that isn't the whole story (police were investigating, and I believe they said as late as a year ago that they investigation was not closed), but it gives "probable cause" to suspect that MJ is harming children. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in Canada, it's illegal to to have knowledge of child abuse of any kind without reporting it.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

arrest warrant issued:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/11/19/jackson.ranch/index.html

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

he doesn't have any money left to pay off his victims and their families, does he?
do you think that maybe his financial situation had as much to do with the timing of this as anything else?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Settling a case out of court does not = probable cause that the defendant did the thing, Perry Mason. We've been through this all before on this thread. What MJ really needs to be "stopped" from is the nose-jobs and the bad friends.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

but there was a criminal investigation building against him that came to a veritible standstill after he gave the key witness a multimillion dollar cheque...I'm not saying he's evil, but he seems to be dangerously naive and to have a very poor understanding of the consequences of his action.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Dangerously naive - check
Poor understanding of the world in general - check
Child molestor? Aye aye, captain witch-burner, whatever you and the mob say is fine with me!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Fair do's - he did once admit he was "Bad".

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Really, really Bad.

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven't called him a child molester. I've said I suspect him to be one, and I'll go further to say that I strongly suspect (tho I guess saying he should be stopped certainly implies that I believe he's doing something that he should be stopped from doing).

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

lost in all of this is the lesser, but nonetheless egregious, offense of releasing an album entitled "number ones" which includes not-number-ones and a new track. i thought he already milked the old stuff with "HIStory." maybe he should sell the giraffes, lose his taste in six-hundred-thousand-dollar urns, and quit having sex with children.

― rainman, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i think R.Kelley should release an album called Number 1's

― JaXoN (JasonD), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

My gut feeling is that although he's a very peculiar man, he's not a child molester. He strikes me as asexual, i.e. he wants to be a child, not molest one.

This new case follows what a 12 year old boy said in therapy. Well we all know what adults let alone children can be persuaded to say and believe in therapy.

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

careful with that "we all" there, man

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

but it's still fair to say "WE ALL know where the rainbows go..."

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

"we all" - ok, but I think there have been some pretty egregious cases of vulnerable people being persuaded that they were abused by their parents as children - the "recovered memory syndrome" that the vast majority of psychiatrists don't accept as a real syndrome.

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

the fuggin parents should be investigated for letting their kids go near a suspected perv-o.

― dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I find the idea that people who want to be children can't also want to be children who molest other children (of which there are MANY). The implicit notion that children have no sexuality always weirds me out. Also, IF MJ is really molesting kids (and I really have no idea, innocent until proven guilty ya know) I have no doubt that he would try to appear as naive and innocent as possible JUST the way a guilty child would. . .

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I find the idea very bizarre (incomplete sentence, tyvm).

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

You'd think that Michael Jackson would have learned to stop inviting the little bastards over to play by now.
But if the theory is correct, he's sick in the head. Molestors -- supposedly -- have a hard time understanding why what they do is wrong.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

All I was saying was that MJ's Peter Pan fixation doesn't in any logical way make him more likely to molest children.

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know if that statement is true either, actually, but it doesn't really matter either. He either did or he didn't, ya know. The precedents aren't particularly important.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post
it's certainly a more friendly persona to kids than say a drill wielding dentist or something.

― dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i.e. the first kid's dad's friend, who actually was a dentist!! the actual "confession" the kid's estranged dad was finally able to extract from him (as opposed to the dad making all the claims on the kid's behalf) took place on the dentist's chair, under laughing gas

MJ's the real criminal here though, because he is totally weird and kids love him

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

you think there should be no investigation?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

"you think there should be no investigation?"

I don't know if that q. was aimed at me, but yes, of course I think there should be an investigation. I'm dubious about claims that came out in therapy, and when the last claim resulted in a payout of phenomenal sums. But once a claim has been made, particularly against such a controversial figure, of course it should be investigated.

― Jonathan Z., Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I say try him in the media!

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:09 (twenty-one years ago)

"Will Rip Taylor please come to the lobby? Call for you on the Molestophone"

― rumple, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Holy Mackerel!

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Huckleberry i bet you were totally in favor of the fat girl suing McDonald's too huh?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Tracer, I applaud your unpopular view and tenacity. And yes, I am doing exactly what I railed against others for doing re: the war. Namely, staring at the media images and swallowing what I'm being fed.
That said, I still believe that one (at least at one time) unbelievably rich dude's reputation does not supercede the need to seriously and thoroughly investigate all reasonable child abuse claims.

That said, I agree, picking on Jackson takes zilch imagination, but he's also played as big, if not bigger, a role in perpetuating his public image as an unstable, dangerous parent as the scumbag media.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I heard on the news this morning that the parents of the kid in question have quite emphatically stated they're not interested in money, they're interested in full-on prosecution. Is this the case?

― Phil Freeman (Phil Freeman), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

are they asking for any damages - or do they just want jack-o behind bars¿

― dyson (dyson), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

If it's true, it is a criminal offense and it doesn't matter what the parents' intentions are.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to trivialise the suffering of those involved, but aren't you just wishing for him to pull an OJ?

― B*R*A*D (Brad), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

No-one out there is 100% sure if he is or isn't a kiddie-fiddler.
People respond to this one quite emotionally, and connect it to other things, like his weirdness/current crapness/facial dysfunctions, or media intrusion/sensationalism.

― Pete S, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

just an update: according to the fuzz, he's "negotiating his surrender" in LV

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay Huck! We cool man!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"it's not about the money" = "it's about the money"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to trivialise the suffering of those involved, but aren't you just wishing for him to pull an OJ?
Hell yes - we haven't had a media frenzy on that scale since ... OJ!

And I shall act disgusted by all of it.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

he's "negotiating his surrender" in LV

"We have the Luxor surrounded! Come out with your hands up!"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

From the NYT:

"Michael Jackson, in Las Vegas to do a video shoot and TV special, said, "I've seen lawyers who don't represent me and spokespeople who do not know me speaking for me. These characters always seem to surface with dreadful allegations just as another project, an album, a video is being released."

I've heard rumors that this harassment has something to do with $cn.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

$cn = Canadian money?

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

with Canadian money?

x-post

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Its about securing the copyrights to the Beatles catalogue.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

By FORCE.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

and with coins with waterfowl and polar bears

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

And one medium sized molestophone.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

i just wanna say that the r kelly joke up above was the first to make me laugh in a looooooong time

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

ehhhh. shouldn't the R Kelly album be called Number One and Twos"?

"Nipsey Russell, front desk. Paul Lynde on the Molestophone, can't make the Friar's"

― rumple, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

His payout in the first civil case shouldn't have been able to stop a criminal prosecution if they had enough evidence. Which brings me to my next point - they obviously didn't have enough evidence, and it's pretty unfair IMO to think of someone as a child molester if there wasn't even enough evidence to try them of the crime in a court of law. Pretty much a fundamental principle of any proper criminal justice system, right?

Anyone ever read this article, by the way? Interesting read, and I think its claims are quite plausible.

― syntaxfree, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

At the very least, Jackson has an unhealthy obsession with children, particulary boys just on the verge of puberty.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

re: GQ article

how to make me think this article is not defending MJ:

"Jackson's troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992."

― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

sounds like the beginning of a letter to Penthouse Forum

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

So anyway, while I'd like to believe that he's innocent until proven guilty.. yes, what a fucking dumbshit. After the first allegation, get a chaperone, idiot.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Courtesy of GQ:

During the following year, Jackson showered the boy ... after-hours ... frequently and the sleepovers began.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

ahhh, the power of ...

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This might be a mildly weird theory, and I confess I just thought it up, but I think the predominance of boys (there have been some girls, mostly their sisters) may not *necessarily* mean anything sordid.

If you, like me, take the view that he lives on another planet and hasn't much of a clue about this one, is either naive or stupidly pig-headed, and his main problem is this incessant obsessive longing for the childhood most of us had and he didn't, BUT IS NOT A CHILD MOLESTER UNTIL FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, then it occurs to me that when I was a kid, sleepovers with other little girls was fine, but co-ed sleepovers were definitely not on.

MJ grew up as a devout Jehovah's Witness who played gigs in strip bars at night, and went on tour where his brothers would bring girls back to their shared room to have sex. He seems to have been quite weirded out by all that - witness his account of Tatum O'Neal (was it her?) trying to initiate some fun and him freaking out. In inviting his little friends over, I think it's conceivable that he may think it's more proper to invite boys over than girls, given that he's also male.

Obviously, some will think he's just obviously a gay pedophile, but...I don't know. I'm with the "he's more asexual than anythingelse-sexual" camp. Though for what it's worth, Lisa Marie's certainly indicated in interviews that they got it on.

And Dean - I was kinda referring to reading the article as a whole, not just selected sentences. I don't think anyone can deny that he leads an extremely bizarre life, but this journalist certainly highly doubted that he was a child molester.

― syntaxfree, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

when did the Jackson 5 play strip bars?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

then there's this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjsearch3.html

― M Matos (M Matos), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

...but this journalist certainly highly doubted that he was a child molester.

Yeah, I was mostly making light of how you'd think he'd rather not use phrases like "showered the boy." It's really difficult not to get that image in one's head.

BUT IS NOT A CHILD MOLESTER UNTIL FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW

Well, he may very well be a child molester in an absolute sense, regardless of whether he has been convicted or not. It is just not proper to label him as such without a conviction. Not that "being proper" is the concern of anyone, it seems.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

forget the sexual part of it all together, and this is still the guy that didn't have enough understanding of how his actions relate to the rest of the world or even merely how they affect those who are the objects of his actions to know better than to hold an infant over a balcony.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:57 (twenty-one years ago)

my point being that he should never be unsupervised with children

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

As with most people, regardless of celebrity.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Huck: think I remember reading about them playing fairly sleazy joints. Perhaps not total stripping, but girls taking almost everything off and men sticking notes into their underwear.

I think the balcony thing was less idiotic and damning in itself (men do dumb risky things with kids all the time) than was his subsequent failure to admit that he probably shouldn't have done that. THAT was just loony, to say "I was holding him tight, he was perfectly safe."

Matos: But what does that add? Any statement made by a plaintiff in, say, rape cases, or sexual harassment cases, will contain fairly sordid allegations, but they kind of have to go to trial and prove them all before we decide to believe them, right?

― syntaxfree, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the balcony thing was less idiotic and damning in itself (men do dumb risky things with kids all the time) than was his subsequent failure to
admit that he probably shouldn't have done that. THAT was just loony, to say "I was holding him tight, he was perfectly safe."

loose grip on reality + catastrophic solipsism + assembly-line children = reason to be VERY suspiscious of this man

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 20:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Did someone call me?

― dappo (Molestophone), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

loose grip on reality + catastrophic solipsism = most celebrities, although he certainly is the poster child for it.

"assembly-line children" - why so? their mother had no problems with her arrangement with him (i'll admit, she might just be a REALLY good actress, because i saw some tv interview with her once and was really amazed at how thoroughly normal and down-to-earth she came across), and the last time i checked, surrogacy wasn't all that unusual.

would any child welfare agency have legitimate doubts in letting him adopt children? yes. it is their job to only let children be adopted by the best possible parents, and he falls far short of that. as do, frankly, many people who have their own children.

but is he a child molester? my instinctual feeling remains no, but that could well change depending on what transpires with these new allegations.

― syntaxfree, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

My instinctual feeling is, sadly, quite different.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 19 November 2003 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I read an online editorial this morning (from a major news site too), very nearly gloating over the possibility of Jackson going to jail and being raped there. (The possibility was implied more than once.) It left me feeling pretty sympathetic to Tracer Hand's slant.

I'm not convinced he isn't a child molester, but I'm not convinced that he is, either.

― Rockist Scientist, Wednesday, 19 November 2003 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

The whole levity of the DA's press conference seems very inapprorpiate too.

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2003/images/11/19/top.main.michael.jackson.jpg

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

i havent read the whole thread but..

what are the sick, cynical reasons that parents continue to send these kids? surely if you had the slightest suspicion you just wouldnt. what planet are these people on?

― jed (jed_e_3), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:09 (twenty-one years ago)

This is gonna sound astoundingly dumb (just not to me), but I think if I could dance like MJ I wouldn't see what the big deal was about the balcony shit, i.e. if I trusted my body that much.

It's like if I took a pan full of boiling water + pasta over to the sink to drain it, and my obnoxious friend said, "You could spill it over yourself, prick". I would say, "Yes, but, seriously, I won't".

So, no offence to all the young people of the world, but I'd prefer that the kid of a celebrity was seriously scalded rather than my leg.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i read somewhere that the kid was a cancer patient and this was a "last wish" deal to meet jackson.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:21 (twenty-one years ago)

thar she is

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:22 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, the always trustworthy Fox News is on the case

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:43 (twenty-one years ago)

totally.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

haha just got off from doing a 3-minute radio spot w/a local news station on this topic. basically they were curious as to whether the scandal would affect MJ's record sales; I didn't think so because he's not selling that many records anyway, compared to his earlier sales at least; also a greatest-hits is sort of redundant when you've sold 100 million albums.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 20 November 2003 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

>what are the sick, cynical reasons that parents continue to send these
> kids? surely if you had the slightest suspicion you just wouldnt.
> what planet are these people on?

Read the statement by the kid in the 1993 case. People have whored out their children for much less than what MJ gave that kid's parents.

― fletrejet, Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

*worst publicity stunt ever*

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Read the statement by the kid in the 1993 case. People have whored out their children for much less than what MJ gave that kid's parents.

*resists joke*

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see the obviouse joke...

― fletrejet, Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:11 (twenty-one years ago)

""His payout in the first civil case shouldn't have been able to stop a criminal prosecution if they had enough evidence. Which brings me to my next point - they obviously didn't have enough evidence""

I don't think this is neccessarily right. If the prosecuter's case was a 'child said, adult said' situation, then the child's testimony was the foundation of the case.

The kid was payed to shut-up. If he doesn't talk (testify), then there goes the case. It doesn't mean that there was no evidence. It means that the key evidence was no longer available to the prosecution.

Thus, the D.A.'s assertion that the victim is more 'cooperative' this time around.

Who knows about MJ... but as a lot have said, why the on earth is he still spending time alone with boys? That's nuts.

― Debito (Debito), Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Coming soon - "Micheael Jackson's Dangerous.....Naked"

I am not certain whether that "Black Or White.....Naked" video - featuring a nude 23-year-old Mac Culkin, would be of that much interest to pedophiles, really. ;)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 20 November 2003 01:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Not to trivialise the suffering of those involved, but aren't you just wishing for him to pull an OJ?

He's gotta snap in some grand mal fashion here.

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Thursday, 20 November 2003 02:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"I don't think this is neccessarily right. If the prosecuter's case was a 'child said, adult said' situation, then the child's testimony was the foundation of the case."

True. But keep in mind that they raided the ranch several times, interviewed nearly 200 people including 30 kids, and even flew to Australia to interview another boy - and still didn't have enough.

I realize that doesn't mean he didn't molest *that particular kid*, and that sometimes it really does just come down to a child's word against the adult's. (And of course we should be damn careful to make sure the rights of this child and all children are not compromised by the money and power of one celebrity.)

But until there's enough to convict him in a court of law, I'm not keen on convicting him in my mind. (Sorry I keep banging on about this, I'm one of those unfortunate idealists who think the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are really really important, especially when the charges are so serious.)

On the fact that he's still spending time alone with boys. You think it's nuts, and of course it could well emerge to be that way. But it could also be incredibly stupid, dogmatic (in that he thinks because he never did anything wrong in the first place, there's no reason he should stop) and blinkered - sickening but not a crime.

― syntaxfree, Thursday, 20 November 2003 06:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe no kids want to confess because Michael Jackson's so good in bed.

There hasn't been any mention of the "spotted penis" claim. Supposedly Jackson has the skin disease that makes his skin go blotchy, so he bleaches it. But his dermatologist testified that it would be exttremely painful to bleach the groin so he doesn't. And the first kid who claimed he got fiddled said that Jackson had a spotted penis. Sounds like hard evidence, right? Embarrassing stuff for the world to know, though.

― sucka (sucka), Thursday, 20 November 2003 08:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, they took nude photos of him and all, but still no charges - hard evidence? Some tiny-size newspaper reports months later also said the pictures didn't match the description. Don't know how true they were, of course, but it's pretty sad that news that potentially damned a man was printed way more sensationally than news that potentially exonerated him.

― syntaxfree, Thursday, 20 November 2003 08:54 (twenty-one years ago)

In the summer of 1992 a gay novelist pal told me that his friends were paid to polish the floors at Neverland. They found lots of ephebophile porn in one of the closets.

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 20 November 2003 10:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Ooh thanks for the juicy gossip, and I had no idea that word existed either. Thanks for brightening my day, suzy. Here's a good word for you in return that doesn't get used very much: copraphagia.

― sucka (sucka), Thursday, 20 November 2003 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

what does that word mean suzy ?!
it isn't even in the dictionary (dictionary.com)!!

― piscesboy, Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

ephebo? (too scared to google)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Coprophagia? Eat shit.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Copraphatkins - Eat shit and Diet

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.odd-sex.com/info/gloss262.htm

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

ephebe = someone in the early stages of manhood, if that helps.

This reminds me of when I was in a class on human sexuality. I knew the meanings of all the various paraphilias being discussed just from the names, i.e. klisophilia, fourmiphilia, and the people in the class thought I was a total pervert.

― edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 20 November 2003 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Philadelphila

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not certain whether that "Black Or White.....Naked" video - featuring a nude 23-year-old Mac Culkin, would be of that much interest to pedophiles, really. ;)
Y'know what...It just dawned on me. Emmanuel Lewis used to hang out with MJ...and nobody has seen Emmanuel Lewis since. Brrr.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

was he not a celebrity boxer? didn't he whup Greg Brady?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe no kids want to confess because Michael Jackson's so good in bed.

optimism lives.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

True. But keep in mind that they raided the ranch several times, interviewed nearly 200 people including 30 kids, and even flew to Australia to interview another boy - and still didn't have enough.

I wonder if the kid from Australia was Wade Robson?

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Jesus H. Christ, what is wrong with people?

Fans gathered outside his studio in the city on Wednesday to offer their support.

"I don't care what anyone says, I still don't believe it. I know in my heart that it's not true," said one supporter, Donna Green.

Another fan, Howard Cox, said: "MJ is the kindest person in the world. He's done more than anyone to try to change the world and make the world a better place."

Stuff like this amazes me. I really really boggle at it. Yeah, extreme fandom I understand, but goodness.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

could they be paid? like from an extras casting agency?

Seriously. Remember those protests against the devillish music biz in his name a while back, I have a serious problem believing anyone, no matter how big a fan, doesn't have more important things to do with their day off than worry that a really rich guy isn't as really rich as he'd like to be.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 20 November 2003 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I mean, jeez, how can it possibly not be true? Why would anyone want to blackmail an extremely rich weirdo? When do the cops and District Attorneys ever lie? Why would anyone falsely accuse anyone of anything? Why don't we just lynch him NOW?

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I do find it somewhat funny/odd that these allegations seem to pop up whenever he's about to release an album.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

My point wasn't whether or not the charges are true as they are that the people whose devotion to his public image makes followers of 1. R0n Hubba4d seem tame are, frankly, nuts.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, have you still not read the Michael Jackson / Pharrel interview in Interview? (talk about extremely weird fandom)

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh no, Ned, I got your point and I agree with it (although at this point calling the man "rich" might be overstatement considering the mountain of debt that goes along with his mountain of assets). I'm still bemused at the timing, though.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree! (I was responding to Colin, actually.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a big difference b/w the first incident ten years ago and this, which is: that was a civil lawsuit that was brought when they were unable to press criminal charges; now, there is no civil lawsuit and apparently no plans to file one, simply a criminal investigation. Coupled with the search that leads me to believe that they have found something that they consider evidence worthy to bring criminal charges, something they didn't find the first time.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

ie Emmanuel Lewis

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I Want To Love You (P.Y.T.)
Pretty Young Thing
You Need Some Lovin’ (T.L.C.)
Tender Lovin’ Care
And I’ll Take You There
I Want To Love You (P.Y.T.)
Pretty Young Thing
You Need Some Lovin’ (T.L.C.)
Tender Lovin’ Care
I’ll Shake You There

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

hahahahahahaha

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, Anthony, they have "a co-operative victim". Doesn't say ANYTHING about the quality of the evidence, but certainly might say something about the alleged victim's lawyer's strategy.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 20 November 2003 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Huck: (On wondering whether the "fans" speaking out are hired)

When I was 16 Michael Jackson was my favourite singer. (Well, him and Sonic Youth.) I still know some of the fans I knew then, and while some take much the same attitude as me - I didn't believe he was a child molester before, but I don't rule out changing my mind depending on what transpires this time - others are total wackjobs who say they will never believe this kid, and that kids can be pushed to say anything.

Trust me, there are more than enough crazy MJ fans in the world. He would never have to pay anyone to make banners and statements of blind eternal support. Many will follow him around the world and feel their efforts are amply repaid by a few tepid "I love you"s from a hotel window.

― syntaxfree, Friday, 21 November 2003 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

"hey kids who wants to play with Baldie the Clown?"

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Friday, 21 November 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

While I don't rule out the idea that Michael Jackson may have done sexual things to little kids (mentally, he is very much a kid himself, and kids sometimes experiment by doing stuff together), I find it a bit hard to believe that he has actually doped down a 12-year-old boy who was terminally ill from cancer to be able to molest him. That simply doesn't go together with the other stories we hear about Michael Jackson with kids.

But, anyway, the judge will find if he is guilty or not, I guess. We don't know the details here - Michael does, and he knows whether he has done this sick act or not.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 21 November 2003 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)

He'll probably pin it on Tito and be done with it.

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Friday, 21 November 2003 13:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.nerdyboy.com/img/b3ta/michael_jackson_on_the_run.jpg

RUN MICHAEL RUN!!

― crack baby, Friday, 21 November 2003 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I forgot to mention this. But the other night (the 19th) I went home and put in the Simpsons 3rd Season DVD, as I had not yet watched them and as I was waiting for Final Cut to render. I put in Disc One and sure enough, the first episode on the disc is the Michael Jackson one. It took me 5 or 6 minutes to realize. I am slow.

― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Friday, 21 November 2003 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

>But, anyway, the judge will find if he is guilty or not, I guess.

Geir, in America judges don't determine guilt. Twelves random idiots off the street do.

― fletrejet, Friday, 21 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Although I thin kMJ can request a trial by judge rather than by jury.. ? And this is a case where that would seem like the smart thing to do if the facts point to his innocence - a jury could be easily manipulated with the whole innocent child thing.

― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 21 November 2003 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

did anybody see Rick James on CNN 20 minutes ago defending Jackson?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 21 November 2003 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

"did anybody see Rick James on CNN 20 minutes ago defending Jackson?"

This is a funny.

― earlnash, Friday, 21 November 2003 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

nope. he was there. wearing sunglasses indoors.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Friday, 21 November 2003 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Geir, in America judges don't determine guilt. Twelves random idiots off the street do.

Exactly like in Norway then

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 21 November 2003 20:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Look, you fuckers are getting way off track. I started this thread in order to get some good molestophone jokes going and so far the only people who delivered were rumple and dave225. C'mon people.

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Saturday, 22 November 2003 06:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I heard "From moon walk to perp walk" on MTV today.

― nickn (nickn), Saturday, 22 November 2003 07:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Well then how's this for a joke?

Michael Jackson fans are planning candlelit vigils to demonstrate support for the singer, who has been arrested on child abuse charges.

According to fan websites, vigils are scheduled in cities across the US and in 13 other countries on Saturday.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 22 November 2003 07:28 (twenty-one years ago)

What does Michael Jackson do when he's bored?
He chews gum and blows Bubbles.

Hearing the "MJ fugitive" news made for some hilarious comments at work. We thought he was barricaded in his hyperbaric chamber! Cut off from the outside world, with no contact except a Molestophone line to the cop negotiators, of course.

Hi-fives to Mark Grout for being funny:)

― sucka (sucka), Saturday, 22 November 2003 08:30 (twenty-one years ago)

when the Molestophone rings, who answers?
Probably a very, very bad superhero.
"Come! My Young Ward! Adventure is afoot! Quick! To the Molestmobile!"

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Sunday, 23 November 2003 01:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Do other artists/bands have such a huge fanatical following?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 23 November 2003 01:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Everyone has a fanatical following. In proportion to their general charisma. Unfortunately for me, and for you, the rules round this down, which means that although we're due something like one-quarter of a fanatic each, we actually get zero.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Sunday, 23 November 2003 03:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Lord Custos is Robert Smigel and I claim my five samoleans.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 23 November 2003 03:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm so tired of seeing celebrities kicked, kiked, Jewed and sued like this.

― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Sunday, 23 November 2003 03:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Robert Smigel is merely a pale imitation of me.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Sunday, 23 November 2003 04:04 (twenty-one years ago)

covering the NIRVANA ~~classic~~dud "You Know You're Right"

― ron (ron), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:14 (twenty-one years ago)

erm... Jewed?

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:28 (twenty-one years ago)

It was a joke. MJ has a line in one of his songs: "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me."

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh.

That's got to be the stupidest goddamn lyric I've read in quite a while.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:37 (twenty-one years ago)

And the vigils were a smash success! If you were high.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 November 2003 06:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I was high, and 30 people in NYC still seems like a disasterous failure to me.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:48 (twenty-one years ago)

funny how those 30 people still got more local news coverage than the thousands of us protesting the then-imminent Iraq war.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:54 (twenty-one years ago)

by funny I mean so pathetically sad that I've lost all hope, of course.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's too easy to get caught up in the sweep of "Oh LOOK! It's the end of Michael Jackson!" But sitting and listening to Dangerous and remembering what a good record it really is, this all makes me very sad. It's a shame the court of public opinion isn't more with him -- after all, there's no proof. This doesn't exactly mean people think he's guilty, it means people don't care, which is worse. And so now this great career is ending in the ugliest imaginable way, and... it's just sad is all. Even if he brought it all on himself, it's still pretty terrible.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno hstencil. I saw those thousands of people on TV for days afterward, and saw the worldwide protest numbers, and they were huge and astonishing, and I don't think any of you guys went unnoticed in any way. Ignored by your government, sure, but not simply ignored.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 07:58 (twenty-one years ago)

um you've missed the point entirely, Kenan. It wasn't that the war protests weren't covered, it's that the MJ "protests" were getting as much if not more coverage on local news tonight. Duh.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:00 (twenty-one years ago)

"tonight. Duh."

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I understood what you said just fine, asshole.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry, I retract that.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

what's the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?

Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon and Michael Jackson likes to fuck little boys.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

"discuss" that now

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

well it just happened "tonight," blount! Duh!

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:02 (twenty-one years ago)

"Duh!"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:02 (twenty-one years ago)

What's with the "duh"? Are we in third grade?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:03 (twenty-one years ago)

what's the difference between Michael Jackson and Jackson Michael?

I went to high school with Jackson Michael and Michael Jackson played the scarecrow in The Wiz.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:04 (twenty-one years ago)

blount is regressing to 12 year-old mentality, thankfully he can't regress to 12 year-old physicality, thus MJ has no "use" for him.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:04 (twenty-one years ago)

"regressing"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:04 (twenty-one years ago)

hey, I claimed "regressing" for your benefit.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"benefit"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:05 (twenty-one years ago)

are you my older brother, circa 1986?

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not in the mood for this thread. But if Michael Jackson is guilty, it's horrifying, not funny. And if he's innocent, this has all been a witch hunt for a guy who's nothing more than weird and well-intentioned, and that's pretty horrifying, too.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I know mj's glad benzino has his back

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

and I know kobe's real glad benzino keeps lumping him in with mj, tyson, oj, and r kelly.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:07 (twenty-one years ago)

All of them innocent, of course.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:08 (twenty-one years ago)

meanwhile rick james is going 'wtf benzino? wtf.'

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:09 (twenty-one years ago)

or Kenan, option 3, i.e. innocence and guilt are meaningless re MJ as this is all just dog-and-pony show which conveniently distracts the public.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:09 (twenty-one years ago)

From what? He's not starting a war.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:10 (twenty-one years ago)

he's a lover not a fighter

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:11 (twenty-one years ago)

doesn't matter what it's distracting from, doesn't have to be a war, could be the horrifically mind-numbing amounts of child abuse in any city, anywhere.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:11 (twenty-one years ago)

just because MJ's not benefitting from the distraction doesn't mean that it's not benefitting somebody.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:12 (twenty-one years ago)

See, I told you this was horrifying.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:13 (twenty-one years ago)

who's distracted?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:13 (twenty-one years ago)

What? I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:14 (twenty-one years ago)

not me, I'm reading about Dick Cheney's anti-CIA stance!

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:14 (twenty-one years ago)

hey New Republic, "Duh!"

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:15 (twenty-one years ago)

"reading"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:16 (twenty-one years ago)

ha! yeah actually I finished it a minute or so ago.

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:17 (twenty-one years ago)

blount pre-empt: "finished"

― hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"pre-empt"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:19 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway, he's rich, he can fend for himself in the legal system, shed your tears for those who ain't got seven figures to blow on a defense team

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I know, I know. But he was great in his prime. Really really great.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:23 (twenty-one years ago)

so was oj!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:24 (twenty-one years ago)

FREE KEN CAMINITI

― cinniblount (James Blount), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Let me have my little moment, ok? It'll be over soon.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Ok, and... done.

Yeah, of course you're right, and of course I think he's a tiny-penis-touching motherfucker and should probably go to jail.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:27 (twenty-one years ago)

In a perfect world, he would be sainted. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying it's a shame he had to be so nuts. Surely that could've been avoided somehow.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Sunday, 23 November 2003 08:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I'm sorry I semi-revived the thread.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 November 2003 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

"But if Michael Jackson is guilty, it's horrifying, not funny. And if he's innocent, this has all been a witch hunt for a guy who's nothing more than weird and well-intentioned, and that's pretty horrifying, too."

Spot on.

― syntaxfree, Sunday, 23 November 2003 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"FREE"

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 24 November 2003 02:06 (twenty-one years ago)

From itv.com/news/entertainment on the news that MJ has gone no.1 in
the albums chart.

"Busted beaten off by Michael Jackson"

― Pete S, Tuesday, 25 November 2003 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

alright tell me this:
what is the moral and ethical difference, if the accusations are true, b/w michael jackson & bill wyman or jerry lee lewis.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Jerry Lee Lewis kills his underage wives when he's done with them. Michael doesn't have that killer instinct.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

anthony, that's a very good question. I mean, we're not talking a big difference in the ages of the alleged victims. Could homophobia be playing its part here, too?

I agree with Kenan. This is fucking sad. I find myself hoping for the kids' sakes that this isn't true; and for MJ's sake that it is. 'Cause no-one should go through this if they're innocent.

But we hardly ever talk about child abuse, really, other than in these extreme situations. So hstencil's right, too. It's a distraction. Make it seem like a really extreme fucking (demonized) deviance, and perhaps everyone won't notice the mundanity of day-to-day hurts inflicted on kids.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 06:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Michael Jackson Wang Chung tonight!

― LKT, Wednesday, 26 November 2003 07:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Micheal is going to claim that the Make A Wish by this kid was to have sex with Micheal Jackson.
Okay. I'm sick.

― Speedy Gonzalas (Speedy Gonzalas), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 08:28 (twenty-one years ago)

MICHEAL JACK-OFF LOL

― bubbbles, Wednesday, 26 November 2003 09:20 (twenty-one years ago)

The family of the child has already been involved in two previous cases involving abuse allegations. One was lawsuit in which the family said they were battered by mall security guards, and the other a divorce battle in which the father pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and child cruelty.
In November 2001, JC Penney Co. paid the boy's family $137,500 (£80,700) to settle a suit alleging that security guards had beaten the boy, his mother and his brother in a parking lot.
The alleged incident happened after the boy had left the store carrying clothes that had not been paid for, court records show.
The mother also claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by one of the guards during the 1998 confrontation.
A month before the settlement, the boy's mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse.
The father's attorney, Russell Halpern, said the mother had lied about the abuse and had a "Svengali-like" ability to make her children repeat her lies.
Mr Halpern said that the father had once shown him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition.
He said: "She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script. I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1093551,00.html

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

DUH!!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

tracer obv. has all the facts pertinent to this case

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 27 November 2003 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

The flippancy by so many regarding this story is a little disturbing; it is perhaps in itself indicative that there has been so much comment on this issue. Surely legal process should be paramount, rather than ill-informed public comment?

Media commentary in its breadth and obsession with this story, is emblematic of the monster that the broadcast media has become in the West. More balance, more perspective, please.

― Tom May (Tom May), Thursday, 27 November 2003 02:04 (twenty-one years ago)

"facts"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 27 November 2003 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/music/B0000DJE9R/advice/002-1178737-6162411

― Sarah Pedal (call mr. lee), Thursday, 4 December 2003 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh my God

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 4 December 2003 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"alright, i've got the story of a svengali mother conning authorities out of thousands, finally going after 'the big one' using her son as a pawn? what's the headline, boss?"

"wacko jacko"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 4 December 2003 18:26 (twenty-one years ago)

HA!!

― Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

What a surprise.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Still guilty of horrible judgment though...

Glad to hear there was no actual misbehavior.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

so basically someone called the DFS because they saw the Bashir documentary?

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Hey dave225, when did you stop beating your wife?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

gosh - what's the first tactic of any legal defense in a rape trial? Discredit the accuser. "What a surprise" indeed.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 9 December 2003 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I haven' ... d'oh!

Point taken - 'tis a shame that he had to go through all of that. But really, I should think he would want to ensure that these types of allegations couldn't happen again...

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 19:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Mo's right -- the first thing the defense does in any rape trial is to produce a report by a government agency in which it is ruled that no investagion is necessary.

On KRAZY-UPSIDE DOWN PLANET, MAYBE!!

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Tuesday, 9 December 2003 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Dave, the only way he could truly do that is if he began to hang out with people over the age of 18.

He's not willing....

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

..or just have another adult in the room .. video cameras ....

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 10 December 2003 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

four months pass...

Jackson to stand trial on abuse charges

Jackson will 'plead not guilty'

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Thursday, 22 April 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm looking forward to some good "Free Michael Jackson!" songs. Preferably by R. Kelly.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 April 2004 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Gross.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Friday, 23 April 2004 04:13 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.