Michael Jackson Interview?

Hi lovebuttons,

Welcome to A2K.

And yeah, I have to agree with "muddled to say the least." Especially the old settled case. Stinger makes some really good points about "nuisance" suits, et al.

That said, I really am concerned about what I saw of him with his kids, now. Should they be taken away from him? Muddled. I don't have enough information. But definitely cause for concern.

Do we know they are "his kids"? Could they be adopted?

loveB:

The complaint was settled out of court for $13 million. That says it all.

lovebuttons<

Welcome!

Since the damage was already done to the Chandler child, $13 million would be -- I would guess -- a substantial payoff to keep Michael Jackson's name from whirling through the courts and the subsequent negative publicity.

$13 million is more money than I can imagine, and I am sure the parents would feel the same way. Their kid had already been "molested," so why not take the settlement and set yourself up for life?

When you're talking that much money, even the best set of parents might take the cash and run!

New Haven

Have you ever heard the saying, 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story'?

Jackson hasn't been found guilty of anything. Jordan Chandler's claims, have never been tested in court. Claims are easy to make, but harder to prove. Anyone can make an allegation, but it doesn't mean it's true. As I mentioned before, 'false memory' can be planted, even unintentionaly by 'experts' involved in child abuse cases. Or maybe the kid just told lies, to help out his dad. You might not think that is possible, but sadly, human beings are capable of much worse.

Why would an innocent man pay out $13m? Ask your government why it does it. Or big business. Or various other showbiz stars. Michael Jackson can spend several million in one afternoon of shopping. Making a court case go away, for $13m, probably seems like a bargin. Throwing money at a problem, is a lot easier, than the ordeal of going into a witness box, and being grilled by lawyers who simply wish to make you look like an evil, immoral child abusing criminal. Imagine someone wioth Jackson's personality, being interrogated for hours...or maybe days, over every aspect of his private life, with allegations being made about his relationships with various children. Do you think he has the personality, to take on Chandler's lawyers in a hostile situation? Or would he look nervous, defensive etc etc etc....Would a defensive and nervous Jackson perhaps make a jury, or the general public think he is guilty?

If I was Jackson's lawyers, I would have been concerned about his possible performance in a witness box. He may be a great stage performer, but being an accused child abuser in a witness box, isn't as easy as moonwalking for an audience!

Have you read the depostion, which was taken under oath?

It tells the whole story.

A story does not mean it is the truth.

Again -- I'm definitely suspicious. Could very well be that he's done some bad bad things. But one person's story, even under oath, really doesn't mean that it happened.

New Haven

Sit down. I have some shocking news to tell you. I have some experience of the legal system....and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but.......some times.....bad, naughty people, tell little white lies, and sometimes, they even tell really big lies.

Shockingly, they even do it after taking oaths not to. Adults do it, and even rosey cheeked kids do it. I have seen it happen.

A deposition is just words on a piece of paper. When you called it the 'whole story', you are closer to the truth than you realize. It's just a 'story'. A version of events, as seen by one party. It doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean Michael Jackson is guilty. That's why they have court cases.....and sometimes, even judges and juries still can't reach the right decision, after days of hearing evidence. So it would be a little presumptuous of us to form a lynch mob, head out to Neverland, and exact retribution on the 'guilty' party, when nothing has even been tested in court. Especially when there has been nothing released into the public domain, that could be called conclusive evidence of guilt. If there was, Michael Jackson, would be in a prison cell.

Innocent until proven guilty. A simple concept, but one that's worth remembering.

stinger:

Guess who has lots of legal experience.

New Haven

Please, let's not start a cyber 'My one is bigger than your one contest'. I could say I'm a Judge, and while we could have fun trying to prove or disprove that fact, it will eventually (I assure you) get very tedious....very Very quickly.

So, we shall for sake of arguement, accept that we have both been inside a courtroom, on more than one occasion. My experiences being the joyous wonders that are known as criminal law, up to and including terrorist murder cases, and your experiences being.....the Judge Judy TV show....or whatever. It really doesn't matter. The simple fact is that people tell lies under oath, on a regular basis. It's a shocker I know. But there you go. Someone had to say it!

C.J. was left with a few questions after watching "20/20's" Michael Jackson special, or as one British writer described it: The world's longest suicide note.

1) When you wave off massive numbers of your fans everyday, what's really more important in a split second: (a) the esteem of a little girl who gets to hold her Daddy's hand or (b) Daddy stopping to sign autographs? (Remember, this is the baby girl you were so anxious to bring home that you spirited her out of the delivery room, placenta and all. It was touching to see the concerned father complain to the nanny that Paris must understand "When I [say] let go, let go." You can sign all the autographs you like during your ample time away from the kids. And don't get me started with concerned dad sequestering himself with bodyguards instead of being concerned about whether his kids were safe.)

2) Had you ever actually fed "Blanket" before that uncomfortable Butterfly McQueenesque bottle-feeding session performed for Martin Bashir? (Naturally, you wouldn't be the first rich person with no hands-on child-rearing experience.)

3) Are you aware that the two stories regarding Blanket's mom don't necessarily mesh?

4) Is naming all your male children after you a sign of tremendous insecurity or megalomania? (While it's too late to do anything about your self esteem, how much additional baggage do you want to pile onto these kids who are sufficiently burdened by their paternity?)

5) Peter Pan, you are aware that you will not live forever?

6) With all the resources available to a teenager of your wealth, nobody thought to take you to a dermatologist who could have prescribed antibiotics for your acne?

7) How do you reconcile every song, poem and dance being inspired by your childlike side, born out of a place of innocence, and adult crotch grabbing?

8) When are you going to stop having children who are not related to you sleep in your room?

9) Are any of the people closest to you allowed to tell you the truth?

(Elizabeth Taylor has her issues, but she was a good mom. Ditto for Diana Ross, who is not coping with old age gracefully. Even Quincy Jones could warn you of some of the parenting mistakes you're making.)

10) Can you really call it tree climbing when handles have been installed to help you pull up? Come on, it's a sprawling tree, not a repelling wall.

11) At what age are you going to get over the horrible way your sorry father treated you and start acting like an adult?

12) Do you put tape over your fingernails so we can't see what color you would be if you didn't bleach?

13) The multi-million-dollar shopping spree: You were showing off, weren't you?

C.J. has a few questions...

Stinger:

Why did you say "Judge Judy"? Are you trying to intimidate me?

in law, the word intimidate: To engage in the crime of intimidating (as a witness, juror, public officer in the performance of his or her duty, or victim of a robbery or other crime)

MJ? F*cked up slashed up paedeophililc drugged up sh*t, who should be put down along with his nose. Apart from that he made some (well two actually) good records.

sorry if that seemed harsh, but sometimes you gotta tell it like it is.

dys:

We're not in court at the moment.

Who's zooming who? Airtime on 60 Minutes, major increase in record sales, dominating the entertainment news, it looks like Michael, a child of the old Hollywood PR machine, is getting just the attention he set out for. He's crazy all right. Crazy like a fox.
Using the press like he is, it's an old and tired trick but he learned it from the best. His good friend Elizabeth. Now that's a woman who knew how to get our attention.

What about the innocent that will pay at the expense of MJ and his attention\PR schemes?? That's the sad commentary.

New Haven

Intimidating people on the internet?! Fortunately I've better things to do with my time.

Where I come from, finding a bomb under your car is slightly intimidating. Internet intimidation....well, that's a little lower down the scale of scariness. So far down in fact, that I would even bother trying.

The Judge Judy reference? Well, for some reason, you made me think of her. Not sure why. Maybe I was subconsciously picking up on your awe inspiring legal knowledge, and made the mental connection.

New Haven and Stinger<

Excuse my interruption of your great legal debate, but Stinger did point out one crucial fact: Michael Jackson has never been charged with molesting a child.

Our legal system is based on the assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

With that said, let the debate continue. I will view from the sidelines while also watching Judge Judy's TV show.

:wink: