Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I claimed not to have a dog in this fight. danyoung did not." Whoops. The posts were so similar, I got them confused.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder As far as what I wrote, all I can say is I know Jackson did indeed act inappropriately with children. His way of rationalizing it was the same whether the cameras were on or off. Was I there? No. Do I know people involved in the case? Yes. Do I trust their information and knowledge? Unquestionably. It's weird. In my job, you never know who you're going to meet, work with, have a case against, see in court, all that. On the surface, you might not think so, but then again, it's often a small world after all, to use a phrase. I rarely talk about my day to day job here because it isn't relevant. It does, however, lead to some interesting stuff and people. I'm really not trying to name drop or anything, but here are some examples. A couple of guys were busted by the cops for drugs. A lot of money was confiscated. One of the guys was released, but turned out to be the half brother of a rapper named The Game. The D.A. didn't want to give the money back, and called us in child support to se if he owed us. Sure enough, he did. We end in court over it. One of the lawyers involved was also going to be diving into a big murder trial at the same time. Turns out he was one of Phil Spector's lawyers at the first trial. We hit it off, we keep in touch, I know a lot about Phil Spector, which that and $5.00 gets me a Starbucks. I work in a unit that exclusively handles cases where one of the parties lives outside California. That person could be in Boston or Belgium. Consequently, I get involved in a lot of cases involving athletes who live elsewhere. Recently, I began to get involved in one of boxer Evander Holyfield's cases. His lawyer knows Robert Shapiro of O.J. fame. They were both D.A.'s together a long time ago. When I was in private practice, the guy I worked for represented the Browns. Holyfield's lawyer tells Shapiro, now he says Shapiro wants to buy me lunch because he wants to hear how my old boss ended up in prison. This kind of thing doesn't happen all the time, but it happens often enough. Point is, when you do the type of government work I do, the networking can sometimes be pretty amazing. It can also be boring, and mostly it is, but you learn never to lose a contact or a number. But a lot of it is just happenstance. Another example- the house I bought in Long Beach in 2003- my backyard wall is shared with Schwarzenegger's first appointments secretary. THAT has led to some really interesting info over time, and has nothing at all to do with my job. When we bought the house, who knew? I've often told the story of my father in law, who was the LAPD crime scene manager at Bobby Kennedy's assassination. My FIL is now a full blown Alzheimer's patient, and two weeks ago I was given all his notes and reports by my MIL on Kennedy. It's mind blowing stuff. Again, when I met my wife, who knew? Anyway, I trust what I've been told and heard about Jackson. As far as I'm concerned he's lucky he didn't die in jail.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin The topic started out as 'Michael Jackson dies". And has changed to 'Michael Jackson-sexual deviant/monster'. Anyhoo, if we see this individual as damaged/broken due to a really f'd up childhood, what more could he have been had he had a loving father who had not felt the need to break his children's will. A father who had been able to nourish his children's self esteem so they didn't grow up to feel the need to mutilate themselves. A truth about humanity that I know is that no human is all bad or all good. What might he have accomplished had he been raised by anybody who wasn't Joe Jackson?
Originally Posted By barboy I have read #202 and I believe every word of it. But I noticed that you skipped over my #184..... why? I'll reintroduce it but truncate it this time: If California had evidence, damning and convincing evidence, of guilt against Jackson in the first half of the 90's then why did it not compel the 'victim' to testify in a criminal complaint? Why would the state allow Jackson to continue his lascivious ways with children under 14 when it had oportunity to try and stop it via formal indictments and ultimately a trial. The DA's "client" is California and not the "victim" per se and what is more important to California: option(1) insulating 1 child from having to testify or option(2) protecting more children from future sexual abuse?(because everyone one of us knows that those who have a sexual appetite for children usually do not stop at one, they typically keep going) Under this theory California did not have the goods(evidence) for a conviction. And if the evidence was deficient then facts of guilt can not be reached.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I have read #202 and I believe every word of it. But I noticed that you skipped over my #184..... why?" Because I didn't read it? It's late for me and I have to get up in six hours. I'll try to answer your questions later.
Originally Posted By ecdc Thanks for 202, SPP. Very interesting. It's too bad Vincent Bugliosi didn't do a book on Jackson the way he did on O.J.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The topic started out as 'Michael Jackson dies". And has changed to 'Michael Jackson-sexual deviant/monster'.<< Right or wrong, it's going to be part of his legacy. It would've been great if none of that had ever happened and Michael Jackson had been a normal guy with an extraordinary talent. But he chose to sleep in the same bed with children and have odd relationships with them. That is indisputable. So even if he is completely innocent of child molestation, he still brought a good measure of this on himself. At best, his legacy is amazing talent wrapped in tragedy and sadness. At worst...well....
Originally Posted By danyoung >Was I there? No. Do I know people involved in the case? Yes. Do I trust their information and knowledge? Unquestionably.< SPP, you obviously have sources that I don't, so your perceptions is different from mine. I have no problem with you having your opinion. I have a big problem with you stating your opinion as fact. To be honest, I've always been somewhat on the fence about the whole thing. I lean toward the side of MJ not getting into anything sexual with the kids, although he most definitely had relationships most would consider inappropriate. But I wouldn't be shocked if proof came out in the form of a reputable person who was directly involved in the situation (a kid, a worker in the house, etc.). Either way, all I can do is voice my opinion, because that's all I have to offer.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I don't normally come to this section because the discussion here tends to be less civil than on the main boards, however I have been reading this thread. Personally I thought Michael was guilty of molesting those children and felt that way until after his death. However in the past few days I have been researching the cases against him in the past few days and now I believe he was innocent. Here is a really good article from GQ in 1995 about the first charge that was brought against him. I highly recommend it: <a href="http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gq-article-was-michael-jackson-framed/" target="_blank">http://floacist.wordpress.com/...-framed/</a> - Anatole
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I remember reading that article when it was first published. It is very intriguing. It's obvious from stories told by people in his "inner circle" from people like Lisa Marie Presley, that he was deeply troubled and made some terrible business decisions. Here's another very revealing article that was published today. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Michael-Jackson-predicted-death-months-ago.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ago.html</a>
Originally Posted By Lisann22 There are now reports from the photographer, his Lou Ferrigamo as his persnal trainer and his choreographer all saying these articles are BS, he was in top form. Just older at 50 compared to his tour preparations of years ago.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Well, maybe so, but all one has to do is look at the pictures to see that the man appeared ill. Not to mention that he died of a heart attack a few days ago...
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Not to mention that he died of a heart attack a few days ago..."<<< Passing away from a heart attack naturally and passing away from a heart attack induced by drugs are two different things. Age has nothing to do with the second scenario.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt All I'm saying is that drugs or not, it appears that MJ was in no shape to do 50 live performances. The fact that he's dead now sort of underscores that, don't you think? How do you suppose that concert run would have turned out?
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Okay, this is pure speculation on my part...but my first thought was that this is commonly anorexics die. They have no fat and the body begins to feed off of muscle...among all the other muscles is the heart. But with all the things that have come to light in the past few days, in my mind that's on the back burner.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt In the article that I posted yesterday the writer surmises that anorexia might have been a contributor to his death.
Originally Posted By mele I really hope that the children are monitored if they are to be spending any time with their grandfather.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin The latest thing I've seen on Yahoo! about the will was that he wanted his mom to raise the kids and in the event of her death....Diana Ross? And what I saw on CNN last night is that Joe and Katherine are married on paper only for about the last 10 years, so it seems that 'Crazy Joe' won't have much input as far as the kids go. And it sounds like Michael expressly designated his mother without mentioning his father at all.
