The Michael Jackson interview thread. (1 Viewer)

[JakeR]

"Yeah, but if his kids are wearing masks in public all the time, then all any kidnappers have to do is snatch the kids in the masks ! After all, they'll be the only ones wearing them."

LOL...uh, I'm fairly certain the masks are for television appearances. When they're out with a sitter, they can't be recognized.

The special was profoundly disturbing. For those of you who believe Michael Jackson to be merely a damaged innocent, please, try to be more alert.

1. The affection shown by the twelve year old boy towards Michael (head resting on his shoulders, holding hands) was pure dysfunction. NO 12 year old boy acts that way towards anyone, except perhaps their mother.

2. Michael is clearly delusional or simply lying about his endless plastic surgeries: he actually feels he can sell us on the fact that his grotesque appearance is the result of aging. Why, then, would he accept reality in any other walk of life?

For those of you who insist in MJ's innocence: tell me, if someone resembling this man moved into your neighborhood, built a playground in his backyard (even though he has no kids), and then asked if your 10 year old son could sleep in his bed...need I even go on?

I was also "amused" (not in the traditional sense) by his vernacular when suggesting to kids that he was going to build a water park. "Then you can all come in your swimsuits!" Not, "Then you could all come swimming!" Reaching? Yes. But it's not like he hasn't incriminated himself otherwise.

All that said, I'm not quite so sure he simply wasn't being taken for a ride when charged with molestation in 1993. NO parent would accept a settlement, no matter what the amount, if their child had truly been assaulted. MJ would be dead or in jail.

I feel bad for the guy, but his worldview is so warped that it's beyond repair.

 

[Jake Gove]

The lastest is that Jackson is releasing a video of his own, showing interviewer Bashir praising Jackson's parenting skills:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Musi...iew/index.html

One key quote:

"Granada has, by use of voice-overs, editing and the nature of the questions asked, treated me unfairly by giving viewers the impression that I have behaved inappropriately with children," Jackson alleged in his BSC complaint.


Michael - sleeping with "many children, including actor Macaulay Culkin and his brother, Kieran" IS INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR FOR a 44 year old man!

 

[Benson R]

All that said, I'm not quite so sure he simply wasn't being taken for a ride when charged with molestation in 1993. NO parent would accept a settlement, no matter what the amount, if their child had truly been assaulted. MJ would be dead or in jail.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The settlement was rumored to be 15 to 40 million. That kid is set for life now. If it had gone to trial there would have been no guarantee that Mr. Jackson would be found guilty as he can afford the best representation available. Add to that that this kid would have to testify in a trial that would have been a big of circus as the OJ trial. Sure his identity would be kept off of television but he would still be under tremendous pressure.

Thesmokinggun.com has the affidavit from the victim on their site. I don't know if its the truth. But reading it made me sick to my stomach. The documentation of the sleepovers made Michael's comments about sleepovers in the documentary seem downright creepy.

 

[Rob T]

LOL...uh, I'm fairly certain the masks are for television appearances. When they're out with a sitter, they can't be recognized.

I think it was said that they wear them all the time.

 

[Dave Miller]

I was also "amused" (not in the traditional sense) by his vernacular when suggesting to kids that he was going to build a water park. "Then you can all come in your swimsuits!"

I did not record this so I couldn't verify that Michael actually said this. When I heard it on the interview, I thought surely I did not just hear him say they could come in their swimsuits. You just confirmed it for me. I did not misunderstand him.

Amazingly sick.

Peace,

DM

 

[Michael*K]

And now apparently Jackson has talked Fox into airing a two hour special that aims to debunk the ABC interview and show his "warm and fuzzy" side. :rolleyes

 

[Dave_Brown]

NO parent would accept a settlement, no matter what the amount, if their child had truly been assaulted. MJ would be dead or in jail.

Wish it were that simple. Money changes everything. There are parents out there who have traded their kids away for the next rock of crack cocaine. We would like to think that NO parent would do it, but I'm betting it happens a lot more than is talked about. Look at the catholic church issues if you want more proof.

Most parents, yes. NO parent? nope....

 

[Jack Briggs]

Let's please leave other issues out of this thread.

But to get back to topic, members might be interested to know that the Los Angeles Times ran an official editorial this morning about Wacko Jacko and his thing for kids. This was not an Op/Ed piece by an independent columnist, but an editorial by the Times editors. They advocated that the Child Protective Services department in Santa Barbara County do something, find some sort of pretext for visiting the "Neverland" compound.

The writers reiterated all the points that have been made in this thread. They seemed genuinely disturbed that society is tolerating the highly questionable actions of, their words, "a 44-year-old naif."

I can't link you to the Times because it's a subscription site. And, of course, I can't type the editorial verbatim because it's copyrighted.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I think MJ's life has been ruined by the actions of other people, but he really should try to piece it back together.

And about his face, it was explained when he was on Conan O'Brien's show after the special aired. Conan asked him if he had only had 2 surgeries on his nose, to which he replied:

"You see, Conan, 'nose' is a latin term that means 'anything above the knees,' and '2' means '7,653.'"

Or something to that effect. It was hilarious.

 

[Holadem]

Finally watched that infamous show on VH1.

The guy has some serious issues. However, our society has not learnt the meaning of tolerance yet.

Allegations are all there is agaisnt the man, what you believe is what you choose to believe.

Polanski was convicted of statutory rape, no one on HTF is going beserk about it :rolleyes

Last, nothing will take away from the fact that he is one the greatest artists to have ever graced this planet.

--
Holadem

 

[Will_B]

I felt like I was watching a spokesman for NAMBLA. It seemed Jackson was speaking in euphamisms -- instead of saying how much he loved boinking little boys he'd say that he gave them what they needed, he gave them love, and on and on; honestly believing that what he was speaking of WAS love. He came across like an abuse victim acting out his abuse on others, the way they usually do - mistaking abuse for love -- and only denying the details because "society" would not understand.

The reporter did seem manipulative, but of course he was. That's the nature of infotainment reporters - they lie to get what they need in order to deliver the product. At least in this case the motive seemed to be to protect children.

Summing up: Yech yech and double yech.

--

Moderator - what "other issues"? The show was about whether Michael Jackson is a child molester who is endangering the lives of kids.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Thanks Will for editing your post. I saw the unedited version in my e-mail notification and it made me sick, the implications of it was just too much to believe. It was a good post, but just too difficult for me to comprehend.

 

[Will_B]

Actually I edited it myself, because Dave Brown already made the point about parents.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Sorry about that Will, I made the correction in my post.

 

[Will_B]

No problem. It will be interesting to see how the other media report the upcoming Fox special where they show clips of the interviewer praising Jackson. Will the rest of the public (no one here I'm sure!) think to themselves "Wow, the reporter actually meant it when he was buttering up Jackson"? Jackson seems to think so.

My guess? The public will say "Wow, there's clips of the reporter lying to Jackson, buttering him up." The only good which will come of it will be the greater public will appreciate that reporters use deception to get what they want. But then again, 60 Minutes already shows people that every week...

I think I'll skip the Fox follow up. What else could come of it?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

This upcoming special of Jackson's is going to change nothing about him in the publics eye is my best guess. It's a waste of time IMO.