The Michael Jackson interview

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I didn't watch the interview and have no desire to see it. Nor do I have adequate time to fully explain my personal feelings about Michael Jackson - so I'll just hit the highlights.

I agree that Michael Jackson had a terribly traumatic childhood. He was mentally and physically abused and has been in the "public eye" since the age of 5. Does that explain or excuse his current actions? No, it does not. His brothers and sisters lived in the same abusive household, but none of them behave in the manner that Michael does - so the childhood trauma doesn't adequately explain his behavior. The others appear to have overcome thier upbringing, but Michael (who was by far more successful than all the others combined) has regressed to a "child-like" frame of mind.

He probably doesn't see anything wrong with his actions. But just because he can't see it doesn't mean his behavior isn't wrong.

The fact is that any "average" citizen that engaged in this same type of behavior would have been the subject of a police investigation and it makes the general public angry and jealous that Michael Jackson can "get away with his behavior". That is why the media focuses on the negative aspects of his actions - they are just giving the public what it wants to see.

In the mid-80's, when he was the self-declared "King of Pop" - you couldn't have gotten Barbara Walters to make a negative comment about him at gunpoint. In most cases, the media just "parrots" what they think the common man or woman wants to hear. There is no such thing as "objective reporting" anymore (but that's a whole different thread ).

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Attalus: Timber, do you have any clients that would pay $29 million to get rid of a lawsuit for something you were innocent of?

Unfortunately, no. But, stars do this often because of the fact their reputation and press releases
are intertwined with their business -which is their name and fame in the trade.

I do know folks who would pay 6% of their net worth ($18 million settlement - the number I heard - out of his $300 million low-estimate net worth) to do away with a lawsuit that would put their name in the nation's newspapers and television sets as a "molester." And, they're not even famous.

Look, 95% of lawsuits in the civil system settle. This is NOT because 95% of the people out there think they are wrong. It's because you can usually come up with an agreement both parties dislike equally. It is not only legally impermissible, but also illogical, to infer liability/guilt in any way whatsoever based on a settlement agreement.

MOST of my clients settle - for more than they want to pay or less than they want to get. Sometimes, it is to keep their names out of the newspaper. Just like the Judge's reduction of the award in the infamous McDonald's case, any positive outcome for Michael Jackson on the lawsuit would have been back-page news, whereas "child molester" would sit on page 1 for months.

Cerek, what "actions?" I have seen no evidence. And no, the rest of us would not have been hung out to dry for acting like he does - heck, no one would have even noticed. One finger-pointer does not make one guilty.

If all you guys are right, I need to get busy reporting all the relatives who let me sleep in a bed with them when I was young.

[ 02-07-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Cerek, what "actions?" I have seen no evidence. And no, the rest of us would not have been hung out to dry for acting like he does - heck, no one would have even noticed. One finger-pointer does not make one guilty. If all you guys are right, I need to get busy reporting all the relatives who let me sleep in a bed with them when I was young.

The "actions" I refer to is his penchant for having a steady stream of young children sleeping in his bedroom and his bed. Children that are NOT relatives. I had plenty of "sleep-overs" as a child. I even had one good friend whose mom had grown up with my mom. One summer, we ended up having several "extended sleep-overs" at each other's houses. But I never got in bed with his parents and he never got in bed with mine. That goes beyond just being "wierd".

You cannot honostly tell me that an average 45 year old man could have all the kids in the neighborhood stay at his house overnight (sometimes for several days or longer) without raising at least some suspicion - especially if he freely admitted that he was letting the kids sleep in his bed and that he sometimes slept in the bed with them.

When you can provide a documented case of any other "non-famous" 45 year old male doing this without arousing any suspicions or suffering incriminations, I will retract my statement.

[Attalus]

I'm with Cerek. These days you have to be careful how much attention you pay to other people's children, even as to eye contact. When you walk into a school, (as I did, once, to attend a committee meeting), people pop up all over the place, asking, "Can I help you?" with the look and tone of voice that really mean, "Why the hell are you here?"

[Timber Loftis]

From http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=114235

In California's Santa Barbara County, where Jackson's Neverland ranch is located, District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., condemned the "media circus" around the documentary and called Jackson's admission that he has slept in the same bed as children "much ado about nothing." "Sleeping in bed with a kid is not a crime that I know of," Sneddon told the Santa Barbara News-Press.

From what I've seen, the parents get to stay at Neverland, too, fellas.

Look, I agree it's sketchy at best. But, after watching the freak-show myself, I feel it's due to some very serious mental/maturity issues Michael has, and is not sexual. I didn't say I'd let my kid stay there, did I?

But, if I let my kid go to Cerek's house, and he/she got namby-pamby in the middle of the night and crawled into bed with Cerek and wife (sorry if I just gave you a wife you don't have, Cerek), there'd be NO ISSUE. You say it's okay if it's a relative - but what if it's a close friend of the family that's no different from a relative?

[Cloudbringer]

I'm afraid I agree with Cerek, Attalus and several others here. If any 40+ year old man or woman in my neighborhood started having kids sleep over in his/her room with them, I'd call the child welfare hotline in a flash! Why is Jackson allowed to do it, advertise he's doing it and keep ON doing it without repercussion?

You might say, well, the guy's famous and it gives the kids something to talk about but hey, just going to his ranch is PLENTY! The whole bed/bedroom thing is beyond normal or acceptable, in my opinion.

This may be out of context (I just couldn't bring myself to watch that show- five minutes made my skin crawl), but Groj's quote above

Jackson, 44, caused outrage when he admitted a 12-year-old boy regularly stayed at his mansion and slept in his bed He said: "It's very loving. What's wrong with sharing a love?"

makes me wonder just exactly WHAT is 'sharing love' to M Jackson? Can't taking the kids through his midway amusement park or zoo or theater be 'loving'? Why the bed sharing? I infer he means cuddling or other intimate acts from that comment. Albeit, Jackson seems so much in a childlike state of mind, himself that he may very well think such things are perfectly 'loving' and wonderful and normal, I don't know. ugh...I'm sure a lot of pedophiles would love that phrase "what's wrong with sharing a love?" with a 10 year old...ugh... I'm sorry, it makes me angry and queasy to think about it.

And yes, I know, he's never been convicted...but has he even been investigated past the last 'buy off'? For all we know he's been buying alot of parents off all along.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: And yes, I know, he's never been convicted...but has he even been investigated past the last 'buy off'? For all we know he's been buying alot of parents off all along.

Ugh...
Normal Diatribe by most folk:
Why do lawyers want to muck up everything and stick their noses into everyone's life, scrutinizing and nit-picking every detail.

Diatribe when Those Folks have their own personal prejudices sparked:
How dare they let a man get away with doing perfectly legal things with children at the permission of the parents.

He has not been investigated, or convicted. He had allegations made, a lawsuit was not filed, and rather than fight it out in the Enquirer, he settled the case.

Remeber, folks, one call from one parent of one of these kids gets a dozen stocky men with guns turning his home and life upside down. If his actions are so inappropriate, why has this not happened?

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Remeber, folks, one call from one parent of one of these kids gets a dozen stocky men with guns turning his home and life upside down. If his actions are so inappropriate, why has this not happened?

For one thing, money, and another thing, fame and the prerequisites that it grants. I do note that you say you wouldn't let your child stay there.

[Djinn Raffo]

Get the pitchforks and torches! Let's Burn Neverland to the ground!!!!

[Timber Loftis]

Okay, Attalus, and since you're a doctor I think I'll assume you get favors normal folk don't, okay? And, that is the general assumption, no? How will you like having that extra hurdle if the spotlight ever comes on you?

It's amazing how all you folks know more about the appropriateness of what goes on in his house than the people who have been there and spent weeks and months there. I will note the reporter who spent 9 MONTHS with him admits he never saw inappropriate or sexual behavior - right before he sold him down the river, of course.

Hell, let's just have the government stand over us in our homes from the day our kids are born, okay? What about you same folks always touting freedom - the PARENTS ALLOW IT!!!

But, I defer to your infinite wisdom, and I shut my trap.

Hell, I don't even like the man or his music, so I have no dog in this fight. Just trying to seek some fairness. But, "Moo moo" let me join the herd mentality.

[on a frivolous note] Post Number 69 - wo - hoooooo!!!!

[ 02-07-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]