link here for the whole article.

"Jackson defended his desire to sleep in close proximity with young boys, under persistent questioning from Bashir.

He described the practice as “very charming, very sweet” and recommended that Bashir sleep in the same bed as friends of his own children. He also claimed that children like to be touched and said he would kill himself if he could not be close to them. " (emphasis mine - L.)

Sounds like a good idea to me, Mike.

[This message has been edited by LarryB (edited 02-04-2003).]

quote Originally posted by LarryB: link here for the whole article. "Jackson defended his desire to sleep in close proximity with young boys, under persistent questioning from Bashir. He described the practice as “very charming, very sweet” and recommended that Bashir sleep in the same bed as friends of his own children. He also claimed that children like to be touched and said he would kill himself if he could not be close to them. " (emphasis mine - L.) Sounds like a good idea to me, Mike. [This message has been edited by LarryB (edited 02-04-2003).]

I just saw that interview on tv a few minutes ago. And as always, the press likes to take his words, twist them, turn them around, and make it into something else. In short, he said nothing of a kind.

Let me quote exactly what he said. Bashir asked him: "Would you let your children sleep in the same bed with other people?", Jackson's answer: "If it was someone I didn't know, then of course not. But if it was someone close, like family, or people you trust like your own family, then sure, why not?" Bashir: "What would you think if I would share my bedroom with my friend's children?" Jackson: "You're no Jack the Ripper are you? So why not?"

And about the killing himself (mis-)quote: "This world is all about children. It's a cry for attention that they come running outof schools with guns in their hands. They just want to be loved. Children is what this world is about. If someone would walk up to me and say 'sorry, there are no more children left on this earth', then I would jump of a balcony. That's it. Live would have no meaning for me anymore then".

So as you can see, he has been grossly misquoted again. Jackson might be a weirdo, but he's not nearly the weirdo the press tries to make him look. The guy has the pshyche of a 10 year old kid. That makes him weird, yes, but he is totally incapable of the things they accuse him of.

[This message has been edited by Cliff Pennock (edited 02-04-2003).]

But wasn't that the main reason why he got divorced way back when the sex scandal was going on?!

Something about his wife didn't like children but he did!

------------------

"The PRE10DR"

Cliff, I'll grant the Michael's words are likely being twisted by the media in this particular instance.

But you know what? I don't care. I think he's some kind of pervert and child molester. He didn't pay that little boy's family millions of dollars for nothing. He should be glad he only has to deal with the media and his poor image instead of being Bubba's prison-***** , which is where he actually belongs.

Boomer: Oh, come off it. You think your "justice" (legal) system is infallible?

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/013236.html

The fact of the matter is that neither YOU, nor the Media have any clear idea of what went on.

But you are so quick to judge.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Funny, he paid out a huge sum of money, and the charges were dropped. Just the sort of loving behavior to be expected from excellent parents. Oh, and the kid fessed that Mommy and Daddy made him say those things

If it were MY kids, I'd be taking him for every cent he had, then I'd use that money to make sure he never saw the sun again.

Yup, guilty as sin.

No Sean, I don't think our legal system is infallible. OJ is another example of it's fallibility.

And I don't think for a New York second that Michael Jackson paid that boy's family millions of dollars without having first received lengthy, detailed legal and PR advice. You simply don't pay settlements like that without cause. If it could be proved that the boy was coached, he could press criminal charges as well as a civil suit. Funny how none of that happened, though. Gee, I wonder why?

Is that how you would handle an accusation of child molestation? Pay the accuser off?

[This message has been edited by BN Boomer (edited 02-05-2003).]

Basically, that proves nothing, which is the whole point of a settlement. Neither party can conclusively prove one way or another. MJ's PR people didn't want the long, drawn out trial if there was no guarantee of a win. And they didn't have enough evidence to start a counter-suit.

Doesn't necessarily mean an admission of guilt, it means that neither party is sufficiently equipped to prove their case.

In this case, I do NOT think MJ was a molester. The image portrayed by him by the media was skewed so badly, and none of the facts were told properly, that it really isn't possible to say... Sorry, what was that line? Oh yes. Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that another load of ?

On the flipside, if he DID do it, he rightly and properly deserves to be castrated and institutionalized.

quote Originally posted by Mach10: Sorry, what was that line? Oh yes. Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that another load of ?

It is for an accusation of child molestation. Guilty until proven innocent... and then guilty anyway.

How sad. :-(
I like Michael Jackson.
I didn't see the interview, but I'd like to believe that he is just a weirdo but not a pederast.
~soph

Okay, I get it. As long as you can buy off your victims, you're innocent.

So again, you would pay off someone making frivolous, meritless accusation? Why?

And yes, according to our legal system, he IS innocent. Duh. He has never been convicted of anything, because he bought his supposed victim's silence. So we'll never know. That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime, however.

Sorry, but where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Just one of those pesky little facts of life.

Would you let your son sleep with him?

Seen him lastnight on CNN on a report being done by Connie Chung.

Besides having what appears to be severe psychological and perhaps emotional problems, the guy looks like he is made out of "plastic", even though he claims he hasn't had any plastic surgery of any kind, except for his nose so he could breath better.

Then caught a snipit from several of the video's they were showing and his hands look absolutely fake! Swollen to all heck, kinda like Goofy's hands.

But as one comedian stated, "Only in America can a black man become a white man" or something to that affect.

quote Originally posted by The PRE10DR: Seen him lastnight on CNN on a report being done by Connie Chung. Besides having what appears to be severe psychological and perhaps emotional problems, the guy looks like he is made out of "plastic", even though he claims he hasn't had any plastic surgery of any kind, except for his nose so he could breath better. Then caught a snipit from several of the video's they were showing and his hands look absolutely fake! Swollen to all heck, kinda like Goofy's hands. But as one comedian stated, "Only in America can a black man become a white man" or something to that affect.

He has a skin disease. Or something of the sort. That is why he is usually covering his face while outside in the sun as well.

quote Originally posted by soup: He has a skin disease. Or something of the sort. That is why he is usually covering his face while outside in the sun as well.

Being black is now a skin disease? The guy (to use the term loosely) screwed himself up.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Being black is now a skin disease? The guy (to use the term loosely) screwed himself up.

And why is it so hard to believe he has a skin disease?

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: And why is it so hard to believe he has a skin disease?

Where's the proof? What's it called? How many other black people turn white? Why the massive plastic surgery?

He looked pretty darn healthy 20 years ago as a black man. That's how I prefer to remember him.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Where's the proof? What's it called? How many other black people turn white? Why the massive plastic surgery? He looked pretty darn healthy 20 years ago as a black man. That's how I prefer to remember him.

Boomer: Do you have prostate/impotency problems? Do you have an STD? Is one leg longer than the other on you? Do you have a narrow Urethra? Do you have no bladder control? Did you get a colostomy?

These are rhetorical. Don't answer. The point is, it's none of my business unless you choose to make it.

Patient-doctor confidentiality. He doesn't have to say JACK about his medical problems. "I'm Sick" is more than you NEED to know, unless you are his doctor.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: It is for an accusation of child molestation. Guilty until proven innocent... and then guilty anyway.

Sorry Steve but that's not the way it works and not the way it ever will (and rightfully so).

One of the nice traits that characterize a democratic society is that we all have a chance to defend accusations, which is all that they are until proven or dis-proven.

If it worked the other way, your own neigbour could put you behind bars for a simple accusation and you would stay there until you can prove that you're innocent. Is that how you want it?

The 'guilty until proven innocent' phrase only lives in totalitarian systems.

------------------

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Where's the proof? What's it called? How many other black people turn white? Why the massive plastic surgery?

It's called "Vitiligo". Proof? Maybe you can find the police report somewhere on the internet when he had to strip for the police. IIRC, the report mentioned his body was covered with light patches. There are also numerous reports from people who have seen him without (or with less) make up and all say they have seen the patches.

Sure, he might be bleaching his skin now, which isn't all too uncommon for people with Vitiligo.

quote Originally posted by Voytek: Amen to that. IF he TRULY has a skin desease, it was probably caused by all the bleach he's used. Besides, Mach10 - he's not ashamed to dangle a baby from a 10 story balcony, he's not embarassed to shrink his nose to the size of a pea but he's ashamed to tell us the type of skin desease he has?? Get with it man. I personally have nothing against him. I think the media exaggerates all of his 'misfortunes' and makes him look like a much worse guy than he is. Is he normal? Probably not, but he doesn't seem all that bad. For example, one of the good things he's done is send a whole bunch of aid (or money - can't remember) to Christian kids in Africa. When was the last time you've seen Shania Twain do THAT?

It's his perogative. He is proud of his child, he may be particular about his skin. That's his choice. If you remember, the baby-dangling thing was really just a "Lion-King-esque" presentation to the crowd. Dangerous? Perhaps. But he didn't drop him, or horse around. Bad judgement call (he admits as such), but perfectly innocent.

I agree, he's a weird one, but I think he's harmless. He's a humanitarian, and he really likes kids. He seems a little childish (take his ramch, for example), but media hype, exagerration, sensationalism aside, he seems to be a good person.

quote Originally posted by Voytek: One of the nice traits that characterize a democratic society is that we all have a chance to defend accusations, which is all that they are until proven or dis-proven.

Yup, and when one chooses not to defend accusations but rather decides to pay off their accusers/victims, they must still deal with free press and the court of public opinion. Sorry Michael, you made your own bed.

quote Originally posted by Voytek: Sorry Steve but that's not the way it works and not the way it ever will (and rightfully so). One of the nice traits that characterize a democratic society is that we all have a chance to defend accusations, which is all that they are until proven or dis-proven. If it worked the other way, your own neigbour could put you behind bars for a simple accusation and you would stay there until you can prove that you're innocent. Is that how you want it? The 'guilty until proven innocent' phrase only lives in totalitarian systems.

I was talking about the court of public opinion, not the actual court system. As far as I've seen, the accusation of any sex related crimes is enough for most people. In cases like Michael Jackson, Pee Wee Herman, George Michael, Marv Albert, it seemed to me that as soon as the accusation was released, that person was considered guilty by the public. While this is also true in other cases, it seems much more severe in these types of case.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: It's called "Vitiligo". Proof? Maybe you can find the police report somewhere on the internet when he had to strip for the police. IIRC, the report mentioned his body was covered with light patches. There are also numerous reports from people who have seen him without (or with less) make up and all say they have seen the patches. Sure, he might be bleaching his skin now, which isn't all too uncommon for people with Vitiligo.

Hmmmm... Okay, maybe that's a possibility. If I was rich, famous, visibly diseased, and I had an extreme PR/image problem, I don't think I'd make people search through police files to find out what kind of disease I had. Wouldn't you be upfront about it, including a freaking name, and become an activist championing research to cure it?

And regardless, you don't simply pay off accusers for no reason.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Hmmmm... Okay, maybe that's a possibility. If I was rich, famous, visibly diseased, and I had an extreme PR/image problem, I don't think I'd make people search through police files to find out what kind of disease I had. Wouldn't you be upfront about it, including a freaking name, and become an activist championing research to cure it?

There's your problem right there. He has mentioned his disease by name on numerous occasions (how much more publicity than mentioning it on the Oprah show can you get?). People simply choose to ignore that.

About paying off his accusers... He settled for a few million dollars. First of all, if I were the father of that kid, and I knew for sure my kid was assaulted/raped by him, I wouldn't settle for just a few millions. I would make pretty damn sure he was sent to prison and never got near another kid in his life. But if I made that story up, I would try to settle for an amount that MJ would consider "loose change". And yes, a few million is loose change to MJ. He is nowhere near bankrupcy (another one of those media fantasy stories). The guy spends more money in 5 minutes in his favorite store. In fact, at the time of the accusations, he was good for nearly 5 billion dollars. You say paying a few million makes him suspect. I say accepting that few million makes the father of that kid suspect.

Is MJ a weirdo? Yes, he most certainly is. Does he look like a freakin' alien? Yes he does. Does he like being around kids? Yes he does. Does that make him a skin-bleaching kid raper? Nope, sorry. I don't believe that for one second.

[edited because I can't spell]

[This message has been edited by Cliff Pennock (edited 02-06-2003).]

The settlement was for approximately $20 million.

Or, in other words 0.4% of MJ's net worth

That would be like me giving Boomer about $4 in loose change to shut up about Canadians

quote Originally posted by LarryB: The settlement was for approximately $20 million.

So that's the pricetag for having your kid raped nowadays? I'll say it again, it if was my kid, I wouldn't settle for any amount. If you want to hurt someone by taking his money, then you don't take $20 million if he's worth $5 billion.

To read more about the kid's father's intentions, this is a good read. It also tells what MJ has done for kids all over the world.

[edited because now my spelling is ok, but my linking sucks]

[This message has been edited by Cliff Pennock (edited 02-06-2003).]

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: So that's the pricetag for having your kid raped nowadays? I'll say it again, it if was my kid, I wouldn't settle for any amount. If you want to hurt someone by taking his money, then you don't take $20 million if he's worth $5 billion.

Who knows?

Then again...would you let your kids spend the night with him? I certainly wouldn't, and I doubt any normal parent would either. I wouldn't put it beyond anyone who would allow it to also readily accept hush money either to keep any 'funny business' quiet. No normal adult sleeps in bed with someone else' kids either.

I do know this: $20 million would be enough to pay for an astronomical legal team - enough to even keep a high-profile attorney like Johnny Cochran working full time for more than 5 years. MJ could outspend and outlast nearly any civil suit brought against him if he so chose - especially if there were no chance of undigging any real dirt, related or not.

The only logical reason MJ would pay out this much in a settlement is that either the original allegation had some merit, or he was afraid of having other dirty laundry uncovered and aired as part of the investigation. The amount is MANY times more than the norm just to make a nuisance suit go away.

To put things in perspective, the amounts being mentioned to settle the civil molestation suits against the Archdiocese of Boston are in the range of $15-30 million - to be divided among 86 victims. These are not "alleged" victims, either.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: this is a good read.

A subjective, one sided article by an admittedly rabid, biased Michael Jackson source. Not very convincing.

But I guess if $26,000,000 is pocket change to you guys, he got off cheap.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: A subjective, one sided article by an admittedly rabid, biased Michael Jackson source. Not very convincing.

Oh come off it. This isn't a story invented by that guy on that webpage. Do a web search for cryin' out loud. Everything on that page can be verified. You just can't bring yourself to accepting the fact he might be innocent.

quote But I guess if $26,000,000 is pocket change to you guys, he got off cheap.

You just can't turn your viewpoint, can you? If my kid ever got molested, you think I would accept $26 million dollars to settle?

You'd rather believe a guy who settles for $20 million when his child got molested, and then a little bit later tried to sue MJ for $60 million because MJ "discussed" the case on a tv show?

So the bad guy here is someone who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to charity, and of whom it has never been proven that he was guilty of any of the accusations, and the only reason he settled was because his lawyers advised him to? And the good guy is someone who had already kidnapped his own son once, who got the most money out of the settlement, and who has tried to sue just about everything and everybody he came in contact with? A dentist who used the money to make a movie which MJ had previously declined to fund? How much of that money he got went to charity? To some kind of fund for the benefit of abused kids? I can answer that question: nothing.

But it really doesn't matter, does it? MJ is guilty. Why? Because you say so.

Yup, Cliff, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't pay off accusers and accept the subsequent enduring public suspiscion no matter how much money I had. It's a matter of principle. And subscribing to such principles, I have to question and be suspect of anyone who does buy the silence of their accusers.

You can say it's pocket change to Michael Jackson. Well, even if it shut them up, I wouldn't pay any false accuser $4 in nickels and dimes. It's a matter of principle and maintaining my good name and reputation.

It could also be said that he gives all that money to children's charities in an attempt to bolster his image and distract the public from something he'd rather not be discovered. There's two sides to every coin.

I actually can accept the possibility that Michael Jackson may be innocent. But thus far he hasn't acted or responded like an innocent man.

Perhaps on this particular issue you are just an optimist while I'm a pessimist. Do you have children of your own? Would you be comfortable with them spending a night at Michael Jackson's home?

Guys, come on. We all know the rule. Boomer is right.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: I hope that wasn't directed at me.

That was directed at both you and me.

Anyways, I'm not an optimist. The only thing I'm saying is that I can understand MJ's willingness to settle even if he's innocent (the guy's a freakin' a-sexual, having to strip for the police is beyond embarrising for him), but I can not understand Chandler's willingness to settle if MJ isn't innocent. You do realize the kid's mother was in the house too at the time of the alledged molestation, and that she testified she has no reason to believe anything happened? And that they interviewed 60 other kids who all slept in MJ's house and/or bedroom and they all testified nothing sexual ever happened.

The kid must be something special then.

I almost never watch TV anymore, but happen to catch 20/20 last night.

I think the things MJ experienced as a child - beaten by his father - being in the same room when his older brother was having sex with fans (which is child abuse BTW) - the skewed sense of ego you get from the mobs following you everywhere

all these things affected his mental health - you can see how he is trying to do the opposite of what happened to him - hiding his kids from the public - trying to 'be there' for kids who are sick or disadvantaged

when I was a kid I slept with my parents sometimes, with my aunt and uncle when I stayed at their house, if I fell asleep at grandmas house I would wake up in her bed

and when I stayed at my cousins house for a week each summer we sometimes slept in the same bed.

I think MJ is right about one thing - I think WE are confused about our sexuality and physical closeness. One of my fondest memories as a kid is sittingon the front porch glider with my dad at night, with his arm around me, half falling asleep listening to the night sounds of the city.

The reporter in the documentary got it backwards - its not whats in it for MJ to be physically snuggly with children - its whats in it for the children. That kid that had cancer - it looked like it meant alot to him.

MJ is weird - but I gotta give him credit for speaking out for what he believes in -and for having the courage to not let the accusations from one kid (parent?) 12 years ago force him to stop doing what he thinks is right and important.

quote Originally posted by BN Boomer: Yup, Cliff, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I wouldn't pay off accusers and accept the subsequent enduring public suspiscion no matter how much money I had. It's a matter of principle. And subscribing to such principles, I have to question and be suspect of anyone who does buy the silence of their accusers. You can say it's pocket change to Michael Jackson. Well, even if it shut them up, I wouldn't pay any false accuser $4 in nickels and dimes. It's a matter of principle and maintaining my good name and reputation. It could also be said that he gives all that money to children's charities in an attempt to bolster his image and distract the public from something he'd rather not be discovered. There's two sides to every coin. I actually can accept the possibility that Michael Jackson may be innocent. But thus far he hasn't acted or responded like an innocent man. Perhaps on this particular issue you are just an optimist while I'm a pessimist. Do you have children of your own? Would you be comfortable with them spending a night at Michael Jackson's home?

Like I said before, he's definitely odd BUT, on the subject of 'would you or wouldn't you pay to shut your accusers up' - you have to look at this from the perspective of MJ. It's hard for any of us to comprehend what it's like to be in his shoes. He is one of the biggest stars that ever lived; a court case, whether it would prove his innocence or not, would surely invade his private life in ways unimaginable to most of us. The guy lives in the public eye already - do you think he wants to open every closet and every door for the public to see? That's exactly what he would have to do if the accusations went to court.

And what about health? Being dragged through endless testimonies and court cases can have an enormous impact on one's health.

You see, the price he paid was not only to shut the kid up and to avoid nuisance. The $26 mil price tag also bought him a continuation of his privacy (or what little he still has) and probably saved him a few nerves.

To answer your other question - I think ANY parent who is considering allowing his/her children to spend time with a stranger should first get to know the stranger personally. Seeing how most of us only know the man from what the media says about him, I think it's not a fair question and one that can't be answered as a 'yes' or 'no'.

quote Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: If my kid ever got molested, you think I would accept $26 million dollars to settle?

I definatly would.

This way, later I would have enough money to hire a professional, discreet hit man to take that person out and the rest for my "Dream Team" of lawyers if I needed them.

Any monies left over after all that...I would start buying up all the Fiero's that our out there that I could! Muwahahahahaha!

J/K!