The Smoking Gun on Michael Jackson (page 3)

Almost There

We do not know if Michael's mothers are involved or not. Would you want to be harassed as Michael is. On the news last night, the mother of the older children, sent a statement that Michael would never do anything to harm his children or anyother children.

When the the interviewer spoke with his son, the child seemed very comfortable speaking. And Michael was very relaxed with the child talking. So it did not seem as if the child was under distress.

The reporter was very wrong on how he tried to spin the story. Can you imagine if we allowed someone 8 months in our homes. I can tell you he would of had a better story from my family.

It has been reported that ABC paid the production company 5million for this story. The reporter was not neutral in his reporting. But sensationalized it to make money. Can you guess what ABC sold the commercial spots for.

I think the reporter is scum - to have made Michael think he was reporting his life acurately. And turned it into something entirely different.

And one more questions. WHAT IS NORMAL? Normal is what your environment dictates to you. What is normal for me will not be normal for you.

MissFrooFroo

A 44 year old man who believes he's Peter Pan is not normal

teenyuck

I just watched it on tape...he is nuts. His kids will be messed up.

I just heard him say that children are his inspiration; for everything. His songs, his dances, everything. So when he grabs his crotch during his dance numbers, is he thinking of children?

Whatever the reporters motives and the sensationalism that comes with MJ, the bottom line is that he had the opportunity to tell the truth about himself and his life. I do not think he did. When confronted on issues he does not want to answer, he says "it's stupid...it's dumb." He says his different look is adolesence.....he grew....children change--even in their 20's. The reporter handled things well considering the nut job he was talking to.

Having Liz Taylor as your best friend who endorses your behavior is even worse.

He says his wife gave him the two children because he wanted children...he said in the beginning that the mother of Blanket was someone he knew...then in the second half he says she is a surrogate mother. He lied outright.

Blanket is white...MJ says that the mother is black, his father has blue eyes and Prince I has dyed blonde hair.

Gavin, his friend with cancer has an unhealthy relationship with MJ...he says it is appropriate for a 44 year old to spend the night in the same bedroom.

The guy needs psycho-therapy. So will his kids.

edited to add:

The reporter is on 20/20 talking about the interview. He said based upon what MJ told him, he thinks he is not sexual and the JW religion messed him up. He said it sounded like his parents told him sex was to be endured....

Edited by - teenyuck on 7 February 2003 13:48:24

Gopher

The posters who expressed concern for Michael's children have a very valid point. Michael was not granted a normal childhood, he doesn't even really know what one is. Does that deprive him of the privilege of being a parent? No, until definite harm to the children can be proven. That being said, I don't think Michael has much of a chance of providing a "normal" childhood to the 3 kids. That doesn't make him criminal, however. But still you feel for the kids.

I think the reporter had a good point when he suggested that the kids could have been taken for a zoo outing by the paid bodyguards, rather than as part of a media circus with Michael himself present. (He just wanted to see the gorilla.... But that's a whole 'nother issue.) Michael said "he couldn't take that chance". What chance did he mean? Aren't the bodyguards professional enough to ensure the safety of his children? The reporter had a good point.

When all is said and done, we all have our opinions about Michael and whether he poses a danger to children or not. Once again I remind our posters that in our society people (even Michael) are innocent until they are proven guilty. If an actual charge came against Michael and he was proven guilty, then I say throw the book at him. His millions/billions of dollars cannot protect him from due process. Famous actors and sports stars have had to go through their day in court when the prosecutor said they had to!

freedom96

Vanity Fair had an extensive article showing how all this was really blackmail anyways. The boys father wanted to get a movie financed, and he wanted Michael to front the money. When Michael denied him the wanted financing, then this whole charade started.

For those who are quick to accuse, I would strongly encourage you to read this article, then see how you feel.

I feel that just because he may be strange, doesn't mean that he is guilty of molestation. The fact is, that maybe he has a bigger heart than most of us even do. We may just not realize it.

Mary

"..His millions/billions of dollars cannot protect him from due process. Famous actors and sports stars have had to go through their day in court when the prosecutor said they had to!..."

LOL!! Surely you jest. The only thing protecting this freakoid IS his fame and wealth (remember O.J.??) Without it, he would have been locked up as a pedophile a long time ago. This guy more than likely has never had sexual relations with ANY woman and has a sick, twisted obsession with little boys. No 44-year-old single guy, with a history of bizarre behaviour and accusations of sexual misconduct with a 13 year old boy, should ever be allowed to be alone with children and in my opinion, the children he already has should be taken away from him. He's not called Wacko Jacko for nothing........

"...Teenyuck asked: So when he grabs his crotch during his dance numbers, is he thinking of children?...."

Only if they're under the age of 14 and are male.

Country Girl

Miss FrooFroo:

May be more common than we think for older men to think they are Peter Pan. <grin>

http://www.pixyland.org/

Country Girl

Gopher

C'mon Mary. We're talking DUE LEGAL PROCESS here, not the court of public opinion. You said,

Surely you jest. The only thing protecting this freakoid IS his fame and wealth (remember O.J.??) Without it, he would have been locked up as a pedophile a long time ago.

Yes I remember how OJ got away with murder. But at least he had a trial thru due process. The accusing families came forward, and it all played out in court. We may not agree with that verdict, but at least the man was brought to trial and there was a RISK that the jurors would be sane and accept the DNA evidence. Additionally, fame and wealth do not protect people in America. Robert Blake is facing the judicial system for the mysterious death of his estranged wife. Corporate leaders such as in Enron and WorldCom are not proving immune from having to face the court system. If the prosecutors had the goods on Michael Jackson, they surely would prosecute (just as they have for the other people I mentioned).

No 44-year-old single guy, with a history of bizarre behaviour and accusations of sexual misconduct with a 13 year old boy, should ever be allowed to be alone with children and in my opinion, the children he already has should be taken away from him.

The key words here are ACCUSATION and IN YOUR OPINION. People can accuse until the cows come home, and we all have the rights to our opinion. Our opinions, however, do not take away the right of the accused to due process.

Mary

So tell me Gopher, if you had a really cute 10 year old boy and Michael Jackson wanted him to come over and play, and then sleep with him in bed, would you let him?

mouthy

As Mary dons her robe & wig & sits in the judgement seat. With her Gavel!!!!!!! GUILTY!!!!!she said. "The way your judging????..............

The Smoking Gun on Michael Jackson

Share this