Michael Jackson rushed to hospital

[Monique]

Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.

 

[Hootenanny]

You're right. The sexual drive of men, attracted to prepubescent boys, for instance, is the same as heterosexuals. The category of their desires is different. The profile of pedophilic behavior is the result of taking action to consummate their desires in the face of an overwhelming majority empowered to harm them for it. Yours truly, for instance, ranks among those who would harm them. Their alternative is sexual neurosis, which says nearly everything about Mr. Jackson's host of odd behaviors.

You are not qualified to make statements declaring what constitutes paedophilic behaviour, nor are you in a position to comment on the sexual drives or psychological state of anyone.

 

[Moonbear]

Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.

Exactly! One thing I learned through my time with jury duty, particularly going through the jury selection for a murder trial, is that the media doesn't waste their time trying to provide a fair representation of the facts...they have deadlines to meet! Seriously. The reporters would pop in and out of the courtroom, stay for 10 min or a half hour, get a few bits of background information like who was in the courtroom representing each side, collect a few juicy quotes, and run off to meet their deadline to write up something about it.

The judge even commented on the media presence. He was reminding the potential juror pool not to read the newspaper or watch the news stories on the trial, and that they (the jurors) would be the only ones aside from him and the prosecution and defense who were in the courtroom the entire time to hear ALL of the evidence presented. I think his remarks were just as pointed at the press present at the time as a caution to the jurors, but he made it very clear that what was reported in the news was unlikely to be a fair representation of what was happening in the courtroom.

 

[russ_watters]

A number of people here are operating on a severe misunderstanding of what a jury verdict means. A jury verdict of not guilty does not automatically* imply that the person charged did not commit the crime. What it means is that it couldn't be proven to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he comitted the crime. What's the difference? Well in some cases, even when a person is guilty, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove what happened one way or another, so the jury must acquit. A not guilty verdict does not require proving someone is not guilty, only not being able to prove they were guilty.

This case seems like an obvious one where a conviction would be impossible, regardless of if he was guilty. The alleged crimes happened in his home and there wasn't any physical evidence of them, just the testimony of some witnesses that may or may not have been reliable.

The point is, you cannot conclude based on an acquittal, that a person did not commit the crime they were accused of**. That simply isn't what an acquittal means. That also means that people who would claim Jackson is not guilty are speculating just as much as people who claim that he was guilty. No one knows to a high degree of certainty either way, the evidence either way is just not strong enough.

*The best not guilty verdicts would be based on some positive evidence that precludes guilt, though, such as a solid alibi. In those case, you can consider the accused to be proven to be not guilty.

**This also tells us that the criminal verdict of not guilty for OJ and the civil verdict of liable are not mutually exclusive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Have you sat down and spoken with Michael Jackson and had an analogous discussion to the one with the older man you talk about? If not, then how are you qualified to judge whether a man is guilty or not?

Did you read the sentence you quoted?
Perhaps my grammar skills aren't really up to snuff but I'm pretty sure I said that it wasn't enough to find him guilty. And I believe I commented on a "feeling" of guilt, not that he was actually guilty.
No I have not sat with him and I doubt that sitting in the same room with him would change the impression of what I have seen of him in interview. I'm not talking about some psychic phenomenon here, just an appraisal of speech and mannerisms.

Isn't it easy to sit in a chair and say whether someone is guilty is not? As far as I know, none of us was there. How can you then pretend to know the facts. Show a little respect, the man has just passed away.

No one on the jury was there either.

I really don't care that he's just died. I'm not religious and I do not have much respect for the man himself to begin with. If any notorious figure were to die today from George W. Bush to Kobe Bryant I would not care if people felt the need to discuss their alleged crimes.
If it bothers you though then I will shut up.

 

[Phrak]

You are not qualified to make statements declaring what constitutes paedophilic behaviour, nor are you in a position to comment on the sexual drives or psychological state of anyone.

Pray tell, how are you qualified to declair the qualifications of others?

 

[cristo]

Did you read the sentence you quoted?

Erm.. yes.. the bit that read "I think that was part of what pushed me toward feeling Jackson was guilty."

Perhaps my grammar skills aren't really up to snuff but I'm pretty sure I said that it wasn't enough to find him guilty.

But you said you think he is guilty. Hence my question.

 

[Hootenanny]

Pray tell, how are you qualified to declair the qualifications of others?

Perhaps I am not and I will more than happy to apologise if you are indeed a qualified psychologist, rather than say an engineering technician?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So Jackson's personal physician disappeared from the hospital after Jackson was dropped off there. Apparently he even left his vehicle which was towed away by police. Both the hospital and police had been looking for him because he was supposedly present when Jackson died (whether that means in the room or just in his home I am unsure).

From what I am hearing generally he, as the personal physician, would have written up and signed off on the death certificate but he disappeared without doing so which is why his body was transported to the LA coroners office for an autopsy. This may have been done anyway but it is apparently the routine for persons who die where a death certificate is not drawn up by the attending physician.

Reportedly there are physicians logs that indicate Jackson received a dosage of demerol from his doctor only about an hour before the approximate time of death. This may in part be why his physician declined to draw up the death certificate himself, to allow someone else to determine the cause of death and head off any assertions that he conspired to cover up malpractice.

The last I just heard is that the physician has resurfaced after meeting with his lawyers.
I heard all of this on the radio so I don't have links but here is a recent story about the doctor...
http://www.etonline.com/news/2009/06/75836/



Oh and apparently Jackson used to live in Pahrump (probably part time) down the road from Art Bell. Art says that he never mentioned this before because he did not wish to infringe on Jackson's privacy.

 

[JaredJames]

And why did it keep happening? Wouldn't a halfway intelligent and responsible individual have stopped having young boys sleep in their bed after the first time they were accused of impropriety?

Just a quick point, you ask why a person would continue to allow young boys into their bed after being accused of impropriety. Fair enough, I agree. But at the same time why were the parents allowing their children to go there? It's a two way thing.

Purely on that basis I would say they were looking for a reason to sue. Targetting him if you will.

But I don't know the facts and will take the not guilty stance as that is what the jury found when presented the evidence and it is unfair for me to pass any other judgement on media hype alone.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just a quick point, you ask why a person would continue to allow young boys into their bed after being accused of impropriety. Fair enough, I agree. But at the same time why were the parents allowing their children to go there? It's a two way thing.

Purely on that basis I would say they were looking for a reason to sue. Targetting him if you will.

But I don't know the facts and will take the not guilty stance as that is what the jury found when presented the evidence and it is unfair for me to pass any other judgement on media hype alone.

This was one of the ploys of the defense. The parents aren't the alleged victims, its not a two way thing.

 

[JaredJames]

This was one of the ploys of the defense. The parents aren't the alleged victims, its not a two way thing.

No, but for you to say that he kept allowing it AFTER being accused of such things is completely his fault and it not being the parents responsibility is incorrect.

Are you saying that if your child wanted to visit someone who you've never met, but know he's been accused of molestation, you would say 'carry on it's up to him to stop allowing kids in his bed'?
No, you wouldn't say that (at least I hope you wouldn't). He was accused and yes he should have stopped it, but for the parents to continue to allow it shows a serious failing on their part as they clearly judged him capable of taking care of their child, a judgement made whilts KNOWING the accusations against him.
No, you cannot blame them if he did anything, but for them to allow their child to go into his care, if there was any doubt as to his mental state is their responsibility. At the end of the day, the call is made by the parents to allow their child to visit him. If there was any doubt in their mind, they shouldn't have sent them, unless of course they had an alterea motive.

Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, but for you to say that he kept allowing it AFTER being accused of such things is completely his fault and it not being the parents responsibility is incorrect.

Are you saying that if your child wanted to visit someone who you've never met, but know he's been accused of molestation, you would say 'carry on it's up to him to stop allowing kids in his bed'?
No, you wouldn't say that (at least I hope you wouldn't). He was accused and yes he should have stopped it, but for the parents to continue to allow it shows a serious failing on their part as they clearly judged him capable of taking care of their child, a judgement made whilts KNOWING the accusations against him.
No, you cannot blame them if he did anything, but for them to allow their child to go into his care, if there was any doubt as to his mental state is their responsibility. At the end of the day, the call is made by the parents to allow their child to visit him. If there was any doubt in their mind, they shouldn't have sent them, unless of course they had an alterea motive.

Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.

Again, they were not the alleged victims. I do not care if they dressed him up pretty, sparyed cologne on his cash and prizes, then tucked them in together themselves. The only difference that makes is that the child is now perhaps the alleged victim of both Jackson and his parents. By your estimation both the parents and Jackson have not done what they ought have but this in no way detracts from the responsibility of anyone for the crime that may have occurred involving the actual alleged victim, the child.

 

[russ_watters]

The parents were certainly stupid and wrong, but that doesn't make it not a crime if MJ really did molest those kids. That just puts them under fire from the legal system with him.

 

[JaredJames]

Again, they were not the alleged victims. I do not care if they dressed him up pretty, sparyed cologne on his cash and prizes, then tucked them in together themselves. The only difference that makes is that the child is now perhaps the alleged victim of both Jackson and his parents. By your estimation both the parents and Jackson have not done what they ought have but this in no way detracts from the responsibility of anyone for the crime that may have occurred involving the actual alleged victim, the child.

Did I say it takes the blame off him? Did I say he is innocent on that basis?

I refer you to my last post:

Again, this isn't me defending him or attacking him.

I was simply trying to make the point that your statement regarding him being at fault, without mentioning the parents, is wrong. So as long as there were allegations flying round, the fact the parents let their child go into his care, puts some blame on them. They should be checked out (perhaps not as much as MJ), but certainly in some way, as they then put the child at risk (especially if they did what you describe above they should be just as much to blame for endangering the child). They are both responsible in some way.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Jared: So then I suppose we just got our wires crossed. Your use of the phrase "its a two way thing" seemed to me to indicate that the issue is between the parents and Jackson which led to my ranting. I took your caveats only to mean that you were speculating on points for the court case without actually taking a stance one way or the other on guilt.

My original point in bringing up this continued practice was not necessarily to say it demonstrated guilt but that it seemed to show a pattern of behavior.

So I apologize for ranting at you needlessly. I agree with you that that parents could be said to bare some responsibility for the alleged crime.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared: So then I suppose we just got our wires crossed. Your use of the phrase "its a two way thing" seemed to me to indicate that the issue is between the parents and Jackson which led to my ranting. I took your caveats only to mean that you were speculating on points for the court case without actually taking a stance one way or the other on guilt.

My original point in bringing up this continued practice was not necessarily to say it demonstrated guilt but that it seemed to show a pattern of behavior.

So I apologize for ranting at you needlessly. I agree with you that that parents could be said to bare some responsibility for the alleged crime.

Ah I see, fair enough. Yeah don't think "it's a two way thing" was the right choice of words there. I just meant that under the circumstances of allegations and continuing visits authorised by the parents, they should both be up in front of a jury.

 

[~christina~]

But I'm in the minority here, and I'm sure you'll win your case among such astute, and music loving jurists.

I love his music, but I don't relate that to whether he was, or was not a pedophile.
It is irrelevent. He's dead and that's that. It won't help to argue further about the topic of his guilt or lack thereof. If he was in the midst of a case it would be different. In addition I'm not sure people want to be remembered solely for their crimes, especially since there is so much else you can focus on. (not that it dissapears of course)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Someone made the comment that Jackson ranks with Elvis and Lennon as the icons of modern music. I think I would have to agree. By all accounts that I've heard, Michael Jackson made Michael Jackson. While he had tremendously talented help along the way, it is said by all that he was the real genius behind his success and a diehard professional. Also, given that the Thriller album is still the number one selling album of all time, it is hard to require greater success. He is also credited with eliminating the racial barrier between black and white musicians in that he had entirely colorless appeal.

Biggest Selling Album Of All Time - Guiness Book Of World Records - "Thriller" Album is the biggest selling album of all time, with over 50 million copies sold worldwide. Thriller is also the biggest selling U.S album with sales of 25 million copies.

Most No1 Hits in 1980's

Bad Tour - Guiness Book Of World Records
Michael Jackson's world tour brought in a record gross revenue of over $124 million during September 1987-December 1988.

100 Million Records sold outside of US

Billboard Charts
Michael Jackson is the first person in the 37 year history of the Billboard chart to enter straight in at No1, with his single "You Are Not Alone". The previous record "Earth Song" which had debuted at No5 and also Michael Jacksons.

Biggest Selling Video of all time - Thriller

Most No1 Hits by Male Artist (13)

No1 On Charts
In 1983 Michael became the first artist to simultaneously hold the number one spots on Billboard's rock albums and rock singles charts, as well as the R&B albums and singles charts.

Consecutive No1 Singles
Jackson 5 were the first group to ever have four consecutive No1 singles...
http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/achievements.html

 

[jobyts]

An MJ fan collapses with grief

 

[mgb_phys]

Someone made the comment that Jackson ranks with Elvis and Lennon as the icons of modern music...

"Thriller" Album is the biggest selling album of all time, with over 50 million copies sold worldwide.

Most No1 Hits in 1980's

He was also active during the period when album and singles sales were the highest.
A 30s Busby Berkeley musical had 20x as many cinema viewers as a modern summer blockbuster but it doesn't mean they were any good.

Was Jackson really that musically great? Or did he just hit the right demographic at the right time?

 

[Borek]

Was Jackson really that musically great? Or id he just hit the right demographic at the right time?

Both perhaps?

 

[turbo]

Both perhaps?

Definitely. There are musicians out there that are incredibly talented that will never get the attention that a pop star can generate. Also, we cannot forget the power that MTV and similar venues put in the hands of performers who are flamboyant. The timing was perfect for MJ, Madonna, and others who were ready to jump on the video bandwagon. Similarly, an earlier crop of pop stars was boosted by the disco craze.

Meanwhile, giants of blues, jazz, classical, etc chug along. Remember, Stevie Ray Vaughn was one of the hottest guitarists in blues/rock and didn't get all that much airplay or public attention apart from the blues-crowd. That changed when he died, and radio stations started playing large blocks of his songs, and record stores sold out of his CDs in no time. SRV already had the attention of a lot of blues stars like Albert King and Eric Clapton, but popular acclaim didn't come until he was dead.

 

[Moonbear]

He is also credited with eliminating the racial barrier between black and white musicians in that he had entirely colorless appeal.

Well, he did spend time as each color, gradually becoming quite colorless. The plastic surgery made him odd enough in appearance, but the very artificial looking skin tone (never really knew if it was bleached, vitiligo, or heavy make-up) is what made him appear almost alien.

Was Jackson really that musically great? Or did he just hit the right demographic at the right time?

I think that could be said for any "great" performer. Would Elvis be great if he were performing now rather than then? I don't think glittery jumpsuits and a gyrating pelvis would even get noticed in today's music world.

I think Jackson mostly got lucky and got his solo career going just as music videos were starting. It was a brand new media form, and people were excited about it no matter what was being put into those, so when he actually could dance and included great choreography and expensive sets to really outshine other videos of the time, I think that's what really gained his popularity. He also hit that transition from records to cassette tapes, when kids with a lot of spending money were buying both, so they could play the record at home and the tape in the boom box to try to imitate the moonwalk in the street. Breakdancing was popular, and the moonwalk became another move added to that repertoire. That was also an era with a lot of variety and changing styles the kids were wearing. Every season, something new was "in." Not like now when the droopy pants are still lingering well over a decade or two and kids can't seem to think of something new to do to annoy their parents. So, the one gloved look, and the costumy jackets were all part of that progression of styles in the '80s. I don't remember any of them lasting long, just a season to be replaced by the next look to be emulated...we also had the big hair bands, and female artists like Cyndi Lauper and Madonna who were also in the rotation of crazy outfits kids emulated.

 

[mgb_phys]

I think that could be said for any "great" performer.

I don't think he had the song writing of Lennon+McCartney, the singing ability of Jagger or the stage presence of the Who.
Maybe I'm not remembering the impact at the time but he seemed to be just a 'Will Smith' sort of star, pretty enough for the teenage girl market but androgynous enough for the boys. Safe enough (ironic) that nice parents bought their kids the albums and radio stations played them.

 

[turbo]

Some of the greatest song-writers, IMO, include Paul Simon, Carole King, Neil Sedaka, James Taylor and Jackson Browne. People who could write compelling lyrics and deliver them without flash and histrionics.

There is a reason that MJ bought the rights to the Beatles' catalog. They are timeless, and get played over and over again, yielding a steady stream of income from royalties.

 

[cristo]

I don't think he had the song writing of Lennon+McCartney, the singing ability of Jagger or the stage presence of the Who.

Maybe he didn't have better individual qualities, but his popularity came from the package, which was among the best.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe he didn't have better individual qualities, but his popularity came from the package, which was among the best.

That is more how I see it. I don't think he can be rated as the best singer, or best writer, or the creator of an entire genre of music, it is more a matter of his ability to utilize all of his talents including his dancing, his marketing skills, and especially his keen sense of showmanship.

I'm no fan of dancing, but no one can deny that the man had the moves! [pun intended]

I love almost everything that Elton John has ever done -I even have to admit to playing Funeral for a Friend on the piano more times than I have any other song. He has also been around longer than Jackson has. While I've never bought a MJ recording, I would still have to rate Jackson as being more a legendary figure than Elton.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Too funny!

United States Patent 5,255,452
Jackson , et al. October 26, 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Method and means for creating anti-gravity illusion


Abstract
A system for allowing a shoe wearer to lean forwardly beyond his center of gravity by virtue of wearing a specially designed pair of shoes which will engage with a hitch member movably projectable through a stage surface. The shoes have a specially designed heel slot which can be detachably engaged with the hitch member by simply sliding the shoe wearer's foot forward, thereby engaging with the hitch member.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Jackson; Michael J. (Los Angeles, CA), Bush; Michael L. (Hollywood, CA), Tompkins; Dennis (Hollywood, CA)...

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/5255452

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HJbGSHtFYQ

 

[turbo]

Interesting application, but it was probably unique only in the sense that the anchoring studs protrude through the floor when needed and then retracted after the stunt had been performed. Anybody who has skied on long skis (downhill, GS, jumping) knows that you can get way forward of vertical if you need to. Of course, when you see that on TV it doesn't look too "gee whiz" because we all expect to see it at times.