When Celebrities Attack!

[maudmac]

For current/former celebrity crime/legal talk.



Okay, I know some of you are glued to your TVs and actually know what "duck butter" is.



So...we got Michael Jackson going on right now. The Robert Blake jury is currently still out, I believe. Who else?



I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. This is where you come in, Kittens. I know you have lots to say about the Jesus juice and other such horrors.

---

don't make me come up there - satan

[Gatito Grande]

I don't which is more appalling: that the BBC is actually covering the "King of Pop's" trial, or that they so matter-of-factly say the name of the boy MJ is charged w/ molesting.



GG Does anyone doubt that "put Jesus Juice in your Coke can" actually happened? That said, does anyone else doubt that the A----o family has the number of their local ambulance/police-blotter-chaser on their speed-dial? It's like "when the Unsypathetically Undeserving sue the Unsanely Unnatural"! Out

[urnofosiris]

Well seeing as the boy was flaunted in that creepy Bashir documentary and his name was already publically known it seems fruitless to try and hide it now, though the more often it´s repeated the better it will stick in people´s memories, which can only be harmful. It will be a long time before people will forget who he is. I have a hard time imagining him growing up without this haunting his steps all the way.



We only get brief updates of the trial on TV here, but I have read some of the testimonies and I have no doubt that jesus juice (sounds like the exact thing that this man would come up with) and basically everything else happened as that boy said. Maybe his siblings did not witness as much as they claim, maybe they only said so to help prove his story, otherwise it would be just his words against the prince of darkness.

Edited by: DrG at: 3/13/05 3:18 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Well, I'd never heard his name before, until I heard it on the Beeb (but I don't read tabloids and I haven't scoured the internet for it either). It's certainly never been uttered on U.S. mainstream media (ala CNN): there are "rape (victim) shield laws" against that sort of thing.



GG Has the Bashir documentary been shown in the U.S.? Maybe it has---I just haven't been interested (if it was, did they use the kid's name when they broadcast it, or did they edit it out?) Out

[Auburn]

Yep it will undoubtedly haunt the boy when he grows up, I always thought they weren't allowed to give the names of children in such cases for that particular reason?! I always get the feeling that the boy is being exploited by everyone including.... his family. :(

[maudmac]

So, what do y'all think about the verdict?

I wasn't really following the case, but the impression I got from what I did see was that it boiled down to "he said, he said" and there wasn't much evidence at all. And that those who testified for the prosecution weren't exactly compelling witnesses, even the alleged victim himself.

If that's true, I'd say it sounds like the jury reached the right verdict. You can't convict someone because you think he's a creepy perv in general.

[urnofosiris]

I did not follow the trial much either other than the snippets shown on TV. I have read a few of the grand jury testimonies online though. I am sure the family of that young dude told some non truths and thereby contradicted themselves. For whatever purpose, profit probably, trying to make sure he got convicted. It is a real shame. I do believe Jackson did things that were wildly inappropriate at least or downright criminal at the worst. I would have liked to have heard all the evidence to really form an objective opinion. I trust the jury did that and apparently the evidence was lacking.

My subjective opinion remains that he is guilty. When these allegations first hit the airwaves I could not believe he was guilty. I really did not think he ever used his weener, but apparently he still has a few hormones in his ruined body. I could not believe him capable of a thing like that when I heard him denying everything so vehemently. I did not think he could be that manipulative and good an actor. I since found out that one of the male nurses I worked with for years, nice guy all the way, confessed to drugging his teenage daugther and molesting her for years. I could not believe it when I first heard he was arrested, then he confessed. So what do I know about what nice guys are capable of.

Looking at Jackson, I like to believe he has been punished already, by this trial, by simply being who he is. I hope no parent will ever let their kids go stay the night with him again. Maybe he is innocent, but who would risk their child on a maybe.

Edit: I just listened to the jury interview. It is interesting what they have to say. I now definitely trust that they came to an objective verdict and it boils down to them voting for reasonable doubt rather than innocence.

[Culzean]

I think the jury definitely found him "not guilty" vs. "innocent."

Given the evidence and witnesses I would have probably come to the same verdict if I were on the jury. However, my gut tells me he's guilty. I don't know if he molested this particular boy, but his behavior is just too far off base to accept his innocence. At the least, his behavior was highly inappropriate and he taught kids that it's ok to hop into bed with grown-ups.

The information I found most compelling related to past lawsuits. I knew about the first accusation, where the boy dropped the criminal charges and settled for around 20 million dollars. I didn't know there were two additional lawsuits after that, in which MJ also paid out millions of dollars.

In light of that, why the heck did he keep inviting boys into his bedroom? Even if he really is Peter Pan, and they just watched movies and ate popcorn, that just goes against all common sense. Either he truly kept thinking he would never get sued again, or he has compulsions he simply can't control.

Had he kept the kids out of his bedroom, and made sure there were always chaperons nearby, this lawsuit would have never happened.

[Gatito Grande]

I simply don't understand how the jury could have failed to convict him AT LEAST on the "lesser charge of providing intoxicants to a minor." Whatever you thought of the overall credibility of G____ A_____ and the A_____ family (the BBC said their names all the time: weird), the "Jesus Juice" story just Reeked of Realness.

I can only figure that the jury wanted to spank the prosecution, by bringing such wildly over-inflated charges (that "Conspiracy" one was over-the-top).

GG "I didn't like that Mrs. A_____ snapped her fingers at us" said one juror. You'd hate to think that an icky witness's personal quirks would allow someone w/ such a backstory as a predator (a number of analysts said that the prosecution SHOULD HAVE gone w/ the kid that MJ paid off 10 years ago---that was a much stronger case) to continue on his Merry Neverland Way. Like Jon Stewart surmised "Jackson will celebrate by diving into a Big Ol' Bowl of Boys!" Out

[maudmac]

a number of analysts said that the prosecution SHOULD HAVE gone w/ the kid that MJ paid off 10 years ago---that was a much stronger case

That's exactly what I thought when I heard about the whole JCPenney thing. I thought, well, there's your reasonable doubt right there, why are they even going forward with this? It made the prosecution look ridiculous.

Michael Jackson is so oddly fascinating. Such a strange creature. (Hard to think of him as a man. He is like some fantastical constructed humanoid being.) I still wonder sometimes whether I dreamed all that Lisa Marie Presley stuff. That was surreal.

[urnofosiris]

Oh yes the Jesus Juice comment. Whatever that boy´s mother or family might have embellished upon or made up, I am absolutely convinced they would not have come up with that themselves. Just like I was convinced that Anita Hill did not make up that pubic hair comment by the ´honorable´ judge Thomas.

As for Lisa Marie Presley, I saw her recently on Oprah (yes I watch Oprah occasionally). Apparently she thought it was very surreal as well. Hee. She definitely would not repeat the experience I think. She made a pretty good impression on me btw. Sometimes she looks a bit surly so I was not sure what to make of her, but she seemed pretty ok and down to earth (amazing really given her own family history). Priscilla made an appearance as well, and lo and behold, I think she and Jackson share the same butcher -I mean- plastic surgeon. Such a beautiful woman she was and now she looks like a wax statue.

[maudmac]

Hee, yes, Priscilla is beginning to look non-human with her bizarrely stretched face and lips. I don't understand why some of these high-profile plastic surgery addicts aren't destroying the entire industry. One look at the Bride of Wildenstein should be enough to make one run for the hills. By comparison, someone like Mary Tyler Moore looks great, but she still looks...uh...wrong. I love the trainwreck of celebrity plastic surgery drama. What's that site? Found it - Awful Plastic Surgery

I know what you mean about Lisa Marie. She always seems very normal when I see her on TV. Which is why the MJ thing was so strange to me. I always wondered if it weren't more of a business arrangement than a marriage, but I understand that even Lisa Marie says she loved him, right?