Neverland
February 13, 2003 3:03 PM Subscribe
Neverland : The testimony that Michael Jackson paid between $15 and $40 million to suppress.
Yes, it's all over the place now, this testimony. Unfortunately, no one has thought to circulate this article, except for Mr. Blueshammer. Check out mediareport's recap of the highlights if you don't want to read the whole sad, disgusting story yourself.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 3:16 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by grrarrgh00 at 3:16 PM on February 13, 2003
This is disturbing stuff. I'd venture to guess the money was spilling from Michael's pockets after his lawyers read this.
posted by rotifer at 3:19 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by rotifer at 3:19 PM on February 13, 2003
I am no great fan of Michael Jackson, but I am a believer in that whole nutty "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I may be naive, but I believe that if the police believed they had a credible case against Jackson, they would have pursued criminal charges, financial settlement or no.
grrarrgh00: Thanks for posting those links again. I hope folks read them before automatically decrying Jackson.
By the way, what are the penalties for breaking a confidentiality agreement in California?
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:26 PM on February 13, 2003
grrarrgh00: Thanks for posting those links again. I hope folks read them before automatically decrying Jackson.
By the way, what are the penalties for breaking a confidentiality agreement in California?
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:26 PM on February 13, 2003
Well, innocent until proven guilty only applies if there is an actual trial. To avoid a trial and publicity he shoveled out a lot of money. Does this make him guilty? Nope, not at all. But it also means that his innocence has never been proven either.
posted by substrate at 3:38 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by substrate at 3:38 PM on February 13, 2003
To avoid a trial ... he shoveled out a lot of money
The money he paid out was to settle a (potential?) civil suit. Contrary to popular belief, money can't get you out of criminal charges (well, unless you bribe the police I guess). There's no such thing as "pressing charges" like in the movies. If no charges were brought, it's probably a fairly good sign that the evidence was inconclusive.
posted by boltman at 3:49 PM on February 13, 2003
The money he paid out was to settle a (potential?) civil suit. Contrary to popular belief, money can't get you out of criminal charges (well, unless you bribe the police I guess). There's no such thing as "pressing charges" like in the movies. If no charges were brought, it's probably a fairly good sign that the evidence was inconclusive.
posted by boltman at 3:49 PM on February 13, 2003
There's no such thing as "pressing charges" like in the movies. If no charges were brought, it's probably a fairly good sign that the evidence was inconclusive.
or that the only witness that could make the case stick recanted his story (after receiving said 15-40 million bucks). Hard to make a sex-crime case when the victim won't testify.
posted by pejamo at 4:00 PM on February 13, 2003
or that the only witness that could make the case stick recanted his story (after receiving said 15-40 million bucks). Hard to make a sex-crime case when the victim won't testify.
posted by pejamo at 4:00 PM on February 13, 2003
Does anyone else think it's suspicious that according to this testimony:
- Michael Jackson was just hanging out at a Rent-A-Wreck to get a rental vehicle? Why Rent-A-Wreck? Why wouldn't he have someone else go and get him a replacement? Why doesn't he have a zillion different cars? Why didn't the dealer give him a loaner?
- The kid's mother is his half-sister
pejamo: read the links that grrarrgh00 posted. 15-40 million to settle a civil suit that would have dragged his name through the mud for months. Even if he had won, I don't think people would have forgotten the trial - they certainly haven't forgotten the unproven allegations.
Which of you who wants to believe Michael Jackson was guilty was there? Which of you has studied the evidence and talked to all the players, as opposed to reading about it in magazines, seeing stuff about it on TV, or reading jokes on the Interweb? Unfortunately, we don't know what happened. Evidence (again, see grrarrgh00's links) suggests that this was all an attempt at getting some money out of Jackson.
Is he bizarre? Hell yeah. Is he a criminal or a pedophile? Not as far as the laws of the state of California (or the U.S.A.) are concerned.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:17 PM on February 13, 2003
Which of you who wants to believe Michael Jackson was guilty was there? Which of you has studied the evidence and talked to all the players, as opposed to reading about it in magazines, seeing stuff about it on TV, or reading jokes on the Interweb? Unfortunately, we don't know what happened. Evidence (again, see grrarrgh00's links) suggests that this was all an attempt at getting some money out of Jackson.
Is he bizarre? Hell yeah. Is he a criminal or a pedophile? Not as far as the laws of the state of California (or the U.S.A.) are concerned.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:17 PM on February 13, 2003
Personally I think it's a sham. I've thought that for a long time. Obviously the kid can't write a statement like that himself, so it's hardly "his account" of what actually happened. Also, if Jackson were actually guilty why wouldn't the parents want him in jail? A restraining order? Anything besides money? And the only people that can corroborate any of the "evidence" have a take in the $20mil.
Reading the statement just confirms my beliefs. It's just too pathetic/cliche. Jackson just seems to go through fits of sticking his tongue down the kid's throat, crying, humping his leg while clothed, crying, giving him humjobs, crying.
It just reaks of extortion. I'd give it 95% odds that it's all lies.
posted by zekinskia at 4:17 PM on February 13, 2003
Reading the statement just confirms my beliefs. It's just too pathetic/cliche. Jackson just seems to go through fits of sticking his tongue down the kid's throat, crying, humping his leg while clothed, crying, giving him humjobs, crying.
It just reaks of extortion. I'd give it 95% odds that it's all lies.
posted by zekinskia at 4:17 PM on February 13, 2003
Well, innocent until proven guilty only applies if there is an actual trial. ...his innocence has never been proven....
So what you're saying is: a defendant is innocent until proven guilty only if the defendant has been proven innocent? Huh? I don't thing you understand how presumption of innocence works. Unless someone is proven guilty of a crime in a court of law, that person is presumed by the law to be innocent of that crime. There's no caveat about a trial, actual or hypothetical.
OK, substrate: I'm hereby accusing you of murder, racketeering, tax evasion, and taking indecent liberties with a mountain goat. Unless we have a trial on these charges, your standard holds that "innocent until proven guilty does not apply". I suppose this means that you're not innocent of murder, racketeering, tax evasion, or taking indecent liberties with a mountain goat. Until you prove your innocence, that is.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:20 PM on February 13, 2003
So what you're saying is: a defendant is innocent until proven guilty only if the defendant has been proven innocent? Huh? I don't thing you understand how presumption of innocence works. Unless someone is proven guilty of a crime in a court of law, that person is presumed by the law to be innocent of that crime. There's no caveat about a trial, actual or hypothetical.
OK, substrate: I'm hereby accusing you of murder, racketeering, tax evasion, and taking indecent liberties with a mountain goat. Unless we have a trial on these charges, your standard holds that "innocent until proven guilty does not apply". I suppose this means that you're not innocent of murder, racketeering, tax evasion, or taking indecent liberties with a mountain goat. Until you prove your innocence, that is.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:20 PM on February 13, 2003
Also from grrarrgh00's article, milnak, it explains why he was in the car place.
Jackson's troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue. When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage....
posted by Recockulous at 4:21 PM on February 13, 2003
Jackson's troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue. When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage....
posted by Recockulous at 4:21 PM on February 13, 2003
milnak, I read the deposition to mean his mother was his half-sister as well.
Punctuation is everything, though. The deposition is listing the people with whom he traveled to Neverland. He says "My mother, Lily (my half sister)".
Later on in the depo, it becomes evident that Lily and his mother are two different people. It would have been better written had it said "My mother and Lily, my half sister".
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:37 PM on February 13, 2003
Punctuation is everything, though. The deposition is listing the people with whom he traveled to Neverland. He says "My mother, Lily (my half sister)".
Later on in the depo, it becomes evident that Lily and his mother are two different people. It would have been better written had it said "My mother and Lily, my half sister".
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:37 PM on February 13, 2003
I' m picking nits here, but this clearly is not "testimony," as Lagado calls it. Arnie of the the Rob, Arnie and Dawn radio show called it testimony also. As it says, it's a declaration. This is something someone else -- I'm guessing a lawyer for the kid's father -- drafted and the kid signed. How often would a 12-year-old use language like that in here? Take a look at the last page in particular. Twelve-year-olds don't talk like that.
By analogy, Gary Condit's lawyer offered a declaration to the flight attendant to swear that she and Gary Condit never had an affair. She declined and a grand jury investigated whether Condit solicited perjury.
Something else the document shows is that there was a custody dispute and it suggests the kid's mother was negligent for letting the kid hang around with Michael Jackson. So there's motive to lie here just so the father can get custody of the kid.
posted by stevefromsparks at 4:47 PM on February 13, 2003
By analogy, Gary Condit's lawyer offered a declaration to the flight attendant to swear that she and Gary Condit never had an affair. She declined and a grand jury investigated whether Condit solicited perjury.
Something else the document shows is that there was a custody dispute and it suggests the kid's mother was negligent for letting the kid hang around with Michael Jackson. So there's motive to lie here just so the father can get custody of the kid.
posted by stevefromsparks at 4:47 PM on February 13, 2003
Still, Jackson has admitted to sleeping with boys (platonically) so it is not so far fetched to think he did
the same with this kid. Now even if the sex stuff is made
up, Jackson is a moron for doing that and put his fortune at risk. I tend to believe where there's smoke, there's fire.
Grown men shouldn't be hanging around in bed with other people's children.
posted by Slagman at 4:55 PM on February 13, 2003
the same with this kid. Now even if the sex stuff is made
up, Jackson is a moron for doing that and put his fortune at risk. I tend to believe where there's smoke, there's fire.
Grown men shouldn't be hanging around in bed with other people's children.
posted by Slagman at 4:55 PM on February 13, 2003
I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Michael Jackson, though bizarre, wouldn't do something like that. If there was really anything to this, he'd be in jail.
posted by charlesv at 5:24 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by charlesv at 5:24 PM on February 13, 2003
I'll split the difference: definitely innocent until proven guilty, this "declaration" reeks of bad faith - but had I a son, I wouldn't let him within half a klick of this fucking freakjob.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:46 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:46 PM on February 13, 2003
Grown men shouldn't be hanging around in bed with other people's children.
By the same token, other people should not let their children hang around in bed with grown men whether it's Michael Jackson or Michael J. Fox. I doubt that many thirteen year olds sleep in their parent's beds, so why should the parents put their kids in bed with MJ? Putting the entire onus on Jackson absolves the parents of wayyyy too much responsibility, and irresponsible parents are doing just fine on their own without absolving them of this particularly icky thought.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:51 PM on February 13, 2003
By the same token, other people should not let their children hang around in bed with grown men whether it's Michael Jackson or Michael J. Fox. I doubt that many thirteen year olds sleep in their parent's beds, so why should the parents put their kids in bed with MJ? Putting the entire onus on Jackson absolves the parents of wayyyy too much responsibility, and irresponsible parents are doing just fine on their own without absolving them of this particularly icky thought.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:51 PM on February 13, 2003
I seriously doubt Wacko Jacko can drive, let alone would rent a "wreck".
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:17 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:17 PM on February 13, 2003
I second that, McBain. After you read what f*cking scum the boy's family is, you'll have no problem in imagining how this "declaration" that was drafted by the family's attorneys and signed by the kid is a pile of bull designed to appeal to the lowest, most purient interests (a strategy that appears to be working even now, ten years later, right here before our eyes...)
It's also important to recall that no other evidence was ever entered by any other child, male or female. Every staff member or "confidante" who came forward has been discredited or has recanted. The entire brouhaha rests solely on this one kid's story.
As completely out of touch with reality as Michael Jackson is, I do really believe he sleeps with kids in and around his bed - in a non-sexual way - and doesn't see that other people might think something untoward of it. This kid's bottom-feeder father is simply exploiting the public's rush to believe the worst and Jackson's people - wisely - chose to pay up to make him up and go away.
posted by JollyWanker at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2003
It's also important to recall that no other evidence was ever entered by any other child, male or female. Every staff member or "confidante" who came forward has been discredited or has recanted. The entire brouhaha rests solely on this one kid's story.
As completely out of touch with reality as Michael Jackson is, I do really believe he sleeps with kids in and around his bed - in a non-sexual way - and doesn't see that other people might think something untoward of it. This kid's bottom-feeder father is simply exploiting the public's rush to believe the worst and Jackson's people - wisely - chose to pay up to make him up and go away.
posted by JollyWanker at 7:10 PM on February 13, 2003
But it also means that his innocence has never been proven either.
You don't have to be proven innocent.
As strange and twisted as this story is, I don't believe Michael is a sexual being at all. I believe he's just looking for kids to play with (in a non-sexual manner). These liasons are innocent sleep-overs. Weird and twisted, but physically innocent. Mentally is a whole 'nother story.
posted by fried at 8:41 PM on February 13, 2003
You don't have to be proven innocent.
As strange and twisted as this story is, I don't believe Michael is a sexual being at all. I believe he's just looking for kids to play with (in a non-sexual manner). These liasons are innocent sleep-overs. Weird and twisted, but physically innocent. Mentally is a whole 'nother story.
posted by fried at 8:41 PM on February 13, 2003
I agree, I think Micheal is probably asexual. I once had a teacher describe himself that way. He claimed that he had no preference for men or women, that he had no sex at all and had no interest in it. This guy was completely strange and seemed very believable to me at the time. I hope for the sake of the children in Mike's life that I am right. Mikes mental state and problems with his self image probably proclude him from being able to carry out sexual activity.
posted by SweetIceT at 9:00 PM on February 13, 2003
posted by SweetIceT at 9:00 PM on February 13, 2003
"I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Michael Jackson, though bizarre, wouldn't do something like that. If there was really anything to this, he'd be in jail."
That's faulty logic. If you follow that logic, then any and all child molesters would be in jail.
Some people get away with their crimes because they're clever, or they can buy off the families of victims, or because the law enforcement officials can't make a case for whatever reason.
Just because you have no proof that he is a child molester, that does not mean that he isn't one.
posted by geekhorde at 9:54 PM on February 13, 2003
That's faulty logic. If you follow that logic, then any and all child molesters would be in jail.
Some people get away with their crimes because they're clever, or they can buy off the families of victims, or because the law enforcement officials can't make a case for whatever reason.
Just because you have no proof that he is a child molester, that does not mean that he isn't one.
posted by geekhorde at 9:54 PM on February 13, 2003
Just because you have no proof that he is a child molester, that does not mean that he isn't one.
nor does it mean he is one.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:21 PM on February 13, 2003
nor does it mean he is one.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:21 PM on February 13, 2003
« Older Former Inner-City Teacher Speaks Out | here fishy fishy fish. Where is my fishy fishy... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by goethean at 3:11 PM on February 13, 2003