Only if you invent words in your head that nobody actually says.


[url=http://www.mjshouse.com/stories/living_with_mj_transcript.htmlTranscript of the Bashir interview[/url

So in fact, he actually denied it.

"It's not sexual"

"They were his words, as said to Martin Bashir", and as Live Wired twisted to suit his agenda.

Paying them millions of pounds to keep quiet smells a tad fishy mind.

I know someone who spent time with Michael Jackson at John Reid's estate (Elton John's manager) when going through treatment with Beauchamp Colcough (known as Beechy in celeb circles) in 1993. I've seen a letter from Jackson thanking her for helping him. Apparently he arrived a virtual zombie and made good progress in the few days there.

The people I've met who were there all insist there is no chance Jackson had sexual relations with children. A couple of the people there were uncomfortable with what they were doing bearing in mind the allegations at the time, and they asked him to show them his penis in reference to Jordan Chandler's statement that Jackson was circumcised (he wasn't). From what I understand Jackson never fully mentally matured into an adult and his apparent fascination with children was part and parcel of that. Aside from that, when he was free from drugs and comfortable with his surroundings they said he was a funny, kind man - with a deep voice(!).

I don't know and make no claims either way but it was fascinating hearing some of the stories.

The average bloke would never have got off the charges, thats for sure.

If you've got lashings of cash, why not? I can comprehend such a decision – and we're not talking about someone who was, I suspect, particularly in touch with reality or basic logic. I'd add that I think that it therefore became a way for people to make money – sending their children in to spend the night at Jackson's home and then seeking cash (which tells you something about the parents in question, frankly – and it ain't nice).

The trial was beyond satire, but I remember thinking that the prosecution was up the spout when it emerged, before the trial, that they'd had to beg for additional evidence to be admitted. The evidence in question was the Bashir interview – see above. In other words, something so completely in the public domain as that was now something they needed for their case. Or put another way, they knew they had no serious case to start with.

I am not, before anyone assumes, a Jackson fan. For what it's worth, my own opinion on the case is that he didn't have sex with children, but did, as he himself said, sleep with them. Given his desperate desire to be a child again himself (presumably to experience the childhood he himself was denied by his parents) and his Peter Pan complex, I think it's a feasible explanation.

The families keeping quiet after being paid is equally fishy for mine, but there you go.

I was never convinced tbh. In all those years and with all those kids that stayed with him there were maybe two or three allegations?

If he was some rich fool who thought himself above the law there'd have been other families coming out of the woodwork. You can guarantee that most of those families had conversations with their kids when the first allegations started coming out.

And there you go – Cronus and I basically agreeing on something – albeit from different levels of knowledge/understanding.

Maybe it's Michael magic at work.

As I've mentioned – families sending their children to stay with him, after the first rumours/allegations, stinks for mine.

I don't think anything about it can be known 'for sure' (except by a handful of people). I'm inclined to believe that an innocent man doesn't fork out several million quid to buy the silence of a person making a malicious allegation of child abuse, however.

Dammit.

Altogether now, "Heal the world...."

A female jury member giving an interview afterwards said she voted not guilty because the prosecutor had shifty eyes. Only in America.

Because it's the very worst thing you can accuse a man of. If someone made such an allegation about me and I was loaded, I'd use every penny at my disposal to clear my name. I certainly wouldn't consider lining the pockets of those making the malicious allegations.

As you and others point out, there are other factors of the cases that look just as bad for the parents involved, so it's far from clear cut. If I had to say one way or the other, my gut feeling would be that he was involved in some inappropriate physical contact with children.

This is a man who climbed into bed with kids and offered them his "jesus juice". He's not exactly known for his judgement.

Not that I'm trying to convince you. It's a perfectly reasonable position. A friend of mine, who was a victim of child abuse, is convinced for exactly the same reasons you are.

I just think that someone who was, in many, many ways, very immature, might think that it was a way to buy less trouble.



I think we're lucky, in this discussion, to have Cronus able to provide us with far more real insight than most other discussions of this nature will have. I think the guy was bonkers – and you've been around here long enough to know that I certainly don't take child abuse lightly (not that I'm saying you're saying that, incidentally!).

I don't think what Cronus has said could be termed 'real insight'. At best, it's third hand information, the accuracy of which cannot be verified, posted by an anonymous person on a messageboard.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, by the way, merely expressing my point of view. I'm not even totally convinced myself, but on a balance of probabilities, I think he probably has a little more to answer for than immaturity and poor judgement.

Back to the Murray verdict....Wasn't it ironic that the Jackson family turned up appealing for justice, when they are probably the most guilty party in the demise and eventual death of Michael?

For a family to allow somebody to reach the level of mental illness that Jackson did, without actually doing something positive about it (instead, using Jackson's fame for their own means) smacks of pure selfishness and neglect.

His father especially, will always be more guilty of Jackson's death than any unfortunate doctor, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time....Jackson needed a drug dealer for his addiction, Murray was a convenient fall guy.

Indeed.



I agree with this to a very large degree.

He was a convenient fall guy, but he was a convenient fall guy who had every opportunity to acknowledge both his professional ethics and the law and just not give him the drugs. I don't think I can say that Jackson was immature and had poor judgement and then say the adult in the room in this doctor / patient relationship is just a fall guy. He did have some responsibilities to his patient beyond being an enabler for hire.

Yes, Murray had responsibilities and he has rightfully been found guilty of his crimes, but I think we all know that if Murray had been a responsible doctor, then he simply would have been sacked and another doctor would have been paid a fortune to supply drugs to Jackson, as commanded by his 'patient'.

Aye, and he'd have withered away on his Hollywood doctor's salary, always regretting the day he turned down an opportunity for massive ethical abuses.

In the real world this would be true. Unfortunately, we are talking about Michael Jackson's world.

I think he just found out how relevant the invented world of the drug addict patient he was illegally supplying drugs to actually is.

Sentencing in process.

I'd be surprised if he doesn't get the maximum sentence possible.

A four year stretch.