Did Michael Jackson Do It?
Like me, Leo McKinstry, of the London Spectator doubts it:
...Eccentricity does not necessarily imply guilt. Personally, I have the gravest doubts about the charges made against Jackson. Not only are the motives of his accusers open to suspicion, but also Jacksonís behaviour does not match that of a predatory, duplicitous child-abuser. The present case arose out of the television documentary made about Jackson by Martin Bashir. Broadcast in February 2003, this programme featured Gavin Arvizo, who was filmed leaning his head on Jacksonís shoulder while he talked of his devotion to the pop star ó hardly the behaviour of someone living in terror of abuse. Indeed, Gavinís mother, Janet Ventura, was so furious at the way Bashir hinted at Jacksonís impropriety that she made a formal complaint to the Independent Television Commission, arguing that Bashirís programme was ëa complete distortion of the truth about Michael Jackson as I know and admire him. At no time has Gavin ever been treated with anything other than love, respect and the deepest kindness by Michael Jackson.í She stressed that Jackson had helped her son in his battle with cancer through ëhis constant support, both practical and emotionalí.Those words will return to haunt Ms Ventura in court, for she is now one of the star witnesses for the prosecution against Jackson. She claims to be acting from a spirit of outrage, but others say that she is acting out of spite because Jackson would no longer give her financial support. Over the years, he has showered her with gifts, including a car and an apartment for a boyfriend, but earlier this year, when he told her that ëthe free ride is overí, she is alleged to have turned against him. Witnesses at Neverland state that they saw Janet Ventura, ëhigh on crackí, arguing with Jackson and making verbal threats to go to ëthe tabloids and tell them some stories if you donít take care of meí. Some might see Jacksonís supposed generosity as nothing more than hush money to cover up abuse. Yet if he was succumbing to such pressures, why would he suddenly stop paying?
Intriguingly, this picture of a grasping woman bent on revenge is supported by Janet Venturaís estranged husband, David Arvizo, who says that his ex-wife was obsessed with becoming a celebrity and was only ëinterested in money and herselfí. It has also been pointed out that Janet Ventura previously made allegations at the supermarket J.C. Penney, claiming to have been battered and sexually assaulted by security guards. She won $144,000 in an out-of-court settlement. During her divorce battle, she also accused her husband of abusing their children. For this purpose, she is said to have written out scripts for the children so that they would back up her testimony in court.
Ms Ventura and her son Gavin may indeed now be telling the truth, though it seems odd that they should have so radically changed their story in less than a year. Celebrities are uniquely vulnerable to allegations from disgruntled ex-employees and acquaintances, who seek wealth or fame. Prince Charles, the TV presenter John Leslie and the cricketer Geoff Boycott are just three examples of famous men who have recently been subject to vicious, unfounded campaigns by disturbed or money-grabbing individuals.
In Michael Jacksonís case, the fact that he has been so open about his childlike fondness for the company of young boys is surely a mark in his favour. A man who had something to hide would hardly proclaim in a TV interview, as Jackson did on 26 December, ëWhatís wrong with sharing your bed?í Jacksonís stance of outraged innocence might be an act, but equally it might reflect the real personality of someone who has never embraced adulthood.
Ah yes, Michael...
As to his guilt, it's hard to say at this point, for just like the Kobe case, they have such a lid on the evidence and facts, one is only left to guess. However, no matter what his adoring apologists might say, paying millions of dollars ten years ago to make a case go away, are not the actions of the innocent.
In any event, i think dearest exalted Michael is the perfect example of the celebrity disease I can think of.
What others would describe as "eccentricity" I would describe as sheer idiocy and buffoonery.
Michael Jackson, accusations aside, is really, to my sensibilities, the most odious waste of DNA walking around.
His ego, his actions, his attitude are all repulsive, in my view.
In fact, celebrity driven media attention aside, I think Michael would be an excellent subject for a SERIOUS book on how, like emperors with no clothes, celebrities can and do often self-destruct.
Of the many ills of society, one of the most important, in my always humble view, is this whole business of celebrity worship. What does it say about millions of people, in fact, a large segment of society, that worships and adores the very ground these self-important buffoons walk on? Of course, the answer is not in our stars, but in ourselves. For we, for a number of reasons, have so weakened ourselves, so broken our true spirit and potential, so accepted that we are nothing and that star "out there" is everything, that we have fallen into this subservient game of celebrity worship, with us, slave-like worshipping others who are really no more deserving of our worship than we are ourselves.
Chris Volkay at January 12, 2004 8:12 AM
He's probably someone who should've died very young. Like right after "Thriller" came out.
Lena will never marry at January 12, 2004 1:55 PM
And the reason we should determine the value of someone based upon your opinions of him would be...?
You come across as extremely pompous, Chris, which should be no surprise to you. Michael Jackson has contributed some great music and videos to the world, and they are appreciated by hundreds of millions. And your contribution would be...? So, for you to dismiss him as a repulsive waste of DNA... well, you should be so wasteful.
That aside, it makes me wonder about the allegations myself. Given the number of children who frequent his palatial estate, I find it rather suspicious that only two have come forward with this allegation within the last ten years. Shouldn't there be a lot more if any of these allegations were true? Why is Jackson's predatory penchant so selective? Wouldn't he be molesting a lot more than just two? Is he truly that good at buying someone's silence?
As for the assertion that paying off an accuser not being the actions of the innocent, it kind of makes me think of Disney World. They will not go to court. Threaten to sue Disney and they will settle, regardless of their culpability. A person on an AOL message board once claimed that his vacation with wife and children was ruined because their visit occurred on Gay Day. Disney has no control over and is not legally responsible for the actions of their patrons (and that is all Gay Day is, since it is not a Disney-sponsored event). However, rather than sue, they gave the soi-disant offended couple their money back, plus additional damages to cover vacation fares and other expenses.
Perhaps Jackson sees himself as an industry unto himself, and he would not be mistaken. As such, he may want to keep himself out of court at all costs. Besides, why would he want to even risk the legal ramnifications of being labelled a sex offender?
Patrick at January 13, 2004 4:57 AM
I'm with you on Jackson, Patrick. Kids aren't good at keeping their mouths shut, no matter what the incentive. Somebody would have talked before now - especially since a lot of those kids in Jackson's life are adults now.
Amy Alkon at January 13, 2004 5:11 AM
Patrick
you make my point beautifully
you sound just like one of his millions of adoring, silly, hero-worshipping apologist minions
"Oh Michael Micheal Michael...
touch me with your glove oh exalted one."
I was giving my opinion of the nauseating buffoon. it's also an opinion that he has given great music to the world. Great music, from this idiot? His music is esentially horrible, silly popish light weight, did i mention silly, muzak.
The sixth spice girl.
As to your thoughts on his paying off the previous case, you're simply wrong as usual, but why even continue a discussion with someone who, by their own admission, supplants belief and faith, for logic and reason? You're a silly person.
And Amy, as to his guilt, I have no idea, the facts released are not enough to know one way or the other. However, as to your belief that it couldn't be kept quiet? Normally I would agree(this is why conspiracies are usually baloney, you can't keep things quiet) if it was your uncle Joe, down the street. But these parents and kids, being what they are, are blinded by the money, fame and the celebrity of these clowns. In this environment anything is possible, when big money comes into play. Anything. Money and celebrity ARE powerful currency.
Chris Volkay at January 13, 2004 9:12 AM
Chris, regarding your assessment of me, I have spent 15 seconds of my life, which I can never have back again, wondering why I should care about your opinion of me. I was a genius when I liked your writing, now apparently, I'm scum because I'm a Christian. Genius is so transitory, it seems.
Sadly, I was unable to come up with a single reason why I should care what you think. If I do come up with something, you'll be the first to know. However, I did spend that 15 seconds, plus another two minutes in typing this reply. As an offer of goodwill, please accept whatever consolation the knowledge of my lost time affords you. It's been my experience that mentalities such as yours find delight in such things.
Patrick at January 13, 2004 9:18 PM
Patrick, you are razor-SHARP! I am so not worthy!
Lena at January 13, 2004 10:44 PM
Silly silly patty
As you have no logic or reason, I will lead you through this, child that you are.
Go back and look at this thread.
I was writing about what a puke Michael Jackosn is. I said nothing about you. Then in your comments you addressed me. You're the one that can't seem to leave me alone patty.
Ah but I'm used to it. Women always seem to fall in love with me and men admire and envy me.
What can one do?
And as a matter of of fact, you're the one that has changed his opinion. It's almost comical.
First you said, and I have the quote, I was a terrific writer, then you said that I wrote well, and now who knows what your little brain thinks. In any event, I don't think you're scum(where did I use the word scum?)because you're a christian. christians are inane, childlike cowards who, invent fantasy worlds for themselves to live in, but not scum. The religious, per se,aren't scum. Just deluded, gutless and self-righteous.
So again, silly patty, you say you're not interested in my opinion. Wonderful-but remember it was you that addressed me in your thread- so when you address me directly-what do you suppose happens next? I respond. This is how it works- i'm going slowly for you. This is the part where logic and reason are generally helpful.
chris volkay at January 13, 2004 11:42 PM
That's nice, Chris. Have a good day.
Patrick at January 14, 2004 5:00 AM
"Women always seem to fall in love with me and men admire and envy me."
Why is that, Chris? Are you hot? Stats, please.
Lena at January 14, 2004 10:41 AM
Lena happy to oblige
But to what stats do you refer?
Please let me know
I also want to see if you list the one most important to women.
Chris Volkay at January 14, 2004 3:23 PM
"I also want to see if you list the one most important to women."
Do you have a nice juicy ass?
Lena at January 14, 2004 4:04 PM
Juiciest
Chris Volkay at January 14, 2004 4:30 PM
Do you ever get into a little strap-on action?
Lena' Angry Inch at January 14, 2004 5:30 PM
Sorry Lena, not me.
Sweet jesus was kind of enough to make me the
straper(naturally) not the strapee.
chris volkay at January 14, 2004 5:56 PM
Michael .J. I dont think you did it .I am just mad of the way you are about every thing.
anastasia at January 24, 2004 4:27 PM
I like his music. But that does not mean he is either guilty or innocent.
Bob at February 1, 2004 12:07 PM
Michael Jacson is a perv. A white perv. He acts so strange when you talk about children around him and he already did it before.....so why is it hard to accept that he did it again?
Marty Lovrin at April 19, 2004 2:27 PM
MICHAEL SHOULD BE RETRIED AND CONVICTED GUILTY. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT HE IS AWARE OF ALL THE CHARGES HE IS FACED WITH AND "STILL" CONTINUES TO INVITE CHILDREN OVER. IF HE LOVES CHILDREN, WHY DOESN'T HE MAKE A "PUBLIC" PARADISE FACILITY FOR CHILDREN? MICHAEL IS CONSIDERED AN EXTREME THREAT TO YOUTH.
Mark at May 29, 2004 10:27 AM
Clearly, you either have hard evidence the rest of us lack...or you're abject idiots. Hmm, which could it be?
Amy Alkon at May 29, 2004 10:32 AM