I was watching a show on Micheal's bio  last night and it almost ,makes you feel sorry for him once you get to see the real person. His father should have been put in jail for child abuse years ago.He was the reason Micheal went through all those surgerys never feeling good about himself..His father constantly demeaned his looks (his nose) and used different items to beat him and his brothers with throughout their lives. Micheal would sometimes get physically ill and regurgitate when the man came in the room.

Then a female fan went to a show when he was in his teens and got to meet the Jackson 5 before they split. Her comment when she met Micheal and saw him for the first time in real life  of, "What happened too you?" was the last straw. Thats when the surgerys began.

His quirkeness with his kids is weird but understandable in an effort to keep them safe from the media..when he hung the baby over the balcony in Germany, however wrong it was you can see micheal's reaction was that of a kid in a mans suit and he really didnt see how it was wrong..one more disturbing thing i saw was when he was feeding his new baby..he kept flipping the see through shawl on its face over and over and shoving a bottle into its mouth never stopping...he was rambling some baby talk like he was on speed and it didnt make sense..as the camera panned back you could see both of his legs bouncing rapidly like he was on stage dancing but highly agitated..that pony ride was like a sewing machine and it was extremely unnerving to watch.

All in all I think Micheal is better off. He didnt belong in this world..he was in denial and he truly felt a connection with Peter Pan..im really surprised he wasnt committed for a good portion of his life...I guess money can buy just about anything.

Hopefully now he will have atleast some sort of PEACE.

PS I hope his dad gets nothing and lives out his remaining days in SHAME for what he did to his family...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elvis was Elvis..hahah he had a GREAT life....and would no doubt do it again

Many over achieving celebs seem to have a streak of self-destruction. When it finally overtakes them, an adoring public has a way of making these people into something that never existed. Same could be said of the founding fathers or Abe Lincoln.

I have heard tributes for MJ that go from embellishment to dilusion. One fan told a reporter that MJ's pedophilia was "not important." I don't think his victims or their parents would agree. And yes, his predatory pedophilia is a fact that is substantiated with more credible investigation than whatever flaws Elvis had. But why compare the two? Both were entertainers that stood above celebrity names. Both achieved heights few ever do. And both had appealing personalities. And both are dead. That does not mean we should not praise their best. Doesn't mean we should deny their flaws and short comings never were. 

Now that they are dead, I'd prefer to bury them and leave them that way. But death, it seems for some, is in itself a celebration. That's entertainment.

Interesting take...Jackson also made the Guinness World Book of Records(2000) for the celebrity who supported the most charities.

"And yes, his predatory pedophilia is a fact that is substantiated with more credible investigation than whatever flaws Elvis had."

Really? When he went to court he was acquitted. What authority claims greater validity or access to the truth than that?

His pedophilia is not fact.

The facts are that minors slept in his bed and he gave underage kids "Jesus juice".   It's more of a strong inference at this point.

RE: Elvis as a pedophile because of Pricilla?   That's weak.  He kept her til he married her and fathered a child.  A one time thing.  I was with a musician for a couple of years and he was the only musician I ever dated.  Does that make me a groupie?

Whatever Jacksons relationship with little boys, it was hardly a one time thing.

More apples and oranges.

It's not weak at all. No one denies his sexual attraction to a minor. That is pedophilia, by definition. There is no question about it, actually. He married the child after she came of age, and then they had a child. All true. That he lived with her while she was a minor, in a romantic relationship, is also not disputed. Call it a one time thing if you want, but it was daily for seven years.

With ONE person.  THAT's the point.  Jackson wasn't that selective.

Any indication that Elvis ever had a relationship with a minor again?

Any proof that Presley had a relationship with a minor? Lots.

Any proof that Jackson had a relationship with a minor? None. Even in the case officially brought against him, there were no claims of same.

You conveniently left off "again" ending my sentence.  Try again.  Or better yet I'll re word it.  Any proof that Elvis had a relationship with any minor other than Priscilla?  Or after Priscilla?

By the way,  I said a relationship and there's plenty of proof of that.  Are you talking about sex?  I wasn't.

Leaving off the again wasn't to duck your question. The "again" makes it moot; changing the subject (from addressing the fact of Presley's pedophilia to a discussion of innuendo about Jackson's pedophilia by shrouding it under the pseudo-logic of an argument of frequency).

I am talking about a romantic relationship. Presley's was geared toward a sexual relationship from day one. Of that there is no disagreement. Whether the two actually engaged in same is debated. Jackson in a romantic relationship? Or in a relationship which was geared toward a sexual relationship? No proof of that at all. Witnesses to the contrary, in fact, but nothing beyond supposition about what went on his head to support the thesis that he was a pedophile.

Actuality vs. supposition. It's as simple as that.

I know this proves nothing at all, but I think it's really interesting:

Michael Jackson tried to help imprisoned Current TV journalists - by reaching out to Kim Jong Il

Yes, Michael Jackson has a connection to the imprisoned Current TV journalists. He apparently grew interested in the case several weeks ago and reached out -- through his and Laura Ling's mutual friend Gotham Chopra (son of Deepak). Jackson wanted to help. He asked Chopra a question about Kim Jong Il.

"Do you think," Chopra said, "that the leader of North Korea could be a fan of mine?"

"Michael said he had seen some pictures on the internet of the Dear Leader," Chopra said. " 'You know, he wears jackets like mine.'"

"I don't really know," Chopra answered Michael. "But I can try and find out."

"Please," Michael told Chopra. "Because maybe if he was a fan, I could help get those girls home."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...

Gotham Chopra, btw, toured with Jackson and was one of the many people who vouched for his behavior vis-a-vis minors.

True he wasn't convicted of molesting those children,  So DS would you let your young sons spend the night alone with him?  

No, the courts didn't say MJ was a pedophile. Didn't say he wasn't. The first publicized charge never got to court with a settlement of tens of millions of dollars. The second was an obvious calculation to win the lottery. I'd have acquited as a reprimand for such motives. MJ's problem with little boys was the family's worst kept secret, just like his overindulgent drug use is coming out now. Not dismissing these character defects is hardly racism. That's really overreaching. 

IMO - I feel both musicians were geniuses in their own right in their own time.  Were either or both pedophiles? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Even as a teeny bopper, I liked certain music (50-60's) but was never "fanatical" about a specific musician. I guess I just don't "get it" how all these thousands of people can "grieve" for someone they never knew personally. Presley, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, McNair, Fawcett..........They were people who did a job - singing, acting, both. Were they perfect? No. Were they the "beautiful" people - according to the media, yes.  I'm not cold hearted - I just don't see what the fuss is about. They lived-they did what they wanted to with their lives-they crossed over.

I do feel for their children (Jackson-McNair). These kids are all going to have to grow up seeing/hearing all the negative garbage about the parent who loved them. I have even read where Joe Jackson thinks Paris could be in the entertainment world and "blanket" can really dance!  I truly hope the other adults around these kids can keep some of the sanity of the real world.

Jackson was weird, and I think incredibly naive, but I don't think he was a pedophile.  I don't think any of the children he molested pre-pubescent, so that would make him an ephebophile.  For the kind of money he paid, he was bound to get off.  And I don't mean the hook either.

If you are determined to believe in his (Jackson's) guilt, there is little I or anyone can do to change your mind. My point here is just to remind everyone that his guilt is not an established fact, but Presley's IS. The two are dealt with very differently. Isn't there racism in that?

Articles by professionals who doubt Jackson's guilt:

http://www.psychologytoday....

http://www.redorbit.com/new... (Gellar was also Jackson's friend, and also an entertainer)

Jordan Chandler recently admitted the whole thing was a lie:

http://current.com/items/90...

And a commentary by an industry insider after the trial: 

http://www.daveyd.com/comme...

Would I let my sons do a 'sleepover' at Jackson's house? Obvious answer: no. I don't know the man. I wouldn't let my sons do a 'sleepover' at your house, either.

Sure Not because you think he's a molester!   But who cares ....he's the kind of molester I like....A DEAD ONE!

lanabuford, it must be a real burden to share the knowledge of all that transpires on earth - I thought only God had that, but now that I know you do as well, you have my sympathies.

You wanna help me with a lottery number?

Yep DS it sucks sometimes but you know what they say, Someones gotta do it.

Respectfully, dirtyshirt .... Isn't it odd that he claims that it's all about the love of sharing a bed, warm milk, it's the most loving thing to do, etc., but the only children invited were male? And, the only people he invited were children, period? 

Jackson supporters want to make it look like some kind of arrested development, that his intentions were nothing more sinister than the average 9-year-old having a slumber party. 

If Jackson was truly interested in the well-being of children, then he wouldn't have BOYS IN HIS BED. He wouldn't be on television holding the hand of a child proclaiming the "love" of sharing a bed while the child puts his head on Jackson's shoulder.  

How do you know that it was only male children? Do you think adults would WANT to share a movie and milk - or would they rather enjoy some other area of the estate?

He clearly had issues about his own childhood. His desire to love children, whether perverse or not, is obvious.

About the claim that he wouldn't be on television holding the hand of a child proclaiming the "love" of sharing a bed while the child puts his head on Jackson's shoulder....   Why not? It especially makes sense if you suppose he did so with a clean conscience.

BS.....DS  it must suck for you to have all the knowledge you have and still be as dumb as a rock!

I'm asking questions here and pointing out what others don't know, though they think they do.

Glad to see some honesty coming from you, however. Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I'll take 'em where I can get 'em!!

You are welcome DS!