On the Jackson Front

Written by Eric Olsen
Published April 25, 2004

Times are tough for Michael Jackson: a grand jury says he has to stand trial, his career is in limbo, and tawdry details came out about the charges against him.

The grim details:

    US broadcaster ABC has revealed details of what it says is a police report on child abuse allegations against entertainer Michael Jackson.
    It quotes a psychologist's interview with the two boys at the centre of the case which has still to go to trial.

    Mr Jackson allegedly twice gave one boy so much wine he passed out and then touched him in an "inappropriate manner", ABC reports.

    ....He is accused of molesting a boy, who is identified in court papers only as John Doe, between 7 February and 10 March 2003.

    Psychologist Stan Katz interviewed the alleged 12-year-old victim and his nine-year-old brother at the request of the family's lawyer, and the notes were passed to Santa Barbara police for their report.

    According to ABC's revelations on Tuesday, the elder boy, a cancer-sufferer, cried when asked about the alleged molestation and it was mainly the younger brother who gave the psychologist details of what allegedly happened.

    According to the leaked report:

    *The 45-year-old pop star reportedly gave the elder boy wine to drink and on at least two occasions the child passed out

    *He reportedly touched the boy inappropriately after he had passed out.

    *He reportedly surfed the internet on a laptop computer with the boy to find images of naked women and asked him to tell people, if they asked, that they had been watching The Simpsons.

    *"Jackson once stood in front of them naked for a moment, as they were watching TV," Mr Katz was quoted as saying.

    *Mr Jackson reportedly played with a mannequin of an 8- or 9-year-old girl in a sexually suggestive manner in front of both boys.

    The pop star has dismissed the allegations against him as a "big lie". [BBC]

The alleged mannequin fondler pleads for privacy:

    On Wednesday a grand jury in California found there was enough evidence to force the singer, 45, to face trial.

    Mr Jackson, who is staying in Florida, wrote on his website: "There are helicopters hovering above my residence, reporters staking out, and photographers lurking behind bushes." He is expected to enter a "not guilty" plea at a court hearing on 30 April.

    page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
On the Jackson Front
Published: April 25, 2004
Type:
Section: Music
Filed Under: Music: Business, Music: News
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
Music: Business
Music: News
All Music Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — April 25, 2004 @ 23:04PM — RJ Elliott [URL]

I doubt he'll be convicted of anything. I think he made a smart move in firing his current legal team.

But his career is finished, regardless...

As an aside, what kind of sicko sleeps with little kids who aren't his own? I mean, he may be innocent of the charges against him, but Jesus, what a weirdo...

#2 — April 25, 2004 @ 23:30PM — sheri

Wouldn't a child drunk enough on wine to pass out be puking? On the other hand, why would a child lie about things of this nature?

I do not envy the jurors on this one.

#3 — April 26, 2004 @ 09:01AM — Eric Olsen

Sheri, it's pretty hard to tell where "falling asleep" ends and "passing out" begins. I would think a child could easily fall asleep under the infulence of alcohol befoer reaching the point of throwing up.

Ultimately I doubt he'll be convicted also, but I thought the same thing about Martha Stewart, but I agree that he is pretty well done in terms of career and while I have no idea if he is innocent or guilty of these charges, there is no question he brought the scrutiny on himself with extremely unsavory behavior to which he freely admits

#4 — April 26, 2004 @ 09:15AM — Eric Olsen

UPDATE, As RJ mentioned, Jackson fired his lawyers over the weekend and hired Thomas Mesereau.

#5 — October 19, 2004 @ 10:44AM — EUGENIA BEMIS

I THINK HE IS QUILTY. ALL THE CLUES ARE THERE. IF A PERSON IS NOT FAMILIER WITH MOLSTING OF CHILDREN THEN IT CAN BE OVER LOOKED. I DON'T BLAME HIS FAMILY FOR NOT WANTING TO BE LIEVE IT OF JACKSON. ITS UP TO THE JURERS. BUT I HOPE HES FOND QUILTY. THEY ARE NEVER CURED AND THEY WILL GO ON TO DO IT AGAIN & AGAIN. THEY DON'T THINK THEY DO ANY THING WRONG. HOPFULLY JUSTICE GETS SREVED.

#6 — October 21, 2004 @ 00:24AM — Karen

OMG!
Ewwwwwwwwwww! I was a big fan of Micheal Jackson when he was younger. I mean c'mon even LisMariePresley said that she found some incriminating evidence on Micheal Jackson. She found pornography of children in his house for God sakes in a room !! I don't know if people remember that incident! ALl I know is that if people even movie stars comit the crime they should be punished. Let crime fit the punishment no matter who you are.. Just so our kids will be safe.People open your eyes! He is guilty!! What if it happenned to your child????????

#7 — January 14, 2005 @ 18:43PM — Sarah

I think MJ is INNOCENT. The guy is very child like, I dont think MJ has even had Sexual Intercourse, I dont think he would know how. MJ just loves Children and is completely dedicated to his own, have you seen that man with his kids? He adores them and they adore him.
Micheal was accused of Molesting Jordan, what NORMAL PARENT would let a molester pay them off??? I certainly wouldnt, No money in this world would stop me from seeing justice done. They were very sick parents to take money for something that cruel, IF it was TRUE???
Also what parents after this accusation even if it wasnt true would let there Son/Daughter actually stay the night at Neverland anyway?
Also Tom Sneddon will stoop to anything to get a conviction against MJ. I think he is the Sick one, and he is pathetic, he needs to get a life and a new case, Leave MJ alone!

#8 — February 9, 2005 @ 08:22AM — andrea

micheal jackson is definetly not guilty. he is just a guy who never had a childhood who is now living it and i think it is pafetic that he can't be allowed peace to live his life. the justice system have always been out to get him and as for the childrens parents if he was that bad why leave your children with him

#9 — February 9, 2005 @ 08:27AM — Eric Olsen

andrea, I agree to a certain extent with your logic that the parents who have entrusted their children to Jackson, especially following the glaring red flag of the '93 settlement, share some of the culpability, but only he is to blame for whatever he did, assuming he did something.

How do you know he is "definitely not guilty"? YOu and Geraldo must know something I don't.

#10 — February 9, 2005 @ 08:55AM — Marty Dodge [URL]

His career is definetely toast, but I have to disagree with Geraldo that he is going to get away with this stuff. As several commenters have already said, if this were anyone else but Michael they would be rotting in jail already.

#11 — February 9, 2005 @ 09:00AM — Eric Olsen

most likely so Marty: his money has enabled this lifestyle and protection against the prying eyes of the world, but that can only last so long

#12 — February 9, 2005 @ 09:18AM — mrbenning [URL]

This is definitely one for the courts. If what I've read in The Smoking Gun is even close to the truth, both parties have reasons to be ashamed.

Mr. Jackson shouldn't go to such great lengths to defend himself. It makes him like like a ten-year-old sweeping his mess under his bed and then claiming his room is clean. Paying people off is the quickest way to get them to shut up, but also the shadiest way to cover your tracks. Also, the supposed dumping of the boy's urine to avoid facing testing results seems kind of strange (this one I'm not sure if I buy).

The mother of the children stayed at the ranch in a guest house while her boys slept in Michael's room. Even if he did molest them, she's should have a nice case of child endangerment on her hands. To top it off, even though Michael's not the sanest man in America, attempting to kidnap a child and drag him to another country seems pretty drastic. It's been my opinion for some time that a move out of the country to avoid legal attention would be pretty easy for him. Why would he kidnap someone, let alone a whole family before doing it?

Like I said, leave it to the courts. It seems the answer is probably more complicated than any internet-found evidence could corroborate.

#13 — February 10, 2005 @ 01:21AM — Lono [URL]

Definately not guilty? Well, we know this much: he was giving kids wine and booze. he was sleeping with them (I didn't say sex), and they found all kinds of porn when they searched his room.

molestation or not, dude is guilty and gross and done for forever.

#14 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:01PM — kate

in all honesty i have to say, just leave the poor dude alone.if there is no absolute proof just keep out of his buisseness. this guy going against him will be the first of many if he wins the case because papers will be paying a small fortune for the scoop. he has brought micheals life out into othe public when he had absolutly no reason to try and humiliate him the way he has!!

#15 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:13PM — Eric Olsen

what is "absolute proof," Kate?

#16 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:16PM — Eric Berlin [URL]

Personally, I had no plans to get into Jackson's buisseness.

But that's just me.

#17 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:18PM — ClubhouseCancer

Wise up, EB. "Buisseness" is Old French for "pants."

#18 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:22PM — Eric Berlin [URL]

Yep, CC, I got no business in that buisseness either, no how.

#19 — March 4, 2005 @ 14:56PM — Eric Olsen

but as always, regarding these specific charges, guilty until proven ... , wait, check that: innocent until proven guilty

#20 — November 3, 2005 @ 14:36PM — William

I knew the whole time that Micheal Jackson was innocent. The accuser is my cousin(Jon Doe) and he told me it was all a lie but my aunt just wanted money.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/15081)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments