Jedi Council Forums - Hollywood Death Watch: Patrick Swayze (1952-2009)

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Hollywood Death Watch: Patrick Swayze (1952-2009)
JohnWesleyDowney Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 6/29 8:24pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	News about the final Michael Jackson Video, filmed June 1-9
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yankee8255 Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 6/29 11:43pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I don't really look at Jackson's acquittal as a failing of the US justice system (as opposed to the OJ acquittal, which was an absolute farce). The Jackson prosecutor didn't do the best of jobs, but it wasn't a very easy case to win given how easily the mother of the victim could be attacked. Jackson certainly benefited from his wealth and fame, but mainly because he could afford a very good defense attorney (just like OJ). Zaz the point you make about his speaking voice is interesting. An Austrian newsmagazine had a short interview with an American reporter (I forget which magazine she works for, Vanity Fair or US, IIRC) who made three points: (1) There is no question that Jackson preyed on young boys, (2) his predatory behavior was, sadly, enabled by the victims mothers, who basically sold their children to him for cash and fame, (3) Jackson's "Peter Pan" syndrome was complete act meant to garner sympathy and be used an excuse for his deviant behavior. As for his music, I posted this yesterday in the YJCC, it sums up my thoughts on his musical career quite well (article ) moreintelligentlife.com posted: The British papers, which had to move fast last night, all sang the same refrain: the king of pop is dead. That was Jackson’s own estimation of himself, and it was only true for a short time. With Off The Wall, he shook off his child-star past and showed glimmers of adult brilliance; with Thriller, he fulfilled that potential and ruled the pop world; and with Bad, Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible, he made music that was progressively feebler and more of a waste of his talent. -----signature----- "While a disappointment overall, the Jerry-George conversation is a repeat of a discussion from the first episode, as if to say, "We've run out of stuff to discuss, so let's call it a day."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 6/30 1:15am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Personally, I think Bad is a better overall album than Thriller. When I put on Bad I listen to the whole album. When I put on Thriller I skip from Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' to Thriller, Beat It, and Billie Jean, then I'm done (okay, every once in a while I'll add The Girl is Mine just because it's cute). -----signature----- Personally if treating homosexuals with respect and dignity is the definition of 'anti-Christian' then I hope that Obama is the friggin' anti-Christ. - FIDo
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yankee8255 Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 6/30 1:34am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I couldn't listen to "Can't Stop Loving You", "Bad" or "Dirty Diana" individually or in succession. A few beats of each is enough to make me consider injecting morphine. Again, Jackson isn't really my cup of tea. But I enjoy the big hits from Thriller, and love Can't Stop 'Till You Get Enough. -----signature----- "While a disappointment overall, the Jerry-George conversation is a repeat of a discussion from the first episode, as if to say, "We've run out of stuff to discuss, so let's call it a day."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 6/30 2:38am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/30 3:00am (2 edits total) Edited By: Gonk
	I will argue that, and further say if he was the creepy guy on Merlin's street, and not a superstar, he would not have been acquitted. The legal system is imperfect, and doesn't work all of the time. Then I disagree. First of all, the reasons Jackson was aquitted was not because he was a superstar -- you've said yourself many of the jurors had thier own suspicions -- it's because he was rich rather than popularity. And more to the point was able to afford quality lawyers that were better able to put together a case of reasonable doubt (of the sort that say, Phil Spector was unable to achieve). But that does not mean the legal system is not working on it's main premise. The legal system works on the presumption of innocence, and rightly so. It's not there to put the guilty in jail, but to keep the innocent out of it. If guilty men must walk free as part of the price for that, then it's a price we gladly pay. To clarify a bit more, that someone who is guilty can get off if he can afford a better lawyer shouldn't be our main concern. What should be our main concern is if someone who is innocent cannot get off unless he can afford that same lawyer. If someone wants to argue that, well ok -- but they can't use this case to do that since both you, I and many others think JAckson is most probably guilty. Afraid that isn't my point, Gonk. I don't think it was the decent thing to do at all. IMO, since I do believe in good and evil, to the extent he had control over his behaviour, and I do think he had some, Jackson was a very wicked man. Then again I must disagree with you. We can't run a legal system based on who you or I think are wicked men. THat to me is not objective, and an indecent use of power. The decent thing to do is to be objective about the matter if we are granted the actual power to send someone to jail, and rely on reason rather than emotion. Now this I do agree with--the legal system doesn't function within a moral framework. It's a system of checks and balances. And indeed, no matter what I thought of Jackson I may have had to acquit him if the evidence so directed, were I the judge. However, the judge didn't acquit him; the jury did, and he was an expert manipulator of other people. But you yourself said many of the jurors believed he was guilty. Yes, it was AFTER the trial... but what contact did the jurors have with anyone after the trial was over that would have changed thier verdict? Did they say that they felt Jackson had manipulated them within the framework of the legal system? Jackson may or may not have been a manipulator, but he wasn't Emperor Palpatine and the Jurors aren't people that need coddling since they are by definition Jackson's peers. If he talks in a falsetto the Jurors are expected to to mature adults and not let a fact like that have a serious effect over thier decisions. Jackson got off because he had the funds to exploit a case that was very hard to prosecute -- and it was hard to prosecute becuase of reasons that had nothing to do with Michael Jackson. If there's a solution it isn't to change the legal system, but to get better evidence on Michael Jackson. EDIT: interestingly enough, after reading MErlin's link -- which itself is not an unbiased source -- I've become more of the view that Jackson was probably guilty. At the very least of the 1993 incident. The article tries very hard to depict Michael being the victim TWICE of evil malignant parents, and tried to use an alleged conversation of Chandler's father to prove it. But considering there's a good chance the father may have thought Michael Jackson was a PEDOPHILE that BETRAYED his family and SEXUALLY ABUSED his son before anyone publically thought Jackson was a pedophile, I don't see why his comments are particularly damning or persuasive to Jackson's case: if I was someone like that, I'd want a plan to bring down the pedophile too, and I'd want to use men of whatever background to exact my revenge. This IS my son we're talking about, right? What's more the article just sort of dances over two points that it needs to discredit if Michael's version in 1993 is to be believed: yes, Chandler was given a controvertial drug during a dentist appointment: but it wholly disregards the fact that in order for something improper to have taken place, it's by implication stating that the dental practicioner is guilty of ethical malpractice by allowing the father to manipulate the son in his office (who they conveniently never bring up again). And also for the father to specifically request a type of anesthesia. Or are they just saying this just radomly occurred and Chandler's father thought all this up on a whim as soon as the dentist said what drug he'd be using? ("They're using the truth syrum drug? Here's our chance!") For this to just randomly come out under the influence of a drug is very unlikely -- and since this was the incident that got the ball rolling against Jackson, what the article is really saying by implication is that the career of Michael Jackson was broguht to its knees becuase of one kid's bad trip tot he dentist. Please. They also, by the way, largely skip over the fact that the child was subsequently taken to a psychiatrist where the allegations took thier proper form. This also by implication means the psychiatrist was in some sort of ethical breach or at the very least manipulated by being Chandler's supposed pawn. There's too much of Michael Jackson needing to be a paragon of virtue and too large a laundry list of 'evil' people for Jackson's story of both incidents to be all that credible for most people. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/30 8:45am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	yankee8255 posted: An Austrian newsmagazine had a short interview with an American reporter (I forget which magazine she works for, Vanity Fair or US, IIRC) who made three points: (1) There is no question that Jackson preyed on young boys, (2) his predatory behavior was, sadly, enabled by the victims mothers, who basically sold their children to him for cash and fame, (3) Jackson's "Peter Pan" syndrome was complete act meant to garner sympathy and be used an excuse for his deviant behavior. I find it remarkable that you appear to accept all this without the slightest shred of evidence. Where are your critical thinking faculties? Just because some reporter claims these things does not make them true or correct or valid. 1) There is indeed a question, which is why he was acquitted. 2) What mothers, plural? Is there some class-action lawsuit against MJ I'm not aware of? Janet Arvizo is the only litigator on record, and the 1993 "case" (it never went to trial) involved a father who coerced his son into a false admission. There are no other families/mothers/children making any accusations. 3) Based on what evidence? It's easy to point at someone and say, "You're lying and your entire personality is an act meant to garner sympathy for your deviant lifetsyle!", but what specific piece(s) of information can this reporter be relying on for her conclusions? I'm not accepting any of this without evidence, and neither should any of you. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 6/30 9:09am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	We know why Michael Jackson was the most eccentric multimillionaire since Howard Hughes. Like Howard Hughes, Michael Jackson was mentally ill. The surgeries are a dead giveaway. The massive debt-spending is a clue. He was almost certainly anorexic - and that may have led directly to his death. He will likely be found to have had a serious drug problem, also a likely contributor to his death. He spoke openly about sleeping in a bed with children not related to him. It's not a stretch to believe that something was seriously wrong vis a vis his relationship with children, even if the truth will never be known. The abusive parent, the deprived childhood, the spoiled and eccentric adulthood. It all adds up to Michael Jackson being mentally ill by any fair measure. So, why all the resistance to the idea that Michael was himself a child abuser? -----signature----- "As a Chicago sports fan you get used to disappointment."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/30 9:27am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Because there is no evidence of it. We can believe anything we like, based on intuition or a feeling that we're right, but that does not confront objective reality. If some key evidence had been found -- child pornography, for example -- or if an independent source who did not stand to benefit -- Lisa Marie Presley, say -- had corroborated the kids' testimonies, or given some indication that she had indeed seen things that could have led one to a belief in his wrongdoing, then there would now be little doubt of MJ's guilt, even in the minds of ardent supporters such as myself. My mind is critical and skeptical; I require verifiable, corroborated, non-falsifiable evidence to convince me of any claim. I do not follow the zeitgeist and am deeply skeptical of any common "wisdom" that has no evidenciary base. Speaking of common wisdom, I can only agree with the general view that like Hughes, Michael was mentally ill in some capacity and to some degree. But that does not automatically prove or support every claim of criminal wrongdoing that can be levied against him. You might as well say, "MJ was mentally ill, so he was probably a necrophiliac, too. We'll never know for sure, but he did own the Elephant Man's bones, and he had that strange attachment to Liz Taylor. Maybe he was waiting for her to drop before he could do his business!" It's all just so much prurient speculation, based on a personal opinion, and this absurd screed I've just issued has about as much proof backing it up as the infamous charges against Michael. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 6/30 9:34am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/30 9:41am (1 edits total) Edited By: Gonk
	Janet Arvizo is the only litigator on record, and the 1993 "case" (it never went to trial) involved a father who coerced his son into a false admission. That's the thing Merlin -- I haven't seen any indication that that's likely the case. Your own link says the first time it arose was in a dental office and the child was given a "controvertial" drug. But that this was part of the father's plan makes little sense to me. How can the father control or request what drug be given? What's more if he requested one and it actually HAPPENED without a medical reason given, there'd be a record of it. You could say "well the kid didn't say anything in the dentist's office, it happened later" -- but even if THAT'S the case you have to explain how the father could have controlled that circumstance. What if they had just used novacaine? The plan falls apart then. What's more this ALSO pre-supposes the psychiatrist he later took that son to was either in ethical breach of her occupation or was unable to discern a false claim... you know, about Michael JACKSON. EDIT: I see now in the article that it was the father himself that was pulling the teeth. This may corroborate Jackson's situation a bit more since that's a particularly unusual situation. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 6/30 9:39am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	One possibility is that the accusations that were the basis of the first the civil settlement and the later criminal prosecution were both false, yet Jackson still had inappropriate relationships with children. In any case, Michael's own lifestyle opened the door for the accusations, even if we assume that "money grubbing freeloaders extorting him" was the real story. Extortion works best when it is built around legitimate information, the nondisclosure of which has a significant dollar value. -----signature----- "As a Chicago sports fan you get used to disappointment."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/30 11:53am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/30 11:58am (2 edits total) Edited By: Zaz
	Merlin posted: "Where are your critical thinking faculties?" That's an interesting question, given this: Merlin posted: I grant you that according to the parameters of your role-play scenario, I would not allow my child to spend time with a person of that description, unattended overnight. However, if it was Michael Jackson, internationally renowned superstar of known childlike demeanor, I would probably allow it depending on how much I knew about the previous case(s) against him. Suppose everything Jackson has told the press about himself is not true. Consider it. You are reasoning from a position that it is true, though Jackson himself admits to manipulating his image. And frankly, there are plenty of clues that things are amiss that don't involve shifting through evidence of a group of scummy self-serving people. a. His appearance. Experts say that's the result of up to 30 plastic surgeries, perhaps more. He's had so much that a German doctor had to reconstruct his nose. He also appears anorexic. b. His inability to sustain any sort of intimate relationship with an actual adult, male or female. c. Surrounding himself with children, though he has three of his own. d. Settling the first claim for several million dollars.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/30 12:39pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I'll take these one by one, and I'll try to be brief. Regarding Gonk's questions about the 1993 father, it is a matter of record (on audiotape) that the father vowed to "destroy Michael Jackson" some time before his son ever met MJ. It is also a matter of record that for some time after the boy had met Michael, the father asked the boy if MJ had touched him or behaved inappropriately. Also for some time, the boy disavowed any such events. It was not until the dentist's drugs were administered -- according to some accounts, by the father himself -- that the boy "confessed" that MJ had indeed assaulted him. This is classic psychological manipulation. The manipulator, in this case the father, plants seeds of ideas in the victim's mind, then later, through a mind-altering substance, while the victim is in a suggestible state, coerces an imagined story from the victim. The victim, in this case a small child who is already given to following orders from his father, is not necessarily aware of fabricating a lie based on earlier-supplied clues and hints. This is documented to have happened in a number of alleged Satanic ritual abuse and/or daycare molestation cases from the 80s and 90s. It is a known and studied phenomenon. As to Jabbadabbado's points, I can only agree with your reasoning. Logically I must concede the possibility that MJ assaulted these or any other children. What I'm asking for, then, is evidence that supports that contention. Otherwise any of us might make any number of claims which, lacking evidence, can still be said to be "one possibility". Almost anything can be said to be "one possibility". That does not mean it's probable, or supported. To Zaz, first I would ask that you not hold me unequivocally to a theoretical response to a hypothetical question, without knowing the precise parameters of the postulated situation. To clarify, if Michael's probable mental illness were in evidence at the time of the offer, I would likely not allow my imaginary children to spend time with him. If there had been no previous charges against him and/or I knew what I know now about the probable falsehood of those charges, AND there were no signs of mental illness, I probably would allow my children to spend time with him. I hope that clarifies my position. Of course MJ "manipulates(-ed) his image". He was a global superstar. Where is the wrongdoing here? a. As I've agreed, his many surgeries probably constitute a sign of some form of mental illness. How can this be taken as a "clue" to his possible pederasty? b. I know grown men and women who have a proven "inability to sustain an intimate relationship" with a significant other. I might mention names, but one of them, a close friend, is semi-famous and I would not wish to denigrate him publicly. Does this mean that he molested children also? Or that we must believe on faith any accusation of criminal sexual behavior that seems likely? c. A sign of some psychological aberration, I will concede. There are all kinds of reasons, causes or precursors to this, such as having been deprived of a real childhood by his early fame. At the end of the day, it's no more evidence of child molestation than Angelina Jolie's adopted brood, or Barney the Dinosaur's cult of the child in the 1990s. Once more, evidence beyond "it seems like something he would do" is lacking here. d. Frivolous lawsuits are settled every day; this does not mean the claims are valid. In this case, Michael's advisers might have cautioned that it could cost more to go to trial -- financially, legally and publicly -- than to nip the stem in the bud early on. Even if he won in the end, legal costs might have equaled or outstripped whatever payment he made to the 1993 accusers. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rogue1-and-a-half Title: Manager: Amphitheatre Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 6/30 2:02pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I'm finding this argument intriguing, in a way. In a way, I'm not. People briefly tried to talk about his music above (Thriller is certainly a better album than Bad and perhaps not much better than Off the Wall which is routinely overlooked; Bad is a great album, however, if not quite as consistent - then again, Thriller had P.Y.T. and Lady in My Life, two real drags - perhaps it is simply that, great as some songs on Bad are (Smooth Criminal, Man in the Mirror, etc), they aren't as good as Beat It, Billie Jean, Thriller, She's Out of My Life, etc. Brief musical commentary out of the way, everyone starts writing theses on the man's personal life and whether or not he was guilty of specific crimes. He was mentally ill, I think, and where that might have started and stopped, I don't know; Don't know if he did the crimes, but I know he was probably capable; don't know if the parents lied, but they were certainly capable. I could investigate further and come up with a real show stopper of an opinion and argument, but I really don't care at this point. Always said when an artist dies and his relevant artistic talents and achievements are under the bridge for arguments about his personal life; that said, Jackson chose his legacy, I think. Or else, and this is more to my thinking, he wasn't really capable of choosing his legacy and the people that leeched off of him, starting most despicably and hatefully with his own father, are as much to blame as he was for whatever illnesses he might have gathered and whatever things he might have done or not done. I still recall seeing Joe Jackson on a talk show a few years back; the host was trying to get him to admit that he might have made a mistake as a parent to Michael. He refused, flatly, for what seemed like an eternity; I have more sympathy for Michael than for him. Michael, I think, was ruined; Joe seems like a complete narcissist, borderline sociopath. Maybe he was ruined too, way back when, but whatever. Gonk stated above that its a shame the record companies didn't have foresight or else perhaps they wouldn't have made Michael the superstar he was; I think that's not the correct emphasis. Stopping Michael from being a star would have been one method; but don't go to the record companies - take a few steps farther back and take out a restraining order against good ol' dad when Mike's about a year old - that would have stopped it all, or at least, all the sickness. In my opinion. -----signature----- Don't be a fool, don't be blind Heart of mine If you can't do the time, don't do the crime Heart of mine
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Manager Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 6/30 2:24pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	How do you tell the dancer from the dance? Without the troubled childhood and the domineering father, there would almost certainly have been no Jackson 5, no Thriller, no King of Pop. Any time you see a child star, you are more than likely going to find a parent standing offstage who at some point has crossed some fundamental line in overdetermining the child's future. I'm sure there's a continuum between enthusiastic supporter/advocate/champion for your child and overbearing tyrant bent on molding the child at all costs to serve your own questionable goals and needs. -----signature----- "As a Chicago sports fan you get used to disappointment."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rogue1-and-a-half Title: Manager: Amphitheatre Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 6/30 2:31pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Jabbadabbado posted: How do you tell the dancer from the dance? That is the quintessential question of all art, I suppose. We've always demanded suffering from our great artists. Sometimes, you come up against a case that makes you really wonder how much is too much. You're absolutely right, that to posit a world in which Jackson is sane is to posit one in which Thriller, Off the Wall, ABC, Bad and (by extension) much R&B does not exist. I suppose it comes down to each of us, whether we think it was worth it; generally, I fall on the side of art bringing redemption out of suffering. But, as I say, occasionally, you meet an extreme case and you just wonder if its really moral to enjoy the dance if the dancer has to be quite so tortured. -----signature----- Don't be a fool, don't be blind Heart of mine If you can't do the time, don't do the crime Heart of mine
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 - Previous | Next | Reload