I considered the idea that the Bashir interview and/or the 2003 allegations and 2005 trial were "choreographed" by MJ, but that theory runs into too many problems. Among others, there's evidence that the trial took a real physical toll on MJ (he was truly frail at one point) and multiple people say he became a different person after that, less trusting and more cautious and subdued in some ways. Mesereau also said in an interview that he had a serious discussion with Michael to warn him against opening up to people again, and Michael listened and seemed to agree. (Now of course if Michael brought the whole thing upon himself intentionally he probably wouldn't tell anyone, but again it's not likely - Michael stood to lose a lot, including money, out of something as huge as this. And did he want the image of "alleged child molester" for his own kids to deal with?)
2003: February 1:
The Cascios join Michael in Miami (Frank, Aldo & Marie Nicole). Mark Lester is also there. Wiesner & Konitzer try to block the airing of Martin Bashir's documentary after obtaining the final transcrpit.
If you read more on that blog, you'll see Michael's team scrambled to put out Michael's version of the documentary after Bashir's version aired... I believe that info because it's consistent with the sequence of events we already know. You'll also see that Michael had a very busy life, and in-between tragic events he had to do stuff like organize his kids' birthday parties! I don't even know how he dealt with all the stuff in his life... It's really no wonder he didn't sleep much.
Gosh Its her, did I miss a vital TS update where age and gender was discussed?!!
Actually, I was being quite literal in mentioning the lack of hoax media attention, but now that YOU mention it.........................I guess we are going to find out soon enough if one "can fake criminal charges" using the good doctor.........sorry, but you walked into that one!!
I might be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that there was in fact cctv evidence from the sleepovers that was going to be played as the defense trump card should it have been needed. As it turned out, the incorrigible, Arvizo ingrates did such an overwhelming A grade job of totally discrediting themselves that the camera footage wasn't needed......does that ring a bell? It does sound like an in-control MJ to have made sure any sleepovers were monitored after the shakedown in 1993...............so perhaps you are right, and there was never going to be any TIME done....IDK.
BTW .....I would so love to see the Batman face-off with the Dimond.......she should PAY him for the exclusive scoop!!
The theory does not state that the 2005 trial itself was a hoax, in fact it depends on the fact that the proceedings were very real. More accurately the theory states that Michael in a sense baited the DA (and the Arvizo family) in an attempt to prove a point. An attempt that ultimately failed in it’s purpose and message.
Do you really think Michael got fooled by Bashir? Do you really think he is that stupid? I don’t understand how someone can think Michael is brilliant enough to orchestrate a death hoax of this magnitude yet dumb enough to get fucked over that badly. Come on. Of course he knew Bashir would smear him, that’s why he had his own cameras filming everything in the back round. Do you really think after one set of child molestation allegations Michael would continue to host sleepovers with minors WITHOUT CCTV in the bedroom? And then do a very personal revealing train wreck of an interview designed for a national audience where he gave up all control over the aired edit?
Don’t you agree that it’s possible Michael called the DA’s bluff by taunting him with this interview KNOWING they had nothing on him, and that’s why he did that Bashir piece with the kid and the insistence that sharing your bed is a loving thing to do? Because he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing inappropriate happened- perhaps he was defiantly trying to set it all up to prove once and for all his innocence on the public stage. You want to call me a kid toucher mother fuckers? I’m gonna prove you’re all sick liars.
Do you really think Michael was naive enough to trust that family of track record con artists the Arvizos or do you think it’s possible he set them up/used them if you will?
Perhaps, just maybe, he intended to take it to trial to PROVE that the DA is shady and the cops are corrupt and the family were gold diggers and that the media unfairly condemn people with no evidence of wrong doing but the plan backfired and the message never got properly relayed.
People weren’t listening, the media reported their version of the facts, and the “hoax” was a PR fail. You win some you lose some. With CCTV in the bedroom, there’s no way he’d ever set one foot in prison. It would be the wild card of defense evidence and ended up being unnecessary to present. Why wouldn’t Michael’s defense team present CCTV tapes if they existed? Because then there would have been no trial, no public display, no hoax.
Do you REALLY think Michael Jackson would do a DEATH hoax the first time out? Or do you think it’s plausible that he has hoaxed before, possibly many times?
Here I go again <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Interesting isn't it! We are thinking on the same line Bec!
There can only be a death Hoax, if we accept that Michael Jackson is an absolutely outstanding thinker and "manipulator" who was not only able to plan his life in details but was also able to act it (more or less) exactly the way he wanted to... then this implies that some big events in his life are likely to have been staged to suit the scenario!
...And I cannot for 1 minute beLIEve that this Michael Jackson would have been out-thought by Martin Bashir!
The documentary is remembered for the Arvizo hand holding scene ("Hold my hand"!) but there were also other scenes that were off such as the infamous Blanket window incident or the shopping spree in Las Vegas.
So then why did He do it? What are we supposed to learn from it? How not to do things!
And why then going through the full trial in 2005 when CCTV footages existed? Michael may have indeed wanted to use the trial to clear his name following the Chandler case ... this however seems to be a rather high risk strategy ... but I have no alternative to propose at the moment... other than it may have been a staged mock trial but again I am unclear what the purpose of this would have been.
A Wiki reference to Mock trials below --- so it could be done! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial
This also makes me think about all the other court matters MJ was involved with... it seems that in the second half of his "life he had to deal with (or created) a lot of "controversy"... just like the phase we are currently going through, on this forum ...
What a puzzle of truth and lies! Who is it?...
Well! London is under ice and I have managed to totally confuse myself... at low temperature the brain function is greatly reduced...!
I think that I have the answer. This is a collective hallucination. In reality Michael Jackson does not exist and nothing ever happened. Soon we will wake up. *Just lost my mind* <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Just briefly coming back to the earlier media discussion
...And maybe maybe... the media is biased after all! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
[youtube:ruf796jp]
Gosh Its her, did I miss a vital TS update where age and gender was discussed?!!
Actually, I was being quite literal in mentioning the lack of hoax media attention, but now that YOU mention it.........................I guess we are going to find out soon enough if one "can fake criminal charges" using the good doctor.........sorry, but you walked into that one!!
I might be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that there was in fact cctv evidence from the sleepovers that was going to be played as the defense trump card should it have been needed. As it turned out, the incorrigible, Arvizo ingrates did such an overwhelming A grade job of totally discrediting themselves that the camera footage wasn't needed......does that ring a bell? It does sound like an in-control MJ to have made sure any sleepovers were monitored after the shakedown in 1993...............so perhaps you are right, and there was never going to be any TIME done....IDK.
BTW .....I would so love to see the Batman face-off with the Dimond.......she should PAY him for the exclusive scoop!!
The theory does not state that the 2005 trial itself was a hoax, in fact it depends on the fact that the proceedings were very real. More accurately the theory states that Michael in a sense baited the DA (and the Arvizo family) in an attempt to prove a point. An attempt that ultimately failed in it’s purpose and message.
Do you really think Michael got fooled by Bashir? Do you really think he is that stupid? I don’t understand how someone can think Michael is brilliant enough to orchestrate a death hoax of this magnitude yet dumb enough to get fucked over that badly. Come on. Of course he knew Bashir would smear him, that’s why he had his own cameras filming everything in the back round. Do you really think after one set of child molestation allegations Michael would continue to host sleepovers with minors WITHOUT CCTV in the bedroom? And then do a very personal revealing train wreck of an interview designed for a national audience where he gave up all control over the aired edit?
Don’t you agree that it’s possible Michael called the DA’s bluff by taunting him with this interview KNOWING they had nothing on him, and that’s why he did that Bashir piece with the kid and the insistence that sharing your bed is a loving thing to do? Because he could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt nothing inappropriate happened- perhaps he was defiantly trying to set it all up to prove once and for all his innocence on the public stage. You want to call me a kid toucher mother fuckers? I’m gonna prove you’re all sick liars.
Do you really think Michael was naive enough to trust that family of track record con artists the Arvizos or do you think it’s possible he set them up/used them if you will?
Perhaps, just maybe, he intended to take it to trial to PROVE that the DA is shady and the cops are corrupt and the family were gold diggers and that the media unfairly condemn people with no evidence of wrong doing but the plan backfired and the message never got properly relayed.
People weren’t listening, the media reported their version of the facts, and the “hoax” was a PR fail. You win some you lose some. With CCTV in the bedroom, there’s no way he’d ever set one foot in prison. It would be the wild card of defense evidence and ended up being unnecessary to present. Why wouldn’t Michael’s defense team present CCTV tapes if they existed? Because then there would have been no trial, no public display, no hoax.
Do you REALLY think Michael Jackson would do a DEATH hoax the first time out? Or do you think it’s plausible that he has hoaxed before, possibly many times?
Here I go again <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Interesting isn't it! We are thinking on the same line Bec!
There can only be a death Hoax, if we accept that Michael Jackson is an absolutely outstanding thinker and "manipulator" who was not only able to plan his life in details but was also able to act it (more or less) exactly the way he wanted to... then this implies that some big events in his life are likely to have been staged to suit the scenario!
...And I cannot for 1 minute beLIEve that this Michael Jackson would have been out-thought by Martin Bashir!
The documentary is remembered for the Arvizo hand holding scene ("Hold my hand"!) but there were also other scenes that were off such as the infamous Blanket window incident or the shopping spree in Las Vegas.
So then why did He do it? What are we supposed to learn from it? How not to do things!
And why then going through the full trial in 2005 when CCTV footages existed? Michael may have indeed wanted to use the trial to clear his name following the Chandler case ... this however seems to be a rather high risk strategy ... but I have no alternative to propose at the moment... other than it may have been a staged mock trial but again I am unclear what the purpose of this would have been.
A Wiki reference to Mock trials below --- so it could be done! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial
This also makes me think about all the other court matters MJ was involved with... it seems that in the second half of his "life he had to deal with (or created) a lot of "controversy"... just like the phase we are currently going through, on this forum ...
What a puzzle of truth and lies! Who is it?...
Well! London is under ice and I have managed to totally confuse myself... at low temperature the brain function is greatly reduced...!
With L.O.V.E
I could, maybe, believe this if Michael didn't have 3 children at the time - and if the Internet did not exist. A label like "alleged child molester" (for MJ!) goes viral in seconds or minutes and as we all know, still sticks in some people's minds today. This is playing dice... dangerous stuff. "The lie becomes the truth." I said in my previous post that Michael's team tried to stop the airing of Bashir's documentary... This tells me that they didn't like the final transcript they saw. I've also read that Bashir sought out Michael - not vice versa. As for the trial: There was a lot of REAL PAIN.
A kid could say Michael molested him ( <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> ) while they were walking outside, somewhere on the large Neverland property... or in a hotel... or somewhere. I'm not sure there could have been an effective way for Michael to protect himself from such lies, other than not befriend dubious families at all.
Why would Michael not disclose that his bedroom and/or every room in his house was under CCTV supervision (if that's true)? I see at least 2 reasons:
1. Maybe Michael was hoping he could still date some women, and didn't want everyone to know he had CCTV in every room in his house! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> Imagine the crazy tabloid titles: "Jacko has CCTV in his bathroom!" More reasons for the world to think he's nuts...
2. If there were ever to be a murder attempt on Michael's life, I suspect Michael would have preferred it to happen on his territory (to be caught on tape) than somewhere outside - in the form of a shooting or something, where it would be less likely that the culprit would be caught.
OK, here's the main problem I have with the notion that MJ intentionally created all this controversy and rumors: For a great artist such as MJ, controversy doesn't help, but harms his cause. People who are truly educated on ANY issue are a minority... The majority form opinions based on snippets of information they get from here and there. MJ HAD to know this! This is even more true in this era of short attention spans and instant gratification.
Most people in this world talk much more about Michael's personal life than his art, music, messages, or humanitarian work. Whenever I try to educate people about Michael I pretty much run into the same questions and opinions:
1. So why did he settle in 1993 if he was innocent?
2. He certainly brought all that trouble upon himself, saying he sleeps with kids...
3. He isolated himself, and wasn't in touch with the real world.
4. What's up with the baby dangling?
5. What did he do to his face?!
6. Was the marriage to LMP real?!
7. Are the kids really his?!
I spend so much time trying to debunk the myths and explain stuff, I don't even get to talk about the beauty of MJ and what he stood for!
How many people do you think have read "Dancing the Dream"?! How many people have seen the brilliant "Ghosts" video?!
Most people don't know that Michael had talent in drawing, that he was extremely well-read, that he wrote poetry... Seriously - and I’m not talking about dumb or uneducated people!
Do you think Michael would want this, for his essence and messages to be drowned out in the confusion and dirty allegations? WHY would Michael create so much controversy, when he could simply be known as a BRILLIANT ARTIST & GREAT HUMANITARIAN? Had Michael's image never been tarnished, he could have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize by now... Don’t you think Michael would have loved that? Barrack Obama got it, for God’s sake, and he did nothing to deserve it!
We’re not talking innocuous controversy here, such as “Were Michael and Prince friends or enemies?” We’re talking about a “child molester” label! This is Russian Roulette, guys, and I think Michael’s too smart not to realize that. If he wanted to make a point about courts and justice, he could have gotten in trouble for something else… like stealing a tyre from a car, or being found in possession of marijuana (which would have made a point about treatment of black people AND marijuana - would have been brilliant!).
- Michael lost his credibility as a humanitarian because his image was tarnished.
- Michael’s “Invincible” album flopped, by his standards, because people weren’t paying attention to Michael at the time.
- Michael’s name was covered at that school auditorium (which was named after him - what an honor!) because MJ came to be associated, in people’s minds, with child molestation (what a shame!).
- Michael’s beloved Neverland was besieged and tainted forever, to the point where Michael didn’t even want to go back.
Do you really think Michael would play with a “child molestation” label and its consequences? I, for one, cannot possibly believe it… If you do maintain that view, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you think MJ would take such a huge risk (given what I wrote here).
I agree with you ...his pain was very visible plus all you said here.
OK, here's the main problem I have with the notion that MJ intentionally created all this controversy and rumors: For a great artist such as MJ, controversy doesn't help, but harms his cause. People who are truly educated on ANY issue are a minority... The majority form opinions based on snippets of information they get from here and there. MJ HAD to know this! This is even more true in this era of short attention spans and instant gratification.
Most people in this world talk much more about Michael's personal life than his art, music, messages, or humanitarian work. Whenever I try to educate people about Michael I pretty much run into the same questions and opinions:
1. So why did he settle in 1993 if he was innocent?
2. He certainly brought all that trouble upon himself, saying he sleeps with kids...
3. He isolated himself, and wasn't in touch with the real world.
4. What's up with the baby dangling?
5. What did he do to his face?!
6. Was the marriage to LMP real?!
7. Are the kids really his?!
I spend so much time trying to debunk the myths and explain stuff, I don't even get to talk about the beauty of MJ and what he stood for!
How many people do you think have read "Dancing the Dream"?! How many people have seen the brilliant "Ghosts" video?!
Most people don't know that Michael had talent in drawing, that he was extremely well-read, that he wrote poetry... Seriously - and I’m not talking about dumb or uneducated people!
Do you think Michael would want this, for his essence and messages to be drowned out in the confusion and dirty allegations? WHY would Michael create so much controversy, when he could simply be known as a BRILLIANT ARTIST & GREAT HUMANITARIAN? Had Michael's image never been tarnished, he could have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize by now... Don’t you think Michael would have loved that? Barrack Obama got it, for God’s sake, and he did nothing to deserve it!
We’re not talking innocuous controversy here, such as “Were Michael and Prince friends or enemies?” We’re talking about a “child molester” label! This is Russian Roulette, guys, and I think Michael’s too smart not to realize that. If he wanted to make a point about courts and justice, he could have gotten in trouble for something else… like stealing a tyre from a car, or being found in possession of marijuana (which would have made a point about treatment of black people AND marijuana - would have been brilliant!).
- Michael lost his credibility as a humanitarian because his image was tarnished.
- Michael’s “Invincible” album flopped, by his standards, because people weren’t paying attention to Michael at the time.
- Michael’s name was covered at that school auditorium (which was named after him - what an honor!) because MJ came to be associated, in people’s minds, with child molestation (what a shame!).
- Michael’s beloved Neverland was besieged and tainted forever, to the point where Michael didn’t even want to go back.
Do you really think Michael would play with a “child molestation” label and its consequences? I, for one, cannot possibly believe it… If you do maintain that view, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you think MJ would take such a huge risk (given what I wrote here).
To pick a little more on Bec's theory (sorry - Bec, you can always try to refute my arguments; this isn't personal):
Bec, you said:
"Perhaps, just maybe, he intended to take it to trial to PROVE that the DA is shady and the cops are corrupt and the family were gold diggers and that the media unfairly condemn people with no evidence of wrong doing but the plan backfired and the message never got properly relayed.
People weren’t listening, the media reported their version of the facts, and the “hoax” was a PR fail. You win some you lose some."
A few points:
1. As mentioned already (my previous post), there would have been better/smarter ways to prove the DA are corrupt - without risking getting MJ into any s***, which he didn't need anyway, as the father of 3 kids, engaged in a battle with Sony (I'm thinking circa 2003, when the Bashir documentary aired)... There would have been much better ways to raise awareness about media issues too.
2. If MJ was/is so smart, how could he not know how the media was gonna react at the explosive combination of MJ & "child molestation"? And how could he not envision the price he might end up paying? As of 2003 Michael had plenty of experience with the media AND with people/humanity... He can't have been extremely savvy in some ways and very naive in others... Your theory contains an internal contradiction, if you see what I mean.
To answer one of my own questions, posted in a previous post (as to how many people might have seen Michael's "Ghosts" video, which I consider a masterpiece):
Looking at the YouTube number of views for different versions, I got the sense that approx. 1 million people might have watched it. Let's say that an extra 1 million watched it through other channels... (I think I'm being generous!) That's 2 million. World population = 6.7 billion (approx), which is 6700 million.
Approximate ratio of people who watched "Ghosts":
2:6700 = 1:3350 = 0.00029.
OR, to put it differently: Out of every 1 million people in the world, 298 have watched "Ghosts" and 999702 haven't.
This is why I think this forum here is a bubble, and the "real world" looks very different from this bubble.
Sometimes I think the ideas "travel" in a misterious way, because what you all say was crossing my mind too lately but because to imply that MJ could have faked the 2005 thing would have been considered disrespectful to the highest degree by the fans - I prefered to keep it for myself as a possibility. Not that I believe it 100%.
Why do I always have this feeling that MJ is not actually LIVING that life he's "selling" to us?
But don't forget, this theory is in regards to the 2nd set of allegations and the trial that resulted. MJ was already wearing the label of accused child molester at the time. Notoriously difficult to disprove. Maybe he thought that was the only way to clear his name once and for all?
*He should have showed the tapes if this is the case, but hindsight is 20-20.
But I'll counter with this thought: Why, after dealing with one horrific set of accusations would MJ, our brilliant and methodical MJ, have allowed kids to have unchaperoned sleepovers in his home ever ever again. Why? I mean, I apologize in advance for being so blunt, that is just straight up stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
Not to mention with that family's kids. You mean to tell me that no one does a back round check on one of the richest man in the world's house guests? Really? How about on the richest, most famous man in the world who just recently settled a high profile molestation charge to the tune of 50 mil? I can't believe that. That family had a rap sheet a mile long of extortion and blackmail attempts. Successfully suing JCPenny for allegedly fondling the mom after she got caught shoplifting for goodness sake. Fantastic people to bring into your celebrity home and invite their kids into your bedroom for sleepovers and movie night. Come on. MJ is that naive? That's beyond naive. That's boarding on the realms of stupid. But NOT if the entire house and grounds are under surveillance it's not. Then it's quite safe and even better, it's quite clever.
I don't know for sure, don't get me wrong, I'm not set on this theory but it does make sense to me and it is logical. And for me, it's actually more logical then the common held beliefs ("reality") of how that whole thing went down. It's sort of like the Pepsi hoax-"accident" theory.
For those who bring up that he had children at the time and they don't see MJ taking such a risk then, what's the alternative theory?? That MJ, after dealing with a set of allegations in the recent past, while wearing the label of accused and suspected molester, invites some shady family's boys to spend the night with him in his bedroom WITHOUT cameras in the room?? Really? You think he'd take that risk? You think he'd overlook that cover-your-ass aspect of being alone with other people's kids? Especially being a single father to his OWN young children, I'd think this would be a no-brainer way of dealing with any future allegations since he obviously wanted to continue to entertain guests.
For the record, I'm really not comfortable with the alternative ("reality") theory.
For the pain on MJs face I direct you to KJ's interview on Oprah. Paris's face on stage at the memorial. Jermaine's face at UCLA after the press conference. I will also say, tapes or no tapes, the trial was an epic journey of emotional strength and determination for MJ, but perhaps he saw it as necessary. Necessary so his children wouldn't have to grow up under the cloud of suspicion left in the wake of the 1993 allegations. A necessary evil to clear his name forever that unfortunately, was not successful. OR a necessary evil to clear his name forever in the FUTURE. No doubt it was a trial of emotional endurance and spiritual pain.
Last thought. All the talk about the missing tapes from the Carrolwood Dr. CCTV system strengthens this theory. Much like the nurse injected propofol into the convo, the mystery of the missing tapes brought up that the entire house and grounds were on security cameras 24/7, that MJ insisted on this in every room, etc etc... one thought leads to another.
So, what about those missing tapes. What tapes do they mean? The tapes from 6/25/09 or the tapes from Neverland? Maybe there are tapes. Maybe we will see them both someday. Maybe when they proved unnecessary in 2005 it wasn't a *mistake to keep them under wraps. Maybe we just don't know the whole story yet. Maybe MJ saved them for something else he was planning.
Just another one of those things that makes you say what if...?
Ps. If I forgot to answer anyone's questions I'm sorry. Please remind me.
Why, after dealing with one horrific set of accusations would MJ, our brilliant and methodical MJ, have allowed kids to have unchaperoned sleepovers in his home ever ever again. Why?
If the 2005 trial was for real, I would say he continued to do what you mention because he is not a coward. Why should not do the things he believes in just because some people find it strange?
If the 2005 was orchestrated, the answer is obvious. Just like the drug-addictions stories reported prior to "death".
Why, after dealing with one horrific set of accusations would MJ, our brilliant and methodical MJ, have allowed kids to have unchaperoned sleepovers in his home ever ever again. Why?
If the 2005 trial was for real, I would say he continued to do what you mention because he is not a coward. Why should not do the things he believes in just because some people find it strange?
If the 2005 was orchestrated, the answer is obvious. Just like the drug-addictions stories reported prior to "death".
No no, I didn't say why didn't he stop having kids stay over, I said why didn't he have another adult present at the sleepovers as witness or... put up cameras everywhere to have a permanent record that nothing inappropriate happened so when the inevitable accusation happens again, he has undeniable proof on his side.
MJ is that naive? That's beyond naive. That's boarding on the realms of stupid. But NOT if the entire house and grounds are under surveillance it's not. Then it's quite safe and even better, it's quite clever.
Just a quick thought about the tapes. If there were tapes at Neverland, and there is a good possibility there were tapes, it may have been tricky for the defense to get the tapes into evidence due to problems with verifying the dates and TS would have challenged them. Also while the tapes may have shown the truth about this family, I would be careful to show footage of kids in MJ's room, however innocent it may have been. If I could win the case without the footage, I would do as TM did. I don't think he wanted to put any unnecessary images in the minds of the jury.
Have you read all of my recent posts? I made more than one...
There were 10 YEARS between 1993 and 2003... I don't see the point of MJ "revisiting the issue". What would have been the real master stroke would have been for Jordie Chandler to publicly recant his story - not MJ going through a trial on 2nd time accusations of child abuse! If anything, the whole "second time" aspect made it worse in many people's eyes! And couldn't MJ guess that an acquittal wouldn't be the end of the story, in public's eyes?! He must have been aware of the OJ Simpson case!
Did you see Michael's mug shot? Did you see how much weight he lost during that time? That's not a matter of "putting on a sad face"... That's trauma, pure and simple. It seems very different to me from Paris' face at the memorial or KJ's face on Oprah, and I'm surprised you kind of equate those. Also, as I mentioned, various people close to Michael spoke of how he changed after that time, and wasn't the same person anymore. As we know, he also fled the U.S. and became a pilgrim for a while.
I didn't say Michael didn't have CCTV in his bedroom or even his entire house... I actually implied that he probably did, but for whatever reason chose not to disclose that. (I don't know why exactly he'd do that - I only offered 2 possible reasons). I don't believe, however, that Michael wanted that trial or tried in any way to bring it about. It had been a long time since 1993, and Michael knew he was innocent, and probably didn't want to allow the dirty and corrupt world to change what he did and what he was about. He may have felt he had to stay true to himself. Call it stubborness if you want. (That's what LMP offered as a possible explanation.)
As for the "brilliant and methodical" nature of MJ, sure... He was both of those things, but he was also a man with LOTS on his plate, at any given time, and he didn't only have to think about Gavin or Bashir! Michael was a very busy man, and was probably tired and spread thin at times. I made a post recently in "General Talk", titled "Michael = Only Human", where I touched on this aspect - which we sometimes tend to forget about. Michael didn't just sit around plotting hoaxes! Check out this timeline, which I keep posting:
<!-- m -->http://mjjtimeline.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
If Michael could see through Bashir, why did he try to stop his documentary from airing? It doesn't look like the aired version was part of Michael's plan! And Gloria Allred trying to have Social Services take Michael's kids?! Do you realize Michael risked losing his own children? Do you think he'd consciously do that? What could he possibly gain, even in the best-case scenario, that would be worth it?
As for the June 25 security cameras, that's one of the most important questions and I have no answers on that.
Just a quick thought about the tapes. If there were tapes at Neverland, and there is a good possibility there were tapes, it may have been tricky for the defense to get the tapes into evidence due to problems with verifying the dates and TS would have challenged them. Also while the tapes may have shown the truth about this family, I would be careful to show footage of kids in MJ's room, however innocent it may have been. If I could win the case without the footage, I would do as TM did. I don't think he wanted to put any unnecessary images in the minds of the jury.
GREAT points! I agree.
EDIT: I agree more with the latter point (not wanting the jury to see unnecessary images), since I believe the tapes would have dates on them... I think dates are an important part of having the security tapes in the first place.
I think there's an indignity to being arrested, being handcuffed, having a mug shot taken etc, that Michael Jackson - with his big and wonderful dreams - could never have wanted for himself. He's also a self-made black man from a poor (originally) family... an extra reason to not want anything to do with the criminal justice system. And again: Michael's children. All of this crap is public information, on the Internet. Michael might even have done things in his youth that he wouldn't do once he had children... It wasn't just himself or even "the world" he had to think about!
Just a quick thought about the tapes. If there were tapes at Neverland, and there is a good possibility there were tapes, it may have been tricky for the defense to get the tapes into evidence due to problems with verifying the dates and TS would have challenged them. Also while the tapes may have shown the truth about this family, I would be careful to show footage of kids in MJ's room, however innocent it may have been. If I could win the case without the footage, I would do as TM did. I don't think he wanted to put any unnecessary images in the minds of the jury.
GREAT points! I agree.
EDIT: I agree more with the latter point (not wanting the jury to see unnecessary images), since I believe the tapes would have dates on them... I think dates are an important part of having the security tapes in the first place.
True, but the dates can be manipulated as those on a video camera. Just because it says Dec 3, 2010, doesn't mean it's really that date. It depends on the security system and then there is the question of who had access to the tapes and the camera. You can see I've been involved with cases with security tapes and it does get tricky.
You made a good post which much food for thought. I just wanted to answer the following, my comments in blue.
Bec:
Have you read all of my recent posts? I made more than one...
There were 10 YEARS between 1993 and 2003... I don't see the point of MJ "revisiting the issue". Because the "issue" never went away. He was going to wear the stigma forever. So when you're down... there's only one place to go but up... conventional wisdom dictates anyway. But at the same time, I agree with the points you made after this in your post.
What would have been the real master stroke would have been for Jordie Chandler to publicly recant his story Amen to that. Reminds me of the first post back made after 6/25/09 that gives me hope for a prediction or "vision" as he calls them:
I don't believe, however, that Michael wanted that trial or tried in any way to bring it about. I don't either. I'm thinking more confronting the issue head on and taking some sneaky safeguards to ensure transparency, rather then deliberately trying to set himself up to be put on trial. Again, perhaps there is more to the story that we yet don't know.
What could he possibly gain, even in the best-case scenario, that would be worth it? Having his name cleared and removing the stigma from his legacy for his children. It's a monumental task that surely requires a monumental undertaking... if at all even possible to accomplish. But nothing was changing by doing nothing.
As for the June 25 security cameras, that's one of the most important questions and I have no answers on that. I don't think anyone has been able to offer a solid theory for that. It's right up there with footage from the burial and the entire Thriller 3D video from TII. They all seem to be missing.
Just a quick thought about the tapes. If there were tapes at Neverland, and there is a good possibility there were tapes, it may have been tricky for the defense to get the tapes into evidence due to problems with verifying the dates and TS would have challenged them. Also while the tapes may have shown the truth about this family, I would be careful to show footage of kids in MJ's room, however innocent it may have been. If I could win the case without the footage, I would do as TM did. I don't think he wanted to put any unnecessary images in the minds of the jury.
GREAT points! I agree.
EDIT: I agree more with the latter point (not wanting the jury to see unnecessary images), since I believe the tapes would have dates on them... I think dates are an important part of having the security tapes in the first place.
Comments
According to the MJJ timeline, Michael/his camp tried to block the Bashir "documentary" before it aired:
<!-- m -->http://mjjtimeline.blogspot.com/2009/08/2003.html<!-- m -->
2003:
February 1:
The Cascios join Michael in Miami (Frank, Aldo & Marie Nicole). Mark Lester is also there. Wiesner & Konitzer try to block the airing of Martin Bashir's documentary after obtaining the final transcrpit.
If you read more on that blog, you'll see Michael's team scrambled to put out Michael's version of the documentary after Bashir's version aired... I believe that info because it's consistent with the sequence of events we already know. You'll also see that Michael had a very busy life, and in-between tragic events he had to do stuff like organize his kids' birthday parties! I don't even know how he dealt with all the stuff in his life... It's really no wonder he didn't sleep much.
Interesting isn't it! We are thinking on the same line Bec!
There can only be a death Hoax, if we accept that Michael Jackson is an absolutely outstanding thinker and "manipulator" who was not only able to plan his life in details but was also able to act it (more or less) exactly the way he wanted to... then this implies that some big events in his life are likely to have been staged to suit the scenario!
...And I cannot for 1 minute beLIEve that this Michael Jackson would have been out-thought by Martin Bashir!
The documentary is remembered for the Arvizo hand holding scene ("Hold my hand"!) but there were also other scenes that were off such as the infamous Blanket window incident or the shopping spree in Las Vegas.
So then why did He do it? What are we supposed to learn from it? How not to do things!
And why then going through the full trial in 2005 when CCTV footages existed? Michael may have indeed wanted to use the trial to clear his name following the Chandler case ... this however seems to be a rather high risk strategy ... but I have no alternative to propose at the moment... other than it may have been a staged mock trial but again I am unclear what the purpose of this would have been.
A Wiki reference to Mock trials below --- so it could be done!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial
This also makes me think about all the other court matters MJ was involved with... it seems that in the second half of his "life he had to deal with (or created) a lot of "controversy"... just like the phase we are currently going through, on this forum ...
What a puzzle of truth and lies! Who is it?...
Well! London is under ice and I have managed to totally confuse myself... at low temperature the brain function is greatly reduced...!
With L.O.V.E
...And maybe maybe... the media is biased after all! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
[youtube:ruf796jp]
With L.O.V.E
I could, maybe, believe this if Michael didn't have 3 children at the time - and if the Internet did not exist. A label like "alleged child molester" (for MJ!) goes viral in seconds or minutes and as we all know, still sticks in some people's minds today. This is playing dice... dangerous stuff. "The lie becomes the truth." I said in my previous post that Michael's team tried to stop the airing of Bashir's documentary... This tells me that they didn't like the final transcript they saw. I've also read that Bashir sought out Michael - not vice versa. As for the trial: There was a lot of REAL PAIN.
A kid could say Michael molested him ( <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> ) while they were walking outside, somewhere on the large Neverland property... or in a hotel... or somewhere. I'm not sure there could have been an effective way for Michael to protect himself from such lies, other than not befriend dubious families at all.
Why would Michael not disclose that his bedroom and/or every room in his house was under CCTV supervision (if that's true)? I see at least 2 reasons:
1. Maybe Michael was hoping he could still date some women, and didn't want everyone to know he had CCTV in every room in his house! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) --> Imagine the crazy tabloid titles: "Jacko has CCTV in his bathroom!" More reasons for the world to think he's nuts...
2. If there were ever to be a murder attempt on Michael's life, I suspect Michael would have preferred it to happen on his territory (to be caught on tape) than somewhere outside - in the form of a shooting or something, where it would be less likely that the culprit would be caught.
Most people in this world talk much more about Michael's personal life than his art, music, messages, or humanitarian work. Whenever I try to educate people about Michael I pretty much run into the same questions and opinions:
1. So why did he settle in 1993 if he was innocent?
2. He certainly brought all that trouble upon himself, saying he sleeps with kids...
3. He isolated himself, and wasn't in touch with the real world.
4. What's up with the baby dangling?
5. What did he do to his face?!
6. Was the marriage to LMP real?!
7. Are the kids really his?!
I spend so much time trying to debunk the myths and explain stuff, I don't even get to talk about the beauty of MJ and what he stood for!
How many people do you think have read "Dancing the Dream"?! How many people have seen the brilliant "Ghosts" video?!
Most people don't know that Michael had talent in drawing, that he was extremely well-read, that he wrote poetry... Seriously - and I’m not talking about dumb or uneducated people!
Do you think Michael would want this, for his essence and messages to be drowned out in the confusion and dirty allegations? WHY would Michael create so much controversy, when he could simply be known as a BRILLIANT ARTIST & GREAT HUMANITARIAN? Had Michael's image never been tarnished, he could have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize by now... Don’t you think Michael would have loved that? Barrack Obama got it, for God’s sake, and he did nothing to deserve it!
We’re not talking innocuous controversy here, such as “Were Michael and Prince friends or enemies?” We’re talking about a “child molester” label! This is Russian Roulette, guys, and I think Michael’s too smart not to realize that. If he wanted to make a point about courts and justice, he could have gotten in trouble for something else… like stealing a tyre from a car, or being found in possession of marijuana (which would have made a point about treatment of black people AND marijuana - would have been brilliant!).
- Michael lost his credibility as a humanitarian because his image was tarnished.
- Michael’s “Invincible” album flopped, by his standards, because people weren’t paying attention to Michael at the time.
- Michael’s name was covered at that school auditorium (which was named after him - what an honor!) because MJ came to be associated, in people’s minds, with child molestation (what a shame!).
- Michael’s beloved Neverland was besieged and tainted forever, to the point where Michael didn’t even want to go back.
Do you really think Michael would play with a “child molestation” label and its consequences? I, for one, cannot possibly believe it… If you do maintain that view, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you think MJ would take such a huge risk (given what I wrote here).
To pick a little more on Bec's theory (sorry - Bec, you can always try to refute my arguments; this isn't personal):
Bec, you said:
"Perhaps, just maybe, he intended to take it to trial to PROVE that the DA is shady and the cops are corrupt and the family were gold diggers and that the media unfairly condemn people with no evidence of wrong doing but the plan backfired and the message never got properly relayed.
People weren’t listening, the media reported their version of the facts, and the “hoax” was a PR fail. You win some you lose some."
A few points:
1. As mentioned already (my previous post), there would have been better/smarter ways to prove the DA are corrupt - without risking getting MJ into any s***, which he didn't need anyway, as the father of 3 kids, engaged in a battle with Sony (I'm thinking circa 2003, when the Bashir documentary aired)... There would have been much better ways to raise awareness about media issues too.
2. If MJ was/is so smart, how could he not know how the media was gonna react at the explosive combination of MJ & "child molestation"? And how could he not envision the price he might end up paying? As of 2003 Michael had plenty of experience with the media AND with people/humanity... He can't have been extremely savvy in some ways and very naive in others... Your theory contains an internal contradiction, if you see what I mean.
Looking at the YouTube number of views for different versions, I got the sense that approx. 1 million people might have watched it. Let's say that an extra 1 million watched it through other channels... (I think I'm being generous!) That's 2 million. World population = 6.7 billion (approx), which is 6700 million.
Approximate ratio of people who watched "Ghosts":
2:6700 = 1:3350 = 0.00029.
OR, to put it differently: Out of every 1 million people in the world, 298 have watched "Ghosts" and 999702 haven't.
This is why I think this forum here is a bubble, and the "real world" looks very different from this bubble.
Sometimes I think the ideas "travel" in a misterious way, because what you all say was crossing my mind too lately but because to imply that MJ could have faked the 2005 thing would have been considered disrespectful to the highest degree by the fans - I prefered to keep it for myself as a possibility. Not that I believe it 100%.
Why do I always have this feeling that MJ is not actually LIVING that life he's "selling" to us?
But don't forget, this theory is in regards to the 2nd set of allegations and the trial that resulted. MJ was already wearing the label of accused child molester at the time. Notoriously difficult to disprove. Maybe he thought that was the only way to clear his name once and for all?
*He should have showed the tapes if this is the case, but hindsight is 20-20.
But I'll counter with this thought: Why, after dealing with one horrific set of accusations would MJ, our brilliant and methodical MJ, have allowed kids to have unchaperoned sleepovers in his home ever ever again. Why? I mean, I apologize in advance for being so blunt, that is just straight up stupid on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.
Not to mention with that family's kids. You mean to tell me that no one does a back round check on one of the richest man in the world's house guests? Really? How about on the richest, most famous man in the world who just recently settled a high profile molestation charge to the tune of 50 mil? I can't believe that. That family had a rap sheet a mile long of extortion and blackmail attempts. Successfully suing JCPenny for allegedly fondling the mom after she got caught shoplifting for goodness sake. Fantastic people to bring into your celebrity home and invite their kids into your bedroom for sleepovers and movie night. Come on. MJ is that naive? That's beyond naive. That's boarding on the realms of stupid. But NOT if the entire house and grounds are under surveillance it's not. Then it's quite safe and even better, it's quite clever.
I don't know for sure, don't get me wrong, I'm not set on this theory but it does make sense to me and it is logical. And for me, it's actually more logical then the common held beliefs ("reality") of how that whole thing went down. It's sort of like the Pepsi hoax-"accident" theory.
For those who bring up that he had children at the time and they don't see MJ taking such a risk then, what's the alternative theory?? That MJ, after dealing with a set of allegations in the recent past, while wearing the label of accused and suspected molester, invites some shady family's boys to spend the night with him in his bedroom WITHOUT cameras in the room?? Really? You think he'd take that risk? You think he'd overlook that cover-your-ass aspect of being alone with other people's kids? Especially being a single father to his OWN young children, I'd think this would be a no-brainer way of dealing with any future allegations since he obviously wanted to continue to entertain guests.
For the record, I'm really not comfortable with the alternative ("reality") theory.
For the pain on MJs face I direct you to KJ's interview on Oprah. Paris's face on stage at the memorial. Jermaine's face at UCLA after the press conference. I will also say, tapes or no tapes, the trial was an epic journey of emotional strength and determination for MJ, but perhaps he saw it as necessary. Necessary so his children wouldn't have to grow up under the cloud of suspicion left in the wake of the 1993 allegations. A necessary evil to clear his name forever that unfortunately, was not successful. OR a necessary evil to clear his name forever in the FUTURE. No doubt it was a trial of emotional endurance and spiritual pain.
Last thought. All the talk about the missing tapes from the Carrolwood Dr. CCTV system strengthens this theory. Much like the nurse injected propofol into the convo, the mystery of the missing tapes brought up that the entire house and grounds were on security cameras 24/7, that MJ insisted on this in every room, etc etc... one thought leads to another.
So, what about those missing tapes. What tapes do they mean? The tapes from 6/25/09 or the tapes from Neverland? Maybe there are tapes. Maybe we will see them both someday. Maybe when they proved unnecessary in 2005 it wasn't a *mistake to keep them under wraps. Maybe we just don't know the whole story yet. Maybe MJ saved them for something else he was planning.
Just another one of those things that makes you say what if...?
Ps. If I forgot to answer anyone's questions I'm sorry. Please remind me.
If the 2005 trial was for real, I would say he continued to do what you mention because he is not a coward. Why should not do the things he believes in just because some people find it strange?
If the 2005 was orchestrated, the answer is obvious. Just like the drug-addictions stories reported prior to "death".
No no, I didn't say why didn't he stop having kids stay over, I said why didn't he have another adult present at the sleepovers as witness or... put up cameras everywhere to have a permanent record that nothing inappropriate happened so when the inevitable accusation happens again, he has undeniable proof on his side.
Have you read all of my recent posts? I made more than one...
There were 10 YEARS between 1993 and 2003... I don't see the point of MJ "revisiting the issue". What would have been the real master stroke would have been for Jordie Chandler to publicly recant his story - not MJ going through a trial on 2nd time accusations of child abuse! If anything, the whole "second time" aspect made it worse in many people's eyes! And couldn't MJ guess that an acquittal wouldn't be the end of the story, in public's eyes?! He must have been aware of the OJ Simpson case!
Did you see Michael's mug shot? Did you see how much weight he lost during that time? That's not a matter of "putting on a sad face"... That's trauma, pure and simple. It seems very different to me from Paris' face at the memorial or KJ's face on Oprah, and I'm surprised you kind of equate those. Also, as I mentioned, various people close to Michael spoke of how he changed after that time, and wasn't the same person anymore. As we know, he also fled the U.S. and became a pilgrim for a while.
I didn't say Michael didn't have CCTV in his bedroom or even his entire house... I actually implied that he probably did, but for whatever reason chose not to disclose that. (I don't know why exactly he'd do that - I only offered 2 possible reasons). I don't believe, however, that Michael wanted that trial or tried in any way to bring it about. It had been a long time since 1993, and Michael knew he was innocent, and probably didn't want to allow the dirty and corrupt world to change what he did and what he was about. He may have felt he had to stay true to himself. Call it stubborness if you want. (That's what LMP offered as a possible explanation.)
As for the "brilliant and methodical" nature of MJ, sure... He was both of those things, but he was also a man with LOTS on his plate, at any given time, and he didn't only have to think about Gavin or Bashir! Michael was a very busy man, and was probably tired and spread thin at times. I made a post recently in "General Talk", titled "Michael = Only Human", where I touched on this aspect - which we sometimes tend to forget about. Michael didn't just sit around plotting hoaxes! Check out this timeline, which I keep posting:
<!-- m -->http://mjjtimeline.blogspot.com/<!-- m -->
If Michael could see through Bashir, why did he try to stop his documentary from airing? It doesn't look like the aired version was part of Michael's plan! And Gloria Allred trying to have Social Services take Michael's kids?! Do you realize Michael risked losing his own children? Do you think he'd consciously do that? What could he possibly gain, even in the best-case scenario, that would be worth it?
As for the June 25 security cameras, that's one of the most important questions and I have no answers on that.
GREAT points! I agree.
EDIT: I agree more with the latter point (not wanting the jury to see unnecessary images), since I believe the tapes would have dates on them... I think dates are an important part of having the security tapes in the first place.
I personally have never seen a more haunting and heart-breaking picture of Michael Jackson.
Excellent points that hadn't occurred to me.
Yet.... I know nothing at this moment...NOTHING