Uri defends Michael on Larry

MaxNY · Postby **MaxNY** » February 21st, 2003, 7:22 pm

Tonight (2-21-03) Uri Geller defended Michael Jackson on the Larry King Show. The first ID under his name only identified him as an "Author". The subject was all about Michael Jackson, and the recent press he has been recieving. Magician Uri Geller said that Michael has "unconditional love" for kids, and went on to say "Michael has never done anything to a child". Larry King cut off Uri several times...this was easy to do since Uri was via satelight. At one point Larry said that he was being "repetitive". The ID later said that Uri introduced Michael to the documentary film maker Bashir. Uri also tried to interject his opinion once, but Larry was to hear nothing from the fortune telling prophet... He looked good, still very handsome. It's hard to believe Larry King had this professional deciever on, but Michael's friends, seem to be few.

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » February 21st, 2003, 7:31 pm

It must be apparent to even the most blindly adorational fan that Michael Jackson is mentally ill at the very least, and a mentally-ill child molester and perhaps even worse.
He's just a nut case. Look at his face! He deserves some degree of pity, but you don't give a kid $20 MILLION dollars if you don't have a really good reason to shut him up. He should either be in prison or an asylum, being treated for his illness.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 21st, 2003, 7:55 pm

I don't know. I prefer to believe in the old fashioned legal notion of presumption of innocence. He has never been charged with anything let alone found guilty.

It is a very important thing in jurisprudence that a person is innocent until found guilty. Suspicion is not guilt.

I would have thought that if there was anything in these allegations that there would have been more accusations by now.

This subject is not as off topic as we think. Michael seems to have quite a few magician friends including David Blaine and other very well known names.

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » February 21st, 2003, 8:22 pm

No one pays $20 MILLION bucks to someone without a real solid reason. No one. The kid, now an adult, has testified (I read this somewhere just the other day) that Jackson pressured him and eventually performed oral sex on him.
The King of Pop? Don't think so.
From my point of view Jackson plead guilty when he found it necessary to pay the kid off instead of going to jail.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 21st, 2003, 8:50 pm

The reason he gave that he did not want an OJ circus type trial sounded pretty plausible to me.
I will admit that there is suspicion. However, suspicion is not proof positive.

Again in the American (other countries too) system of justice a person is condered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Incidentally I was once told that you shouldn't always believe what you read in the papers.

All this reminds me that I actually have something for Michael Jackson. 15 years ago I was asked to create something for him. It is something that I think he would want. I have no idea how to get it to him. For all I know he has a copy of it already but I am not sure.

Oh well, I won't worry about it. It may be a bit out of date anyway.

Sorry to be cryptic. I am merely thinking out loud.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 21st, 2003, 8:55 pm

Q: What time is bedtime at Michael Jackson's house?
A: When the big hand touches the little hand.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 21st, 2003, 9:38 pm

Horace wrote "I prefer to believe in the old fashioned legal notion of presumption of innocence. He has never been charged with anything let alone found guilty."

I am a lawyer by profession and I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the American jurisprudential system.

The concept Horace cites is a very good one when it comes to the state depriving an accused party of his freedom or otherwise imposing criminal sanctions on the accused. It is, in effect, a restraint on state action.

There is, however, no requirement that individuals observe the same restriction. Whether or not the state brings an indictment against someone like Jackson should have little bearing on a parent's decision to allow Jackson to be alone with a child. Any reasonable parent should appreciate that doing so places the child in grave jeopardy. I am sure that a parent who does so because "Jackson was never convicted" would (and should) be regarded as a very great fool.

0pus

MaxNY · Postby **MaxNY** » February 22nd, 2003, 5:10 am

The 20 million dollars is relative. Michael's 20 million is not my 20 million. The whole situation is fascinating, and I do believe him to be very ill, and do believe his actions on children have been illegal. But, why the friendship with magicians? Do you think he is all caught-up in the "magic"? If he goes to magic shops and buys thousands of dollars worth of magic, does he still want to believe in real magic? This is not such a crime, but when you have spent thousands on tricks and secrets, somewhere you figure out the trickery aspect involved with fantasy creation. I might also try to justify the purchases at magic shops, as an "adult" Christmas. Many of us like to open up new illusions, just to get that euphoric feeling. His obsession appears to be with the magic of youth.

David Alexander · Postby **David Alexander** » February 22nd, 2003, 9:41 am

Originally posted by Horace:
"The reason he [Michael Jackson] gave that he did not want an OJ circus type trial sounded pretty plausible to me.
I will admit that there is suspicion. However, suspicion is not proof positive."
___________________

While that sounds reasonable, the dust up with Jackson and the 13-year-old happened a year BEFORE OJ murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend, so Michael's reason for buying off the kid and his father is part of his fantasy.

Suspicion is not "proof positive." True, but behavior can be damning.

Michael Jackson "loves" children, but his definition of "children" does not include little girls, only little boys.

No one who is innocent pays out $20 million to settle a civil case, especially when the best defense possible would only be a fraction of that amount. The only conclusion possible was to shut the kid up and silence his complaining father with a big payday.

The LAPD detective on the case said that once the payment was made, the kid stopped talking to the authorities. Without a complaining witness, there was no case.

The detective recently revealed that there was an alarm on the hallway floor that signaled to the Jackson bedroom if anyone was approaching. It was unique in the house, not found anyplace other than the approach to Michael's bedroom.

Then there was Jackson's housekeeper who left her well-paying job and returned to the Phillipines when Jackson took an interest in her pubescent son. She was interviewed once and said she was "bothered" by Jackson's attention to her son. She wouldn't elaborate, but she had seen enough to make the decision to get out and take her son with her.

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » February 22nd, 2003, 10:08 am

Uri Geller and Larry King... there's a pair intersted in only the TRUTH... :p

I'd love to see Geller on "The O'Reilly Factor!" :D

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » February 22nd, 2003, 10:09 am

Split screen with Randi... :genii:

Kendrix · Postby **Kendrix** » February 22nd, 2003, 11:39 am

Opus: O.J. Simpson was never convicted for the 2 murders he commited. This was simply a case of a celebrity with millions of dollars being able to "buy" his way out.
I am glad you have respect for the legal system because the "public" places lawyers just below used car salesmen as far as credible. I have yet to meet an attorney who cares about right versus wrong or justice. It is always just about the money.

Bill Duncan · Postby **Bill Duncan** » February 22nd, 2003, 12:46 pm

Originally posted by Kendrix:
I have yet to meet an attorney who cares about right versus wrong or justice. It is always just about the money.

Not having met one doesn't mean they don't exist. I happen to count among my friends more than one attorney who cares about right and wrong more than about money.

If lawyers, as a class of people, are only interested in making money then why does their profession actually have a name ("pro bono"/good works) for doing work for free?

My profession doesn't expect me to provide my services to those who can't afford them, free of charge.

That being said, I still love a good lawyer joke... but then so do most of the lawyers I know.
;)

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » February 22nd, 2003, 1:55 pm

Check out my wife's boss... an ethical attorney that puts right ahead of cash.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 22nd, 2003, 2:53 pm

I once read that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

Kendrix · Postby **Kendrix** » February 22nd, 2003, 3:57 pm

Bill: You make a good point. In fact, I hope one day to meet one. To use your logic, just because there is a term "pro-bono" never means it is actually done.
In Florida, where I live, there are TV ads to sue your doctor, nursing home, employer, drug companies and on and on. These are played almost 24 hours a day. The effect this has on our economy is staggering. Personal Injury attorneys put the companies that manufacture breast implants out of business without ever proving the implants caused any harm. There have been at least 14 studies done now confirming that there are not harmful, but no one hears of them. Physicians are leaving my state by the hundreds because of the exorbitant premiums for malpractice insurance. Yes, the insurance companies carry some of the responsibilty, too.
Be prepared, it will come to your state sooner rather than later.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 22nd, 2003, 5:55 pm

I mentioned previously that I had something for Michael Jackson. It was a simple audiotape. No time to explain.

I have now found a way to get it to him.

Someone who lurks here has told me exactly what to do. I am quite surprised at the number of people interested in magic who find their way here.

Horace

Jon Racherbaumer · Postby **Jon Racherbaumer** » February 22nd, 2003, 5:56 pm

Yikes...

Bringing the legal system, lawyers, concepts of justice, Uri Geller, and Michael Jackson into ONE wildly "linked" free-for-all discussion opens something much larger than a "can" and far more "wiggly" than worms...

...but ain't America great? Ain't this forum great?

And the general "linkage" is...

Michael Jackson supposedly loves magic and was once taught tricks by Michael Ammar, David Blaine, and others?

BTW, my favorite line about justice is by Lenny Bruce, who certainly spent his fair share in courtrooms before he "clocked out":

"The only justice in the Halls of Justice is in the halls!"

Onward...

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 22nd, 2003, 7:21 pm

Dick Gregory:

"Then I found out what the judge and the attorneys meant by justice--Just us!"

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 22nd, 2003, 10:57 pm

the first thing we do, let's kill
all the lawyers.

--Henry VI, part II act IV scene II

I didn't know they ran TV commericals in the 15th century...

(kidding...)

btw, Bashir really manipulated the hell out of the footage. I am always skeptical of documentarians. Part of the appeal of the medium is that everything seems to be completely honest, indeed that is the entire point of the documentary, that the camera doesn't lie. Yet through the power of editing much decpetion and manipulation occurs. I used to think about how remarakbly similar the principles underlying film are to the principles underlying magic. I asked a film student friend of mine about it and he replied "they call it the magic of movies for a reason."

my apologies to the lawyers, but I couldn;t resist.

Bill Mullins · Postby **Bill Mullins** » February 22nd, 2003, 11:13 pm

The Smoking Gun has a copy of what is purported to be the original complaint of the boy:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

David Alexander · Postby **David Alexander** » February 23rd, 2003, 8:23 am

Originally posted by D. Simon:
btw, Bashir really manipulated the hell out of the footage. I am always skeptical of documentarians. Part of the appeal of the medium is that everything seems to be completely honest, indeed that is the entire point of the documentary, that the camera doesn't lie. Yet through the power of editing much decpetion and manipulation occurs.
______________________

Murray Gell Mann, Nobel laureate in physics, once told me that he'd been interviewed for a television special. With nearly two hours of recorded material the ONLY thing the producers used was one nine second statement that he said made him sound like a mystic.

And of course, for clever editing in televised magic specials the award goes to....David Blaine.

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » February 23rd, 2003, 8:55 am

They could have done all the fancy editing they want, but that won't change the fact that Jackson admitted to allowing little boys to sleep in bed with him--the words came right out of his mouth. Add that to the $20 million dollar payoff to the child he molested and you've got a picture of a mentally-ill child molester who should be in jail.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 23rd, 2003, 9:40 am

There's a lot I could think of to say here. And I might as well say SOMETHING before Richard locks the topic.
On one hand (the clean one), I agree with Richard, about not paying $20,000,000 if you're innocent. However, imagine yourself in a restaurant doing walk around magic: Your hand accidentally slightly brushes across a woman's breast. Now some times goes by and the woman has a while to think about it, and decides to sue you. The "lawyer talk" talk starts with her being humiliated, she's afraid to go out in public, she can't face any of the people she was with that night, the "brush" now turns into you FONDLED her, etc.
As soon as this hits the papers, guess who's not going to be working at that restaurant any more? In fact, if it goes all the way to trial, guess who's not going to be working in ANY area restaurants. Might it be worth it to settle?
For Michael Jackson's case, what it would come down to would be if the kid could describe his private area. What if they were swimming one day, and Michael's shirt went up a little bit, and the kid saw a mole on his stomach? What could THAT turn into in court?
Max's point is very good about 20 million not being what it is to us, as what it is to Michael Jackson.
One last thing, if you really believe Michael is guilty, and if you believe that 20 million is SO much: If YOUR child came home and told you about someone who molested them, would 20 million dollars be enough for you to to forget about it?

pduffie · Postby **pduffie** » February 23rd, 2003, 10:26 am

Jackson did not pay the money to keep the allegation quiet - hardly - it was reported in every newspaper and media outlet on the planet. He paid the money to stop the boy's signed, sworn statement making into a court room and before a jury. No co-operation from the boy = no court case.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 23rd, 2003, 11:57 am

Mentally ill? probably, though my limited knowledge of psychology doesn;t qualify me to make this determination.

Guilty? well, I didn't (and don't) mean to imply that Michael is innocent. I have no stand on the issue.

the only ones who know what happened are the people involved, and since it seems unlikely that there will be sworn tstimony made public in an official way (i.e. in a court of law), I am not in a position to form an opinion.

I did mean to point out that we as magicians should be especially aware of how perceptions and mental representations of reality can be manipulated. Sure Michael Jackson is on camera saying that little boys sleep in his bed. He did say this, it can not be denied; however, we do not know anything other than what we have been shown.

I have little doubt that people's impression of the interview would be quite different if the unedited footage was aired in its entirety and drastically different if we were on the set and were privy to all the discussions, both on and off-camera.

The point is that even though documentaries seem like they are completely honest, documentarians ALWAYS have an agenda and are quite skilled at manipulating the audiences views on the issues they address by distorting their mental representation of what they are seeing (which, I think, is exactly what happens in magic)

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 23rd, 2003, 2:14 pm

Magic on television is really great.

Whereas a live magician has to use misdirection (i hate that word) to perform, a TV magician can use the camera to create the same effect on millions of people.

Blaine did a great job using TV as a tool for magic rather then just filming his tricks.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 23rd, 2003, 3:40 pm

I am rather baffled that everyone is quoting this mythical figure of 20 million dollars as if it were absolute gospel.
It isn't.
Just because some sleazy tabloid newspaper quotes
"sources say" does not make it true. The "sources" are often the journalists themselves. Lawyers have been getting a bad rap here but I think some gutter press journalists are far more reprehensible.
The true sum of money is "an undisclosed amount"
agreeable to both parties. I suspect thousands of dollars rather than millions. I don't know but my point is that neither does anybody else here.

Furthermore, with great respect the analogy of a restaurant magician is a bit ridiculous. Michael Jackson is not a restaurant magician. He is a world famous celebrity. He doesn't have to worry about not being able to work in that restuarant again for about $150 for the night. He has to worry about his entire multi million dollar career going down the tube.

I can quite see his business advisors saying "nip this crap in the bud before it gets out of hand" simply on the basis that a circus type atmosphere (hence the OJ reference) would not be good for business.Never mind the stress involved and the expenses of lawyers etc;
Even if he is entirely innocent who wants the aggravation of a court trial?

I think that a sensitive person like Michael would be very inclined to avoid the confrontation of a trial and would consider a payoff to be just a smart business move.

I am suspicious of this complaint anyway. It sounded to me more like an extortion attempt. It should be remembered that Michael did not approach the kid's family with an offer of money. The family made the first approach.

There are some questions that need answering, I admit. Still, I have not seen any actual hard facts yet but just circumstantial evidence, anecdotes and innuendo.

I also find it odd that only one official complaint has been made. Paedophiles, I would imagine do this sort of thing hundreds of times over a period of years. Yet only one complaint?

Incidentally in reply to David, I saw that documentary again. There seemed to be plenty of little girls as well as boys at Neverland. Abnd in regard to the OJ thing Michael simply mentioned it on the programme as an illustration.
Timing wise the interview was fairly recent, years after the OJ interview.

Actually, I am baffled as to what relevance this has to the latest handling of the double lift. Still, it makes a change I suppose.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 24th, 2003, 12:39 pm

David,

The detective recently revealed that there was an alarm on the hallway floor that signaled to the Jackson bedroom if anyone was approaching.

Sounds like Jackson's read Robert-Houdin!

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » February 24th, 2003, 1:20 pm

Horace wrote: "I think that a sensitive person like Michael would be very inclined to avoid the confrontation of a trial and would consider a payoff to be just a smart business move."

Horace, if it was extortion Jackson would have called the police and had the perpetrators prosecuted for blackmail.
Michael Jackson is a nut: just look at his face--if that doesn't end the discussion, nothing will.

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » February 24th, 2003, 1:59 pm

RK... Methinks you rank him right up there with Jeff Busby... :D

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » February 24th, 2003, 7:06 pm

I have no personal animosity toward Michael Jackson, I simply think he should be tried for child molestation.
Jeff Busby, on the other hand ... don't get me started. :)

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 24th, 2003, 7:35 pm

Richard, I think "akin to extortion" would be the correct phrase.
I wonder how the kid would have stood up to cross examination in court. 13 year old kids are quite capable of lying. We do not know the full facts.
The kid could have fallen out with Michael Jackson for some reason and decided to take revenge.
A trial would have shed some light on the matter.
There are some odd things, I admit. I know that his sister La Toya went to a psychic I know and told him that Michael was a naughty boy and needed help. Still she has been estranged from the family for some time now, I believe.
Oh well, perhaps you will do a feature on the matter on Genii magazine.
You must admit he is one hell of an entertainer.

Bill Mullins · Postby **Bill Mullins** » February 24th, 2003, 11:32 pm

Horace, if you want to explore the presumption of innocence, you'd sound a lot more credible if you found an example who was not so obviously, as Norm MacDonald used to put it, a homosexual pederast.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 25th, 2003, 2:08 am

My biggest problem with Micheal Jackson is that he patented the old vaudeville trick 'the lean'. as if he invented in.

John McDonald · Postby **John McDonald** » February 25th, 2003, 4:40 am

Noone can doubt that Michael Jackson is a bit unusual but I do feel very sorry for him. When he can go nowhere without being mobbed by thousands of people, when he feels obliged to perform and keep his fans happy when he goes out he really is trying to do the impossible. I agree he does himself no favours but Bashir was certainly shown up in a worse light than he has been previously (Diana, Barrymore) which was great!! :D

By the way did you know Uri Gellar owns a football team in England and Michael Jackson is connected?

Pete McCabe · Postby **Pete McCabe** » February 25th, 2003, 9:52 am

The presumption of innocence which is the foundation of the American Judicial System does not mean that all people are presumed innocent unless they are "obviously" guilty. It means that unless you know the facts in the case, you don't assume anything.

And in this case, I think it's pretty darned clear that none of us know any of the facts. People quote the $20 Million Dollar payoff, which is just some wild rumor that we keep propagating, with no basis in fact that I've ever seen. None of the individuals who have accused Michael Jackson through the media has ever sworn to their story in a court of law. But we all "know" the facts, don't we?

A couple of weeks ago I saw the Jackson 5 on the Ed Sullivan show. Michael was, at around 5 years old, the star. He's been the star his entire life. He was, for a while there, the most popular and best-known person in the world.

For virtually his entire life, he has been surrounded by people who are there because of what they think they can get from him, or through him, or because of their association with him. No one ever tells him what they really think about anything he does -- they just tell him what they think he wants to hear.

His life has never, really, been his own.

It would be miraculous if his self-image and world view were not severely damaged. I can't think of a more unhealthy life to live.

I don't know anything about Michael Jackson the person, but I know this: I do not believe any story I hear about him, especially if the story is being told by someone who's trying to sell it to me.

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » February 25th, 2003, 9:57 am

Was it Leno that said, "Michael Jackson cut off his nose to spite his face" ??? :confused:

Saw a political cartoon of MJ holding Saddam out over a balcony... heheheheh :D :D :D

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 25th, 2003, 10:28 am

The Football team in England is called Exithim....oops sorry should be Exeter....

Guest · Postby **Guest** » February 25th, 2003, 1:53 pm

Originally posted by gregory:

The Football team in England is called Exithim....oops sorry should be Exeter....

And it just happens to be propping up the very bottom of League Division 3, on the brink of being relegated into oblivion! (They've won just 4 matches out of the last 33). Michael Jackson is an honorary director, and even David Blaine has made an appearance at one of the club's charity events.

Correction: Exeter have actually won 6 games, not 4, so far this season.

HT