Disgusting. http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/cl...al.com/news/articles/0128jacko-wine28-ON.html Jacko put wine in boy's coke can, mag says Robert Kahn Newsday Jan. 28, 2004 05:49 PM Michael Jackson gave wine to the 13-year-old cancer patient at the center of the molestation charges he's battling but concealed it inside a Coke can, according to a story in the March issue of Vanity Fair. The incident reportedly occurred during a February flight from Florida, and partially explains the charges of "administering an intoxicating agent with intent to commit a felony" that the beleaguered pop star is also fighting in Santa Barbara County, Calif., court, according to writer Maureen Orth. Orth reports that Jackson refers to white wine as "Jesus juice," and red wine as "Jesus blood," and usually drinks them out of soda cans so that nobody around him will know he's consuming alcohol. Calls to Jackson's attorney Mark Geragos were not immediately returned. Orth, citing the singer's former business manager, Myung-Ho Lee, writes that only Jackson's "inner people know" his code names for the beverages, adding that it "tells you that the boy spent 'quality time' with Michael." The boy and his siblings have said that "all the kids around Michael" knew about "Jesus juice" and that Jackson told them, "Jesus drank it, so it must be good." Orth also says that on at least one other occasion, Jackson allegedly gave alcohol in soda cans to minors. In the Vanity Fair piece, Lee describes a similar incident involving a 13-year-old boy in Japan in 1998. During the boy's visits with his family to Jackson's Neverland Ranch, Jackson is said to have told his accuser "Girls are tattletales," making it clear that he didn't want the boy's sister or mother around. The boys ultimately got to sleep with Michael, while their mother was put in a guest house, the magazine says.
I really don't give a crap about Michael Jackson. All the parents of these kids that let their children sleep with MJ should be shot for stupidity.
I don't disagree that it's idiotic...but that doesn't absolve Michael fo responsibility...if true, this sort of deception to get what he wants with children is hideous..i mean literally disgusting
Jacko should have just given them Everclear and told them it was Holy Water. Wacko Jacko...best nickname ever!!! (other than Darryl Dawkins dunk nicknames)
I agree completely pgabriel, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in this county it might as well be guilty until proven innocent now.
As deplorable as these actions sound, I will agree with Pgabrial and others. Honestly, for the last decade there has been a stigma surrounding Michael Jackson and child issues. My point is that the only parents that would let their children 'stay' and spend time with Micheal Jackson is because this was a preconcieved strike to get paid.
As freaky as the guy is, he is still an American citizen, and is innocent until proven guilty. I know it is easy to come to a preconceived verdict, just like in other trials, but until the evidence is presented in a court of law. we just don't know what the hell is going on. Let the lawyers and the judge do their job. If Jackson is convicted, lock him up.
wait a second...i'm not the judge or jury in this case! nor am i a lawyer in this matter. but we're getting sneak peeks at the evidence, and it doesn't look good. we don't live in a constitutional bubble, pgabriel, where we're not allowed to draw any conclusions on the evidence that's been presented through the media, thusfar. I also qualified everything I said by saying, "if true..." i'm not subject the guy to arrest...and i owe him zero constitutional protections in weighing the evidence as it's presented through the media so far. this just in...we all arrive at conclusions in our mind before things go to trial...i arrive at conclusions about the liability of my clients or those on the other side long before a jury is ever convened...usually in the midst of discovery...and then we advise our clients accordingly. this also in...just because a jury says it's so, doesn't mean it is. one way or the other. innocent people get convicted and criminals walk. it's an imperfect system. it certainly doesn't change my feelings that the facts presented inthis story are disgusting. i hope like hell they're untrue. but when multiple children come forward and say he gave them wine and called it jesus juice, i'm not encouraged.
It has always been guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opininon, allegations have ruined many of people's lives before they ever set foot in the court house. However once inside the court the burden of proof is still on the prosecution's shoulders, and with his money I'm sure he'll get a much "fairer" shake than any of us could ever hope for and that is what sickens me about the whole ordeal. That being said I find it hard to sympathize with Jacko because he has repeatedly put himself in these situations which makes it all the more difficult to believe that he does not have a real problem with little boys. At some point (probably after the first allegations) a normal person would say this is just not a situation that I can allow myself to be put in AGAIN.
Multiple children?? I've only heard of the two. Secondly, you only have comments on the evidence against Michael. In the original thread about this, I posted an article that stated these same charges involving the current case were dropped in L.A. County because of lack of evidence. No one had anything to say. I also posted an article that stated that the kid's mom originally said nothing happened during her child's stay and no one commented. But as soon as some negative hearsay comes out, everyone has an opinion.
man, i didn't write the article...i didn't make the allegations...i'm not the prosecutor bringing charges. dude has a problem..that much is abundantly clear. and yes...more than one is multiple.
