Going over bedroom issues in Michael Jackson’s home AGAIN
Sorry I was away from the blog when all this unnecessary fighting over Michael Jackson’s sleepover issues took place here. Actually I was busy writing about the same subject and the reason which started me on this topic again was a reader’s comment which I didn’t like at all. I wouldn’t have reacted to it if I hadn’t noticed that the comment was highly inaccurate and heavily sprinkled with innuendoes – and this in spite of the fact that it is supposed to be coming from a supporter of Michael Jackson.
The reader said:
- “I don’t believe the sleepovers were sexual, but what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange children over to your home and sleeping in the same bed with them is not normal behavior, and given the serious allegations that were made against him, it made him look like a ped-le in the eyes of the public. When I saw the Bashir film, I was very disappointed and shocked when he told Bashir “I’ve slept in bed with many children”.
First, let us cut that crap about “inviting children” and “sleeping in bed with them” which “disappoint” some people as they make him look bad in the eyes of the public. There is no need to feel disappointed because both of the above premises are simply inaccurate. To be more precise they are half-truths and since they don’t tell the whole story they are even balancing on the edge of lies.
The way the phrase about “inviting strange children to his home” is worded it sounds like he wandered along the streets, took strange children by their hand and invited them to his home.
This kind of a statement is similar to a hater’s and absolutely won’t do for this blog. Whenever Michael invited anyone to Neverland he always invited whole families and parents with their children and these people remember it very well that Michael was making arrangements for their future visit to Neverland with parents and not their small ones . So after we make a correction and replace “children” with a more general term the above reader’s statement will sound as follows:
- “…what Michael didn’t understand is that inviting strange people over to your home is not normal behavior”.
Now the statement looks clearer but manifests another mistake. The word “normal” is absolutely wrong here as it is perfectly normal to invite people to your home – it is inviting “strange” people which may be slightly unusual and is therefore dangerous for the master of the house, because you never know what these strangers may be up to if you don’t know them well enough.
Thus correction of only one word in the above reader’s statement immediately took our conversation into a different direction and made us wonder whether it was really safe for Michael to invite families he hardly knew to stay with him and whether Michael wasn’t too trusting and too believing in other people’s good that he endangered his home and ultimately his life in such a reckless manner.
I am afraid that the danger of coming across rascals and con artists under such a system was really very high. But if you ask me it is this particular Michael’s feature which tells me of his innocent and trusting nature more than anything else – he had a very pure heart and opened the door of Neverland to almost everyone around as he trusted and believed in the good of other people even if it wasn’t there to be found.
The second statement from the same reader on “sleeping in the same bed with many children”, which shocked the reader so much, frankly shocked me too but in a somewhat different way – I just couldn’t recall Michael saying anything like that and the bluntness of such a statement looked somewhat strange to me.
In all cases of doubt we should immediately go to the original (in this case it is Bashir’s filthy documentary) to verify whether this was indeed said and in what context it was. The transcript of that episode was readily awaiting us on a haters’ site, so we easily learn from there that the above Michael’s statement did take place but came in the following context:
Martin Bashir: “When you are talking about children we met Gavin – and it was a great privilege to meet Gavin because he’s had a lot of suffering in his life – when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?”
Bashir: “Can you understand why people would worry about that?”
Jackson: “Because they are ignorant.”
Bashir: “But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share a bedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?”
Jackson: “That’s a beautiful thing.”
Bashir: “That’s not a worrying thing?”
Jackson: “Why should that be worrying, what’s the criminal…who’s Jack the Ripper in the room? There’s some guy trying to heal a healing child … I’m in a sleeping bag on the floor. “I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star took the bed and I went along on the sleeping bag.”
Bashir: “Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?”
Jackson: “No, but….”
Let us stop here for a moment and make a note of a couple of things.
First, both Bashir and Michael are speaking of sharing a bedroom and not a bed and some of us are probably still able to see the difference between the two.
Second, Michael is speaking of healing a sick child and since we know that Gavin was ill with cancer, his request to Michael to allow him sleep in his bed had the power of a law over him – what a child dying of cancer wishes, so the obliging Michael Jackson will do as this is what the basic idea of the “make the wish” foundation is. Our Lynette is perfectly right when she says,
- After the 1993 case the only way that any child could personally meet Michael Jackson was if it came through the charity ” Make A Wish”. The child had to be terminally ill.
The child had to be terminally ill – this is what doctors said about Gavin who was expected to live for some three months or so and this is why Michael put everything aside and did his utmost to help the dying child.
Third, we find out that Gavin was accompanied into that bed by his brother Star and that Michael never slept in bed with either of them and that he took a sleeping bag on the floor instead.
The above is easily corroborated by the further transcript found on the same haters’ site. They provide the episode where Gavin says that he stayed in Michael’s bedroom for one night and explains how he found himself there.
Gavin says he asked Michael if he could stay in his bedroom, invited Michael to take a bed with him and even insisted on it, however Michael refused.
Michael didn’t even remember how he slept that night – in a sleeping bag or on a blanket on the floor – and it was again Gavin who explained to him that he “packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor”. This makes it clear that it was a kind of an impromptu arrangement – never planned in advance – which sprang from Michael’s total inability to refuse the wish of a “dying child”. It is noteworthy that it wasn’t his healthy brother Star who was the initiator of that sleeping arrangement but Gavin, ill and bald after the chemotherapy, who wanted to sleep in Michael’s bedroom and take his bed as his “last wish”.
Bashir invites Gavin to say that it was a customary arrangement in Michael’s home but Gavin says that “there was one night” and even that night came only after he asked for it. After a long battle between Michael and Gavin about which of them will sleep on the floor Michael had the final say – his guests will take the bed while he sleeps on the floor:
Bashir: “When you stay here, do you stay in the house? Does Michael let you enjoy the whole premises?”
Gavin: “There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom.” “And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed‘. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed.” “But it was fun that night.”
Jackson: “I slept on the floor. [to Gavin] Was it a sleeping bag?”
Gavin: “You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.”
Bashir: “But Michael, you’re a 44-year-old man now, what do you get out of this?”
Gavin: “He ain’t 44, he’s 4!”
Jackson: “Yeah, I’m 4. I love, I feel, I think what they get from me, I get from them. I’ve said it many times, my greatest inspiration comes from kids. Every song I write, every dance I do, all the poetry I write, is all inspired from the level of innocence.” “That consciousness of purity. And children have that. I see God in the face of children. And man, I just love being around that all the time.”
Bashir: “But when people hear that children from other families have come and they’ve stayed in your house, they’ve stayed in your bedroom ..?”
Jackson: “Very few.”
I agree that the number of those children who stayed in Michael’s bedroom was few and we have a different impression of it only because the whole issue was heavily exaggerated and blown out of proportion by the media, prosecution and Michael’s haters.
But how very interesting it is to read and reread those questions and answers again! When I read it now Bashir’s question about Michael being 44 looks to me like a simple reprimand that he shouldn’t be so much childlike at his mature age. This is probably how both Gavin and Michael took the question too, as Gavin says that Michael is not older than 4 and Michael agrees with it and explains that children’sspirit of innocence is his greatest inspiration and this is why he feels he is 4 years old when he is around them….
But then the conversation suddenly takes a different turn. To my big surprise Michael raises a bed issue himself and mentions that he has been to bed with many children. The listener immediately pricks his ears and assumes that Michael speaks of a succession of children “going through his bed”, however Michael goes on to explain and eventually it becomes clear that by “many” he means whole families who sometimes spent the night in his bed – for example, the whole gang of young Culkins who occasionally arranged slumber parties in his room.
He names all those who would jam into his bed:
Bashir: “Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?”
Jackson: “No, but I have slept in a bed with many children. I slept in a bed with all of them when Macaulay Culkin was little: Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macaulay Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there…we all would just jam in the bed, you know. “We would wake up like dawn and go in the hot air balloon, you know, we had the footage. I have all that footage.”
Let me note here that the video for the same episode (spread by Michael’s detractors all over the Internet) is somewhat different from the above text – it abruptly ends after the very first sentence about “many children”. It doesn’t mention the Culkins and stops short after the crucial words thus creating the impression that Michael was bragging about sleeping with many children – in the same way some men brag about how many women they took into their bed.
The fact that the video doesn’t go on with the Culkins story is no small affair. One and the same sentence will sound totally different depending on whether you give details for it or not. Please compare these sentences modeled after Michael’s statement:
- I slept with many girls.
- I slept with many girls when a whole company of them dropped at my place. One of them was on the left, another on the right, two more in the middle, we all would just jam in the bed.
This small example shows a dramatic difference in the perception of these utterances – the first betrays a womanizer bragging about having sex with many women while the second person is an innocent guy who tells us of his funny experience with girls who for some reason jammed into his bed to spend the night there (which is Michael’s case, only in application to children).
However Michael’s detractors pretend to be blind, deaf and not being able to see the difference. They want to pass one thing for the other and leave us with only “I’ve slept with many children” phrase not specifying that he was talking about the Culkins who crammed into his bedroom and turned it into a common dormitory.
The ‘beauty’ of this small but effective haters’ trick is that formally we cannot say that it wasn’t true – Michael did say it, only he meant something completely different and they didn’t allow him to say what it was! They knowingly went for half-truth only because it is practically the same as a half-lie and is often much more damaging as a little bit of truth sprinkled over the distorted facts makes the result more credible than a usual lie.
The hater’s trick brings us to a video filled with innuendoes revolving around that “sleeing in bed” concept. The time afforded for the video could have allowed to add a couple of seconds to tell the whole story, however since the Culkins are not fitting into haters’ ideology out the Culkin family goes and in comes the “dark Jackson’s secret”:
If Michael’s haters were truly unbiased as they say they are (in the comments section), they should have had the decency to at least allow Michael to utter his sentence to the end – however they wanted it to look much more sinister than it is and abruptly cut Michael in mid-sentence so that he can’t explain what he means.
This is their usual tactics and it is only the brainwashed media victims or haters masquerading as fans who repeat that nonsense without verifying it first. It is time to mature, guys, and stop swallowing their hooks so easily.
Let us go on with what else our reader has to say:
- ‘To people like Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond, that was an indication of his guilt and they saw it as a “confession” that he liked to have sex with young boys and thought that there was nothing wrong with it. I think it was not very smart for him to tell the camera that he slept in bed with children, especially given all that he endured in 1993 with the humiliating strip search, the millions of dollars paid, the police raid, the lies created by the media, etc, I really didn’t understand why he continued to say and do things that would cause him to become embroiled in scandal.”
Whether intentionally or not but our reader is conveniently enumerating the whole package of claims usually made by Michael’s detractors and is even taking it much further by claiming that he had ‘sex’ with young boys – which is something that even Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond never said (as far as I remember).
Nice fans Michael Jackson has if this is what they indeed think of him….
The only allegation this package is actually missing is Velez Mitchell’s idea that Michael orchestrated the scandal himself to get attention to his personality this way (evidence of this crazy thought will be provided further in this post).
I hope to get back to the question if it was smart of Michael to defend his right to share his bedroom with children, but at the moment would like to draw your attention to another thing – questioning Michael’s smartness is in heavy contradiction with the way Tom Sneddon, Diane Dimond and others portrayed Michael as a cunning predator who shrewdly led small innocent children and their unsuspecting parents into his “lair of sin”.
Since one thing contradicts the other he couldn’t be both of them at once – smart and foolish, shrewd and naïve, cunning and honest, secretive and frank. You are either shrewd in everything you do and then your naivety in spreading negative information about yourself doesn’t fit in, or you are a complete idiot working for one’s own detriment but then you should be unable to contrive all those cunning schemes to take advantage of ‘poor innocent people’ around you.
It is either this or that as one thing rules out the other, and any doubletalk won’t do here – so as a complete minimum let us ask haters to stick to at least one of their versions while we are looking for a third one which will explain it all.
Our reader Stacy continues:
- And Bashir’s innuendo voiceovers just made it 10 times worse. When I saw the film for the first time in 2003, I said to myself “Here goes another set of allegations” and that’s exactly what happened 9 months later. I was hoping that the 60 minutes interview would be much better and he would redeem himself from the Bashir film, but he made things worst and dug the whole even deeper by STILL defending the whole sharing your bed issue. I sometimes wondered about his state of mind. Either he was not aware of how serious the allegations against him were or he just didn’t care. Overall, it was just a very sad experience.
No, Michael was very much aware of the allegations as they drained him of life and killed his spirit even before his physical death. And he did care very much too as Thomas Mesereau said that Michael used to call him in terror asking what would happen to his children if he went to jail. So both variants suggested by the reader are false and I am afraid our Stacy knows it.
When people say he shouldn’t have been defending the giving-your-bed issue they probably mean well, but involuntarily betray the fact that they themselves are not ready for the level of honesty which Michael Jackson reached. The majority of people do indeed find it easier to pretend and nod their head in reply to a question whether now they understand that this kind of behavior is unacceptable (even if they think it is).
But not Michael Jackson. Lying about matters of principle was out of the question for him. If he believed something he stood his ground no matter what and this shows that his beliefs were firm, strong and profound, as is usually the case when they are gained as a result of much personal suffering.
If you come to think of it Michael “redeeming himself” – by saying later that he was wrong when speaking to Bashir – would have been much worse as it would be clear to everyone that a person cannot change his views so drastically within some two weeks or so. This would have surely been regarded as a lie (further ridiculed by everyone) though initially it could have probably satisfied his blood-thirsty critics who wanted to humiliate him and see him “repent” in the same way Galileo repented when Inquisition threatened him with torture and death (if he didn’t recant his views on the solar system).
For Michael it was impossible to hurt a dying child by refusing him his wish and even if the whole world was screaming at his door the next day he would still do what he saw right. The strength of his beliefs is probably one of the several reasons while Michael repeatedly defended the right to behave his way even despite all the ridicule, harassment and severe criticism he faced. When someone’s beliefs are so strong they are not to be easily given up as a result of a bargain or a threat.
I also think that his purity of mind and spirit reached so high a realm that he could not even imagine that people could be serious in thinking him able of such a terrible crime. When you are totally indisposed to such type of behavior you think that people must be joking if they apply it to you. Really, how can people be serious in suspecting you of adopting a puppy with the aim to do harm to it? Such accusers must either be cruel jokers or eat dog meat themselves if they think that you can do it…. When some idea is totally alien to you, you regard it as absurd and it is impossible for you to act upon it as every person acts only within the scope of what he is capable to think of or imagine.
Hence all these Michael’s incredulous questions: “How can anyone hurt a child? They are like innocent little puppies….”. Hence his reply to Diane Sawyer in an 1994 interview that people abusing children should be placed in medical institutions to render them help – isn’t it interesting that the first thing that comes to his mind is that hurting a child is not just an ordinary crime but sheer insanity and therefore these people should be helped by doctors (rather than placed in prisons like most of us think)?
What I am trying to say is that each person is acting within the range of his own standards, and if he knows that it is impossible for him to harm a child he won’t hide the fact of his association with them because doing harm is simply not part of the reality he is living in. However those who harbor dark intentions towards children will be on their guard and will never show their preferences openly because they know what they are up to and expect that other people might notice it. So where one will take every precaution the other will not – simply because he doesn’t realize that there are so many other things which can be present between a child and an adult apart from innocent friendship and loving care.
Another reason for Michael being so open about his ways is arising directly from the previous two. When you know that you are not doing anything bad, you regard it as a total insult when others publicly demand that you should stop things which you are not doing anyway. This way they draw you to their own level and you have to give in to their demands and thus confirm in a round-about-way that there were right in their suspicions about you. You stopped? So you did it!
If someone raises himself to continue with ‘it’ in such a situation it turns for him into an act of defiance and a way to show others that despite their dirty thinking he will not give in to their innuendoes and go on living the way he thinks right. He will persist on his ways as a consent to ‘stop’ in these circumstances will be equal to admitting that previously he was indeed engaged in something wrong.
I understand this type of behavior very well because I myself am involved in something similar. No matter how some discourage me from talking about AEG and focus only Murray instead I am still writing about AEG because I truly believe that they are at least partially responsible for Michael’s death. No matter how unpopular Joe Jackson and Brian Oxman are I will still cite their suit against AEG because in this particular case they are right in accusing AEG for sharing guilt with Murray. I know that it is going against the currently accepted “norms of behavior” within the MJ fan community but the truth is more important to me than any “norms” – so I’d rather wait for the norms to change than bend the truth for their sake.
If you believe in something it makes you persistent in what you are doing. And Michael believed that he was helping children by providing them with love and understanding the power of which was so big that it could work miracles on ill children (and it did work a miracle on Gavin Arvizo because the boy recovered from his cancer!).
Unfortunately Michael was never good at explaining himself and his ideals to other people and this is why all he said to Bashir was that he was making it all wrong. Here is the full transcript of the “sleepover” part of the documentary taken by me from some haters’ site where Michael is trying to explain his way of thinking:
Bashir: “But is that right Michael?”
Jackson: “It’s very right. It’s very loving, that’s what the world needs now, more love more heart.”
Bashir: “The world needs a man who’s 44 who’s sleeping in a bed with children?”
Jackson: “No, you’re making it – no, no you’re making it all wrong …”
Bashir: “Well, tell me, help me …”
Jackson: “Because what’s wrong with sharing a love? You don’t sleep with your kids? Or some other kid who needs love who didn’t have a good childhood?”
Bashir: “No, no I don’t. I would never dream …”
Jackson: “That’s because you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally …” [meaning the pain he went through when he was neglected or beaten by his father and had not a single happy moment to remember of his childhood]
Bashir: “What is it, Gavin, about Michael that makes him connect so well with children? What is it?”
Gavin: “Because he’s really a child at heart. He acts just like a child, he knows how a child is, he knows what a child thinks”. “See, because I think that you don’t necessarily have to be a child just because society says that 18 and up you have to be an adult. Doesn’t really matter. You’re an adult when you want to be one.”
Bashir: “Well, you know, but some have, and they say, is that really appropriate for a man – for a grown man – to be doing that? How do you respond to that?”
Jackson: “I feel sorry for them because that’s judging someone who just wants to really help people.” “Why can’t you share your bed? The most loving thing to do, is to share your bed with someone.”
Bashir: “You really think that?”
Jackson: “Yahhh. Of course.”
Jackson: “I’m just very sensitive to their pain and I am very sensitive to the family, the human condition, you know. “On that subject, it means a lot to me and I want to help. Whatever I can to help that you know, it’s like I said before and I’ll say it a million times, I’m not afraid to say it.” “If there were no children on this earth, if someone announced all kids were dead, I would jump off the balcony immediately, I’m done, I’m done.”
Bashir: “I suppose the problem for many people is what happened in 1993, or what didn’t happen?”
Jackson: “What didn’t happen'”
Bashir: “Just cast your mind back, what was that like when you first heard the allegations that were being made against you?”
Jackson: “It was shocking and I’m not allowed to talk about this by way of law, so …”
Bashir: “But how did you feel about what was being said? I’m not asking you to talk about what was said.”
Jackson: “I was shocked because, um, God knows, in my heart how much I adore children.”
Bashir: “Isn’t that precisely the problem, that when you actually invite children into your bed you never know what is going to happen?”
Jackson: “When you say bed, you’re thinking sexual, they make that sexual, it’s not sexual.” “We’re going to sleep, I tuck them in and I put a little like, er, music on and when it’s story time I read a book.” “We go to sleep with the fireplace on. I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies, it’s very charming, it’s very sweet, it’s what the whole world should do.”
Bashir: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail is because, because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”
Jackson: “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ, and all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, look, get this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had enough, go.”
(the source seems to be a hater so beware please: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2290421/posts)
Speaking about the unpopular Brian Oxman let me say that it was his and Uri Geller’s interview with Larry King (Feb, 21, 2003) that brought a confirmation for my thoughts and suppositions about Jackson.
Both Oxman and Geller spoke vehemently in Michael’s defense and said it was unthinkable for him to hurt a child. And Oxman – when explaining why Michael went on defending his views – said that his openness about those issues was an act of defiance on his part and a form of his rebellion against the common dirty interpretation of such a thing.
In the process of the interview we learn a lot of other crucial details – for example, how Bashir deceived Michael into thinking they would meet Kofi Annan of the United Nations and would create a children’s day and that he even promised it to Uri Geller in writing after which he introduced Bashir to Michael.
We also learn that the so-called Jordan Chandler’s declaration was actually inaccurate, however Brian Oxman couldn’t talk about due to the settlement agreement the terms of which were protecting the Chandlers in this case. Isn’t it interesting that Oxman didn’t say a single word to the Chandlers’ detriment while Larry Feldman from the other side stooped as low as release the declaration of the boy whose very interests he was obliged to observe? Which was an act, by the way, which made it terribly easy to coach Gavin in his turn?
Here are the main excerpts from Oxman, Geller, Grace and Mitchell’s interview with Larry King (the latter two will be mostly ommitted – if you want to smell their crap you can go to http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/21/lkl.00.html:
KING: We’re going to start with Uri Geller in London, who introduced Michael to Martin Bashir.
Are you sorry you did?
URI GELLER: Yes, Larry, I am. I introduced Martin Bashir to Michael because Martin Bashir promised me that he’s going to do a constructive and a positive documentary. He said that he’s going to bring justice into the life of this remarkable man. He promised many things. He said that he is going to take Michael to the United Nations to meet Kofi Annan and create a children’s day. He said that he’s going to fly into South Africa to meet sick children. And, you know, Larry, I’ve been around for a long time, but I fell for it. I trust people.
He also promised me this in writing. I only introduced Michael to Martin after I had this promise in writing. And I’m sorry I did that.
KING: All right, one of the most controversial areas of that special “Living With Michael Jackson,” the documentary, was Jackson’s admission that he has shared his bedroom with children, although Jackson denies any sexual misconduct. Here, the British journalist Martin Bashir (ph) confronts Jackson.
Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN BASHIR, REPORTER: When you actually invite children into your bed, you never know what’s going to happen.
MICHAEL JACKSON, ENTERTAINER: But when you say bed, you’re thinking it’s sexual. They make that sexual. It’s not sexual. We’re going to sleep. I tuck them in. We put, I put little like music on and do a little storytelling. I read a book. It varies. We put the fireplace on. Give them hot milk. You know, we have little cookies. It’s very charming. Very sweet. (END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Uri Geller, do you believe that Michael Jackson may have done untoward things toward young children?
GELLER: I don’t believe that at all. Otherwise, I would not associate myself with him. I’m a father. I have two children. I think Michael Jackson is a 44-year-old man who has a mind of an innocent child in a way. He’s innocent. He’s naive. I think he’s gullible. I think he’s a wonderful soul. He will never do anything to hurt children.
I’ve seen him around with kids here in England. You see, I invited Michael, Larry, eight months ago to become the honorary director of my football club, Exodus City. And he graciously agreed to do that on the condition that we will bring very sick children to the club, which we have. I’ve seen him hug kids with full blown AIDS. It was fantastic to see.
I know Michael close up. There is such a tender soul, spirit in him. And I understand the problem. I understand the bigger picture where people are surprised and amazed and bewildered that he allows children to sleep in his bed and he says that he sleeps in his sleeping bag. I was never there. I was never on the ranch. But you see there is a way that Michael creates unconditional love. And…
KING: I know, now hold it. Hold it.
GELLER: …. many of those children were very sick.
GELLER: OK. I understand you. I understand, once again, I understand you and I understand the problem. But unfortunately, once again, when you bring up the word bed, there are immediate, immediately sexual connotations to it. You know, at this time and age we are living in such times where we suspect everything. You know, even here in England, the British educational authorities gave out an order to teachers not to put sun blockers and suntan lotion on children or for nurses not to look for lice in the heads of kids, because, again, you bring up that, the sexual side of it.
GELLER: I do not believe… Michael has ever done anything wrong to a child.
OXMAN: It’s a cancer survivor. This is a little boy…
GRACE: It’s like offering a vodka to an alcoholic.
OXMAN: All right, understand, this is a little boy whop was on the edge of death. He was told that he had three more days to live.
GRACE: I understand that.
OXMAN: There was a call to Michael and said can you help this child? And Michael responded. No one else does it. No one else was interested.
GRACE: And I credit him for that.
OXMAN: He responded. He brought the boy to the ranch and this child has survived. And you know something? The parents adore him. The brother adores him. Everyone associated…
CARL: Larry, I want to ask Brian a quick question. OK, let’s not talk about the morality. Let’s not talk about the legality. Do you feel it’s inappropriate?
OXMAN: I have represented to courts of law on a continuous basis that every child who goes to Neverland Ranch is safe, secure. It is the safest place on the planet.
CARL: That’s not what I asked. Do you feel that it’s inappropriate for an adult to sleep in a bed with children?
KING: Yes, OK. Yes. Nothing happens sexually. Is it inappropriate to sleep (UNINTELLIGIBLE)…
CARL: Is it just plain old inappropriate?
OXMAN: I’m going to tell you that it is certainly not something that we recommend and it is something that Michael does not do. He does not sleep in the same bed as these children. They are sleepovers with cancer survivors, under privileged children.
KING: OK, let me get a break.
OXMAN: But he’s separate from them.
KING: [Brian], you wanted to say something, add something on the boys, because I want to get to another area?
OXMAN: Yes. The boys. There have been literally thousands of youngsters who have visited with Michael interviewed by innumerable authorities across the world. It was the most expensive investigation in the history of Los Angeles County. And the result was we have one fellow, one young man who makes a complaint, who I can’t comment on.
KING: That’s the only complaining person ever?
OXMAN: That is the only complaint that there has ever been. Children have said Michael’s hugged me, Michael has kissed me, but this is all that we have.
KING: The only thing was this boy?
OXMAN: Correct. And here’s something about this business about the bed. Michael said in the interview that Gavin slept on the bed with his brother and that Michael slept on the floor. And what we’re so upset with the Bashir documentary is that the anteroom to Michael’s bedroom where the door is open has 24 hour attendance and security, who are watching the entire process. When the child snaps a finger, somebody is there.
KING: Jane isn’t buying that.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I mean when you’ve faced child molestation allegations and you’ve settled for approximately $20 million out of court, wouldn’t it make sense to not say that you sleep over with children? Wouldn’t it make sense not to put yourself in the position? Some people feel that he’s actually orchestrated this entire thing on a very deep subconscious level to get attention.
…. OXMAN: It’s the absolute opposite. Michael is the target and the entire family is terrorized by this entire thing.
KING (about the 1993 case): Brian, what is the, what’s the story?
BRIAN OXMAN: Larry, there is a confidentiality clause which prohibits any of the people who are associated with Michael and the entire matter…
KING: You weren’t the lawyer in that settlement?
OXMAN: No, Johnnie Cochran was the lawyer.
KING: I met, I had dinner with both the lawyer for one side and the other side and the judge who handled it. And there is a confidentiality and there were no criminal charges filed.
OXMAN: So it puts a constraint on everyone.
KING: However, if there is that affidavit, doesn’t Nancy have a point?
OXMAN: I sit here and boy, do I want to answer that affidavit and do I want to tell you the things that I know, which really amount to a great deal of skullduggery involved in the entire transaction. But this confidentiality clause and this contract constrains me and I’m not able to do it. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to do it and you can read in my face exactly what I think of that whole thing.
KING: Well, are you, can you say unequivocally there was no sexual seduction by Michael Jackson of a young child?
OXMAN: If you’re asking me to comment on…
KING: Can you say that?
OXMAN: …. the case itself, on the settlement itself…
KING: No, no. It’s a general question.
OXMAN: …. I can’t. I can tell you Michael does not hurt children. He has never hurt any child. And I think that’s as far as I can go. And I would like to go farther, but I just cannot.
KING: A criminal charge has never been brought against him, Brian?
OXMAN: Criminal charges have never been brought. The D.A. refused to prosecute the case for very sound and good reasons.
OXMAN: The statute of limitations has expired on the entire transaction.
GRACE: Open but inactive.
OXMAN: But the file is open and it is inactive.
OXMAN: And I’ve got to tell you, I want to tell you why that affidavit is inaccurate and I want to tell you about a whole series of things…
GRACE: But you can’t.
OXMAN: I am constrained and I just, I am burning to do it and I just can’t.
KING: Brian Oxman, you will agree that since the 1994 allegation and the subsequent settlement and Nancy’s referral to the affidavit, Michael has never fully recovered from that, has he?
OXMAN: The storm that Michael has experienced, along with the entire family, started when he was 12 years old, and it’s ebbed and flowed over the entire course…
KING: Yes, but that occurrence…
OXMAN: This, without question, casts a shadow and putting doubt in the minds of the American people. But I think his subsequent activities, his subsequent conduct is really something which shows the kind of character the man is. What we got in the Martin Bashir interview, even though there was enormous editorializing which was way out of place and really yellow journalism, we still saw a lot of Michael and the things that he does and his care for people. And it really tells us a lot about his character.
JERMAINE JACKSON: Hi. Listen, the other two young ladies have never met my brother. They don’t know my brother. And I just want to talk a bit about this case that this boy brought forth, the young kid. In “GQ,” according to what I’ve seen, this was nothing but an attack to set my brother up, because the kid’s father wanted Michael to further his screening career. And it says here: “And if I go through this — go through with this, I win big time. There is no way I lose. I checked that out inside and I will get everything I want and there will be — I will then destroy him forever.”
This is what he is saying. And then he says, “Everybody will lose.” What he’s saying, his whole thing was to bring Michael down
KING: Jermaine, are you saying that the kid’s affidavit is a lie?
JERMAINE JACKSON: Well, if you look at — because I’ve had some of the things faxed to me. And it has been contradictory.
He would start off by saying, several times, he was never touched. But I am very furious, because these two young ladies on the show, they’ve never met my brother.
GELLER: Yes, I agree with Jermaine 100 percent.
That affidavit was splashed on front page headlines here in England a week ago. And I read it. And it is just simply hard for me to believe that that comes from a 12-year-old boy. It is quite shocking.
KING: You think he was coaxed?
GELLER: That is my opinion, absolutely.
KING: The boy was coaxed? All right.
OXMAN (about the 1993 case): This was probably the most controversial publicized case in the entire history of American justice.
KING: Yes, but if he didn’t do it, you don’t settle.
OXMAN: Ah, but people were paid money. There were people from the Philippines who were housekeepers paid $500,000 by the tabloids for their story, bodyguards who were paid $200,000 for their stories. It became a checkbook journalistic nightmare.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I would just love to ask somebody here the burning questions. One, maybe you can answer it or Uri or Jermaine. Has Michael Jackson ever had psychiatric help? Has he seen a shrink? Do they think he needs to? And if he really cares for children that much, which is quite possible — that’s what he’s saying — why he would put himself in such a situation and invite Martin Bashir to take a look at him holding hands with a young man?
KING: That question should be asked of Brian.
OXMAN: For psychiatric evaluation, we have the plastic surgeon from the physician’s office that Michael went to have his plastic surgery holding press conferences giving his statements to “NBC Dateline.” Can you imagine Michael Jackson doing anything with any kind of psychiatric provider? It would be…
KING: You mean he can’t seek psychiatric care?
OXMAN: I would have to say that he cannot.
OXMAN: It is not within the realm of reason or possibility because of the hoopla, the magic and the commotion.
KING: If he just went to a psychiatrist?
OXMAN: We thought that people, when he went to a plastic surgeon, that they wouldn’t disclose his confidential patient relationship. And he went and did it anyways.
CARL: But, Brian, isn’t a therapist obligated by law — by law?
OXMAN: So was the plastic surgeon.
CARL: The plastic surgeon has to answer to the exact same criteria that a psychiatrist does?
OXMAN: Exact same criteria. I teach legal ethics. And the ethical obligation is the same.
OXMAN: I’ve got to tell you that he, along with the entire family — I think with the exception of Jermaine, who is so outspoken — with the entire family, they’re terrorized, Larry.
KING: Jermaine has been on this show. We would be happy to have him back.
GELLER: You know, Larry…
KING: Yes, Uri, go ahead.
GELLER: I was going to say that Michael invited Martin Bashir into his home because he has nothing to hide, nothing to be afraid of.
KING: Yes, but he let it be taped.
KING: Yes, when you tape, you can edit.
GELLER: You know, Larry, I remember — yes — I remember that, months ago, you called me up and you asked me whether I’ll tell Michael to get on your show. And I said that to Michael. And Michael is so hurt by the attacks, the criticism. The press, the media, in my opinion, are really trying to demolish him and character assassination.
KING: Yes, but no comment doesn’t work.
GELLER: That’s why he doesn’t really do an American interview.
GRACE: That is so not true.
GELLER: Hey, wait a minute.
And I think that what made up Michael’s mind, unfortunately, is when Bashir showed Michael a letter that Princess Diana wrote Martin Bashir praising Martin. And Michael adored Princess Diana. And he saw the letter and said: Well, if Martin Bashir interviewed Diana and if Diana wrote that…
KING: He made a mistake.
GELLER: ‘Martin you can come to my home’. He did — I think it was a mistake.
OXMAN: … first of all, Michael will not change his character or his manner of operation for anybody. He does his life and he lives his life as God has given him the light to live it.
And it is almost a form of rebellion, where he says: Listen, I’m not doing anything wrong. So why is it that I should change my way of life? And I’m not going to do it. And he wants to help children.
KING: He pays a price for that, though.
OXMAN: He pays a price for it, absolutely.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And as long as he keeps doing things like dangling his baby outside of a Berlin hotel balcony.
OXMAN: Oh, the chestnut of the dangling of the baby. He’s trying to present his child to the world. If you remember, in “The Lion King,” Mufasa presented Simba to the world.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can’t compare him to a cartoon.
OXMAN: Not a cartoon. How about Alex Haley and “Roots”? We had Kunta Kinte presented to the tribe in the same manner. It is an African tradition.
GRACE: Not off the balcony. Not off the balcony.
OXMAN: And I dislike the insensitivity to the traditional. We admit he didn’t do the greatest job. We acknowledge that. But that’s what his intention was.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: In fact, there are some people who think that he actually orchestrated all this subconsciously to get attention.
KING: That’s what I was saying. He should be forward more, so we would know him.
OXMAN: I think you have a point, but the man has been under this kind of commotion since he was 8 years old. And I have been in the crowds. I have seen it. It is frightening. And it is almost a method of coping with the commotion that we take on a childlike attitude. And we say, listen, I’m just going to enjoy the world for what it is.
OXMAN: Jordy is the one and only individual who has ever made these accusations.
GRACE: Right. Why no extortion?
OXMAN: The father wanted a three-movie-right deal. It was absolutely a commotion of major proportions as to what the father wanted. And I don’t think I can comment on really what the nature of the settlement is or why people weren’t prosecuted.
KING: You don’t think it was prosecutable?
OXMAN: I’m going to step out slightly on a limb and say, in my opinion, no. But that’s all I can say.
KING: It wasn’t extortion?
KING: Legal extortion.
OXMAN: Larry, I am burning to tell you my opinion. You can read my opinion in my face. And I won’t answer your question, because I think I can’t go that far.
KING: Uri, is this going to go away or get worse for Michael?
GELLER: I think Michael is invincible and he will ride this out. There is a lot more to come from Michael. And before the show is over, I would like to make a very important point, that I managed to negotiate a very, very substantial payment from the makers of the Bashir interview for sick children. So, wherever this documentary will take Michael Jackson, sick children will benefit from it.
KING: That’s one good thing. [IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO VERIFY WHETHER BASHIR INDEED PAID]
OXMAN: He can’t go places. He can’t do things with people on an ordinary basis. His family says no to him.
CARL: Like what? What do you mean? Where can he not go?
OXMAN: He can’t go out and buy shaving cream at the store.
CARL: Not because people tell him no.
KING: Uri, what do you want to say?
GELLER: Yes, Brian, it is incredible.
When I took Michael Jackson to Exeter, we went through the Paddington train station here in England. And he was almost killed.
OXMAN: And people were almost killed, yes.
GELLER: It was unbelievable. He was thrown to the ground. There were 1,000 fans pressing us against a train. I just could not believe what was happening. And this is just one moment in Michael Jackson’s life. I just cannot understand how…
KING: Uri, we’re running out of time. He can’t lead a life, is what they’re saying.
Even Larry King said that Michael Jackson couldn’t lead a life, so how can any of us apply our own behavioral standards to Michael Jackson? How can anyone ask questions, “Why couldn’t he behave like everyone else?” And did he ever have a life like everyone else?
Here is the remainder of the transcript of Jackson talking to Bashir about the slumber parties in his room:
Jackson: “You can have my bed if you want, sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s yours. Always give the best to the company, you know. Like to him. Because he was going to sleep on the floor and I said ‘No, you sleep in the bed and I’ll sleep on the floor.'”
Bashir: “But haven’t you got a spare room or a spare house here where he could have stayed?”
Jackson: “No.. yes, we have guest units, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me, they never want to stay in the guest rooms.” “And I have never invited them into my room, they always just wanna stay with me. They say, ‘Can I stay with you tonight?’, so I go ‘If it’s OK with your parents then yes you can’.”
Bashir: “Were your parents happy that you were here with Michael?”
Gavin: “Yeah, well, my ma was very, very, very happy. And I know they’re happy, because I’m happy.”
Bashir: “Did they come with you?”
Gavin: “Most of the time I wasn’t busy with my parents, I was mainly with Michael.”
Bashir: “But they were happy that you were here?
Speaking of the parents let me repeat here what I earlier stated in the comments section to another post.
No matter what the media and general public say now and then about their resentment over Michael’s “bedroom issues” they should have never interfered in Michael’s life in the outrageus, insolent and totally unacceptable manner they did. The only people who could have demanded anything of Michael were the parents of the children who associated with him – these people indeed had the right to wonder why their children wanted to stay with him and what he was doing to them in their absence.
However the cruel irony of the situation is that the parents were exactly the people who – all as one – said that Michael’s association with children was absolutely innocent. They saw it with their own eyes and repeated one and the same thing – Michael and the children were just “hanging out” and the parents also took part, and when there came a moment to part and go to bed some children begged to stay for a little more and just fell asleep there – with all the activities resumed the next morning.
I’ve always said that the only thing parents could reprimand Michael for was lack of proper regimen and not enough discipline, as Kit Culkin did in his book, but apart from that no parent ever saw or noticed anything bad. Some even interrogated their children (father of the Cascio brothers, for example) in reply to which the children looked at their parents in disbelief that they could be crazy enough to repeat that nonsense.
Kit Culkin says that children are perfect reporters on each other and other people’s misbehavior and this or that way something would have transpired. However it never did because Michael’s behavior was impeccable. Impeccable. And he never discriminated girls – Kit Culkin’s younger daughter was always part of the “gang”, Kit said. The same was repeated by JC Agajanian about his daughter Amy – she was Michael’s best friend, and not her brothers.
I think we should listen to all these people instead of saying that “he should have stopped it”.
If no parent or child ever noticed anything bad about Michael (except those few extortionists) I personally find it totally unacceptable for the screaming media and hysterical public to interfere in Michael’s life and separate him from his friends by a steel hand. And this is exactly what Michael was told to do – to part with children forever and stop helping them or do it, if he wanted to, “from a distance”. Never see them, never open the doors of Neverland to any of them, never invite any families there again.
And those who commanded were relentless even if he said that there were no more sleepovers and excused himself at every corner. They even went so far as saying they would take his own children from him if he ever showed his child in another window at a hotel.
All these demands of Michael Jackson were especially outrageous as at the very same time when the media and public were harassing him a real pedophile (a priest) was molesting children in the same Santa Barbara but Tom Sneddon refused to prosecute him.
Or Corey Feldman said during his interview with the police that he (and his friend) had been molested by someone in Hollywood but the police didn’t pay attention because they were after Michael only.
Or Lou Pearlman was allowed to have sleepovers with the boys from his boy groups and some boys and their parents even protested – but things were hushed up and it is only now that these boys say that “what goes round comes round”.
Or a film director Christopher Lewis, who was indicted with “soliciting boys ranging from ages 6 to 17 to perform lewd acts in their movies” was charged with “child molestation and filming and distributing child pornography, along with 13 other men” as Wiki says. And what happened to him? He was sentenced to probation and a $500 fine!
If you ask me all this smells of terrible hypocrisy. When you monitor every minor step of one person, though everyone who is directly involved with him says that he is perfectly okay, and ignore all those whose criminal behavior you have direct evidence of, it is sheer hypocrisy and a terrible travesty of justice!
That is why I resent people saying that “he should have stopped it”.
What do they know of Jackson to demand things they know nothing about? And why don’t they look elsewhere – at those who are the real criminals who molest their children under their very nose?
UPDATE March 4th, 2012:
Here is Frank Cascio, one of MJ’s closest friends and confidantes, explaining exactly why MJ let Gavin sleep in his bedroom:
And here is Bobby Taylor, an artist at MoTown and one of MJ’s mentors, explaining his influence on MJ, including how letting MJ sleep in his bed influenced MJ to let kids sleep in his bed at Neverland: