Home Contact New York News Photos 1 2 Reviews Sports Web Finds
Your Host
Site Tools
Categories
Archive
Greatest Hits
Photos
Interviews
Search



PaulKatcher.com
All of Web
Thursday, November 20, 2003

Jacko Remembers Makeup for Mugshot

Wow, what a fucking nut. Hey Michael, we're gonna turn ourselves in to the cops today, so don't forget your lipstick and eyeliner.

And it looks like there aren't many calories in little boys' pee-pees. The man is 5-11 (71 inches) and 120 pounds, for Christ's sake. Clay Aiken stands two inches taller (3% more height) and packs on 25 more pounds (21% more weight). So, next to Jacko, Clay is "the fat guy" from American Idol.

Did you know that Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch is 2,600 acres? Did you know New York's Central Park is 843 acres and accounts for 6% of Manhattan's total acreage? Did you know Michael Jackson used to be black?

Other News Links:

Health Clubs Ban or Restrict Wireless Camera Phones — These stealth cams can be used in such devious ways. If any of you guys see my naked ass on a gay porn site, let me know, OK?

Why Do Skinny Guys Win Eating Contests?Popular Science answers the question that's been on everyone's mind these days.

Will Microsoft Wallop Friendster? — Social networking seems like the hot thing to perfect online. Still can't believe there's not a decent Yankees- or Giants-viewing drinking club in New York. At least not one I know about.

Porn Sites Hide Behind Blogs — Phony, innocuous-looking blogs are being built with the sole purpose of linking to, and increasing the Google PageRank of, porn sites. Really no biggie. Fake-ass sites have been manipulating search engines for years.

People Names Johnny Depp 'Sexiest Man Alive' — Whatever.

Category: News | Permalink | Post a Comment (24)


Comments: Jacko Remembers Makeup for Mugshot

I am going to have nightmares because of the face I see in that mugshot. What a fucking train wreck. His plastic surgeon should be locked up too.

How is it that Michael Jackson is able to get small kids alone in a room with him to diddle when he looks like this? I would think that kids would be terrified of this man. He is one face lift away from looking like the Crypt Keeper.

My sister is a model and is 5'11 and weighs 115 and she is very thin for a woman, so I can only imagine how scary it is to see a man built like that. What a shame...I remember liking him when I was a kid and he was still black.

Posted by Cass at November 20, 2003 10:41 PM

On Michael Jackson's booking photo there is this notation:
Hair: Black
Eyes: Brown
Cmp: (blank)

You just get the mental image of the booking desk sargent throwing his hands in the air when it came to describing his complexion.

All he'd have to do to put out a bolo would be to say, "The guy looks like... Michael Jackson."

Posted by Jeff at November 20, 2003 10:58 PM

BTW, Johnny Depp is the sexiest man alive? What a fucking joke! I can list 100 men that I think are sexy and Johnny Depp is no where on it. Then to add to this, they have a Top 10 Sexiest Men Alive List and Justin Timberlake is on it!?!?! Am I missing something here? There is nothing sexual about him! The only sexual thing I can even relate to Timberlake is the fact that he robbed Britney of her virginity. Apparently the staff at People Magazine are as delusional as Michael Jackson.

You should have been on that list, PK.

Posted by Cass at November 20, 2003 11:01 PM

I think MJ bears an uncanny (okay...scary) resemblance to Joan Crawford (aka "Mommie Dearest") in the mug shot. Anyone else see a likeness between the two?

Posted by Julie at November 20, 2003 11:47 PM

I wouldn't let that man within 100 yards of my sons. They wouldn't want to be within 100 yards of him.

What do those parents think might happen when their sons are left alone with a man who already settled a civil suit against him for child molestation? That's what I truly don't understand- how the parents of that 12 year old boy allowed their son to be alone with him.

Having said that, good for them for going to the police and not getting a "settlement".

Of course, he IS innocent until proven guilty....at least of those charges. He's already guilty of looking like an extra in a horror movie.

Posted by lucy at November 21, 2003 12:49 AM

Jacko is wacko.

Anybody who lets him near their children, supervised or not, is just as big a nut. The guy just gets crazier and crazier as time goes by.

I heard that there is a law now, I'm not sure if it's just California or the whole country, where in a case like this the victim/victim's family are not allowed to pursue a civil case until after the criminal case is complete. This is apparently to stop molesters from buying their way out before a prosecutor can bring them to trial. It's the same district attorney as the last time they went after Jacko, and in that one he bought out of it, so it seems he'll be going to trial for this one. Anybody know if that's true?

Posted by Anybody Know? at November 21, 2003 8:48 AM

The law was changed specifically because of the Jackson case a decade ago. Now, child victims can be forced to testify in assault cases. Ten years ago, the boy wouldn't testify and there was nothing prosecutors could do about it. Now, they can.

Do you think the boy from 10 years ago, now 24, and his parents feel any guilt right about now? Or does $15 million make them oblivious to what they did?

Posted by Joe DiGiovanni at November 21, 2003 10:11 AM

Here is an article that clarifies the California law: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20031120_736.html

The DA in Santa Barbara said they could force the victim to testify, and later clarified his statements to say that they could halt civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings were completed.

Posted by Joe DiGiovanni at November 21, 2003 10:22 AM

Excellent comment on whether the person who settled with Jacko years ago would feel guilt for perhaps endangering others by taking the cash and not prosecuting. (My guess: probably a little guilt, but nothing I couldn't get over with $15 million. If you don't know by now to not let your kid near MJ alone...)

A similar discussion arised when lawyers were setting and signing confidentiality agreements in the Bridgestone/Firestone tires cases. Did those confidentiality agreements serve the public? Hurt the public?

Posted by Paul Katcher at November 21, 2003 10:58 AM

Unfortunately, many parents continued using poor judgement in allowing their children near him after the last accusations. The red flags were waving long before the original accusations took place. What grown adult (male or female) wants to be constantly surrounded by and/or play with other peoples children (HELLO major red flag)? Not me. People with children don't even want their kids around as much as Michael does. I just got back from a business lunch at a restaraunt where a child was climbing,running and screaming all over the place disturbing everyone BUT the mother who was chatting away with a friend. I cringe every time my friends bring their children to my home in fear that my fabulous bachlorette pad could be disturbed and destroyed. Don't get me wrong, I love kids but I just don't want them all over my home or in my bed for that matter.

I am so sick of hearing about how his childhood fucked him up...blah blah blah. Everyone has issues on some level with their childhood, and we handle it like adults-with therapy and alcohol, of course. How could his family and inner circle NOT get him mental help years ago? How could the courts not order him to get help? More importantly, how could the parents of the child who was molested and settled out of court allow this pedophile to walk the streets and continue to abuse other children? If I ever had a child who was molested, I would fight to my death to see that the person be locked away from other children for the rest of their lives. No amount of money can make that violation and pain of abuse go away for a child . I think the parents who took the $15 million should be charged as criminals since another child was victimized due to their irresponsibility and greed.

Posted by Cass at November 21, 2003 11:27 AM

What a great discussion here. I don't have anything to add of substance, but I will say I have seen Michael Jackson twice from a 10 to 20 foot distance, and no way does he weigh 120 pounds. I would have guessed him to be six feet tall and 160#. Admittedly, I saw him in the late 80's, but he doesn't look that much different. I remember thinking that I expected him to be thinner.

Posted by PeeWee at November 21, 2003 1:35 PM

Check these two websites for a little morphing with commentary...
http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html
or
http://david.hauslaib.com/progress/2003/02/27/michael_jacksons_face_morph.php

Ewww....

Posted by PeeWee at November 21, 2003 1:53 PM

re: MJ"s makeup for his mug shot
I believe his eye liner and lip
color are both permanet tatoo's.

Posted by elray at November 21, 2003 4:35 PM

You are right - the eyeliner and lipstick are both permanently tatooed to the freakish excuse for a face.

Posted by Julie at November 21, 2003 5:04 PM

Jackson's family doesn't get him help for two reasons. First, they don't believe he's doing anything wrong, which leads to the second reason. They're as fucked up as he is. And the courts' hands have been tied. He paid 15 million to shut the parents of the first kid up. Thank God for the law pressing the courts to some action before a civil trial.
As a parent, this stuff makes it tough to trust anyone. My sons' scout leaders, teachers, ministers, doctors, are all suspects to me.

Posted by at November 21, 2003 6:36 PM

Most people with severe cases of depression go through transformation phases - where they hate the person they have become so much that they try and transform themselves into something which they admire.

In this case, we see that Jacko has begun his transformation into a Raggedy Ann or Andy doll. Coming soon, red curly hair and little painted on freckles. How would any kid not want to play with a real life Raggedy Andy doll?

The resemblance is horrifying:
http://www.badfads.com/pages/collectibles/raggedyann.html

Posted by Andy at November 21, 2003 9:44 PM

The parents who settled out of court ten years ago would have won a civil suit had Jackson been convicted of molesting their son. They still might have won [a la the OJ Simpson civil suit] even if Jackson was acquitted in criminal court. So, no matter what the outcome of the criminal case, they probably would have scored a decent settlement.

I can't really blame them for not putting their kid on the witness stand to tell the courts [aka, the public] in excruciating detail exactly what Jackson allegedly did to him. Does anyone remember the level of detail Clinton and Lewinsky had to give? After the kid had been molested, he'd have been exposed again in the courts and media.

I can't exactly blame those parents for taking the $$ and shutting up. They basically alerted the authorities and the world to Jackson's true nature. I think they should be given a little slack for not putting their kid through a trial.

But I *can* blame the parents of this latest kid for letting their child anywhere near that guy. They're the ones who are responsible for endangering their child, not the first set of parents.

Posted by bhw at November 21, 2003 10:25 PM

The courts today are much more sensitive to children who are victims of crimes. That child's identity would have been protected, and he may not have been forced to face his abuser. Had the first molested kids parents pursued criminal charges against Michael Jackson, they could have possibly put away a disgusting criminal, and yes hit the jackpot with a civil suit. I personally feel that the child's parents didn't help their child -or anyone elses for that matter- by just taking the money. So what kind of lesson did the kid victim learn-money makes everything better? Sweep it under the carpet and act like it never happened?

As stupid as people can be, many probably thought that MJ was extorted and that he never hurt that kid. The parents just wanted the money, so he wasn't an abuser. I guess that parents are star struck by him and his money and lose all good judgement. Think about it-MJ has not had a hit or been a viable celebrity in years, but he was a star when these kid's parents were young. These kids have no idea who this freak is because he is no longer a real star. The parents are endangering their children for their own selfish need to be near a star from their childhood.

Let's hope that MJ gets locked up and kept away from children for a long time. I have absolutely NO sympathy for abusers of children on any level. If for some reason he is set free (ie: OJ style) lets hope that people have enough sense NOW to keep their children away from him.

Posted by at November 22, 2003 7:52 AM

The courts today are much more sensitive to children who are victims of crimes. That child's identity would have been protected, and he may not have been forced to face his abuser.

The courts may be, but the media is not. Eventually, his name and photo would have been leaked to the press.


I personally feel that the child's parents didn't help their child -or anyone elses for that matter- by just taking the money. So what kind of lesson did the kid victim learn-money makes everything better? Sweep it under the carpet and act like it never happened?

I think that any 13-year-old who has been molested has learned quite enough of life's lessons. His parents already put him in one awful situation by letting him sleep over at MJ's house. They spared him another by having to go to court, and I think that was a good parental choice.

And even if MJ had been convicted of the charges, a) he'd probably be out of prison by now and b) there are still peee-lenty of people out there who would believe that he was set up because of his fame and fortune and who would let their kids get near him.

Posted by bhw at November 22, 2003 1:16 PM

Actually, bhw, the police had to drop the criminal charges in the first molestation case because the victim, whose parents had filed a civil suit and then received a settlement, refused to testify.

Criminal charge>settlement money>refusal to testify.

So yes, I think the parents of that first child endangered other children by not having their child testify in the criminal case. There ARE shield laws and 10 years ago isn't that long ago- children were given special consideration in testifying then, too. If the child hadn't refused to testify and his testimony had resulted in a conviction, then Michael Jackson would be listed as a child sex offender and, one would hope, it would keep at least MOST parents from allowing their children to 'sleep over' at his house.

As for him already being let out of prison had he been convicted and sentenced 10 years ago....haven't you heard that child abusers aren't very popular in prison? He would have had all the sex he could handle, I'm sure....

Posted by lucy at November 22, 2003 9:32 PM

That sums it up, Lisa......

Posted by Neal at November 23, 2003 6:05 AM

I mean Lucy....sorry.

Posted by Neal at November 23, 2003 7:51 AM

Look at it this way: a woman with a medical degree married Mike Tyson after he was convicted of rape and after all sorts of other violent and anti-social behavior on his part. She's obviously fairly intelligent if she made it through medical school, and yet, she married a convicted rapist.

People who are star struck will believe what they want to believe, no matter what the courts say about a person. MJ would still have a waiting list of children wanting to get into Neverland, even if he'd been convicted ten years ago.

Posted by bhw at November 23, 2003 10:06 AM

They could be lined up like trained pigs outside his gate, and if he's not there it won't matter. He belongs in a prison, and not a treatment center. He is a predator, and should be treated as such, regardless of his money or stature. The laws are in place to protect the public, which, to your point bhw, are mostly a bunch of morons. If there is a god, MJ will be tried, convicted, and sodomized before my next birthday.

Posted by Neal at November 24, 2003 7:30 PM
Post a comment
















Fark.com
- [Interesting] Crips and Bloods still keeping it real ... in New Zealand. Wait, what?

- [Amusing] Police searching for teeny tiny gang of horse thieves after 28-inch pony stolen from field (pic)

- [Photoshop] Photoshop these ancient columns

- [Asinine] From the Department of Redundancy Department: Texas issues a report declaring that Texas has too many reports. Bonus: Report is 668 pages long and took 18 months to compile

- [Hero] Woman on crutches rescued from rapist by five bystanders (With scary mugshot goodness)

Yahoo! News: Most Emailed
- Los Angeles in a stew over taco trucks (The Christian Science Monitor)

- Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama (AP)

- Ants swarm over Houston area, fouling electronics (AP)

- McCain's wife sells Sudan-related investments (AP)

- Swiss man soars above Alps with jet-powered wing (AP)

Yahoo! News: Sports News
- Celtics beat Cavs 96-89 to take 3-2 lead in series (AP)

- No. 1 Justine Henin retires from tennis immediately (AP)

- Sen. Specter wants independent investigation into Spygate (AP)

- Stars avoid sweep, send West finals back to Detroit (AP)

- Reds recover for 7-6 win over Marlins in 10 innings (AP)

Web Friends
News
Sports
New York City
Sex
Internet
Guitar
Powered by Movable Type 3.31.