Michael Jackson Put 'Curse' on Spielberg-Magazine

Reuters ^

[per loin]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Embattled pop star Michael Jackson wears a prosthetic nose and once paid $150,000 for a "voodoo curse" to kill director Steven Spielberg despite being deep in debt, Vanity Fair magazine reported on Monday.

Vanity Fair, in an article for its March 11 edition, also reports that Jackson bleaches his skin white because he does not like being black. The 44-year-old singer sometimes refers to black people as "spabooks," the magazine said

Jackson's manager did not immediately return phone calls and a faxed request for comment on the article. Jackson's London publicist could not be reached for comment.

The onetime King of Pop has been dogged by controversy for months, first over his odd appearance in a California courtroom last November. That same month, Jackson stunned fans in Berlin by briefly dangling his young son from a hotel balcony.

And in February a British television documentary that aired to blockbuster ratings both in England and the United States caused a stir when Jackson told his interviewer that he slept in the same room, and sometimes the same bed, as young boys.

Vanity Fair reported in the article that in 2000 Jackson attended a voodoo ritual in Switzerland where a witch doctor promised that Spielberg, music mogul David Geffen and 23 other people on the entertainer's list of enemies would die.

Jackson, who underwent a "blood bath" as part of the ritual, then ordered his former business adviser Myung-Ho Lee to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali for a voodoo chief named Baba, who sacrificed 42 cows for the ceremony, the magazine reported.

Vanity Fair reported that Jackson wears a page-boy wig and a prosthesis that serves as the tip of his nose. The magazine interviewed a source close to Jackson who said that, without the device Jackson resembles a mummy with two nostril holes.

According to the magazine, Jackson's extravagant lifestyle and declining record sales have left him $240 million in debt.

The article, which relies in part on court filings in a $12 million lawsuit against Jackson by Lee, said that since the mid-1990s the reclusive entertainer has relied on a series of multimillion-dollar loans to cover his expenses.

In addition to the lawsuit by Lee, Jackson is also enmeshed in a $21 million court battle with German concert promoter Marcel Avram over canceled Millennium concerts and has been sued by Sotheby's auction house for $1.6 million.

The magazine reported that Jackson must pay off the principal on a $200 million loan within a few years, which will be nearly impossible unless he sells his most valuable asset, the Beatles song catalog. He owns only half of the catalog while Sony Corp. owns the other half in an arrangement that might make selling his share difficult, Vanity Fair reported.

Jackson has also run up nearly $4 million per year in expenses from his Neverland Valley ranch in central California, where in April 2001 his amusement park equipment was nearly repossessed for late payments, the magazine said.

[per loin]

Do you always find solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder to be a subject of levity, or only when the perpetrators are black celebrities?

[jagrmeister]

I regret I did not choose my words carefully. I meant that these charges are so sensational that Vanity Fair needs solid proof to back them up. This goes beyond getting a quote from some guy in Switzerland a la The Enquirer. That is unless Vanity Fair wants to be considered in the same class as The Enquirer. I am skeptical that, even despite his eccentricities, that Jackson paid $150,000 for a "voodoo curse" to kill people whom he does not have a serious hatred for. He went through a "blood bath" as part of the ritual? He had a voodoo chief named Baba sacrifice 42 cows for him? I'm sorry, I'm just not buying that unless there is some serious proof. The Enquirer gets no-names to make bizarre claims and pays them handsomely for their time. That's all the Enquirer requires to try and convict people in their pages. There is no proof beyond these allegations. I am extremely cynical about this Vanity Fair piece, but they may prove me wrong. Part of this is my frustration with the media's ability to absolutely demonize someone. Jackson hasn't helped his cause, granted. But there are convicted murderers like Mumia Abu-Jamal who are held in higher esteem than Jackson. Once the media puts the bullseye on someone, the public is ready to believe anything and everything about them.

[ArcLight]

Huh? Why you bringing race into this?

[per loin]

Why are you not answering my question?

[per loin]

Here, from LawyerWare.com, is another specific citing of voodoo, and the statement that its factual impossibility is not a defense:

B. Factual Impossibility
1. Deals with the act.
2. No matter how hard the person tries, the crime can't be committed this way.
Trying to open a safe with a can opener
Using voodoo to kill someone
3. Not a defense.

[ArcLight]

Because, except to the mind of a bigot, your question makes precisely zero sense.

[per loin]

And this from the criminal law course at the Pitt: 1. Defenses to Attempt
1. Impossibility
1. factual impossibility is not a defense b/c D has manifested their dangerousness to society and should be punished
o HYPO - Recent immigrant makes a voodoo doll and should be punished for attempted murder even though it is a factual impossibility b/c when he realizes it won’t work he will try another method b/c he has the necessary intent to kill

[per loin]

I suggest that if there is bigotry here, it comes not from this side. Why do you attempt to laugh off these new accusations against the pedophile, Michael Jackson?

[ArcLight]

Actually, I found this conversation interesting and informative, until you injected race into it for no apparent reason. Unless you provide such a reason, the conversation is ending now.

[per loin]

Split and run if you must, or stand and defend your views. Perhaps you may learn something about yourself and the insidious nature of bigotry by staying. You have given no reasons for your attempts to laugh off the accusations against Jackson. I have repeatedly cited what I can find on the net about the invalidity of factual impossibility as a defense. You offer nothing against this but a jovial disregard for the seriousness of conspiracy to commit mass murder. How do you explain your stance?

[ET(end tyranny)]

Maybe he has warts. I did notice, during his latest infamous interview, that he had taped/bandaged fingers.

I wondered why. Spider bites?

Left his fingers too long in the porcelana fade creme?

Used too strong of a solution to disolve the left over super glue stuck to his fingers after re-attaching his nose?

Rotting from the inside out, and the extremities are the first to go?

Bit by some youngster that didn't want to play 'pull my finger'? (said with a high pitched voice and a giggle)

[SarahW]

Ahhh, that makes perfect sense.

[Aquinasfan]

I went to bed and didn't see your post on Oklahoma law. So in Oklahoma, you can be imprisoned for attempted murder if you hire a witch doctor...oooookay. Thanks for sharing. :-)

Good catch. But seriously, this is one of those cases in which "the law is a ass," as Dickens would say. I still can't imagine a jury bringing in a conviction.

Weird. What would be the penalty for hiring aliens to do the job? Seems like the same kind of thing.

[Aquinasfan]

B. Factual Impossibility
1. Deals with the act.
2. No matter how hard the person tries, the crime can't be committed this way.
Trying to open a safe with a can opener
Using voodoo to kill someone
3. Not a defense.

Wow. Are there any recent cases of convictions?

[Aquinasfan]

he will try another method b/c he has the necessary intent to kill

Makes sense, although it probably should read "may try..." Thanks for the info.

[ArcLight]

Actually, per loin did some homework earlier in this thread and showed that you really can be prosecuted for hiring a hitman who vows to use a method that can't possibly work. The intent of the person hiring the hitman is what matters. I scoffed at his argument, but he has backed it up with a mess of legal citations. Just goes to show, you learn something every day.

Alas, per loin then lowered the tone of the discussion by making a racial comment and he's now on my bad list. (Bet he's trembling in his boots over that! Chuckle! ) Still, up to that point, he'd done an excellent job of changing my mind. Read his earlier citations and see.

[per loin]

Excellent! Not always easy to admit that one ought change one's mind. As for the racial comment, I frequently challenge others to understand the "racial" premises from which they are thinking, particularly if those premises are fundamentally racist but generally considered acceptable. I reckon that's got me on many bad lists, and further reckon that you understand just how often I tremble over that. Cheers!

[ArcLight]

I don't at all mind changing my mind. On the voodoo matter you dug up some fascinating and surprising data. If you're right, you're right. No problem.

But there was absolutely no call to introduce race into the discussion. None. So give it a rest, okay?

[per loin]

Now that you've changed your mind, perhaps you also join me in amazement that there has been zero talk in the media of prosecuting Jackson for conspiracy to commit murder?

[Dante3]

Students have been punished for drawing a picture of a gun. This is supposed to have been a terrorist threat.