Firpo Carr makes it very clear that his major objection to me is he is still an active Jehovah's Witnesses and I am "a white academician who is an ex-member of Jehovah's Witnesses." Yet, Carr attacks only my person and totally ignores what he claims are his real concerns. If "this whole thing between Bergman" and Carr hinges primarily on two things: "race and religion," as he claims, then why has Carr never discussed these two issues in his articles dealing with me? I would like to debate the facts about the Jehovah's Witnesses but Carr has yet to respond to any of my concerns in this area. His entire diatribe consists of ad hominem attacks against my person based on demonstrably incorrect information. In his updated attack, Carr continues with his irresponsible shower of name calling, such as calling me a "racist," a term he never defines. As we will discuss, Carr tends to freely accuse others of being racists. Carr says

Dr. Bergman attacks my credibility as a Ph.D. This is a regular tactic of certain white racists. Although I'm no Martin Luther King, Jr., the same thing happened to him posthumously. When the federal government was entertaining making his birthday a federal holiday, white racists attacked the validity of his Ph.D. Bergman, being the racist that he is, has fallen right in line. They can't stand to see an educated black man... Since Bergman assails my scholarshipŠ why don't we just... have an outright public debate on race (the veracity of his racist beliefs), and religion (the truthfulness of Witness teaching when compared to the Bible).

This paragraph is very revealing: Carr claims that I "can't stand to see an educated black man" yet what does he think I have spent 35 years in education doing? Many of my students were black and I have spent a great deal of time helping them become educated! His claim is like saying a car salesman can not stand to see someone buy a car! Carr also seems to assume that anyone who responds to a critic that happens to be of a different race is attacking that person on grounds of race and therefore becomes a racist! Yet Carr never provides any evidence that I am a racist as normally defined--absolutely none! What kind of evidence is needed? An example would be documented evidence that I am an active member of the Ku Klux Klan (or even just a member) or pictures of my involvement in a protest in favor of some clear policy favoring open discrimination based on race. As one professor from a "major research university" concluded, if you disagree with radicals, you have to fear revenge by them, and one way they get revenge is to call you "a racist" (Myers, 1998, p. 3). Thirty years ago I would have been called a communist by Carr. Dennis Prager says a "racist" today often means "a white who does not agree with a position held by the civil rights leadership" (1994, p. 15). My claim is the Watchtower was not very enlightened in its treatment of Blacks, and irresponsible at best in their mention of them in their publications. For this Carr calls me a racist? On www.ezboard.com a reader said that Firpo Carr,

a professed Witness, has done his share of damage because his books call attention in detail to some of [the] Watchtower's flawed theology against all apparent intent of Dr. Carr. In one of his books, Dr. Carr apparently tries to prove how well African Americans are treated by Watchtower--and succeeds in proving just the opposite. He states that he writes these books because it is expected of him academically. Dr. Carr's books make a very fun read once you realize that he is proving the exact opposite point he is trying to make. I enjoy them immensely.

(http://pub76.ezboard.com/flambsmarchfrm31.showMessage?topicID=76.topic, 1/16/04)

This reflects my conclusions perfectly. This writer adds that

It is no small coincidence that many of Watchtower's most notable detractors are Witnesses who disobeyed the Watchtower prohibition against higher education: Edmund Gruss, Barbara Harrison, Carl Olaf Jonsson, Jerry Bergman, Greg Stafford, Diane Wilson, and many many more.

Will this list include Dr. Firpo Carr in the near future? He has also "disobeyed the Watchtower prohibition against higher education" and has "called attention in detail to some of [the] Watchtower's flawed theology." Carr's response to my claims are to totally ignore them, rather he attacks my person, such as he does in the following quote:

In my humble opinion Bergman is a bitter, miserable, disgruntled, closet racist who feels comfortable "helping" and "studying" Blacks from his arrogant, ostentatious, paternalistic point of view.

How does he know these things about me? He has no first hand knowledge about my person and has never even met me, yet makes wild unfounded judgments about a person he knows only by correspondence and a few phone calls where he did most of the talking! What evidence does he have to justify this name calling? He gives absolutely none in his paper! Not one! To be able to make reasonable judgments about my personality he must have some basis to base his judgment, such as long term personal acquaintance (as being a personal friend of mine for many years).

Judge Nicholas Walinski: An Alcoholic and Womanizer?

Carr claims that the judge made a well thought out decision in my BGSU case. How can he know this without reading the trial transcripts and court documents? I have offered to send these documents to him, but he has not taken me up on my offer (and the documents I sent to him obviously were not read). This man has no interest in researching my case, only irresponsible name calling.

The district court case was decided by Judge Nicholas J. Walinski. It is useful to determine just what kind of man this "Judge Walinski" was. An example of his behavior was, at the time when my case was on trial, the judge was an alcoholic. On Friday, May 31, 1985, he was found guilty by Judge Allen Andrews in Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court for diving while intoxicated and running a red light--his second drunken driving conviction in fifteen months (see The Toledo Blade June 1, 1985 Page 17). Walinski then was 64 years old. The charges, according to The Toledo Blade, stemmed from a two-car injury accident that occurred near his home in West Toledo. In lue of a long jail sentence, Judge Walinski was ordered by Judge Andrews to complete a twenty-eight day detoxification program and an alcohol rehabilitation program at Hazelden.

Walinski was also fined four hundred dollars and ordered to pay court cost and his driver's license was suspended for five years. Judge Andrews suspended the fifty-dollar fine and court cost on the red light violation. Walinski was also sentenced three days to the Toledo House of Correction, five hundred dollar fine, plus court costs. He also lost his drivers license for sixty days after his first drunk driving conviction in January of 1984. That charge also resulted from an accident, this time on Anthony-Wayne Trail in Toledo, Ohio. Eric Nicely, Director of the Toledo Hospital Alcoholism Treatment Center, testified in court that it was his professional opinion that Judge Walinski was an alcoholic and has misused alcohol. Walinski also sought what is called Senior Status--a position in which he is paid his salary but does not have to work a full case load--an honor that was later granted.

It was clear that Walinski was also intoxicated while on the stand during my trial. He repeatedly made illogical and nonsensical statements, such as referring to the jury when, in fact, there was no jury, or making statements such as he was going to kill himself. Among the many examples that demonstrate that the judge was often not aware of what was going on was Dr. Campbell had just testified that he was at the tenure meeting (T-437) and in response to the question, "What was discussed at the tenure meeting?" the judge asked, "I just thought he said he was not at any meetings" ( T-422).

In another situation when the judge was obviously not listening to what was said was when Dr. Davidson alleged that I claimed the tenure denial was because of the way I dressed. Davidson falsely claimed that no one was actually claiming this and thus, he inferred, it was irresponsible for me to make this claim. The court answered, "Excuse me, Mr. Latanick, [a good example of his lack of awareness--he meant Dr. Davidson--who was earlier fired by BGSU] we've had a lot of talk about how Dr. Bergman dressed. What was wrong with the way he dressed?" Obviously the judge did not hear what Davidson said, but understood his comment as referring to a reason why he objected to Dr. Bergman being tenured when he was only stating that Dr. Bergman made this claim.

Some statements made by the judge were incredible such as, "If I hear anything more about tenure I'm going to kill myself." If this was said by the defendant on the stand, a judge would seriously question the sanity of a person who made such a statement. The judge's attitude about the case was clear : "I'd rather get rid of the [Bergman] case. All right?" (T-743). Does Carr think this is proper behavior for a judge? He sides with the judge, thus he must, and ignorance is no excuse because I sent him many documents and other information about the case. Walinski was found dead in his home at the age of 72--no doubt in part due to his heavy drinking (Hughes, 1992, p. 8).

Walinski's son, Nicholas III, was killed in a motorcycle accident while still a young man (Hughes, 1992, p. 8). One of the officer's who responded to the accident call alleged that Walinski was drunk and had previous trouble with the law for drunk driving (and was previously given a ticket, which was allegedly fixed by Judge Walinski). The officer believed that if the first drunk driving ticket was not fixed, Walinski's son may be alive today.

Carr also makes much about the fact that Ohio Civil Rights ruled against me. First of all, they find probable cause in only around 3.8 percent of all of those who file cases in Toledo (See "Commission Impossible"The Plain Dealer December 17, 1995). As one investigator stated, the OCR has "never met a 'no probable cause they didn't like" (see "Commission Impossible" The Plain Dealer December 19, 1995 page 15-A). Are almost all of these minorities (the vast majority filed on the basis of race or color) liars, filling claims that have no basis? Secondly, even if they rule in your favor this means little because universities often still fight the case in court (and the University often wins). In another case at Bowling Green State University involving Dr. Hartman, at a special hearing in Columbus the Ohio Civil Rights commission's five board members

voted unanimously that there was credible evidence to support the claim that Dr. Jack Hartman had been denied a professor's position in the journalism school at BGSU because of his race and sex. Cheryl Jackson, chief of technical services at the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in Columbus said, ..."Basically, the commission felt the applicant was in fact qualified," ...Dr. Hartman, who has worked as a professor of journalism at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant for the last 11 years and is a graduate of BGSU's school of journalism, filed his complaint July 25, 1994, with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. In the complaint, Dr. Hartman alleged that BGSU hired a black female journalism professor in order to maintain the journalism school's academic accreditation. Dr. Hartman complained that he was discriminated against because he was more qualified for the position than the individual who was given the job. "I believe that if it were not for my race and sex, I would have been hired," Dr. Hartman wrote in his complaint. The journalism school had been put on probation by its accrediting agency for failing to meet a recommendation that 50 percent of the department's faculty be female and 20 percent of the faculty be minority, Dr. Hartman said. "I believe the job description was discriminatory in its advertising," Dr. Hartman said. When the journalism school's only minority female professor left in 1994, the department fell outside the recommended levels required to achieve accreditation, Dr. Hartman said. ...Dr. Hartman said yesterday he is seeking "a comparable faculty position and to be compensated for [his] lost time and effort" (Bassett and Vellequette, 1995, p. 22).

Hartman did not achieve either of his goals and realized it was very likely that he would lose in court. He still teaches at Central Michigan University and his family lives in Bowling Green (he has to commute to work). Does Carr agree with the reverse discrimination in this case? Carr then goes on to make more unfounded accusations, such as he claims that

from the very beginning of working at BGSU suspicion surrounded "Dr." Gerald R. Bergman. He was calling himself "Dr." although he had not yet received his Ph.D. He tricked the University into hiring him as an assistant professor (which position apparently required possessing a Ph.D.), but was eventually found out.

Carr has no evidence for this false charge, and cites none except the judge's statement (which says the opposite of his claim) that I "was initially hired as an assistant professor but was reduced to the rank of instructor later during the school year when he did not receive his Ph.D." Note that this statement in no way backs up Carr's claims. The judge does not make the claim that I "was calling himself 'Dr.' although he had not yet received his Ph.D." Nor does he claim that I "tricked the University into hiring him as an assistant professor." These claims were fabricated by Carr and, for this reason, he cites no evidence because he has none.

Furthermore, if this charge was true it would have been brought out at the trial. Even in the testimony of my critics, these claims were never made by anybody! Until Carr has clear evidence he for his claims, he should stop making these libelous accusations. He has no evidence (and cites none) because none exists. Is this an example of theocratic warfare? This behavior is exactly why I left the Watchtower. As the scriptures state, "by their fruits you shall know them." The conduct by Carr is atrocious and reprehensible.

Firpo Carr as Kato Kaelin

Carr has become somewhat famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) due to his strident defense of Michael Jackson. A very informative article in a British newspaper titled You've got a Friend in Me by Robert Chalmers in the July 23, 2004 Independent (independent.co.uk) noted that the Michael Jackson case has been "billed as the most sensational trial since O.J. Simpson's, but even if convicted of child abuse, one man will stand by Michael Jackson--Dr. Firpo Carr. In LA, the Jackson family's 'spiritual advisor' explains how the star is the victim of a racist plot." No evidence is given of this "racist plot," but Chalmers adds that, in January, Michael Jackson

was arraigned on 10 counts, including child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent to a minor, conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. On 30 April he pleaded not guilty to all charges, each of which is punishable by three to eight years in prison. The case has uncomfortable echoes of the Jordie Chandler affair, settled out of court in January 1994. Jackson, who denied allegations that he had sexually molested Chandler when the boy was 13, paid $22m (£12m) to the child and his family.

Chalmers then notes that Firpo Carr has recently become a

familiar figure on US news networks. Though he used to be introduced as Jackson's "spiritual adviser," he now prefers to be called a "family friend." A devout but controversial member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the faith in which Jackson was raised, Carr has traveled to court with the singer's parents Joseph and Katherine, and is especially close to Michael's brother Randy (they shared a flat for a year in the mid-1990s) and eldest sister Rebbie, who first introduced him to the family, 10 years ago.

Chalmer's history of Carr's life concluded that diversity has been a keynote of his career and quoted Carr as saying he has "been called everything from a visionary, to a prophet, to a holy man." Chalmer adds Carr is

a former computer engineer with IBM and systems analyst at the LAPD, and the author of books such as Are Gays Really 'Gay'?--a bold thesis whose chapter-headings include: "Benjamite Buggery" and "What Constitutes a Cure?" Earlier this year Firpo turned up in Bahrain wearing a thobe tunic, giving joint lectures on comparative religion with Michael Jackson's brother Jermaine, an orthodox Muslim.

Chalmers admits that, as he waited to meet Carr, he "expected a soberly dressed zealot carrying a pile of Watchtowers (the Jehovah Witness's proselytizing magazine)" but instead Carr arrived in "jeans, a loose-fitting Tahitian shirt and a Walkman." Chalmers adds that "Firpo - who is 50, but looks 10 years younger - is bright, engaging, and good-humoured." Chalmers continues:

Carr describes his contacts with Jackson as limited but intense, and "sufficient to be able to speak authoritatively on his character." As with the OJ Simpson trial, whose drama it threatens to eclipse, the Michael Jackson case seems likely to throw up a cast of captivating minor characters. Carr, who already gets hailed by strangers, is well-placed to become Jackson's Kato Kaelin. Carr admits that certain sections of the US media, notably talk radio, don't take him seriously. It could be to do with his first name (inspired by "The Wild Bull of the Pampas," Argentinean heavyweight Luis Firpo).

Chalmers also noted that Carr's critics

focus on his doctorate, a qualification in Computing Information Systems from the Californian branch of the Pacific Western University, based in Hawaii, an on-line institution widely critiqued as a "diploma-mill." But when I called the relevant universities to check on his previous degrees (the first, also in computing, from the University of San Francisco, the second a Master's in management from the University of Redlands, California) both confirmed his CV as genuine. So did his former employers, including the LAPD. Carr currently works part-time for a satellite campus of the University of Phoenix, lecturing in Comparative Religion. I ask him why a man with two respectable degrees should feel the need to get a PhD on-line. Firpo says his doctorate is wrongly maligned, and required new research. I suspect he wanted an instantly recognizable badge of academic distinction, to mark his transition from the very bad place he came out of.

Chalmers, in trying to understand Carr, added that he cannot understand, given his loyalty to Michael Jackson,

why Carr has apparently ignored an open letter the singer released in March, which is essentially a desperate plea to Firpo--he is mentioned by name--to shut up.

"Michael sent me a letter to say, hey--for the record--don't represent me," Carr says. "But then he cleared me to speak. And his mom and dad, and the family, are like: 'Oh, please, get out there and speak for us. They are slaughtering him in the press.'" Firpo perseveres, "out of love. I am outraged at what is happening to Michael, because I believe there is a racist component in all of this."

Firpo's world view isn't an easy one to sum up, incorporating as it does a range of vigorous opinions that more orthodox thinkers would struggle to hold simultaneously. For instance he explains that homosexuality is "a spiritual evil" which directly caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, but is comfortable defending the familiar television images of Jackson hugging a 12-year-old boy. He is a tireless scourge of racists, and yet certain passages in [his book on] Germany's Black Holocaust recall some of the less-convivial views of the Nation of Islam, especially where Jewish history is concerned. At one point, when he's talking about racism on television, I mention the football commentator Ron Atkinson's recent dismissal, and tell Carr how his language contrasted with his magnificently Daltonian instincts as a manager. I'd expected the author of Wicked Words, Poisoned Minds: Racism in the Dictionary to go apoplectic, but he says Big Ron should possibly have been judged on his deeds as much as his words.

Carr seems to see racism everywhere except where it really exists, such as in the history of the Watchtower Society. Chalmers then notes that Carr discussed the problems Jackson created when he had his security handled by the racist Nation of Islam.

"Nobody complained when Howard Hughes was protected by Mormons," he argues. "Even though the Book of Mormon teaches that a dark-skinned man will have to turn white to enter heaven."

"Michael Jackson should have no worries there, then."

"Michael's a light-skinned black man," says Carr, good-naturedly.

"He's a man who has changed color," I argue. One of his own doctors has confirmed that he used the bleaching agent, Benoquin.

"Michael has vitiligo. I've seen it. OK, he tried to bleach his skin, to even it out. It's outlandish to me that people suggest Michael Jackson is trying to be white. In any case," Carr asks, in an amiably ironic tone, "who would want to be white?"

It would be hard to conclude this comment is anything but racist! Chalmers then quotes Carr as asking how the world would have reacted--referring to the November 2003 raid on Neverland--if

"70 black officers had invaded Graceland, and taken Elvis to have his genitals photographed? [As Jackson's were, during the Chandler investigation, which resulted in no criminal charges.] The black community is very upset. The feeling is: if you can get to Michael, you can get to any of us. We have to rally around."

Chalmers also discusses Firpo's family background, noting that he is the second youngest in a family of five boys and four girls and was the only male who has not yet been incarcerated (and the only one "who hasn't been shot or stabbed"). His eldest brother, Howard, was murdered when Carr was only 18, and his

"other brothers were pimps and drug pushers ... When I was a boy they would bring their 'ho's' as they called them, into the house. Dad would tell Mom: 'Hey, they're just going through a phase.' I can remember thinking: 'What kind of phase is this?'"

"What other crimes," I ask, "did your brothers commit?"

"Shootings, gambling, armed robbery."

Firpo was reared a Witness (and his family experiences do not say much for the Witness environment). Chalmers explains that Carr got to know the Jackson family after Robbie Jackson read his book: Jehovah's Witnesses: the African-American Enigma, which portrays an organization where black members represent 30 per cent of foot-soldiers, but almost none are generals. Carr still worships as a Witness, though his faith has not banished temptation: he recently moved in with his fifth wife; they have a one-bedroom flat in the Marina del Rey area of Los Angeles. He has one daughter, Daniell, from his second marriage.

As late as 1984, Jackson was going door to door in LA distributing Watchtower literature, but officially left the religion only in 1987. His popularity (his Thriller album was then the bestselling album ever) required a disguise when he did the door to door work. Carr allowed Daniell to stay at Neverland as a teenager. (So far all allegations of impropriety by Jackson involve boys.) Chalmers notes he is puzzled as to why Carr is

certain that Jackson is innocent.... "Michael is the quintessence of innocence," says Carr. "If Jesus were here today, given how much he loved children, then--if the authorities had wanted to get him on something--probably they would have charged Jesus Christ as well." "With child molestation?" "Right." "You're saying you think Jesus Christ could have found himself facing the charges that Michael Jackson does today?" "Sure." "Which implies that good and evil are at play in this case, in your opinion?" "They are. Michael has done so much good. I have examined the facts. They don't add up. Which means there are sinister forces at work. I am against sinister forces. I will battle evil. I will step up." "Imagine this isn't about Michael Jackson. Imagine you or I went on ABC and mentioned that we share beds with 12-year-old boys. What conclusion would people draw then?" "But it is Michael Jackson. And he never said he slept with them. He said he shared his bed. That's like me saying I share my ice-cream. We are not eating from the same spoon at the same time. Why wouldn't he let them share his bed, and he sleep on the floor?"

"But what he said to Martin Bashir, in Living With Michael Jackson was, to be precise, 'I have slept in a bed with many children.'" "Right. Now here's what he means by that. Just as, on that program, he was hugging one boy; it is my understanding that you can sit on a bed with a child in your arms, and fall asleep. He is not talking about under the covers, overnight. He means on top of the bed; on the edge of the bed..." And so we go on, in a reprise of the weird three-legged waltz that has passed for debate over the Jackson affair on US television, and promises to continue when the case gets to court. Even if we accept Carr's belief that Jackson has become an innocent target for corrupt and litigious parents, it was hardly prudent, following the Chandler case, to continue inviting boys for sleepovers. "You've spoken to Jackson," I say to Carr, "have you never suggested it might be an idea to rethink the way he organizes his social life?"

Carr responded: "Anyone who said that to him would be summarily dismissed." Chalmers describes Carr's "Scholars Institute" office as a

lock-up the size of a small garage that he rents for $50 (£27) a week. He opens the steel door to reveal hundreds of books, mostly Bibles, dictionaries and bound copies of the Watchtower. As I'm treacherously scanning the shelves ... I do notice one secular work: Taraborrelli's Jackson biography, with a promotional sticker which reads: "More Luscious Sleaze! More Great Dirt!" There's a desk with a computer, printer and telephone. Carr sits down to check his e-mails. The concrete unit has no windows, and the temperature is unbearable. "How do you work in this heat?" I ask, to which he responds, with a typically genteel Firpoism: "I disrobe." "Why are you doing this?" I ask him. "Do you just like publicity? Do you want to get on every show you can?" [Firpo responded:] "That's not true. I turned down Inside Edition yesterday."

Although he insists that he left the police voluntarily, Carr admits that his rapport with the department may not have been improved by his attempt to sue the LAPD for harassment in 2000, after he was asked to produce ID in a mainly white area of the city where he says his sole offense was "driving while black."

When he appeared in court, Carr was flanked by Randy Jackson and Muslim activist Najee Ali, a former convict who runs a charity in South Central. The case was thrown out but an unflattering account of the proceedings was posted on the Web by Carr's main enemy, Jerry Bergman, a former Witness. "Why is he posting all this stuff about you?" "Because he is a low life," says Carr, "and he thinks I am the Antichrist."

Firpo's response to Chalmer's question about me was flippant in the extreme and pure name calling. I have to wonder why Carr almost always responds with pure name calling. It is clear, assuming that this quote is accurate, that Carr is in a different world than the rest of us. Chalmers then claims that I have a website that is "somewhat hysterical tone." I do not have a website and never have. I assume that he is referring to the Free Minds website, an excellent website that I would hardly term as hysterical in tone! Chalmers then states that I do make one good

point in relation to Carr's defense of Jackson: as a Jehovah's Witness, Carr is not supposed to frequent people who, like Jackson, have been disfellowshipped. To quote the exact translation of the relevant verse of 1 Corinthians I found in my hotel Bible, it is his duty, faced with "the wicked man," to "quit mixing with him." That said, the singer told an interviewer as recently as 2001 that he still considers himself a member of the faith. Is Jackson still a Witness? "Not officially," says Carr. "Although he subscribes to many of the beliefs." The Watchtower often refers to 1 Corinthians 6:9, which says that "neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" will be allowed into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Chalmers then discusses the reported behavior of Jackson which has implications for Carr personally, namely

if Jackson is--as he has been reported--a man who has been addicted to Demerol (a medication similar to morphine), drunk to excess and been in and out of rehab. His contact with a man of Jackson's reputation, Firpo says, is "one of the reasons I am considered a rebel."

As to the Demerol charge, Carr responded "Michael got addicted to it, like a zillion other people." To the charge of excess drinking Carr responded "As far as I know he will have a social drink. I've never seen him drunk." Chalmers then asked "Face down on the floor of an airliner in Frankfurt,. That's not very social." Car then admitted: "All I can say is I've never seen him drunk." Chalmers continues:

The life Michael Jackson enjoys--remote, cocooned and apparently immune from the normal restraints of the world--is of a kind associated with eccentrics from a bygone age of Hollywood, such as Howard Hughes. There are even aspects of Jackson's recent past--his flamboyance, his reckless disregard for public disquiet at his conduct with young boys, and a general perception that, were he to be sent to prison, he would be too fragile to survive--which recall the life of Oscar Wilde. The Irish writer, in his later years, was fond of drawing comparisons between himself and Christ, like Carr does with Jackson. "The only difference between me and Jesus Christ," Wilde remarked, shortly before his conviction on indecency charges in 1895, "is that I never found 12 men who didn't believe in me."

Although Jackson has a formidable legal team, including attorney Johnnie Cochran, the trial process is not likely to be over soon and Jackson's conviction is a real possibility. If convicted, he will no doubt appeal until his appeals run out and he may eventually end up in jail. Carr believes that Jackson would not manage very well in prison because

"they wouldn't like him because he is a child molester--at least," he adds, "that is how they would see him. They wouldn't like him because he is a freak--again, that's how they would view him. And they wouldn't like him because he's ... a star." Forced to exist in a world without children, the singer said ... "I would jump off the balcony immediately. I'm done, I'm done." His current predicament lends a disturbing resonance to that remark, and to another moment in the same broadcast where he insisted he never wants to grow old. Should Jackson be convicted, suicide, Carr admits, "is a worry."

Chalmers concluded with the thought that Carr

may be the one man in LA whose faith in Jackson is absolutely unshakeable. I suspect that the singer's conviction on every charge would simply alter Carr's mission from one of protecting his reputation to rehabilitating it, and that Jackson - like Christ - is a figure he will never stop defending. This is a crusade that will never be over, even if the Santa Barbara jury does return a verdict which proves that Michael Jackson, like Oscar Wilde at the Old Bailey, has found his 12th unbeliever.

This interview is very revealing, to say the least, both about Carr and Jackson!

References

Bassett, Tony and Larry P. Vellequette. 1995. "Rights Panel to Investigate White Male's Job Complaint." The Blade (Toledo, Ohio), Friday, June 30, p. 22.

Hughes, Clyde. 1992. "Friends and Family Unit in Tribute to Judge Walinski." Toledo Blade, December 26, p. 8.

Myers, John (Editor). 1998. "Indoctrination 101: Professor Lifts the Veil on the Radical Takeover of Liberal Arts Classrooms and Curriculum." The Real Issue, 17(1):2-4.

Prager, Dennis. 1994. "Word Abuse--A Political Lexicon." AFA Journal, March, pp. 15, 22.