Michael Jackson, King of Pop: 1958 - 2009
Summary
Michael Jackson, internationally known as the "King of Pop," died today at the age of 50. Jackson, who got his start fronting the family band The Jackson 5 at the tender age of eight before enjoying one of the most successful entertainment careers in history, often fell under intense public scrutiny for his personal life but created some of the most popular albums of all time and remained a pop culture fascination through his final years. He also helped popularize the music video genre, made extensive charitable contributions, worked with some of Hollywood's leading directors, and acted in feature length films while leaving a lasting influence on modern dance, music, and culture. Jackson was 50. Back to Article
Michael Jackson, internationally known as the "King of Pop," died today at the age of 50. Jackson, who got his start fronting the family band The Jackson 5 at the tender age of eight before enjoying one of the most successful entertainment careers in history, often fell under intense public scrutiny for his personal life but created some of the most popular albums of all time and remained a pop culture fascination through his final years. He also helped popularize the music video genre, made extensive charitable contributions, worked with some of Hollywood's leading directors, and acted in feature length films while leaving a lasting influence on modern dance, music, and culture. Jackson was 50. Back to Article
(1-194 of 194 posts) | Reply
on Jun 25 2009 05:38 PM You skipped a major part of his life...I guess you want to remember him fondly, which is honorable. Well, I think he had a sad life. I don't hate him. I never did. I just pity him. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:44 PM rest in peace brother michael (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:51 PM Another child abuser gone. Big whoop. The world is a better place without him. Maybe now his biological children have a chance at growing up somewhat normal. I won't waste one second mourning that "man." (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:53 PM Personally, I thought Michael Jackson the human being was quite deplorable. Sure he had a great musical legacy, but he also had a highly questionable relationship w/ little kids. Then what does he do to escape the allegations? Move to Bahrain? He might as well have moved to the child molestation capitol of the world, Thailand. He was pretty concieted to, whether he was going behind Mccartney's back and buying the rights to his music or erecting statues of himself, I would hardly call him a role model. And who dies of a heart attack at 50, can anyone say Cocaine overdose? I mean, there were all these rumors of his nose falling off on an airplane then he would always go around wearing those surgical masks, lets face it, he probably OD'd on some coke. I geuss I'm just irritated by the fact that this is being posted on a film web site. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 05:57 PM the funny thing is nobody proved he did it pretty sure he did drugs though (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2517348) Nobody could prove he molested them. He admitted to sleeping in the bed with children. As far as I'm concerned, that's just as bad. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:01 PM If it weren't for MJ, I doubt I'd know who Weird Al was, so I will have to salute the man's life. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:06 PM He died young. Remember all the health precautions he used to take? Wandering around constantly with a mask on his face, etc. In the coming days we may find out if this all had to do with drug abuse and over-exertion. I feel a sort of sense of relief that he's gone. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:08 PM Honestly, I'm just... I don't know. I didn't like any of his music post 80s, and he was a complete and total freak (note that freak is all encompassing). Then again, he did have an enormous impact on popular culture, enough to where it deserves to be reported on a movie website. He acted in several films, his music has been a staple of movies for the past 30 years, and the butt of many jokes (in all media) for that long as well. I don't feel the need to criticize him heavily now, nor do I feel the need to praise him much. He's dead, and... I guess that's it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:10 PM Yeah, im pretty indifferent to him dying, its just wierd to see how alot of people are showering him w/ praise when he led such a questionable life towards the end. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:12 PM In reply to this comment (#2517356) I agree, on it all, even the sense of relief... its like a person who many people loved, but has been on life support and braindead for the past couple years, causing a burden on many people, and now that the plug's been pulled, its just like... "Ok". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:13 PM my condolences to his children Prince Michael Jackson,Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II (Blanket Jackson). And I'm only 1/2 joking on this one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:14 PM Are you guys really that bored to come online and bash someone that has died merely hours ago that left behind parents, siblings and children. If you didn't like his art, then fine, criticise that. But if you're going to come online and SPECULATE about what occured in his personal life, and speak to it as if it's fact, you are pretty pathetic. Although it's a twist on an old phrase: if you don't have anything nice to say, keep your f***ing mouth shut. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:18 PM You can't deny that he had some of the most popular and influential songs and dances of all time(namely thriller) and that is very seldom. yes, he is a gifted musician and that is all he should be known for despite his faults. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:26 PM Word on the last two comments. Leave the guy alone. He's dead, and if you grew up with his music in the 80's he was, like it or not, part of your childhood. Rest in peace, Michael. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:26 PM NAMBLA is desperately scrambling for a new spokesperson as we speak. Why the hell won't anyone mention what's going on with Jeff Goldblum, either? (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:37 PM SHAMOAN! He-He! ...first Ed McMahon, then Farrah Fawcett, and now Michael Jackson? What a week! Tonight on The Tonight Show in heaven, Johnny Carson has Ed on the sofa with Farrah Fawcett and musical guest Michael Jackson. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:40 PM yeah you people have no right to judge him. if there's anything you should be criticizing, it should be his music and what not. but, even then, his music is some of the most influential music of all time so there's really nothing to criticize there either. so why don't you all just go to hell you judgemental pricks. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 06:45 PM I will Moonwalk down the sidewalk as an homage. Those allegations...they're going to follow his legacy...bummer. I'm now wondering how long it will take for someone to start the conspiracy theory that Michael Jackson is indeed alive and in hiding and that a double has died in his stead. 3, 2, 1... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:49 PM I'm sure when they perform the autopsy they'll realize it was actually Latoya Jackson and not Michael. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 06:50 PM In reply to this comment (#2517380) We have every right. If this was just some guy who wasn't famous, nobody would think twice before bashing on them. So he made some good music. Does that make it OK to sleep in beds with children?! Hell no!!! He was scum. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:00 PM In reply to this comment (#2517380) As a parent of two children myself, with all due respect, I have the right to weigh the character of someone, anyone, who has any kind of inappropriate proximity to children. Every parent should be [fairly] doing this anyway. But now is not the time nor the forum to start an anti-Michael Jackson flame-war while his children and family grieve and his body is still warm. Decency people. Class. It isn't really about if you think Michael deserved your respect or not. Opinions will always vary. If there has to be one, at least let them bury the man before the posthumous Friar's Roast begins... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:09 PM In reply to this comment (#2517386) It is not wrong to share the same bed with children since other cultures do the same thing and it is only alleged that something had happened even if nothing happen. All these court precedings was the influence of greed from opportunists of adults since they know he had alot of money. Charlie Chaplin went through the same accusations even though nothing was ever proven that he even took advantage of an underage child. Does this mean you should watching his movies too. Know the facts before making radical judgements. As I stated before MJ should be remembered only for his contribution to music and nothing else, he is not R. Kelly where he actually films himself exploiting underage kids. Have some respect. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:12 PM I used to agree that one shouldn't speak ill of the dead. Then Nixon died. So, we have freedom of speech, I think we can say pretty much whatever the hell we want to about MJ. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:15 PM In reply to this comment (#2517386) well how do we know that you're not scum? hell I could be scum and you wouldn't even know. the only reason you think you can judge Jackson is because he lived a high-profile life and you believe everything the media tells you. maybe Michael did sleep with children. Maybe he didn't. you don't know for certain so why don't you hop off your high horse thinking you have the right to judge people. for all we know you could be just as bad as Michael Jackson 'allegedly' is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:18 PM I love MJ's music; sad to see him go. He had a sad childhood, which resulted in an awkward adulthood where he never really grew up, always trying to make up for that which he never had. A cautionary tale for children who succeed and their demanding parents. I'll miss him. P.S. - Freedom of speech does allow one to say stupid things, be hateful, and be an all around despicable person. What a great freedom we have! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:28 PM In reply to this comment (#2517380) Well he was an entertainer, he sold a lot of music, he paid off a lot of parents for sleeping with their children. The public does have a right to judge him. He was in the public eye his whole life, lots of celebrities who have been in his position are somewhat weird but have turned out fine. If he molested you, would you be saying the same thing? Probably not. But you're so quick to give him his sainthood. I can be a fan of his music and not his personal life. Hey, OJ played football and was a role model for a lot of people, but then he killed those folks so I guess we can't judge him because he was acquitted because of poor prosecution. I think people have a hard time not taking things personally that really don't affect THEM personally. Are you related to Michael Jackson? Didn't think so. So why don't you go do your over-dramatic mourning elsewhere. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:33 PM This guy was my hero while I was growing up until I was about 12. For obvious reasons, he's not anymore, but I still fondly remember the impact he had on me as a young kid, and I'll always think about that first and the ugly stuff second. I have a feeling a lot of the posters here are too young to have seen Michael when he truly was the King of Pop. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 07:35 PM I'll remember him for his music which made my childhood. I still listen to his music on occasion when I'm feeling nostalgic. Forget the allegations, you can tell from his interviews that he was a child at heart, and always seemed very innocent. While I don't think it's right for a grown man to sleep in the same bed with a child, this is a man who never had a childhood and was abused and wanted to have the slumber parties he missed as a child. The man regularly donated to over 30 charities and created the Heal the World foundation to assist underprivileged children to give them a proper childhood. I know a lot of people will probably make fun of this, but Michael Jackson went under hypnotherapy in an effort to overcome something. The therapist came out and said that when Jackson went under hypnosis he asked him if he ever molested children to which he replied no. You can tell the people who brought those claims were money grubbers. I won't let it sully my view of him as a visionary. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 07:43 PM In reply to this comment (#2517343) i think u are a total jerk and *******.u should show him respect and is family respesct to.so go and **** off *******.he should be honored not insuled by u so shut the hell up. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:49 PM what? do you think you're better than him? there's only one person who can rightfully judge and deal with them accordingly and I'm pretty sure you know who that is. you're just as bad if you think you're better than anyone else. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 07:57 PM Just tragic. Tis a sad day in the entertainment biz. I just pray that his professional merits are remembered to a greater degree than his personal issues. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:11 PM Only on rottentomatoes, man. The freaks come out to sh.it on the memory of Michael Jackson. tsk tsk. No one familiar with this site should be surprised. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 08:29 PM This is how I'll remember Michael Jackson. I am a musician, and I've spent my life studying and listening to the music of our greatest performers. Michael Jackson has always been near the top of that list for me. His music had a profound influence on me as a kid, but it was his live performances and music videos that really inspired me. The energy he puts into his performances is incredible! I remember my parents taking me to see Captain EO at Disney World when I was little. It was the first 3-D film I've ever seen, and it gave me chills! But it was his "Thriller" video that made me fall in love with the art of live performance. I, for one, respect this amazing music icon, and I will miss him dearly. I send prayers to his family, his children, and his biggest fans on this sad day. Feel free to attack this post all you want. I won't take it personally. This is just how I'll always remember him, and nothing will change that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:30 PM well i can this is sad to all the people who where profiting off him and that this pedophile is better dead then around his children...how can i say that u ask...well this kid is going to be better taken care of then any other kid who had a pedo father pass away......u can say love the art not the artist quest love.....but if he touched your kids would you being saying that hypocritcal bs....why does america still support this guy when they should be making a example of him. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 08:30 PM Who will molest the Jackson children now? :( (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:32 PM In reply to this comment (#2517345) Actually, I know someone whos father died at the age of 45 from a heart attack and there certainly wasn't any drugs involved...... so thats not a very sound arguement... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:32 PM In reply to this comment (#2517417) im a athiest and no if he touched my kids i would pursue it and not sell out for the money...his reps new these parents would settle out of court...thats why they where allowed to drink and sleep with him....dont be so blind...he says he sleeps with kids...I WOULD NEVER ALLOW DENZEL WASHINGTO TO SLEEP WITH MY KIDS and he is the best actor ever! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:42 PM I'm not going to make fun of anyone's death. However, people really seem to adopt a see no evil approach whenever someone like this dies. Regardless of how much you like his music, those awful allegations are a major part of his legacy, especially for the last 15-20 years (much more than his music). It's a sad story for everyone involved. Don't get offended when people bring that up, unless they do it in a tasteless manner. Personally, I've never gotten the Michael Jackson thing really. I like a couple songs, but I don't know why people are so fascinated with him. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 08:52 PM Jesus Christ this board is the only board I know where the retards come out and attack people (yes, celebrities are people too) when they die. All those allegations were just that, allegations. Nothing was proved, and nobody proved that Michael Jackson paid off anybody to keep them quiet. All I ever saw were puppet children being used by their parents to get a slice of Michael Jackson's pie that they, nor you, have the talent, charisma or intelligence to achieve. His music will live long after any of you have become a faded memory in your grandchildrens' minds. His family and the world have lost someone dear. The way I see it, your family wouldn't lose anything if you were to drop dead of a heart attack as you read this. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:03 PM In reply to this comment (#2517444) you're right about that. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:11 PM . . . don't you remember when he put a towel over his toddler and then held him outside the railings of his hotel's balcony? (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 09:12 PM ...turning the in memoriam page of a man we all grew up with and cherishing him into the speculation of nefarious and sadistic wanton acts...it's a proud day (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:18 PM In reply to this comment (#2517437) @sampson m. "Denzel Washington best actor ever!"? Yea, don't think so. Denzel's a great actor but most definitely not the best. I could think of about 30 to 40 actors better then him. @snickerskicker God, you are an outright a**. I love how you think no one has the talent, charisma or intelligence to achieve success. What do you know about everyone on here? nothing! do you know if anyone has talent or charisma on here? no! Then you go on by saying "The way I see it, your family wouldn't lose anything if you were to drop dead of a heart attack as you read this." You are a douche! As far as Michael Jackson? Arguably one of the greatest musicians in the music industry & definitely a pop culture Icon. I don't think people can make entirely accurate judgement about Michael Jackson's personal life as well as you can't believe everything the media says. I don't know Michael Jackson the person but I knew the musician, the man was a prodigy as he made an impact in the music world let alone redefined the music video conceptualization. RIP Michael Jackson (the musician). Also someone said who has a heart attack at the age of 50? a ton of people. There is no time table or age on when someone can have a heart attack. It's pretty pathetic how everyone thinks everyone dies from drug related causes. It's just completely ignorant let alone just pure nonsense. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:24 PM The most famous name in the world has died. I BEEN ALL OVER THE WORLD...ASIA, EUROPE AFRICA AUSTRALIA AND AMERICA. Everybody knows the name MICHAEL JACKSON. Young and old (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:25 PM I was shocked when I saw rottentomatoes users defend the cinematic abortion that was Transformers 2, but now that I see these users making fun of a man hours after he passed away, I truly understand the level of intelligence of this lot. To put it in terms you people would understand: "OMG UR ****ING R3TARD3D n00bs WhY don't U all GO **** your own DICKS and SHOVE IT UP UR ******* to taste the ****!!!!!1!" Hope that helps illuminate what I think of the grand majority of people who post here. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:37 PM To all the boo-birds out there who are stirring up trouble: If you don't respect the man because of his personal life, that's your business. However, there are a lot of people here who grew up to his music and his videos, and have a lot of fond memories of their own lives reflected in them. It's fine if you don't respect Jackson, but at least show some respect to the people here who are coping with this. If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all. If you want to post just to draw attention to yourself, I suggest you find another topic to post a comment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 09:40 PM Even though throughout his life, especially near the end, he was faced with allegations that were hurtful and in the end were never proven, he still continued to do what he loved, and I personally believe that this should be taken into consideration. To all of you who shame him and judge him as someone who is unimportant - you are missing the point; because you do not judge someone based on how you think of them, you judge them based on the things the person has done, and the joy he has brought to others. It is quite rude, especially right after his death, to bash him. If you don't enjoy his talent, or himself, then just pay your respects and leave, there is no reason to critique a person, any person, so rudely. But hey, what do I know right? I'm just a kid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:01 PM It still amazes me how people cant comprehend that michael jackson cant be deemed the same type of weird as a 'normal person' bc he never lived or grew up like us so called 'normal people' ... dont any of u nay sayers understand that?!!? the only personal who could truly judge michael jackson's personal life and how he dealt with things would be a top of the line psychologist..... & even then, who is anyone to judge a man when he doesnt know all the facts and wasnt there when the actual events took place?!?!!? i never quite understood the hate and defimation towards this man when he was quite obviously a child at heart.........or he could have been fooling us all, but who are we to make that decision and choose who michael jackson reall was?!!? who are we to talk about his downfalls?!!? HOW WOULD U FEEL IF ANYTHING EVER TALKED ABOUT WHEN DISCUSSING YUR LIFE WAS ALL THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS AND NEVER THE POSITIVE WHEN THE POSITIVES OUTWEIGHED THE lik IF this man was guilty of anything it was of taking the art of music and popular culture and transforming it to something none of us will ever see again.....he sold over 750 million records worldwide, 2nd to only elvis as a solo artist.......his dancing has inspired everyone from all over the world...he was bigger than elivs as far as im concerned he was a god amongst men and people will look back at him in 100 to 300 years and read about him in the encyclopedias and how he changed contemporary Art forever and how he saved lives by donating to all of his charities.....He genuinely made people happy!!! P.S. the step father to the first child that acused him of child molestation came out and said the mother was making it all up and tryin to take michael straight to the bank, even the child came out and said michael didnt touch him like that!!!! what a sad world we live in, where we build up celebrities and then break them down to the point of suicide........... how many people do u know that could handle the media blitz on michael jackson?!!? 100s of people everyday kill themselves over far pettier things than what michael could have killed himself over...... the cardiac arrest is def from the media weighin down on him and basically murdered him.........now im rambling.....im done (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 10:06 PM Holy ****, America, and countries abound! Michael Jackson is and was an icon. He was the King of Pop and probably will be remembered as that. I have no disregard to that either! MJ was a musician that I listened to and loved growing up to. Despite all his controversy, I never once gave into the accusations of others. He might be Jack-O to some, but to me, he is Michael Jackson. He is an inspiration of dance, voice, and musical talent all around. I will forever miss him as I have for the last 10 years. With that said... yeah **** got out of hand for his life and everyone involved but it will never change the fact of who he is or was to the majority of us. I will miss Michael. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 10:10 PM Guess I can actually buy some of his music now. I didn't feel right supporting him financially. His work with the Jackson 5 and his Off the Wall album was revolutionary. The rest of his life seemed quite sad and inappropriate. I hope he's found peace. He was a talent even though the past couple of decades his persona became more important than the music. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:10 PM all you Michael Jackson bashers just got BLASTED!!!! (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 10:28 PM Wow, there sure are a lot of self-righteous, pretentious, cynical a$$holes on the thread today, ready to criticize and speculate on things that were never proven, only suspected. How will people remember YOU when you're gone, douchebags? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 10:45 PM In reply to this comment (#2517442) I completely agree with every word you just said arendr. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 25 2009 10:51 PM oh please. a man died. if i have the right to assess his legacy positively, i have the right to assess it negatively. i am not required to be sad when a person dies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 11:03 PM The world has official lost its collective mind. The celebration of the most famous child molester in history has begun. As a one time HUGE fan of his, I am saddened to see how a life that was so unbelievably talented became so incredibly tragic. No doubt something happened in his youth that turned him into a monster, but whatever happened to him as a child doesn't excuse his unconscionable behavior as a predator. And what is almost equally disturbing is that the world will look past that and remember him fondly just because he could sing and walk backwards. Unbelievable. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 11:11 PM Oh, and to those of you with amnesia defending MJ, it was Johnnie Cochran, yep the same attorney that got O.J. off despite the overwhelming evidence against him, who advised Michael Jackson to settle with the 1st accuser for $20 Million just to make the case go away. Why? Because Johnnie knew it was a case he could not win. But then again, I suppose you people think O.J. was innocent too, so what's the use? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 11:12 PM In reply to this comment (#2517399) MJ admitted to sharing his bed with children because he didn't see anything wrong with it!!! Children who weren't related to him in any way. That makes him scum. You or I being scum doesn't matter(I don't beleive either of us are.). You and I didn't engage in VERY questionable activities with children. I guarantee you that ANYONE who found out a man in their 40's was sharing a bed with their 12 year old, whether they slept fully clothed or not, would be outraged. Just because it's MJ and he had some good songs in the 80's and now he's dead doesn't erase that fact. It's not like we're dragging Mother Teresa's memory through the dirt here. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 25 2009 11:44 PM Michael Jackson was an incredible entertainer. Absolutely amazing, there will never be another that can touch his influence, his fan base, his talent, etc. He was thrust into fame as a child, and stopped maturing and devoloping psychologically. I don't think any of us can begin to judge his personal life until we have lived it. If you are honest with yourself, and not just an A-HOLE you know that is the truth. He is THE musical legend and he suffered for it... I pray he rests in true peace. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 12:13 AM In reply to this comment (#2517536) Way to be classy, this board is suppose to talk about Jackson's career and not "allegations" on his personal life. This really isn't the time or place to discuss your problems with Jackson. He is the King of Pop and he had an amazing career. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:05 AM To everyone saying "Another child molestor gone, big whoop." Please take note that he was found innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why? Every moment of his time with those kids was taped by a third party security firm. He never had a chance of being found guilty because, frankly he wasn't. It was just a stupid publicity stunt that backfired because he was found guilty in the court of Leno/Letterman. "But what about the first incident in '93?" The family recieved restitution for a promised donation M.J. went back on. In case you didn't know, they don't let you settle child molestation charges out of court. Not even in Calafornia. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:06 AM To everyone saying "Another child molestor gone, big whoop." Please take note that he was found innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. Why? Every moment of his time with those kids was taped by a third party security firm. He never had a chance of being found guilty because, frankly he wasn't. It was just a stupid publicity stunt that backfired because he was found guilty in the court of Leno/Letterman. "But what about the first incident in '93?" The family recieved restitution for a promised donation M.J. went back on. In case you didn't know, they don't let you settle child molestation charges out of court. Not even in Calafornia. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:45 AM ^Actually they changed the law in California AFTER Michael settled with the kid because the state realized that it was pretty much "have money? then you can do whatever you want to do to children and pay them off to avoid criminal charges." Michael was a creep, but I felt bad for him because I think his surreal childhood made him that way. He was definitely a troubled guy. But his music is what we should remember him for. Thriller kicks so much ***!!! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:27 AM In reply to this comment (#2517385) It's sad that his legacy will be so tarnished with the child abuse allegations and it's even worse that every band-wagon jumping moron out there thinks it's the funniest ****ing thing on the internet every time 'Michael Jackson' and 'children' get mentioned in a sentence. Had anyone bothered to look at the case objectively, the parents would be under heavy scrutiny and should be held in a more deplorable regard than Michael Jackson. He was an incredible, albeit deeply disturbed musician that impacted a lot of people's lives and gave to charity extensively. He should be remembered for the facts rather than the medias attempt to get a nation wide meme started. RIP Michael :( (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 03:20 AM I thought that we should've enjoyed the day a child molester died. But we celebrate this one because of how he revolutionised the music industry. Pop would be dead without old Wacko Jacko (actually, most pop songs now are crap anyway). I pay my respects to you, Jacko. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 04:14 AM ok ok first off for everyone claiming to know exactly what this discussion should be about-this is a movie site. should his music be fitting to discuss anyways? no so shush, people can say whatever because this topic is already out of place... and sorry BUT out of all the rich people in Hollywood how many poor money grubbing people are busy accusing them of touching their children? NONE I just love how all u fans feel like you know your precious michael and are so sure ALL THE kids are lying and good ol MJ is righteous...why? because he could sing and dance? Because you had fun at his concert when you were 11? and Im sorry but a negative side of someones life is just as much their legacy as the positive side. stop saying "Michael gave to charity" and "Michael was such a sweet person" I'm sorry to tell ya this but most child predators are very "nice" people in many other areas of their life. They aren't ugly trolls prowling around the park. DUH and then everyone says "he had such a terrible childhood" so what? almost all serial killers,sexual predators, and abusers had a bad childhood and I doubt you want to caudal them...but sh*t tell them to make a hit record and they can do whatever they want! That being said....I still like the songs "I'll be there" and "Ben" and guess what? I can still listen to them yaaaaaay! and it's sad, very sad that an icon was lost to the hearts of those that loved the idea of him and I'm sure even if he was a pedophile(most likely) he was still such a great person in so many other ways right? So lets forget about that very likely possibility and miss him....too bad if its true, those kids sure wont forget. YAY Thriller! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 04:38 AM Wow, once again the Rotten Tomatoes shows, with some exceptions, it's immaturity as well as it's blind belief in anything the tabloid media says. This knee-jerk adolescent cynicism that is becoming the RT's commumities stock and is becoming most tiresome. No doubt Michael Jackson was a disturbed individual who made some staggeringly dunder-headed descisions later in life but if you would actually do even the most cursory research, you would find the allegations of molestion are nothing more than attempts at extortion. You want to know a real monster? Try Evan Chandler the father of the first 'victim'. This was a guy who was $60,000 behind in child support payments, despite being a well paid dentist, who elicited a 'confession' from his while he, the son, was drugged and who, in a taped phone conversation, made it clear he was out to extort Jackson for as much money as possible. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 05:14 AM Forget tabloid journalism's suppositions. His own sister La Toya (with whom it is reasonably safe to assume knew Michael better than all the tabloids, you, me and the 'kids' combined) affirmed he was indeed a pedophile and had this to say in 1993: "I cannot and will not be a silent collaborator in his crimes against young children... Forget about the superstar, forget about the icon. If he was any other 35-year-old man who was sleeping with little boys, you wouldn't like this guy." (as quoted in Taraborrelli's 2004 book "The Magic and the Madness". It's also important to remember that his 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, was only given his $22 million settlement AFTER Michael Jackson's 25-minute strip-search revealed that the 13-year-old Chandler's specific description of Jackson's genitals (which includes "splotches" on his groin) matched the physical search. To avoid being charged, Jackson, after his Chandler's father, Evan Chandler, is a despicable opportunist--and he's on record proving as much, but that doesn't negate the fact that the boy's description of Jackson's private parts. If your child's description of another grown man's genitals was a match, wouldn't you be understandably hell-bent on destroying the alleged-pervert too? Because aside from his physical description, there was also explicit details of their alleged activities which are too graphic to discuss here. But as Chappelle once parodied: "He made THRILLER!" (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 06:32 AM I love Michael Jackson's music. I love his music videos. As a musician he is one of the best entertainers to have ever lived. The Wiz was terrible. His 10 seconds in MIB2 was the funniest part of the movie. Allegations, speculation, put all of that aside. What bothers me is that the media crucifies this guy for 10 years. A decade of negative spins, enough tabloid articles that could create a bonfire seen from Saturn. And now, suddenly, JUST because he dies, every media outlet in the country has done a complete 180 and is now praising him. If I see one more news anchor in a suit dancing to Billie Jean I will snap. If last week some new crazy Jack-O story hit the headlines, we would laugh and poke fun and bash him. And sure, some people would be offended, but not near as much as the dichotomy I'm seeing here. Again, JUST because he died. I'm not bashing him. I'm not praising him. It just bothers me that today we're supposed to treat him differently than we did yesterday. Screw that. Pretend like he died 10 years ago if you can't handle it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 06:38 AM In reply to this comment (#2517365) you are a total jerk for writing this stuff....if you're pissed off that it's being reported on a "film site" don't post about it!! god..... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 07:22 AM Some part of Michael Jackson was sacrificed for his talent. This could be something genetic that science has yet to discover, a universal rule, or possibly a choice by our maker. The bottom line is all truly talented people are afflicted with some form of social deficiency. Sadly, in modern times these deficiencies are magnified and exploited by society and the media. What a sad world to live in that we can no longer simply enjoy the magnificence and beauty of our most gifted and talented. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 07:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2517535) chewie louie: The fact that the parents took the money shows that the case wasn't real. If my children (yes, I am a father of two daughters) were molested by the richest man in the world, I don't care how much he offers me I'm going to make sure he's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He just wanted to make that one person go away, and after that the only reason people went after him was to get more of his money. If a parent can settle for money after their child was just abused than something is truly wrong with them, or it never happened (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:01 AM In reply to this comment (#2517622) Rodge d., What do you mean when you say "all truly talented people are afflicted with some form of social deficiency"? Does this apply to Phil Specter? OJ Simpson? Mike Tyson? Gary Glitter? And you're wrong to claim we all live in a world where we cannot enjoy the "magnificence and beauty of our most gifted and talented"; I still LOVE Michael's earlier music. His voice with the Jackson Five is astounding, no child singer before or since will ever match it. I still love watching Iron Mike's fight reels. And thank goodness Phil Specter became a music producer, because without him, where would the music of John Lennon, the Ramones and even Tina Turner be? Truly talented people are just as flawed as we are. For instance, Napolean was a dictatorial, megalomaniacal prick, but I like what he did for Parisian architexture. See the difference? There is a way to honor Michael's musical legacy without compromising the way we may or may not feel about his social "deficiencies". (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:09 AM In reply to this comment (#2517590) Devon B: You mean the splotches on his groin from his vitiligo? He had said back in the 80's that he had vitiligo, so if he really had it he would naturally have splotches on his groin. But I believe they've come out recently and said Michael never molested the child. And what would LaToya know, she's was practically disowned by the rest of the family back in the 80's, of course she's pissed and she's going to talk bad about them. What ever happened to the American way of innocent till proven guilty? I'm sorry but since he was proven innocent why do you people insist on bringing it up. The only reason it's wrong to sleep in the same bed with a child is because of the connotations it brings with it, if nothing happened then there's nothing wrong with it, and a jury of his peers chose that after hearing all of the evidence in a court you were present for. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:17 AM whitey, unfortunately you and others that have commented are not living in Neverland, you're living in Fantasyland. I wish the charges against him were false, but common sense demands otherwise. Aside from what I posted, did you not read anything Devon B, Jodieodie, Cicatriz and others posted? When Johnnie effen Cochran saw what he had up against his client, he KNEW he couldn't win so he told Michael to settle the case to make it all go away. It would have cost a lot less than $23 Million to try the case and he would have been exonerated. Since the driving force behind most out of court settlements are based on the making of a business decision (cost of settling now v. cost of paying what the jury awards) it simply makes no sense that he chose to settle, especially if he were truly innocent. I don't know about you, but if such a vile accusation such as child molestation were ever made against me, I would spend my last dime to clear my name. Wouldn't you? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:22 AM I feel sorry for you. And yes, it applies to all you mentioned. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 08:29 AM I'm not going to comment on the child molestation thing. That deeply disturbs me, but I don't think I can add anything to the conversations that hasn't been said a billion times already. I will however say that as a kid I enjoyed Jackson's music and music videos. I think he broke down barriers in music and TV. MTV originally didn't want to air him because he was black. It amazes me how far we have come as a society. That was in the 80's. It wasn't that long ago. I know some here don't remember this or maybe you weren't even born then, but damn, how much pop culture do you know? To the people saying, "this is a film site, who the f**k cares about MJ?" In case you forgot the guy worked with some of the most important people in the business, including my favorite filmmaker (and some of yours) Martin Scorsese. He also worked with John Landis (Thriller-best music video ever in my opinion)and Vincent Price (film legend) I think he has contributed to the film world enough to be mentioned here. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 08:38 AM Well said, JAKEofMIDWORLD I'll keep it simple...R.I.P. KING of POP :( (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 08:39 AM In reply to this comment (#2517633) Have you read the unsealed documents that detail that Jackson was advised to settle or face prosecution because the boy's description of Jackson's penis and scrotum was specifically confirmed in the subsequent 25-minute strip search? And Cochran advised Michael to settle because a) If the alleged victim accepted said payout, then Michael's PR team could then easily sell the whole debacle as a Chandler-fleecing scheme. And it's worked, because you've obviously bought it. b) Implying that a fleecing-scheme was the alleged victim's motive is an airtight 'defense' since the accepted $22 million settlement imposed a gag-order; ie, the victim could not discuss, give interviews, write memoirs, books etc to respond to the Jackson-hype train that followed. c) California law (something that the late-Cochran was fully aware of) had a loopole on court settlements and he knew this would help Michael avoid any prosecution, so Michael took advantage of it. Finally, your idea of what the victim's father did or should not have done as evidence (in your mind) that this vindicates Michael is completely subjective. Some parents of abused children would kill the alleged. Some might sue. Some might accepted millions of dollars. I don't see how the settlement vindicates Michael in any way. Fred Goldman, the father of Ronald Goldman, (whom OJ 'allegedly' killed alongside Nicole Brown Simpson) won a wrongful death suit against OJ in 1997 mandating that the estate of OJ Simpson must pay out over $33 million dollars. Using your logic, does this attempt to get OJ to pay Golman $33 million mean that OJ was innocent all along? (And OJ, like Michael, maintained his innocense but actually WENT to court, spent the bulk of all his money trying to clear his name, was tried by a jury of his peers, and was found innocent of all charges...something that Michael never even ventured in 1993). (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 09:31 AM To JakeofMidworld's point, Jackson certainly left a cinematic legacy, even if small in comparison to his musical contributions. And beside that, he was a pop culture icon. We'd be remiss to not acknowledge his passing. Moreover, we focused on the great directors he worked with (collaborations that not only bore influential music videos, but made significant contributions to the long form music video/short film genre). Scorsese, Coppola, Lucas, King, Winston, Singleton...it's all in the article. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:40 AM In reply to this comment (#2517633) Wrong, it was during his 1993 interview with Oprah that Michael Jackson made it publicly known that he allegedly suffered from Vitiligo. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 10:05 AM (Reply to this) |
on Jun 26 2009 10:16 AM Wow. I am a spawn of the 80's, of Generation X, if you will. Michael Jackson was the greatest performer of my childhood. His incredible skill led to his unbearable popularity, IMO, and lead to his strange personal habits. It happens to a lot of performers. If they get too popular, they kind of go cuckoo, if you you know what I mean. Can you think of one Mega-Superstar that hasn't? The Beatles? Madonna? Brittany Spears? Godhood is not meant for man. I will not bad-mouth Michael Jackson. I cannot understand everything that he did, nor do I like it all. But I know I really like his music. And that will never change. Rest in Peace, Michael. It is finally yours to have. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 10:18 AM BTW, if some of you on here think that RT posters are ignorant or legally retarded with their BS comments and judgments, you should go to the buzz up section of any given Yahoo article, especially anything to do with Obama, religion, or race issues. It is like hanging out with the most racist, arrogant, and stupid *******s you could possibly think of. If you read 95% of the comments on there you will get angry, and even though it doesn't do any good to post back to them it just makes you mad that there are people in the world that choose to be that dumb. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:04 AM May he Rest in Peace :'( (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 11:14 AM In reply to this comment (#2517693) Right on Sputnik. You're probably right about Michael's "strange habits". I for one do not think he needed jailtime for his [alleged] issues, (and assuming he was guilty) nor do I think of him in the same vein as I do your common variety pedo. The poor man needed a lot of therapy and counselling for his issues and it is clear that the media frenzy only magnified his problems. He was an amazing entertainer in every way shape and form and his music will remain a positive symbol of his legacy. However, his social/anti-social behavior is an entirely different subject. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 12:24 PM In reply to this comment (#2517631) Devon B: Actually, without Phil Spector the Let It Be album would have probably been better, and there were some work prints (I believe actually a full album) of Lennon's that never saw the light of day because Spector took them off somewhere and lost them. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 12:40 PM In reply to this comment (#2517636) chewie louie: You're right it would have cost a lot less to take it to court, you would have spent up to the last penny to be exonerated, them taking money rather than taking it to court show that he didn't do anything they just wanted money. He had said before, as someone pointed out earlier he had offered to give the family, went back on his offer, they filed charges, he paid the money he had promised before, and they withdrew. I'm sorry, but the fact that they accepted money either shows they don't care about the mental well-being of their kid or that he didn't do anything and they were just looking for money. I don't care how much you offer me, if my child was molested I'm going to seek to have you prosecuted to the highest extent of the law, and I don't know any other parents that would not do the same. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:08 PM I still hold to the idea that he was innocent. In that first case he had promised the family to pay the boy's doctor bills because he was suffering from cancer. He had the family flown to shows, the ranch, and to many other functions but that was not enough for them. They threatened to blackmail for more money but he withdrew his initial offer to pay for the hospital and doctor bills. They screamed pedophile and made a public circus of it to get more money, because they knew they could win with a frail boy with terminal cancer. And I do remember hearing the story of vitiligo back in the 80's prior to any of this happening, and describing a man's penis and scrotum isn't that hard to do. All other pedophile claims from other parents after this were just more ploys to get money. Michael Jackson had a lot of issues that needed to get cleared up (a lot of his eccentricities were fabricated by Michael and even phoned in to the tabloids by him in an effort to make sure that he always remained in the press) but I still don't believe that pedophilia was one of his problems. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:28 PM I didn't know him much (neither did the rest of the modern generation [kids]) but after seeing his videos I hope that people remember him as the great artist of his time and not a "scary rapist." RIP (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 01:29 PM The public may learn something by not ignoring Jackson's problems. At age 50, etc., it seemed to me immediately and now to others that drugs likely played a role in all of this. and, yes, he admitted being addicted to pain killers. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:29 PM In reply to this comment (#2517404) MJ is not OJ, he never beated anyone in his life and if you looked at MJ's early childhood he used to share the same bed with all his brothers and sisters since the Jacksons had no money. It really is the parents of those kids that are really taking advantage of him because of his wealth. He is just a 50 year old guy with a mind of a child. You guys are really sick thinking he could really molest any type of child. MJ should never got involve with someone else's kids, kids are in most cases start off rotten. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2517536) American EagleJRL You're should be very fortunate you weren't born in the 1930's recession living in China, I don't think you'd be saying those things unless you lived to be poor with only a single bed to sleep on. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 02:55 PM In reply to this comment (#2517576) jodiodi You stated the most dumbest line I had ever read, it's one thing to be accused of doing something if it could be proven. You're exactly like the people in the Crucible. In your mind if everybody's been accused of being a witch, then everybodys a witch. This is how facism gets started. They're alot of rich celebrities who are always being accused of doing something indecent since the days of Fatty Arbuckle and Charlie Chaplin. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 04:56 PM Dave J. First of all "you stated the most dumbest line I had ever heard" is actually one of the 'dumbest' examples of grammar I have ever seen posted here on RT... To quote another favorite movie of mine, let me just start by saying Dave that "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response[s] were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." But seriously dude, you need to read more closely..because the analogy to MJ and OJ had nothing to do with the crimes committed but with the $$$ that prosecutions in both cases pressed for on behalf of their clients, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Goldman. Can you understand the difference? I never said Michael was violent or a murderer. You may want to re-read what I posted...it sounds like it flew about 50,000 feet over your head. And it's clear that you are not the only one posting here that has NOT read the official legal transcripts related to the 1993 case...they were widely available on several sites including The Smoking Gun. The 'gag' order from the 1993 settlement was rescinded when Jackson went to trial for the same thing from a different accuser in 2004. The legal statements (previously sealed for almost 11 years) became public. I have read them. They are extensive. You have not read them. You are therefore ignorant of what those documents contain. And this is not a witch-hunt against Michael. It's a continual pursuit for the truth...and, with Michael's untimely death, the whole truth may never be known. Sure, his music was his true legacy and I count myself a lifelong fan, but this continual canonization of his character, this revision of 'who' he was is ridiculous. No one's perfect. People make mistakes. Perhaps the first and most important step to correct those mistakes made in the past is to understand that anyone, ANYONE is capable of making 'big' mistakes. Even Michael Jackson. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 05:32 PM You know, I notice a lot of people criticizing the media for turning around so quickly and praising him. Well, here's why, the media (and most of the general public) have spent the past 17 years or so analyzing every single part of his personal life. Now, incase you haven't noticed, they're for the most part analyzing his music and influence all across the world, and I think that's what we should be doing. Now is the time to reflect on the effect his music had on you and the people around you, not debate whether he was a pedophile or not. Let the man rest in peace, god knows he needs it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 06:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2517908) You're right. That may be what the media is doing for Michael (too little too late I think)...but when is the media ever worth emulating or even defending? I'm always suspicious of the ratings-driven media. They're the ring masters in this three-ring circus. Look...Michael's 'personal lifestyle issues' haven't been very well-defended with facts by the posters on RT for this forum. In contrast, there's some pretty damning evidence that has been presented here. I wished [earlier] that the negativity could at least be on hold until after they buried the man. But that has failed. The fact is I'm actually tired of hearing people venerate a deeply-talented but flawed man. Everyone from the major media outlets to Ashton Kutcher's Twitter tribute...it's already wearing out its welcome. I think as we all try to assemble our own 'biographical' portrait of Michael, some may choose to not only include his musical legacy on the world, but also the impact of his alleged private behavior. That is, unfortunately, what Michael's final years were marked with. But come on...never, ever trust the media. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:33 PM You racist *** crackers going to hell! RIP! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:47 PM frank F.: While I'm defending Michael, do you really think anyone has problems with Michael because he's black? If you think that you are quite ignorant. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 26 2009 09:55 PM In reply to this comment (#2517964) whitey: frank f. is an idiot. He dosen't care about Michael, he's just an attention whore. Frank f.: Thanks for the well thought out mail, ya loser. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 12:47 AM All those who dislike Michael for those allegations should take the time to separate the art from the artist. His music and moves were inspirational and brought together millions around the world, truly no boundaries. You may dislike the artist, but at least respect him for his art. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 27 2009 02:01 AM In reply to this comment (#2517380) I agree. The sad part about the hateful comments is that these "people" don't even care about child molestation- It's just a cozy blanket for them to spew hate under. All of them worship criminals, liars, murderers and hypocritical religious figures. Their voices are not to be heard but ignored. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:57 AM alrighty i don't know if i should really bother saying anything else because really.....why? OK Teagan: its so ironic that according to you, it's the "dislikers" that can't separate the artist from the art...? they are the ones that are! all the die hard fans who claim MJ as a saint and hope he finds his peace and they will miss him yatta yatta yatta are not separating the person from the art. They are letting the art effect there judgment call on who the heck the person is and whether or not they could harm someone. Good song=good memories=MJ is great and can do no wrong(and if he did i don't wanna know about it and it should not be mentioned). If I couldn't separate MJ from his art I wouldn't be able to fathom him doing the vulgar acts that are included in the descriptions of a pedophile... and Rex I'm so glad you know the motivation behind everyone who disagrees with you...WOW and by the way what u say doesn't even make sense....people that are disgusted with the potential pedophilia that took place somehow worship criminals,liars,murderers,and religious figures? what?! And i would think the people that don't care to look into the accusations/trials and question his innocence care far less about child molestation in comparison to the people who wont let go of the strong possibility that the accusations were true. I don't know how you could possibly make a case that they do not care about child molestation...silly silly silly "person" and BTW when people are acquitted, it is NOT a declaration of their innocence; it is a verdict that a Prosecutor failed to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me run that by you again DOES NOT PROVE INNOCENCE. and I forgot who the person was that keeps saying "oh well if it was my kid then I would do ___blank___ therefore it proves they are just after the money"....YES maybe the parents are rotten people that want money but yeah that is very likely considering they let their kid hang out with Michael. Frickin. Jackson. on good ol overnight trips. Just because you would fight for your kids doesn't mean there isn't a billion terrible parents out there that would settle..don't believe me? ask a social worker. Or maybe they knew that they could lose(its kinda hard to defeat a rich famous person)and it would be a looooong strung out court battle and they just wanted it to be OVER so that there kid can forget about MJ and all the magic things that took place in Neverland! picture this. your kid was abused. by a rich famous man that everyone adores. you go to trial and publicly accuse him. Paparazzi chase you. your case is all over the news. Fans hate you and violently make their feelings known by the millions. THEN you go home to your little boy or girl who is now not only a victim of sexual abuse, but now is a victim of hatred and slander. Is it so easy to say "hey WE are gonna fight this till the end!" no I wouldn't think it'd be an easy decision. maybe taking a larger amount of money then any of them have ever seen in their lives and moving on (as they would have to do regardless) seemed like a wise idea. Imagine being the kid that sent MJ to prison. Not pretty. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:59 AM @Devon B A few points: La Toya Jackson is not in any way a credible witness. Her claims kept getting crazier, cluminating with an acusation that MJ attempted to kidnap and murder her, until eventually she retracted everthing and said she was forced to make all those allegations by her spouse for financial gain. Now that may or may not be made of as much bull**** as the rest of her allegations but it certainly throws anything she says into question. As mentioned in the Taraborrelli book you referenced, the strip search of MJ noted that, while there were similarities, there was no exact match. Not saying that that is definitive proof of MJ's innocence but merely correcting your claim of an exact match to the child's description. That MJ choose to settle, note it was Evan who intiated negotiations, out of court is not an admission of guilt anymore than it is an admission of Evan Chandler's part that his son was never molested since he didn't choose to press charges against the man who allegedly molested his son. That's the most puzzling part of the whole thing to me. It should be noted that post-settlement the state choose to close the case due to a lack of evidence. It should also be noted that the mother of the child never believed he was molested. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:25 AM In reply to this comment (#2517605) I agree with what Confounded said. We all know MJ did great things and changed music, blah blah blah. That's not new to anyone currently living on planet earth. A few of our radio stations here were doing 24hrs of MJ music, these are the same stations that made fun of him during all of his scandals. I think it's kind of funny, but in an entirely unfunny way. As soon as someone in the public eye who has a lot of controversy surrounding them dies we all have to change our tune and talk about what a wonderful person he/she was. MJ is a kind of a paradox, his music touched so many lives and people can usually agree that he was a gifted artist, but when it comes to his personal life, he had an extremely polarizing effect. People either thought he could do no wrong and would picket and gather to show their support or they believed he was guilty. And it was hard for me at least, to believe he was innocent after the 1993 case because why would anyone with all the PR support that he had and fans and such, put themselves in a position to be accused of something like that again? What was his thought process?, "People think I molest kids, I should definitely have some over to my house and sleep in the same bed with them." If we can have a discussion about that while removing the "MJ" factor but instead think of him as just a man, then I think we can get somewhere. Hopefully. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:35 AM well said. I agree brent. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:40 AM In reply to this comment (#2518017) My last sentence is incorrect. The mother intially told police she didn't believe that MJ molested her son. I haven't found anything that suggests her view changed later and it may have but I think that should be noted. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 03:44 AM In reply to this comment (#2518017) Good points Runtun, But having read Devon's thread, nowhere has he said that Jackson WAS a pedophile and has carefully used the terms 'alleged' throughout. It's a responsible approach to not say conclusively either way. And hey, no Jackson sibling could be deemed a credible witness...they're all a little 'off the beaten path' from your average American family. I think most people are so repulsed by his proximity to children that the 'leap' to the allegations is easier for them to make...even if he was acquitted of all charges in 2005. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:05 AM ok here's a funny one....i will lose all credibility as far as being serious but who cares....for all you people that are SO SURE he was a loving gentle soul....would you have let your kids spend the night with him?..... LOL LOL LOL LOL NO! NO you would not! and that people, is your gut feeling and your gut feeling is so very right! congratulations! ON A SIDE NOTE: I think the nasty jokes flying around about pedophilia and his "plastic parts" are disgusting and don't help either side...that's just nasty people being nasty. I heard one today by someone i am a bit sad to call a friend "Given the fact that MJ was 99.9% plastic, his body has been melted into toys so kids can play with him for a change!" i keep hearing "jokes" like that and its revolting. not only does it make the idea that he fondled kids funny but it shows that the people who feel this to be at least a half truth don't really care that he possibly did ! and then the plastic surgery jokes WHOA ok that has nothing to do with their character or morals, that's making fun of a dead person because they struggled with their body image their entire life....really? really? is that so laughable? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:13 AM That 'leap' Tase is unfortunately part of a pattern of behavior that saw Jackson (as Brent L. excellently argued) despite the embarrassing debacle of 1993, turn around and continue to have children stay at his home, in his bed. That's not in dispute, he openly admitted as much to Martin Bashir's blindsiding interview. Most people agree that offending pedo's are statistically capable of repeating their offenses. Whether Jackson 'groomed' and abused the kids or not is between Jackson and (for those who 'believe') God. What's missing in this forum is the testimony from Jackson's former security guard who alleges that he witnessed Jackson in 1993 with Chandler performing 'acts' that are corroborated with Chandler's original legal statement (a statement that was 'sealed' as part of the settlement deal in 1993.) Michael's former security guard gave this testimony in 2004/5... What's disturbing is the coincidence of Chandler's graphic statement and the security guard's statement 11 years later. They are disturbingly similar, and exactly similar in other parts. And there was no corroboration from Chandler or the security guard prior. Part of the problem with taking the first case to trial is that, despite Chandler's statement, he refused to testify on the stand if the case were to go to trial. That was a key part of the prosecution's case. Without it, there was little more to go on than the two contrasting testimonies. The boy's description of Jackson's 'area' was substantial, but I doubt the state prosecution were interested in spending millions of taxpayer money to get Jackson on an 'indecent exposure' charge, a minor felony that probably would not have got him much jailtime at all. I mean, how much jail-time did Pee Wee Herman and George Michael get for their indecent exposure charges? It's also important to be aware that yes, Chandler's father did initiate settlement negotiations, but that Jackson (instead of automatically refusing then and there in order to go to trail to clear his name) did not refuse negotiating...and engaged in several counter-offers before Evan Chandler got greedy and threatened to go to trial unless Jackson upped the settlement offer. Then there's the boy's daily diary during his 'alleged' sexual encounters with Michael. This diary was detailed in journalist Victor M. Gutierrez's in 1996 where the young Chandler confirms the abuse in his own words. But the case was already settled and therefore inadmissible since no charges were filed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:20 AM Typo: Victor M. Gutierrez's 1996 book taken from the diaries of Jordan Chandler is titled "Michael Jackson was my lover: the secret diary of Jordy Chandler". It is available on Amazon.com...for an astounding $250.00 (probably out of print with limited copies...) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:27 AM In reply to this comment (#2518038) Any chance that the security guard read Gutierrez's 1996 book with Chandler's diaries prior to giving his testimony in 2004/5? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 04:38 AM In reply to this comment (#2518039) Good question. That's a very good question. The only way I would know is if I read the book myself to contrast/compare with the security guard's testimony. Alas, I don't have a spare $250.00 lying around... I would be surprised if the boy's diary details matched his legal statement in 1993 mainly because his official statement on record is filled with legalese jargon... Chandler was in love with Michael. This protestation of love is (obviously) not apparent in the legal statement...though I suspect it is a common theme throughout Gutierrez's book (I mean with a title like "Michael Jackson was my lover" it's not hard to imagine). (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 10:27 AM He was an entertainment powerhouse who's career spanned 4 decades - and he made some fantastic music - especially the very early work (Jackson 5, Off the Wall, Thriller). He made a huge impact on the music world. Like him or not, everyone knows/knew him - he was just that big/iconic. Unfortunately, to say that his private life was in shambles is a gross understatement. He lived in a strange reality/fantasy world & his behavior was often nothing short of bizarre (marriage to LMP, Bubbles, Neverland, Elephant Man, Hyobaric Chamber, etc). Not really publicity stunts - just a warped understanding of the world. The criminal trials and civil suits were a spectacle & marked the beginning of his downfall. Why are the rich so eccentric? Because they can afford to be I guess. Part amazing story, part disturbing & tragic... (Reply to this) |
on Jun 27 2009 01:47 PM its a shame he died. doesnt suprise me a cardiac arrest caused his death. just imagine the weight of all the problems he carried on his shoulders. nobody can argue that he was a very strange man. R.I.P mike. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 01:49 PM Some of these views are hilarious. I also wondered about the Latoya instead of Michael thing!!! Having been a kid during Thriller, it was one of the most exciting videos and songs around at the time - Glasgow wasn't the most happening of places then. Anyway, it is a bit sad that he's dead but let's be truthful and say that he will be most remembered for the negative things and the awful facial changes. It doesn't take away from the fact that he was musically very gifted and a great entertainer. It would have been interesting to see whether his up-coming concerts could have lived up to the past and current hype... but we'll now never know. RIP MJ. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:14 PM In reply to this comment (#2518008) Without question, one the dumbest posts I have ever read on the internet. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 02:44 PM Michael Jackson is a pop culture icon, a man with a great talent that gave a lot of great things to the world. Behind that icon you can find a troublesome person struggling with fame and money and a sad childhood. I have no info on his child abuse accusations, i can't take any side... all i know of him is his music. He is dead now, his music will live on... that's it. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 27 2009 02:50 PM I'm so indifferent about Michael dying - It sounds terrible I know. In my opinion he hasn't done any decent music for the last 20 years. I've never bought an album, and probably never will. Thats not to say I was immune to his presence. Throughout my childhood he was certainly very prolific, both on TV and Radio. I can't speculate on his private life but from his appearance and behaviour he was one of the most bizarre showbiz stars ever. Can I feel pity for him? If I say yes, and he molested kids, then I'm guilty of sympathizing with a paedophile. If I say No, and he was purely a child at heart, then I'm guilty of condemning a misunderstood, deeply troubled man. I think if all the accusations about his private life had never existed then I would be feeling a lot more sympathy than I'am now. Its hard to simply put aside all the "mud" that has stuck to him. I find it very sad that someone who has influenced pop music over the last 30 years is unable to be remembered simply as an pioneering musician. His private life will forever overshadow his musical legacy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 08:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2517351) Do parents not sleep with their children? Yes, they were not his children, but we do know his childhood. He was abused both verbally and physically at the hands of his father. He did not experience a happy childhood nor did he feel the love that a child should feel in order to prosper and grow. He overcame that and tried to show these children they were loved. Again, he was ACQUITTED of all charges for a reason. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 27 2009 08:07 PM In reply to this comment (#2518016) So you do not take into account evidence?! Thank you God that this person is not a judge! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:41 AM He was an amazing artist, dancer and performer. And he shall be missed. As for his personal life, nobody proved anything, and people should stop basing their opinions on half shown interviews on barely reliable news spots and tabloids. Nobody actually knows. So appreciate him for what everybody does know, and that's that he was the undisputed king of pop, and always will be. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 06:43 AM Compelling reading... This is the best article I've found on htt Some highlights: Michael could no longer sing or dance. Michael wanted to die. Michael may have been anorexic. Michael was 'drugged' by his enablers and coerced to commit to the grueling 50-concerts at the O2 Arena at Wembly (London). Michael loved young boys, but (according to this journalist) did not abuse them. Michael was a closet-homosexual (the journalist claims to have met and interviewed 2 of Michael's former and present adult-male lovers.) Michael's children were probably text-tube created (meaning they're most likely not even biologically related to him). Michael (and this is the respectful bit) set aside 200 unreleased songs to be used after his death to generate an income for his three children. Whether you agree with the above statements or not (I'm only the messenger) you will have to agree that it is well-researched. Have a read. It is a fascinating article. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 01:08 PM the greatest artist world has ever seen is gone. RIP MJ. we will remember you forever. you were the king of pop and king of our hearts. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 28 2009 02:44 PM the last curtain has fallen sadly earlier that we expected... we were so much hoping to see you rock the stage one more time! but now, we're deeply affected by the sudden death of a legend... the songs.. the dance... the moves... the emotions... the passion... even the outfits... all were so remarkable and sooo very 'Michael'. The least we could do is hope that someone will come close enough to the kind of talent you've shared... And now, as well, to start watching the concerts of other big stars live! (you never know).. Madonna... Bruce... Britney (?) Oh well... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 04:42 PM Our world is full of those with defiled judging hearts. This man has been apart of more charities than any other person, he gave all he knew, which was music, and put his heart and soul into it for the world to enjoy. who are we to judge any human being, you without sin throw the first stone. It is so easy to look at someones life and tell them what they are doing wrong, yet we all go on living our lives with our own demons. Michael Jackson was found not guilty on all charges, but because we can't see anything with a pure heart, we think that everyone is out there to get us, or to hurt people. No, I don't think Michael Jackson was perfect, but he was a person, who bleed just like all of us. It's hard to believe that people that get their whole meaning of life, and ideals from the media, think they know a person they never even met. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 06:23 PM In reply to this comment (#2518480) And it's hard to believe that your canonization of Saint Michael's life is rose-tinted even in his death. The man was a extraordinary individual with immense talent...but his predilection for spending time with young boys (curiously no mention of any girls are known to have spent nights at the Neverland Ranch in Michael's bed), drinking, and drugging himself to oblivion is well-documented and mostly by Michael's own admissions! And no, "This man has been apart of more charities than any other person" is wrong. I believe Princess Di has him beat many times over. So too does Bill Gates by the billions he's given away. And of course Michael's charitable activities were always sounded with a very loud and attention-seeking drum in his own honour too. Not too altruistic at all in my opinion. What about those who privately and discreetly give to charities throughout the world? How would you know if Michael gave more then they? Don't think for a second that Michael didn't reap good PR for his 'charitable' actions...it's seemingly worked its charm on you already. I think the late-Mother Theresa's lifelong service and charitable actions beats 100 lifetimes of Michael Jackson. And don't forget, Al Capone gave publicly and generously too to many Chicago-area charities. There are millions of Americans who are lying in the streets, homeless and hungry. Michael 'The Saint' Jackson lived lavishly, spent extravagantly and left his kids with a purported $400 million in debt. Only in death will his album sales now diminish his debts... For a 4-minute video on MTV, Guiness Book of World Records listed the $7 million Michael Jackson/Janet Jackson video as the most expensive ever made. Wouldn't that money have been better spent helping others? That's his choice, but suggesting Michael was more 'charitable' than any other person is a bit of an exaggeration. And finally, Michael was not, as you suggest "just like all of us." Far from it. He was a deeply confused, manipulated, and broken man. He was many things to many people. To suggest that an honest, fact-based assessment of Michael's life is merely the work of a "defiled judging heart" is stupid. Some comments on RT have been in poor taste, but others have been very fair and substantiated by facts. Keep it classy dude. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 28 2009 10:49 PM In reply to this comment (#2518520) That is an interesting response, and very good, but what are these facts that you speak of. These are articles from the media. Like I said he is not perfect, he obviously had problems. The fact that those who knew him best considered him to be a 12 year old boy in the body of a man says a lot. He didn't think like us. I'm not trying out to make him a saint, but who's to say the way the world views him is in the correct light. I just don't believe in judging people, especially people you don't know, people you observer from a distance. Can you say you know how it feels to be a professional football player cause you watch Monday night football, or because you listen to the interviews of players who talk about it? And by what I mean by defiled heart isn't mean anything bad, all our hearts are defiled. Our views are all different, because of our experiences. What the world lacks is understanding, we don't try to understand people, we just like to label them. So your honest fact based assessment is far from fact if all you are getting is hear say, or reading a tabloid. Plus this is a blog to say our respects. You don't go to a funeral to bad mouth someone, so why on a blog paying your respects to a person would you slander them, when their dead. That is keeping it classy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 03:33 AM No Ronnie, it isn't "all...here say". Try reading the court documents. Take a look at the court transcripts. That's not tabloid journalism. That's substantiated, legal statements. And Michael himself, not tabloid journalists, has done the most damage to his reputation. Though it was slimy, Martin Bashir didn't coerce Michael to admit to the world that he has young boys (again, NOT little girls) sleep in his bed for sleepovers. Michael freely celebrated that fact... That isn't slander to repeat Michael's own words here, or cite the legal 'unsealed' court statements. It's called the 'truth' and I'm sorry if in your posthumous praise of the man the 'truth' got in your way. Look, I've never called him a pedo. Though enough evidence exists to suggest he was, not enough exists to prove he was. That's an important distinction here. Some people find it hard to adore a God who isn't physically present. It's easier to 'worship' a corporeal individual. Once 'worship' or 'devotion' to an individual is decided, it becomes a lot easier to ignore the character flaws. Jim Jones and David Koresh probably started out with the best of intentions, but by the time those intentions changed, it was too late for their 'followers' to see character flaws that would have literally saved their lives. This is a truly extreme analogy...I admit that, but there is a similarity in the almost blind-adulation from some over Michael. Remember how widespread the public's support for OJ was when he was charged with the murders? The freeways lined up with thousands of his supporters as he fled from police in LA. Though he too was acquitted, the court case still presented enough truth (even if the jury was too dumbfounded to 'get it') that many of those supporters have since 'seen the light'. But, unconscionably, every now and then, I'll come across a fervent believer, an OJ-acolyte who still hopelessly holds a flame to his innocence. I ask if they watched the trial, read the statements. (The one I spoke to) wasn't interested in the 'truth', they had already decided long ago that the great footballer on the field translated off the field too, no matter what. He wasn't interested in anything else. Michael was a genius performer. But that man 'died' a long time ago. If you like sugar-coating someone's legacy regardless of the truth, I recommend stopping by the funerals of recently deceased from the Death Rows of America. I'm sure you wouldn't be stunned to hear some stirring, uplifting eulogies. You can say something good about anyone in my opinion, because I think there's some good in everyone. But this forum isn't Michael's funeral. The Jackson family won't be collected our thoughts here to share as part of a eulogy. It's a discussion on Michael's legacy in the entertainment world, his impact on pop culture and beyond. Some of that impact is negative. That deserves mention just as much as his positive impact too, because it's called the 'truth'. It's supposed to set you free. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 29 2009 07:22 AM In reply to this comment (#2517351) "Nobody could prove he molested them. He admitted to sleeping in the bed with children. As far as I'm concerned, that's just as bad." -- My good friend's little girl has fallen asleep in her father's bed numerous times while he's reading or watching TV with her. That's quite a blanket statement. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 08:17 AM In reply to this comment (#2517343) To Jetta Jameson : Another child abused gone, period. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 10:42 AM In reply to this comment (#2517654) Devon B, I've read everything on this case and you're full of ****. While there were similarities to the description that Jordan Chandler gave of Jackson's genetalia, there was NO SPECIFIC MATCH The rest of your "facts on the settlement" are complete speculation on your part. The father was CLEARLY after money that Jackson was refusing him and was even caught on tape saying that he was going to "destroy" Jackson if he didn't play ball. The settlement vindicates Jackson because the family took the money and ran, has 2 homes in New York and California, and Jordan lives in some multi-million dollar house in Long Island with his name changed. Glad to see the family cares so much about what happened. Finally, your comparison of OJ and Michael Jackson is purely ignorant. Jackson settled out of court, which the family LOVINGLY accepted. Goldman obtained the money from a wrongful death suit which OJ WAS responsible for. On top of that, OJ was guilty with overwhelming evidence that should have put him behind bars. The only reason he wasn't put behind bars was because Johnny Cochran turned it into a race issue to distract from the evidence provided by Mark Fuhrman. There's absolutely little to no evidence that Jackson did anything to children. Sorry. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 11:33 AM In reply to this comment (#2518821) No Tobasco, You're full of sh**. And the Michael-was-god hype train is shoveling it in your awe-struck gob. The settlement vindicates NOTHING because the allegations never materialized into a trial. Michael settled and California State law made it (at the time) illegal to proceed further. Chandler refused to take the witness stand, despite his statement, and the prosecution were dependent on his doing so. That the father took the money gave Michael virtual immunity to progress further and they dropped the case. Settlements are NOT equatable to innocence. Do you know anything about trail law? Anything basic? Settlements don't equal justice. Up until the Jackson debacle in 1993, in California they enabled the subversion of it. The law changed to stop people, (like Michael Jackson) from avoiding trial with huge payouts. A lack or complete absence of vindication is another reason why California law changed to stop protecting wealthy people from throwing money at their problems/allegations to make them go away. No, my comparison to OJ's wrongful death suit payout of $33 million is NOT ignorant. I was responding to another post where it was claimed that the money taken by Chandler meant Jackson was innocent. I cited the poster's logic of "money-exchanging-hands equals innocence" and used OJ's situation. I know the difference between out-of-court settlements and wrongful death suits. The analogy was to illustrate a point that the PURSUIT OF MONEY against a defendant does not equate with the defendant/accusees' innocence. Does this make sense to you, or has that gone over your head as well? No one here defends Evan Chandler's motivations. He's a despicable man by all accounts. Regardless of his credibility or motives, Jordan Chandler vs. Michael Jackson never went to trail. Rather than try to clear his name, Michael paid millions to make it go away. And what did Michael learn? NOTHING. He proudly continued to share his bed with prepubescent boys, and ONLY boys. No one's going to give him any credit for common sense. And if you think a grown man sleeping/spooning/cuddling, or whatever else with underage boys unrelated to him does not suggest impropriety...then what are you saying? Since Michael did it, should this now be the norm for everyone then? NAMBLA might agree with you, but the rest of the 'sane' people still left in the world will resoundingly disagree. Again...I have NOT called Michael a pedo. That's for the courts to decide. But the allegations against Michael in 1993 never went to trial...so that will always hang over him regardless of how much he paid out. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 11:43 AM In reply to this comment (#2518821) Uh...settlements don't vindicate the accused dude. You know that, right? Doesn't everyone? (Reply to this) |
on Jun 29 2009 11:48 AM Eh, he was one of the best.. The whole child molesting thing made him look really bad and made people no longer respect him. The plastic surgery pretty much made him a fake person. Wonder if they have found out whether he was on drugs or not.. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 12:04 PM In reply to this comment (#2518890) They supposedly found 'em dude. Read htt (Reply to this) |
on Jun 29 2009 12:43 PM In reply to this comment (#2517385) I only feel sorry for his kids not for him, death is a part of life. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 12:48 PM In reply to this comment (#2518890) But then there's this http I'd probably choose the second source over the first. I have this thought: People on this forum and elsewhere have proclaimed that Michael's biggest alibi for his innocence over all the allegations is is childlike mentality and his inability to grow up, a veritable Peter Pan literally living in his own Neverland... But that's a steaming pile of crap. He was constantly touching his crotch suggestively a lot in his videos. That doesn't seem too childlike or innocent to me. And then there's his marriage to Lisa Marie...the dude actually married a woman. They even made a provocative video together, half-nude most of the time...that didn't exactly reek of innocence or childlike demeanor. And Lisa Marie reported that they enjoyed an active sexual life together where they both drank alcohol and had a grand ole time for awhile. That doesn't sound childlike to me. Or innocent. That sounds very adult. So which is it? When he's with the kids for the sleepovers suddenly he's 'Innocent' Michael. When he was with Lisa Marie, he was 'Sexual, drinking' Michael. I think everyone is picking the Michael they like best and going with that. I think (like others here do) that he was a little of both, which makes it pretty creepy to be hanging out with all those boys after his divorce to Presley...creepy indeed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 01:17 PM In reply to this comment (#2518875) Hey Devon... I don't think Jackson is a "God". You like to put words in the mouths of the people who are sad to see him go, don't you? Really? Doesn't vindicate him? Instead of going for the jugular and saying, "The hell with your money", Evan Chandler accepted a payout (after HE decided to negotiate, no less), took the money and split. He made himself rich, his son rich, and has access to Jordan's funds, too, just in case he wants to dip in. I might add that there were no charges filed. Why? Lack of evidence. You know the difference between OJ and Jackson. Goldman was after OJ, not money. Evan Chandler wanted CASH. The two men have two COMPLETELY different motives. Ironic, really. Evan and Goldman are on completely different sides of the spectrum and the defendant on both sides are guilty/not-guilty. I also don't feel that anyone sleeping next to underage kids is normal unless you're a parent. I never made the suggestion that it was "normal behavior". However, that being said, two people being in the same bed regardless of age is NOT an illegal act. I have watched other people's children (I have many friends who have kids) and have fallen asleep on a couch, under blankets with them watching movies...does that make me a child molester? Don't think so. I used to watch movies with my uncle when I was a child and I used to snuggle in his arms and fall asleep. Does that make him a molester? No, it doesn't. To you, the mere suggestion of an adult and child occupying the same sleeping space is immoral and wrong. You see things in black-and-white. That isn't the way things work and that's how public opinion is shaped. It's either one way or it's another and there's no in-between. Lastly, so what if it never went to trial in 1993? There's a reason: no suitable evidence and Evan Chandler initiated and negotiated a settlement because that's all he wanted in the first place: MONEY. I like your logic, though: just because somebody is accused of something, regardless of the accusation being true or false, doubt will always be cast over that person. I wish I was as simple-minded as you. So, if I met you and you watched my children and I just decided to accuse you of pedophilia and I turned it into a national case, going in front of cameras and TV news crews to spread the word...even though I KNOW you didn't do it and the evidence is next to nil and we didn't go to trial, people would STILL look at you like you did it. What a WONDERFUL country we live in. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 01:28 PM "Really? Doesn't vindicate him? Instead of going for the jugular and saying, 'The hell with your money'" What stopped Jackson from saying, "the Hell with your allegations, they're not worth a penny of my estate, I'll fight the allegations in court and clear my name"? Chandler's statement talks about oral sex in a hottub with Michael. Michael's former security guard also claims to have witnessed the same act with Michael and the same boy in Michael's hottub. It might be something if this was merely a case of the boy's testimony vs. Michael, but some of the odd behavior was purportedly observed by others as well dude and in the 1993 case those testimonies/statements were not proven false. They were just 'settled'. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 01:42 PM In reply to this comment (#2518943) Tase: Don't really disagree on any particular point...just a small note for you: The video "You Are Not Alone" was inspired by Max Parrish's 1922 painting, "Daybreak". It's hardly "provocative" so much as it's a work of art that's been beautifully reproduced. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 01:56 PM In reply to this comment (#2518960) "What stopped Jackson from saying, 'the Hell with your allegations, they're not worth a penny of my estate, I'll fight the allegations in court and clear my name'?" Talk about missing the point entirely. Had there been sufficient evidence, it WOULD have gone to court but there was none. When Jackson offered cash to settle things, the father mysteriously TOOK it. Oh, interesting footnotes: 1) The father wanted cash before this, was behind on child support payments, and is recorded as saying he was going to destroy Jackson with "the toughest son of a ***** lawyer" to do it. 2) Evan used a out-of-practice truth serum to get Jordan to "confess" to things that Jackson did, a serum that most doctors don't even use. 3) Jordan's mom (Evan's wife) denied that Jackson did ANYTHING wrong from day one. Why is that? "Chandler's statement talks about oral sex in a hottub with Michael. Michael's former security guard also claims to have witnessed the same act with Michael and the same boy in Michael's hottub." Ah! The confession again! And is that the same security guard who, INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE POLICE, decided to tell his story to HARD COPY for $150,000? "It might be something if this was merely a case of the boy's testimony vs. Michael, but some of the odd behavior was purportedly observed by others as well dude and in the 1993 case those testimonies/statements were not proven false. They were just 'settled'." Oh, please. Most of these people went to the tabloid journalists for cash, including a maid. If they were serious, they would have gone to the police. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 03:56 PM In reply to this comment (#2517895) Devon B. I may have misunderstood what you stated and anyone else reading what you have written and has read maybe the first few lines or sentences. And no I have not read the legal documents but you don't seem to have any conclusion as a result after reading the legal statements, or are you just rambling as well. First you bring OJ 's name into this at a time when people should be mourning, and MJ 's death is untimely,then expect other people to put the time to understand what you've written. That's real classy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2518950) %u201CTwo people being in the same bed regardless of age is NOT an illegal act.%u201D I quite agree. %u201CI used to watch movies with my uncle when I was a child and I used to snuggle in his arms and fall asleep. Does that make him a molester? No, it doesn't.%u201D Of course not. But let%u2019s take your analogy a little closer in comparison to Michael%u2019s situation. Let%u2019s say your Uncle wants you to start coming over to his house for all-nighters. And they%u2019re not once or twice a year. He%u2019s asking your parents a lot. There. Fixed it for you. Now your analogy is a little closer to Michael%u2019s. But we're not quite there yet, so let%u2019s get a bit closer. Let%u2019s say your Uncle was accused (though it never went to trail, and everything was settled out-of-court) of molestation from having another boy at his home all the time for sleepovers. If it%u2019s my kid, regardless of family, I%u2019m going to start asking questions. Those questions are not fixed %u2018facts%u2019 neither are they empirical signs of a crime. They%u2019re cautionary questions that are worth asking: Why is a grown man so eager to have children over for sleepovers? Now let%u2019s say that in the end, your Uncle was just lonely and there was never anything untoward going on after all. Would your parents have been in the wrong to start asking questions? Would they have been out of line to start asking you questions about %u2018what%u2019 is going on during those sleepovers? I don%u2019t think so. That would be responsible parenting, a trait severely lacking with the parents who allowed their kids to stay at the Neverland Ranch in the first place. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:15 PM Damn you Bill Gates. Microsoft Word bugged again. Let me re-post. Disregard post. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:18 PM "Two people being in the same bed regardless of age is NOT an illegal act." I quite agree. "I used to watch movies with my uncle when I was a child and I used to snuggle in his arms and fall asleep. Does that make him a molester? No, it doesn't." Of course not. But let's take your analogy a little closer in comparison to Michael's situation. Let's say your Uncle wants you to start coming over to his house for all-nighters. And they're not once or twice a year. He's asking your parents a lot. There. Fixed it for you. Now your analogy is a little closer to Michael's. Now let's get a bit closer. Let's say your Uncle was accused (though it never went to trail, and everything was settled out-of-court) of molestation from having another boy at his home all the time for sleepovers. If it's my kid, regardless of family, I'm going to start asking questions. Those questions are not fixed 'facts' neither are they empirical signs of a crime. They're cautionary questions that are worth asking: Why is a grown man so eager to have children over for sleepovers? Now let's say that in the end, your Uncle was just lonely and there was never anything untoward going on after all. Would your parents have been in the wrong to start asking questions? Would they have been out of line to start asking you questions about 'what' is going on during those sleepovers? I don't think so. That would be responsible parenting, a trait severely lacking with the parents who allowed their kids to stay at the Neverland Ranch. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:24 PM In reply to this comment (#2518875) Devon B. you 're suggesting that MJ is a pedophile, you don't have to say it, and now you're doing your darndest to make sure people who want to mourn to know this, is very cold. Your suggestions and whatever you want people to know about him couldn't be taken at a better time than now. you're a real cold SOB. And I don't agree with what you said about 'the truth could set you free' since everybody is guilty. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:30 PM Dave I apologize if my mentioning of OJ at a time when you are in mourning has upset you. OJ was mentioned as a passing analogy to illustrate a point, but then that point soon took on a life of its own. You earlier thought I was comparing OJ's crimes to MJ's, which was misread on your part. I tell you what, I won't mention OJ anymore in this forum from now on, m'kay? I recommend that you read up on those documents as Tabasco, Tase and a few others seem to have done. It will make your posts appear more informed. Apologize if you have been confused by my posts. They're not for everyone. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:33 PM In reply to this comment (#2519073) Calm down Dave. If you don't like what I have to say, then just stop reading and go back to your mourning, m'kay? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2518975) "Talk about missing the point entirely. Had there been sufficient evidence, it WOULD have gone to court but there was none." No, you've missed my point COMPLETELY. All Michael had to do was refuse to settle, and the matter would have done one or two things: 1) The father would shut-up about it [not very likely] or 2) The father would have pressed charges based on the sworn statement already given by his son. Dude, where are you living? There are hundreds of court cases being tried all over America where there is INSUFFICIENT evidence available. You should know that. And once the boy's father collected the cash and left...what lawyer dumb enough would even step into a courtroom to bother trying it? All the defense would have to say is "Your Honor, the alleged victim's family collected a huge settlement and by the father's own admission (exhibit A, the 'taped' discussion with Evan Chandler) money was the prime motivator. We ask that this case be dismissed." The boy's statement, coupled with his "strong similarities between Chandler's description and Jackson's body" (paraphrased from J. Randy Tarabelli's book "Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness") would be ENOUGH evidence to go to trial. Trust me, people go trial everyday in America with far less to work with. Most molestation cases are very hard to try to begin with. Rape is even harder. Perhaps Jackson wasn't a pedo. But he may well have been on his way with his odd behavior. I hope not. I loved the dude's music. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 29 2009 04:57 PM In reply to this comment (#2519073) It's a bit troubling to learn today that Michael's parents have now filed for custody of Jackson's kids. Didn't they do a real bang-up job the first time around? Those poor kids. Hopefully Joe Jackson has permanently misplaced his belt... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 09:59 AM "Two people being in the same bed regardless of age is NOT an illegal act." I quite agree. -- Thanks for agreeing with my point. That invalidates all the stupid hypothetical scenarios you had regarding my uncle. You also vindicated Jackson at the same time. :D As far as the other stuff goes, be a good parent and don't leave your children alone with somebody with a slightly questionable past. Even if your instincts say, "I believe him", do the right thing. Ain't that hard. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 10:43 AM In reply to this comment (#2519092) "No, you've missed my point COMPLETELY. All Michael had to do was refuse to settle, and the matter would have done one or two things: 1) The father would shut-up about it [not very likely] or 2) The father would have pressed charges based on the sworn statement already given by his son. The boy's statement, coupled with his "strong similarities between Chandler's description and Jackson's body" (paraphrased from J. Randy Tarabelli's book "Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness") would be ENOUGH evidence to go to trial....Dude, where are you living? There are hundreds of court cases being tried all over America where there is INSUFFICIENT evidence available. You should know that. Trust me, people go trial everyday in America with far less to work with." A sworn statement that was pulled from the child using Sodium Amytal, which was and STILL is considered a mind-altering substance and makes the user susceptible to suggestion? Good luck with THAT! :D LOL... Yeah, once again...INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. You know that there's something called a "preliminary hearing" where evidence is presented to the court in order to determine if a full on court battle is needed, right? This case with a confession pulled from mind-altering chemicals and a no-match description of the offender's genitals and a Mom who said he didn't do it AND the phone record of the father saying he was going to destroy Jackson wouldn't have gone anywhere. Guess again. And I think you're getting "circumstantial" and "little to no" evidence mixed up. Jackson's falls under "little to no". You need to get your facts straight. You keep saying "strong similarities" but you aren't mentioning that there was no definite match which is surprising, considering that Taraborrelli (not "Tarrabelli"; you can't even get the author's name right) ALSO WROTE THAT IN HIS BOOK...but you just neglected to mention that, didn't you? "And once the boy's father collected the cash and left...what lawyer dumb enough would even step into a courtroom to bother trying it? All the defense would have to say is "Your Honor, the alleged victim's family collected a huge settlement and by the father's own admission (exhibit A, the 'taped' discussion with Evan Chandler) money was the prime motivator. We ask that this case be dismissed." It didn't even go THAT far because the father wasn't INTERESTED in a court battle. Instead, HE (read HE) was the one who instigated the final negotiations and Jackson finally caved. "Most molestation cases are very hard to try to begin with. Rape is even harder." Yeah, you need strong evidence, not the tripe we saw in '93. "Perhaps Jackson wasn't a pedo. But he may well have been on his way with his odd behavior. I hope not. I loved the dude's music." So everyone with odd behavior is a pedophile? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 01:27 PM "You need to get your facts straight. You keep saying "strong similarities" but you aren't mentioning that there was no definite match which is surprising, considering that Taraborrelli (not "Tarrabelli"; you can't even get the author's name right) ALSO WROTE THAT IN HIS BOOK...but you just neglected to mention that, didn't you?" Taraborrelli, Tarrabelli, Tagliatelli, Rigatone, Minestrone...(yawn)...who cares what the spelling of his last name is? You're probably the only one. If you want to cling to that...go ahead, you're clinging to everything else to begin with. And, TARABORRELLI (happy now Mr. Spellcheck?) has been Michael's personal friend for over 30 years. The Wikipedia page about this whole 1993 case is peppered with his contributions. I won't accuse you of depending on Wikipedia for your sources (because you'd and anyone else would be embarrassed to admit it to begin with), but most of your points bear a striking similarity to that page, and Taraborrelli's influence is all over it. That doesn't make Taraborrelli's contributions (from his biography on Michael) invalid. But his proximity and personal relationship with the singer indeed compromises his bias. But putting all of that aside, even Taraborrelli concedes (in a book where he's expected to vindicate Michael) that there are 'strong similarities' to the boy's description of Jackson's genitals. You've already made your mind up about Jackson's innocence so my discussion with you is officially moot. But for anyone else bothering to read, let's walk away from Wikipedia's page and go to something more reputable. The Smoking Gun shares details CURIOUSLY omitted on the Wikipedia page. They are: (Here's a more accurate and helpful timeline not surprisingly missing from Wikipedia...) 1.) After administering the controversial 'truth serum', the father, Evan Chandler, confronted Michael about the allegations to his face. It's interesting that Michael did not give an answer to the allegations, nor did he deny the allegations. 2) After the Jackson encounter, Evan Chandler had Jordan Chandler visit a Child Psychologist. During his session with the Child Psychologist, the younger Chandler related that he and Michael engaged in kissing, oral sex and masturbation. 3) Evan Chandler then had Jordan Chandler make an official police statement. That police statement would soon engender the Santa Barbara Sheriff Department's involvement... 4) Then Evan Chandler started negotiations with Michael for a cash settlement. And Michael was an active participant, with the advice of Johnnie Cochran, in those negotiations. Those negotiations continued unsuccessfully... 5) During the ongoing negotiations, based on Chandler's police statement, Santa Barbara Sheriff Deputy Deborah Linden secured court permission to photograph Jackson's genitals (in an attempt to corroborate Chandler's statement). The boy's sworn statement describes [graphically] the following 'features' about Jackson's genitals: a.) "Splotches", one on Jackson's buttocks b.) another 'splotch' on the tip of Jackson's penis "which is a light color similar to his face." c.) Said 'splotch' on tip of Jackson's penis was only visible during erection. [And here is the IMPORTANT part of that statement...in the affidavit by former-Sheriff's Deputy Deborah Linden, the photograph session took place at the Neverland Ranch, and that throughout the entire photo session, no one physically touched or handled Jackson throughout...which begs the question...'how' did they or didn't they corroborate the 'splotch' on the tip of his penis? Unless he was erect for the session, which is dubious, how would they corroborate it or not?] After the photo session, according to The Smoking Gun, "It wasn't long after law enforcement's photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim for north of $20 million." So the negotiations were not going anywhere until AFTER the photo session. Once the photo session took place, Jackson quickly and quietly settled. And since this was a civil court issue, my guess is that if Chandler's negotiations against Jackson had indeed failed, he would have filed a lawsuit against Jackson on behalf of his son to seek damages anywway in court. The California District Attorney's office (run by the notorious Tom Sneddon) may have had the option to file The State of California vs. Michael Jackson, but without the testimony of Jordan Chandler (who refused to take the witness stand in any court against Michael) coupled with the 'settlement' and the current law of California that prohibited trying a defendant who had already settled out of civil court, there was a legal roadblock to proceed. (This may explain why Michael settled so quickly to stop Sneddon from taking him to state court...) Though Sneddon's character is polarizing, regarding the photo session in 1993, the Smoking Gun shared "In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler's pre-search description (and a drawing) "corroborated" photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence." Whether Sneddon's statement was 'tripe' or not, should have been for a jury to decide. But that was impossible once Evan Chandler received the money which brought an end to the Civil court case. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 01:29 PM Correction: "That doesn't make Taraborrelli's contributions (from his biography on Michael) invalid. But his proximity and personal relationship with the singer indeed compromises his bias." Should have been: "That doesn't make Taraborrelli's contributions (from his biography on Michael) invalid. But his proximity and personal relationship with the singer indeed may compromise his objectivity." (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 01:52 PM "Thanks for agreeing with my point. That invalidates all the stupid hypothetical scenarios you had regarding my uncle. You also vindicated Jackson at the same time. :D As far as the other stuff goes, be a good parent and don't leave your children alone with somebody with a slightly questionable past. Even if your instincts say, 'I believe him', do the right thing. Ain't that hard." How did I vindicate Jackson with your analogy? I could have taken your analogy the other way and claimed that your parents suspicions about your Uncle were dead-on and that all those sleepovers resulted in your continual molestation. I was actually trying to be respectful since you used a member of your own family to illustrate your point. And I'm intrigued with your ADMISSION that Jackson had a 'slightly questionable past' which should have served as a deterrent for parents leaving their children with Jackson. He sure did. The kind of 'questionable past' that should have scared parents from letting Jackson spend any time with him alone at the Neverland Ranch to begin with. You tried%u2014and failed spectacularly to make your earlier point with the flimsiest of analogies that bore little semblance to Jackson%u2019s situation to begin with. A random snuggle with your Uncle is equal to Jackson calling and calling and calling the child's parents to request sleepovers in his own bed? LOL%u2026 By admitting Jackson had a 'slightly questionable past' you%u2019ve completely contradicted your whole diatribe in defense of Jackson. Nicely done! I mean your analogy was so laughably out-of-whack, I actually had to fix it for you. LOL. Those suspicions about Jackson%u2026based on his 'slightly questionable past' are not wrong to have which is what I've been banging on about in my posts. Tase is right. You must be using Wikipedia. You%u2019ve shared nothing 'new' in your defense about Michael that isn't already there. And Tase nailed you again: You're saying there's "little or no" evidence against the case in 1993? Sneddon%u2019s 'sealed' testimony, even if you personally think Sneddon's full of crap, says completely otherwise. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 01:53 PM Damn you again Microsoft! (Reply to this) |
on Jun 30 2009 02:24 PM I didn't know much about Michael's 1993 situation...so quite by accident I went looking for info on it, I got routed to Wikipedia, which I've read all the way through. TABASCOMAN77, Tase and the others are right. You're using Wikipedia through and through. You gotta stop using Wikipedia for your arguments...that weakens everything you're trying to say. (Reply to this) |
on Jun 30 2009 02:47 PM Wiki-alert on Tabasco indeed! I'm surprised it took so long to call him on it... Wikipedia isn't nor shall it ever be the Oracle of all truth online. For shame Wiki-lover! I for one loved Michael, warts and all. I don't care if he was a pedo or not. And neither should anyone else. RIP King of Pop...who 'popped' til he dropped. :( (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 04:04 PM The information regarding Jackson's '93 allegations are everywhere, not just Wikipedia. Taraborrelli's books matches what the news reported and is recorded as such on Wikipedia. As such, I consider The Smoking Gun website to be invaluable because it does have some great information...HOWEVER, I don't like the commentary because then it turns into a tabloid of he-said, she-said...in fact, the site's design looks just like that...which includes a great big red 48-point font title, "THE CASE AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON". So you can talk about bias, but there's also bias in running tabloid commentary. There's also a problem with TSG: The fact that they're just reporting anybody's words and saying, "here ya' go!" Well...that's all well and good...but if that person's lying, then what? Evan's a snake. We know that. So why would you believe a word the man says? Because the Smoking Gun reported it! Oh, also, Jordan (running off the drug-addled confession induced by his father) reports stories to the cops and to a doctor could just be Jordan lying. As for the "splotch" report...that's awfully damning. Why didn't any major news organization run with it except for The Smoking Gun? Because Sneddon is the ONLY person who thinks the photos DO corroborate Jordan's story. That's why. Because it's HIS opinion. They were already "not a definite match". That's already been reported. And I like their clever insinuation: it wasn't long after the photos were taken that they decided to settle. What a load of crap. That's nothing but speculation driven by theory. So, seriously, give it a rest already. I'm not interested in crap that The Smoking Gun tried and failed to dig up. Hell, they have a report on the site that concludes that no improper conduct happened with the newer case. It really says something when nothing could be proven AT ALL and the main people involved said he didn't do it and wouldn't testify and the ONLY person interested wanted cash and accepted that instead of his child's well-being. But keep believing he did it. It's ok. Someday, you'll figure out that logic and common sense outweigh paranoia and baseless accusations for ratings and profit. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 06:01 PM In reply to this comment (#2519687) So someone actually takes the time to look at peripheral sites other than your precious Wikipedia that conflict with your convictions and you are now trying to discredit the Smoking Gun? Too funny! "So, seriously, give it a rest already." No, why don't you take your own advice and YOU give it up. And how do you know Sneddon was the "ONLY person who thinks the photos DO corroborate Jordan's story." What did you do? Run-door-to-door across the whole of America and take a census? What a spectacular assumption to make...it fits nicely with the rest of your Wikipedia-cited assumptions as well. You need to let this go. Seriously. LET IT GO. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 06:15 PM In reply to this comment (#2519687) "...the site's design looks just like that...which includes a great big red 48-point font title, "THE CASE AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON"." Uh-oh...does the lettering and layout on TSG clash with your Wikipedia Feng Shui? So if it's not aesthetically pleasing, it's discredited then...pathetic. If Michael rose from the grave and told you he WAS a pedo...you'd probably go jump off a cliff in disbelief. "Well...that's all well and good...but if that person's lying, then what?" Do you even understand that this statement totally applies to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLES? Damn you're thick... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 06:39 PM "I consider The Smoking Gun website to be invaluable because it does have some great information..." "The fact that they're just reporting anybody's words and saying, "here ya' go!"" Those statements contradict each other. It sounds like you're willing to engage in 'sampling' from sources as long as they correspond to your convictions. It appears you became very comfortable with the scant details on that Wikipedia page early on...and decided not to venture farther afield for other sources. How incredibly naive. I half-jokingly suspected you were clinging to Wikipedia...but I never thought you'd mount a defense of it over other news cites! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 06:40 PM "sites" not "cites" (Shhhh...don't disturb the Spellcheck Monster...) (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 06:47 PM In reply to this comment (#2519687) ROFL!! "That's nothing but speculation driven by theory." Couldn't this one statement of yours sum up everything you've posted? LOL! In fact...LOL...one could argue that your statement could also sum up the credibility of all the Wikipedia articles too! So funny, so, so, funny... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 07:27 PM Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black! Tabasco, you've pounded the proverbial forum pulpit with all the passion and devotion of a Fire and Brimstone speech about credibility, credibility, credibility... And ooooooh the irony. While you're preaching about the credibility of everyone EXCEPT Jackson...I find it very humorous that you're relying on a web site that has no credibility to begin with! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 09:44 PM Devon B. Why do you constantly base your theory on a child detailing Jackson's junk? (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 10:03 PM In reply to this comment (#2519604) "How did I vindicate Jackson with your analogy? I could have taken your analogy the other way and claimed that your parents suspicions about your Uncle were dead-on and that all those sleepovers resulted in your continual molestation. I was actually trying to be respectful since you used a member of your own family to illustrate your point." You admitted that sleeping in the same bed with somebody isn't illegal. Thank you very much. Next question. "And I'm intrigued with your ADMISSION that Jackson had a 'slightly questionable past' which should have served as a deterrent for parents leaving their children with Jackson. He sure did. The kind of 'questionable past' that should have scared parents from letting Jackson spend any time with him alone at the Neverland Ranch to begin with." I meant, if you THINK the person has a questionable past...do I need to clarify everything with you? "You tried%u2014and failed spectacularly to make your earlier point with the flimsiest of analogies that bore little semblance to Jackson%u2019s situation to begin with. A random snuggle with your Uncle is equal to Jackson calling and calling and calling the child's parents to request sleepovers in his own bed? LOL%u2026" And...there's still no proof of any wrongdoing. Thank you very much. "By admitting Jackson had a 'slightly questionable past' you%u2019ve completely contradicted your whole diatribe in defense of Jackson. Nicely done! I mean your analogy was so laughably out-of-whack, I actually had to fix it for you. LOL." Nope. You already did that. Next. "Those suspicions about Jackson%u2026based on his 'slightly questionable past' are not wrong to have which is what I've been banging on about in my posts." Banging on, huh? Is that what you're doing right now? "Tase is right. You must be using Wikipedia. You%u2019ve shared nothing 'new' in your defense about Michael that isn't already there." Oh, ok. Wikipedia attack. I knew it. Start attacking sources since you've got nothing for a rebuttal. Classic. "And Tase nailed you again: You're saying there's "little or no" evidence against the case in 1993? Sneddon%u2019s 'sealed' testimony, even if you personally think Sneddon's full of crap, says completely otherwise." And Sneddon is the only one with a vendetta against Jackson. I'd pull up sources but you'd probably scream Bloody Wiki and run to mommy so she can comfort you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 10:40 PM LOL... Awwww...what's the matter, Taze and Contra? Angry because all you can do is slam me and provide nothing to back up the people accusing Jackson??? Uh-oh! Wikipedia alert! Wikipedia is the basis of all things that are evil in the media! I completely forgot. Thank you for reminding me that NO OTHER NEWS NETWORK OR MEDIA SOURCE COVERED THE 1993 ALLEGATIONS! Wow! All this time, I was TRICKED! I was really watching WikiNN! I was really reading The San Jose MerWiki News! I was perusing The San Francisco ChroniWiki! I was analyzing articles found in USA WikiDay! Damn...NONE of what I've said was covered ANYWHERE else, huh? Is that what you're saying? I just wanna be sure that's what you're saying before I list the media sources that covered everything I'm saying...including The Smoking Gun, whose "settlement" document proves that not only could the Chandlers STILL take Jackson to court...they chose NOT to... C'mon...tell me again that all I'm using is Wikipedia so I can show you how full of **** you really are... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 10:41 PM In reply to this comment (#2519773) "That's nothing but speculation driven by theory." Couldn't this one statement of yours sum up everything you've posted? -- ...no. Unlike you, I've can actually PROVIDE my sources. All your lies and bull**** are courtesy of your own paranoia. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 10:54 PM Tragically... Just a note. What makes you say that Wikipedia isn't a credible site? You do know that Wikipedia sources its information, right? Here...let me prove it to you: Check out this http Che "At the time of his death, he was preparing for This Is It, a series of 50 concerts that would have been held in London beginning July 13, 2009. [4]" And here is Wikipedia, providing the source (that little "[4]" following it) to back up that http Tha "Several of Michael Jackson's comeback concerts in London have been postponed until next year because producers can't be ready in time for the July debut, according to a "Dear Customer" e-mail sent to ticket holders Wednesday." Hey! Look at that! Wikipedia's site stated it, listed the source, the source backs up the statement on Wikipedia! How about THAT?!? :D You're right though. Wikipedia is all lies and isn't at ALL credible. Not one bit. In fact, they're lying about Thriller being the best-selling album ever...they're also lying about all the Grammies he's won, his nickname "The King of Pop", how he was a part of the Jackson 5, or how he's been inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame twice. In fact, by your rationale, if Wikipedia isn't at ALL credible, then all the stuff about him and the allegations of abuse are complete lies, too. You're a moron. Have a nice day. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jun 30 2009 11:04 PM Contra: "Well...that's all well and good...but if that person's lying, then what?" Do you even understand that this statement totally applies to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLES? Damn you're thick... -- So, Contra...are you saying that everything Wikipedia says is a lie? If so, I'm laughing right now. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 03:31 AM In reply to this comment (#2519874) No you 'tard, Wikipedia is legendary for not being credible...and no 'credible' researcher or news agent would ever cite them. Except you. Ad infinitum. TSG actually provided links to the legal documents...which is a lot more 'credible' than some Jackson family friend's book on him which Wikipedia depends on heavily. It's surprising how much Wikipedia LEFT out that has been verified. The Father's confrontation of Michael, and other details are conspicuously B-b- And again...how DID that census across America and beyond go for you where you claim that Sneddon is the only person who believes Jackson was guilty in 1993? You didn't knock on my door...lol! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 03:37 AM In reply to this comment (#2519871) You're so full of bull**t your eyes are floating! Your analogies are weak. You're dependence on Wiki is an established joke. And I TOO can cite all my sources...but unlike you, they come OUTSIDE of Wikipedia. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 08:44 AM "Wikipedia is legendary for not being credible...and no 'credible' researcher or news agent would ever cite them. Except you. Ad infinitum." Let me correct you: nobody actually CITES Wikipedia. They cite other sources. Wikipedia is nothing but a catch-all utilizing said sources. This includes books, magazines, and other news sources such as newspapers and news websites. Common practice of use of Wikipedia is "if it isn't cited, don't use it". Unfortunately, for you, everything cited happens to come from a book that's ALSO using citations from various public media sources and eyewitness accounts. Do you even know this or do you just keep talking out of your *** because it's fun for you? "TSG actually provided links to the legal documents...which is a lot more 'credible' than some Jackson family friend's book on him which Wikipedia depends on heavily. It's surprising how much Wikipedia LEFT out that has been verified. The Father's confrontation of Michael, and other details are conspicuously absent..." Because the father is the only person who can actually corroborate his own story, ya' mook. Conveniently, NOBODY ELSE saw or HEARD of this "confrontation" but EVAN CHANDLER! There's no outside source that can back up his "confrontation" story. ANYBODY could go to a police station right now and fabricate a story about somebody assaulting their kids and the police can document it! Please tell me you're not this stupid. Let me reiterate it so you can understand: just because somebody gives the police a statement doesn't mean what they're saying actually HAPPENED. The Smoking Gun has access to a police document with the testimony of somebody who has come under deep scrutiny for the mess involving Jackson from using a mind-altering drug on his child to get an answer out of him to the multiple phone recordings (which are actual PHYSICAL evidence instead of some guy just shooting his mouth off to the LOL, awwww...upset that I just poked several holes in your little "Wikipedia has no credibility at all" bull****? I know you're hurt. I know that you're losing the fight and all you can say is "he's using Wikipedia" to defend this crappy, crumbling "case" that's somehow still being debated. I know you want me to tell you how GQ Magazine's Mary Fischer wrote an entire article about what happened following a five-month investigation into the proceedings. How she found official pyschiatric documents PROVING that Evan Chandler was drugged up by Sodium Amytal. Where did she get them? Probably from the KCBS-TV reporter who got them. Where did THAT person get them? Off the boy's uncle, Ray Chandler. After he DENIED the whole drugging affair, the dumbass actually SOLD the documents on his website for MONEY. The Chandlers just keep shooting themselves in the foot for cash, don't they? Talk about the funniest irony imaginable. Oh, in case you want to check all this, here's a list of sources: Abramsam, Mark. %u201CDunlap Sues Over Arrest.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 5 Dec. 2003. Abramsam, Mark. %u201CLawyers Press for Investigation of DA, Staff.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 28 May 2004. %u201CAlleged Vendetta.%u201D Good Morning America. ABC. 29 Apr. 2004. Arceneaux, K.C. %u201CNew Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael Jackson.%u201D The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004. Ays B Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. %u201CLeak of Jackson Memo Criticized.%u201D LA Times 8 Jan. 2004. Breuer, Howard. %u201CNew Jackson Accuser %u2018Recovered%u2019 Memories.%u201D Reuters. 14 Apr. 2004. Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. 2 Jan. 2004. Brown, Stacey. %u201CGeragos says he%u2019s in charge of Jackson defense.%u201D MSNBC. 6 Jan. 2004. Chaw %u201CCivil Suit brought up by therapist.%u201D The Today Show. 19 Mar. 2004. CMJFC. %u201CToronto Street Kid Falsely Accuses MJ in 1995.%u201D Online posting. 16 Dec 2003. MJJForum. 9 Jan. 2004. C Corbett, Steve. %u201CTrouble follows Sneddon all the way up to Canada.%u201D Santa Maria Times. 25 Jul. 2004. Cota, Matt. %u201CHorse Ranch Hearing Begins.%u201D MSNBC. 1 Oct. 2003. Cota, Matt. %u201CLegal Troubles for Slick Gardner.%u201D KSBY News. 2004. %u201CCourt Filings.%u201D Latest News. 2004. MJJSource. 17 Jul. 2004. %u20 %u Cu Cushner, Quintin. %u201CDistrict, City Attorney offices must share case evidence.%u201D The Santa Maria Times. 31. Dec. 2003. Cushner, Quintin. %u201CCity attorney fires back at D.A.%u201D The Santa Maria Times. 13 Feb. 2004. Cushner, Quintin. %u201CMontandon files claim against D.A.%u201D The Santa Maria Times. 1 Jul. 2004. Cushner, Quintin. %u201CState bar looks into complaint against D.A.%u201D The Santa Maria Times. 17 Jul. 2004. Deutsch, Linda. %u201CDefense seeks to throw out Michael Jackson grand jury indictment.%u201D Associated Press. 9 Jul. 2004. Deutsch, Linda. %u201CMother Coached Children to Lie in Court Before?%u201D Associated Press. 25 Dec. 2003. Deutsch, Linda. %u201CLawyer: Psychologist%u2019s patients on both sides of Jackson case.%u201D Associated Press. 17 Aug. 2004. Deutsch, Linda. %u201CStepfather says he sought money for Michael Jackson accuser, family.%u201D Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004. Errico, Marcus. %u201COne Glove, Many Suits.%u201D E! Online News. 25 Sep. 1996. E! Online. 25 Jun. 2004. E F Friedman, Roger. %u201CJacko Accuser%u2019s Mom: Just Call Him Daddy.%u201D Fox 411. 2 Feb. 2004. Fox News. 20 Jul. 2004. F F F % Harris, Art. %u201CFormer sheriff: 2nd child claimed in 1993 Jackson molested him.%u201D CNN. 4 Dec. 2003. Hughes, Geraldine. Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. Radford: Branch and Vine Publishers, LLC. 2004. %u201CInterviw with Brian Oxman.%u201D Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Nov. 2003. %u201CInterview with Jim Thomas.%u201D Deborah Norville Tonight. NBC. 22 Apr. 2004. %u201CInterview with Mark Geragos and Jermaine Jackson.%u201D Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Dec. 2003. %u201CInterview with Mary A. Fischer.%u201D On the Record. Fox News. 25 Nov. 2003. %u201CInterview with Michael Jackson.%u201D Sixty Minutes. CBS. 28 Dec. 2003. %u201CInterview with Mike Taibbi.%u201D The Abrams Report. MSNBC. 16 Feb. 2004. %u201CInterview with Russell Halpern.%u201D Larry King Live. CNN. 13 Feb. 2004. %u201CInterview with Slick Gardner.%u201D Celebrity Justice. Court TV. 11 Jun. 2004. %u201CIs the Michael Jackson Case a Shakedown?%u201D The Today Show. NBC. 4 Mar. 2004. %u201CJacko%u2019s Accuser Connected to Kobe?%u201D Celebrity Justice. 6 Jan. 2004. TTT West Coast Inc. 9 Jan. 2004. %u Jack %u201CJackson%u2019s Accuser has Long History of Legal Woes.%u201D LA Daily News. 25 Nov. 2003. Kersey, Tanya. %u201CPop Star is Cleared after LAPD Investigation.%u201D The Michael Jackson Chronicles. 4 Jun. 2004. EURWeb. 5 Jul. 2004. %u2 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report. 13 Nov. 2001. Ma %u201CMichael Jackson%u2019s Big Payoff.%u201D The Smoking Gun. 16 Jun. 2004. Courtroom Television Network. 21 Jun. 2004. % Moee Molloy, Tim. %u201CJackson prosecutor personally conducted surveillance, defense motion claims.%u201D Associated Press. 8 Jul. 2004. Murr, Andrew and Jennifer Ordonez. %u201CKing of the Tabloid Case.%u201D Newsweek. 15 Dec. 2003. %u201CNew Details in Jackson Molestation Case.%u201D The Today Show. NBC. 12 Mar. 2004. Overend, William. %u201CSanta Barbara Judge Due in Court on New Charges.%u201D The Los Angeles Times. 29 May 2004. Read, John A. %u201CNuevo suing county over project denial.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 3 Nov. 2002. Robb, David. %u201C$2.7 Million to Jackson for Free-Lancer%u2019s Sex-Tape Lie.%u201D Hollywood Reporter. 13 Apr. 1998. Senn, Bob. %u201CDefinitive Guide to Wine Tasting in Santa Barbara County.%u201D The Santa Barbara Independent. 4 Oct. 2001. Shal %u201CSordid Details.%u201D Prime Time. ABC News. 30 Jan. 2004. Spilbor, Jonna M. %u201CThe Michael Jackson Case.%u201D Find Law Commentary. Find Law. 4 May 2004. % Tenorio, Gina. %u201CSisters to stand trial on prostitution charges.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 30 Jul. 2003. %u201CThe Smoking Gun: Archive.%u201D The Smoking Gun. 1994. Courtroom Television Network. 25 Jun. 2004. V Vig %u201CVineyards.%u201D Santa Barbara County Vintners%u2019 Association. 2004. Santa Barbara County Vineyards. 5 Jul. 2004. Wels White, Karen. %u201CFarmer sues county; alleges conspiracy.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 19 Dec. 2001. White, Karen. %u201CLawsuit against SB County allowed to continue.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 23 Sep. 2002. White, Karen. %u201CMan files suit against 8 officers.%u201D The Santa Maria Times. 5 Mar. 2002. Wickham, DeWayne. %u201CMichael Jackson Sequel: Settlement Not Enough.%u201D USA Today. 24 Jun. 1996: Pg. 14A. Wilson, Tracy. %u201CMan Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Prosecutors.%u201D LA Times. 13 Dec. 2001. You can sit at your keyboard and spew your verbal vomit all over RT about how I'm an idiot but you can't even mount a good comeback to debate me so your last refuge is to try and imitate me and treat me like an idiot. Come up with some real stuff, you moron and get back to me. I'll be waiting... (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 08:54 AM Get over it! He uses wikipedia, maybe you should try it and learn some more facts, yes *facts from wikipedia*, because yours seem to be a little less non bias and little more from an opinionated source. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 09:19 AM Devon...you have nothing. NOTHING. Don't you get it? Your precious "documents" mean dick. They're as good as the idiot liar who started the whole thing with Jackson. You wanna call bull****, start with yourself. I actually listed all the sources that tell the TRUTH. Oh...just one more truth for you, to finally crush http Th That's the settlement document. In no way, shape, or form does that document PREVENT further legal action from being taken against Jackson. The family simply chose not to testify. They took the money instead. Boy, that's gotta hurt your little theories. Game over. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 12:38 PM Okily-dokily neighbors. Seems this topic has created quite a stir...might need to get the RT guys to perform an exorcism. I don't think anyone's suspicions have crushed anyone else's suspicions. That hasn't happened. No one's convinced either party one way or another. Sure, we can stack up a bunch of facts on either side and arrange them to fit our own idea of whether Michael was or wasn't guilty. The truth of it is this: Nobody here knows sh**. That's right. Nobody. Not me, not Tabasco, not Devon, nobody. Were we all flies on the wall of Neverland Ranch for those sleepovers? No. Did any of us SEE the photos of Jackson's bits? No. The drawing of Jackson's penis by Jordie Chandler? No. Has any of us READ Chandler's purported diaries in Gutierrez's book? I doubt it. And so what if we did? We still wouldn't know sh**. Michael knows. The kids know. None of us on RT know sh**. I will miss Michael's music and his legacy. Though my mind hasn't been changed about those suspicions (and they will remain just that: suspicions...since none of us truly knows what happened to begin with), perhaps it's time to give this volatile issue a rest. Can that happen? All this talk about people crushing one another and calling each other stupid, or retarded and full of sh**. Seriously, let's be cool. Let's move on and just agree to disagree. In the end, it really isn't up to you or me to judge him. That's between Michael and his God. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 01:26 PM Mm. Indeed. Sources come out after I'm told that I'm just wiki'ing to death so I prove I'm not...I tear down every argument and I prove these guys were complete liars (as many in the press did) and now it's "Whoa, ok, hey, look at the time...we gotta agree to disagree...I gotta see a guy about a thing...so let's just all walk away." Give me a break. You guys make me laugh. Tear down somebody, come to the rescue of some ignorant jackass who knows nothing about the case, ignores key facts, and then acts like, "hey, no biggie." At least you know when to quit. I'll give you that. (Reply to this) |
on Jul 01 2009 01:40 PM Shut the **** up Devon B., you *****. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 04:21 PM Tabasco, Devon B., et al, I'm actually trying to give us all a break. And Tabasco, whether you used or didn't use Wikipedia doesn't matter. Your sources became more substantive once you were challenged for doing so. What I'm saying is that your argument, for the first time on this forum, strengthened. That's a compliment. If you want to high-five yourself, go ahead. (You're still high-fiving yourself aren't you? Okay...let me know when you're done and then you can continue to read the rest of my post.) Look...to restate my earlier point, none of us ultimately knows anything. I think there's some compelling information out there, most of which came from Michael's own admissions, that have made me suspicious of his character. The dude slept with boys. He says it wasn't sexual. He settled out-of-court on one accusation, and was found not guilty on the other. I only suspect that his continual proclivity to surround himself with boys was unusual. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. Though I have suspicions, I still don't know. That's why they remain suspicions...not certifications. In the end, it shouldn't really doesn't matter to me. I can't believe I've even bothered spending this much time debating it in the first place. He's gone. His music remains. But he's probably never going to be 'free' of those suspicions because its unconscionable to imagine a grown man sharing his bed--innocuously--with boys. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 07:07 PM Whoa-Nelly! Just read Mary Fischer's article for GQ (thanks Tabasco). Let's put this into perspective about the 1993 allegations... Devon B....STFU! And anyone else who agreed with him... If you think Michael raped Chandler...you NEED to read that article first and then honestly give an answer. Tabasco, I owe you a MAJOR apology for siding with what initially appeared to be, substantial evidence against Michael. Dude...Fischer's article has made me see the light. In fact, I apologize to anyone for any offense caused. There is no way that any jury on Earth would have or could have convicted Michael in 1993. It would've been a farce if they tried. I'm no longer in doubt that Michael was innocent of those charges... Yes he was weird. Yes he was strange. He was a deeply troubled man. I think somewhere along the way, the media and the blogosphere treated Jackson like some side-show circus freak. 'Our' curiosity to pull back the curtain and expose the 'freak' is ironic: it has actually exposed how sad, stupid, and indifferent we truly are to a human being's dignity. Jackson's no saint. No one is. Guilty of molestation? I don't think nor do I suspect it anymore. Tabasco, sometimes healthy debates do reveal the truth. I'm glad it emerged. I'm glad my mind was 'open' enough to accept it. Thank you for fighting Michael's corner. That Wikipedia page (plausibly everyone's first port-of-call if searching about the 1993 case) doesn't do the issue enough justice. It should be conflated with Mary Fischer's article...throughout. It's a injustice that it currently isn't. For the rest of you ignorant pricks, read the article first. Come on. I dare you and then see if you have the sack to come back here and continue your baseless accusations. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 01 2009 07:27 PM This is still a h (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 02 2009 07:29 AM Tase, here's a towel. You're dripping with so much sarcasm, you're shorting out this forum. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 02 2009 08:37 AM In reply to this comment (#2517343) you're WRONG today it was reported that the alleged child that he mollested came out and said Michael never touched him...But the media doesn't want that to be broadcast, only the negative to make him look worse than what he really seems. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 02 2009 09:14 AM karmees... That's an uncorroborated story. There's no source to back that story up. The media isn't reporting it because of THAT, not because they don't want a story. Trust me, if it came out that Jordan was lying and it was backed up by an actual statement, the media would be all over it. The ratings would be off the hook. Trust me - the media wouldn't wear egg on its face for very long. They can always spin it to make themselves look like the good guys. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 02 2009 11:16 PM That link, if anybody wants an article WITHOUT bias that's researched thoroughly and actually contains more journalistic integrity in just a few pages than the entire media has had in the last 15 to 20 years, here's the link: "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary Fischer, GQ h (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 03 2009 08:54 AM It is a solid piece of journalism that cannot be refuted. If anyone, after reading that, is still hammering away at Michael's alleged molestation in 1993, then you are officially stupid. And not just run-of-the-mill stupid either. We're talking about the kind of stupid that insists a square peg can fit into a round hole; 2 2=5; Britney Spears CAN sing; you know...that kind of stupid. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 03 2009 08:55 AM Typo "2 plus 2 = 5" (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 10 2009 03:44 AM In reply to this comment (#2519588) I once believed the media-driven lies that MJ was guilty of horrible evil acts, and honestly, I think I stopped being a fan from that point. Learning of his death had a strange effect on me, and I wanted to know whether I should mourn, or be relieved that justice had finally come. I have read and researched almost EVERYTHING good or bad on the net about MJ, including official transcripts from the court cases. I have watched all the documentaries and listened to the so-called experts and former friends/employees, and my head is still spinning from information overload. My INFORMED opinion is that he was unjustly accused and hunted by people who (like the accusers) wanted to bring him down each for their own reasons. There was NOT ONE bit of supported evidence, which is why in 1993 and 2005 he was not convicted of the crimes. For many it is the claim that JC saw MJs penis (and the vitiligo blothes) that is 'evidence' enough for them...however anyone who knew he sufferred from vitiligo (and it would be obvious when he wasn't dressed for media appearances, even more so if you LIVED with that person as did MJ & Chandlers) would correctly assume there would be blotches in all areas of his body. Okay, detectives looked and YES there were blotches down there...I'd be surprised if they HADN'T found any. But what nearly all reports fail to emphasise is that JC claimed MJ was circumsized when he wasn't. Its pretty obvious that if JC had ever seen MJs genitals he wouldn't have made such a glaring mistake. Every other piece of 'evidence' is also similarly explained, even down to the 'secret' bedroom that was found behind MJs closet in Neverland. Don't many rich (and paranoid) people (famous or not) have panic rooms in their mansions? The fact that they had childrens toys in them is of no sinister meaning...MJ wouldn't go in there alone I'm sure, he had 3 chidren to protect also. Its all just common sense. Besides, not one of the supposed 'victims' ever mentioned this room. And then there are the so-called 'eyewitnesses' who 'witnessed' oral copulation (among other things) between a child & MJ but never came forward until after charges were laid? What sort of people are these? Anyone who sees child abuse and does nothing to stop it is an EVIL PERSON and is just as guilty as the perpetrator. I KNOW personally people who have been victims of child molestation, and there is NO WAY that their abusers EVER took any risks of discovery. For someone of MJs means to be so careless as to be observed is beyond all reason and comprehension. So, the world has been the loser here. A strange but falsely accused GENIUS is gone. The media will have to find a new witch to hunt. And MJ will go on living in his fans memories (and CD/DVD players). Its a great shame he idn't make it to perform tonight in London. It would have been SPECTACULAR. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 11 2009 07:54 AM In reply to this comment (#2525207) I've just read this GQ article: "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" by Mary Fischer, GQ I don't know where this was hiding, but it is fantastic. For any doubters & fencesitters, you need to read this. There is NO DOUBT MJ was innocent of the allegations by EC & GA. Such a shame people are so easily led to believe the crap the media dishes up without finding out for themselves what the truth is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jul 21 2009 02:31 AM Those of you who believe this nonsense that Jordan Chandler's drawings and descriptions of MJ's genitals do not match the photos taken later should ask yourselves this: Why did the Santa Barbara District Attorney (who has actually seen them) fight to get both admitted as evidence more than a decade later in MJ's criminal trial? If Chandler got it wrong then the drawings and photos would be the last thing the DA would want the criminal case jury to see. Instead it was the other way around, the defense argued against letting the jury see Chandler's drawings and descriptions, and prosecutors tried desperately to allow the jury to decide for themselves if young Chandler accurately described and depicted Jackson's genital markings. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 07 2009 12:16 AM This comment is for all of you who have posted so negative and inhuman things about Mr. Michael Jackson. Because he out bid Paul Mc iu=n abusiness deal that makes him a child molestor.jerry Lee llewis stole all of Little Richards move and sound and married his young underage cousin but not a one of you called him a molestor.The Kennedys have an undertone of having commited murders but they are greatly loved.You all just love Brad Pitts and Angelina but they are made him a wealthy man.Media and everyone went after him. He could not even have his pet chimp in peace. But Bubbles never ripped any one's face off.Mr. Jackson was being ripped off by managers and doctors and handlers for years but when he make a great business move,he is a liar,two-faced and molestor.You people can bash him until the day you die just as he did,but his fans and those who love him will continue to love him and know the truth and we forgive him for any wrong he did because truly before GOG and only GOD did he sin just as with all us. And if there is a hell below,we are all going to go because of the way we judge other people and mistreat each other. Some day when you are in abad car accident or your child or family member die or you lose your job,I want you to stop and ask WHY? ..it will be because of your evil,judging,and unforgiven heart. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 13 2009 02:21 PM Vindication for Michael! Join http://www.mjtruthnow.com ... Help us make mainstream media accountable for their lies. Join http://www.mjtruthnow.com ... Sign up for the newsletter! Boycott power forming now. THANK YOU! *It's all for LOVE...L.O.V.E.* (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
-
Universal Trims LaToya Jackson from Bruno
(15)
- Michael Jackson On Screen: His 10 Best Moments (5)
- Michael Jackson, King of Pop: 1958 - 2009 (194)
- James McAvoy on Atonement: The RT Interview (4)
- RTIndie: Stephen Frears Talks "The Queen" and Oscars; Almodovar And Cruz To Re-Team; Slamdance Lineup Set (1)
- In Other News...Michael Jackson, Alicia Silverstone, and Heavy D (no Boyz) (14)
Most Discussed
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (261)
- RT's Best of the Decade! (148)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (115)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (56)
- Critics Consensus: Sherlock Holmes Is Worth Investigating (33)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (32)
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (16)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Disney! (9)
- Friday Harvest: Sherlock Holmes, Toy Story 3, and more! (9)
Latest News
- Weekly Ketchup: Peter Jackson's Secret Sci-Fi Project (16)
- Friday Harvest: Sherlock Holmes, Toy Story 3, and more! (9)
- Critics Consensus: Sherlock Holmes Is Worth Investigating (33)
- RT's Best of the Decade! (148)
- Total Recall: Jude Law's Best Movies (56)
- What We're Watching on Blu-ray from Disney! (9)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: District 9 and (500) Days of Summer (32)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Soars to #1 Spot (261)
- Brittany Murphy: 1977-2009 (115)
Latest Interviews
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (21)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (24)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (16)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (24)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- RT's Best of the Decade! (148)
- Five Favorite Films With Peter Jackson (69)
- The Effects of Where the Wild Things Are (34)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 2 (7)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (37)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (60)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (10)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (43)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (107)
RSS Feeds