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

Comments

darthbiscuit80

Kelly Brindle

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.

Jun 26 - 01:05 AM

darthbiscuit80

Kelly Brindle

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.

Jun 26 - 01:06 AM

Cicatriz

Kyle Pettingill

^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 ***!!!

Jun 26 - 01:45 AM

Joggles

Sean Baker

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 :(

Jun 26 - 02:27 AM

Bob A.

Bob Archer

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.

Jun 26 - 03:20 AM

jodiodie

Jodi kaufman

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!

Jun 26 - 04:14 AM

Dave J

Dave J

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.

Jun 26 - 02:55 PM

Angel Dust

Duncan Cole

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.

Jun 26 - 04:38 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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 strip-search--IMMEDIATELY--settled the case with his accuser...and beat the rap. And CICATRIZ is right, after Jackson swiftly settled, California changed the law to prevent other settlements like this to not only uphold justice, but also to prevent potential extortion incidences which obscure the actual cases involved.

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!"

Jun 26 - 05:14 AM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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.

Jun 26 - 08:09 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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).

Jun 26 - 08:39 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 10:42 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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.

Jun 29 - 11:33 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 01:17 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

%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.

Jun 29 - 04:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

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.

Jun 29 - 04:24 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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?

Jun 29 - 04:33 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro


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...


Jun 29 - 04:57 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

Uh...settlements don't vindicate the accused dude. You know that, right? Doesn't everyone?

Jun 29 - 11:43 AM

chewie louie

L B

Wrong, it was during his 1993 interview with Oprah that Michael Jackson made it publicly known that he allegedly suffered from Vitiligo.

Jun 26 - 09:40 AM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

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.

Jun 26 - 06:32 AM

Brent L.

Brent Larson

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.

Jun 27 - 03:25 AM

jaredisme

jared burnworth

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.....

Jun 26 - 06:38 AM

rodge d.

rodge dodge

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.

Jun 26 - 07:22 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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".

Jun 26 - 08:01 AM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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.

Jun 26 - 12:24 PM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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

Jun 26 - 07:54 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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".

Jun 26 - 08:01 AM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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.

Jun 26 - 12:24 PM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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.

Jun 26 - 08:09 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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).

Jun 26 - 08:39 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 10:42 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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.

Jun 29 - 11:33 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 01:17 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

%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.

Jun 29 - 04:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

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.

Jun 29 - 04:24 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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?

Jun 29 - 04:33 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro


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...


Jun 29 - 04:57 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

Uh...settlements don't vindicate the accused dude. You know that, right? Doesn't everyone?

Jun 29 - 11:43 AM

chewie louie

L B

Wrong, it was during his 1993 interview with Oprah that Michael Jackson made it publicly known that he allegedly suffered from Vitiligo.

Jun 26 - 09:40 AM

chewie louie

L B

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?

Jun 26 - 08:17 AM

Jason C Wilkerson

Jason Wilkerson

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.

Jun 26 - 12:40 PM

rodge d.

rodge dodge

I feel sorry for you. And yes, it applies to all you mentioned.

Jun 26 - 08:22 AM

JAKEofMIDWORLD

Jake Almond

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.

Jun 26 - 08:29 AM

Ashera the Cat

Ashera the Cat

Well said, JAKEofMIDWORLD

I'll keep it simple...R.I.P. KING of POP :(

Jun 26 - 08:38 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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).

Jun 26 - 08:39 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 10:42 AM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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.

Jun 29 - 11:33 AM

tabascoman77

Matt Perri

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.

Jun 29 - 01:17 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

%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.

Jun 29 - 04:13 PM

Dave J

Dave J

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.

Jun 29 - 04:24 PM

Devon B.

Devon Barnett

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?

Jun 29 - 04:33 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro


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...


Jun 29 - 04:57 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Don't Tase Me Bro

Uh...settlements don't vindicate the accused dude. You know that, right? Doesn't everyone?

Jun 29 - 11:43 AM

Jen Yamato

Jen Yamato

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.

Jun 26 - 09:31 AM

What's Hot On RT

Box Office
Box Office

Planet Of The Apes Is No. 1

<em>Unbroken</em>
Unbroken

Trailer for Angelina Jolie's latest

<em>The Hunger Games</em>
The Hunger Games

New Mockingjay teaser trailer

<em>Jimi</em> Trailer
Jimi Trailer

Clips: Andre 3000 plays Hendrix!

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile