Michael Jackson

[StringerBell]

3 hours ago, BurtonRam7 said:

Just can't understand people being willfully blind to what went on. Not being 100% sure is fine, but refusing to even entertain the possibility that someone could be a predator just because he made a few good songs takes a special kind of idiot.

It's called the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Like Jacko, it's kind of a big deal.

[McRamFan]

Perhaps the blame, ultimately, lies at the feet of the people who abused his talent, when he was a kid.

It is well documented his childhood was show, after show, after show.  In the limelight every week, a magic money machine for his dad.

[TigerTedd]

I’m with @Paul71 on this one.  Not watched it, don’t particularly want to. 

He was found innocent twice in actual court, so why is a documentary made for profit now the final word? Every right minded person didn’t think he was already a wrongun at all. 

Hes certainly an odd one. But if every odd one is also a wrongun, then lock me up right now. 

Who wouldn’t be a bit odd with his upbringing?

i buy the story that he had no real childhood, which meant he was continually trying to recapture that as an adult. Sleeping with kids in the same bed, could that not just be a sleepover. If you imagine Jackson as another 12 year old, it doesn’t have to be creepy. And in terms of mental / social maturity, that’s what he was. 

It all seems weird from the outside looking in, but it doesn’t mean it has to be as creepy and sweet as it might appear. Just cos we’re trained to see peados everywhere these days. 

Bet that mr. Tumble’s a peado, what a weirdo, hanging out with all them kids. 

Maybe there’s an element of putting the blinkers on there. But until you can prove to me he’s a monster, like Gary glitter, for example, then why not see the best in people and be a little bit positive about the world. 

Also, flip it around a bit, if Jackson really was that mentally immature, then would he be the perfect mark for a predator to sue his pants off, and make dodgy documentaries about him?

its all been thrown out several times in genuine courts of law. What do we have if we don’t have a system of justice that we can rely on. What’s the point in courts and judges and all that balls anyway?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

16 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

It's called the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Like Jacko, it's kind of a big deal.

There's the presumption of innocence and there's willfully-blind people like this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1096424/Michael-jackson-latest-leaving-neverland-channel-4-backlash

Holding up a sign detailing the number of records he's sold. Oh right, because success stopped the likes of Savile and Glitter didn't it.

[StringerBell]

2 minutes ago, BurtonRam7 said:

There's the presumption of innocence and there's willfully-blind people like this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1096424/Michael-jackson-latest-leaving-neverland-channel-4-backlash

Holding up a sign detailing the number of records he's sold. Oh right, because success stopped the likes of Savile and Glitter didn't it.

Yeah agreed that argument is about as credible as Safechuck and Robson.

[StringerBell]

10 minutes ago, McRamFan said:

Perhaps the blame, ultimately, lies at the feet of the people who abused his talent, when he was a kid.

It is well documented his childhood was show, after show, after show.  In the limelight every week, a magic money machine for his dad.

He was poorly treated by his family as a child. Then he was poorly treated by the MSM as an adult.

[Sith Happens]

4 minutes ago, BurtonRam7 said:

There's the presumption of innocence and there's willfully-blind people like this:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1096424/Michael-jackson-latest-leaving-neverland-channel-4-backlash

Holding up a sign detailing the number of records he's sold. Oh right, because success stopped the likes of Savile and Glitter didn't it.

You are right that his success is irrelevant.

However aren't those that judge him guilty without full facts just as blind!

[DarkFruitsRam7]

5 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

You are right that his success is irrelevant.

However aren't those that judge him guilty without full facts just as blind!

I suppose you're right.

I'm usually massively reluctant to say anything with any certainty, particularly when most of my information comes from the ever-unreliable Internet. For example, there are definitely some strange aspects of the Madeleine McCann case, but I would never declare with any certainty what I think happened because I simply don't have the information.

I guess with the Michael Jackson case, I'm willing to be irrational for once. There's are things about him that really creep me out: the 30 straight nights he spent in a bed with a child; the fairground in his back garden that is the epitome of a paedo's playground; the fact that he claimed he never had plastic surgery the fact that he laughed on tape when he got asked whether he was a paedophile; the secret rooms in his house, and even just his general appearance (he looks eerily like the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, who I used to have nightmares about!).

I have sympathy for the bloke as well. He clearly had a horrible childhood and I even buy the idea that he wanted to relive that by spending his life acting like a kid. That doesn't stop me believing the victims though.

[StringerBell]

6 minutes ago, BurtonRam7 said:

I suppose you're right.

I'm usually massively reluctant to say anything with any certainty, particularly when most of my information comes from the ever-unreliable Internet. For example, there are definitely some strange aspects of the Madeleine McCann case, but I would never declare with any certainty what I think happened because I simply don't have the information.

I guess with the Michael Jackson case, I'm willing to be irrational for once. There's are things about him that really creep me out: the 30 straight nights he spent in a bed with a child; the fairground in his back garden that is the epitome of a paedo's playground; the fact that he claimed he never had plastic surgery the fact that he laughed on tape when he got asked whether he was a paedophile; the secret rooms in his house, and even just his general appearance (he looks eerily like the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, who I used to have nightmares about!).

I have sympathy for the bloke as well. He clearly had a horrible childhood and I even buy the idea that he wanted to relive that by spending his life acting like a kid. That doesn't stop me believing the victims though.

Which victims specifically?

[DarkFruitsRam7]

3 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Which victims specifically?

Those in the documentary. I did previously put inverted commas around the term to represent the fact they are still only allegations.

[StringerBell]

Just now, BurtonRam7 said:

Those in the documentary. I did previously put inverted commas around the term to represent the fact they are still only allegations.

But that's Safechuck and Robson right?There's more holes in their accounts than a block of Swiss cheese. Crazy to believe them. I'm sure this documentary is very compelling. Does it put sinister drone music on in the background? 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

But that's Safechuck and Robson right?There's more holes in their accounts than a block of Swiss cheese. Crazy to believe them. I'm sure this documentary is very compelling. Does it put sinister drone music on in the background? 

It’s heartbreaking to see child sexual abuse being defended , we are not talking about just the two above mentioned ,we are talking of at least 5 who have made the same allegations , we are talking about a 25 million out of court pay off to stay out of court on a case that was already in the public domain that Jackson declared he would totaly disprove in court , this was already out there putting a stain on his reputation, the reason given was that it would cost less to settle out of court?????, 

are you telling me that with Jackson’s money and in his position clearing your Name would not be your priority and chosen course of action ???? 

Now also this so called childlike man with the mental and emotional status of a child runs a multi million making money machine , buys and sells properties ( also buying for victims parents after they testify for him) ,, he’s a fully functioning capable adult ,

there has been a wealth of allegations and evidence surfacing over a period of years and it’s still growing , the money machine is trying to beat it down as always in these type case but the truth will out ,, as Bob Dylan sang ,, the times they are a changing ,, monsters are being rooted out and women and children are being listened to , believed ,protected and given justice , it’s been a long time coming but long may it continue 

[ThePrisoner]

[StringerBell]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

It’s heartbreaking to see child sexual abuse being defended 

duck off

3 hours ago, Archied said:

we are not talking about just the two above mentioned ,we are talking of at least 5 who have made the same allegations

Allegations. ALLEGATIONS.

Chandler - an extortionate dad who's down on tape saying he wanted to take Jackson to the cleaners. "If i go through with this i win big time... I will get everything i want." Taken from a phone call that occurred prior to his son informing him he was molested in Monaco. A confession that was elicited whilst the child was in a dentists and high on sodium Amytal. Chandler later emancipated himself from his parents.

Settled. 

Francia - mother said under oath she never saw anything.

Not convicted.

Arvizo - contradicted themselves repeatedly. 

Not convicted.

Also had the same lawyer as Chandler, which I'm sure is just a coincidence.

I find it peculiar you say 5 other cases, as he was accused of molesting 5 children specifically in the 2005 California court case, the witnesses for the prosecution being former disgruntled employees of MJ rather than the alleged victims themselves. One of the supposed victims was Macauley Culkin who has publically stated he was not abused. 3 of the 5 said it wasn't true, the 4th 'Victim' never arrived (a person by the name of Safechuck), the 5th claimed he was indeed tickled and his mother made sure she went to the papers and wanted the cash.

Safechuck went to court after MJ's death. It was laughed out.

Robson - who was a witness for the defence in 2005, so is a liar no matter how you look at it.

Anyone else?

3 hours ago, Archied said:

we are talking about a 25 million out of court pay off to stay out of court on a case that was already in the public domain that Jackson declared he would totaly disprove in court , this was already out there putting a stain on his reputation, the reason given was that it would cost less to settle out of court

are you telling me that with Jackson’s money and in his position clearing your Name would not be your priority and chosen course of action ???? 

$20 million was peanuts to MJ. He was a billionaire. He earned $34 million that year alone and was worth $500 million when he died.

But as his lawyer stated, he was advised to do this by his business advisers and later regretted it.

The extortionist Chandler deliberately waited until the Dangerous tour had begun, meaning he would have had to cancelled his tour and pissing off his fans, sponsors and new record company in order to fight the case. And i cant think why such a self-conscious man didn't want people looking at photographs of his supposedly discoloured penis.

And you you realise the prosecuting lawyer swindled it so the 1993 evidence could be brought up in court in the future? As it was in 2005, when it was laughed out of court.

Settling a civil case also hardly matters as there was a criminal case about the same matter. Indeed, at the time in LA the civil case could commence before a criminal case over the same matter, which was the case here.  The former would have had a massive bearing on the latter and biased the jury. MJ's lawyers pushed hard for it to be adjourned which was denied. This is a law that has since been changed on account of how utterly dumb it was.

 

3 hours ago, Archied said:

 

there has been a wealth of allegations and evidence surfacing over a period of years and it’s still growing , the money machine is trying to beat it down as always in these type case but the truth will out ,, as Bob Dylan sang ,, the times they are a changing ,, monsters are being rooted out and women and children are being listened to , believed ,protected and given justice , it’s been a long time coming but long may it continue 

There have been a wealth of fuckups, including the prosecution handing an adult magazine to Arvizo to put his fingerprints on it, to then use Arvizo's fingerprints on adult magazine as evidence against Jackson. There's Safechuck saying he was with MJ at Eurodisney 4 years before Eurodisney existed when he was apparently no longer speaking to MJ when it actually opened in 1992. Theres Safechuck copying and pasting his allegations from a book detailing the allegations concerning Chandler (a book MJ successfully sued the author for slander over). There's Robson saying he'd been given the Thriller jacket even though it was auctioned for charity and Robsons dinner with MJ when MJ got drunk. This apparently inspired him to lie in 2005 even though the dinner actually took place after 2005. What's with all the lies?

And isn't it funny that Robson accuses Jackson as soon as he's no longer eligible to be prosecuted for perjury as the requisite amount of time has passed since he apparently lied under oath? Not to mention his career has nosedived and he could do with the cash.

I probably won't reply tomorrow as I'll be busy at work safeguarding children from actually being abused rather than contributing to a climate that most likely drove a man to his death unlike some.

Yes there are poweful people who have been abusive to vulnerable people. But you still need actual evidence and they're innocent until you can prove anything. So how's about you just take your gutter press, stick it when the sun don't shine and let the man rest in peace?

[StringerBell]

One of the sexually abused children

 

[Grimbeard]

8 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

If we take this as said is it OK to still listen to his music? Either solo or with the Jackson 5? For some of us it has memories, associations and good vibes. Should we not be allowed to or is it OK to seperate the art from the monster?

I don't understand why you're asking. Weigh up the issues and decide for yourself.

[Grimbeard]

6 hours ago, StringerBell said:

It's called the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Like Jacko, it's kind of a big deal.

So, presumably, you feel the same with regard to anyone who dies before they are bought to trial?

[StringerBell]

3 hours ago, Grimbeard said:

So, presumably, you feel the same with regard to anyone who dies before they are bought to trial?

Perhaps if they brought their cases to trial in a timely manner.

[Archied]

5 hours ago, StringerBell said:

duck off

Allegations. ALLEGATIONS.

Chandler - an extortionate dad who's down on tape saying he wanted to take Jackson to the cleaners. "If i go through with this i win big time... I will get everything i want." Taken from a phone call that occurred prior to his son informing him he was molested in Monaco. A confession that was elicited whilst the child was in a dentists and high on sodium Amytal. Chandler later emancipated himself from his parents.

Settled. 

Francia - mother said under oath she never saw anything.

Not convicted.

Arvizo - contradicted themselves repeatedly. 

Not convicted.

Also had the same lawyer as Chandler, which I'm sure is just a coincidence.

I find it peculiar you say 5 other cases, as he was accused of molesting 5 children specifically in the 2005 California court case, the witnesses for the prosecution being former disgruntled employees of MJ rather than the alleged victims themselves. One of the supposed victims was Macauley Culkin who has publically stated he was not abused. 3 of the 5 said it wasn't true, the 4th 'Victim' never arrived (a person by the name of Safechuck), the 5th claimed he was indeed tickled and his mother made sure she went to the papers and wanted the cash.

Safechuck went to court after MJ's death. It was laughed out.

Robson - who was a witness for the defence in 2005, so is a liar no matter how you look at it.

Anyone else?

$20 million was peanuts to MJ. He was a billionaire. He earned $34 million that year alone and was worth $500 million when he died.

But as his lawyer stated, he was advised to do this by his business advisers and later regretted it.

The extortionist Chandler deliberately waited until the Dangerous tour had begun, meaning he would have had to cancelled his tour and pissing off his fans, sponsors and new record company in order to fight the case. And i cant think why such a self-conscious man didn't want people looking at photographs of his supposedly discoloured penis.

And you you realise the prosecuting lawyer swindled it so the 1993 evidence could be brought up in court in the future? As it was in 2005, when it was laughed out of court.

Settling a civil case also hardly matters as there was a criminal case about the same matter. Indeed, at the time in LA the civil case could commence before a criminal case over the same matter, which was the case here.  The former would have had a massive bearing on the latter and biased the jury. MJ's lawyers pushed hard for it to be adjourned which was denied. This is a law that has since been changed on account of how utterly dumb it was.

 

There have been a wealth of fuckups, including the prosecution handing an adult magazine to Arvizo to put his fingerprints on it, to then use Arvizo's fingerprints on adult magazine as evidence against Jackson. There's Safechuck saying he was with MJ at Eurodisney 4 years before Eurodisney existed when he was apparently no longer speaking to MJ when it actually opened in 1992. Theres Safechuck copying and pasting his allegations from a book detailing the allegations concerning Chandler (a book MJ successfully sued the author for slander over). There's Robson saying he'd been given the Thriller jacket even though it was auctioned for charity and Robsons dinner with MJ when MJ got drunk. This apparently inspired him to lie in 2005 even though the dinner actually took place after 2005. What's with all the lies?

And isn't it funny that Robson accuses Jackson as soon as he's no longer eligible to be prosecuted for perjury as the requisite amount of time has passed since he apparently lied under oath? Not to mention his career has nosedived and he could do with the cash.

I probably won't reply tomorrow as I'll be busy at work safeguarding children from actually being abused rather than contributing to a climate that most likely drove a man to his death unlike some.

Yes there are poweful people who have been abusive to vulnerable people. But you still need actual evidence and they're innocent until you can prove anything. So how's about you just take your gutter press, stick it when the sun don't shine and let the man rest in peace?

Oops sorry . He’s just an angelic childlike man ,  change my stance and advise all parents out there to allow their children to attend sleep over s with strange adults ,, silly me ,what was I thinking 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

Perhaps if they brought their cases to trial in a timely manner.

What a lot of rot ,, it is totaly understood that children that are sexually abused are so damaged and confused that it can take years to tell the truth and very often not until the abuser is dead and in lots of cases never at all ,

the difference between Jackson and saville, there is not a multi million pound money making legacy to be defended , alive their modus operandi is identical