Michael Jackson

There is a speculation that Michael is not dead and he has just decided to improve his financial position by all this thing. His triumphant comeback, since he is a master of great shows, is to be expected in two years.
I do not believe it but some people from showbusiness claim it.
It only shows how people try to make PR for themselves out of the death.

[QUOTE]

[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]




[QUOTE]

 



[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]



 

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not.



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]
Exactly...

All the nay-sayers can do now is suggest she was forced to do it, as that's all they can do now to further their "Michael Jackson was a bad father" agenda.

[/QUOTE]
Err.. the only way Michael could force her to do it is from beyond the grave, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

What it looked like to me was the little girl turning away from the microphone and family members physically pushing her back.

In any event, why did she need to be on a stage, sharing maybe the worst moment of her life with thousands of complete strangers? Clearly the Jacksons are so used to being under the spotlight that for them nothing is private any more. No doubt the poor child will soon be paraded around the magazines and tv shows to tell everyone how she feels, while the Jacksons make nonsensical pleas for the press to leave them alone (known as the Princess Diana ploy). Anyone want to take any bets which one of the Jacksons will be on the next reality tv show?



[/QUOTE]

While I agree that it is not fair to put a young distraught child in the limelight, it is not unusual for a child to give a reading or to say something at a family members funeral. I don't remember people being up in arms when Steve Irwins sprog spoke at that tribute concert, or whatever it was.

[QUOTE]

[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]

Well I have to say that the few moments I watched the memorial yesterday, it didn´t feel like a circus. I saw Michaels brother, witch name i´ll pronunce wrong, do Chaplins "Smile". ABSOLUTLY AMAZING. I haven´t seen a person sing with such emotions since...no, not even Freddie singing LOML or WWTLF can compete. I saw Dr Kings son and daughters speech witch was good, but you sure can tell who their father was. They could have turned the speakers down a few steps. Then the Jackson family, witch kinda looked like a cult or something. Maybe it´s just me, but it´s good to see that they stick toghether. Latoya being a exeption, was she there at all? And I don´t think Paris was pushed to the mic. After one of the brothers were done he turned and said: Now I think Janet has something to say. There was some commotion, and then stepped Paris up to the mic.  Now here is when I broke down. In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not. Heartbreaking. I miss him more now.[/QUOTE]
    I agree with M.Tom, the memorial was fined tuned and well done. Brooke Shields speech was heartfelt and totally genuine. She loved him so deeply. She had such a hard time getting through the speech without breaking down. The tears definitely flowed when is little girl, Paris took to the mike and was saying her goodbyes... that was just gut wrenching.

[QUOTE]

[b]April wrote: [/b]


I also thought that Paris was pushed to the mic. What made me think so was that there was some commotion after the brother spoke and he distinctly said that now Janet had something to say. But instead of speaking Janet turned to Paris as if asking her to say a word. This is a bit suspicious. It makes it look as if it was planned. However what the poor girl said was from her heart. Even if they did want Paris to speak, Paris said what she felt and what she knew. Michael was a good father, he loved his children and he loved children in general. All those who still doubt it are wrong. I have always known that all the allegations and accusations against Michael were false. And they are.[/QUOTE]
I watched this live and before it was incorrectly announced that Janet wanted to speak, Janet asked Paris if she was sure she wanted to say something and the girl said yes. After the brother finished talking, he went back to the mic and said he thought Janet wanted to say a few words. Janet said to him - and it was very easy to read her lips - something like "Paris wants to speak. Paris.", it's like she said "Paris" a second time hoping he'd correct himself to those watching. After that, the girl was ushered to the front of the pack. There was nothing suspicious about it. The kid wanted to say something and she did. Nothing more to it than that.

I'm 51 years old.

Anyone care to let their little children or nieces/nephews come over and sleep with me in my bed?

I'd tell Ed Bradley that it's OK, but he is currently deceased, so no one has to know.

(Disclaimer:  the above commentary may be deemed pedophilic in nature.  It is all sarcastic and totally tongue in cheek..........no, not that way, you perverts.)

Anywhere Brooke Shields speaks is a circus.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And little Paris should've been pushed off the stage, not up to the mic...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

[b]*goodco* wrote: [/b]

I'm 51 years old.

Anyone care to let their little children or nieces/nephews come over and sleep with me in my bed?

I'd tell Ed Bradley that it's OK, but he is currently deceased, so no one has to know.

(Disclaimer:  the above commentary may be deemed pedophilic in nature.  It is all sarcastic and totally tongue in cheek..........no, not that way, you perverts.)[/QUOTE]



When I was a child I used to sleep over with my grandfather with my sister and it was big fun. He played pirate games with us and told us stories until we fell asleep. Of course - at the time the concept of child molestation was not so present in everybody's mind - it was completely innocent and not unusual for adult people to have kids sleep over.

In the child molestation trial vs Michael Jackson it was made clear that all the other children who stayed in MJ's house never actually slept in his bed - they shared the same room which was apparently big. Just recently Whoopy Goldberg said on "The View" that she left her daughter at Michael's home with no fear at all.

In any case: MJ was acquitted from all charges and if you do not trust your judicial system you should campaign for changing it. I think it's totally digusting that a citizen - no matter how unusual his lifestyle may have been - was charged in a court of law after years and years of investigation, was then found "not guilty" by a jury as the law requires  and people still keep up the accusations. We all know that mistakes can happen and verdicts can be wrong but a citizen has no other means to prove his innocence (and I think he should not be under the obligation to prove his innocnence at all).



If people like Rep King cannot accept the verdict of a jury under the law he should fight to change the system. However, I have a feeling he only does not accept a verdict he does not approve of. Such people are unfit for public service imo and he should be sued by the Jackson family for slandering the name of MJ.

Slander?  Isn't it libel?
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]I'm not too sure of the distinction; does one of them mean you've lied about someone in public, and the other one is just when you say stuff you shouldn't, whether it's true or not?[/QUOTE]

I don't know, English is not my native language. You can certainly sue someone who calls you a "pervert, child molester and a pedophile" although you were found "not guilty" in a court of law. No idea if you call it libel, slander, defamation or whatever.

Slander is verbal, libel is written.

During the trial an expert on child molesters said they have a profile: child molesters win the trust of parents, put themselves in a position where they can be alone with children, and then they prey on them. Jackson fits this profile: he wins trust through his "backstory" (the non-sexual child who never grew up), he has a home that's been turned into a child's theme park (even though he wasn't a parent when the rides were built), and then there were the accusations of child abuse which, first time round, he bought himself out of.

He admitted in the Martin bashir interview that he slept in the same bed as "many kids" (a direct quote from MJ)that weren't his. 

I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him.

Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many magazines and books...

Thanks for explaining :)

Don't thank me yet: I edited the post. I get the feeling you wont agree with me... :)

True - I don't. A "profile" does not prove anything. In a courtroom you need solid proof. It's totally unnecessary for you to have trusted MJ, it was up to the jury to evaluate the presented evidence and come to a verdict. It's the ultimate nightmare to be charged with a crime you did not commit and be dragged through a public trial. I happen to believe that the verdict was correct (innocent until proven guilty) but even if I would not believe it was correct I would still respect the jury's decision. It would be totally different if they had found someone guilty and I would not believe it - in this case I would challenge the verdict because the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt anytime.



The golden casket - you can hardly blame MJ for that :-)

[QUOTE]

[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]



When I was a child I used to sleep over with my grandfather with my sister and it was big fun. He played pirate games with us and told us stories until we fell asleep. Of course - at the time the concept of child molestation was not so present in everybody's mind - it was completely innocent and not unusual for adult people to have kids sleep over.





[/QUOTE]
Well, your point is rather easily dismissed by the "I'm sure he was a paedo, the Sun/NOTW/etc. said so"-crowd, since you slept with a relative and as we all know (giggle!) naturally relatives are NEVER paedophiles or child molesters (surely not aleast to the the Sun/NOTW-reading people...). Jackson repeatedly had sleepovers with children (not only boys) he was not related with. And I'm sure for all these modern puritans are highly offended by such conduct, no matter how innocent it might have been. Sadly enough these modern worshippers of chastity don't see a problem with them reading and believing tabloid fabrications, tabloids that more than once had a field-day back in the day with the then underaged female stars (Spears, Charlotte Church, you name it) and their "boobage". Naturally this was acceptable, to drool after a 15-16 year old celebrity and comment on her breasts. But Oh that Michael Jackson had sleepovers, kill him instantly!

Now of course, who the hell am I to speak...

I come from a land that has the fabulous Sauna culture. Yes, round here all these perverts go into a sauna COMPLETELY NUDE with their children and whatever non-relatives, friends etc. and bathe there in a completely NON-SEXUAL manner while being totally exposed.  Nudity is simply not such a big deal, since everyone has seen naked people all their life, in fact one might even make the ludicrous claim that we are BORN NAKED (oh my Gosh! How can it be!)

You go into any public swimming facility/hall in Finland, they have a Sauna. Now, in most places they are separate for men and women, however small infants can accompany parents to either side. Having been to such places numerous times in my tender childhood, I believe I could have given accurate descriptions of the penises of complete strangers in a fashion that would have given Tom Sneddon a massive hardon. And what the hell is a "fairly accurate description" of a penis anyway. Now, there's the shaft... the balls... possibly some pubic hair. It's usually cut or uncut, mainly uncut round here... erhm Yeah, what was I writing about again?

"Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help
the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on
the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple
wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many
magazines and books..."

So now he is SELFISH since he spent money no himself.
Other people with money never do that, right? They give it away, don't they? None of them bathe in luxury, live in luxurious homes. In fact most wealthy people are communists and share their wealth to poor working-class people after a hard days work, right... They all feel the sorrow of the world on their shoulders when they fall asleep in their fancy homes.

Let's just ignore the charity work which far superceeds the contributions of most wealthy people.
Let's ignore the entry into the GUinness Book of records as he Pop Star who supports the most number of charity organizations. Let's face it, he was a selfish child-molester and we all knew him well enough to judge him and concentrate on tearing his kids apart so they can't possible grow up sane.
 Oh but let's all remember to speculate and judge thathis kids are not his, because that's certainly any of our business. We have the right to know, don't we as he was like family to us, in the "perverted Uncle"-sense. Or perhaps we could all go and fuck ourselves up the arse, I know we would if we could.

Why is there such a lack of common sense when people express their views on Michael Jackson? I mean, not even Hitler or Stalin can raise such pointless debate and exaggerated emotions within people as Jackson can.