Michael Jackson

[QUOTE]

[b]Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: [/b]

Point missed totally.[/QUOTE]
I think I get your point, Freya. Regardless of his talent, his musical history, his eccentricities, or his record-breaking career, the pedophilia label will indeed be forever attached to his name. Just like OJ will forever be thought of as a murderer who got away with it, Michael Jackson will be thought of as a predator. Deservedly so or not.

Aye, exactly!

Simply put he's been labeled, the scandals and allegations overshadowed him in life, as it will in death.

[QUOTE]

[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]

Okay so Michael Jackson was tried and cleared of all charges following the last high-profile court case and I accept that. But what about the Jordy Chandler case?

Here's a guy who had the best legal council that money can buy and they advised him to settle out of court. If he was entirely innocent he would have fought tooth and nail to clear his name. Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut. As fas as I can see that's an admission of guilt. I'm also well aware of the fact that the boy's father was a gold-digging scumbag who rubbed his hands with glee and had dollar signs in his eyes when he learned that his son had been abused but none of this excuses MJ for what he did.

fatty.

[/QUOTE]

Thats exactly what I think as well. If Michael obviously believed he was entirely innocent then he should have taken that case to a proper conclusion and got himself acquitted then this pedo label would have disappeared.

Well Freya, I might not have english as native tounge, but I can´t seem to find what I´ve missed. Was I wrong about the things I wrote? I agree that his name foerver will be associated with childmolestation, that much I agree. But am I the only one that thinks that he brought out the checkbook just to get the hell out of court asap? After Dangerous it was either make it or break it for him, as he had passed his peak and being in such vunerable seat, I think I´d done the same. But the outcome of it all wasn´t as he´d predicted and he got to be phedofile-MJ for the rest of his life. Tabloid-ily speaking. I try to read your post without letting my personal opinions interfer and I´m not saying you´re wrong and I´m right, but I feel you guys are laughing at my thoughts.

[QUOTE]

[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]

Well Freya, I might not have english as native tounge, but I can´t seem to find what I´ve missed. Was I wrong about the things I wrote? I agree that his name foerver will be associated with childmolestation, that much I agree. But am I the only one that thinks that he brought out the checkbook just to get the hell out of court asap? After Dangerous it was either make it or break it for him, as he had passed his peak and being in such vunerable seat, I think I´d done the same. But the outcome of it all wasn´t as he´d predicted and he got to be phedofile-MJ for the rest of his life. Tabloid-ily speaking. I try to read your post without letting my personal opinions interfer and I´m not saying you´re wrong and I´m right, but I feel you guys are laughing at my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
Hi, dear Henke.

How are you?

I agree with your stance on the subject and no, you're not the only one who thinks these things. :-)

You actually did here something which I really appreciate: trying to put the art above the artist. Which is, to my taste, what higher minds do, as Oscar Wilde pointed out brilliantly when introducing his most famous novel. Michael's art speaks about us as we react to it, not about him. It's a device which reveals what we are able to relate to, what we are not. He's gone. His music frames many people's generations and the way they react to his legacy tells more about them than about him. 

He's a secret. A mistery. As many great artists, an enigma, a puzzle which we may label like this or that to feel we are in some way able to overcome him by passing our moral judgements or looking at his life with thousands of eyes which have already followed almost every single step he has taken. No character - be it someone charged with being a pedophile, a murderer or simply an ordinary person with his/her ugly sides - would survive such a close scrutiny. I'm afraid most of humanity would come out looking rather ridicule.
 
There are people who are interested in doing such scrutiny, of course. Otherwise tabloids wouldn't sell.

But there are indeed other people who are not that interested in doing so. I consider myself to be among them: I'm WAY more worried about people who live next to me and carry machine guns - and put them in the hands of children - to sell drugs than about anything that Michael Jackson may have done. 

Hugs and take care,

Yara.

[QUOTE]

[b]Major Tom wrote: [/b]

Well Freya, I might not have english as native tounge, but I can´t seem to find what I´ve missed. Was I wrong about the things I wrote? I agree that his name foerver will be associated with childmolestation, that much I agree. But am I the only one that thinks that he brought out the checkbook just to get the hell out of court asap? After Dangerous it was either make it or break it for him, as he had passed his peak and being in such vunerable seat, I think I´d done the same. But the outcome of it all wasn´t as he´d predicted and he got to be phedofile-MJ for the rest of his life. Tabloid-ily speaking. I try to read your post without letting my personal opinions interfer and I´m not saying you´re wrong and I´m right, but I feel you guys are laughing at my thoughts.[/QUOTE]

Major Tom, I am not laughing - if that means anything to you. I think that Freya is not laughing, either - she just stated the obvious. We live in a world where money wins over decency anytime and tabloids bring more money than factual news. You speak out for what you believe in and please do not stop. It's okay to  keep insisting on fair play, the rule of law, the right to have your name cleared and protected. You have the same right to state your opinion in public as some low-life TMZ person.

Major Tom

I understand where you're coming from in saying that the Jordy Chandler incident came at a pivotal point in MJ's career and had it been a kid who was injured on one of the fairground rides at his Neverland ranch, I could understand the need to get the case over with quickly. But when you're accused of sexually molesting a juvenile, surely you would do everything in your power to clear your name. MJ's legal team would have told him the same thing unless, of course, there was no way he would have been able to win the case. Under these circumstances, I believe that his lawyers told him that the only option left was one of damage limitation in which the sordid details would remain under wraps.

I'd also like to assure you that I am in no way laughing at your beliefs. On the contrary, I admire the way you are able to get your point across in a calm and rational manner and without stooping to name calling and personal remarks and just because I don't agree with you on this particular subject doesn't mean I dont respect and welcome what you have to say.

fatty.

[QUOTE]

[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]



There's also a team of laywers who, when they discovered what MJ had done to the poor lad, said "You're in deep shit so you better get your cheque book out."

fatty

[/QUOTE]

Well actually his lawyers opposed to the settlement, read page 3 of this public document which states
that the 1993 civil settlement was done by his insurance company and was not within MJ's control
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

So it seems it was MJ's insurance carrier that negotiated against MJ's will.
Apparently they have the right to do so in such cases, as the document states.

Why would MJ's camp have been against the settlement, if they were "losing".

Be interesting to know what the jury would've said if the American courts followed the Scottish legal system and offered a "not proven" verdict, as well as just guilty or not guilty.

I suppose if push came to shove I would, reluctantly, have to  agree with YV on this. If he was found not guilty then we have to treat him accordingly. However, for those of you taking that line, can you honestly say you would trust your kids alone with MJ?

And on a side note, the autopsy said MJ was almost entirely bald, and that his long black "hair" was actually a wig. Talk about stating the obvious! Did anyone really believe that was his real hair? Does anyone really believe that Tina Turner, Art Garfunkel or Elton John still have their original hair? Or Brian May? ;)

[QUOTE]

[b]pma wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]



 



There's also a team of laywers who, when they discovered what MJ had done to the poor lad, said "You're in deep shit so you better get your cheque book out."

fatty



 

[/QUOTE]

Well actually his lawyers opposed to the settlement, read page 3 of this public document which states
that the 1993 civil settlement was done by his insurance company and was not within MJ's control
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

So it seems it was MJ's insurance carrier that negotiated against MJ's will.
Apparently they have the right to do so in such cases, as the document states.

Why would MJ's camp have been against the settlement, if they were "losing".


[/QUOTE]

AND... even if this insurance company thing were not an issue, the very idea that Michael Jackson felt it was okay to sleep - literally 'sleep' - with children, was enough to tarnish his reputation and solicit assumptions of sexual misconduct. I believed his testimony. I believed he loved kids and wanted to be with kids as if he, himself, were a kid... and nothing more. So, for me, the pedophilia label will not stick. However, a loud portion of society believes he was guilty and so settling, getting it done and over instead of allowing it to drag out, makes perfect sense.

I have a limited knowledge in the way the American legal system works, and by "limited" I mean none whatsoever. But it still looks like an exercise in damage limitation to me. Let's say it was me who had been accused of child molestation. Assuming I'm innocent, I'd say "Let's go to court." The burden of proof is on the prosecution so all I have to do is sit there while they attempt to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I'd sexually abused a juvenile. All of a sudden a man from an insurance company comes along and says "Sorry fatty but we'd rather this whole unpleasant mess just went away so if you'd just sign this cheque for $22 million, we'll say no more about it." I am completely innocent, yet all I am going to have to show for it is a big hole in my bank account where $22 million used to be and three quarters of the planet thinking I'm a predator. It's hardly the bargain of the century. So what I do is this. Tell the insurance company to take a flying fuck at themselves, go to court and let justice prevail.

On the other hand let's say I'm not quite as innocent as I would have others believe. Let's say that the prosecution has evidence in the form of sworn statements, photographs and dental records showing my teeth marks on an eleven year old boy's arse. Faced with spending the remainder of my life in prison, I beg my lawyers to find a way out of this. The best idea they can come up with is to pay off the boys family and slap a gagging order on them. "But doesn't that make me look guilty?" I whimper.
"Don't worry fatty" says the blood-sucking lawyer "We can fix it so that it looks as though you wanted to clear your name but the insurance company held a gun to your head."
"Are people really that gullible?" I ask
"A lot of them are."
"Okay where do I sign."



fatty.

[QUOTE]

[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]

And on a side note, the autopsy said MJ was almost entirely bald, and that his long black "hair" was actually a wig. Talk about stating the obvious! Did anyone really believe that was his real hair?[/QUOTE]
Actually I did ... it's not like he was a hundred anyway...

[QUOTE]

[b]-fatty- wrote: [/b]







I have a limited knowledge in the way the American legal system works, and by "limited" I mean none whatsoever. But it still looks like an exercise in damage limitation to me. Let's say it was me who had been accused of child molestation. Assuming I'm innocent, I'd say "Let's go to court." The burden of proof is on the prosecution so all I have to do is sit there while they attempt to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I'd sexually abused a juvenile. All of a sudden a man from an insurance company comes along and says "Sorry fatty but we'd rather this whole unpleasant mess just went away so if you'd just sign this cheque for $22 million, we'll say no more about it." I am completely innocent, yet all I am going to have to show for it is a big hole in my bank account where $22 million used to be and three quarters of the planet thinking I'm a predator. It's hardly the bargain of the century. So what I do is this. Tell the insurance company to take a flying fuck at themselves, go to court and let justice prevail.

On the other hand let's say I'm not quite as innocent as I would have others believe. Let's say that the prosecution has evidence in the form of sworn statements, photographs and dental records showing my teeth marks on an eleven year old boy's arse. Faced with spending the remainder of my life in prison, I beg my lawyers to find a way out of this. The best idea they can come up with is to pay off the boys family and slap a gagging order on them. "But doesn't that make me look guilty?" I whimper.
"Don't worry fatty" says the blood-sucking lawyer "We can fix it so that it looks as though you wanted to clear your name but the insurance company held a gun to your head."
"Are people really that gullible?" I ask
"A lot of them are."
"Okay where do I sign."







fatty.





[/QUOTE]

Ah, but what if the insurance company hired Phil Spector and cornered Jacko in the studio? That way, they'd actully have a gun put to his head.

Michael Jackson, Heather Mills and Susan Boyle walk into a bar.