Sorry, US-friends. But it seems to me, a Europian, that people in America often overstate it with sexual issues.
A friend visited school in the US, and she told me that she had known a family. They refused to watch Schindler's list, a movie about the holocaust, because there were naked people in it.
Back to Jacko. I naturally couldn't say if he had anything with this young boy.
There' an idea that makes me really mad. I think Jackson could do anything on his farm, if he wouldn't have insulted Sony boss, Tony Motolla.
Just before the trial opened MJ gave an interview (which is very rare in his case). He spoke about the way Sony exhausts his artists. It's interesting that in the same month the counsel had enough evidence to start the trial.
Coencidence?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I'd feel more sorry for his children, if they're really his.
They're REALLY gonna need to be shielded from the public, before they get asked questions like:
"Your dad's a child molestor, isn't he?" etc.
:P
i know - that's a really shit deal, especially when you add to the fact that they already think he's a waxwork model who makes shit music
still, you don't get to choose your parents...poor mites
Lol, I do feel really bad for them as well. But you know, they're probably happy that they get to wear those ridiculous things over their faces...especially when they're near their dad. ;-)
Tupincs...
You do know Michael Jackson doesn't actually live on a farm? And the Sony boss is actually called Tommy Mottola? And the "interview" Michael did was actually more of a press conference/rally, regarding Sony being racist towards it black artists (and before anyone says anythign I know he has a white face, but, he is a black man). I can all but promise you this case isn't built upon his and Sony's falling out with each others. It's about a greed ridden family and a man called Thomas Sneddon - who, incidentally, hates Michael.
You do know Michael Jackson doesn't actually live on a farm? And the Sony boss is actually called Tommy Mottola? And the "interview" Michael did was actually more of a press conference/rally, regarding Sony being racist towards it black artists (and before anyone says anythign I know he has a white face, but, he is a black man). I can all but promise you this case isn't built upon his and Sony's falling out with each others. It's about a greed ridden family and a man called Thomas Sneddon - who, incidentally, hates Michael.
The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy.
Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.
Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.
Well said.
And you're correct about people talking about they found perfectly legal pronographic magazines in his room... he is a 46 year old, regardless of how the public percieve him, he IS allowed porn!?
But, the bigger picture is, the opposition have tried to you small facts like this against him, rather than anything solid per se. Which makes me think they are clutching at straws. And when his ex wife, Debbie Rowe testified - they thought it was gonna be against Mike, but it was actually for him. Perhaps that is the biggest clue? Who knows. But, fingers crossed, if and when he gets proven innocent (possibly it will be more likely there is isnufficient evidence to prove otherwise but anyway...) he 'cleans his act up' per se and just gets his head down quietly and starts to make some more music, for himself if not just for his fans.
And you're correct about people talking about they found perfectly legal pronographic magazines in his room... he is a 46 year old, regardless of how the public percieve him, he IS allowed porn!?
But, the bigger picture is, the opposition have tried to you small facts like this against him, rather than anything solid per se. Which makes me think they are clutching at straws. And when his ex wife, Debbie Rowe testified - they thought it was gonna be against Mike, but it was actually for him. Perhaps that is the biggest clue? Who knows. But, fingers crossed, if and when he gets proven innocent (possibly it will be more likely there is isnufficient evidence to prove otherwise but anyway...) he 'cleans his act up' per se and just gets his head down quietly and starts to make some more music, for himself if not just for his fans.
The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy.
Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.
Actually, I thought it was quite good. From the point of view compared to his other great albums, it isn't as commercially great, but it is very strong, and different to a lot of his other stuff, much more "black" dare I say. And you say Sony wouldn't "over-promote"... they didn't promote the labum hardly at all. A large poster put up in Times Square and two singles was poor. A further two singles were scheduled for release, both videos and production to be funded by Jackson himself, "Unbreakable" with Mel Gibson, and "Whatever Happens" with Carlos Sanatan - but Sony were basically "lazy" and just didnt ever get round to sorting it out.
Perhaps Jacko's method to "show them up" wasn't the best way, but people do things out of anger - and if you're a touch wierd up top too...
Fruit Side, that is my WHOLE point! Of course a MAN having porn, or drinking alcohol is not illegal, I stated that in my first post on this topic. But, Michael Jackson has passed himself off for years as a totally NONSEXUAL innocent Peter Pan who never grew up. What is a person like that interested in porn for? He claims that he loves children and that he built Neverland for them to visit and feel safe. Well then why would you have those items where innocent children could possibly get their hands on them? It is a fact that the accuser's fingerprints were found on a pornographic magazine along with Jacksons.
Okay, I don't want to argue. You have your opinion, I have mine. Perhaps every man over the age of 35 should crawl into bed to sleep with a 12 year old tonight, since its all so normal and wonderful. Have a nice day.
The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy.
Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.
Actually, I thought it was quite good. From the point of view compared to his other great albums, it isn't as commercially great, but it is very strong, and different to a lot of his other stuff, much more "black" dare I say. And you say Sony wouldn't "over-promote"... they didn't promote the labum hardly at all. A large poster put up in Times Square and two singles was poor. A further two singles were scheduled for release, both videos and production to be funded by Jackson himself, "Unbreakable" with Mel Gibson, and "Whatever Happens" with Carlos Sanatan - but Sony were basically "lazy" and just didnt ever get round to sorting it out.
Perhaps Jacko's method to "show them up" wasn't the best way, but people do things out of anger - and if you're a touch wierd up top too...
I'm realizing that you're right about that one. I've seen albums that sound far worse than 'Invincible', but still get much better promotion.
I still think 'Invincible' is very mediocre compared to the albums Michael did from 'Off The Wall' to 'Dangerous', but it's sort of a decent album depending on how you see it. There's some great songs like 'Whatever Happens', 'Unbreakable, 'Butterflies' and 'You Rock My World', but crap like '2000 Watts' is just painful to listen.
Unfortunately, when he was told that if he pleaded guitly he'd get "banged in the slammer" for eight years
he had slightly differnt kind of banging in mind
he had slightly differnt kind of banging in mind
I've never seen an interview of him saying he is not interested in sex. Michael Jackson is a 46 year old man, who drinks wine, has back problems, and looks at LEGAL porn magazines. Seems like a normal man to me.
a very curious defence angle...why didn't his defence use it?
please don't pursue a legal career...with you as a defence lawyer jeffrey Dahmer, Charlie manson and Mark Chapman would all get off...and the world would be a less safer place for it
They did kinda use that...
When they brought up about the porn found, they just said kinda "have a laugh, he's a 46 year old man who lives alone... how many 46 year old men dont or have never looked at legal porn?".
And as for "both MJ's and Gavin's finger prints were on the magazine..." argument - is there NO CHANCE whatsoever that they happened to look at the same pages on DIFFERENT times!?
When they brought up about the porn found, they just said kinda "have a laugh, he's a 46 year old man who lives alone... how many 46 year old men dont or have never looked at legal porn?".
And as for "both MJ's and Gavin's finger prints were on the magazine..." argument - is there NO CHANCE whatsoever that they happened to look at the same pages on DIFFERENT times!?
Sure there is. But when a man knows that multiple children are in his home most everyday, including his own, would he not make sure that items like pornography and alcohol would not be available for them to explore? As I said, I really don't want to argue about this anymore. The fact is, if it was a normal everyday citizen and not Michael Jackson we would not even be having this conversation.
Well said.
Exactly, there is no real evidence. There's very much "reasonable doubt", which by law means he is innocent.
I think there is more to say the family are scamming him than otherwise.
By the way, you all keep bringing up about how in 1993 when he paid off the Chandler's to end that case, what you don't read about is how he used to pay for them to go on holidays, fly them out to see him, buy them a family car etc And the best bit is, the bit I love - the father of the family was a producer of plays, and had asked Jackson to fund his new stage show AND also help pay 75% towards an extension on the side of their house... Mikey said no and guess what? Two weeks later he was in court!
Exactly, there is no real evidence. There's very much "reasonable doubt", which by law means he is innocent.
I think there is more to say the family are scamming him than otherwise.
By the way, you all keep bringing up about how in 1993 when he paid off the Chandler's to end that case, what you don't read about is how he used to pay for them to go on holidays, fly them out to see him, buy them a family car etc And the best bit is, the bit I love - the father of the family was a producer of plays, and had asked Jackson to fund his new stage show AND also help pay 75% towards an extension on the side of their house... Mikey said no and guess what? Two weeks later he was in court!
Whether we feel he is guilty or innocent is irrelevant. The judge obviously felt there was enough evidence pointing to his guilt or there would not have even been a trial. The jurors will decide, and whatever the verdict is, we must accept.