• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did We Kill Michael Jackson?

It tells me that I hope I never get put on trial for anything, for fear jurors may be like you. You seem to incline toward believing whatever viewpoint you most recently heard. Although doesn't the defense usually speak last? In which case I might want you on my jury after all.

The jurors were not like that. They thought he was a child molestor but they thought that in the particular case that he was being tried for was a set-up.

This is disturbing since so many people choose to overlook or disbelieve all this.

(I did not know these details until now)
 
Can someone explain to me how such a monster could be so adored?
Can someone explain to me how such a monster could even exist?

Now I remember some details of the first case where the settlement they agreed on included that Michael Jackson get therapy. I guess he just brushed that off.

The equation does not add up. How can someone who gets pleasure out of destroying someone also live a life where he is admired and adored?
 
He did quite a mean moonwalk across Europe but ultimately, his hair caught fire as well.

I'd don't think it's fair to judge him. You know his father was abusive and the anti semitism was actually a prevailing attidude of the time. He was kinda thrust into the political arena and surely he's not responsible for his own sucess and the attendant pressures that brought. In the end he needed to take increasding doses of methamphetamine just to keep up. This must have affected his mind.

In the end we have to consider that maybe he didn't kill 6 million innocent people and even if he did perhaps society was to blame.
 
.
No ... one of those sexist types. How do we know that the coroner isn't a woman? I mean, I watch CSI on TV, and all of those women are HAWT!

;)

If the coroner was a woman, the only thing I can say with certainty, is that she didn't have a penis.
 
I'd don't think it's fair to judge him. You know his father was abusive and the anti semitism was actually a prevailing attidude of the time. He was kinda thrust into the political arena and surely he's not responsible for his own sucess and the attendant pressures that brought. In the end he needed to take increasding doses of methamphetamine just to keep up. This must have affected his mind.

In the end we have to consider that maybe he didn't kill 6 million innocent people and even if he did perhaps society was to blame.


Uhm, no. Religion.

By the way: Was Michael Jackson a Bible-Belt-Jesus-Nut-Kinda-Guy?
 
It tells me that I hope I never get put on trial for anything, for fear jurors may be like you. You seem to incline toward believing whatever viewpoint you most recently heard. Although doesn't the defense usually speak last? In which case I might want you on my jury after all.


Doesn't skepticism allow for the changing of the theory when new evidence is brought into the scenario? Aren't you allowed to change your mind after learning new information?

My personal jury is still out on whether Jackson was a pedophile or not but I'm leaning towards yes. As to whether he molested the last boy, I'm leaning towards no, it was all a scam.

Interesting fact- the mother of that boy contacted an attorney before she went to the police- according to Wikipedia, the same lawyer who represented the first boy in the suit against Jackson.

You think your son is being molested. His brother says he saw him being molested. The police and the school have interviewed you about the alleged molester before because they suspected him of abusing your son. What do you do? Do you go to the police? No, you get a lawyer. :mad:

Edit: That Michael Jackson was loved and adored by millions and that he was probably a pedophile is not a stunning contradiction. Most pedophiles are liked and respected members of the community. Their neighbors and friends have no idea of their secret and all the children they come into contact with regularly love them.
 
Last edited:
Uhm, no. Religion.

By the way: Was Michael Jackson a Bible-Belt-Jesus-Nut-Kinda-Guy?

Wow did I simultaneously invoke Poe and Godwin? Or are you being ironic in manner that I missed in which case you Poe'd my Godwin?
 
Doesn't skepticism allow for the changing of the theory when new evidence is brought into the scenario? Aren't you allowed to change your mind after learning new information?

Depends on whether it's actually new information, or simply "I read this and it was compelling!" Being swayed by a well-constructed argument with evidence behind it is sensible. Being swayed by eloquence, without evidence or even argument, is not.
 
Here's what I'm struck by, going over the available information on the trial (I didn't follow it at the time at all but since it's being discussed on the forum now, I better be prepared and get all the facts straight before talking about it): every single witness who testified against Jackson had done something to majorly discredit themselves.

The mother and father of the boy- a dozen things pointing to them being frauds and liars. Jason Francia and his mother- at first denied being molested, changed his story and then received millions from a settlement and took money from a TV show to talk about Jackson. The former security guard and former maid- disgruntled employees who had their own troubles with Jackson and had arguably been trying to extort him and allegedly tried to steal from him. The former chef and his wife- wanted to sell their stories to a tabloid and had their own problems with Jackson.

You wish one solid witness would have emerged. One non-sleazy, non-crazy, non-greedy employee, parent, guest, friend who hadn't sued Jackson in the past or been sued by him.
 
You wish one solid witness would have emerged. One non-sleazy, non-crazy, non-greedy employee, parent, guest, friend who hadn't sued Jackson in the past or been sued by him.

There are no such people anywhere near entertainment. They call it the "magic of showbusiness".
 
You know I am just kidding. Sort of. But every joke as an element of truth.

All this means is that you really are an ass. This saying is usually applied to myths, not jokes. If you intend it to have an element of truth, it's because you believe it to be true, not because it is.

If all you've met on the dating scene is golddiggers, you need to go elsewhere to meet other women. That sure as hell isn't what all American women are about. When my sister was getting married, it was my father (MALE) who was worried that he didn't make enough money. My sister (FEMALE) didn't care; all she knew was that she loved him. And it's my brothers who are so intent on one-upping each other on salary and job status.

Your experience only applies to you. The rest of us will thank you to not make egotistical assumptions about what else it applies to. Isn't there a name for that fallacy?

As far as the guilt over Jackson is concerned, I never did a damned thing to him. I left the Catholic church to get away from the guilt. I refuse to accept guilt for anything I didn't do. The overgrown brat had plenty of opportunity, time, and money to get away from the celebrity rat race. He only chose to dig himself in deeper. It's HIS fault, and no one else's.
 
They really cut the prosecution's work out for them, from what it sounds like. All the witnesses had something to completely undermine them and nearly all came off as hucksters and liars. And their stories really didn't hold water.

This could mean the whole thing was fake. Or it could mean a predator escaped justice because no one who could have helped had a working brain and a moral compass and a word that could be even somewhat trusted.

Here's my question about the maids, the security guards, the chef, his wife and all the other employees who testified they saw Jackson with boys: if you are telling the truth, why didn't you say anything at the time?! You say you saw a child being molested and you did nothing?! You waited 10 years to come forward?
 
No, that is absolutely not at all what I said.[/quote

No, I was agreeing with you on this statement you made, then adding to it (sorry for the confusion):

There are also survivors who would rather kill themselves than hurt a child, who are disgusted by those who hurt children, and who feel they can't say they're survivors without someone suspecting them of that very thing. It isn't about having to think about it, to decide, to reflect and use insight to make some choice about molesting children.

Okay, then you said ...

Is it your argument that pedophilia is a choice? When did you choose not to be a pedophile? Is it your argument that pedophilia is always a consequence of having been sexually assaulted as a child? As if it were a virus, contagious?

Okay, you're reading into what I'm saying. I think it is a choice to act on urges of pedophilia, not to be a pedophile. And nowhere did I say or suggest that pedophilia is "always" a consequence ... .

Some who were molested or raped as children don't ever have to take any steps not to become molesters. It is not true that everyone ever abused always develops a lust for kiddies, but that some are just better at hiding it or controlling it.
Whoa. Never said this either. I never said a third category didn't exist, whereby some people don't have urges. Just referring to stats re: a high correlation between those who have been abused and abusers.

... And I still think having insight and using self-reflection can be helpful in preventing the re-enactment of childhood offenses, in the form of perpetrating the same abuse or someone becoming a serial victim in adulthood. Sorry if that stance offends you.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I'm struck by, going over the available information on the trial (I didn't follow it at the time at all but since it's being discussed on the forum now, I better be prepared and get all the facts straight before talking about it): every single witness who testified against Jackson had done something to majorly discredit themselves.

The mother and father of the boy- a dozen things pointing to them being frauds and liars. Jason Francia and his mother- at first denied being molested, changed his story and then received millions from a settlement and took money from a TV show to talk about Jackson. The former security guard and former maid- disgruntled employees who had their own troubles with Jackson and had arguably been trying to extort him and allegedly tried to steal from him. The former chef and his wife- wanted to sell their stories to a tabloid and had their own problems with Jackson.

You wish one solid witness would have emerged. One non-sleazy, non-crazy, non-greedy employee, parent, guest, friend who hadn't sued Jackson in the past or been sued by him.

I wondered about something similar at the time:

MJ Trial - a different issue

I hadn't been following the MJ trial until I entered into a discussion here that involved it, since then I've been paying a bit more attention to it.

One of the things that I have heard and just been reading about is this testimony of ex employees and associates who have said under oath that they witnessed him sexually assault children.

The latest one:



What I really don't understand is why these people did not do anything about it at the time. If I saw an employer assault anyone never mind a boy I would then and there step in to try and stop it, and ensure that the authorities got involved.

It is beyond my comprehension that they did nothing. I can understand MJ being surrounded by "yes people" but surely if you witness an assault like these people describe you would, without even thinking of consequences, do something?

If they are telling the truth how could they stand by and do nothing? It just seems so strange and alien to me that they allowed these assaults to happen and by inaction allowed them to continue happening.

When it comes to a matter of minors in our society I think it is right to consider someone who doesn't do whatever they can to stop the assaults as having some culpability for any future assaults since they didn't do everything within their powers at the time to stop them.

I do find it strange that with so many people around him not one of them either rang the police as soon as they saw him do something even just inappropriate to a child or even physically stopped him doing it.
 
Last edited:
Niggle,

I said I was not serious. I don't know why an off-the-cuff remark based solely on my personal experience and not any in-depth scientific research would make you so angry. I am sorry you are angry and felt the need to call me names for my opinion that I have reached from a personal experience in several countries over many years. I am sorry I have made you angry. Yes, I should do more specific and serious research before posting such a shallow view online.
 
I do find it strange that with so many people around him not one of them either rang the police as soon as the saw him do something even just inappropriate to a child or even physically stopped him doing it.


The great Richard Roeper said it very well:
Chicago Sun-Times
April 14, 2005 Thursday
How could Jackson employees keep quiet?

BYLINE: Richard Roeper

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 11

LENGTH: 802 words


'[Michael Jackson] was licking my son's head." -- Testimony Wednesday from the mother of the alleged victim in the Michael Jackson trial.

Every time I hear about a witness in the Michael Jackson trial testifying that he or she saw Jackson molesting a child or engaging in seriously weird behavior with a child, one thing is clear: The witness is an unconscionable liar -- or an unforgivable coward.

Earlier this week, we heard from one of the idiot parents who allowed their children to spend far too much time with Jackson simply because of his fame. The mother of the boy who received a huge cash settlement from Jackson in the early 1990s testified that after initially refusing to allow her boy to share a bed with Jackson, she relented.

Why? Because on a trip the family made with Jackson to see Cirque du Soleil in Vegas (talk about a funky family field trip), Jackson "was sobbing and crying, shaking and trembling," the mother testified. "He said . . . 'Why can't [the boy] sleep in my bed? There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on.' "

Imagine a man in his 30s weeping and pleading with you to let your son share his bed, all the while assuring you there's "nothing going on." Would you:

A. Call the police.
B. Tell him that if he ever so much as looked at your child again, you'd kill him.
C. Agree to let your child spend two nights in the man's bed.

If you answered "A" or "B," congratulations, you're a citizen of Planet Sanity.

If you answered "C," I only hope you don't have custody of anything beyond a goldfish, and I pity the goldfish.

Wacko witnesses

Also this week, Jackson's former publicist testified about whether or not Jackson licked a boy's head -- and just typing those words again gave me the creeps.

Bob Jones first testified that contrary to prosecutor's claims, "I don't recall ever seeing any head licking" by Jackson on a flight from L.A. to Paris. But when the prosecutor produced an e-mail in which Jones talks about Jackson performing the beyond-strange act, Jones reversed his stance. Jones also said he saw Jackson and this particular boy in a cuddle-type position as they slept on the flight back from Paris.

Last week, the witness testimony against Jackson was even more blood-curdling.

Michael Chacon, a former security guard at the Neverland ranch, testified that in late 1992 or early 1993, he looked through the window of Jackson's pool house and saw Jackson performing oral sex on a 10-year-old boy -- the same boy whose mom OKd the sleepovers with Jackson.

To call that deeply disturbing is a gross understatement, but try to imagine if you were that security guard and you saw what he swore he saw. What's your next move?

A. Smash the window and scream at Jackson to stop.
B. Get into that bedroom by any means possible, beat the living daylights out of Jackson and call the police.
C. Wait more than a dozen years before letting the world know what you saw.

Check that. Chacon didn't wait quite that long to take action. He and some other former employees of Jackson's filed a multimillion- dollar lawsuit against Jackson, but lost -- and in fact were ordered to pay Jackson more than $1.4 million when Jackson countersued.

Under oath in this latest trial, Chacon described other incidents of Jackson allegedly kissing and fondling the boy -- but apparently Chacon did nothing about it.

And so it has gone with other former employees, including a one-time maid who signed deals with the tabloids and joined Chacon in the unsuccessful lawsuit against Jackson. She claimed to have witnessed multiple incidents of inappropriate behavior.

Then there's the elderly ex-employee who said he was delivering an order of French fries to the Neverland arcade late one night when he saw Jackson fondling then-child star Macaulay Culkin.

"I was shocked," said the former employee. "I almost dropped the French fries."

Yeah? And then?

And then he exited the room and loudly announced his presence before re-entering. How courteous and considerate of him.

I'm no Michael Jackson apologist. The creepy behavior he has tried to rationalize in TV interviews, the statements he has made about the beauty of sharing one's bed with a child -- that's enough right there to shut down the Neverland ranch and to make sure the man is never alone with any kid.

Whether he's a child molester, I don't know. This freak show of a trial seems to be filled with enough inconsistencies and questionable rulings that there's a strong chance Jackson will be acquitted or will win on appeal.

What I do know is that these witnesses are alleging some of the most heinous behavior imaginable -- and not a one of them seems to have done a damn thing about it while the acts were being committed. Who are these people?

Liars. Or cowards. There's no in-between.


To be totally fair, one of the ex-employees says that she was in debt and her husband had lost his job and she couldn't afford to be chucked out by her boss. If you depend upon someone's goodwill for your bread and your rent, you might be willing to look the other way.

Still, this is the rape of a child we are talking about. You have a responsibility to at least try to warn the potential victims. Even in a very tight spot, one could at least have pulled aside a parent and had a few discreet words with them.

Also- they all behaved very unwisely by making trouble with Jackson and testifying against him years later- when their stories were full of holes and half-remembered and they all came off as not only fraudsters but fraudsters with a chip on their shoulders. They made themselves very uncredible and unreliable witnesses by appearing to be disgruntled employees making stuff up.

If they had just come forward to the authorities at the time it allegedly happened, that wouldn't have happened.

Let this be a lesson to us all. If you see something, say something, no matter what the cost. It's your responsibility. And make sure you behave honestly in everything you do because if you don't, people will think you are lying when you (ironically enough) finally decide to start telling the truth. And if you are ever called to testify as a witness in a trial, be sure to have a closet free of all skeletons.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you nosey kids!
 
The biggest problem Michael had was he was childlike, I believe he had the Peter Pan syndrome. So when you are childlike you are going to have children as friends, sleepovers etc. If he didn't have that and probably body dysmorphic disorder he would've been more respected.

There are like all these death jokes being made by teens now, its really sad. Even after he dies he gets no respect. I mean what if he never even harmed a child? If he was mentally unstable why the hell did the people keep sending the kids over to his ranch?
 

Back
Top Bottom