Michael Jackson

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A similar thread to this in the GDF has been completely derailed by arguments about MJ's life. This thread has avoided that so far, which is to be lauded. Please keep it like that.

Originally posted by Impediment
I merged Alpha Centauri's thread into the already existing thread. Please use this one from now on. Let's keep it civil, okay, guys?

Since it is merged now, can here be a discussion of MJ's whole life, including the legal trouble from a few years back or is that topic just generally frowned upon?

The GDF thread is strictly for discussing MJ's death.

This thread will be dedicated to his life, music, and achievements. If people wish to discuss his legal issues here, then sobeit. However, I won't have anyone making jokes and childish remarks that could derail the thread.

However, I am thinking about closing this thread, and re-directing it to the thread in the Music Forum. It seems more at home there, if you ask me.

Quite an interesting quote from an article and the father, Evan, of alleged victim, Jordy Chandler;

"The singer began to stay at Evan's house with Jordy a lot. His behaviour, constantly following the boy around everywhere, even into the toilet, left Evan worried. He asked Jackson if he was gay. Jackson just laughed and said: 'No!', but one night Evan went into the bedroom and found him and Jordy under the same blanket.

'Jordan was in the foetal position with Michael hugging him from behind with his hand in my son's crotch.' said Evan.

'I was extremely confused. I thought that my son was a homosexual. I left them and decided to speak later when I'd calmed down.'.".

What?

"I left them.".

You find a man with his hand in your son's crotch...and you leave them alone?

Yes, a likely story.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They are not OUR business, crimes are the business of the authorities and the people involved. Not us. Society is nothing but owed that these crimes go punished, not that we are treated as if involved. We are not.

It's not societies business what he does with any children. It BECOMES the authorities' business if and when he breaks the law with them. That's it. It doesn't matter how weird or freaky you deem it to be, that's how it is.

I agree with pretty much anything else you said.

-AC

I don't really agree with that. It is society's business. Society makes the laws, society decides what is proper and what isn't, and society forms the juries which determine guilt. The authorities arrest people who violate society's laws. Authorities only exist because society put them in that place.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You find a man with his hand in your son's crotch...and you leave them alone?

Yes, a likely story.

It's no stranger than your claim of knowing people who allow their children to bathe with adult non-family members. My apologies if that wasn't your statement, but it still holds true. There are plenty of cases where a parent has ignored blatant signs of abuse.

The birth mother of his children came forward and stated that MJ was not the natural father to his children, a [Caucasian] sperm donor was used. Which isn't a surprise, since his children look completely Caucasian.

More oddness to his life.

How is any of that relevant?

Originally posted by grimify
I don't really agree with that. It is society's business. Society makes the laws, society decides what is proper and what isn't, and society forms the juries which determine guilt. The authorities arrest people who violate society's laws. Authorities only exist because society put them in that place.

Yes, precisely.

Society put them in place to deal with it. If you are not authority, it's none of your business. If we are just gonna poke our nose in and keep getting involved, why have authorities?

The man was found not guilty on multiple counts by a court of law. I'm not saying courts are perfect, but like authorities, they exist for a reason. If you're going to question the outcomes no matter what, why even have them? The point of having them is coming to an acceptable judgement, which is more often than not.

There simply isn't enough opposing evidence to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by grimify
It's no stranger than your claim of knowing people who allow their children to bathe with adult non-family members. My apologies if that wasn't your statement, but it still holds true. There are plenty of cases where a parent has ignored blatant signs of abuse.

Fail.

Seeing a man abuse your son or daughter and WALKING AWAY is not ignoring a "blatant sign", it's being a c*nt of a parent. That goes beyond "blatant sign".

Furthermore, it's not outlandish as what I said. During war times, hosepipe bans were frequent and neighbours were advised to save water by bathing with trusted friends. It's not an uncommon thing.

It's also possible that if they were together THAT much, that he saw him getting out of the shower or whatever. Many reasons.

-AC

Was just watching "This Morning"

Well Mark Lester that British guy who claimed to be a really close and friend of Jacksons and has been leading the charge in the 'Jacko's innocent' response, didnt know that Jacko was a long term injecting drug addict with a perchance for painkillers.

Now he was one of Jackson's closet freinds.

This side of Jackson was a side "I never knew that side existed".
One of his closest friends.

He knew the guy better than you do, AC, and he was apparrently completely shocked at this which due to dosages, many brands of morphine type drugs and repeated tracker marks would have been noticeable that he was injecting.

He also saied that he tried to give Jackson Accupuncture claiming that Jackson didnt want to as he hated needles, then said a minute later that he gave Jackson Accupuncture "the once".

Interesting.

Ever had pethadine which is Demirol..? I did for a ****ed kidney stone type situation once.

No way is this a recent thing if he is taking those sorts of doses along with the others and managing to maintain, imo.

Its seems pretty clear that MJ was very good at decieving those close to him.

How many people knew he was totally bald also..?

All the reports from his closest fans and family said he was in top physical shape and had never looked better etc, yet the autopsy reveals this emaciated 8st 5 dude who bore the signs of a long term addiction to painkillers and injecting drugs.

The plot indeed does thicken.

Also, regards to the above thang you be discussing:

C**t of a parent. Yes. Liar of a child? Not automatically.

The point of Robtard's last post seems to be also that "He lied" as he said they we all his, didnt he..?

How does any of that draw us closer to him being a paedophile?

I missed that part.

I'm not saying the man hasn't lied, but then again, there is allegedly/apparantly proof that he lied in those areas. There is none that he has lied in others.

I have said before, I do not make connections without proof. So while you'll say "If he lied about this, he lied about that.", I won't say that. I don't know what he did, what mental state he was in etc.

-AC

The part you missed: He is a proven liar who denies against a lot of evidence against him, that he was innappropriate with the kids.

Thats right. You dont know his mental state.
And therefore, surely its possible despite your beliefs that there may be some truth to it after all...?

Liars track record: Not gonna be so believeable, by your own admitted ethos.

You say that, when in Jacksons favour, yet not the other way round, it seems or do I have that part wrong..?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The part you missed: He is a proven liar who denies against a lot of evidence against him, that he was innappropriate with the kids.

Thats right. You dont know his mental state.
And therefore, surely its possible despite your beliefs that there may be some truth to it after all...?

Liars track record: Not gonna be so believeable, by your own admitted ethos.

You say that, when in Jacksons favour, yet not the other way round, it seems or do I have that part wrong..?

No, here's the part you miss; you and I do not have the same definition of inappropriate. You think he was grossly inappropriate for letting children share his bed and such, right? I don't. I don't find his behavior with children inappropriate unless he abused them.

If the evidence is against him and is fact, he can't deny it, can he? There hasn't been enough evidence to convict the guy, and people have tried continually. Now, court rulings do not mean somebody is factually guilty OR innocent all the time, but ask yourself this;

If you're gonna question a result based on lacks of evidence and NOT enough evidence to convict, accusers lying under oath and people taking pay offs, what's the point of even having courts?

-AC

That "birth mother" bit was just a snippet about MJ and his [eccentric] life, which is what this thread is about, no? Also, the man has no problem lying about things that are easily proven wrong.

I'm curious to your thought process, would you mind telling me which of these things you believe to be true or false?

Slept in bed with young a boy(s).

Followed a boy(s) around excessively. (This is considering he's a grown man and the kid was 13, so it's not like they were the "bestest of friends and had so much in common".)

Followed boy into the bathroom when bou used the toilet.

Was extremely affectionate with said boy(s), which included hugging/kissing them.

Gave boy alcohol (aka Jesus Juice).

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm curious to your thought process, would you mind telling me which of these things you believe to be true or false?

Slept in bed with young a boy(s).

Followed a boy(s) around excessively. (This is considering he's a grown man and the kid was 13, so it's not like they were the "bestest of friends and had so much in common".)

Followed boy into the bathroom when bou used the toilet.

Was extremely affectionate with said boy(s), which included hugging/kissing them.

Gave boy alcohol (aka Jesus Juice).

He admitted to sharing his bed, not sleeping with as in intercourse. So yes, he slept in bed.

"Followed" boy into bathroom? I've not seen him admit this, but even so, it proves nothing. He followed the boy into a room, big deal.

Extremely affection with the boy; I assume so. Hugging and kissing? Probably. I hug and kiss my niece, I'm very affectionate toward my younger loved ones.

As long as he wasn't making out with them or touching them inappropriately (Sexually), what's the big deal?

Furthermore, something occured to me today;

Despite Jackson being acquitted in a court of law because there was absolutely not enough evidence, nor credible testimony (People who previously testified admitted to lying under oath), you and others (Or at least Sadako) maintain he was guilty. Not only is that f*cked, but it's hypocritical.

Why? Because if the court found him guilty, you would have my head for saying "But you never know, courts can be wrong.". You would 100%, totally accept the verdict.

THAT is what sucks, and it's not about "A presense of evidence suggests guilt, a lack of evidence doesn't suggest innocence.". Because there can be many things that point to someone being guilty, without them being guilty.

Courts have to judge on reasonable doubt and evidence, thus he is acquited and labelled innocent.

I think it's shitty that had he been "proven" guilty instead of "proven" innocent, people would be accepting that verdict without question.

-AC

Yeah but its YOUR relatives...and a quick peck good bye or if your Niece cuddles you or whatever.

And by then have had a long history (explorable in "Michael Jackson" what really happened"😉 of pursuing teenage boys?

But what if in 20 years you want to bath with the neighbours boy?

Im sure you'd agree that that would be a sign of the wrongun.

And going back to Jaden's Hitler analogy earlier, its only theory, but one that fits more easily than the covoluted defence.

Orkham's razor.

And we have proof that he is a liar.

I think, btw, that it is equally "f***ed" that your love of his music has blinded you a little here.

I mean....The early stuff was f***ing amazing....but jeeeeeesh.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He admitted to sharing his bed, not sleeping with as in intercourse. So yes, he slept in bed.

"Followed" boy into bathroom? I've not seen him admit this, but even so, it proves nothing. He followed the boy into a room, big deal.

Extremely affection with the boy; I assume so. Hugging and kissing? Probably. I hug and kiss my niece, I'm very affectionate toward my younger loved ones.

As long as he wasn't making out with them or touching them inappropriately (Sexually), what's the big deal?

Furthermore, something occured to me today;

Despite Jackson being acquitted in a court of law because there was absolutely not enough evidence, nor credible testimony (People who previously testified admitted to lying under oath), you and others (Or at least Sadako) maintain he was guilty. Not only is that f*cked, but it's hypocritical.

Why? Because if the court found him guilty, you would have my head for saying "But you never know, courts can be wrong.". You would 100%, totally accept the verdict.

THAT is what sucks, and it's not about "A presense of evidence suggests guilt, a lack of evidence doesn't suggest innocence.". Because there can be many things that point to someone being guilty, without them being guilty.

Courts have to judge on reasonable doubt and evidence, thus he is acquited and labelled innocent.

I think it's shitty that had he been "proven" guilty instead of "proven" innocent, people would be accepting that verdict without question.

-AC

I do believe [it's very likely] he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

If Elton John was accused of fingering a 10 year old boy, I'd keep a clear mind until there was some proof that lead to suspicion.

edit- whoops. thought you something compeltely different. 😐

and i dont really see how him being a liar about something unrelated has to do with the molestation accusations. everybody lies. absolutely everyone bar-none ( cept for jesus and jar-jar 😄 ). to say that he lied about A and thus its likely he lied about B doesnt add up imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do believe [it's very likely] he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

If Elton John was accused of fingering a 10 year old boy, I'd keep a clear mind until there was some proof that lead to suspicion.

Indeed.

A well balanced way of looking at it.

Originally posted by WO Polaski

and i dont really see how him being a liar about something unrelated has to do with the molestation accusations. everybody lies. absolutely everyone bar-none ( cept for jesus and jar-jar) 😄 ). to say that he lied about A and thus its likely he lied about B doesnt add up imo.

Does the fact that he was a constantly lying opiate abuser (and he 'didnt have loads of surgery', when he clearly did... not suggest to you that he in the face of getting busted for being a paedo, he would lie and pay off loads of other folk to lie?

no actually it doesnt. 😐

i mean if a 23 year old man was convicted of murdering someone and he says he didnt do would you say that him being caught lying about joyriding in his fathers car ten years prior would suggest that he is lying about not murdering the person? like i said everyone lies to save face at one point in their life or another so i wouldnt use that as evidence or as a staple for anything really. ive always found the moral of the story of the boy who cried wolf to be moronic.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yeah but its YOUR relatives...and a quick peck good bye or if your Niece cuddles you or whatever.

And by then have had a long history (explorable in "Michael Jackson" what really happened"😉 of pursuing teenage boys?

But what if in 20 years you want to bath with the neighbours boy?

Im sure you'd agree that that would be a sign of the wrongun.

You're saying he "pursued" teenage boys, but again, if the pursuit (Which is a bit of an implicit way to put it) didn't end in abuse, we've got no issue.

Furthermore, Michael Jackson clearly had a different mindset. Would I personally do the bathing thing? No. Does it mean him doing so was anything other than odd? No. Unless we have proof.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And going back to Jaden's Hitler analogy earlier, its only theory, but one that fits more easily than the covoluted defence.

Orkham's razor.

And we have proof that he is a liar.

I think, btw, that it is equally "f***ed" that your love of his music has blinded you a little here.

I mean....The early stuff was f***ing amazing....but jeeeeeesh.

1) Occam's razor doesn't always work, it's just an idea. Like the Hooves/Horses medical thing. "If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.". That's to save time if someone's life's at stake and you have to make a call, however, zebras have hooves, and there's a chance you f*ck up by suggesting horse over zebra.

2) It's not blinded me, I refuse to accept that he is a paedophile because I have every reason to believe he didn't do it. A court of law proved him wrong, parents have been continually after his money, people have lied under oath. To continue questioning any other way would be dumb.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do believe [it's very likely] he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Odd behavior with other peoples' young, male children means he abused them sexually?

I didn't expect such a leap from you, honestly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Then what's the issue? Longing for children (Which I do believe is a bit of a negative way to put the love he had) isn't an offense. Touching that BORDERS on inappropriate does not a paedophile make. It doesn't matter if he should not be doing it, because it still doesn't make him a paedophile unless he's attracted to them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

There's also evidence to suggest he was just a troubled, kind, generous man who was odd. You call that inappropriate, I don't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Odd behavior with other peoples' young, male children means he abused them sexually?

I didn't expect such a leap from you, honestly.

Then what's the issue? Longing for children (Which I do believe is a bit of a negative way to put the love he had) isn't an offense. Touching that BORDERS on inappropriate does not a paedophile make. It doesn't matter if he should not be doing it, because it still doesn't make him a paedophile unless he's attracted to them.

There's also evidence to suggest he was just a troubled, kind, generous man who was odd. You call that inappropriate, I don't.

-AC

Where did I make the leap? There is odd behavior, then he was accused, it isn't much of a leap, as a possibly conclusion.

I'd find it hard to believe he longed for them and possibly touched them inappropriate (on purpose of course), yet he wasn't a pedophile. You're putting the horse before the cart.

He was troubled, his behavior indicates that. He was also a very giving man who came off as excessively gentle and kind. That has nothing to do with his hanging around young males, sharing a bed etc.