Pop superstar Michael Jackson dead at 50

I'm with you 100%... but NOT because I think he's a pedophile but because I strongly suspect he had serious mental illness that interfered with his judgment. Remember the baby dangling over the balcony incident? There are other things that would disqualify someone from supervising children.

I'd be out to snap the neck of anyone who molested any of my children (I have none at this point but this is for the sake of making a point). Thinking about it- I'd be cautious about allowing kids around anyone afflicted with the curse of celebrity- not necessarily because of who THEY are but the element and attention they attract and the fact that it affects anyone who happens to be accompanying them... especially if there is a possibility or intent to go out in public.

MJ was a strange bird indeed but the fact that the mother of the accuser was caught in a number of lies in her sworn statement to the court, had a history of filing lawsuits under false pretenses AND the kid at the center of the thing admitted nothing took place adds some credibility to the pungent aroma of RAT that I associated with the charges.

No, Jackson was not fit to supervise kids but it was because in some ways mentally he was just a kid himself NOT because he was a pedophile. Fighting charges incur lots of negative publicity and if Jackson knew anything it was the negative effects of protracted press coverage and I see the payoff as a hopeful means of dispensing of the issue quickly in hopes that the press/media find something else soon. Not sure I'd do the payoff but I don't know what I'd do if I had that kind of money-- my value system is what it is in part because I've been poor and abscure- something I'm growing to appreciate as I get older.

 

damn this thread is hotter than hell with all that plastic burning.. how did I miss this?

 

I wouldn't swear to this, because I have no desire to go looking right now, but I don't think there was only one person who made these claims. But even if there was only the one, why would you pay off someone instead of proving it in court?

You can't claim it was because he didn't know better, or didnt know what would happen by settling, he had people that he paid to tell him these things, like all celebrities do.

 

As pretty much stated above, the details do not matter in this case. As soon as he stepped foot in the court room the public verdict took place. Regardless of any verdict the court would give, it would never change the publics stance on the matter.

The only logical thing to do, was to have the ordeal as short as possible, the only one that would have made out in the end would have been the crazed mother of the kid. What Kid would want to be put up in articles around the world with this situation ? and a Normal parent would of wanted a jail sentance for the crime, if they decided to hunt this open route.

MJ was orignally there to counter sue chandler but was talked out of it. Cause in the end the details are not going to make the crime go away, especially in a society that doesn't research to make decisions on thier own but relies on media coverage.

This article sums up the details rather well: DID MICHAEL DO IT?

 

I still can't get over it. MICHAEL JACKSON IS DEAD!! What the fuck!!

 

I still can't quite get over the fact that he's dead. I didn't realise I was such a big fan until I heard the news and started listening to his songs again. He really was a legend, children in the most remote parts of Africa knew his name and his songs. I'm not saying anything about the allegations because we could all argue about it until the cows come home and still be no closer to the truth, so I'm just going to focus on what he should be remembered for, his music

 

whoes going to take his kids i think the grandma should

 

I agree, and I think we should remember Ian Huntley as a fantastic caretaker

 

on that, you are 100% correct

 

I have heard it said, Michael didn't intentionally dangle his babys feet over the balcony.
In trying to lift the baby higher the babys legs dangled over.
As soon as he realised what was going on...he took the baby back inside
This was from a person who was in the room at the time.
The baby wasn't kicking and screaming at all.
Talk about hyperbole.
Do you write for a tabloid newspaper by any chance?

This wasn't what I was talking about anyway.
You haven't really given much evidence to suggest he was sexually abusing children.
I'm still waiting for some supposedly published article.
But you've never provided this for me to read.
I'm assuming at this point it doesn't exist.

From what I have read from you.
There is zero point trying to disuade you from you current thinking.
Becaue you have done nothing but twist words and I don't really think you want to be reasonable and take in any other points.

If I had kids, from what I had read from the media...I wouldn't have let any kids of mine (if I had any) anywhere near him.
But, the media didn't want to paint him in a good light, just in case it did turn out he was abusing kids.
Plus negative stories sell more than positive stories.

There was a few high profile cases (of alleged abuse) and we now find out one of the kids lied.
Regardless of that I still wouldn't have let my kids near him.

But, then you listen to what his friends and others with no newspapers to sell say.
They paint a very different picture of MJ.
He might have been "childlike" in certain ways...
But, you don't have a 40 year career, write the lyrics he wrote and engender trust in hundreds and hundreds of parents, if you are "childlike".
That was just another face of MJ (pardon the pun).

You will probably say, parents were entranced by him...but remember they are also parents and would wish to look after their kids.
Not put them at risk.

What we have had is years of speculation and media BS.
You bought into it hook line and sinker.

 

Try watching the video of him doing it rather then listening to what 'someone' said...

as for the rest, as I have said multiple times... I have no problems connecting a person who is capable of that video, with someone who is capable of much worse. And as it is children we are talking about, I see no point in taking any chances one way or another. So yes, you are 100% right, you will not convince me otherwise...

 

I've watched it many times.
I even watched it while the person who was in the room Mark Lester was commenting on it.

 

well, if you can't see that baby kicking and flailing around, then this is a pointless convo...

 

Ok.

 

I already asked him: "Talk about hyperbole.
Do you write for a tabloid newspaper by any chance?"

Seems he doesn't.

 

Perhaps he's reading them. His experience is showing.

 

Just my 2c.
It is your use of : smashed its legs off the railing.
Like MJ swung the poor lad so hard he nearly broke his legs.
Then you go onto say the baby was crying.
Even though the video has no sound, if there is any sound, you can't hear the baby at all.
That's your attempt to spin (in other words lie) about said event...much like tabloids do.
Finally, the unflinching way you don't seem to be that reasonable.
You sensationalised the whole thing.

To be fair, MJ did a stupid thing that day.

 

If you had ever had anything to do with babies, you would recognize the way the baby is flailing around is not a happy thing... I don't need to hear the baby to see it REACT to having its legs smashed against the railing.

As for being reasonable... No I am not when it comes to people harming children... if you wish to be 'reasonable' about such things go right ahead. I prefer to save my sympathy for the children who are harmed by such people rather then for those people causing the harm.

Oh, and the statement of

Yes, thats what happened here all right, I sensationalized him hanging a baby over a railing for the paparrazi...

 

Your doing it again. Being unreasonable.
No. You said the baby was crying. Like you knew it was.
Now your interpreting it the way you wish.
Perhaps the baby wasn't that happy at the time.
Perhaps it was not bothered either way.
A few wiggles of a babies legs is hardly evidence of anything much...and if you think about it, you know that too.

You are making it seem MJ actually harmed his baby that day.
He didn't.
He just did a slightly dumb thing...I can see that.

If you watch the whole video, he brings out two of his kids.
He brought them out for his fans not the press.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEsAEg0HXA
Take a look at the video about 2:13 in.
Yeah, he really likes the press and was out there for them.

For the last time. He didn't harm his kid.
How do you interprete his other kid putting his arm around him in the video above?
Was he holding on for dear life...grasping at MJs neck, hoping not to be thrown over the blacony?

No, your choice of words in discribing the event. Very tabloid.

 

You really do insist on arguing about things that have been established already don't you?

In other words, I don't give a shit if you like the fact that my opinion is reasonable or not.