Janet 25.06.2009 17:40 |
Just broke in on the news and said that Michael Jackson had been rushed to the hospital in cardiac arrest, and his father said it wasn't looking good. Not a good week in the celebrity world. |
***Marial-B*** 25.06.2009 17:43 |
Tijn just told me and I can't belive what I'm hearing :S |
Aisha Sweetness 25.06.2009 17:47 |
Some reports are saying he's already dead...it's CRAZY... I really hope he will be alright, not because i have tickets to his London Shows but just because i love him so much and really pray he'll be ok. xx |
Penetration_Guru 25.06.2009 17:48 |
Imagine trying to give him CPR or mouth to mouth. You'd be nervous of breaking him, or having sections come away. |
Lisser 25.06.2009 17:51 |
It's been confirmed he has passed away. Huge loss for the world despite his personal issues he was a great artist and I will miss him. |
Lady Nyx 25.06.2009 17:52 |
such a sad week! :( :( :( i do hope MJ recovers. i love his old stuff, and hes an amazing performer. |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 17:54 |
I'm shocked... :-S I like his music a lot, and I really hoped he could make a nice comeback this time. I hope he'll make it!!! In either way, let's enjoy his music! link |
Lisser 25.06.2009 17:59 |
Lady Nyx wrote: such a sad week! :( :( :( i do hope MJ recovers. i love his old stuff, and hes an amazing performer. He won't be recovering, he has passed away. |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:05 |
Lisser wrote:Lady Nyx wrote: such a sad week! :( :( :( i do hope MJ recovers. i love his old stuff, and hes an amazing performer.He won't be recovering, he has passed away. Who says that? CNN is still saying that they don't know his condition yet. Just some gossip sites say he died already. But it's not confirmed yet officialy, although it seems he's not gonna make it. :-S |
Lady Nyx 25.06.2009 18:09 |
omg.... |
Micrówave 25.06.2009 18:10 |
I don't know what to say. (which is strange for me) Now we all know how our parents felt when Elvis died. The King just died. |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:12 |
His brother said he collapsed when they were together... so no suicide, 'just a cardiac arrest' as it seems. Sad, really said. I just read one newspaper saying that he's not dead, but in a coma. |
Major Tom 25.06.2009 18:15 |
Confirmed. He's gone. Stange, I really don't want to call myself a MJ fan, I mean it's *Michael*, everyone listens to him, more or less. Really sad, huge loss. RIP Mike. Tell Freddie I said hi. |
***Marial-B*** 25.06.2009 18:16 |
Micrówave wrote: I don't know what to say. (which is strange for me) Now we all know how our parents felt when Elvis died. The King just died. Well... my dad was more affected with John Lennon's dead. I cried with George Harrison and Freddie... :P |
The Fairy King 25.06.2009 18:18 |
:( |
Lady Nyx 25.06.2009 18:19 |
holy shit.... |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:23 |
CNN confirms...... Michael Jackson is in a coma! Seems like his brains didn't get oxigen for too long.... seems like he's not gonna be with us any longer. |
***Marial-B*** 25.06.2009 18:23 |
It's confirmed by CNN that he's in a coma. |
The Fairy King 25.06.2009 18:24 |
http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-dies-death-dead-cardiac-arrest/ |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:27 |
L.A. Times: Michael Jackson dies! He's gone.... meh :( |
PieterMC 25.06.2009 18:27 |
LA Times & CBS report he is dead. CNN not confirming. |
PieterMC 25.06.2009 18:29 |
NBC confirms that he died this afternoon. |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:30 |
link |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 25.06.2009 18:34 |
Shocking! |
Freya is quietly judging you. 25.06.2009 18:38 |
I wonder if people who bought tickets will get refunds. |
Aisha Sweetness 25.06.2009 18:46 |
CNN Just confirmed it....Let the conspiracy theories Start...RIP MJ XXXXXX |
Lisser 25.06.2009 18:49 |
Aisha Sweetness wrote: CNN Just confirmed it....Let the conspiracy theories Start...RIP MJ XXXXXX CNN has not confirmed it, they are only confirming the reports of his death, read the article. I'm sure he is gone though. My stomach hurts bc of this. I grew up listening to this man and I loved his music. |
sexmachine 25.06.2009 18:51 |
if there's a god in the sky........ .....then pedophiles will burn in hell |
Freya is quietly judging you. 25.06.2009 18:53 |
It's confirmed. |
The Mir@cle 25.06.2009 18:54 |
Barb... or whoever... please delete that post. Very annoying. I'm not dancing on your grave either sexmachine! |
Major Tom 25.06.2009 18:59 |
Though true, that was a very unnessicary comment. Show some respect. |
Penetration_Guru 25.06.2009 19:02 |
Well, that's one less person to be linked to the Queen + ??? rumours... |
Penetration_Guru 25.06.2009 19:03 |
sexmachine wrote: if there's a god in the sky........ .....then pedophiles will burn in hell Ah, this is the forgiving God? |
Penetration_Guru 25.06.2009 19:04 |
Major Tom wrote: Though true, that was a very unnessicary comment. Show some respect. Surely nothing is more necessary than the truth? Lying would be disrespectful. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.06.2009 19:04 |
Lisser wrote: My stomach hurts bc of this. I grew up listening to this man and I loved his music. Same here. It's like a part of our lives has died. Michael Jackson, Farrah. People die every day of the same things that took these two and yet their deaths make me feel absolutely raw and vulnerable. |
Matias Merçeauroix 25.06.2009 19:04 |
I'm highly upset. Too fucking upset. He will be missed and remembered as the genius he was. He was too great for this world. |
Vali 25.06.2009 19:23 |
Sad news. You could like him or not. But he belonged to the major league, where only Elvis, Hendrix, Lennon, Freddie and a few more played. Rest in peace, Jacko |
Aisha Sweetness 25.06.2009 19:29 |
Lisser wrote:Aisha Sweetness wrote: CNN Just confirmed it....Let the conspiracy theories Start...RIP MJ XXXXXXCNN has not confirmed it, they are only confirming the reports of his death, read the article. I'm sure he is gone though. My stomach hurts bc of this. I grew up listening to this man and I loved his music. Ok Now it has sorry for being presumptuous..xx |
i-Fred 25.06.2009 19:36 |
The news has left me in a state of shock |
shazamrock 25.06.2009 19:40 |
Time to crank up "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'". |
Sebastian 25.06.2009 19:45 |
He was one of those people you'd expect never to die. I mean, every death is a shame, but in this case, it's one of those 'untouchables', in my head anyway... big big loss for the world of music. |
Cwazy little thing 25.06.2009 20:07 |
Im shocked indeed - a musical genius and absolute legend, regardless of all the private issues. Upsetting stuff - his music has always been a favourite, and my first cassette was Bad. Whatever you believe in, I hope he's at peace. Difficult to find words I guess. |
-fatty- 2850 25.06.2009 20:14 |
Nobody made this amount of fuss when Barry White, Luther Vandross, James Brown or Issac Hayes died, but when a white singer dies.... fatty. |
Sergei. 25.06.2009 20:15 |
Aw. RIP. |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 25.06.2009 20:18 |
They're saying its due to prescription drugs, such as the case of Anna Nicole Smith. First Farrah Fawcet, and now the King of Pop dead at 50, what a sad day this has been. |
Sebastian 25.06.2009 20:27 |
-fatty- wrote: Nobody made this amount of fuss when Barry White, Luther Vandross, James Brown or Issac Hayes died, but when a white singer dies.... fatty. Cruel as it is, but you've been the first one to make me smile after hearing the news. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.06.2009 20:33 |
Sebastian wrote:-fatty- wrote: Nobody made this amount of fuss when Barry White, Luther Vandross, James Brown or Issac Hayes died, but when a white singer dies.... fatty.Cruel as it is, but you've been the first one to make me smile after hearing the news. Ditto. Thanks, fatty. |
My Melancholy Blues 25.06.2009 20:58 |
As already mentioned, first I was also shocked by the news about Farrah Fawcet, and then Michael...what a sad day today. Even though I've been watching the TV news show reporting Michael's, I can't believe that. Come to think of that, he hasn't worked musically for these years, and instead we've heard many gossips which makes it a pity and makes me sad all the more. Anyway though recently I've rarely listened to his music, I admire his works. R.I.P. p.s. My brother's mobile ringtone is thriller....oh, he'll be shocked. |
inu-liger 25.06.2009 21:22 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Sebastian wrote:Ditto. Thanks, fatty.-fatty- wrote: Nobody made this amount of fuss when Barry White, Luther Vandross, James Brown or Issac Hayes died, but when a white singer dies.... fatty.Cruel as it is, but you've been the first one to make me smile after hearing the news. All I can say is, touché. But nonetheless, this was very shocking and unexpected. RIP Michael :-( |
-fatty- 2850 25.06.2009 21:42 |
I would have expected a bit more flak for such an insensitive comment and I feel strangely let down. Never the less Am I the only one who thinks the order of events in Michael Jackson's life are back to front? He gets cremated (filming a commercial for Pepsi) then spends the next 25 years being embalmed before dying. I'm here all week. Try the chicken. fatty. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 25.06.2009 22:05 |
I saw him not long ago... I was outside his hotel in London when he stayed here for that conference at O2 Arena to announce the tour dates. After that, I was there waiting with many fans outside. It was him. He was there. He did appear to wave and blow kisses to the crowd... And now... This is just too shocking, really. R.I.P Michael Jackson. Pure genius, an iconic legend. Your music will live on... <3 |
Mr.Jingles 25.06.2009 22:19 |
Like many of you 80s kids, I'm devastated by these news. I grew up listening to Michael and he was the first artist I became a fan of, and that was even before Queen despite the fact that both were contemporaries. Now remember, this is 1983 when I started listening to MJ and that was pretty much Michael's year. He was fuckin' everywhere, and 'Thriller' was selling like if there was no other album worth listening to. He was without a doubt the second biggest musical phenomenon in terms of worlwide impact after The Beatles. I would record his videos on a Betamax and me and my friends would have watch those videos endlessly, and never once we got tired of it. Of course, after this huge level of super stardom came the surgeries, the lavish spending, the child molestation accusations, and Michael's behavior and appearance sort of drove many of us away from the guy we worshipped during the 80s. Over the years MJ was making more headlines over controversy rather than over musical achievements, and I personally felt like he was just no longer there. I was dissapointed that Michael destroyed his own musical career despite having a huge talent as singer, songwriter, and most of all performer, and all of that seemed to have gone down the drain. The news of his death broke my heart. The Michael Jackson I've been seeing as a "freak" over the past years, is now gone. Now all of sudden, that freaky Michael Jackson is now remembered for the phenomenon he was back in my childhood, with his moonwalking and his countless number of hits. Regardless of what became of Michael Jackson as a person, there's no denying that as an artist he was a true genius. Thank you Michael for making my childhood, a moment of my life that I will cheerfully remember. |
Erin 25.06.2009 23:25 |
Don't know what to say... As surprising as the news of Michael Jackson's death is, he was one of these people that you couldn't imagine growing old. As a kid, I used to love listening to the Off The Wall and Thriller LPs on my mom's old stereo. Great music... RIP MJ. |
My Melancholy Blues 25.06.2009 23:34 |
Michael's news makes me feel it seems as if he passed away while we forgot his greatness in spite of his great works such as Thriller and others. It seems that many heroes pass away like that... |
The Mir@cle 26.06.2009 02:47 |
Freddies Lunch Box wrote:
The news has left me in a state of shock
How ironic. [img=/images/smiley/msn/wink_smile.gif][/img] |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 26.06.2009 02:53 |
i suppose this is the 'Elvis' moment of the 21st Century [well,the start of the century anyway].Its definately reminded me of the shock and disbelief in the general public of when Elvis and John Lennon [for that matter] died before their time. [yes,i am old enough to remember their deaths] RIP Jacko now,lets see how long it is before the tabloids rake up any old shit about him,thats the thing about the dead,they cant sue.. |
john bodega 26.06.2009 03:12 |
The guy could move. What a legend. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 26.06.2009 03:16 |
just been sent my first MJ text 'joke' didnt take long did it? latest coroners report has shown that he died from picking his nose.they said that they couldnt blame it on the sunshine,couldnt blame it on the moonlight but blamed it on the bogie |
Penetration_Guru 26.06.2009 04:00 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Thank you Michael for making my childhood, a moment of my life that I will cheerfully remember. We all remember our first blow job fondly, don't we? |
The Mir@cle 26.06.2009 04:09 |
Brianmay.com: MICHAEL JACKSON Hard to know what to say - what to feel. I find myself wondering what might have happened on his tour ... the number of dates in the UK that he had committed to was insane ... I did have a feeling it was impossible ... but I was so shocked to hear that he went so suddenly. Very sad. Of course I still think of him as a boy ... he used to come and see us (Queen) play when we were on tour in the States, and he and Freddie became close friends ... close enough to record a couple of tracks together at Michael's house ... tracks which have never seen the light of day. Michael was the boy star of the Jackson Five, and always the most screamed at. I remember in their show, they tried very hard to make all the brothers equal in the presentation, but it was abundantly obvious that all most of the girl fans really wanted to see was little Michael. It was Michael who heard our track "Another One Bites the Dust" when he came to see us on "The Game" tour ... and told us we were mad if we didn't release it as a single. Of course this was way before Michael's monster solo career began ... but he was already in search of that fusion between Funk and Rock, Black and White, and the Thriller album was the consummation of that quest. There are many similarities between it and our "Hot Space" album ... but our timing was out, really. Michael got it right in every respect ... including timing ... the world was just ready for it ... and of course he was in a sense seeking the same ground, but coming from the opposite direction. Amusingly, after Freddie and Michael has spent some time together recording, Freddie came back and played us the work in progress, and he remarked that Michael had come up with a great album title ... BAD. A little later, Freddie smiled his wicked little conspiratorial smile, and said ... "I have a perfect idea for our album title - you may love it or hate it ... but think about it .... we can call it ..... wait for it .... GOOD"!!! I think the world is a more colourful place thanks to Michael's work ... he was a truly wonderful performer at his peak - and had a great team around him, including, of course, genius Quincy Jones. I think he qualifies as a great artist; he devoted his whole body and soul to his art. It's as if, with all the changes he introduced to his body, his art actually became his body and his persona. Yes, I only hope he passed away in happiness, in great hopes and anticipation of his glorious comeback tour. RIP Michael. Bri |
thomasquinn 32989 26.06.2009 06:14 |
I can't honestly say that I liked his music, but I appreciate that he was important to many people, and was one of the people who defined the 1980s. I don't think anyone, including Michael Jackson, deserves to go like this, especially when they're only 50. So, the King of Pop is dead. Who succeeds to the throne? |
Major Tom 26.06.2009 08:10 |
Penetration_Guru wrote:Ok, Penetration Guru.Mr.Jingles wrote: Thank you Michael for making my childhood, a moment of my life that I will cheerfully remember.We all remember our first blow job fondly, don't we? You are a "Deity" with more than 10000 posts on this forum. And I don't care what kind of status you have amongst the QueenZoners contra mine. Your latest two post make me sick. I've been hanging around here for quite some time and randomly posted in various threads. In a thread about Treasure Moment, Queen+Paul Rodgers etc. these comments are ok, but no more. This is a thread about the death of a man some many people might concider equal to Freddies status. I am SHOCKED how nobody have reacted already. Me not being a big fan of Michael feel sad for the loss of a true legend and inspiration for hundreds of thousands. Many who might thank him for saving their life in difficult times, like Freddie did with me. That said, and before someone comment about it, Fatty always delivers his jokes with a glimse in his eyes, just to let you know he's JOKING. I wish you were too, but I know you're not. You deserve a fucking slap in the face. You should be ashamed. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 26.06.2009 08:26 |
You're silly. |
Major Tom 26.06.2009 08:49 |
Silly? All I wish for is ONE(1) thread without abuse, sarcasm or bullying. Blowing Bubbles, a sick joke, but you all know it's a joke. Many don't know where to draw the line. This might well be the last post I make here cause there, even though it's a internet forum witch practises freedom of speech to the fullest, there is a foul stench of extreme lack of repect here. I know you don't care, trust me, I don't care that you don't care.*YARA IS AN EXEPTION* Now someone prob. will comment about the way I spell or something about my piss-poor english grammar, so I leave it at that. |
Hitman 26.06.2009 10:35 |
I'm sad for the loss of this talented artist. I wasn't a devoted fan but i recognize he made history on the contemporary music scene. He was certainly eccentric and his life has given him highs and lows. I would have been curious to see his "final curtain call" in July...hundreds of thousands tickets sold... Tonight i'm performing a concert with my band and we will pay a respectful tribute playing "we are the world" which was maybe his highest contribution to the world made with music. His loss is as tragic as our loved Freddie... may he find the peace he was missing. |
-fatty- 2850 26.06.2009 10:52 |
Major Tom I'm with PG on this subject. I think you'll find that the reason we have shown a lack of respect in the comments concerning Michael Jackson's death stem from the fact that we have no respect for the man. He was a real danger to children and his jesus-esque antics sickened me to the pit of my ample stomach. I thought the Gary Glitter comparisons were fair and relevant too. I'm not looking to pick a fight with you and I do respect your opinions but you cant really talk about a lack of respect and then tell someone they need "a slap in the fucking face". fatty. |
The Fairy King 26.06.2009 11:16 |
-fatty- wrote: Major Tom I'm with PG on this subject. I think you'll find that the reason we have shown a lack of respect in the comments concerning Michael Jackson's death stem from the fact that we have no respect for the man. He was a real danger to children and his jesus-esque antics sickened me to the pit of my ample stomach. I thought the Gary Glitter comparisons were fair and relevant too. I'm not looking to pick a fight with you and I do respect your opinions but you cant really talk about a lack of respect and then tell someone they need "a slap in the fucking face". fatty. Oh you have proof he was guilty? |
Major Tom 26.06.2009 11:27 |
Ok, Fatty. I first off have to say I enjoy every single post I've read from you. They always bring a sour kick in the nuts about practically everything and anything and always leave a good smirk on my mouth(insert sexual references here). The thing that got me started in this subject was the fact that as you might see him as a childmolester and a rapist, I do not. There were accusations and speculations, but never a conviction. Therefore, Michael Jackson never molested nor raped a child, in terms of the law. What people think is up to them. If I were the only one thinking he didn't do it, fine I'd be the only one. I made up my mind a long time ago in that subject. I do think Michael was indeed a full-blown wierdo that might have slept(I mean SLEEPING) in the same bed as children. But to compare him with Gary Glitter, who was guilty and sentenced to many,many years in jail, is in my opinion: Wrong. What I wished for, and now I saw you started another thead called "Jokes on MJ" or something, witch I think is great, was a thead where we respectfully could write our thoughts about MJ and maybe get some mourning off our chests. For those who enjoy phedofile jokes and DO think he did all those horrible things, Fattys tread. Hell, I might slip in to take a peek later. But for now, I'll just dust off my old Dangerous CD and give it a spin. Sorry if I stirred up shit. |
-fatty- 2850 26.06.2009 11:29 |
An innocent man wouldn't have come to an out of court settlement and a gagging order (pardon the pun). fatty. |
Major Tom 26.06.2009 11:36 |
Touche. But was it Michael or his lawyers who came up with that idea? What if you were accused with all those nasty things and you didn't do it. You had millions and millions on the bank and the fastest way to get the fuck out of there was to cash up. Think of the suffering, the pain...we'll I think I leave this discussion now, having said what I wanted to say and knowing I'll NEVER EVER win a "debate" with you Fatty. You bastard :) |
Micrówave 26.06.2009 11:42 |
Major Tom- Hey man, I understand. I'm sure Freddie jokes weren't very popular back in late '91 either. But you gotta understand, this is an internet forum. P_G is an ok guy. He's is just really shaken up by this whole MJ thing and it's his way of grieving. You should have been here when Paul Harvey died. I wanted to "take it outside" a couple of times with him then. |
-fatty- 2850 26.06.2009 11:48 |
Major Tom Sorry about that but the "out of court" comment was left for My Fairy King but you pipped me at the post. I started a seperate thread for the MJ jokes because I didn't want to fuck up the rest of the thread for folk who wanted to leave respectful comments and because for a joke to have any impact, it has to get out there quickly. I wont be making any more comments in this thread and that's out of respect for you. fatty. |
Major Tom 26.06.2009 11:51 |
Edit. Thank you fatty.. Haha, yes I understand. And no, I dont take it personal. I just wish for ONE day, ONE thread. There has been jokes about Michael going for ages. Lets give his fans the repsect they deserve, wheter Michael deseves respect is up to anyone to make up their own mind due to the accusations made about him. But lets give his fans respect and let them go one day without thinking about the bad stuff, but about all the good. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 27.06.2009 02:47 |
curious now as to where the personal doctor fits into all this... got to love conspiracy theories [img=/images/smiley/msn/tounge_smile.gif][/img] |
The Real Wizard 27.06.2009 09:45 |
I posted a couple times in these MJ threads, and now they the posts are gone..? I just have to post this link again, from Lisa Marie Presley... it really says it all, about how misunderstood a man Michael Jackson was: link Until the average person can attempt to show some empathy for someone who was thrown into a child star role at age 5, and abused by their father in the process, the molestation jokes will keep flying. Absolutely nobody in the western world can possibly relate first hand to creating a surrogate childhood for themselves because their childhood ended at age 5. Yet he was still able to be a brilliant artist in his own right. I hope the jokes will come to an end, and that the world will learn from this. But it probably won't, as the craving for the next big star will overrule their desire to understand what went wrong with the one that just left us. RIP. |
catqueen 27.06.2009 10:32 |
Still can't believe he's gone. Me and my friend used to do Michael impressions in the 80s, we managed to break some furniture in her house using it as a stage. It just seems so wrong that someone so much bigger then life and so alive and such a genius could die. |
Donna13 27.06.2009 23:20 |
Musically speaking, I became a big fan when I was around 10 years old (that was back in the Jackson 5 days). His solo work was amazing and I always enjoyed his performances (except for that embarrassing crotch grabbing thing and the fake - or maybe it was real - anger in some of his videos). He was a musical genius. And for that we can always remember him. |
The Fairy King 28.06.2009 06:55 |
http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late? |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 28.06.2009 07:42 |
^ not too late for him to pay back the £22m to the Jackson estate,even if he has to be taken to court to get the money,the theiving lying little toe-rag! |
john bodega 28.06.2009 07:45 |
Anyone see that article about how that famous taxidermy guy wants to plastinate Michael Jackson's body?? Absolutely fucked.. let's just string Elvis up to complete his tour obligations while we're at it! |
catqueen 28.06.2009 08:29 |
Gross! Please say you're joking! |
-fatty- 2850 28.06.2009 08:45 |
The Fairy King wrote: http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late? A fine example of investigative journalism if I ever I saw one. Okay so the grammar's not up to much and the reporter can't even be bothered to get the father and son's names right, but a fine example none the less. I'm surprised that none of the major news agencies have picked up on this story yet. It's not like Fox News to miss a sounbite like “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…" It makes him sound like the villain from a James Bond movie. Come on Fairy King. I'd expect this from someone like Treasure Moment who still believes that King Kong caused the World Trade Centre to collapse but I credit you with a bit more intelligence. fatty. |
catqueen 28.06.2009 08:51 |
The Mir@cle wrote: Brianmay.com: MICHAEL JACKSON Hard to know what to say - what to feel. I find myself wondering what might have happened on his tour ... the number of dates in the UK that he had committed to was insane ... I did have a feeling it was impossible ... but I was so shocked to hear that he went so suddenly. Very sad. Of course I still think of him as a boy ... he used to come and see us (Queen) play when we were on tour in the States, and he and Freddie became close friends ... close enough to record a couple of tracks together at Michael's house ... tracks which have never seen the light of day. Michael was the boy star of the Jackson Five, and always the most screamed at. I remember in their show, they tried very hard to make all the brothers equal in the presentation, but it was abundantly obvious that all most of the girl fans really wanted to see was little Michael. It was Michael who heard our track "Another One Bites the Dust" when he came to see us on "The Game" tour ... and told us we were mad if we didn't release it as a single. Of course this was way before Michael's monster solo career began ... but he was already in search of that fusion between Funk and Rock, Black and White, and the Thriller album was the consummation of that quest. There are many similarities between it and our "Hot Space" album ... but our timing was out, really. Michael got it right in every respect ... including timing ... the world was just ready for it ... and of course he was in a sense seeking the same ground, but coming from the opposite direction. Amusingly, after Freddie and Michael has spent some time together recording, Freddie came back and played us the work in progress, and he remarked that Michael had come up with a great album title ... BAD. A little later, Freddie smiled his wicked little conspiratorial smile, and said ... "I have a perfect idea for our album title - you may love it or hate it ... but think about it .... we can call it ..... wait for it .... GOOD"!!! I think the world is a more colourful place thanks to Michael's work ... he was a truly wonderful performer at his peak - and had a great team around him, including, of course, genius Quincy Jones. I think he qualifies as a great artist; he devoted his whole body and soul to his art. It's as if, with all the changes he introduced to his body, his art actually became his body and his persona. Yes, I only hope he passed away in happiness, in great hopes and anticipation of his glorious comeback tour. RIP Michael. Bri The Mir@cle, my laptop is being fixed at the moment, so I haven't been on Brian's soapbox for a few days. Anyway, I thought you were spoofing Brian in this, I thought it was really funny. I've only just looked at the soapbox a second ago and seen that Brian did say that. I'm a huge Queen fan, I love them more then I loved MJ, but what was Brian talking about Hot Space/Thriller? Thriller was and is huge, one of the best albums of all time. Is it just my imagination or is Brian May sounding different recently? The last couple of months I've been wondering if he's still writing the soapbox, it doesn't sound like him. And all those tiny sentences and dots aren't really his previous style. And his posts are so irregular now, and vary between one liners and very long rambling posts. Anyway, this particular post seemed fairly odd to me. Almost like he didn't want to admit that there could be any one equal or better then Queen. Like I said, I'm more of a Queen fan then a Jackson fan, but when commenting on someone's death you'd think he would have just talked about that person rather then bringing in Hot Space. |
magicalfreddiemercury 28.06.2009 09:39 |
Brian commented on his soapbox about Michael Jackson's death. In his post he mentions how there are similarities between Michael's album, Thriller and Queen's Hot Space. Judging from the bad reviews Hot Space gets from so many people, I wonder what y'all think about Brian comparing the two albums this way. |
john bodega 28.06.2009 10:12 |
I don't even think it's Brian writing anymore. Of his last six entries it's predominately him reviewing average music. |
Major Tom 28.06.2009 10:52 |
The Fairy King wrote: http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late?Fucking scum. This makes me sick. |
Rock It 28.06.2009 11:06 |
Michael Jackson and Freddie Mercury http://www.nicholasjdanton.supanet.com/comparisons.htm |
pma 28.06.2009 12:15 |
fatty- wrote:The Fairy King wrote: http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late?A fine example of investigative journalism if I ever I saw one. Okay so the grammar's not up to much and the reporter can't even be bothered to get the father and son's names right, but a fine example none the less. I'm surprised that none of the major news agencies have picked up on this story yet. It's not like Fox News to miss a sounbite like “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…" It makes him sound like the villain from a James Bond movie. Come on Fairy King. I'd expect this from someone like Treasure Moment who still believes that King Kong caused the World Trade Centre to collapse but I credit you with a bit more intelligence. fatty. Where the heck is my previous post in this thread? Oh well, I'm sure it was crap. That report is clearly rubbish as you point out, but that soundbyte you refer to is atleast widely quoted (doesn't make it real, I know)you can hear what is allegedly that bit of Evan Chanderl around 1:11 of this clip. I am suspicious about its origins, some internet sites claim it is from a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and lawyer Barry Rothman before legal actions were taken and it is claimed that the tape served as evidence against Chandler's claims. Real or not, I'm sure the famous "truth" is out there. link However It appears Foxnews did not miss out on daddy Chandler assaulting his son few years ago link I have to admit that having read through a few non-tabloid newspaper takes on these molestation court cases, I don't know if these families could have made it more easier for the defense to destroy their credibility. Not even the worst tv-law series script writer would have attempted to build a case with what they had against Jackson (IMO). Then again tv-shows are crap these days... |
The Fairy King 28.06.2009 12:49 |
? fatty- wrote:The Fairy King wrote: http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late?A fine example of investigative journalism if I ever I saw one. Okay so the grammar's not up to much and the reporter can't even be bothered to get the father and son's names right, but a fine example none the less. I'm surprised that none of the major news agencies have picked up on this story yet. It's not like Fox News to miss a sounbite like “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…" It makes him sound like the villain from a James Bond movie. Come on Fairy King. I'd expect this from someone like Treasure Moment who still believes that King Kong caused the World Trade Centre to collapse but I credit you with a bit more intelligence. fatty. It WAS all a big fat lie. Are you that naive that you believe a greedy dad and a manipulated Jordy C. MJ helped this kid, he took him and his mom into his home and this is the fucking thanks he got. J. Chandler's dad SAID he would destroy MJ and would take all the fucking do he got. It was recorded on tape and if this case would've been in court MJ would've won because he HAD the proof they were all about his money. J. Chandler's dad manipulated his kid. Seriously Fatty, i am with you when you say where there's smoke...etc etc...but ffs! A multi-millionaire popstar who genuinely loves children and cares about them. Do you seriously think he would jeopardize his life and career for this? Think! |
-fatty- 2850 28.06.2009 12:58 |
HOME ALONE STAR ADMITS HE WAS BUM-RAPED BY WACKO JACKO Macaulay Culkin, star of the Home Alone movies, has broken his silence over allegations that he was bum-raped by Michael Jackson who died on Friday. The 47 year old child star who appeared in Wacko Jackson's Thriller video said "I want people to know the truth." Culkin who met Jackson on the set of "The Sixth Sense" in 1982 speaks in lurid detail of how his parents left him in the care of the King of Pop while they flew off to France on a family holiday. "I had been in the shower washing my hair with a medicated shampoo" said Culkin who is now 24 years old. "I also washed between my toes and my belly button, which I'd never done before but sort of enjoyed. All of a sudden Michael came crashing through the door and tried to rip my towel off. I ran off but Michael followed me through the house. Luckily I had set up some booby-traps in case such an occasion arose. I managed to hold him back by attaching some old tins of paint to bits of string and swinging them at his head. Then I covered him in glue and threw some feathers at him." Culkin who is only 10 years old almost made it to saftey by escaping on a rope which he had fixed from his bedroom window to a tree-house in the garden but Wacko Jacko was close behind. "I might have got away but Michael grabbed my leg as I was running up the stairs. I tried to scare him off by putting a big fucking hairy spider on his face but he held on to me." Culkin who was only 8 weeks old at the time of the attack was then held down and bum-raped by the plastic faced Peter Pan of pop. Asked why he has kept his silence for so long, the 88 year old star of such films as My Girl, Uncle Buck and Harry Potter said "I dunno." Now is this any more believable than that other article? fatty. |
The Real Wizard 28.06.2009 12:59 |
The Fairy King wrote: http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/ Too late? Is there a credible source for this information? Looks like a fake to me, as much as we'd like it to be true. |
The Fairy King 28.06.2009 13:12 |
-fatty- wrote: HOME ALONE STAR ADMITS HE WAS BUM-RAPED BY WACKO JACKO Macaulay Culkin, star of the Home Alone movies, has broken his silence over allegations that he was bum-raped by Michael Jackson who died on Friday. The 47 year old child star who appeared in Wacko Jackson's Thriller video said "I want people to know the truth." Culkin who met Jackson on the set of "The Sixth Sense" in 1982 speaks in lurid detail of how his parents left him in the care of the King of Pop while they flew off to France on a family holiday. "I had been in the shower washing my hair with a medicated shampoo" said Culkin who is now 24 years old. "I also washed between my toes and my belly button, which I'd never done before but sort of enjoyed. All of a sudden Michael came crashing through the door and tried to rip my towel off. I ran off but Michael followed me through the house. Luckily I had set up some booby-traps in case such an occasion arose. I managed to hold him back by attaching some old tins of paint to bits of string and swinging them at his head. Then I covered him in glue and threw some feathers at him." Culkin who is only 10 years old almost made it to saftey by escaping on a rope which he had fixed from his bedroom window to a tree-house in the garden but Wacko Jacko was close behind. "I might have got away but Michael grabbed my leg as I was running up the stairs. I tried to scare him off by putting a big fucking hairy spider on his face but he held on to me." Culkin who was only 8 weeks old at the time of the attack was then held down and bum-raped by the plastic faced Peter Pan of pop. Asked why he has kept his silence for so long, the 88 year old star of such films as My Girl, Uncle Buck and Harry Potter said "I dunno." Now is this any more believable than that other article? fatty. *sigh* |
-fatty- 2850 28.06.2009 13:26 |
I'm not saying that I dont agree with you. I think Jordy Chandler's father is a fuck-pig with even less parental skills than Jake Britt. He saw a way to make a lot of money and pimped his kid out. What I'm saying is that the article you posted in which he admits to telling lies is a fake. It was more than likely written by some poor grief-stricken fan with the best of intentions, but it's bollocks all the same. fatty. |
YourValentine 28.06.2009 14:19 |
This alleged apology by Jordan Chandler was first posted on a website called trashcentral or similar last night. I saw a link on facebook and when I clicked on it the site did not open. I googled the first line and found the "news bit" on a MJ forum where it was identified as a hoax and people warned not to click that site as it carries a virus. This morning I googled again and - hey presto - I found dozens of websites reprinting it without ever questioning the truth. It was the first time I saw an internet hoax in the making. Scary. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 28.06.2009 18:24 |
^ i would of really of loved it to of been true though.. |
john bodega 28.06.2009 23:40 |
MJ diddled kids. It's not nice but the world is not always nice. And I'm not saying he was just some faceless evil pervert; he had an absolutely fucked up life. Shit goes in, shit goes out. He did some gross things with kids; you don't have to pretend it never happened to appreciate his music. Even Thriller, with it's juvenile lyrics, is a great piece of work. |
YourValentine 29.06.2009 03:33 |
He was acquitted, wasn't he? Looking like a freak, appearing in court in pyjama trousers - he was still acquitted by an all-white jury. I think that should tell us something. |
john bodega 29.06.2009 03:53 |
It tells me that you can buy City Hall. |
YourValentine 29.06.2009 04:01 |
But the jurors are not paid, right? If the state pays millions of dollars to convict a person and the jury does not believe the charges and acquits the defendant - maybe he was innocent or not? Being charged of a crime is the worst society can do to you and when you are acquitted the society should accept that verdict and not act like the outcome was the other way round. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.06.2009 05:33 |
^exactly,in my country one is innocent until proven guilty,he was put on trial found 'not guilty' and released,that should of been the end of it in my book. i think our 'colonial convict cousins' may see things a little differently though [j/k Zeb] |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.06.2009 05:35 |
on a seperate note ive just finished reading a bio on Errol Flynn and if half of what ive read about him was true then he made Jacko look like a saint! |
thomasquinn 32989 29.06.2009 06:27 |
YourValentine wrote: he was still acquitted by an all-white jury. A jury of his peers ;-P |
pma 29.06.2009 08:18 |
Now that tabloids are celebrating the "revelations" of Grace Rwaramba, former nanny for Jackson's children, it turns out unsurprisingly that the media had inserted their own spin into whatever they got out of her. Mallika Chopra, friend of Rwaramba tells an interesting story on her blog link I believe on yesterdays news they were writing how Jackson was in a surprisingly good shape according to his autopsy report. Today they are writing headlines about how frail and sick he was... |
Lady Nyx 29.06.2009 14:06 |
Sir GH wrote: I posted a couple times in these MJ threads, and now they the posts are gone..? I just have to post this link again, from Lisa Marie Presley... it really says it all, about how misunderstood a man Michael Jackson was: link Until the average person can attempt to show some empathy for someone who was thrown into a child star role at age 5, and abused by their father in the process, the molestation jokes will keep flying. Absolutely nobody in the western world can possibly relate first hand to creating a surrogate childhood for themselves because their childhood ended at age 5. Yet he was still able to be a brilliant artist in his own right. I hope the jokes will come to an end, and that the world will learn from this. But it probably won't, as the craving for the next big star will overrule their desire to understand what went wrong with the one that just left us. RIP. i really feel bad for her. to have such a horrific scene happen like that at THAT caliber TWICE in her life....i wouldnt wish it on anyone. |
The Real Wizard 29.06.2009 15:12 |
Zebonka12 wrote: MJ diddled kids. It's not nice but the world is not always nice. Yeah, because people give into pop culture's need to demonize and destroy people, insisting without any proof that he diddled boys. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 29.06.2009 16:04 |
I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't. He will be remembered as a hugely sucessful artist and entertainer, but also as a paeodphile, and that is all there is to it. |
-fatty- 2850 29.06.2009 16:45 |
I wonder if Gary Glitter will be remembered so fondly when he shuffles off his mortal coil. fatty. |
The Fairy King 29.06.2009 17:11 |
reya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't. He will be remembered as a hugely sucessful artist and entertainer, but also as a paeodphile, and that is all there is to it. I'm not just saying i don't believe the allegations because i like his music. I did a bit of research, read some bio's, seen a lot of documentaries. If you release psycho-analysis on this guy he can't be a fucking pedo. He went global at the age of 10. Which means he lost his youth and became a "young professional" with lots of responsibilities. Not to mention the fame and hysteria around him. When you're projected this kind of life at that age, your personality and development freezes. THIS is why he could be himself around children. THIS is why he wanted kids around him. When you have a massive popstar, who is a bit odd and who likes to be around kids a lot...it's not difficult to sue him for all he's got. Especially in America. I'm not that big a fan, his persona is/was so fucking intrueging and his life was extraordinary which made me get into his life. There are some severe lessons to be learned from this. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 29.06.2009 17:50 |
I do see exactly where you're coming from, really I do. And sad though it is in its own way, I hope it's true. However, (in my opinion...) it does seem like there have been a few too many allegations for it all to be coincidence. And whether or not he is a child in his mind, if he so much as touched one of those children in the wrong place, no matter how he meant it, it technically makes him a paedophile in the eyes of the law. I feel sorry for him, I always have. He really was only about 8 years old in his head, poor sod. (Unless he was very very clever and only acted like... No, I am going off on a tangent.) Poor Jacko. |
Brandon The Great 29.06.2009 17:51 |
I was stunned. MJ has been a staple on my iPod for as long as I can remember. A shame and a tragic loss. |
Brandon The Great 29.06.2009 17:53 |
As for the jokes... c'mon, seriously? They're jokes. I laughed, anyway. The scary thing is, I've heard people say similar things and mean them. |
@ndy38 29.06.2009 18:05 |
-fatty- wrote: I wonder if Gary Glitter will be remembered so fondly when he shuffles off his mortal coil. fatty. Maybe if his music was better...but time will tell. |
YourValentine 29.06.2009 18:19 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't. He will be remembered as a hugely sucessful artist and entertainer, but also as a paeodphile, and that is all there is to it. I am not a fan and I still think your statement is not right. The state of California spent millions of $$, filed dozens of search warrants and even opened a website inviting people to call in if they were victims of MJ (!!) but nothing was proven. The jury was majorly conservative and 8 of the 12 jurors were women. There is no reason to believe that these people had any other agenda than evaluating the evidence presented in court. They deliberated a whole week before they acquitted Jackson in all cases. It's the easiest thing in the world to accuse a person of having committed something indecent or illegal but when this person was acquitted after the state put more effort into convicting this person than in any other case it's not okay imo to uphold these allegations. Mainly when the person is dead. Even if he was a celebrity. If you are right that everyone is a paedophile because nobody can "categorically say he wasn't" I can call you anything I like and it would be up to you to convince me that I am wrong. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.06.2009 18:33 |
-fatty- wrote: I wonder if Gary Glitter will be remembered so fondly when he shuffles off his mortal coil. fatty. in a word "no", due to the fact he has been convicted,twice,of being a pedo. Jacko was acquited of all charges when put on trial,therefore he died an innocent man |
-fatty- 2850 29.06.2009 18:45 |
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. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.06.2009 18:55 |
-fatty- wrote: 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.the only person alive now who can answer that is Jordy Chandler |
-fatty- 2850 29.06.2009 19:05 |
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 |
Freya is quietly judging you. 29.06.2009 19:05 |
YourValentine wrote:Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't. He will be remembered as a hugely sucessful artist and entertainer, but also as a paeodphile, and that is all there is to it.I am not a fan and I still think your statement is not right. The state of California spent millions of $$, filed dozens of search warrants and even opened a website inviting people to call in if they were victims of MJ (!!) but nothing was proven. The jury was majorly conservative and 8 of the 12 jurors were women. There is no reason to believe that these people had any other agenda than evaluating the evidence presented in court. They deliberated a whole week before they acquitted Jackson in all cases. It's the easiest thing in the world to accuse a person of having committed something indecent or illegal but when this person was acquitted after the state put more effort into convicting this person than in any other case it's not okay imo to uphold these allegations. Mainly when the person is dead. Even if he was a celebrity. If you are right that everyone is a paedophile because nobody can "categorically say he wasn't" I can call you anything I like and it would be up to you to convince me that I am wrong. So, you would be happy to say totally 100% he was not a paedophile, in any sense of the word? And I'm not saying he is one, I was just pointing out that people are so very defensive over him and don't admit that there is a chance some of the allegations may be true. And when I say he will be remembered as a paeodophile, I mean that's going to be one of the things that jump to mind when people remember him. "Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense. |
Major Tom 29.06.2009 19:51 |
If you guys would just open your minds and see the whole picture. Throughout his childhood he never got to play and goof around like normal kids, he was drilled to sing and dance, to entertain and to make big bags of gold for his fucking asshole of a father, Joseph, I belive. When he finally got out of his grip he was so fucking famous he couldn't walk into a 7/11 in the middle of the night without creating hysteria. The only humans he could hang out with who didn't care about his wealth or fame was kids. And since he missed out of all of the kids stuff he connected with them. I love kids, Michael loved kids. There is nothing wrong with that. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 29.06.2009 20:09 |
Point missed totally. |
magicalfreddiemercury 29.06.2009 20:22 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: Point missed totally. 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. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 29.06.2009 20:26 |
Aye, exactly! |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 29.06.2009 23:20 |
Simply put he's been labeled, the scandals and allegations overshadowed him in life, as it will in death. |
Mr Mercury 30.06.2009 05:48 |
-fatty- wrote: 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. 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. |
Major Tom 30.06.2009 06:06 |
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. |
Yara 30.06.2009 06:45 |
Major Tom wrote: 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. 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. |
YourValentine 30.06.2009 07:10 |
Major Tom wrote: 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. 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. |
-fatty- 2850 30.06.2009 09:42 |
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. |
pma 30.06.2009 10:33 |
-fatty- wrote: 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 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 link 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". |
Holly2003 30.06.2009 11:20 |
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? ;) |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.06.2009 11:26 |
pma wrote:-fatty- wrote: 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." fattyWell 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 link 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". 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. |
-fatty- 2850 30.06.2009 11:36 |
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. |
Sebastian 30.06.2009 13:17 |
Holly2003 wrote: 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? Actually I did ... it's not like he was a hundred anyway... |
thomasquinn 32989 30.06.2009 13:31 |
-fatty- wrote: 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. 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. |
john bodega 30.06.2009 14:10 |
Michael Jackson, Heather Mills and Susan Boyle walk into a bar. |
thomasquinn 32989 30.06.2009 14:22 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Michael Jackson, Heather Mills and Susan Boyle walk into a bar. If they were fighting over the title "Greatest Musician Currently Present In The Room", Heather Mills would probably win....;-P |
pma 30.06.2009 14:22 |
tell the insurance company to take a flying fuck at themselves, go to court and let justice prevail. What if this is not possible for whatever reason as we are to understand from the legal documents. (referring to page 3 of that document again) "It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotations and the insured is precluded from any interferecence. Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings. An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements." I suppose we can always speculate why they brokered the deal with the Chandler's (imagine how much money would the people affiliated with Jackon have lost if he was to miss contractual obligations due to a lengthy court case etc. the toll it would have taken on his mental and physical health? damage limitation indeed). But speculation is just speculation and probably fruitless in this case. We could always speculate that Jackson (as claimed in his defense during the People vs Jackson-case) was simply unable to prevent his insurance company from making a deal. Even the latest non-tabloid reports say that Jackson was not aware that he had signed for 50 dates at the 02... It really does further the impression that this "manchild" had a very low awareness level for the realities of our cold harsh "adult" world. Adult in quotation marks for the sake of the fact that us adults clearly read and believe everything in print, paper or digital. We live in an age where people appear to lack the simplest ability to be critical towards information presented to us by the media. Imagine the things these "newspapers" would write about Freddie Mercury if he was alive and died of a.i.d.s today... as if the things they wrote about him in 1991 were not bad enough... Now I hope you can all still enjoy Queen knowing that he probably bummed a few teens together with MJ while recording "There must be more to life than kids"... Btw, for all you quoting that autopsy report that "MJ was bald etc." the autopsy report was already repoted to be fake even by other tabloids and it even got an official response from the coroner's office link link Besides, if a 50 yo man hasn't got all his hair. Is that really newsworthy to begin with? Or that he was skinny. |
YourValentine 30.06.2009 15:31 |
Thanks for clearing that up, Pete. I was not familiar with the Jordan Chandler case and I begin to think that the legal system may have some serious flaws... Even as a non-fan I heard that MJ had a bad accident when he filmed a Pepsi commercial and his hair caught fire. He was reported to have severely burnt his scalp and lost his hair, of course. |
The Real Wizard 30.06.2009 18:06 |
Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko.Because society ate him up alive. He was a child star at age 5. Later in life he wanted to be a child again, and hung out with little boys, since he didn't have a chance when he was that age. Of course it's fucked up to people like you and I, but nobody will ever be able to feel sufficient empathy for the man because we weren't stars at age 5... nor were we given female hormones by our fathers until age 16 to keep our voices up high. This is emotional baggage that we simply cannot fathom. I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't.In that case, everybody is a potential pedophile. "Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense.It does, and it's horribly unfortunate. -fatty- wrote: Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut. Or maybe he just wanted to be left alone, and could afford to cough up the coin to make it happen without the heartache and public humiliation of going to court? |
Brandon The Great 30.06.2009 18:17 |
Sir GH wrote:Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko.Because society ate him up alive. He was a child star at age 5. Later in life he wanted to be a child again, and hung out with little boys, since he didn't have a chance when he was that age. Of course it's fucked up to people like you and I, but nobody will ever be able to feel sufficient empathy for the man because we weren't stars at age 5... nor were we given female hormones by our fathers until age 16 to keep our voices up high.I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't.In that case, you and I are potential pedophiles too."Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense.It does, and it's horribly unfortunate.-fatty- wrote: Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut.Or maybe he just wanted to be left alone, and could afford to cough up the coin to make it happen without the heartache and public humiliation of going to court? I agree completely. And, can I add, if we were under constant scrutiny of cameras, I'm sure most of us would be labeled as "wacko" and "weird" too. It's assinine to say that, because we can't categorically state he wasn't a paedophile, it should always be tagged to his name. Personally, I think he was misunderstood, made some bad choices, and Star Magazine needed to move some copies. I love Michael Jackson. Not in the way Freddie loved hairy men or in the way of the ancient greeks, but in the way a fan can love an idol and, sometimes, a celebrity can love a chimp. |
-fatty- 2850 30.06.2009 22:04 |
Sir GH wrote:Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko.Because society ate him up alive. He was a child star at age 5. Later in life he wanted to be a child again, and hung out with little boys, since he didn't have a chance when he was that age. Of course it's fucked up to people like you and I, but nobody will ever be able to feel sufficient empathy for the man because we weren't stars at age 5... nor were we given female hormones by our fathers until age 16 to keep our voices up high. This is emotional baggage that we simply cannot fathom.I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't.In that case, everybody is a potential pedophile."Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense.It does, and it's horribly unfortunate.-fatty- wrote: Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut.Or maybe he just wanted to be left alone, and could afford to cough up the coin to make it happen without the heartache and public humiliation of going to court? What's humiliating about clearing your name in a court of law? |
Brandon The Great 30.06.2009 22:11 |
-fatty- wrote:Sir GH wrote:What's humiliating about clearing your name in a court of law?Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko.Because society ate him up alive. He was a child star at age 5. Later in life he wanted to be a child again, and hung out with little boys, since he didn't have a chance when he was that age. Of course it's fucked up to people like you and I, but nobody will ever be able to feel sufficient empathy for the man because we weren't stars at age 5... nor were we given female hormones by our fathers until age 16 to keep our voices up high. This is emotional baggage that we simply cannot fathom.I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't.In that case, everybody is a potential pedophile."Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense.It does, and it's horribly unfortunate.-fatty- wrote: Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut.Or maybe he just wanted to be left alone, and could afford to cough up the coin to make it happen without the heartache and public humiliation of going to court? In an American court of law? When you're Michael Jackson? What's not? IMO, he made the right decision, because the only thing people seem to like more than building up a celebrity is tearing them down. He'd already been found guilty by the press, and child molestation is one of those charges where it's incredibly difficult to overcome people wanting to "punish" the accused. There are so many people sitting in prisons found guilty of similar crimes and judges won't allow DNA testing because they don't want to appear soft on crime. There's no such thing as a fair day in court. At least not in America. And, as long as people are involved, I'm willing to be around the world. |
StoneColdClassicQueen 30.06.2009 22:45 |
Too much media frenzy.... Seriously, everyone should lay off.... I need to know other news!!!!! I mean, I appreciated his music and legacy too, but come on now; do I really need to know where Bubbles the monkey is, or who trained Michael Jackson for over a decade??? How is that relevant????? All this trivial coverage is ridiculous! The will stuff and custody over his kids should be dealt with privately. Everything should. The man just died!!! We should respect his family's privacy, shouldn't we???Michael Jackson was awesome and all, but this is too much!!!! I don't even know what's going on these days except that people payed tribute at the Apollo theatre by getting up at 4 in the morning to get there -_-' I don't need to know about all things MJ 24/7. The most retarded crap pops up in the news these days... The songs were great to listen to during the weekend, but I've heard Thriller, Billie Jean, The Way You Make Me Feel, and Don't Stop Til You Get Enough waaaaaaaay too many times. Even if I turn off my computer or telelvision, he's everywhere!!!! And oh yeah, did I mention how stupid people are behaving? Dozens of suicides because of MJ's death. Are you kidding me??? That just makes things worse!! What good does that do anyone? Wouldn't someone pay tribute by actually being alive to listen to MJ or buy his stuff? I'm not gonna off myself like that when Bri, Rog, or Deaky dies. (In Deaky's case, I might cry, but definitely not kill myself) Rest In Peace Michael Jackson. I just wish the media and everyone else would let you.... |
magicalfreddiemercury 01.07.2009 07:49 |
StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: "Too much media frenzy.... Seriously, everyone should lay off.... Rest In Peace Michael Jackson. I just wish the media and everyone else would let you...." === So true. You know, not too long ago, the only thing on the news - any news - was the Iran election and aftermath. Then a South Carolina senator had an affair and, suddenly, Iran wasn't news anymore. And THEN... Farrah died. AND THEN Michael died. There's nothing else going on in the world, apparently, except the autopsies on MJ and the in-fighting of the Jackson family. I guess all is peaceful on the seas - no more pirates??? - and in Iran, Afganistan, Iraq, Honduras, Somalia, North Korea... |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 01.07.2009 10:01 |
i dont know if you lot in the US knew this but the Daily Express newspaper here in the UK kept on about Diana's death on the front page for 10 years! so,i hate to think how long they are gonna go on about Jacko.. welcome to the new Marilyn/Elvis |
-fatty- 2850 01.07.2009 10:18 |
I'm surprised that Treasure Moment hasn't posted a link to a Youtube video explaining how Michael Jackson's death is in some way related to swine flu, 9/11 and the current economic crisis. Oh yes and we're all sheep. fatty. |
john bodega 01.07.2009 11:04 |
Eh I can fill in for him. you really area clueless comedian fatty hahaha, open your mind and stop listening to the mainstream media. 100000x times more important things happen than michael jackson (who by the way is overrated garbage). |
pma 01.07.2009 13:02 |
If someone is bored of their current source of news and information about world events concentrating too much on Michael Jackson, how about changing to some other website/newspaper for news? There are countless options, perhaps you look for news in the wrong place to begin with?. I don't know what kind of publications other countries have, but round here the only newspapers writing daily about MJ are tabloids or tabloid-like newspapers strongly affiliated with tabloids or owned by the same companies. Then there are the real newspapers and real news-sites, that do not report on what British/US tabloids have written about nor consider them sources worthy of quoting to begin with (and show a high level of journalistic integrity). Surely one can always rely on THE BBC for no-nonsense news (well, "always"...), no matter where you are around the world... link |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 01.07.2009 13:29 |
^if you want nonsense reporting watch the most over-rated woman on a news channel [Kay Burley,Sky News] continually refering to NEVERLAND as GRACELANDS. someone should really slap that surgically enhanced face of hers |
The Real Wizard 01.07.2009 15:33 |
Brandon The Great wrote:-fatty- wrote:In an American court of law? When you're Michael Jackson? What's not? IMO, he made the right decision, because the only thing people seem to like more than building up a celebrity is tearing them down. He'd already been found guilty by the press, and child molestation is one of those charges where it's incredibly difficult to overcome people wanting to "punish" the accused. There are so many people sitting in prisons found guilty of similar crimes and judges won't allow DNA testing because they don't want to appear soft on crime. There's no such thing as a fair day in court. At least not in America. And, as long as people are involved, I'm willing to be around the world.Sir GH wrote:What's humiliating about clearing your name in a court of law?Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I don't know why people are so over protective about Jacko.Because society ate him up alive. He was a child star at age 5. Later in life he wanted to be a child again, and hung out with little boys, since he didn't have a chance when he was that age. Of course it's fucked up to people like you and I, but nobody will ever be able to feel sufficient empathy for the man because we weren't stars at age 5... nor were we given female hormones by our fathers until age 16 to keep our voices up high. This is emotional baggage that we simply cannot fathom.I agree with "innocent until proven guilty" and it's fine to say that you don't believe he was a paedophile, but you can't catagorically say he wasn't.In that case, everybody is a potential pedophile."Singer... entertainer... Oh. And possible paedophile." It will be something that always comes with him, if that makes sense.It does, and it's horribly unfortunate.-fatty- wrote: Instead he handed over $22 million on the condition that the boy and his family kept their mouths shut.Or maybe he just wanted to be left alone, and could afford to cough up the coin to make it happen without the heartache and public humiliation of going to court? [img=/images/smiley/msn/thumbs_up.gif][/img] Nothing to add. |
Major Tom 01.07.2009 17:50 |
-fatty- wrote: I'm surprised that Treasure Moment hasn't posted a link to a Youtube video explaining how Michael Jackson's death is in some way related to swine flu, 9/11 and the current economic crisis. Oh yes and we're all sheep. fatty.FACT! |
pma 03.07.2009 12:07 |
Canadian comedian Jon LaJoie puts things into perspective link |
StoneColdClassicQueen 03.07.2009 16:37 |
pma wrote:
Canadian comedian Jon LaJoie puts things into perspective
link
XDDDDDDDDDD that was awesome!!!!! haha he's so right! I mean, yeah there were his loyal and TRUE fans, and then there were those hypocrites! That was my laugh for the day... |
Mr Mercury 04.07.2009 05:57 |
Heres what I find wierd. They discovered that they have over 100 hours of rehearsal footage from what was supposed to be this years tour. Now one of the things they are talking of is sending that out on a "virtual" Elvis style tour. How sad those money grabbing bastards are. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 04.07.2009 07:31 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Heres what I find wierd. They discovered that they have over 100 hours of rehearsal footage from what was supposed to be this years tour. Now one of the things they are talking of is sending that out on a "virtual" Elvis style tour. How sad those money grabbing bastards are.if Lloyds of London dont pay out the £12m insurance then the promoters have to get their money back somehow.. the show must go on and all that bollox.. |
john bodega 04.07.2009 16:41 |
Get him on that stage using robotics and puppetry I say. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 04.07.2009 19:13 |
Now that I would go and see. Also, I may seem slightly hypocritical, but the more footage I see of Jacko, and having rewatched the Bashir documentary and the second one, with the footage that Bashir left out, the more I like Jacko. He was clearly a very troubled man, but I find it increasingly hard to believe he was an actual paedophile. I hope he wasn't. |
PieterMC 05.07.2009 01:43 |
What does this say? It's from a German misprinted Thriller sleeve. ">link |
emrabt 05.07.2009 06:51 |
the first two lines say: "jackson, there are many, this is the first film but it won't be the last." Then it goes onto say that “Jackson has started using musical partners, Eddie mercury the lead singer of queen being one of them. This will ensure the name Jackson stays on the charts for a long time.” |
john bodega 05.07.2009 07:38 |
That's the most insulting misprint ever. Everyone knows it's spelled "Eddy". |
beautifulsoup 05.07.2009 09:13 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Get him on that stage using robotics and puppetry I say. Or bring Walt Disney out of his cryogenic freeze to produce an audioanimatronic Jackson. |
GuitarGod_ 05.07.2009 09:44 |
It's fair to say that the judicial system doesn't work as well as we all want it to. There are many criminals walking the streets who have not been convicted, just as there are many innocent men behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. I truly believe Michael Jackson was innocent, and him paying the family an out of court does nothing to persuade me otherwise. A lot of you are preaching that, had you innocently been accused of a serious crime, you'd see the trial through to the end just because "you're innocent". So, what you're saying is, you'd rather go through months of hard court battles, have your innocent name dragged through the mud and still risk a possible conviction and long prison sentence at the end of it all, even when you could put and end to it all with money? Well, good luck to you in life. It's pretty obvious the accusing family were only after the money. Had I had a child who'd been abused, I'd tell the abuser exactly where to stick his hush money, and take him right to court to get his dues. Michael Jackon is still an inspiration and I'll miss him. A small percentage of you may remember him as the man accused of abusing children - that's fine - you're entitled to your opinions, but the majority of people and I will remember him as a great musician, writer and entertainer. A man who took music to a level where no other artist is likely to reach. Goodbye Michael. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 05.07.2009 11:20 |
beautifulsoup wrote:leave my family out of it..Zebonka12 wrote: Get him on that stage using robotics and puppetry I say.Or bring Walt Disney out of his cryogenic freeze to produce an audioanimatronic Jackson. |
Major Tom 05.07.2009 11:23 |
GuitarGod_ wrote: It's fair to say that the judicial system doesn't work as well as we all want it to. There are many criminals walking the streets who have not been convicted, just as there are many innocent men behind bars for crimes they didn't commit. I truly believe Michael Jackson was innocent, and him paying the family an out of court does nothing to persuade me otherwise. A lot of you are preaching that, had you innocently been accused of a serious crime, you'd see the trial through to the end just because "you're innocent". So, what you're saying is, you'd rather go through months of hard court battles, have your innocent name dragged through the mud and still risk a possible conviction and long prison sentence at the end of it all, even when you could put and end to it all with money? Well, good luck to you in life. It's pretty obvious the accusing family were only after the money. Had I had a child who'd been abused, I'd tell the abuser exactly where to stick his hush money, and take him right to court to get his dues. Michael Jackon is still an inspiration and I'll miss him. A small percentage of you may remember him as the man accused of abusing children - that's fine - you're entitled to your opinions, but the majority of people and I will remember him as a great musician, writer and entertainer. A man who took music to a level where no other artist is likely to reach. Goodbye Michael.Great post there YNGWIE! |
dragon-fly 05.07.2009 12:35 |
Whatever he was... but all this... It's just disgusting what the media are doing out of his death. All this circus. All the ditails about his body, funeral. And now they are going to sell tickets to see him in the glass coffin. It's really sickening. I can't believe that some people are really going to do that. In some way I'm glad that Freddie didn't have such attention (I hope you'll understand me right) |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 05.07.2009 14:42 |
^no,of course no one from within the Queen camp cashed in on Freddie's death,its not as if they rush released Bohemian Rhapsody back into circulation or did a big memorial at Wembley Stadium. and before anyone says anything,there is no such thing as a 'charity event',everyone there may of said that they were doing it 'for Freddie' but they were only thinking of getting a bigger profile for themselves. I think Live Aid proved that with Queen and U2's album sales doing exactly what Jacko's are doing now and going through the roof. good ol' corporate greed at its finest,milk the cow for all its worth before it dries up. |
dragon-fly 05.07.2009 15:41 |
So you did not understand me right.... All this song production and concert it's another side. It's just something that doesn't touch the late person so close, like in case of Jackson. But I meant the autopsy details and this show out of funeral. They literally are digging in his dead body. It's almost two weeks as they're talking about what was in his stomach and how his body looked. They'd better played a concert in his honour really.... |
Mr Mercury 05.07.2009 18:44 |
dragon-fly wrote: So you did not understand me right.... All this song production and concert it's another side. It's just something that doesn't touch the late person so close, like in case of Jackson. But I meant the autopsy details and this show out of funeral. They literally are digging in his dead body. It's almost two weeks as they're talking about what was in his stomach and how his body looked. They'd better played a concert in his honour really.... Unfortunately you will still get fans who would feel vindicated in wanting to know how Michael died. They would want to know such things as did he overdose (whether it was accidental or not) and if so, who gave him the drugs? Their questions will go on until they get their answer. It has been that way with Freddie. I believe Freddie's death certificate was on the internet. Why? Did anyone (other than his family) need to know what was on it? Answer - no not really. But thats the nature of some fans. They feel they "need" to know. Just like after Michael's death, his fans went out and bought all his albums and dvd's. Now maybe I am being over hypocritical here, but where were they when it was first announced that Michael was nearly out of cash? But then I dont get how fans need to buy anything connected to a dead celebrity. When Freddie died, I didnt rush out and buy everything Queen. I wont do it for any celebrity. But also, these are the types of fans that record companies prey on. They are the huge cash cow and they are ready for the milking. To be fair, its not just record companies. Its book manufacturers. I bet there will be loads of "I knew Michael" books telling all about him. All of which I shall be gladly ignoring as well. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 06.07.2009 04:26 |
^all the parasites that are now gonna appear to sell their 30 pieces of silver are going to make Paul Burrell look like a saint how long before Rick Sky cashes in with a book? |
john bodega 06.07.2009 07:33 |
Any autopsy pics yet? Just asking ..... |
dragon-fly 06.07.2009 09:01 |
Why do you need pics? You can buy a ticket and see his body with your own eyes |
john bodega 06.07.2009 09:17 |
ONLY if they provide popcorn. |
dragon-fly 06.07.2009 09:24 |
I'm sure thay will, for some extra $ |
Mr Mercury 06.07.2009 09:38 |
dragon-fly wrote: Why do you need pics? You can buy a ticket and see his body with your own eyes Actually you cant buy any tickets. At least not legally anyway....... |
john bodega 06.07.2009 10:45 |
I hope his casket has a Blu-ray logo on it. Hahahah! |
Mr Mercury 06.07.2009 10:58 |
^ It will if Sony have anything to do with it....... |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 06.07.2009 13:40 |
Mr Mercury wrote: ^ It will if Sony have anything to do with it....... and how long before we get the Playstation game? |
StoneColdClassicQueen 06.07.2009 17:37 |
Ok, this has gone way too far. First, nonstop coverage of MJ, now a public viewing of his body?!?!?!?! What the fuck have we become? I hear the streets of Downtown L.A. will be closed for tomorrow's memorial. I can't imagine the traffic my dad will have to face!!! And my brothers need to get to school dammit! This is all a fucking money scam. Televised event?? What THE FUCK?!?!?! This is getting too weird. Why would anyone want to see their idol's lifeless body?? This, this is too much. I can't take it anymore! I can't escape it. Even my parents are into the gossip hype. They always have the news channels on where they gossip about MJ. And we have 3 televisions in the house -_- I told them, "They should just leave him alone." My mum was like, "Why? He just died. He's the biggest news around." She just looked at me weird, like if she wanted to tell me I should really care. I'm ashamed to be living near the Staples Center (just a couple of minutes away)..... my cousin was saying, "We should have signed up for tickets!" I was like, "What for???" No offense, but who in their right mind would want to see a dead person (unless you do it for a living or whatever), especially when this person is MICHAEL JACKSON!??!!?!??! He kinda already looked dead this past decade, now to actually see him deceased?!?!?! THIS IS SICK! One of the only funny things I find from this is that under every local news item of MJ that popped up on my email page there's a caption saying, "Did you receive Michael Jackson Memorial Tickets? Tell CBS2/KCAL 9 about it!" Contacting a news channel just to say you got tickets? Wow, that's pathetic... Well, my rant is over for now I guess. Feel free to disagree or whatever. EDIT: now i hear MJ will be laid to rest before the public memorial....that's more like it. |
Carol! the Musical 06.07.2009 19:42 |
I think the reason I stopped being devastated is temporary suspension of disbelief. I'm just playing along with it- I listen to his music and look at his photographs without thinking he's dead. I've literally listened to nothing but Michael Jackson since the 25th and I'm still in pretty heavy denial. The memorial tomorrow is gonna fuck me up, but I'll probably go back to the denial once it's over. |
Mr.Jingles 06.07.2009 20:12 |
I guess us Long Islanders have a lot to be proud about from out congressional representative Peter King. Peter King a supporter of the IRA, supporter of killing innocent civilians in Gaza, supporter or racial profiling and restricting civil liberties to Muslim Americans, the man who claimed that "there's too many mosques in America", now believes he's the moral authority to dictate who is a pedophile? and who is not, but as a Catholic man he never had a problem with priests accused of molesting kids, and the church that was hiding and denying any of these allegations. |
Mr Mercury 06.07.2009 20:45 |
So let me see if I got this right. This guy goes on tv to complain about the amount of tv coverage that has been given to MJ? Does anyone else spot this guys folly? Answers on a postcard to spottheprat@i-am-a-wally.com |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.07.2009 05:01 |
so todays the day.. lets hope that the LAPD [who are just slightly less racist than the BNP] BEHAVE THEMSELVES when they have 500,000 [mostly black] mourners lining the streets for todays funeral/memorial and keep their batons in their belts and dont start indiscriminately [big word for me anytime of the day let alone 9am] hitting people who are there to pay their respects to Jacko. why wont i be surprised in the least if LA is in flames by sunset tonight though? |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 07.07.2009 05:01 |
Mr Mercury wrote: So let me see if I got this right. This guy goes on tv to complain about the amount of tv coverage that has been given to MJ? Does anyone else spot this guys folly? Answers on a postcard to spottheprat@i-am-a-wally.comonly in America.. |
Major Tom 07.07.2009 08:23 |
Actually, there will not be a open cascet, no "lit de parade". Thanks for that. But all in all, I think it's nice to have a "public funeral" for Jacko, I think he would have liked it. Maybe not the cameras but the fans. And of course, there was no ticketsales for the event, there was a lottery. Lets hope his final show blows our minds! |
-fatty- 2850 07.07.2009 08:39 |
I got my ticket for the memorial yesterday and immediately put it on ebay. It's currently listed with a "buy it now" price of 50p (45p p&p) so hurry up and grab yourselves a bargain. fatty |
-fatty- 2850 07.07.2009 08:42 |
UPDATE Ebay has removed the memorial ticket after someone discovered that I had scribbled out Mollie Sugden's name and written Micheal Jackson over the top in tippex. My account has been suspended. fatty. |
ParisNair 07.07.2009 09:39 |
On the evening of 24th of June I left the city of Mumbai to attend a marrigae in the family. Now this function was held in a very remote part of the country - no TV, no newspapers (atleast not ina language that I can read). After a few days a relative held up copy of the local newspaper in which they had put up an annoucement about the marriage. I joked that my cousin must surely be a celebrity to be sharing print space with pictures of Michael Jackson and Obama on the same page. I couldn't read the news article about Michael properly as my understanding of the language was limited, but I could make out the word "death". I asked someone to read out the article for me and I was just stunned. And I just could not believe that it had happened a few days ago!! When I was back in Mumbai, my sister and friends told me that the papers and TV had precoius little else to report the past few days. Even news about the India - West Indies cricket series took a back seat, which is really something. Well, I missed the whole media circus, but I still very much felt the loss of my boyhood icons. I was a huuuuge Michael fan before Queen came into my life. And eventhough its been a long time since I have really heard any of his songs or watched any of his amazing videos, I never stopped liking him. I thank God that he kept Michael alive long enough to see his name cleared of all the false child abuse charges. RIP Michael. |
ParisNair 07.07.2009 09:42 |
I am staying clear of TV and newspaper articles on Michael, but am curious to know if the funeral will be held in the Islamic tradition (considering he was a recent convert to that religion)? |
Holly2003 07.07.2009 15:38 |
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs107.snc1/5066_1066704916342_1487630588_30154030_5580905_n.jpg |
john bodega 07.07.2009 16:04 |
HAHAHA!!! Brilliant. |
scprof 07.07.2009 17:46 |
I had to laugh at the report in the Sun about the memorial concert being the biggest ever. Let's compare it: 17,000 fans with Diane Ross, Justin Timberlake & Stevie Wonder singing or you could have had 90,000 fans with Metallica, Def Leppard, Guns N' Roses, Extreme, Elton John, George Michael, Liza Minelli, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Plant, Roger Daltrey, Seal & Spinal Tap performing for charity. Which would you say was the biggest. |
its_a_hard_life 26994 07.07.2009 19:07 |
Jesse Jackson and Paris Jackson were very heartfelt in the memorial service. |
Mr Mercury 07.07.2009 19:19 |
Well full marks go to Jermaine for his version of "Smile". |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.07.2009 19:34 |
Mr Mercury wrote: Well full marks go to Jermaine for his version of "Smile". I have to say that was absolutely beautiful. |
PieterMC 07.07.2009 20:01 |
scprof wrote: I had to laugh at the report in the Sun about the memorial concert being the biggest ever. Let's compare it: 17,000 fans with Diane Ross, Justin Timberlake & Stevie Wonder singing or you could have had 90,000 fans with Metallica, Def Leppard, Guns N' Roses, Extreme, Elton John, George Michael, Liza Minelli, Elizabeth Taylor, Robert Plant, Roger Daltrey, Seal & Spinal Tap performing for charity. Which would you say was the biggest. 1) Diane Ross & Justin Timberlake did not sing 2) It was a memorial service not a tribute concert 3) I am sure there will be a tribute concert that will be just as big, if not bigger than the Freddie tribute. |
beautifulsoup 07.07.2009 23:28 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:Mr Mercury wrote: Well full marks go to Jermaine for his version of "Smile".I have to say that was absolutely beautiful. That it was. (Besides the fact that it's one of my favorite songs ever, anyway.) |
Penetration_Guru 08.07.2009 01:20 |
Nice of Al Sharpton to do 10 minutes of comedy. And since when did being Martin Luther King's daughter give you the right to shout at people? Finally, the story of Michael Jackson ended as it began. With a small child being pushed towards a microphone. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 08.07.2009 04:41 |
beautifulsoup wrote:Charlie Chaplins Estate did a jump for joy when that was sung,one could hear the sound of mega-bucks going 'kerching' all the way to Switzerland with all the forthcoming downloadsmagicalfreddiemercury wrote:That it was. (Besides the fact that it's one of my favorite songs ever, anyway.)Mr Mercury wrote: Well full marks go to Jermaine for his version of "Smile".I have to say that was absolutely beautiful. did bring a tear to the old pirates cheek though.. |
Holly2003 08.07.2009 05:43 |
I saw highlights of it on the BBC news. Awful, cheesy, showbiz ceremony lacking any dignity. Pushing that little kid back to the microphone and making her say what she felt -- what was the point in that? The kid was obviously very upset, so why make her articulate that to an audience of strangers? The cynic in me thinks it "makes good television", and therefore will earn considerable profits for "Jackson Inc." Wouldn't surprise me if the memorial service will be available soon on Blu Ray. Maybe they could make the little girl cry some more for a bonus DVD? |
pma 08.07.2009 06:24 |
Oh the cynicism of you miserable gits. I watched the whole thing, thought it was way too "showbiz" for my taste, but on the other hand it was a real memorial service, surprisingly moving and in surprisingly good taste (as good taste as a memorial service broadcast live can get...). Then again that is America, I also thought Barack Obama's inauguration was way too over the top. Why are some saying Paris Jackson was "forced" or "pushed" to speak. To me it was evident that Janet Jackson talked with her while Marlon (or whoever Jackson) spoke, as if to ask her if she was sure she wanted to speak out. It didn't appear forced, but I'm sure real human emotion is just "cheesy" for the likes. As if we're allowed to complain over the quality of a memorial service, which probably did not cost a cent for any of us to view (sorry if you're from California and reading this), nor were we forced to watch it. The most ridiculous shit (the only word suitable to express my emotions) I've read online is people yapping about that Blanket kid (Prince whatshisname II) chewing gum during the memorial and apparently "missbehaving". How the FUCK do some people expect six-seven year olds to behave at funerals and memorial services? Do these people lack empathy or have zero experience with children. Should a child of six or seven openly weep? Throw himself dramatically at the casket or what... Or simply act their age, which is exactly what happened. A child of that age will deal with such devastating events mainly through playing, frankly the kid looked devastated. It must have been a long day. I hope these kids are not allowed online access ;) For a moment I was wondering who people + media want to tear down next, then the answer was already infront of us. Btw, whats with all these black people at the memorial. Where were Michael's own people... HA HA. Not funny. So glad MJ was not pals with Elton John... Now that would have made for a cheesy memorial. |
magicalfreddiemercury 08.07.2009 06:50 |
pma wrote: Why are some saying Paris Jackson was "forced" or "pushed" to speak. To me it was evident that Janet Jackson talked with her while Marlon (or whoever Jackson) spoke, as if to ask her if she was sure she wanted to speak out. It didn't appear forced, but I'm sure real human emotion is just "cheesy" for the likes. As if we're allowed to complain over the quality of a memorial service, which probably did not cost a cent for any of us to view (sorry if you're from California and reading this), nor were we forced to watch it. This is exactly what happened. It was so easy to read Janet's lips. She asked Paris if she was sure she wanted to say something and both Paris and LaToya said yes. That young girl HAD to speak out. She loved her father and wanted the world to know how great he was to her her and her brothers. No one pushed her. |
Mr Mercury 08.07.2009 06:54 |
And now the latest conspiracy theory is that Michael's body wasnt in the coffin. |
thomasquinn 32989 08.07.2009 06:57 |
I must say, I thought something fishy was going on. I mean, Joe Jackson giving away something (television rights) for free...there has to be a catch. I was half expecting him to walk onto the stage carrying a butcher's knife and saying: "Right. And now the bidding starts on relics." |
Major Tom 08.07.2009 07:19 |
Well I have to say that the few moments I watched the memorial yesterday, it didn't feel like a circus. I saw Michaels brother, witch name i'll pronunce wrong, do Chaplins "Smile". ABSOLUTLY AMAZING. I haven't seen a person sing with such emotions since...no, not even Freddie singing LOML or WWTLF can compete. I saw Dr Kings son and daughters speech witch was good, but you sure can tell who their father was. They could have turned the speakers down a few steps. Then the Jackson family, witch kinda looked like a cult or something. Maybe it's just me, but it's good to see that they stick toghether. Latoya being a exeption, was she there at all? And I don't think Paris was pushed to the mic. After one of the brothers were done he turned and said: Now I think Janet has something to say. There was some commotion, and then stepped Paris up to the mic. Now here is when I broke down. In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not. Heartbreaking. I miss him more now. |
The Real Wizard 08.07.2009 10:49 |
Major Tom wrote: In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not. Exactly... All the nay-sayers can do now is suggest she was forced to do it, as that's all they can do now to further their "Michael Jackson was a bad father" agenda. |
john bodega 08.07.2009 14:02 |
The only thing in my 'MJ was a bad parent' dossier is when he gave the baby a bit of a dangle over a balcony. Aside from that, I don't think it was his parenting skills that people really obsessed over. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 08.07.2009 14:42 |
Zebonka12 wrote: The only thing in my 'MJ was a bad parent' dossier is when he gave the baby a bit of a dangle over a balcony. Aside from that, I don't think it was his parenting skills that people really obsessed over.they are probably more screwed now than when MJ had them now they're being raised by ultra religous Jehovah Witness' |
April 08.07.2009 14:43 |
I also thought that Paris was pushed to the mic. What made me think so was that there was some commotion after the brother spoke and he distinctly said that now Janet had something to say. But instead of speaking Janet turned to Paris as if asking her to say a word. This is a bit suspicious. It makes it look as if it was planned. However what the poor girl said was from her heart. Even if they did want Paris to speak, Paris said what she felt and what she knew. Michael was a good father, he loved his children and he loved children in general. All those who still doubt it are wrong. I have always known that all the allegations and accusations against Michael were false. And they are. |
pma 08.07.2009 16:26 |
The Gearslutz-forum has some very interesting stories of MJ and what he was like in the studio, told by audio engineer Rob Hoffman and some other guy (sorry, forgot his name already), so I advise anyone interested in the musical aspect of MJ to browse through all pages of this topic. link For example a recollection of Notorious B.I.G coming in to rap for "This Time Around". link |
Holly2003 08.07.2009 16:34 |
Sir GH wrote:Major Tom wrote: In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not.Exactly... All the nay-sayers can do now is suggest she was forced to do it, as that's all they can do now to further their "Michael Jackson was a bad father" agenda. Err.. the only way Michael could force her to do it is from beyond the grave, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. What it looked like to me was the little girl turning away from the microphone and family members physically pushing her back. In any event, why did she need to be on a stage, sharing maybe the worst moment of her life with thousands of complete strangers? Clearly the Jacksons are so used to being under the spotlight that for them nothing is private any more. No doubt the poor child will soon be paraded around the magazines and tv shows to tell everyone how she feels, while the Jacksons make nonsensical pleas for the press to leave them alone (known as the Princess Diana ploy). Anyone want to take any bets which one of the Jacksons will be on the next reality tv show? |
April 08.07.2009 17:05 |
There is a speculation that Michael is not dead and he has just decided to improve his financial position by all this thing. His triumphant comeback, since he is a master of great shows, is to be expected in two years. I do not believe it but some people from showbusiness claim it. It only shows how people try to make PR for themselves out of the death. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 08.07.2009 17:16 |
Holly2003 wrote:Sir GH wrote:Err.. the only way Michael could force her to do it is from beyond the grave, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. What it looked like to me was the little girl turning away from the microphone and family members physically pushing her back. In any event, why did she need to be on a stage, sharing maybe the worst moment of her life with thousands of complete strangers? Clearly the Jacksons are so used to being under the spotlight that for them nothing is private any more. No doubt the poor child will soon be paraded around the magazines and tv shows to tell everyone how she feels, while the Jacksons make nonsensical pleas for the press to leave them alone (known as the Princess Diana ploy). Anyone want to take any bets which one of the Jacksons will be on the next reality tv show?Major Tom wrote: In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not.Exactly... All the nay-sayers can do now is suggest she was forced to do it, as that's all they can do now to further their "Michael Jackson was a bad father" agenda. While I agree that it is not fair to put a young distraught child in the limelight, it is not unusual for a child to give a reading or to say something at a family members funeral. I don't remember people being up in arms when Steve Irwins sprog spoke at that tribute concert, or whatever it was. |
«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» 08.07.2009 18:11 |
Major Tom wrote: Well I have to say that the few moments I watched the memorial yesterday, it didn't feel like a circus. I saw Michaels brother, witch name i'll pronunce wrong, do Chaplins "Smile". ABSOLUTLY AMAZING. I haven't seen a person sing with such emotions since...no, not even Freddie singing LOML or WWTLF can compete. I saw Dr Kings son and daughters speech witch was good, but you sure can tell who their father was. They could have turned the speakers down a few steps. Then the Jackson family, witch kinda looked like a cult or something. Maybe it's just me, but it's good to see that they stick toghether. Latoya being a exeption, was she there at all? And I don't think Paris was pushed to the mic. After one of the brothers were done he turned and said: Now I think Janet has something to say. There was some commotion, and then stepped Paris up to the mic. Now here is when I broke down. In two sentences she crushed all suspicion wheter Michael was a good father or not. Heartbreaking. I miss him more now. I agree with M.Tom, the memorial was fined tuned and well done. Brooke Shields speech was heartfelt and totally genuine. She loved him so deeply. She had such a hard time getting through the speech without breaking down. The tears definitely flowed when is little girl, Paris took to the mike and was saying her goodbyes... that was just gut wrenching. |
magicalfreddiemercury 08.07.2009 20:36 |
April wrote: I also thought that Paris was pushed to the mic. What made me think so was that there was some commotion after the brother spoke and he distinctly said that now Janet had something to say. But instead of speaking Janet turned to Paris as if asking her to say a word. This is a bit suspicious. It makes it look as if it was planned. However what the poor girl said was from her heart. Even if they did want Paris to speak, Paris said what she felt and what she knew. Michael was a good father, he loved his children and he loved children in general. All those who still doubt it are wrong. I have always known that all the allegations and accusations against Michael were false. And they are. I watched this live and before it was incorrectly announced that Janet wanted to speak, Janet asked Paris if she was sure she wanted to say something and the girl said yes. After the brother finished talking, he went back to the mic and said he thought Janet wanted to say a few words. Janet said to him - and it was very easy to read her lips - something like "Paris wants to speak. Paris.", it's like she said "Paris" a second time hoping he'd correct himself to those watching. After that, the girl was ushered to the front of the pack. There was nothing suspicious about it. The kid wanted to say something and she did. Nothing more to it than that. |
*goodco* 08.07.2009 20:38 |
I'm 51 years old. Anyone care to let their little children or nieces/nephews come over and sleep with me in my bed? I'd tell Ed Bradley that it's OK, but he is currently deceased, so no one has to know. (Disclaimer: the above commentary may be deemed pedophilic in nature. It is all sarcastic and totally tongue in cheek..........no, not that way, you perverts.) |
john bodega 09.07.2009 03:08 |
Anywhere Brooke Shields speaks is a circus. And little Paris should've been pushed off the stage, not up to the mic... |
YourValentine 09.07.2009 03:55 |
*goodco* wrote: I'm 51 years old. Anyone care to let their little children or nieces/nephews come over and sleep with me in my bed? I'd tell Ed Bradley that it's OK, but he is currently deceased, so no one has to know. (Disclaimer: the above commentary may be deemed pedophilic in nature. It is all sarcastic and totally tongue in cheek..........no, not that way, you perverts.) When I was a child I used to sleep over with my grandfather with my sister and it was big fun. He played pirate games with us and told us stories until we fell asleep. Of course - at the time the concept of child molestation was not so present in everybody's mind - it was completely innocent and not unusual for adult people to have kids sleep over. In the child molestation trial vs Michael Jackson it was made clear that all the other children who stayed in MJ's house never actually slept in his bed - they shared the same room which was apparently big. Just recently Whoopy Goldberg said on "The View" that she left her daughter at Michael's home with no fear at all. In any case: MJ was acquitted from all charges and if you do not trust your judicial system you should campaign for changing it. I think it's totally digusting that a citizen - no matter how unusual his lifestyle may have been - was charged in a court of law after years and years of investigation, was then found "not guilty" by a jury as the law requires and people still keep up the accusations. We all know that mistakes can happen and verdicts can be wrong but a citizen has no other means to prove his innocence (and I think he should not be under the obligation to prove his innocnence at all). If people like Rep King cannot accept the verdict of a jury under the law he should fight to change the system. However, I have a feeling he only does not accept a verdict he does not approve of. Such people are unfit for public service imo and he should be sued by the Jackson family for slandering the name of MJ. |
john bodega 09.07.2009 04:07 |
Slander? Isn't it libel? I'm not too sure of the distinction; does one of them mean you've lied about someone in public, and the other one is just when you say stuff you shouldn't, whether it's true or not? |
YourValentine 09.07.2009 04:42 |
I don't know, English is not my native language. You can certainly sue someone who calls you a "pervert, child molester and a pedophile" although you were found "not guilty" in a court of law. No idea if you call it libel, slander, defamation or whatever. |
Holly2003 09.07.2009 04:57 |
Slander is verbal, libel is written. During the trial an expert on child molesters said they have a profile: child molesters win the trust of parents, put themselves in a position where they can be alone with children, and then they prey on them. Jackson fits this profile: he wins trust through his "backstory" (the non-sexual child who never grew up), he has a home that's been turned into a child's theme park (even though he wasn't a parent when the rides were built), and then there were the accusations of child abuse which, first time round, he bought himself out of. He admitted in the Martin bashir interview that he slept in the same bed as "many kids" (a direct quote from MJ)that weren't his. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many magazines and books... |
YourValentine 09.07.2009 05:13 |
Thanks for explaining :) |
Holly2003 09.07.2009 05:23 |
Don't thank me yet: I edited the post. I get the feeling you wont agree with me... :) |
YourValentine 09.07.2009 05:53 |
True - I don't. A "profile" does not prove anything. In a courtroom you need solid proof. It's totally unnecessary for you to have trusted MJ, it was up to the jury to evaluate the presented evidence and come to a verdict. It's the ultimate nightmare to be charged with a crime you did not commit and be dragged through a public trial. I happen to believe that the verdict was correct (innocent until proven guilty) but even if I would not believe it was correct I would still respect the jury's decision. It would be totally different if they had found someone guilty and I would not believe it - in this case I would challenge the verdict because the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt anytime. The golden casket - you can hardly blame MJ for that :-) |
pma 09.07.2009 05:59 |
YourValentine wrote: When I was a child I used to sleep over with my grandfather with my sister and it was big fun. He played pirate games with us and told us stories until we fell asleep. Of course - at the time the concept of child molestation was not so present in everybody's mind - it was completely innocent and not unusual for adult people to have kids sleep over. Well, your point is rather easily dismissed by the "I'm sure he was a paedo, the Sun/NOTW/etc. said so"-crowd, since you slept with a relative and as we all know (giggle!) naturally relatives are NEVER paedophiles or child molesters (surely not aleast to the the Sun/NOTW-reading people...). Jackson repeatedly had sleepovers with children (not only boys) he was not related with. And I'm sure for all these modern puritans are highly offended by such conduct, no matter how innocent it might have been. Sadly enough these modern worshippers of chastity don't see a problem with them reading and believing tabloid fabrications, tabloids that more than once had a field-day back in the day with the then underaged female stars (Spears, Charlotte Church, you name it) and their "boobage". Naturally this was acceptable, to drool after a 15-16 year old celebrity and comment on her breasts. But Oh that Michael Jackson had sleepovers, kill him instantly! Now of course, who the hell am I to speak... I come from a land that has the fabulous Sauna culture. Yes, round here all these perverts go into a sauna COMPLETELY NUDE with their children and whatever non-relatives, friends etc. and bathe there in a completely NON-SEXUAL manner while being totally exposed. Nudity is simply not such a big deal, since everyone has seen naked people all their life, in fact one might even make the ludicrous claim that we are BORN NAKED (oh my Gosh! How can it be!) You go into any public swimming facility/hall in Finland, they have a Sauna. Now, in most places they are separate for men and women, however small infants can accompany parents to either side. Having been to such places numerous times in my tender childhood, I believe I could have given accurate descriptions of the penises of complete strangers in a fashion that would have given Tom Sneddon a massive hardon. And what the hell is a "fairly accurate description" of a penis anyway. Now, there's the shaft... the balls... possibly some pubic hair. It's usually cut or uncut, mainly uncut round here... erhm Yeah, what was I writing about again? |
pma 09.07.2009 06:09 |
"Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many magazines and books..." So now he is SELFISH since he spent money no himself. Other people with money never do that, right? They give it away, don't they? None of them bathe in luxury, live in luxurious homes. In fact most wealthy people are communists and share their wealth to poor working-class people after a hard days work, right... They all feel the sorrow of the world on their shoulders when they fall asleep in their fancy homes. Let's just ignore the charity work which far superceeds the contributions of most wealthy people. Let's ignore the entry into the GUinness Book of records as he Pop Star who supports the most number of charity organizations. Let's face it, he was a selfish child-molester and we all knew him well enough to judge him and concentrate on tearing his kids apart so they can't possible grow up sane. Oh but let's all remember to speculate and judge thathis kids are not his, because that's certainly any of our business. We have the right to know, don't we as he was like family to us, in the "perverted Uncle"-sense. Or perhaps we could all go and fuck ourselves up the arse, I know we would if we could. Why is there such a lack of common sense when people express their views on Michael Jackson? I mean, not even Hitler or Stalin can raise such pointless debate and exaggerated emotions within people as Jackson can. |
john bodega 09.07.2009 06:16 |
Indeed, we're going to need to amend Godwin's Law to include the Jackson family now, no doubt ... To me it's all water under the bridge now anyway. He's dead; even IF, through the most twisted and undetectable of circumstances, he was indeed a pedophile... he is now a dead pedophile. Case closed. |
pma 09.07.2009 06:19 |
YourValentine wrote: True - I don't. A "profile" does not prove anything. In a courtroom you need solid proof. It's totally unnecessary for you to have trusted MJ, it was up to the jury to evaluate the presented evidence and come to a verdict. It's the ultimate nightmare to be charged with a crime you did not commit and be dragged through a public trial. I happen to believe that the verdict was correct (innocent until proven guilty) but even if I would not believe it was correct I would still respect the jury's decision. It would be totally different if they had found someone guilty and I would not believe it - in this case I would challenge the verdict because the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt anytime. The golden casket - you can hardly blame MJ for that :-) Barb, they had superb evidence. Just read through this document link where the prosecution demonstrates the defendant's (Jackson) intent, plan, scheme and motive to molest boys. I especially enjoy the evidence mentioned on page 5 Item #347a: Power Mac G4 located in Jackson's master bedroom; which contained: 19 graphic nude female images Records of multiple visits to the following websites: link link link Oh my GOD! Adoption.com and and adoptablekids and a legal pornsite, nude female images! Now if you ever visited an adoption website, you clearly did it because a) you wanted to adopt a kid b) were planning on adopting a kid c) you wanted to molest a kid d) you wanted to adopt a kid and molest him e) all of the above Legal gay/straight porn and collectible art books that contain nudes etc. various books owned by people, who mostly do not engage in sex with children. Is that really the best they came up with? I'm just glad that when I was single, I was never suspected of something like this, since I'm sure with all that porn I had on my pc etc. I could have been profiled in a similar fashion. And I have been nude in saunas with other people's children... So they probably would have had a better case against me anyway. |
Holly2003 09.07.2009 06:42 |
pma wrote: "Incidentally, what's with the golden coffin? I thought he was a "help the poor", "heal the world" type? Maybe then the money they spent on the coffin should've went to charity instead. Of course, a simple wooden coffin wouldn't look as glamorous on TV, and won't sell as many magazines and books..." So now he is SELFISH since he spent money no himself. Other people with money never do that, right? They give it away, don't they? None of them bathe in luxury, live in luxurious homes. In fact most wealthy people are communists and share their wealth to poor working-class people after a hard days work, right... They all feel the sorrow of the world on their shoulders when they fall asleep in their fancy homes. Let's just ignore the charity work which far superceeds the contributions of most wealthy people. Let's ignore the entry into the GUinness Book of records as he Pop Star who supports the most number of charity organizations. Let's face it, he was a selfish child-molester and we all knew him well enough to judge him and concentrate on tearing his kids apart so they can't possible grow up sane. Oh but let's all remember to speculate and judge thathis kids are not his, because that's certainly any of our business. We have the right to know, don't we as he was like family to us, in the "perverted Uncle"-sense. Or perhaps we could all go and fuck ourselves up the arse, I know we would if we could. Why is there such a lack of common sense when people express their views on Michael Jackson? I mean, not even Hitler or Stalin can raise such pointless debate and exaggerated emotions within people as Jackson can. What a bizzare reply. "Other people" quite happily spend money without claiming to be some sort of savior. His wealth and fame hides some pretty disturbing things but it's clear that because he's a good singer with a "cute" image some are prepared to ignore the more disturbing aspects of his life. If he was some average joe, I doubt there would be as much of a defence of hime. To give some examples, people defend him because he had a disturbed chidlhood. However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation. I have no particular 'bone to pick' with MJ -- he was a great entertainer and great self-publiciser -- but a lot of people appear to be being manipulated by the image. As I said, if he wasn't a wealthy singer, I doubt anyone would be defending him with the same blinkered mindset. Look at it this way: he's someone you've never met, he's not a brother or friend, all you know about him is what he wants you to know, and the only "relationship" you've ever had with him is a business transaction, conducted via a third party (you bought his cd from a record store). And yet people are gnashing and wailing with grief in the streets as if their wife/husband/child has just died. Total media manipulation in the post-modern world. Nothing is real any more, it's all false emotion created by ad agencies. Hence the gold coffin: nice touch, should sell a lot of copy. now what's the next angle the media and the Jacksons can exploit? |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.07.2009 07:07 |
Holly2003 wrote: During the trial an expert on child molesters said they have a profile: child molesters win the trust of parents, put themselves in a position where they can be alone with children, and then they prey on them. Jackson fits this profile: he wins trust through his "backstory" (the non-sexual child who never grew up), he has a home that's been turned into a child's theme park (even though he wasn't a parent when the rides were built), and then there were the accusations of child abuse which, first time round, he bought himself out of. He admitted in the Martin bashir interview that he slept in the same bed as "many kids" (a direct quote from MJ)that weren't his. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... MJ was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public. And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again. It's interesting - and sad - to note how each side sees it so clearly depending on the way their personal views have colored it. |
Holly2003 09.07.2009 07:38 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... M Do you sleep with them in the same bed too? Sorry to be blunt, but that's what MJ did. That's the least of what he did. J was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public. MJ put himself in that position. Why he did it is what we're talking about. There's certainly enough evidence there, from his own mouth, for me not to trust him with my kids. And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again. The truth is you have no idea why she was on stage apart from what youv'e been told by the Jacksons. For all you know, her words could've been scripted. As I said, you disbelieve one above, who you say "victimised" MJ, and chose to believe the words of another at face value. And she is being paraded in front of the media: how can she not be, standing on stage in front of an audience of 17000 and TV audeince in the billions (if you beleive the hype). |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.07.2009 08:11 |
Holly2003 wrote:
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Then a lot of parents fit the profile, too, myself included. I won the trust of many parents over the years and I've often put myself in a position where I'm alone with the kids - driving them home, picking them up, having them at my house before my daughter got home from wherever... M Do you sleep with them in the same bed too? Sorry to be blunt, but that's what MJ did. That's the least of what he did. J was accused because he was an easy target they could harass into handing over tons of money. It's simple. But, SOME people would rather believe he victimized kids than believe he was victimized by them, their families, the media and certain sections of the public. MJ put himself in that position. Why he did it is what we're talking about. There's certainly enough evidence there, from his own mouth, for me not to trust him with my kids. And to something you said above... his kids are not being paraded in front of the media like he was. Not even close. They attended a memorial service for their father and one of them chose to say something about him since she'll never be able to say anything to him again. The truth is you have no idea why she was on stage apart from what youv'e been told by the Jacksons. For all you know, her words could've been scripted. As I said, you disbelieve one above, who you say "victimised" MJ, and chose to believe the words of another at face value. And she is being paraded in front of the media: how can she not be, standing on stage in front of an audience of 17000 and TV audeince in the billions (if you beleive the hype).I don't choose to believe what I've been told by the Jacksons. In fact, the Jacksons haven't said anything. Instead, I watched it occur and Paris clearly said she wanted to speak, so I choose to believe my own eyes. However, you choose to believe she was forced to go up there. As I said, each side sees it the way their personal views have colored it. As for me or any adult sleeping in the same bed with someone else's kids... that wasn't part of the profile as you explained it. You said he fit the profile because he gained the trust of the parents and found time to be alone with the kids. My point was that I and countless others fit that profile. It would be the child's word against the adult's. And it wasn't only MJ who put himself in that position. It was also the parents who allowed their children to sleepover. It seemed there was trust on both sides. However, trust or not, if my daughter were not at home I would not have someone else's kid sleepover. Period. So did he place himself in the position to be accused? Yes. Does that mean the accusation is accurate? No. But, obviously, you and many others will see it as perverse regardless what the jury or people like me have to say about it. |
YourValentine 09.07.2009 08:34 |
Great posts, Pete - I agree with every word. Holly wrote the following: "What a bizzare reply. "Other people" quite happily spend money without claiming to be some sort of savior. His wealth and fame hides some pretty disturbing things but it's clear that because he's a good singer with a "cute" image some are prepared to ignore the more disturbing aspects of his life. If he was some average joe, I doubt there would be as much of a defence of hime. To give some examples, people defend him because he had a disturbed chidlhood. However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation." Well the published image I saw the last 15 years was not a good singer with a cute image - he was protrayed as a freak and no allegation and story was too outrageous to be published: the alleged affair with a chimp, the alleged oxygen tent, his marriages, plastic surgeries - the list has no end. Please do not tell me he had any advantage over the average Joe. Certainly he was unusual to say the least, maybe paranoid and hypochondric, I do not know. But he was NOT everybody's darling, mainly not in his home country. If Joe Public had been acquitted that would have been it. Nobody would have appeared on TV after his death to repeat the dismissed charges. About his kids at the memorial service: in my family we take our children to the service from the age of six approx. We feel we should not keep them away from what is essential in life and they have a right to say good bye as any adult family member, too. The fact that the Jackson memorial was huge and millions of people were watching does not take away the right of the children to be present at their fathers's memorial service. I do not remeber that people were particularly pissed off when Princes William and Harry had to lwalk behind the casket of their mother in the most prominent spot of the whole funeral. I do not remember that the family was accused of parading the boys for some hidden agenda. It's nobody's business and a pure family decision. Holly wrote: "I have no particular 'bone to pick' with MJ -- he was a great entertainer and great self-publiciser -- but a lot of people appear to be being manipulated by the image. As I said, if he wasn't a wealthy singer, I doubt anyone would be defending him with the same blinkered mindset. Look at it this way: he's someone you've never met, he's not a brother or friend, all you know about him is what he wants you to know, and the only "relationship" you've ever had with him is a business transaction, conducted via a third party (you bought his cd from a record store). And yet people are gnashing and wailing with grief in the streets as if their wife/husband/child has just died. Total media manipulation in the post-modern world. Nothing is real any more, it's all false emotion created by ad agencies. Hence the gold coffin: nice touch, should sell a lot of copy. now what's the next angle the media and the Jacksons can exploit?" Just for the record: I do not own a single MJ record and I am not planning to buy any. I can see the genius of the musician but it's just not my music. I am in no grief about the death of MJ but I am majorly annoyed by all the mud throwing and sensationalising the death of Michael Jackson. I just think it's not right and that's my only reason to voice my opinion. |
pma 09.07.2009 09:38 |
Holly wrote: "However, when I try to point out that his children are now being paraded in front of the media in the same way he was, no one is bothered by it. In addition, some put great stock in his daughter's comments about what a great father he was (and maybe he was, I don;t know) and yet totally disbelieve another child who accused him of child molestation." Well, I for one fail to see the similarity in comparing a girl saying she loved her recently deceased father and praised his ability as a father with someone accusing the same person of child molestation. I would find these two comparable, if Paris Jackson's speech was allegedly on her by her parent, and her confession of love was possibly extracted from her under the influence of sodium amytal and later elaborated under evaluation by a psychologist. Sorry, out of line there. The point is, we have no actual reason to disbelieve Paris Jackson, but we have some reason to disbelieve the father and son pairing of Evan & Jordan (that would be the other testimonies in behalf of Jackson from the likes of Culkin, Robson etc.). The two simply are not comparable and I find comparing them outrageous at best. But perhaps I miss the point. "all you know about him is what he wants you to know," In honesty, all I know about him is what the Santa Barbara County Superior Court wants me to know about him through their public record. Yes, as if MJ or any celebrity had total control of his public image anyway... YourValentine wrote: "Just for the record: I do not own a single MJ record and I am not planning to buy any. I can see the genius of the musician but it's just not my music. I am in no grief about the death of MJ but I am majorly annoyed by all the mud throwing and sensationalising the death of Michael Jackson. I just think it's not right and that's my only reason to voice my opinion." Couldn't have said it better myself. As for owning records, although now that my local vinyl shops have already on a few occasions added extra euro's into their MJ record prices, I probably won't buy my first MJ record either. That is unless I give into buying a cd... |
-fatty- 2850 09.07.2009 09:47 |
I've just had the most almighty row with my missus. We were supposed to be going to a wedding this weekend and she left it to me to organise a baby-sitter. This morning she asked if had found anyone yet and I told her to relax as I'd organised it weeks ago and arranged for a 50 year old man to sit with the kids. She thought it was a bit strange for a middle aged guy to be a babysitter but I told her she was being stupid. This is the 21st century after all. I then told her the guy was black to see if that would rattle her cage and I could accuse her of being a racist, but she didn't bite. She asked if this guy had any experience looking after kids and I assured her that before the trial he had kids round his house all the time. Then she started screaming at me to explain what I meant by "the trial". I told her that the guy had been accused of molesting kids a few years back but he was found not guilty. Then she starts going on about there being no smoke without fire, you know, the way hysterical women do. I had to slap her around the face to calm her down and when I awoke three hours later in the accident & emergency department she was still going on about it. Women, eh? I explained to her that just because a guy has a bunch of kids around his house for a sleep-over, it doesn't make him a peadophile. But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake. By then she was crying and talking about moving back to her mother's so I put an arm around her and told her not to worry. The whole thing probably only came about because of the young lad he paid the money to. She looked at me as if I was some kind of nutter and asked me to explain myself. Speaking slowly and taking care not to use any big words I explained how a few years before he went to trial (and was found not guilty, I reminded her) another young guy had accused him of sexual molestation. She asked if he had been found not guilty of that charge. I just tousled her hair and explained that he had done even better than that by paying the kid $22million on the condition that he dropped the charges and kept his mouth shut. It was at this point that my wife tried to smother me with a pillow and had to be restrained by three nurses and a hospital porter. Well it's all academic now as I've since discovered that the baby-sitter died last week so we wont be able to go to the wedding after all. The wife still isn't speaking to me and says I'm a liar because I told her the guy was black. fatty. |
The Real Wizard 09.07.2009 12:49 |
-fatty- wrote: But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake. I see the general point you're trying to make, but what does this paragraph have to do with Michael Jackson? |
-fatty- 2850 09.07.2009 13:40 |
It was a reference to the books which the police seized from Michael Jackson's bedroom, the one he shared with children during those innocent sleep-overs. 'Boys Will Be Boys,' Containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. the book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson; 'In Search Of Young Beauty,' containing photographs of children, boys and girls; some nude; 'The Boy, A Photographic Essay," containing black-and-white photos of boys; some nude; I haven't seen the books myself but, given the description of the titles in MJ's library. I'm guessing that they hail from a time when it was considered avant garde to have children pose for erotic photographs and due to some legal loophole they're not technically considered to be child pornography. The fact remains that MJ kept naked photographs of children in his bedroom. Of course he kept a lot of gay and straight porn too and I'm not going to judge the guy on that but I think it's naive to think that MJ's interest in children was entirely innocent. fatty. |
john bodega 09.07.2009 14:08 |
I still think MJ was at least a tiny bit dodgy. I've done so much reading and heard so much doubletalk, conflicting testimony and wobbly hearsay that I no longer have an opinion on just how dodgy he was. As he's dead and has been for a few weeks now, it's not a problem anymore. If people truly have any concern for the kids involved in this, then they should limit their statements to "I hope somebody takes them away from that hideous witch of an ex-wife". |
April 09.07.2009 17:05 |
Do you consider Michael Jackson the greatest artist of the 80s? The symbol of the 80s? I am starting to believe he was. |
Major Tom 09.07.2009 20:33 |
-fatty- wrote: I've just had the most almighty row with my missus. We were supposed to be going to a wedding this weekend and she left it to me to organise a baby-sitter. This morning she asked if had found anyone yet and I told her to relax as I'd organised it weeks ago and arranged for a 50 year old man to sit with the kids. She thought it was a bit strange for a middle aged guy to be a babysitter but I told her she was being stupid. This is the 21st century after all. I then told her the guy was black to see if that would rattle her cage and I could accuse her of being a racist, but she didn't bite. She asked if this guy had any experience looking after kids and I assured her that before the trial he had kids round his house all the time. Then she started screaming at me to explain what I meant by "the trial". I told her that the guy had been accused of molesting kids a few years back but he was found not guilty. Then she starts going on about there being no smoke without fire, you know, the way hysterical women do. I had to slap her around the face to calm her down and when I awoke three hours later in the accident & emergency department she was still going on about it. Women, eh? I explained to her that just because a guy has a bunch of kids around his house for a sleep-over, it doesn't make him a peadophile. But while I've been unconscious, she's been doing a bit of research on this fella and found out that when the police raided his house they found a massive stash of pornographic magazines. I told her that didn't prove a thing and that if she looked behind the chest of drawers in our bedroom she's find an even bigger stash of left handed literature (I wish I hadn't told her that now). Then she starts going on about some books containing nude photographs of children and that's when I had her. "They weren't porn mags" I smugly informed her, "Those were collectable art books." That wiped the smile off her face and no mistake. By then she was crying and talking about moving back to her mother's so I put an arm around her and told her not to worry. The whole thing probably only came about because of the young lad he paid the money to. She looked at me as if I was some kind of nutter and asked me to explain myself. Speaking slowly and taking care not to use any big words I explained how a few years before he went to trial (and was found not guilty, I reminded her) another young guy had accused him of sexual molestation. She asked if he had been found not guilty of that charge. I just tousled her hair and explained that he had done even better than that by paying the kid $22million on the condition that he dropped the charges and kept his mouth shut. It was at this point that my wife tried to smother me with a pillow and had to be restrained by three nurses and a hospital porter. Well it's all academic now as I've since discovered that the baby-sitter died last week so we wont be able to go to the wedding after all. The wife still isn't speaking to me and says I'm a liar because I told her the guy was black. fatty. There were never any PROOF. Caughing up 22$ not to go through that OJ-circus seems like a good deal to me. Sure he was strange, sure he had SUSPICIOS litterature in his bedroom, sure he lived a life not many would get away with. But that's who he was. I rest my case with the following line: All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. COPS© |
john bodega 10.07.2009 02:27 |
OJ's trial was only a circus because he got away with it. Honestly. OJ "I Didn't Kill My Wife But Here's How I Would Have Done It If I Did" "I've Never Seen So Much Blood" Simpson. There's justice! I'm glad he's finally put away. Even if it's for something unrelated. |
pma 10.07.2009 03:53 |
-fatty- wrote: It was a reference to the books which the police seized from Michael Jackson's bedroom, the one he shared with children during those innocent sleep-overs. 'Boys Will Be Boys,' Containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. the book is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson; 'In Search Of Young Beauty,' containing photographs of children, boys and girls; some nude; 'The Boy, A Photographic Essay," containing black-and-white photos of boys; some nude; I haven't seen the books myself but, given the description of the titles in MJ's library. I'm guessing that they hail from a time when it was considered avant garde to have children pose for erotic photographs and due to some legal loophole they're not technically considered to be child pornography. The fact remains that MJ kept naked photographs of children in his bedroom. Of course he kept a lot of gay and straight porn too and I'm not going to judge the guy on that but I think it's naive to think that MJ's interest in children was entirely innocent. fatty. Well, from what I understood Michael Jackson had a library of thousands of books. Many of them collectibles. So you think he showed these books in particular to his sleepover buddies? Surely the police went through every single printed inch of those books to find fingerprints to prove this point. Yet, nothing emerged. These books were confiscated from a locked cabinet (so they were clearly not kept in visible sight) already back in 1993. They certainly did their best to find prints during the criminal investigation in 1993 and with the 2003-5 Arvizo (People vs J) case, they were able to show that prints of Jackson and the accuser were on the same heterosexua porn magazine. However, the defense was also able through witness' to show that the boys brought their own porn to Neverland and were sexually active (jacking off to porn) and behaved suspiciously even before the alleged abuse, grooming and offering of alcohol by Jackson took place. The defense naturally did their best to dismiss the books as proper evidence. As Jackson's defense stated link "According to the District Attorney, heterosexual adult materials do not demonstrate a sexual interest in adult women, they are evidence of "grooming". An art book depicting nude males does not demonstrate an interest in photography, it is evidence of homosexuality. In other words, wheter or not the evidence is what it is, the District Attorney wants to use it as a prop to distract the jury, rather than to prove his case using real evidence." link "The defense discusses the prosecutions attempt to use the possession of books by well-known artists as evidence of a crime against the state. Stating that these books are found in public libraries and university curriculum across the country where art, photography and cinematography are taught." "Mr. Jackson's house is filled with thousands and thousands of books, videos, and magazines. In this enormous collection, plaintiff found 17 books by noted authors of world wide reputation that plaintiff has chose to condemn as if plaintiff had any such right to censor what Mr. Jackson may collect in his [blank]" **** During the P vs Jackson case of 2003-5 I suppose it would have probably made the D.A look a bit more less eager if he had not made dubious claims that visits to adoption websites were proof of intent, or the fact he constantly claimed Jackson sexually molested Mac Culkin, Wade Robson and Bret Barnes, all three who testified that nothing of suchmanner took place. Having attempted to introduce former disgruntled Neverland employees who had first sold their story to a tabloid (rather than the police) as proper rebuttal witness' against the testimonies of these alleged victims surely did not help Sneddon's case one bit. As far as these books go. Let's be honest, atleast round here libraries have worse material than the three books mentioned... That is if we are looking for material to prove intent to molest boys. Should we track down people who loan such photography books from public libraries as suspected child molesters? I recall a claim that the book "Boy -a photographic essay" was a gift from an MJ fan to MJ. However if this was the case, I'm sure Jackson's defense mentioned it at sometime, but I'm yet to read such a document. This information about the inscription and the other book being a gift was however mentioned by several magazines, including New York Times link As for the books in question... Boys will be boys link As a collectible on Amazon from 1000 dollars upwards. The personal inscription on the book by M.Jackson is as follows "Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. T his is the spirit of boyhood. A life I’ve never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children." (information quoted by several newspapers, including NY Times above) Boy - A Photographic essay can be viewed online. link As the url tells and the website states, all pictures in this section were taken on location during the shooting of the film "Lord of the Flies" by Ken Heyman on Vieques Island. This information is conveniently not introduced when using it as evidence of sexual interest/intent towards minors. I don't know what you consider child pornography or "technically not child pornography", but as I come from the land of Sauna Perverts I fail to see such in these two cases. But I do have to admit that I would be suspicious of having my kids sleepover with a black man who owns such books or owns a huge amount of normal straight porn, no matter how much they might show his interest in photography or that simply loved to jack off to plumper magazines. But that's just because I'm a racist, nothing to do with the books or his taste in porn. As I recall, the police seized some "art photographs" owned by Sir Elton John from an exhibit, they were apparently child porn weren't they? Now why wasn't a fully fledged investigation against old-Reg launched immediately, I'm sure he has several of these art books, he collects art and penis statues and whatnot. Where is the child molestation investigation on him? Oh but then again he isn't a gullible bastard who admits to having sleepovers with kids. Good for him. continued... |
pma 10.07.2009 03:59 |
As for the Chandler case of 1993. As I'm not that familiar with the U.S judicial system, I must wonder why the case against Jackson was a civil suit, even though a criminal investigation was pending solely due to this civil suit? From what I've understood, in civil court person a) accuses person b) of whatever and demands a monetary compensation. No jail sentences can be given by civil courts.I do know that O.J Simpson managed to get acquited by a criminal court, but lost the civil suit and was sentenced to some 35 million dollars in damages for wrongful deaths. From what I've read aproximately 95 percent of civil cases do not go to trial, they are settled out of court. As for criminal trials, you are trialed by the people and sentenced accordingly. The 2005 trial was a criminal case, where MJ was acquitted. However, it was strangely enough also a case that the Los Angeles Dep. of Child services considered unfounded to begin with if The Smoking Gun is anywhere reliable with this document, link thanks to an MJ praising testimony by Janet Arvizo. However thanks to former Chandler-case lawyer Larry Feldman, the Arvizo's did see the light and the children saw a psychologist who saw the signs of abuse and was able to extract the "real story" of abuse. From what I've understood, the civil settlement of 1993 caused the criminal investigation to dry up. However this doe s not mean that Jordan Chandler was not questioned by authorities about abuse afterwards (naturally he coudl refuse to testify at court about it). It makes me wonder, how a judicial system would allow a child molestation case criminal investigation to fade out, if they at all saw it fit to take matters into criminal court. Then again, the plaintiff and lawyer did choose the civil route where the only thing you ask for is compensation, then one can always speculate their motivation. If they really were after justice, surely they would have wanted a proper criminal trial, to have their story face cross-examination etc. So why didn't the Chandler's help put Jackson away from hurting other children in the future? Why was it a civil case to begin with? As civil cases aim for monetary settlements, naturally at this point, why bother when you already got the money. Which does give the impression that you were not after justice to begin with. Apparently California laws had been adjusted since 1993, therefor the 2003-2005 case became a criminal case. The law was changed so that any civil cases about the same crime would remain inactive until the criminal proceedings. For the Arvizo's, the fact that they first went to Larry Feldman (Chandler's lawyer) might be taken as an indication that they wanted a civil case, but the criminal investigation that followed prevented it. However, if successful in a criminal trial, they could have also sued Jackson in a civil court for damages. Tidbit, did you know Evan Chandler was a screen writer? How bizarre. link The father, Evan Chandler apparently made a second civil claim against Jackson in 1997, which resulted in zero cash that time. This time he wanted more, hoping for another settlement I'm sure. link He claimed that Jackson breached their previous civil settlement by publicly denying that he molested his son. His civil claim is perhaps one of the finest pieces of comedy available. Sadly old CourtTV-documents are nowadays mainly available through archive.org (as linked above) "42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's, and others' material breach of the Agreement as herein alleged for commercial exploitation and financial enrichment, Plaintiff demands all economic benefits gained by Defendant Jackson and other Defendants from the commercial exploitation of the facts of the "Underlying Action" in an amount in excess of $60,000,000.00. 43. As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's and others' material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled "EVANstory." This album will include such songs as: "D.A. Reprised": "You Have No Defense (For My Love)"; "Duck Butter Blues"; "Truth"; and other songs. " Yes, these are two of Evan Chandler's actual claims in the second civil suit! Duck Butter Blues? All economic benefits gained by Jackson and the other defendants in an amount in excess of 60,000,000,00! EvansStory? You can't make this up, can you? Am I the only person who thinks there's something wrong with Jordan Chandler's father. I mean as, if writing the story for Robin Hood: Men in Tights wasn't enough evidence. Why did Evan Chandler attempt to dig into MJ's pocket again with a second civil suit if he was not after money? He utilized his son Jordan's alleged molestation twice against MJ. Succeeding in it once. Perhaps he thought he had struck gold with MJ and they'd settle rather than go to court on every occasion someone asks for money? Why, in 2006 did Jordan Chandler file a lawsuit against his father Evan for assault and wanted a restraining order? Here's the document from the New Jersey Superior Court link "The judge found that plaintiff had proved that he and his father, the defendant, were members of the same household when defendant struck him on the head from behind with a twelve and one-half pound weight and then sprayed his eyes with mace or pepper spray and tried to choke him. The judge also found that the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death. Thus, the judge was satisfied that plaintiff had provided evidence, which if believed, would support a finding of aggravated assault. Despite that finding, the judge refused to issue a final restraining order, reasoning as follows:..." (pg 2) This, atleast in my gullible eyes, furthers the image that Evan Chandler is a dubious character. Even if his son was not actually molested, he was certainly a victim of his father back then and as an adult. |
pma 10.07.2009 04:02 |
The Chandler case was not the only civil lawsuit against Jackson for sexual molestation , Thomas Bartucci Jr. accused made very similar accusations of sexual battery. Joseph Thomas Bartucci, Jr. v. Michael J. Jackson A civil complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans, Louisiana seeking financial damages against Michael Jackson, alleging that the entertainer sexually abused, battered, falsely imprisoned, and caused severe emotional distress to the plaintiff in Lousiana and California when he was 18-years-old. November 1, 2004 link However Bartucci's quest for financial damages did not really go his way, he lost. link link This whole civil court vs criminal court thing is rather puzzling. Perhaps someone more familiar with the American judicial system could elaborate on the differences. Could someone actually settle a case of child molestation in a civil court for money and it could not result in a criminal investigation? I fail to see that happening if a criminal investigation results in suspicion of something as serious as child molestation. Of course the civil settlement by MJ/EC/JC does not mention molestation or admit to any wrongdoing. Naturally they use much more vague terms, which is customary for civil cases. As if MJ himself was not suspicious, so were these cases. Not to mention the Arvizo's civil claim against JC Penneys in 2001. The BBC trial reports of the Jackson case link mention that "But defence lawyers were able to put a number of dents in Gavin's credibility as a witness. It emerged that the boy, and his younger brother and older sister, had taken acting lessons ahead of a 2001 lawsuit against US retailer JC Penney. " Mary Holzer testified for the defense, giving on final blow to the credibility of the Arvizo's by revealing that they had lied during their civil case against JC Penney's department store link To be honest, even if these Arvizo boys had been drilled by a pinewood sized dildo at MJ's house, with their background and lack of credibility no-one would have ever believed them. And that leads us to the problematics of child molestation cases, the problem works both ways. Even if you were molested, there might just be a total lack of physical and dna-evidence to support your case, especially if the acts occurred a long time ago. So all you can do is stick to your story, your word against his/hers as it goes. However, this is what makes false accusations easy. There generally is not any evidence, so if you have a story without holes and you can stick to it and place yourself and person X into the same place at the same time (preferrably in private) you might just win it. But naturally, any accusation as severe as sexual abuse should and will be taken seriously, no matter how made-up it might be or turn out to be. And that's how it should be. I'm sure none of us want to return to an age where rape victims are laughed at and children who tell of kiddyfiddlers are said to "have a vivid imagination"... or did we ever leave that era to begin with? Sorry, had to split this post into three parts and write it mainly while burping my son, srry about typos.Yes, I was bored, no I had never read about MJ's trials before his death. |
YourValentine 10.07.2009 05:06 |
Great posts, Pete. It's so much easier to throw around some innuendoes and accusations than to look into the facts. People say that when a man has been accused various times there must be some reason and something must be fishy. A couple of years ago in my home town a whole family of 25 people were tried in court for sexually abusing their 15 children. The initial charges were brought up by a child protection organisation called "Wildwasser" who works in daycare helping to detect and prevent cases of child abuse. After 4 years of trial in 2 courts the whole case collapsed and all defendants were acquitted. Not a single case of child abuse had happened - it was all in the minds of the Wildwasser people who had brainwashed the children to a point when they finally accused the prosecutor of having abused them. In the end even the prosecution pleaded for acquittal. It was the biggest legal scandal I ever witnessed and the end of "Wildwasser". It was also very harmful for child protection groups because they were no longer trusted after the witch hunt by "Wildwasser". Nothing was fishy about this family, no fire caused the smoke. But the family was destroyed - up to this day they have not been re-united with their children. People are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No matter how often they are accused. |
Holly2003 10.07.2009 05:42 |
Well the "facts" seem pretty clear to me: MJ used the "While I was coming out of the shower, I slipped and landed on my pet hamster, which ended up in my rectum" defence, which is on a par with Eddie Murphy's "I was only offering the transvestite prostitute a ride home" defence. Or if you want a more serious answer, in celebrity trials "hyperbolic" doubt sometimes replaces "reasonable" doubt as the criteria for acquittal i.e. O.J. SImpson got off as, although any reasonable person would conclude that he was guilty of murder, the defence managed to convince the jury that the needed to be 100% certain he had done it -- a standard that is impossible to live up to. This is where money and fame enters the equation: juries want to believe that celebrities are innocent because they've been conditioned to believe media images of those celebrities are what they're really like. As I said previously, celebrities work very hard to ensure what we see is what they want us to see. Stripped away of the glitter, and in the context of child abuse accusations, MJ fits the profile of an abuser. In this case, the defence created "hyperbolic doubt": taking the books out of context (which is what all the MJ defedners here are doing) they convinced the jury that child porn was "art", which, I concede, in another context/society/time period it might actually be. But in the context of a middle-aged man's bedroom, where he has arranged to be alone with vulnerable kids, the evidence seems clear. |
YourValentine 10.07.2009 07:03 |
The O.J.Simpson case was totally different: not only was the crime much more serious, it was also a trial that was brought to the world live on TV and turned the trial into a public spectacle of unprecedented quality. I believe that O.J.Simpson was aquitted because the principal witness from the LAPD had a history of being a racist and a history of planting evidence in cases when the defendants were black. I believe that the jury was just fed up over their ears with racial issues coming from the LAPD and they acquitted Simpson only because of that without even looking further into all the presented evidence. Things were very different in the MJ case. The judge did not allow cameras in the court room and forbade lawyers to talk to the media. He tried hard to make it a normal case. The jury was all-white with 8 women and 4 men. I believe the reason why MJ was aquitted was that the prosecution failed to make a case that convinced the jury of the guilt of MJ because most of the witnesses presented by the prosecution ended up testifying in favour of MJ. There was only this one alleged victim who again had a history of lying and fabricating lawsuits against other people/ companies. The possession of legal magazines and books cannot possibly create any circumstancial evidence - where would that lead us? My parents used to have a locked book shelf with books they considered unfit for us children to read while they encouraged us to read anything else from their library. We used to steal the key because these books were more interesting than all the available ones. I cannot say that we understood much of what we read (it was not porn, the books just had "sexual scenes") but kids are curious, they want to see, read, taste what is not meant for them. It's not like you have unprotected weapons or heroine lying around in your house. |
Holly2003 10.07.2009 07:36 |
Of course there are differnces between OJ and MJ, but the similarities are what's important -- the celebrity, the wealth, and the image. No matter what precautions the judge took, it would be hard -- maybe impossible -- for the jury to separate Jackson from his self-created image of the sexually non-threatening Peter Pan, the "boy who never grew up". The celebrity image is so powerful that it becomes difficult for the jury to treat him the way they would treat an ordinary person accused of the same crime. I mentioned before that he fits the profile of a child abuser, for example, but because he built a fairground ride in his garden instead offering them a bag of sweets, it becomes hard for people to see past the glitter to get at the bare facts. ps legal material can and does become circumstantial evidence; if someone is accused of an anti-semetic crime, for example, and the police find legal but anti-semetic writings in their home, that can be used in evidence. |
-fatty- 2850 10.07.2009 08:38 |
I can't believe that this thread has stretched to 13 pages without descending into full-scale nuclear warfare so I suppose it's down to me to enter the launch codes. Michael Jackson raped kids and anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a fucking moron! Seriously though, there's far too many grey areas for anyone to come to an informed decision in ths discussion. On one hand I think it's a fair assumption that Michael Jackson's relationships with minors weren't as innocent as some would have us believe. On the other hand, he was tried and cleared of all charges in a court of law by people in possesion of far more facts and an understanding of US legal procedure than I have. The fact is that the truth will never come out. It's buried beneath handfuls of bullshit from both sides. On one hand you have the tabloid rumours and on the other you have the blind devotion of his hard-core fans. fatty. |
The Real Wizard 10.07.2009 09:08 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I still think MJ was at least a tiny bit dodgy. -fatty- wrote: there's far too many grey areas for anyone to come to an informed decision in ths discussion. And until we go through what he went through from age 5, he will forever appear to us as being "dodgy", and the grey areas will always be there. The first step is to attempt to go from attack mode to empathy mode. It's easy to attack someone like MJ, being people comfortably in the middle class who have led comparatively normal lives. |
YourValentine 10.07.2009 09:47 |
I totally agree, Bob. here is what makes me angry and I hope I do not get the usual "you are anti-American" in return: 9 years into the 21st century it is still legal for American parents to beat their children as a punishment. As late as 2005 the supreme court outlawed the execution of juveniles with the smallest possible margin (5:4). At the time dozens of juvenile offenders were on the death row. Estimated 8% of all American children have no access to health care, estimated 900 000 children are subject to abuse and neglect each year, just google the facts. There are thousands of children who have no home, no food, no education and are subject to all kinds of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. But the state of California spent millions of dollars to find out it was okay for Michael Jackson to rest his hand on the knee of a boy while they played a video game (because that was often to what the accusations boiled down to in the trial.) Please give me a break. I call that the Monica Lewinsky effect: leave the real issues alone and witch hunt the famous suspect, instead. I do not call it privileged treatment of a celebrity when a guy who is so obviously different is ridiculed, persecuted and lied about by the media year after year after year. Michael Jackson was never accused of raping someone - he was accused of touching boys in an indecent manner, allow them to see him nude through an open door and to give the alcohol to make it easier to touch them etc. I do not take these allegations lightly but they were not proven in a court of law. I wish they would have taken the 20 millions and spent them on serious child protection projects instead of allowing a Tom Sneddon to spend all that money on his witch hunt. Of course I know that most Americans do not beat or neglect their children, many are against the death penalty and the overwhelming majority of Americans have only the best interest of their kids in mind. Parents should not allow that the real issues are literally overshadowed by such "celebrity trials". |
The Real Wizard 10.07.2009 11:01 |
If only that could be seen on page 1 of every newspaper... Great post. |
john bodega 10.07.2009 15:13 |
OJ is not a good subject for comparison because he really was guilty. No ifs or buts about it. As for my use of the word 'dodgy', I don't use that without forethought of the dodgy upbringing he had. Shit goes in, shit goes out... you'd have to be a fool not to realise that for every odd trait he had, there was probably a sold beating from his freak of a father behind it. |
Lisser 11.07.2009 20:32 |
Thank you Barb, Pete, and Bob for putting in to words what I have not had the patience to do. Unlike Barb and Pete I am an avid Michael Jackson fan. I have all of his albums and still have most of my cassettes. I have the posters and the buttons. I remember when the trials were going on and I remember how I felt...confused, in shock, etc. I remember thinking, I love his music, I love to see him perform but I do not know him personally and I am not God, I can't judge him so I will continue to love his music and watch his perfomances and let a jury of his peers decide his fate. They did and I accept it. Let's not forget about the countless number of respected people he worked with in front of cameras and behind over his 45 years in the music industry and what they have to say about him. I do not have the time to pull quotes but all of them with out faulter state that he was an absolute joy of a human being to work with and be around...a true humanitarian who loved children. It is a travesty that this love turned out to be his biggest ridicule. I've always loved MJ's music and I always will. I hope he can be remembered for what he really was and in my opinion that is the greatest entertainer and artist that will probably ever walk this earth. My opinion totally and I will respectfully agree to disagree with anyone who doesn't feel the same as me. |
mike hunt 19.07.2009 05:05 |
StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: Ok, this has gone way too far. First, nonstop coverage of MJ, now a public viewing of his body?!?!?!?! What the fuck have we become? I hear the streets of Downtown L.A. will be closed for tomorrow's memorial. I can't imagine the traffic my dad will have to face!!! And my brothers need to get to school dammit! This is all a fucking money scam. Televised event?? What THE FUCK?!?!?! This is getting too weird. Why would anyone want to see their idol's lifeless body?? This, this is too much. I can't take it anymore! I can't escape it. Even my parents are into the gossip hype. They always have the news channels on where they gossip about MJ. And we have 3 televisions in the house -_- I told them, "They should just leave him alone." My mum was like, "Why? He just died. He's the biggest news around." She just looked at me weird, like if she wanted to tell me I should really care. I'm ashamed to be living near the Staples Center (just a couple of minutes away)..... my cousin was saying, "We should have signed up for tickets!" I was like, "What for???" No offense, but who in their right mind would want to see a dead person (unless you do it for a living or whatever), especially when this person is MICHAEL JACKSON!??!!?!??! He kinda already looked dead this past decade, now to actually see him deceased?!?!?! THIS IS SICK! One of the only funny things I find from this is that under every local news item of MJ that popped up on my email page there's a caption saying, "Did you receive Michael Jackson Memorial Tickets? Tell CBS2/KCAL 9 about it!" Contacting a news channel just to say you got tickets? Wow, that's pathetic... Well, my rant is over for now I guess. Feel free to disagree or whatever. EDIT: now i hear MJ will be laid to rest before the public memorial....that's more like it. this is a sick world we live in my friend. Michael Jackson was good for what he was (a pop star) but let's be real. This is pretty sick, his funeral is on tv?...his little girl has to say a speech at his funeral, on tv?...his family is sick, and it starts with michael's crazy father. Again, michael was a good pop star, but he's not mozart for god's sake. I saw the "bad" video the other day on tv, and my first thought was what a bunch of overated crap. They showed the whole video including the intro, it was pretty embarrassing to look at. He had to prove how bad he was..lol... did he, or didn't he molest those kids?...He was accused of abuse more than once, but a lot of greedy people out there who would love too take advantage of someone like michael jackson. IMO, Michael was set up from the start. |
Freya is quietly judging you. 19.07.2009 13:16 |
What a silly uninformed opinion. Yes, it is clear the family are mad, but there is nothing wrong with a child talking at their parents funeral, on or off TV. |
ParisNair 21.07.2009 01:26 |
A news article from Kerela, India -
Michael Jackson the kind boss - a driver in Kerala remembers Amongst the millions who watched Michael Jackson's funeral in far away Los Angeles was the grief stricken Ramesh family here -- a tearful M.V. Ramesh, who was the pop icon's personal driver, and his eight-year-old son Tanuj who held tightly on to the toys gifted to him by music world's ultimate star. Ramesh, 38, was one of Jackson's three personal drivers when he lived in Bahrain for a year from 2005 till 2006. He drove Jackson's 2006 model Rolls Royce. "He was really nice and so friendly with all of us. He told me that I could be free with him and could share our joys and sorrows with him," Ramesh told IANS from his home in this Kerala town, about 500 km from the state capital Thiruvananthapuram. "Jackson's three children, Prince, Paris and Blanket, also lived with him," he recalled fondly. Remembering the job interview before he was taken on, Ramesh said he was questioned by Jackson himself as well as his secretary and manager in March 2006. He stayed on in the job till Jackson and his family left Bahrain by the end of the same year. The link with showbiz's brightest and most mercurial star did not break even after that. "Even after he left Bahrain, he called me twice. The last call came when he wished me Happy New Year in 2007," said Ramesh, who now works as a shopkeeper in Bahrain and is home on leave. Tuesday night was tough for Ramesh. The family gathered around the television set to bid adieu to the former boss, who was revered as much as he was reviled, as his funeral was broadcast alive to millions around the world. "My son Tanuj was holding a few toys that Jackson gave me for him just before he left Bahrain. All of us watched TV and we were sad. I can't believe he is no more," Ramesh said, remembering how the strange star covered his face every time he stepped out with his children. With MJ, as he was called, no more, Ramesh's image of the man is not the much written about music genius as much in the news for his songs as his eccentricities but the kind boss who gifted toy cars and dolls to the children of his employees. |
Major Tom 22.07.2009 17:44 |
The latest news says that whatever the police found in the raid of the private doctor, someone killed Michael. What to make of this, I do not know. But it all sounds pretty fishy to me. |
john bodega 23.07.2009 09:30 |
Don't matter if you're black or white .... ( dances ) |
Mr Mercury 23.07.2009 13:45 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Don't matter if you're black or white .... ( dances ) Oh your bad!!!!!!!! |
john bodega 23.07.2009 14:34 |
I'm BAD, I'm BAD.... |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 27.07.2009 20:30 |
can we have a whip round for Uri Gellar,it didnt take him long to sell his grubby little soul for 30 silver. ive never liked the man and always will... |
Mr Mercury 28.07.2009 05:26 |
Yeah I saw his documentary with "unseen" footage of MJ. Got fed up with him virtually telling you how to feel about Michael. |
andreas_mercury 30.07.2009 10:42 |
cannot help but laugh when I see his face nowtimes... mutant! just jokes, but honest it was the saddest thing, just the saddest. i was on the street and a bunch to people were watching a shop window with TVs in it for the news, and they were supporting each other and tears in eyes, one man turned to me and said "this is the END, the END OF MUSIC" i dont agree I think music will continue to has, evidence! |
inu-liger 02.08.2009 23:25 |
andreas_mercury wrote: i dont agree I think music will continue to has, evidence! I can has cheezburger? |
The Fairy King 07.08.2009 21:47 |
andreas_mercury wrote: cannot help but laugh when I see his face nowtimes... mutant! just jokes, but honest it was the saddest thing, just the saddest. i was on the street and a bunch to people were watching a shop window with TVs in it for the news, and they were supporting each other and tears in eyes, one man turned to me and said "this is the END, the END OF MUSIC" i dont agree I think music will continue to has, evidence! Sense will you ever make? |
andreas_mercury 08.08.2009 12:40 |
lol sorry, i was writing to that post right before leaving on errends. |
Holly2003 08.08.2009 18:23 |
andreas_mercury wrote: lol sorry, i was writing to that post right before leaving on errends. What's your excuse for that post then? |
Mr Mercury 08.08.2009 19:23 |
So Mark Lester, child star of the film "Oliver" claims he is Paris' father. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mark-Lester-Oliver-Film-Star-Claims-To-Be-Father-Of-Michael-Jacksons-Daughter-Paris/Article/200908215357081 |
its_a_hard_life 26994 08.08.2009 21:04 |
Mr Mercury wrote: So Mark Lester, child star of the film "Oliver" claims he is Paris' father. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mark-Lester-Oliver-Film-Star-Claims-To-Be-Father-Of-Michael-Jacksons-Daughter-Paris/Article/200908215357081 Yep. Saw that on the news... My natural reaction was.... "WTF... Jesus, not this again..." People are always fucking coming up with shit. Even if it's true or not. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 09.08.2009 13:25 |
its_a_hard_life wrote:this is gonna run and run for months if not years to comeMr Mercury wrote: So Mark Lester, child star of the film "Oliver" claims he is Paris' father. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mark-Lester-Oliver-Film-Star-Claims-To-Be-Father-Of-Michael-Jacksons-Daughter-Paris/Article/200908215357081Yep. Saw that on the news... My natural reaction was.... "WTF... Jesus, not this again..." People are always fucking coming up with shit. Even if it's true or not. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the 2 girls do look very similar though and i will never be able to watch Oliver! again if he is the daddy lol |