Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

ubersonic said:
Seen the documentary now, still think they're just scammers hoping to get a payout from his estate or something.

At the end of the day, and this may sound very insensitive, we know he was close friends with Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin (other child stars which he shared common ground with) and he never touched them, or any other of his child star friends. The only ones accusing him of owing them money molesting them are ugly poor people.

Now you can say that all his alleged victims being poor is just coincidence, but as the entire case against him is circumstantial and has no real evidence baring the word of people who have previously defended him ("we're not lying now but we were lying before but we're not liars, give us money!"), I think it's safe to say it's something we will never know for sure, but as weird as he was the evidence is still on his side.




Basically, the criminal cases (accused and or taken to court by the police) he fought and won, his accusers proven to be lying. The civil cases (people suing him) he just settled out of court because he could afford to pay the gold diggers to go away.
Click to expand...

Its too easy to write it off as money, and there are many examples of why money isn't a motivator for them coming forward, i.e. not monetizing the film, keeping hold of rings worth tens of thousands etc etc..

Capture.png
 
tek81 said:
Innocent or guilty, the documentary has certainly led to more people mass-debating Michael Jackson. On another note, it's interesting to see Louis Therouxs opinion. For some reason I imagined he'd be more sceptical of the claims.
Click to expand...

Because after watching both parts of the documentary you realise the veracity of those claims.
 
pitkin said:
Why didn't the people he paid off, refuse to take his money and continue to pursue him legally? They could have still claimed damages when he was found guilty. Surely that would have been the better option, potentially jailing him and saving other children he may have done it to afterwards? They basically allowed a paedophile to carry on with his actions by not challenging him in court.
Click to expand...

Facing Michaels world-famous lawyers in any sense would be terrifying for even the average lawyer... In 1994 his lawyer was Johnnie Cochran, the same lawyer that got OJ acquitted for murder after OJ's blood was found at the crime scene and the victim's blood was found at his house and in his car...

Michaels lawyers threatened anyone who dared challenge him in court.
 
MikeTimbers said:
Suppose for a moment that unequivocal evidence surfaced that showed that Leonardo da Vinci raped the Mona Lisa. Should we then remove the painting from the Louvre and all his other art should be spurned.

I'm no great fan of MJ but I can separate the music he made from the man he was, irrespective of whether he did or didn't abuse these kids. He was also seriously pyschologically damaged and clearly not "normal". I'm not excusing him from being potentially culpable but I'm very uncomfortable at someone being accused and convicted after death with no opportunity to defend himself. Especially when he successfully defended himself while alive.
Click to expand...

I understand your point but Michael Jackson's estate owns the rights to many things that bring in millions annually, he owns happy birthday for god sake.

The Da Vinci, Mona Lisa example is a bit too far out of the realms of possibility to make sense, even if he did rape her it was probably legal.. regardless.

I'm not calling for Michaels music to be terminated and a Krusty the clown-esque memorabilia burning session take place in every street... But the awareness knowing that he was, in fact, a paedophile that prayed on and destroyed the lives of young boys needs to be known.

He isn't here to defend himself, but it's probably best...
 
tek81 said:
@terley How is your friend getting on since the documentary aired?
Click to expand...

Here are some quotes..

out of respect to me you should keep your opinions to yourself on this matter no matter what you believe
Click to expand...

you shud be supporting me in this time like ##### and ##### they know me and hw i feel about this. instead of this public parade of information, purposely to get a reaction, upset you have done this
Click to expand...

its mentally effecting me this and its distressing me
Click to expand...

If that sheds any light on it :P

Also.. my reply. (yeah i know i am airing my dirty laundry here, but who cares..)

I have no obligation to support anyone mate, I disagree with you on this. I believe he was a paedophile and I can't support you trying to defend him. I have already spoken to #####/##### etc and I've expressed that I feel terrible that you are going through this ****, but it's not my doing. you don't need to view my posts or interact with them. I am not the type of person to keep my mouth shut when I feel like an injustice has taken place.
Click to expand...
 
tek81 said:
Is it true that during the property search in 2005, they discovered "art" books, containing photographs of naked children? I've read conflicting reports.
Click to expand...

It is true, but any Michael Jackson fan will reply to the question as "ITS ALL LIES, THE POLICE MADE IT UP"

It wasn't a lie, however, the books couldn't be used in court because somehow Michaels lawyers managed to have them made inadmissible in court because anyone could have put them there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom