Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

dirtybeatfreak said:
I think Jackson was innocent. His past where he wasn't allowed a childhood because his father pushed him for the music is a big part of it I think, and his wealth and fame allowed him to deal with it in a different way where most people couldn't. He is a tool though for not realising how bad it looked and how inappropriate it was, even when told multiple times.
Click to expand...


No need to only think it, the man literally faced a full court trial and investigation by a police department but still remains the target of guessing chinese whispers. Mixed up dude no doubt, I believe he nearly went broke a few times with so many extremes but I dont think he was an attacker of any people. People wasting their time on this when Hollywood contains people who do target vulnerable entrants to the industry
 
Immensely talented guy brought up by a violent overbearing father who used his kids to make money.

But he did it. Why would you pay millions in hush money to certain kids/their families if you didn't.

Luckily I'm of an age to remember all this, so don't have to listen to the fake news, people trying to deny it.
 
Well I've not watched the documentary and I suspect it will be along the lines of most of the recent entertainment type documentaries where telling a story and trying to get things to fit that narrative is perhaps more important than presenting the facts and a balanced view isn't seen as particularly necessary.

There perhaps isn't sufficient evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt - though the kid who apparently described his private parts accurately could be fairly damning evidence. There certainly does seem to be plenty of evidence that he had an unhealthy interest in young boys, including nude photos etc... I'm not surprised he settled with his various accusers, I suspect he'd not have faired well in various civil cases which are decided on "the balance or probabilities" or similar rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt".
 
Suicidal Ferret said:
Immensely talented guy brought up by a violent overbearing father who used his kids to make money.

But he did it. Why would you pay millions in hush money to certain kids/their families if you didn't.

Luckily I'm of an age to remember all this, so don't have to listen to the fake news, people trying to deny it.
Click to expand...

Yes because the media outlets were a lot more trustworthy back then! :D
 
Is the documentary purposely designed to be controversial? Yes.
Was MJ a kiddy fiddler? Probably.
Do I care one bit about MJ? No.
Does your friend need to get a life? Yes.
 
Suicidal Ferret said:
Why would you pay millions in hush money to certain kids/their families if you didn't.
Click to expand...

Now, I am not claiming that he didn't, But to answer your specific question..

Because America.

It is a lot less risk, hassle, and expense than to fight it in court.

According to Micheal Moore, something like 96% of all criminal cases never come to court. They are all "Plead out" with deals made with the prosecutors.

Unless one is willing to accept the idea that the US Police have a near 100% record in getting the right person every time, then you have to accept that at least some of those 96% are innocent people who take a plea in order to avoid the ruinous expense of defending oneself in court and/or the savage sentence that will inevitably be handed down should you go to open trial and loose!

Civil cases will be no different!

Guilt and/or innocence are really not part of the practical procedure. Ultimately it is all about risk/benefit and negotiation.

The UK legal system is bad enough, but I would never want to fall foul of the US one!

:eek: :(
 
silversurfer said:
No need to only think it, the man literally faced a full court trial and investigation by a police department but still remains the target of guessing chinese whispers. Mixed up dude no doubt, I believe he nearly went broke a few times with so many extremes but I dont think he was an attacker of any people. People wasting their time on this when Hollywood contains people who do target vulnerable entrants to the industry
Click to expand...

What about OJ simpson?
 
Suicidal Ferret said:
Faced a court but not his accusers. How you expect a court to work correctly when the most damning evidence wasn't considered, as they were the ones he paid off.
Click to expand...

Yea, I see your point. But if they didn't come forward to get said payout, why didn't they decline and go to court to get him convicted rather than take money? If they started the procedure because they have been affected/hurt by it? Granted it's a lot of money, I know that would be enough to sway most people. But when you consider this and the fact he previously has not been convicted after being trialed, you start to wonder if it's fabricated purely to get money out of him and whether they truly came forward to bring him to justice. How comes money suddenly takes away the effect his alleged abuse had on them?

There has been a lot of other rich and famous people who have been put in the same position and have been convicted, he is not the only wealthy star to have the means to be able to pay someone off, so I feel it has to be taken at least into some consideration that he hasn't been convicted.

Alleged photos of young boys etc only seems to come from places like the Daily Mail, I have yet to see a reputable report on it? That said no one can deny that some of the stuff he has done, does look mega dodgy.

Genuine question if someone can answer, would they have got a payout if they did go to court (other than him paying for their costs)??
 
Last edited:
The kids were not from affluent families. His lawyers offered them astronomical figures for the time

Put your kids through months of hell, court & cross examination. Our get multi millions to make them financially safe for life.

As to the accusations were fake to get money. Why weren't all the kids/families paid off. Not just a select few?
 
Suicidal Ferret said:
Immensely talented guy brought up by a violent overbearing father who used his kids to make money.

But he did it. Why would you pay millions in hush money to certain kids/their families if you didn't.

Luckily I'm of an age to remember all this, so don't have to listen to the fake news, people trying to deny it.
Click to expand...
Difficult one. Reputational damage limitation is one alternative answer. It's not really possible to prove innocence and you know the press will do the story to death if those accusing wish to keep brining it up.
I remember it too and I also remember the feeling that some were simply out to get money out of him. He was also an adult who missed out on a lot of childhood experiences others had. Having sleepovers for example.
The full truth will likely never be known. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
These days people are all too keen to see wrong intentions.
 
Last edited:
silversurfer said:
No need to only think it, the man literally faced a full court trial and investigation by a police department but still remains the target of guessing chinese whispers.
Click to expand...

When he was found innocent two of the Jurors came out and said they felt guilty because even though he was innocent of that particular case they believed he had done something.
 
So has GD collectively decided he was guilty, then?

I know GD demands the very highest standards of proof, so if you guys say it was MJ what done it 'e must o' done it, by gum.
 
FoxEye said:
So has GD collectively decided he was guilty, then?

I know GD demands the very highest standards of proof, so if you guys say it was MJ what done it 'e must o' done it, by gum.
Click to expand...

Read the 5 pages of replies and gauge your own opinion on the general consensus, as there is no poll this is the only way to check really...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom