Why do we mourn Michael Jackson?

[primetime]

First of all, the OJ civil lawsuit was a sham. That was nothing but a revenge trial. I learned that after those 4 officers were acquitted in Rodney King's trial, but then had to pay Rodney a huge sum of money later.

As for Michael, again, if corporations are willing to settle just so the case "can go away", Michael probably did the same thing. I'm curious though, why do people WANT to believe Michael is a pedophile? Why is it hard for some people to see that he may NOT have done anything wrong? I am posing the same question that you posed to us. We stated why we think Michael is innocent, what really makes you think he is not. Unless you were there, you have no solid proof.

 

[c7_assassin]

I can never be 100% sure about this, or anything I didn't personally witness. If that's the kind of proof you need before you believe something, you're the most skeptical person in the whole world.

So OJ's civil suit was a "revenge" trial? Okay, now we've entered the realm of the truly crazy. If I were Nicole Brown's family, I think I'd be entitled to a little revenge. And since he was guilty as sin, the courts were happy to oblige...

The Rodney King trial, another great example: innocent in a criminal court, guilty in a civil court. Are you seeing a pattern here? It's easier to prove the bad man did the bad thing in a civil court! In my reasoned opinion, that's why Michael settled.

 

[Strider]

If you're going to play the "innocent until proven guilty" card, then no one should have an unfavouable opinion of OJ either. Or Roman Polanski. Or Woody Allen.

Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor, he just said it was consensual. I suppose one could make the case that he was trying to save his skin by plea bargaining to avoid the more serious charges (that the sex was non-consensual and that he'd drugged her), but to this day, he's never gone back on his original story. It's been thirty years, and he's safely out of the country, so if he was plea bargaining to save himself from a harsher sentence, then he's really got no motivation to maintain his original story.

While what Woody Allen did was certainly rather low behavior considering it destroyed his marriage, but it wasn't illegal. The woman was 22 at the time, and they continued their relationship after his divorce with Mia Farrow and they're currently married; so again, the analogy doesn't work.

As for OJ, well, I'm sure some may disagree with me on this, but the amount of evidence that he did it was utterly overwhelming.

The accusations involving Jackson don't even remotely approach any of these situations.

 

[Laugh]

My two cents..

We all have our thoughts on MJ, be it good or bad. Was he a pedophile? I wasn't there so to say definitely yes or no would make me one badass judge and I should have my own talk show.

My thoughts on the payoff? First off, why was the payoff even taken? I offer this.. if someone molested and/or raped your daughter or son.. would any amount of money in the world make you want to take it? The door swings both ways. The ones taking the "payoff" are just as guilty as those who offer.

Imagine the kid's thoughts.. "But mom, he molested me!! He did unspeakable things to my body!! What's that? Your taking his money and IT'S OK??!! WHAT???"

The mother's thoughts.. "It's ok dear. The fact he tore a hole in your childhood and probably warped you psychologically for the rest of your life is worth around.. hmm.. yeh 20 mil should cover it."

Do you realize how stupid this sounds? Yet it happened.

Michael himself said he did not want the trial because the kid would be dragged through the mud and probably be damaged for life. Yet once again, he's the "bad guy" because he put a kid's feelings before his own. Now imagine if the kid's actual parents would have done the same if the accusations were true.

And for those who say that's a cover up and he was only concerned for himself.. again I ask.. did anyone FORCE the parents to take the payoff? And as someone else pointed out, did Michael only allegedly do this with two kids?? I don't think so. I would think it very difficult to molest kids for years without at least one parent having the heart and responsibility to put their kid's health and mental life before money.

So in closing, we all will remember Jackson in our own ways. I wasn't there and neither were you. But we both were there when he delivered the music genius and music videos of a lifetime.

 

[c7_assassin]

Also guys, just one more comment on another theme running through this whole discussion:

"If he had molested my kid, I would never have accepted money for it."

The fact that it was a lawsuit meant that there was no chance Michael was ever going to prison for his crime. The most they could hope for from a judge was his money. So there's nothing weird about the parents accepting a $20 million settlement. And considering the damage done to his career, paying a settlement only makes sense if the most likely alternative was a guilty verdict.

 

[kis123]

You (and you all know who you are) can call MJ a pedophile until you turn blue, but the bottom line is he was NEVER convicted of such crime.

Mabus, people settle out of court for many reasons; he was a public figure as well as a mentally unstable man. He probably was advised this was the most expedient as opposed to a long drawn out trial that would've further put him the hole mentally.

Since you think a payoff is proof of guilt, please answer me this; you can convict in a criminal court AND sue in civil court. If the evidence was air tight and slam dunk against him, why didn't the alleged victim's parents do that? That's exactly what I would've done; as a parent of a son, there would be no way in hell you could shut me up--I don't care how much money you'd shake at me. That is my son and I'm not pimping him out for Michael Jackson, Michael Jordon, or Barak Obama at at that matter!!!

And another thing, what parent in their right mind would let their young boy have sleepovers with a grown man? What in the hell were they thinking anyway? I can go up and down my city streets asking mothers of young boys if they would let them sleep over with a grown man and you know what resounding response I'd get?? That's right.....HELL NO!!!

You can accuse him of being a pedophile all you want; at the end of the day he was NEVER convicted and we'll truly never know. What you can call him is a musical genius that changed pop music as we knew it. You can say that he broke racial barriers in the video and entertainment industries. You can say that there are many in the entertainment industry who credit him for their success. Now, those are ALL true without any speculation.

You can also say that he himself was a horribly abused and emasculated man used by his family as a cash cow. You can say that the man loathed himself so much that he changed his appeareance to hide the scars of his childhood; in his own eyes he was never good enough. He never accepted himself even though billions across the globe loved him. He was a sick man whose family ignored all the signs of his inner torment. Even if he had turned out to be a pedophile, I would've had some sympathy and empathy for him; he wouldn't have gotten that way by himself.

I have a friend doing business in W Africa; when they found out MJ died, the town went crazy. No one is going to do that for a pedphile. He was a humanitarian and got things done that others couldn't because of his celebrity status. Does that excuse the bad? Certainly not, but some of the greatest people in history weren't necessarily the nicest and don't have the greatest of reputations.

The reason why I mourn his passing? There are many reasons: I remember the young boy lead singer of the Jackson five. I remember when he first started his solo career. I remember the Michael Jackson before his demons got the best of him; someone who looked like a healthy adjusted young black man. I mourn how it all ended; the accusations, the surgeries, the debt, and all the craziness he went through. It wouldn't matter to me if it was MJ or the man on the street; at the end of the day, he was someone's father, son, brother, and friend. And he died shockingly and tragically--those are the things I mourn.

 

[c7_assassin]

So Michael is both not a pedophile, and the kids' parents were pimping them out? You can't have it both ways.

Again, not every criminal trial can lead to a criminal conviction. A $20 million settlement in a civil trial is as close to an admission of guilt as you're going to get...the only reason he would pay $20 million is if his lawyers were telling him that the judge was probably going to award the family even more!

 

[primetime]

c7, again, if corporations are willing to settle cases EVEN IF THEY ARE INNOCENT, how come Michael can't do the same thing? Going through something like that would be hard for Michael AND the kid. The media is filled with sharks who will hound people until forever. Michael was never PROVEN to being a child molester. How come his trial was a "not guilty" verdict? Judging by your posts, he should have been convicted. That kid and his mother was LYING. But because people (such as yourself) are holding onto this belief that he is a pedophile, it makes it that much easier for people to try and "set up" MJ. But, we don't have to worry about that anymore.

Aren't you the least bit curious as to why the WORLD is mourning Michael Jackson? If he was a true pedophile and it was PROVEN, you would never see the outpouring of people across the whole freakin globe. Michael has done more for the people of the world that probably most of us on the TMF combined. His charities and his willingness to help people far supercede these ridiculous beliefs that he is a bonafide pedophile. ONE parent got money, yet we don't see him shelling out millions and millions of dollars to settle lawsuits. We only saw ONE MORE kid claim he was molested and that kid was lying. There is far more evidence of Michael being innocent than guilty.

Yes, the OJ case was a revenge trial/ Whether you think OJ did it or not, the defense did it's job and there was reasonable doubt all over that case. But unlike MJ, OJ is viewed as a criminal. People LOATHE OJ. That man will never get public support or any world wide outpouring of love. He was never convicted of Nicole/Ron's deaths either. But people just hate him. As for Michael, you see a ton of love across the world. Maybe, just maybe the people on this planet see Michael for who he really is. A tormented individual that brought joy to billions of people through his music and his humanitarian efforts.

Just think about it.....That is why Michael is being mourned. Do you have any proof Michael WAS a pedophile?

 

[kis123]

Also guys, just one more comment on another theme running through this whole discussion:

The fact that it was a lawsuit meant that there was no chance Michael was ever going to prison for his crime. The most they could hope for from a judge was his money. So there's nothing weird about the parents accepting a $20 million settlement. And considering the damage done to his career, paying a settlement only makes sense if the most likely alternative was a guilty verdict.

I'm not trying to attack you so please take this as my disclaimer if it comes out wrong.

If that's your photo on the sig pic, you appear pretty young. Do you have children? If you don't, those of us who are parents can tell you beyond any shadow of doubt, if the allegations had real teeth in them and it was proven that this child was molested, no parent I know would rest until the perpetrator is in jail, and no amount of money would ever replace justice.

Saying that, in the US, the parents could've jailed and sued them for millions--so why didn't they? Even if the allegations are true, I blame the parents for exposing their child to danger like that.

And like you, I've grown tired of posting in these threads too; I'll just let people do what they need to do about this and keep it moving.

 

[Lord Doctor]

The police would have pressed charges anyway, regardless of any settlements because an illegal act would had been committed.

I once made it clear that I was not pressing charges against someone, but the police decided that they would. The guy went to court and was sent down.

 

[RobAce]

Not only what kis mentioned, let me add one more thing.

I could not LIVE with myself if I knew I let a child molester OFF THE HOOK and left him to prey on other children, and knowing that person would continue the behavior.

If someone can sleep at night knowing they took 20 million or whatever to satisfy their "case" but left that person in tact to continue their actions...I do not know who in that case is worse.

There are so many issues here that it is hard to fathom at least from my POV anyone that reasonably do it. Is it possible, yes. But if there is one thing we know from pedophiles is that their behavior continues and does not stop after one or two. Especially if they do not get jailed, or punished for their behavior...and even then many are repeat offenders. You typically have more than 2 or 3 people over a 10-15 year period come out.

Rob

 

[c7_assassin]

I'm not pretending to be any kind of legal expert here, but as I understand it the DA has to decide whether there is enough evidence against someone to get a conviction before they decide to pursue a criminal case. Which means, you can be totally guilty, but if there is not enough evidence against you, you walk. I don't think the parents could force the issue in that case, even if they desperately wanted to. Maybe that's why they went with a civil trial.

In fact, DA's have lost their jobs for overzealously prosecuting when they don't have enough evidence.

c7, again, if corporations are willing to settle cases EVEN IF THEY ARE INNOCENT, how come Michael can't do the same thing?

Because corporations settle to avoid bad publicity. For Michael, if there was a chance he would be exonerated, then that would have cleared his name and kept his career intact. The fact that he chose to pay was very bad publicity. That's the difference.

 

[red indian]

He was a great musician.......Micheal Jackson?...er sorry, no.

Cleethorpes, a small seaside town in the UK has a lot more to do with Jackos sucess than you may think. Its the birthplace of Rod Temperton, who penned many of Jacksons hits and is the one who deserves the title "a great musician". Also, I have little doubt that it was Temperton who turned Jacksons own pathetic excuses for songs in to something worthy of the name.

The other great musician who made Jacksons career is of course the one and only Quincy Jones. He produced all the great hits, and also did all the real musical work. By that I mean the business of putting pen to paper and turning Jacksons girly sqealing noises in to songs, the business of putting dots on a score for musicians to play.

One day the truth about Jacksons minimal involvement in any of the creative work on his albums will come out. I think the reason for the conspiracy regarding Jacksons level of involvement in his own albums is the same as it is for many pop stars. Since the advent of the Beatles and others of their generation who both wrote and performed their own material, it has become vital for the kudos of pop stars to claim to have had a hand in "writing" the songs they sing (not that most of them can write a single note of music of course). Any self respecting pop star has to be known for "writing his own stuff" otherwise he will not be taken seriously in the pop world.

So I think what really happened with Jackson was he would turn up with a C60 cassette at Quincy Jones studio, Q would play the squealing noises, tell jacko he was a genious and to go play with his monkey for a couple of weeks and to come back when Q and Rod have made the album, and then tell Jacko to make his squealing noises over the top of it.

A bit harsh? a little exagerated? perhaps, but also a lot closer to the truth than we have heard on the TV and radio over the last few days.

 

[chicago]

Red Indian has gotten involved. I think that means this thread is officially over.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Red Indian has gotten involved. I think that means this thread is officially over.

D'awww. He's only drunk about 95% of the time. lol

 

[kis123]

I'm not pretending to be any kind of legal expert here, but as I understand it the DA has to decide whether there is enough evidence against someone to get a conviction before they decide to pursue a criminal case. Which means, you can be totally guilty, but if there is not enough evidence against you, you walk. I don't think the parents could force the issue in that case, even if they desperately wanted to. Maybe that's why they went with a civil trial.

In fact, DA's have lost their jobs for overzealously prosecuting when they don't have enough evidence.

If there isn't enough evidence, there is no case, whether any of us like it or not. You cannot prosecute without it so there must not have been enough to pursue a case. As a member said, if the case was substantial, the DA would've prosecuted, payoff or not. Like Prime said earlier, this is proving more of his innocence than his guilt.

Because corporations settle to avoid bad publicity. For Michael, if there was a chance he would be exonerated, then that would have cleared his name and kept his career intact. The fact that he chose to pay was very bad publicity. That's the difference.

If he's looking more at the needs of the child than himself, he made a very poor legal decision (one of many that followed). He should've defended himself zealously, but protected the child first. That was his biggest mistake, but what do you expect from a man who never grew up himself? He probably didn't see himself as an adult and probably saw the boy as his friend. When you were a kid and your friend was in trouble, did you throw him under the bus to save your own skin? Probably not.

 

[meangry]

He was a great musician.......Micheal Jackson?...er sorry, no.

Cleethorpes, a small seaside town in the UK has a lot more to do with Jackos sucess than you may think. Its the birthplace of Rod Temperton, who penned many of Jacksons hits and is the one who deserves the title "a great musician". Also, I have little doubt that it was Temperton who turned Jacksons own pathetic excuses for songs in to something worthy of the name.

The other great musician who made Jacksons career is of course the one and only Quincy Jones. He produced all the great hits, and also did all the real musical work. By that I mean the business of putting pen to paper and turning Jacksons girly sqealing noises in to songs, the business of putting dots on a score for musicians to play.

One day the truth about Jacksons minimal involvement in any of the creative work on his albums will come out. I think the reason for the conspiracy regarding Jacksons level of involvement in his own albums is the same as it is for many pop stars. Since the advent of the Beatles and others of their generation it has become vital for the kudos of pop stars to claim to have had a hand in "writing" the songs they sing (not that most of them can write a single note of music of course) a self respecting pop star has to be known for "writing his own stuff" otherwise he will not be taken seriously in the pop world.

So I think what really happened with Jackson was he would turn up with a C60 cassette at Quincy Jones studio, Q would play the squealing noises, tell jacko he was a genious and to go play with his monkey for a couple of weeks and to come back when Q and Rod have made the album and make his squealing noises over the top of it.

A bit harsh? a little exagerated? perhaps, but also a lot closer to the truth than we have heard on the TV and radio over the last few days.

What sort of pickles have you been grinding up and snorting? You're getting all bent out of shape about a dead popstar who holds as much relevancy in daily life as you allow him to.

He is not a transient being. Get over yourself and your jaded sense of what reality is. When you yourself bust out lines like you did to end this, you concede your point. You lose authority. You're trying too hard to come off as articulate and distant, but instead show you are not optimistic.

Also, to anyone who doesn't get simple concepts, here is the kids gloves version; in the court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty. As Jackson was never proven to be guilty of these crimes, he is not on the hook about them. If you somehow think your little solipsistic court of public opinion is somehow valid still, you are a dipshit. End game. You are too stupid, and god help us all if you ever get put in a position to put someone away for some hard time.

People mourn him because they want to. End of discussion. No debating. He didn't go out like Chris Benoit.

 

[c7_assassin]

If there isn't enough evidence, there is no case, whether any of us like it or not.

Why are we arguing when we're saying the exact same thing? That's exactly my point: no evidence = no case. Which is why the fact that he wasn't criminally prosecuted doesn't mean that he isn't a child molester.

What are you trying to say?

 

[kis123]

He was a great musician.......Micheal Jackson?...er sorry, no.

Cleethorpes, a small seaside town in the UK has a lot more to do with Jackos sucess than you may think. Its the birthplace of Rod Temperton, who penned many of Jacksons hits and is the one who deserves the title "a great musician". Also, I have little doubt that it was Temperton who turned Jacksons own pathetic excuses for songs in to something worthy of the name.

The other great musician who made Jacksons career is of course the one and only Quincy Jones. He produced all the great hits, and also did all the real musical work. By that I mean the business of putting pen to paper and turning Jacksons girly sqealing noises in to songs, the business of putting dots on a score for musicians to play.

One day the truth about Jacksons minimal involvement in any of the creative work on his albums will come out. I think the reason for the conspiracy regarding Jacksons level of involvement in his own albums is the same as it is for many pop stars. Since the advent of the Beatles and others of their generation it has become vital for the kudos of pop stars to claim to have had a hand in "writing" the songs they sing (not that most of them can write a single note of music of course) a self respecting pop star has to be known for "writing his own stuff" otherwise he will not be taken seriously in the pop world.

So I think what really happened with Jackson was he would turn up with a C60 cassette at Quincy Jones studio, Q would play the squealing noises, tell jacko he was a genious and to go play with his monkey for a couple of weeks and to come back when Q and Rod have made the album, and then tell Jacko to make his squealing noises over the top of it.

A bit harsh? a little exagerated? perhaps, but also a lot closer to the truth than we have heard on the TV and radio over the last few days.

Pop music is a business whose stars do little of their own work. Someone "pens" the songs, someone does the musical tracts, and the singer sings. The singer is the marketing engine behind the pop train and MJ was very good at it. It is common for singers to get songs from songwriters and common for them never to play one note of their music. But it is impossible to get any of that to the public unless they buy into the performer and billions around the world bought it.

So even if all you say is true....it's still okay. He wasn't the first on the pop train and won't the the last.

 

[red indian]

Can someone translate that for me? I have no idea what that meangry meant.

 

[meangry]

Can someone translate that for me? I have no idea what that meangry meant.

It's pretty clear what I said.

 

[xionking]

Can someone translate that for me? I have no idea what that meangry meant.

I think what meangry means is that MJ was perhaps just a little bit...maybe only a tad...more talented then the "squeals" and pig noises you apparently compare him to.

Quincy Jones was a producer, just like Rick Rubin, Bob Rock, Dre, Jay-Z...these are 5 big producers within the industry who are paid to make and get good beats out of the artists they work with. And in case you've been living under a rock...like...forever, producers guide the artist through the creative process of making an album. More commonly in pop, rap and R&B, the producer will often have an almost completed beat that they want to use for their artists' song.

Let me ask you this...do you think the first time they met MJ approached Quincy Jones or Quincy Jones approached MJ??

Finally a "self-respecting" pop star will happily share who helped them with their beats.

What you tell us Red Indian is nothing surprising. But unfortunately your twist on it all, portraying MJ as lazy and talentless is utter garbage, and will serve no good around these parts.

-Xionking

 

[red indian]

Yes I would be happy to concede that he may have been "a little" or "a tad" more talented than I suggest, but seeing as I claim he has very little talent as a musician to start with, its not much of a concession for me to make. So it seems we are broadly in agreement on this point.

The other producers you mention are in my opinion midgets in comparison to the giant that is Q. None of them can match him as a master musician, composer, arranger and performer.

A lot of what I have said is indeed not that surprising at least to me and it seems to you, so again we agree on that, but having listened to a great deal of coverage about Jacko over the last two days you could be forgvien for thinking that Jacko was some kind of multi talented musician who did the whole thing himself. I suspect a lot of fans think this as well. I have not heard Quincy Jones or Rod Tempertons names mentioned once over the last few days, and they should have been.

I was under the impression that this was a critical thread about Jacko and not a memorial thread, so why are my comments "not serving any good round these parts"?

 

[Tickle Fiend]

In the words of Dave Chappelle, he made Thriller... Thriller.

 

[Eriksmasque]

It was never proven, even if he did pay the person off. Let's just say, for the sake of making my point, that it's not true. The fact that he is so odd in general, many people find it easy to believe he could be, or was, a pedophile. So, paying off that first kid, may have been out of desperation to just have the case be over, as his name was being tarnished. Who knows?

I think Michael Jackson had a lot of problems. I think it's possible he thought he was a child himself and may have acted inappropriately around a child or said something inappropriate. Can I say one way or another if he is a pedophile? No. And I don't think people are mourning a pedophile. They are mourning a music legend.

Agreed