The Most Controversial Michael Jackson Pictures
MICHAEL Jackson Watch: HELLO! magazine leads once more with pictures of Michael Jackson. These are “UNSEEN PICTURES”.
It would always take something special to make the lead Jackson narrative something other then the abuse allegations and the mobile face, and thanks to his dying the media has some new threads to tug on and unravel and tie in a knot.
Hello! lists them all on its cover:
“DEBBIE’S CUSTODY FIGHT”
“THE FAMILY FEUDS”
“THE LAST PERFORMANCE”
“THE WILL AND FUNERAL”
All good stuff for the media to sink its teeth into. But can any of these achieve a legacy that will surpass the Jackson controversies to date?
Lest the story move on, Anorak takes a look a nostalgic look Most Controversial Jackson Pictures (so far):
Posted: 7th, July 2009 | In: Celebrities, Key Posts, Photojournalism Comments (79) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- Clive on Judge Rules Transexual Burglar Has Rotten Life And Must Remain Free
- June on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- yampster on British Law Elevates Climate Change Belief To Same Status As Relgion
- dairy on Katie Price And Peter Andre Burnt At The Stake, In Pictures
September 20th, 2009 at 5:53 am
I was curious to see some “controversial” pictures of Michael Jackson in this post and it turned out to be another piece of thoughtless thing put together by MJ haters to waste my time. Some of the pictures are not even MJ, for goodness’ sake. Enough of the witch-hunt, MJ has already paid the ultimate price with his very life. To all the people who apparently enjoy trampling on others bigger than you to make yourself feel more superior, I must say, shame on you all. Note this, just because someone comes by and says that you are a child molester, that doesn’t automatically make you one, does it? Well, you would hope not, right? Then why not be more objective in the case of Michael Jackson? The way any responsible and mature person treats a subject matter is either (1) to not say a word if you do not know anything about it, or (2) to research the subject matter thoroughly before voicing your opinions, and be sure to quantified it as your “personal opinion” only. Please don’t sound like the judge or the expert on subjects that you don’t understand or know. While there was no evidence to be found against Michael Jackson in the 1993 and the 2005 child molestation allegations, there are tonnes of evidence that Michael Jackson has donated over $300M to charities and helped thousands of children during his lifetime.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
THAT IS NOT MICHAEL JACKSON!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
thanks to you guys for stating the facts. Maybe some of those haters will read them and see the truth. To me people that think he did that are the ones walking around thinking about molesting chidren. It never entered MJ’s mind only theirs.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Hey Cheryl,
I doubt the story about Jordie Chandler recanting his statement is true. Probably just an overzealous fan, creating a hoax with the intention of trying to clear MJ’s name. We’re kind of a rabid fan group. Like Buffy fans.
But it hasn’t been carried in any mainstream legitimate news outlet and sources can’t be confirmed, so who knows.
As to your early point, I do know, and agree with you that people are going to have their opinions, I only wish that people’s opinions were “informed” opinions. If someone truly has researched the case and still thinks MJ was a child molester, I think they’re a little bizarre, but okay, everybody has a right to an opinion no matter how goofy I think it is. The only thing that bugs me is when people just jump on a bandwagon of accusation and assume something is true without knowing enough about the situation to judge it.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I’m sorry Dairy, I had thought you’d made a big show about how you were “ignoring me” by mentioning it outright, but that was June who said that. Both of your squawking blends together for me. Carry on
Moderator - dairy and others do have valid points of view, they may not tally with yours, but debate and discussion is the idea of these threads, not mjfan
July 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
if you bother to read my post correctly, mjfan, you will see that I addressed it directly to you - you really should work on that over-sensitivity - and I was not ignoring you at all… you just carry on…
July 14th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
mjfan, you could well be right but, once again, Michael Jackson is dead and took the truth with him. Who would believe him if he could talk from the grave? Many believed he wasn’t and many believed he was when he was still alive and defending himself.
However, here is an interesting article I ran across. It says ‘unsubstantiated rumors…’ and that is all it may well be and possibly started by the whoevers defending Michael Jackson’s name. However, if the rumours turned out to be true then it says alot about a person who is willing to give up millions to stand up and say I lied.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222567/
July 14th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Clive, interesting ideas. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Cheryl, The settlement was meant to keep them from spreading rumors going to the tabloids, etc. and just making it bigger and bigger. It would not have prevented them from testifying in court in a criminal proceeding. Criminal and civil court work differently and a civil suit that prevented someone from testifying in criminal court would be considered obstruction of justice.
Also while civil charges are brought by individuals criminal charges are brought by a DA. i.e. you can choose to press charges or not if someone commits a crime against you but it is up to the DA to choose whether or not to prosecute the case, no matter what you say or do. MJ pressed charges against the father of the first boy for extortion, but unsurprisingly the crooked DA didn’t pursue it.
And DESPITE the choice of the family not to testify, the DA spent millions of dollars, had two grand juries convene, interviewed 200 people and could find no coroborrating evidence. The case didn’t go to court because a grand jury, TWO grand juries wouldn’t and couldn’t indict without any evidence.
In the 2005 case, NONE of the witnesses for the prosecution were credible, IMO. The child wasn’t credible either. You want to point to the mother, but the accuser himself had been involved with scams and cons as well. Every employee that was interviewed that spoke against MJ was a disgruntled former employee set on revenge for being fired. Shouldn’t they have reported their suspicions to the police??? To protect kids? They didn’t. They sold stories to the tabloids instead. That’s not credible, IMO.
In addition, Macaulay Culkin was one of MJ’s closest child friends. Pedophiles are NOT selective. It is a progressive illness, they have hundreds of victims in their lifetime, it is well documented. Yet Culkin testified that MJ never touched him. How can that be if MJ was a pedophile? THat’s just not logical. Culkin and MJ even took vacations together, if any kid would be molested it would be Culkin if there was any veracity to the accusations at all. In addition Culkin maintained a friendship with MJ even into adulthood and was the godfather of one of his kids.
30 boys were interviewed who all said MJ never touched them. Bret Barnes and Corey Feldman said MJ never touched them.
It’s a bit of a stretch for me to believe MJ only molests a kid every ten years and the parents just happen to be criminals. Wouldn’t the odds be that he’d eventually molest a child with some decent parents?
July 14th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Dairy,
You’re doing a bang up job of ignoring me. How’s that working out for you? Let me know when the ignoring part starts.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
MODERATOR
PLEASE DELETE COPY OF MJFANS POST - IT WAS THERE FOR K=MY REFERENCE ONLY - SORRY
Moderator - Its ok , its such a lengthy tome, it does save scrolling
July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
mjfan
eye roll* Please, you ARE saying MJ was a pedo. You’re saying it now. I think there are two types of people in the world, those who believe MJ was capable of pedophilia and those who don’t. And I think those who do reflect more on who THEY are. We live in a twisted society that is hysterical about child abuse to the point of abdicating all common sense. We also live in a society that sees sex in EVERYTHING even when it isn’t there.
You miss the point that of the three total children who ever accused MJ all of them are non-credible witnesses. The first back in 1993 was given sodium amytal, a powerful psychiatric and mind-altering drug. And despite repeated denials of anything wrong happening, he “suddenly” comes out with an accusation AFTER being separated from his mother and living with his criminal father for weeks, and after his father, a dentist, gave him the drug.
The second was badgered by police until he changed his story. (Part of the badgering included lying to the kid and telling him that MJ had touched other kids and they needed his help to protect them, namely to protect Macaulay Culkin, who later testified in court in 2005 that MJ had never touched him.) It wasn’t even strong enough testimony to get a grand jury to indict MJ. This was also around the time that a big child molestation panic was going around especially in California, and people were leading children and badgering them to make testimonies of abuse that never occurred.
The third and final child who caused the 2005 court case had LIED UNDER OATH previously when his mother brought up a FALSE ALLEGATION of sexual misconduct on JC PENNEY. The child was also involved in the lying over the sexual abuse charge. The mother contacted the civil attorney, Larry Feldman who had gotten the first family the money BEFORE ever accusing MJ of anything. Before she hooked up with the civil attorney, she and her entire family had spoken of how wonderful MJ was and all of them denied that anything inappropriate had happened.
In 1993 Tom Sneddon, the DA spent millions of dollars trying to get MJ indicted. He went before two grand juries but they dismissed it because there was no evidence. (All you really need to indict in the state of CA on child molestation charges is a witness, but since the family refused to get involved with the criminal case, and there was no other evidence of any kind, they couldn’t get an indictment.) They interviewed around 30 children, who said MJ had never touched them. All boys, all in the age range MJ would have supposedly been after. Additionally Mac Culkin and Corey Feldman both said MJ never touched them. They interviewed 200 witnesses trying to get someone to corroborate the testimony but found no one.
A shrink that was later involved in the 2005 case stated that MJ did not fit the profile of a pedophile but was himself a regressed ten year old.
So on the one hand, I’m expected to believe that MJ, the most famous man in the world is so magically covert that NO ONE ever saw him doing this awful crime, but at the same time, he’s so flamboyant and careless he’ll totally flaunt his tawdry involvement with children. I have to use Occam’s razor here and conclude that someone doesn’t BOTH try to hide AND try to display their criminal activity at the same time, and the only reason MJ would ever say something so openly that would cause eyebrows to raise, is that it really was innocent and only other people’s perverted minds twisted the situation into something else.
And the child and his family both refused to testify in criminal court. (Why should they? They already had MJ’s money.) I’m sorry but if someone molests your kids you want them behind bars. The civil suit in no way prevented the family from testifying and the civil suit SPECIFICALLY stated that MJ had not molested the child. The only claim they settled on was negligence, and MJ’s insurance company settled the claim, not MJ.
And in case you think that the parents just didn’t want to drag the child through the publicity of a court case that they might lose “because MJ was famous.” (I think with all the hysteria over child molestation and all the people willing to convict him, that it’s hard to believe a jury of 12 wouldn’t have, unless there just wasn’t any evidence in 2005 either.) Well the father took MJ to court again in 1996 wanting to sue him supposedly for breach of contract in the settlement because of the songs MJ wrote on the HIStory album. The father who still had the right to press criminal charges chose instead to sue MJ for 60 million dollars (estimated proceeds from the album) and wanted permission to do his own album called EVANstory (keep in mind Evan is the name of the father, not the allegedly molested boy.) So this was a guy who instead of fighting for justice for his child, wanted to sing songs about it and exploit him.
Pedophilia is a progressive disorder. It is well-documented that pedophiles have hundreds of victims in their lifetimes. So I’m expected to believe MJ just molests a kid once every ten years, and they happen to have criminal families? Are you kidding me?
Further, Tom Sneddon spent TEN years obsessing about MJ and trying to get the case re-opened. He was harboring a grudge. He has had charges filed against him 14 times for malicious prosecution. He had a website that actively sought out victims. It was like an open casting call for “MJ touched me in my naughty places.”
Then when the Martin Bashir smear documentary aired, he saw his opportunity. Coincidentally the kid who comes forward after ten years just HAPPENS to be the kid in this documentary who has been teased because Bashir makes him look like a kid who “slept with MJ.” (even though both the child and MJ said MJ slept on the floor.)
In 1993 part of the reason MJ’s people settled out of court was because the civil case would have come up before the criminal case which would have put MJ in double jeopardy and prevented a fair trial. After Sneddon’s case fell apart when the family refused to testify in criminal court, he changed the law so that a criminal case would have to come first in such a situation.
Remember the accusing family for the 2005 case was in contact with the civil attorney Larry Feldman from the 1993 case before pressing any kind of charges. Because of the change in laws, they HAD to pursue a criminal case first. Tom Sneddon set the mother up with a victim’s fund that would give her family money until after the criminal case in order to get her cooperation.
What makes this whole case even WEIRDER is… you would THINK since the Martin Bashir documentary is what made MJ look like a pedo in the first place, particularly with the accusing kid, that the molestation obviously happened BEFORE the documentary was filmed. But that’s not what the family said and it wasn’t what MJ was indicted on. Instead supposedly MJ had been around this child for 2 years and NEVER touched him until AFTER the documentary aired, when the world thought he was a child molester. So MJ just decides to start molesting this kid when he’s under the most public scrutiny and not a second before? That makes NO sense.
There was no foundation for this case at all. And the lack of corroborating witnesses, with the exception of disgruntled ex-employees, says a lot. (Also the disgruntled ex-employees we’re expected to believe didn’t feel the need to ever notify the police before any of this that MJ was hurting children.)
I call foul.
And anyone who can look at all of this and NOT see the frame job, who still assumes MJ was a child molester, is part of the witch hunt hysteria that accounts for all the false child abuse allegations out there. (Up to half of all child abuse allegations turn out to be false.) You should be very afraid because someone could accuse you someday. And child molestation is a crime that there is no defense for. Even if you’re innocent, the world thinks you are guilty and you are ruined. Just an accussation is enough to end you. Gee, much like a witch hunt.
mjfan - I have at no point said Mj wasna pedo, I said he was accused of it (the smiling face after the comment to Dr Eggman was to show it was an an ironic comment)
I dont know what he was (and neither do you!) but I DO know he behaved inapropriately at best with children and after having a ‘pedo’ shot accross his bows in 1993 most ’sane’ people would NEVER have another child seen near them again let alone put themselves in such a position as to be accused over and over again.
Stating that MJ was a regressed 10 year old is bizarre…what makes this an excuse for anything? He should never have been able to buy 3 kids if this is so…
July 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Mjfan, whether MJ was or was not a paedophile it stands that he was in fact found not guilty by a jury of his peers in the 2005 case of being one in that case. Further, if he was or he wasn’t doesn’t matter anymore, he is dead now and took whatever the truth was to the grave with him.
However, in the 1993 Civil Suit brought the young man was not permitted under the Settlement reached in the Civil Suit to ever speak of the case again. He was given many millions in a trust that would stop instantly he ever spoke of the case again. In fact, both parties may never speak of that case. Thus, he was unable to participate or give testimony in any criminal charges that could have been brought against Michael Jackson and, thus, none could be brought.
In the 2005 case, it was the boys’ mother who blew the case for the prosecution. You may have forgotten how damning other witnesses’ testimonies were in that case. However, by the Defense being able to prove the mother’s past shady activities that was enough to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Under the law if a juror has reasonable doubt they cannot convict a person. However, months later when some of the jurors were interviewed those interviewed admitted they felt Michael Jackson was guilty but could not convict him once the mother was discredited as a credible witness.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Mjfan
I believe I am one of those who is relatively indifferent to Michael Jackson and his demise. Yes, he was a good pop artist and dancer, but not my cup of tea (or
Marmite !).
One thing I will say, I always believed that the paedo charges against him were rigged and he was never guilty of this. My memory includes a long ago case against one of his plastic surgeons who had taken photos of MJ genitals while he was under anaesthetic. Apparently the surgeon was touting the pictures around.
The point was that MJ genitalia was undeveloped, in fact that of a pre-pubescent boy. This stacks up with your 10 year old regressive and also why his children
not conceived naturally.
Maybe Lisa Presley could confirm ?
July 14th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
mjfan - for someone who takes immediate offence at any perceived insult, you are very quick to dish it out, aren’t you…?
but with the amount of time you seem to have on your hands, I guess there’s nothing better to do! LOL
July 14th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Ah, Dr. Eggman, thanks! That’s a perfect analogy lol. Most people seem to either love or hate MJ. Though I have met a few who are completely indifferent.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Mjfan, Marmite is a British product made of yeast extract (or summat) that people either love or hate, and is marketed very cleverly along those lines. You put it on toast or use to make a hot drink which tastes like shit.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Percy,
I’m sorry, I don’t know that reference.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“I think there are two types of people in the world, those who believe MJ was capable of pedophilia and those who don’t. “…so mjfan…are you trying to say mj was a bit like Marmite then?….please could you clarify this point for the confused….I myself love Marmite but am horrified to think this might make me a paedo suspect….
July 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hey Bat E. Bird, if you become interested in checking it out for yourself, there are a couple of books I’d recommend: “Redemption” by Geraldine Huges (I think that’s how you spell her name, but if you search Redemption Michael Jackson at amazon it comes up.)
This was written by the legal secretary of the original lawyer for the first family (A second different lawyer actually got them the civil suit, but this was the lawyer that got things started.)
It should be noted she has been called into court before to testify for things she’s written in the book and both Barry Rothman, that attorney, and Evan Chandler are lawsuit hungry. They could sue her for slander if it wasn’t true, and for breaching attorney/client privilege. (The attorney/client privilege thing doesn’t apply in cases of fraud.)
The other book I would recommend is: “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” by Aprhodite Jones. She was one of the media people who originally was against MJ in 2005 and trying to convict him in the court of public opinion. I’ve seen several clips on Youtube with her almost gleefully telling Bill O’Reilly how bad it looked for MJ. she admitted later she got caught up in the media circus and was very biased. The book’s forward is written by MJ’s lead defense counsel and she quotes directly from the court transcripts to give you a fly on the wall view of the case in summary.
That would be a starting point for digging into it for anyone interested. There are several other online resources as well as the actual 1993 settlement and the court transcripts for anyone REALLY interested in knowing details.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Thanks mjfan.
You make some very good points and, if true, the accusations do look a bit suspect.
I’ve never been particularly interested in MJ so I don’t know much about him.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I’m sorry Bat E. Bird, it’s a complicated situation but I can simplify it for you:
1. Pedophilia is a progressive disorder, pedophiles have hundreds of victims in their lifetime, but we’re expected to believe MJ only molested a kid once every ten years though he had far more opportunity, and then he only molests the kids of criminal families.
2. A shrink involved with the case stated that MJ did not fit the profile of a pedophile, but was instead a regressed ten year old.
3. The 1993 case didn’t go to court because there was no evidence and then Tom Sneddon spent 10 years obsessing over MJ and actively seeking out “victims” who would accuse him. Finally coincidentally “finding one” after a controversial documentary that made MJ look bad aired. Though this child is the one that was the third accuser, we’re expected to believe that MJ didn’t start molesting the boy until AFTER the documentary that made everyone think he was a molester aired.
That’s the VERY cliff notes version.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Would someone please be so kind as to do me some bullet points of mjfan’s post #57?
I only have 30 mins for lunch.
Thanks in advance
July 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Cheshire set:
*eye roll* Please, you ARE saying MJ was a pedo. You’re saying it now. I think there are two types of people in the world, those who believe MJ was capable of pedophilia and those who don’t. And I think those who do reflect more on who THEY are. We live in a twisted society that is hysterical about child abuse to the point of abdicating all common sense. We also live in a society that sees sex in EVERYTHING even when it isn’t there.
You miss the point that of the three total children who ever accused MJ all of them are non-credible witnesses. The first back in 1993 was given sodium amytal, a powerful psychiatric and mind-altering drug. And despite repeated denials of anything wrong happening, he “suddenly” comes out with an accusation AFTER being separated from his mother and living with his criminal father for weeks, and after his father, a dentist, gave him the drug.
The second was badgered by police until he changed his story. (Part of the badgering included lying to the kid and telling him that MJ had touched other kids and they needed his help to protect them, namely to protect Macaulay Culkin, who later testified in court in 2005 that MJ had never touched him.) It wasn’t even strong enough testimony to get a grand jury to indict MJ. This was also around the time that a big child molestation panic was going around especially in California, and people were leading children and badgering them to make testimonies of abuse that never occurred.
The third and final child who caused the 2005 court case had LIED UNDER OATH previously when his mother brought up a FALSE ALLEGATION of sexual misconduct on JC PENNEY. The child was also involved in the lying over the sexual abuse charge. The mother contacted the civil attorney, Larry Feldman who had gotten the first family the money BEFORE ever accusing MJ of anything. Before she hooked up with the civil attorney, she and her entire family had spoken of how wonderful MJ was and all of them denied that anything inappropriate had happened.
In 1993 Tom Sneddon, the DA spent millions of dollars trying to get MJ indicted. He went before two grand juries but they dismissed it because there was no evidence. (All you really need to indict in the state of CA on child molestation charges is a witness, but since the family refused to get involved with the criminal case, and there was no other evidence of any kind, they couldn’t get an indictment.) They interviewed around 30 children, who said MJ had never touched them. All boys, all in the age range MJ would have supposedly been after. Additionally Mac Culkin and Corey Feldman both said MJ never touched them. They interviewed 200 witnesses trying to get someone to corroborate the testimony but found no one.
A shrink that was later involved in the 2005 case stated that MJ did not fit the profile of a pedophile but was himself a regressed ten year old.
So on the one hand, I’m expected to believe that MJ, the most famous man in the world is so magically covert that NO ONE ever saw him doing this awful crime, but at the same time, he’s so flamboyant and careless he’ll totally flaunt his tawdry involvement with children. I have to use Occam’s razor here and conclude that someone doesn’t BOTH try to hide AND try to display their criminal activity at the same time, and the only reason MJ would ever say something so openly that would cause eyebrows to raise, is that it really was innocent and only other people’s perverted minds twisted the situation into something else.
And the child and his family both refused to testify in criminal court. (Why should they? They already had MJ’s money.) I’m sorry but if someone molests your kids you want them behind bars. The civil suit in no way prevented the family from testifying and the civil suit SPECIFICALLY stated that MJ had not molested the child. The only claim they settled on was negligence, and MJ’s insurance company settled the claim, not MJ.
And in case you think that the parents just didn’t want to drag the child through the publicity of a court case that they might lose “because MJ was famous.” (I think with all the hysteria over child molestation and all the people willing to convict him, that it’s hard to believe a jury of 12 wouldn’t have, unless there just wasn’t any evidence in 2005 either.) Well the father took MJ to court again in 1996 wanting to sue him supposedly for breach of contract in the settlement because of the songs MJ wrote on the HIStory album. The father who still had the right to press criminal charges chose instead to sue MJ for 60 million dollars (estimated proceeds from the album) and wanted permission to do his own album called EVANstory (keep in mind Evan is the name of the father, not the allegedly molested boy.) So this was a guy who instead of fighting for justice for his child, wanted to sing songs about it and exploit him.
Pedophilia is a progressive disorder. It is well-documented that pedophiles have hundreds of victims in their lifetimes. So I’m expected to believe MJ just molests a kid once every ten years, and they happen to have criminal families? Are you kidding me?
Further, Tom Sneddon spent TEN years obsessing about MJ and trying to get the case re-opened. He was harboring a grudge. He has had charges filed against him 14 times for malicious prosecution. He had a website that actively sought out victims. It was like an open casting call for “MJ touched me in my naughty places.”
Then when the Martin Bashir smear documentary aired, he saw his opportunity. Coincidentally the kid who comes forward after ten years just HAPPENS to be the kid in this documentary who has been teased because Bashir makes him look like a kid who “slept with MJ.” (even though both the child and MJ said MJ slept on the floor.)
In 1993 part of the reason MJ’s people settled out of court was because the civil case would have come up before the criminal case which would have put MJ in double jeopardy and prevented a fair trial. After Sneddon’s case fell apart when the family refused to testify in criminal court, he changed the law so that a criminal case would have to come first in such a situation.
Remember the accusing family for the 2005 case was in contact with the civil attorney Larry Feldman from the 1993 case before pressing any kind of charges. Because of the change in laws, they HAD to pursue a criminal case first. Tom Sneddon set the mother up with a victim’s fund that would give her family money until after the criminal case in order to get her cooperation.
What makes this whole case even WEIRDER is… you would THINK since the Martin Bashir documentary is what made MJ look like a pedo in the first place, particularly with the accusing kid, that the molestation obviously happened BEFORE the documentary was filmed. But that’s not what the family said and it wasn’t what MJ was indicted on. Instead supposedly MJ had been around this child for 2 years and NEVER touched him until AFTER the documentary aired, when the world thought he was a child molester. So MJ just decides to start molesting this kid when he’s under the most public scrutiny and not a second before? That makes NO sense.
There was no foundation for this case at all. And the lack of corroborating witnesses, with the exception of disgruntled ex-employees, says a lot. (Also the disgruntled ex-employees we’re expected to believe didn’t feel the need to ever notify the police before any of this that MJ was hurting children.)
I call foul.
And anyone who can look at all of this and NOT see the frame job, who still assumes MJ was a child molester, is part of the witch hunt hysteria that accounts for all the false child abuse allegations out there. (Up to half of all child abuse allegations turn out to be false.) You should be very afraid because someone could accuse you someday. And child molestation is a crime that there is no defense for. Even if you’re innocent, the world thinks you are guilty and you are ruined. Just an accussation is enough to end you. Gee, much like a witch hunt.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Dr Eggman - you were quite a prolific pedo watcher in your day then?
mjfan - I said he was ACCUSED of being a child molestor not that he was! I have read the transcripts of the MJ court cases and think he dodged the bullet..if they hadnt sent the boys schemeing mother to the stand (who killed the case against MJ with her statements) MJ would have been doing a long stretch by now.
As you think MJ dangling a wriggling baby over a balcony was “REALLY it’s not THAT big of a deal” I am sure you are completely blinkered as to any MJ faults…
July 14th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Cheshire Set, much to my eternal shame and regret, I have seen Gary Glitter live 3 times and once shook his hand after a performance. Makes me feel sick even thinking about it now. I’d now like to shake him by the throat.
ps NOT a fan anymore!! Hope he dies to be honest. Painfully.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
MJ was not a child molester. An accusation isn’t the same as being guilty. If that were true people could accuse anyone of anything. When you accuse someone and convict them without evidence it’s called a witch hunt.
The court of public opinion convicted MJ on that witch hunt basis, but an ACTUAL legal court aquitted him because there was no evidence. Read the facts surrounding the case and not just what the sensationalized mass media feeds you.
Up to half of child molestation allegations are false allegations. Just because it’s a kid doesn’t mean it’s the truth. And always look at the parents behind such an allegation. Every child that was an accuser had parents who were extortionists and thieves, the kid that caused the 2005 case had lied under oath in a scam on JC Penney, as had his mother. These are not credible people. The only people who had anything negative to say about MJ in court, outside this family, was people who had been fired by MJ and were disgruntled ex-employees. Some of them had been caught stealing, and they had all sold trash stories about MJ to tabloids. Not very credible witnesses.
When the only people who can confirm a story are criminals and confirmed liars, you’ve got a problem with your case.
Dozens of kids who had been in constant contact with MJ said MJ never touched them. Corey Feldman and Macaulay Culkin also both said he never touched them. And he was around those two a lot. Even more frequently than the accuser.
Pedophilia is a progressive disorder, if he had been a pedophile there is no way he wouldn’t have touched Culkin or Feldman. In addition it’s well-documented that pedophiles have hundreds of victims in their lifetime. I find it very hard to believe that MJ if he was a pedo would only molest a kid once every ten years, and then would only just happen to molest kids whose parents are greedy criminals.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
LMFAO!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Indeed, the drugs are certainly of ‘concern.’ I find that most things that end up killing you can be considered a mild concern, but i’m old fashioned
July 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Its seems time to get a bit of perspective here…he was a middle aged man who was off his head on drugs and clearly deranged who was accused of child molestation and his claim to fame was singing a few good tunes…..so was Gary Glitter!
No GG fans here??? No thought not….
July 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
LOL Dr. Eggman,
It’s okay. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I share your concern about the drugs though. From all accounts from people who knew MJ, he was a great father to those kids. I’m sure Paris especially will be saying a lot more defending her father in the coming years, but.. the drugs were a concern.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I tell you what is controversial. A junkie being allowed to look “adopt” someone else’s kids, despite allegations about possible previous paedophile behaviour, whilst being heavily in debt with a full time Doctor of his own allegedly prescribing quite heavy drugs to someone whose mind was, to put it mildly, a bit disturbed. Makes baby dangling look fairly minor.
Liked the music (saw him live in 1988- fantastic) but let’s be honest, he was a complete lunatic. Sorry mjfan!
.