For all Michael Jackson haters

reply to post by Death_Kron


This is all still "hearsay". Until the actual medical report comes out that is all it will ever be. I am not arguing the Lupus part at all mind you.

[edit on 02/04/2009 by Cool Breeze]

reply to post by Whine Flu


As stated mate, I would feel the same compassion regardless of which individual died. Just think its sad regarding the circumstances and life MJ died...

Well I am officially done with this one. I thank everyone that shared their opinion whether or not I agreed with them.

Good luck to all.

I do agree with you in the fact that it has all been highly ironic though. You're definitely right in that respect.

reply to post by Cool Breeze


Not hear say, its medical fact,

Not a one liner.

reply to post by Cool Breeze


Thank you too, lets agree to disagree! No hard feelings my friend...

reply to post by Death_Kron


Trust me it is still hear say. the "evidence" that you presented are not fact. The only true fact would be a full autopsy by a couple of different Dr.s and his medical history report. Sorry that is just the way it works.

reply to post by Death_Kron


LOL I keep getting pulled in

No hard feelings here, always good to have a sensible, calm debate.

People v. Jackson

People v. Jackson (full case name: The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson) was a 2005 child sexual abuse trial involving recording artist Michael Jackson. The alleged victim was a boy, Gavin Arvizo, referred to as "The Accuser". Arvizo was 13 years old at the time of the alleged crimes. Jackson was indicted for four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor, one count of abduction, and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive at his 2,700-acre Neverland Ranch compound. He denied all counts and asserted that he himself was the victim of a failed extortion attempt. On June 13, 2005, the jury found Jackson not guilty on all charges.
en.wikipedia.org...

The OP states that "no criminal charges were ever brought against him.

Really?

reply to post by calcoastseeker


On June 13, 2005, the jury found Jackson not guilty

Maybe I should of stated that Jackson wasn't charged with anything?

reply to post by Death_Kron


Those were the charges. There were charges brought against him, the jury just found him innocent. Charges have nothing to do with whether the jury finds him innocent or guilty. Charges are brought on someone before a trial, a simple way to think of it is the charge for a possible crime is pretty much what starts the trial and gets the ball rolling.

[edit on 02/04/2009 by Cool Breeze]

reply to post by Cool Breeze


Yes I fully understand the legal system, maybe I should make myself even more clearer; Jackson wasn't found guilty of any wrong doing in a court of law.

And as someone else has pointed out, if Jackson really did what he has been accused off do you really think the victim and his family would settle for a multi-million dollar pay out?

Or would they rather not recieve a penny but at least know the childs attacker was in prison suffering for his crimes for a long time...?

Point proven.

reply to post by Death_Kron


I can not honestly say I know the answer to that question. I don't know the supposed victim's family. If it were me, NO I wouldn't settle for any ammount of money someone could throw at me but you have to remember people do a lot of crazy stuff for money :shk:

Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by Cool Breeze


I'm exactly the same, if it was me then no amount of money would give me more satisfaction than knowing my childs attacker was suffering in prison for his crimes.

But as you said people do crazy things for money and the amount of cash they received was a crazy amount something like $22 million I think if I remember correctly.

The fact they received such a large amount also smells fishy to me, in the sense that what they alleged never actually happpened and it just was a scam to earn a multi million dollar pay out.

If it was me and I found out a family friend had been abusing one of my children, even if that friend was Brad Pitt or Madonna, I'd be round like a shot to sort out a little personal revenge.

reply to post by Death_Kron


Ok I can see what you're saying but why would Micheal Jackson pay them the money if he had nothing to hide? If I was accused of something and the person accusing me mentioned something like "well you know 22 million bucks would probably take care of this" I am pretty sure if I was innocent I wouldn't pay them a dime. I would probably get something on tape via nanny cam or something.

reply to post by Cool Breeze


Apparently it was because the stress of the allegation had prompted Jackson to start taking various prescription medicines and his health was in decline.

Friends of Jackson did not think he would physically and mentally cope with a trail:

The stress of the allegations also caused him to stop eating, and he lost a significant amount of weight.[82] With his health in decline, his friends and legal advisers took over his defense and finances. They called on him to settle the child-abuse allegations out of court, believing he could not endure a lengthy trial

On January 1, 1994, Jackson settled with the Chandlers out of court for $22 million, after which Jordan stopped co-operating regarding criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence

with Jordan's mother adamant that there was no wrongdoing on Jackson's part

Link

reply to post by Death_Kron


So why the money??? If the mother apparently knew there was no wrong doing on Micheal Jackson's part (and apparently was a "friend") why not just stop the whole thing before it began to snowball?

reply to post by Cool Breeze


I'm not sure really, I guess the only person who knows that is Michael himself.

I'll agree that does looks slightly suspicious considering that the investigation was dropped due to a lack of sufficent evidence.

Who knows? Maybe I'm being biased but I genuinely don't believe Jackson engaged in any sexual activites with any children.

Didn't Elizabeth Taylor publicly state that there was nothing out of the ordinary happened? She was present at the sleep overs I think.