You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Michael Jackson

Do you think that Michael Jackson is...

Innocent35%[ 15 ]
Guilty65%[ 28 ]

Total Votes : 43

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 4:21am

Post 1 of 66

MovieGuy334

Force: 560 | Joined: 18th May 2003 | Posts: 172

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm sorry, this is kind of random, and I am not really too into this current matter but I was just curious what you all thought about this.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 4:47am

Post 2 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

I think I don't really care, because it's Michael Jackson. Also, this whole thing is a sham because I saw GWAR kill Michael Jackson in concert, so it's an imposter. Get the facts strait
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 4:49am

Post 3 of 66

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My vote was based off of sarcasm.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 4:55am

Post 4 of 66

Marek

Force: 2225 | Joined: 25th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1754

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wait, what's he in court for this time?

I'm guessing something child molestation-related...
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:01am

Post 5 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Maybe you should add a "Neutral" vote option for people who want to contribute to the results but aren't decided either way?
Maybe if you added it more people will vote, It'd be interesting to see a ratio of people unphased and those interested in the proceedings.

Whatever the verdict, Jackson's music is still some of the most influential and downright good around. It'll almost be a shame if he's guilty.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:08am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:01am

Post 6 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Hey

I beleive Michael Jackson is innocent. He probably cares more about helping others (mostly kids) than most people in the world. Not to mentions the millions donated to help kids around the world. He would not do something that would harm a kid. I've also heard stories concerning the family about trying to sue Cotton Jenny or something like taht for the same thing because they said an employee molested them in a change room (i think it was cotton jenny? maybe wal mart? i forget)... and they lost that case.

Innocent

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:03am

Post 7 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

^ someone delete a post?
Lot's of people sue people unjustly purely because they want to get money out of them. I currently have a friend whose dad is being sued for "being rascist" because he decided a black woman didn't require or deserve compensation because her great great grand-dad was a slave.

Lots of people are out to get money, justly or unjustly. And I'm my opinion, people that lie to sue others for money are worse than people that break into houses.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:14am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:04am

Post 8 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

"Montel, sure, he touched some children, but it's Michael Jackson. MICHAEL JACKSON!"
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:04am

Post 9 of 66

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Waser's right, You missed out a "I don't care" option.
It's called not voting.....or not posting in a thread that you don't care about.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:05am

Post 10 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The "I dont care" option would be the same as the "Not Voting" option...
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:09am

Post 11 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1/-2

ben3308 and CX3 wrote:

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Waser's right, You missed out a "I don't care" option.
It's called not voting.....or not posting in a thread that you don't care about.
True, but I'm interested in seeing who'd vote Neutral.
Let's try and keep this on topic.

I'd have thought it'd be interesting to see how many people aren't bothered compared to those actively believing Michael Jackson is innocent and those who don't. That way more people are likely to vote.

I think I can quote a friend of mine saying "Michael Jackson's a Superstar, a musical genius and pioneer. Surely that makes it ok to touch a kiddy or two... don't get me wrong I'm not condoning Paedophilia... unless you're Michael jackson."
Which I think kinda sums up well alot of peoples opinions as well as how much flak he has taken over all these claims, it's become a case of throwing Mud. So many accusations (Mud) has been thrown that it's stuck to Jackson and he's become a figure of world wide ridicule.

In that sense, I hope he's innocent.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:16am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:16am

Post 12 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

.........huh
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:20am

Post 13 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Seeings how cx3's post was 1 minute after the post before his - he was most likely writing it as the other post got posted.... therefore he probably didn't know it was said already.

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:24am

Post 14 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1/-1

Ha... -1 haha
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:26am

Post 15 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

obviously ben and cx3 were so quick to be a teensy bit hostile or defensive because of something doctors call "Macaulay Culkin" syndrome.

Tell me, how fast did the ferris wheel go?
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:27am

Post 16 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

That is almost funny... lol what happens if he writes

ha +1 haha? lol

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:28am

Post 17 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I've nothing to add to this thread until someone posts something on topic.

Come on guys... Beat it.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:07am; edited 5 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:28am

Post 18 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ha... +1 haha, btw, im 6'3"... i think im done growing confused
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:31am

Post 19 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

LOL thats funny

worth a shot

*on topic*

I think alot of peopel would be very suprised and upset if he was guilty

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:31am

Post 20 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

CX3 wrote:

i think im done growing confused
Obviously not smile

"Michael Jackson, if you think about it, is a pillar of our community. As long as that pillar is a giant penis. I just made that up. It was pretty good." -Oderus Ungerus

Holy hell I love Gwar
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:38am

Post 21 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Ay Hybrid, why the hell r u gettin all pissy? Ha, It's true, the i dont care feature would be the not posting feature, unless the i dont care feature would be a selection haha. I was joking around, i wasnt being pissed off serious (as it seems you're coming off as). So chill 4real man. And waser ha, mindjabinis wink

btw i voted innocent if you couldnt tell....

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:40am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:40am

Post 22 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Waser backs off, and proclaims in a squeaky voice
You mess with hybrid, you mess wit me!

Minjabinis, I thought you called me a dick or something smile
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:43am

Post 23 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Haha, no its cool, i mean no harm.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:48am

Post 24 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

No one means any harm, end of the day this is a pretty close community and I'd like to say I am on good terms with many of it's members. This includes you CX3.

What about the Topic! What about us!!

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:19am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:50am

Post 25 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +3

so, that michael jackson guy pretty cool right?

best michael jackson joke ever:
What does Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson have in common? Neil Armstrong walks on the moon, where as Michael Jackson has sex with children.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:51am

Post 26 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

Can't say that unless he is proven guilty and admits to it- which has not happened.

heres a funnier joke

why does Snoop Dogg carry an umbrella?




Fodrizzle
lol

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:55am

Post 27 of 66

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

That's not a funnier joke, magic man.

Everyone is missing the real purpose of this thread. Waser went to a GWAR concert. Do you understand? That's seriously awesome. GWAR is seriously awesome.

This thread is now about GWAR.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:55am

Post 28 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

mine was funnier AND on topic

aculag, you took the words RIGHT out of my mouth

That's a picture from the show. I'm in there somewhere

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 6:00am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:57am

Post 29 of 66

Magic_man12

Force: 853 | Joined: 20th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1350

Windows User MacOS User

Member

either way he's never been proven guilty

I won't beleive he's guilty (even if he is convicted) unless he admits it.

thats probably just me tho lol

-MAGIC
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 6:09am

Post 30 of 66

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

no, magic man, THIS is probalby you:
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 6:14am

Post 31 of 66

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

That looks like the set of blade one.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 7:02am

Post 32 of 66

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Michael Jackson's a Superstar, a musical genius and pioneer. Surely that makes it ok to touch a kiddy or two... don't get me wrong I'm not condoning Paedophilia... unless you're Michael jackson.
I don't think anyone thinks that. Do you?
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 7:11am

Post 33 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

sidewinder wrote:

Michael Jackson's a Superstar, a musical genius and pioneer. Surely that makes it ok to touch a kiddy or two... don't get me wrong I'm not condoning Paedophilia... unless you're Michael jackson.
I don't think anyone thinks that. Do you?
Firstly, if you read the post properly I said i could quote him saying, as in he said. Which you were meant to assume it was something he said in jest. At no point did I say it was his beliefs... razz

The whole point of me posting it was to give an example of the fact that The whole Michael Jackson ordeal is just a grounds for ridicule and jokes, something very few people take interest in or take seriously anymore. Of course my friend doesn't really think that.

If this thread has proven anything, it's that the mention of Michael Jackson and court cases provokes nothing more than bad jokes. hehe.

Let's keep this on topic... Easy as A B C...

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:21am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 7:26am

Post 34 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

If Michael Jackson's guilty, then I don't care what his music is like. And he will be found guilty. He's had too many accusations thrown at him & I don't think it's people jumping on the bandwagon, either.

Anyway, what was the point of posting this topic here? It's hardly appropriate considering the age of many of our members.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 7:28am

Post 35 of 66

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member



This guy will haunt my dreams for the rest of eternity...he's the only person who seems to know I'm looking in on his realm...

I think that if he is found innocent he should sue the crap out of that family and make it so that kid can't afford kemo anymore. If he is guilty his glitter encrusted (expletive) should be removed and be replaced with a banana. Personally anyone who calls wine "Jesus Juice" is alright with me.

Canta unsure
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 8:07am

Post 36 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I saw that. Looks a bit like Sollthar at a distance.

That is a lot of...blood
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:14am

Post 37 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

And now for something completely different...

Michael Jackson.... Guilty or Innocent, discuss. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:32am

Post 38 of 66

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Just thought i'd post my 2c.

I think hes guilty, but not because hes a dyed-in-the-wool Kiddy Fiddler.
If you kill someone via unintentional means, its not murder - its manslaughter. Similarly i don't believe MJ fiddles kiddies intentionally, so saying he's a "paedo" seems too harsh to me - if theres a term out there that means "accidental child abuse", thats what i'd say hes guilty of.

And why do i think hes guilty? Well i think we can all agree - fans or not, that hes a very....odd....man. Only the die-hard fans, the type that are suffering from their own minor psychosis, would disagree that hes a bit odd.

His actions over the years, his interviews - Opera, Basheer, etc - his childhood, his very lifestyle itself - all indicate someone who is dangerously detached from reality, society and to some degree, from adult morality and behaviour.

All kids remember their first "you show me yours and i'll show you mine", their first investigative fumble and the awe and intrigue of discovering your sexuality, so putting myself in MJ's shoes for a second - bearing in mind this is a man who a psychologist would probably agree has a mental age of about 12 - I think i'd probably still be experimenting.

This doesn't mean hes guilty of child abuse, since hes bearly capable of functioning as an adult himself, it simply means hes not mentally developed enough to be lawfully allowed to be so close to so many children, given the strict laws designed to protect the genuinely innocent and given how influencial he is globally. The famous have a moral obligation to behave in such a way that their fans will take the right messages from their actions. Whilst i'd love it for famous people to be able to lead normal lives, its sadly impossible as they have a strong influence over the weak. As such, they are responsible, in part, for the people who idolise them.

My views boil down to this: MJ isn't responsible enough to be left alone with children. Being seen as an adult by the children he invites to his house, any playful investigation of sexuality (whilst innocent in nature) will be confusing and damaging to that child's upbringing and understanding of society.


I guess the real question is whether or not being tried in an adult court is the best course towards justice. If it weren't for his mental immaturity and his fame, a prosecutor would have torn him a new 'A' years ago. Its the ambiguity of his mental condition, which have made the boundaries so blurred.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:46am

Post 39 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Good points Xcession,

Although if it were indeed the case the Jackson is mentally underveloped to that extreme that he could be classed as "Criminally Insane" or would be just be classed "Mentally Under-developed"?

Many Murderer's, Rapists, Child Molestors are that way because of mental instabilities, Mental under-development or Some other form of Psychosis. What would then Seperate Jackson from many other 'looney' criminals?

Maybe an answer would be simply that "he's Michael Jackson" if he is indeed guilty, then his fame and money has bought him alot of time.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 11:36am

Post 40 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Ok, I do not believe Michael Jackson is mentally underdeveloped. He probably started out as sane as you or I.

You're missing the point completely of definition of paedophiles. There's plenty of web definitions that I'd rather not post here, plus this quote " Paedophiles who commit offences rationalise their conduct and do not believe that they have done anything wrong."

All paedophiles have abnormal states of mind - call it mental or what you will.

He is a very eccentric person who has created a warped version of reality, & as you say, he became detached from reality years ago. Obviously, he's been affected by his abusive childhood, which has caused odd behaviour number 1 - doing all that cosmetic surgery to escape his father's shadow. That's probably had a further effect on him, psychologically through the process of surgery & all the drugs he'd have to be put on.

His detachment from society is odd behaviour number 2, but many people who suddenly get very very rich do something similar. I'm sure that he would have gone through many different phases before turning to a "return to the inner child" phase. His lasting obsession with childhood, & all it encompasses such as innocence, play, & freedom is no doubt explained by his difficult childhood, the pressure, the lack of control, the constant media spotlight, & loss of innocence. Which in turn may cause odd behaviour number 3, molesting kids. It may be due to some complex he has about trying to be a kid again, doing kids things. Could equally easily be just a sexual perversion like any other paedophiles out there. I'm sure paedophiles say exactly the same things & have the same tactics.

What am I trying to say? That Michael Jackson is an adult, aware of what he's doing. He was aware of what he was doing when he hung out with these kids, but just simply chose to do so anyway. He's not the only celebrity to have displayed eccentric, bizarre behaviour. His actions are a result of his childhood, his walling himself up in his own little world, not out of thinking like a 12 year old. When he says things & releases tv statements, he sounds like an adult to me. I think he's unhinged & sociopathic due to all these stresses, but I still think he should be tried in an adult court with the same allowances as anyone else. I don't really see any difference between his actions & some paedophile with lots of money.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 11:49am

Post 41 of 66

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Hmm, that used to be pretty much exactly my view. I found it incomprehensible that anyone could do this stuff without premeditation, but then i saw a bunch of interviews and it changed my mind.

I believe his conscious, consistent attempts to be a child have irreversibly warped him to be exactly what he wanted to be.

I understand exactly what you're saying - that his childlike act is cool, calculated and deliberate, but there comes a point in self-delusion where you're able to justify everything to your moral psyche so convincingly that your doubts begin to get bypassed altogether.

The sheer volume of ridiculously delusional lies and half-truths that he comes out with are testament to his act having gone a step too far.

An insanity defense strikes me as the most plausible way out.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 12:36pm

Post 42 of 66

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

A large part of his delusion came from the fact that he is such an iconic person. The fact that no one who works for him ever told him "no" or questioned his practices is the reason that it escalated to the point that it did. In the late 70's early 80's when he was just finding himself as a singular person rather than a band unit is when, I believe, he was most sane, but from then on he completely snowballed out of control, and his self transformations over the years undoubtedly show just that.

Canta unsure
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 12:57pm

Post 43 of 66

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

seeing the other weird stuff he does i wouldnt doubt it, if you saw the bashir documentary before they edited out the kid(who is now sueing him) they looked a little to close.

GUILTY!
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:18pm

Post 44 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

It's true that people should have just said no, & actually shown/told him that it isn't the way to behave. That's just exacerbated his problem. Also, it was amazingly, stupidly, disgustingly irresponsible for any parents to allow their kids to hang out with a 40 year old man. I reckon they ought to be brought to book on that, as well as Jackson. Aiding & abetting a crime?
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:23pm

Post 45 of 66

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Heck yeah Mel, sending your kid to Michael Jackson's house is like sending your elderly parent to go hang with Jack Kevorkian. You just don't do it, and you as well as the offender should be held accountable. He had already been brought on several different occasions for these same charges but this mother lets her cancer ridden son hang out with Wacko Jacko, SLEEPING IN HIS BED DRINKING JESUS JUICE AND WATCHING PORN...great parenting Mom.

Canta tard
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:28pm

Post 46 of 66

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Unfortunately, what you're seeking to punish is just 'having children whilst being thick' and to do so would open up a whole can of worms razz

Presumably the parents/guardians thought it was a good idea. What they forgot to factor in, is that HES A F*CKING WEIRDO!

I reckon licensing for children should be a new global law. You can only have/look after kids if you can prove you aren't a total moron.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:32pm

Post 47 of 66

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I'm not sure if Jackson is innocent or guilty but I think using the Bashir documentary as evidence (like xbreaka seems to) is really dangerous - that has to be the most biased and tabloid documentary I've ever seen.

The only thing evident in that documentary is how easy it is to exploit Jackson (which is maybe why he is where he is now).

I fear that even if he is proven innocent that its only a matter of time till one of these cases sticks. If he is guily then, although I feel sorry for him because of his terrible past with his father, he should be locked away and helped in any way possible.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:37pm

Post 48 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Were they thick, or just ruthless gold-diggers?

Agree with you Schwar, anyone should be helped in prison, otherwise it's a vicious circle. Prison shouldn't be just about punishment.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:44pm

Post 49 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

schwar wrote:

I'm not sure if Jackson is innocent or guilty but I think using the Bashir documentary as evidence (like xbreaka seems to) is really dangerous - that has to be the most biased and tabloid documentary I've ever seen.
Yeah, Jackson turned down Louis Theroux in favour of Bashir for the documenary which is a crying shame, as I think Louis Theroux would have provided a much more objective and unbiased look into Michael Jacksons world with a minimal exploitation.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:45pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:45pm

Post 50 of 66

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Yeah both bashir and opera's documentaries were very clever. Bashir broke him down, then opera built him up. Neither, if you ask me, displayed that great an objective view of MJ.

However Putting the content of the interviews aside, its the fact that they showed (in a retrospective wider view) how ridiculous he is, which worries me. So yes, he was asked leading questions - but its his method of response, not the responses themselves, which is worrying.

I'd suggest that even the most honest, fair and unbiased interviewer would have received responses which are no less baffling and tragicaly naive.

The documentaries definitely fueled my own fire of dislike for MJ, but more because of how he behaves in the wider picture, not because of how he poorly answered some cleverly worded questions.

I don't think discrediting the documentaries can avoid the fact that there is still something critically wrong with his behaviour and that there is a very high probability that he is guilty of inappropriate conduct with children.

Last edited Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:48pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 1:46pm

Post 51 of 66

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd go with the second theory Mel just based on the fact that this has happened before.

Regardless of the slant that was put on that Bashir doc you must admit that anyone who behaves that erratically in front of a camera has some serious issues. Slant doesn't put footage in the camera, and some of that crap was just insanity plain and simple.

Uniformed Mannequins in his Hotel Penthouses, Mad dash shopping sprees buying priceless useless crap left and right when he is going broke, wishing trees, veiled children, Peter Pan comparisons, sleeping with young cancer victims, and his creepy hands where the remaining blackness lies deep under his nails. ACK what a weirdo. I mean I would call myself a fan but holy HELL what is wrong with this guy.

Canta surprised
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:04pm

Post 52 of 66

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

My opinion -

Is he innocent? Without having heard all the information, my gut feeling is probably that he IS innocent of the charges brought against him. Is he as weird as Weirdy McWeird (head of the Werid Society)? Clearly. Does he appear to have 'unhealthy' relationships with young boys? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's a kiddy fiddler.

To me, it seems like he's certainly got issues, and he's got some sort of obsession with kids, but I don't think that he's acctually ever abused a child, even after all the allegations.

There are a few things about the last MJ court case that don't add up for me - one of the main reason that still makes me think that he's not guilty of the charges brought against him is this - Jordy Chandler's family took an out-of-court settlement instead of bringing Jackson to justice. I'm not sure how reasonable that sounds to anyone here, but just think it over. Imagine for a second that it's not Michael Jackson and Jordy Chandler, but rather a random paedophile and one of your young relations. How would you feel? Do you think that any ammount of money would be enough to rectify the situation? Now, personally, if it was someone in my family who had made these allegations, I wouldn't EVER accept money to let the git responsible escape justice. Nor can I imagine that very many people would be willing to accept money when such serious charges are being pressed.

Another thing that put doubt in my mind about the validity of Chandler's claims came from that taped phone recording of Jordy Chandler's father that the press got hold of in around 1994. The tape had been made a while before the allegations were made, and was recorded secretly. In that tape, Chandler's dad says how he and his lawyer planned to 'destroy' Michael Jackson because Jackson had refused to help Evan Chandler get ahead in the film industry. I believe he states that "Michael Jackson's career will be over" and says something about using 'the most nasty, cruel and devious' ways to acchieve that.

Faced with facts like those, I don't see how anyone could believe that Chandler's parents weren't gold-digging.

I'm not 100% sure of the details of the most recent allegations - however, what I do know is that the mother of the boy who's made the current accusations has been in court before where she was branded a 'gold-digger', and was accused of being able to manipulate her children into telling her lies.

So, a kiddy fiddler he might not be, but he certainly qualifies for a trip to the funny farm, imho.

Arktic.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 5:13pm

Post 53 of 66

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Interesting that you noted the curious motives for having an out of court settlement, given the expected reponse of any normal parents, yet didn't pick up on your own point that the parents were gold-digging.

If you're the kind of people ruthless and evil enough to be after revenge-money just coz someone didn't help you, you could be the kind of people ruthless enough to use the coincidental genuine abuse of your child, to be a means to a financial end.

Given how manipulative the parents were shown to be with that secret recording, i find it equally as likely that they could abuse their own child's ordeal for their own gain, as it is likely that the family made it all up.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:06pm

Post 54 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Wow, look at how it's gone from a 10-2 innocent majority. Cool.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 10:16pm

Post 55 of 66

The video machine

Force: 266 | Joined: 12th Jul 2004 | Posts: 284

Windows User

Gold Member

I have to say I believed him to be innocent right up to the moment when i saw this documentary on channel4 and then it was like... you sick f**k.
Whereas Bashir's documentary was incredibly biased just a bit of editing and you've shown the world a child abuser the documentary I saw was far more truthful.
Posted: Fri, 11th Feb 2005, 11:26pm

Post 56 of 66

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Arktic wrote:

My opinion -

Is he innocent? Without having heard all the information, my gut feeling is probably that he IS innocent of the charges brought against him. Is he as weird as Weirdy McWeird (head of the Werid Society)? Clearly. Does he appear to have 'unhealthy' relationships with young boys? Yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's a kiddy fiddler.

To me, it seems like he's certainly got issues, and he's got some sort of obsession with kids, but I don't think that he's acctually ever abused a child, even after all the allegations.

There are a few things about the last MJ court case that don't add up for me - one of the main reason that still makes me think that he's not guilty of the charges brought against him is this - Jordy Chandler's family took an out-of-court settlement instead of bringing Jackson to justice. I'm not sure how reasonable that sounds to anyone here, but just think it over. Imagine for a second that it's not Michael Jackson and Jordy Chandler, but rather a random paedophile and one of your young relations. How would you feel? Do you think that any ammount of money would be enough to rectify the situation? Now, personally, if it was someone in my family who had made these allegations, I wouldn't EVER accept money to let the git responsible escape justice. Nor can I imagine that very many people would be willing to accept money when such serious charges are being pressed.

Another thing that put doubt in my mind about the validity of Chandler's claims came from that taped phone recording of Jordy Chandler's father that the press got hold of in around 1994. The tape had been made a while before the allegations were made, and was recorded secretly. In that tape, Chandler's dad says how he and his lawyer planned to 'destroy' Michael Jackson because Jackson had refused to help Evan Chandler get ahead in the film industry. I believe he states that "Michael Jackson's career will be over" and says something about using 'the most nasty, cruel and devious' ways to acchieve that.

Faced with facts like those, I don't see how anyone could believe that Chandler's parents weren't gold-digging.

I'm not 100% sure of the details of the most recent allegations - however, what I do know is that the mother of the boy who's made the current accusations has been in court before where she was branded a 'gold-digger', and was accused of being able to manipulate her children into telling her lies.

So, a kiddy fiddler he might not be, but he certainly qualifies for a trip to the funny farm, imho.

Ditto, double-y.
I have to say, I just find it hard to see all these people, such as the newest kid in this case, "back" him, like a kid on Bashir's documentary, who was 100% behind Jackson, and then, well........he's the one who is accusing him. C'mon. Is it really because he was "afraid" to say it earlier? I'm just thinking that's the "trendy" thing to say. I'm not going either way, because only Michael himself knows the truth, and it's not my duty to judge him.

But I do know one thing:
Money.

And the three key points of it:
He has alot.
The boy doesn't
It'll drive some people to any extremes.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 1:35am

Post 57 of 66

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

What do Michael Jackson and McDonalds have in common?

They both put their meat between 10 year-old buns.



Seriously, I'm thinking he's as guilty as OJ is... and that's pretty guilty. How much common sense does he need to have to realize that if you're a middle-aged man hanging out with children all the time (including sharing his bed with them...ugh), charges of impropriety are inevitable? Even AFTER the first accusation, he continued to fraternize with young boys. In my opinion, he should be castrated and stuck in the general population section of a prison, where HE can be molested.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 2:41am

Post 58 of 66

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

steeb69 wrote:

What do Michael Jackson and McDonalds have in common?

They both put their meat between 10 year-old buns.



Seriously, I'm thinking he's as guilty as OJ is... and that's pretty guilty. How much common sense does he need to have to realize that if you're a middle-aged man hanging out with children all the time (including sharing his bed with them...ugh), charges of impropriety are inevitable? Even AFTER the first accusation, he continued to fraternize with young boys. In my opinion, he should be castrated and stuck in the general population section of a prison, where HE can be molested.
Why? The 'eye-for-an-eye' law shouldn't apply here, regardless of his innocence. If someone does something so horrible- in this case, allegedly molesting a child- why would anyone want someone to recieve that as punishment. Wouldn't that make you just as bad as Jacko?

And I think that it's just sad that because of things nowadays that we say that if someone older stays around younger boys, then he has to be a child molester. That, my friend, is just plain stupid. If he got accused once, and then he continued to fraternize with young boys, isn't that only further proving that he himself knows that he's innocent? If he knows he didn't molest anyone then he has no reason not to stay around the age group that he allegedly molested.

People need to get a grip and accept that some people are just messed up. You can be messed up and still not molest people. Jeesh.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 3:25am

Post 59 of 66

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Why? The 'eye-for-an-eye' law shouldn't apply here, regardless of his innocence. If someone does something so horrible- in this case, allegedly molesting a child- why would anyone want someone to recieve that as punishment. Wouldn't that make you just as bad as Jacko?

And I think that it's just sad that because of things nowadays that we say that if someone older stays around younger boys, then he has to be a child molester. That, my friend, is just plain stupid. If he got accused once, and then he continued to fraternize with young boys, isn't that only further proving that he himself knows that he's innocent? If he knows he didn't molest anyone then he has no reason not to stay around the age group that he allegedly molested.

People need to get a grip and accept that some people are just messed up. You can be messed up and still not molest people. Jeesh.
Yes, you can be messed up and not molest people. Michael Jackson doesn't fall into this category. Any adult who sleeps with little kids who aren't related to him, even if there is no sexual contact, should be investigated thoroughly. That is NOT a normal thing, no matter how famous you are. He has openly admitted to sleeping in the same bed with young children (always BOYS, mind you) and has stated that he sees nothing wrong with that.

As for my suggested punishment... I think it is quite appropriate. No matter what was done to him, it would pale in comparison to the damage he has done to those children. In fact, after much consideration, I think he should be put to death instead. He is a sexual predator who preys on little kids. I'd say that qualifies for the death penalty.

Atom wrote:

I'm not going either way, because only Michael himself knows the truth, and it's not my duty to judge him.
Well, the kids know the truth, too, don't they? And it seems to be his word against theirs....



And now, I leave you with another tasteless MJ joke.....

What's the worst stain to try to remove from a little boy's underpants?


Michael Jackson's makeup. smile
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 3:45am

Post 60 of 66

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Easy now smile You can't go round executing everyone that's a little bit weird, or even if they're majorly weird.

Fact is, that at current Jackson is innocent until proven otherwise. And with the evidence stacking agains the prosecution I imagine Jackson will be found innocent yet again.

The man needs help, not an execution. If he is indeed guilty, I think he'd still deserve help.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 3:58am

Post 61 of 66

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Easy now smile You can't go round executing everyone that's a little bit weird, or even if they're majorly weird.
Absolutely not, and I would never suggest such a thing. What I did propose was for a pedophile who has molested numerous children to be put to death. If he really is innocent, which I do not personally believe he is, he should be free to be as weird as he wants.

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Fact is, that at current Jackson is innocent until proven otherwise. And with the evidence stacking agains the prosecution I imagine Jackson will be found innocent yet again.
Very true. This could very well end up like the OJ case. I suppose it'll all depend on the jury.

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

The man needs help, not an execution. If he is indeed guilty, I think he'd still deserve help.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. If he is guilty, I don't believe there is any way of helping him. Just my opinion, though. And frankly, I'm an idiot, so don't put much stock in what I say. biggrin
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 3:59am

Post 62 of 66

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

steeb69 wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

Why? The 'eye-for-an-eye' law shouldn't apply here, regardless of his innocence. If someone does something so horrible- in this case, allegedly molesting a child- why would anyone want someone to recieve that as punishment. Wouldn't that make you just as bad as Jacko?

And I think that it's just sad that because of things nowadays that we say that if someone older stays around younger boys, then he has to be a child molester. That, my friend, is just plain stupid. If he got accused once, and then he continued to fraternize with young boys, isn't that only further proving that he himself knows that he's innocent? If he knows he didn't molest anyone then he has no reason not to stay around the age group that he allegedly molested.

People need to get a grip and accept that some people are just messed up. You can be messed up and still not molest people. Jeesh.
Yes, you can be messed up and not molest people. Michael Jackson doesn't fall into this category. Any adult who sleeps with little kids who aren't related to him, even if there is no sexual contact, should be investigated thoroughly. That is NOT a normal thing, no matter how famous you are. He has openly admitted to sleeping in the same bed with young children (always BOYS, mind you) and has stated that he sees nothing wrong with that.
As far as I've heard, and seen in the media, Michael Jackson is being thoroughly investigated. I mean, isn't that why he's...I dunno..on trial? Did anybody say he was normal? Did I say MJ was normal? No. Doesn't mean he has to be. He doesn't have to have the same morales other people have, and, granted, he doesn't, but that doesn't give you any fact.

steeb69 wrote:

As for my suggested punishment... I think it is quite appropriate. No matter what was done to him, it would pale in comparison to the damage he has done to those children. In fact, after much consideration, I think he should be put to death instead.
Your 'suggested punishment' is stupid, inhumane, and unjust. It's absolutely ludacris to say that fits the crime, because well......it doesn't. Prison, money, community service, those are what he needs. (IF HE DID IT) And the other thing is: (and yes, I know, it is horrible, but) Child molestation is bad. But, you can and eventually, will overcome it. It is not as if he (supposedly) killed them, is it? No. These kids can overcome whatever injustices they faced, and that's truth.

steeb69 wrote:

He is a sexual predator who preys on little kids. I'd say that qualifies for the death penalty.
Yes, because you know this for sure, right? He molested you, is that it? You know he is a sexual predator? You don't, and therefore, you have no reason to say he is.

Atom wrote:

I'm not going either way, because only Michael himself knows the truth, and it's not my duty to judge him.

steeb69 wrote:

Well, the kids know the truth, too, don't they? And it seems to be his word against theirs....
Yes, but kids can be naive, and imaginative. For all you know, (which is obviously nothing) they could've been manipulated by their authority figures like teachers, parents, the media, etc. Or coersed into saying something for a settlement. Which, yes, there has been proof of. But again, I won't go either way because I am not one to judge without all the facts. You don't have them either.

steeb69 wrote:

And now, I leave you with another tasteless MJ joke.....

What's the worst stain to try to remove from a little boy's underpants?


Michael Jackson's makeup. smile
Haha, thats funny. Now stop trying to be comical, and be a little more open-minded, jackass.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 4:10am

Post 63 of 66

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

atom wrote:

Haha, thats funny. Now stop trying to be comical, and be a little more open-minded, jackass.
I'm glad you approve of my joke. Why so hostile? Isn't this a forum for discussion?

Oh, and if I had a freakishly pale, middle-aged man with band-aids on his fingertips and pancake makeup slathered all over his face molest me, I would never get over it, regardless of my age at the time. Even if he "loosened me up" with a nice Chianti... If you could, you're a tougher guy than I am, but that's not saying much, cause I'm a wuss.
Posted: Sat, 12th Feb 2005, 4:13am

Post 64 of 66

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

steeb69 wrote:

Why so hostile? Isn't this a forum for discussion?
Isn't that the reason to be hostile? wink
Posted: Mon, 14th Feb 2005, 8:14pm

Post 65 of 66

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

atom wrote:

And the other thing is: (and yes, I know, it is horrible, but) Child molestation is bad. But, you can and eventually, will overcome it. It is not as if he (supposedly) killed them, is it? No. These kids can overcome whatever injustices they faced, and that's truth.
Sorry, I just have to pick up on this. Unless you speak from personal experience, I don't think you can argue such a thing. It's a generally known fact that victims of child abuse are usually scarred for life, & it affects them through their relationships with other people in particular, especially potential girlfriends/boyfriends/wives/husbands etc.
Posted: Tue, 15th Feb 2005, 9:09am

Post 66 of 66

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I'd just like to add that micheal jacksons voice is startlingly similar to a Mouse with a vice on its nuts. also, i agree with melliifio..iousl..ellious...(you know who i mean)