Always enjoy reading your posts, even if we have differing opinions, because you're articulate and express your opinion without resorting to trashing any posters whom you disagree with.
I totally don't agree with Jordy's family being prepared to settle out of court for a substantial amount of money. It says either one of two things: 1) They lied, traumatised their son and tried to ruin Jackson's life just to make profit. Or 2: Their son was abused, and instead of wanting to see his abuser get sent to jail for what he did, they decided instead that money was more important. I personally believe the second option, but to be honest even if I'm wrong their behaviour is utterly disgusting either way.
I don't have a problem with people who genuinely believe that Michael was innocent, and still continue to support him (although I disagree and believe he was guilty and only got away with it due to his fame and power, and people being unable to accept that their idol could do something so disgusting.) I have a problem with people who admit that they don't know if he was a child molester or not, but say they support him regardless of what he may have done.
I do, because he still slept with children and that is a fact, now he may not have done anything more than that, but the only way he was in a position to achieve this was by abusing the power he had. Even those that believe his innocence cannot say that is right, but they do or make excuses for him.
I also don't begrudge people who want to buy/listen to his music regardless of anything, that is art and that should be still appreciated.
Still completely on the fence about what I believe.
on one hand you have Jackson admitting to sharing beds with young boys, which sexual or not, is inappropriate behaviour.
but on the other his two accusers and their family have/had a lot of shady stuff going on. Gavin Arvizo's familys testimony in particular was a complete shambles IMO. The FBI have raided Neverland twice a decade apart and not found anything despite his life being chaotic (you'd have expected him to have left something lying around in that mess of a house)
until someone presents some credible new evidence I don't see my 'on the fence' view point changing.
Still completely on the fence about what I believe.
on one hand you have Jackson admitting to sharing beds with young boys, which sexual or not, is inappropriate behaviour.
but on the other his two accusers and their family have/had a lot of shady stuff going on. Gavin Arvizo's familys testimony in particular was a complete shambles IMO. The FBI have raided Neverland twice a decade apart and not found anything despite his life being chaotic (you'd have expected him to have left something lying around in that mess of a house)
until someone presents some credible new evidence I don't see my 'on the fence' view point changing.
This is how I feel; Jackson was obviously a damaged man and of course it was not appropriate for him to have "sleepovers" with young boys but as far as molestation goes is there any real evidence?
If someone has abused me I don't think I would want their money. It would make me feel dirty and used. Almost like they paid for it to happen and now you get their money as a reward. Its like 'oh this is my new house/car, its paid for my the man who abused me' I don't see the logic as that's a constant reminder of what happened when most would want to forget..
I suppose everyone is different but that's my take on it.
Thanks, I've read it, and it completely ignores how people, especially males are usually in denial of abuse until they get older. Francia has made clear now that as a pastor he felt he had to tell the truth, which was Jackson did sexually abuse him. He had nothing to gain from that financially & has made no claim on Jackson or the estate.
Abuse is an incredibly traumatic thing to occur, especially when it happens in childhood. It can take people years or even decades to come to terms with abuse and accept it within themselves, let alone be able to tell other people what happened to them. Not just because of the shame that goes along with it (a lot of victims of abuse, especially children, are emotionally manipulated by their abuser and made to believe that it is their fault) but also because people doubt them and accuse them of lying. Especially with celebrities who are idolised by their fans.
The fact that Michael paid over $20 million to Jordy Chandler's family, in my opinion speaks volumes. I know he said it was just because he didn't want to go through the trial and wanted to focus on his music/touring etc. But put yourself in Michael Jackson's position. Someone has accused you of molesting a child (pretty much one of the worst things which you can be accused of.) If you're innocent and your actions around children have always been perfectly innocent, the last thing you would do is give millions of dollars to someone who has made up disgusting vile lies about you and tried to ruin your life. You'd most likely say ''Take me to court. I'll be found innocent.'' because you would know that there isn't a single thing the prosecution could bring up which would make you look even remotely guilty. I really think Michael paid him off because he knew he was guilty and was worried that various things would be brought up by the prosecution which would make it obvious.
It's quite disturbing to me how much he is still worshiped, and that people still buy his albums. I know there are some fans who genuinely believe he was innocent, but I've been disgusted by the amount of people I've heard saying ''Regardless of what he may or may not have done, I still loved him as a performer...'' etc. That sort of attitude is exactly why so many children get abused- people are prepared to turn a blind eye to it if it's someone powerful who people respect. I feel incredibly uncomfortable when I see tributes to him/ hear his music in adverts/ see celebrities talking about how much they admire him.
I wonder how many of those people would feel 100% comfortable letting their own child sleep in the same bed as him if he was still alive.
I'm sorry but the phrase trust the art not the artist comes to mind - a lot of artistical talented people are not what you would call 'good people' - Phil Spector was a control freak whom his wife alleges abused her - there are many musicians who have been accused of being spousal abusers and then there's Roman Polanski, Woody Allen - at the end of the day you can't know for sure what sort of a person someone was but you can know if you liked their art or not. I can understand why people who have suffered child abuse want no part in the art of someone who even might have been guilty of the same crimes as their tormenters and are angry that those who feel differently but I can also understand those chose to appreciate someone's art no matter what the person who produced it was like or might have been like.
Personally I am not sure if MJ was an abuser or not - he was a very strange and very messed up individual who in some ways perhaps never really full grew up - the only thing that the Chandlers taking MJ's money proves is that THEY cared more the money than the child - it proves nothing either way about MJ.
More BS.
Its all so transparant. What about all those kids who claim they were never 'abused', oh yes they are usually the ones with careers and their own money . see the pattern here.
More BS.
Its all so transparant. What about all those kids who claim they were never 'abused', oh yes they are usually the ones with careers and their own money . see the pattern here.
Abuse doesn't have to be sexual...it can be emotional as well. He certainly abused his power, what isn't BS is that he slept with children.
I bet there's not many parents out there that would accept payment from someone who had been charged with sexually molesting their child.
People have been accepting millions from the Catholic Church as compensation for what its clergy did to children. When you can't be assured of justice, due to the church's power and influence, or you'd rather your child not be put through the ordeal of testifying, the money to pay for a comfortable existence and therapy for your abused, traumatised and victimised child can sometimes be an accptable alternative.
He did commit child abuse though...he may not off being a molester, but he certainly abused his power and slept with children, which would be emotional abuse at the least, but still abuse.
Now just wait for the people to come and defend him...those people must feel it's okay for a man to sleep with children who are strangers.
Oh and wait for the comments that say he was found not guilty...so what, does that still make the above right.
Spot on - his supporters seem to think worryingly that his behaviour with pre pubescent boys is fine and completely normal for mj as "he didnt have a childhood".
complete rubbish , it does not make it ok at all .
the man was addicted to having young boys spend time with him as often as possible,paying the parents to go shopping and stay in top hotels while he entertains the child.
sexual abuse has never been proven but as you say emotional abuse was rampant in mj`s twisted world.
how anyone can come out with "i know its wrong for him to sleep with children but" - there is NO but .
its disgusting,wrong,illegal,and there isnt a excuse for it especially something as stupid as oh he never had a childhood of his own.
so bloody what , that is not a excuse for his frankly vile behaviour.
Personally I am not sure if MJ was an abuser or not - he was a very strange and very messed up individual who in some ways perhaps never really full grew up - the only thing that the Chandlers taking MJ's money proves is that THEY cared more the money than the child - it proves nothing either way about MJ.
Does it? The child in this case has often been referred to as 'delicate'.
Would you put your child who's already in counselling through a court case where they would be called a liar to their face, have to recount in detail any abuse and be forthrightly challenged by defence lawyers and possibly see that child go over the edge as a result? It wouldn't have ended in court as Jackson's PR/Media team did would have continued to go to town on the parents and child,
As a result of a court case related to this case it is known Anthony Pellicanco who was employed by Jackson stormed into an office and threatened to physically assault two people.
For the sake of seeing justice done would you as a parent sacrifice your child who's already been harmed.
Regarding the settlement, the child had his own legal representative appointed by the parents and the court separately appointed a former judge to ensure the interests of child where protected in any settlement.
Spot on - his supporters seem to think worryingly that his behaviour with pre pubescent boys is fine and completely normal for mj as "he didnt have a childhood".
complete rubbish , it does not make it ok at all .
the man was addicted to having young boys spend time with him as often as possible,paying the parents to go shopping and stay in top hotels while he entertains the child.
sexual abuse has never been proven but as you say emotional abuse was rampant in mj`s twisted world.
how anyone can come out with "i know its wrong for him to sleep with children but" - there is NO but .
its disgusting,wrong,illegal,and there isnt a excuse for it especially something as stupid as oh he never had a childhood of his own.
so bloody what , that is not a excuse for his frankly vile behaviour.
Also, it appears that his family, 'friends', hangers on, management, numerous medical attendants and those in his employ never stood up to him and said, 'No. This is not acceptable, Michael. You cannot and will not behave like this!'. I guess if they did they'd probably just get disconnected from him and 'replaced'. It's a shame nobody had the balls to stop his inappropriate behaviour. It's the same with most of the rich, famous and powerful.
Spot on - his supporters seem to think worryingly that his behaviour with pre pubescent boys is fine and completely normal for mj as "he didnt have a childhood".
complete rubbish , it does not make it ok at all .
the man was addicted to having young boys spend time with him as often as possible,paying the parents to go shopping and stay in top hotels while he entertains the child.
sexual abuse has never been proven but as you say emotional abuse was rampant in mj`s twisted world. how anyone can come out with "i know its wrong for him to sleep with children but" - there is NO but .
its disgusting,wrong,illegal,and there isnt a excuse for it especially something as stupid as oh he never had a childhood of his own.
so bloody what , that is not a excuse for his frankly vile behaviour.
BIB: Just like to correct you here, It's not illegal to sleep with children.
Notice in 2005 when he didn't hand any money over and was found not guilty of any crime.
But why would an innocent man give it? That's the question that should be asked. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely ignored in any discussion of the child abuse allegations against MJ.
What should be looked at is the actual allegations, but MJ's lawyers spent their time picking apart the parents. Which is sad, because paedophiles often make a point of targeting children from dysfunctional backgrounds. How many of the boys that MJ surrounded himself with came from that kind of background? It's easy to dismiss the claims, but we now have four named accusers:-
Jordy Chandler, Gavin Arviso, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safachuck
People have been accepting millions from the Catholic Church as compensation for what its clergy did to children. When you can't be assured of justice, due to the church's power and influence, or you'd rather your child not be put through the ordeal of testifying, the money to pay for a comfortable existence and therapy for your abused, traumatised and victimised child can sometimes be an accptable alternative.
It's the Church buying their way out of possibly being prosecuted ot whatever. Allowing the Church to pay you off, rather than taking the priest responsible to court, means that they get away with it every single time.
Spot on - his supporters seem to think worryingly that his behaviour with pre pubescent boys is fine and completely normal for mj as "he didnt have a childhood".
complete rubbish , it does not make it ok at all .
the man was addicted to having young boys spend time with him as often as possible,paying the parents to go shopping and stay in top hotels while he entertains the child.
sexual abuse has never been proven but as you say emotional abuse was rampant in mj`s twisted world.
how anyone can come out with "i know its wrong for him to sleep with children but" - there is NO but .
its disgusting,wrong,illegal,and there isnt a excuse for it especially something as stupid as oh he never had a childhood of his own.
so bloody what , that is not a excuse for his frankly vile behaviour.
I think his actions and behaviour were totally abnormal and abhorrent and I am not a fan or an apologist.
But - actually - the fact that he didn't have a proper childhood and was thrust into fame from a very young age IS a very important factor. He was emotionally abused by his Father and was surrounded by sycophants and yes men his whole life. Frankly it's not surprising he was so dysfunctional and screwed up.
Does that make his actions right? No
Does that help to explain his actions? Yes.
If a person is never set any boundaries and is not normalised in childhood then it is obvious that their life will not follow a conventional path. To him, having Macaulay Culkin stay over in his bed with him was probably as normal as making a cup of tea. Who was going to tell him otherwise?
Paedophiles are usually abused in their own childhoods and the myth perpetuates itself.
Again, I am not a fan and I am not excusing his actions.
But I think it's interesting to look at WHY he behaved like he did.
But why would an innocent man give it? That's the question that should be asked. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely ignored in any discussion of the child abuse allegations against MJ.
What should be looked at is the actual allegations, but MJ's lawyers spent their time picking apart the parents. Which is sad, because paedophiles often make a point of targeting children from dysfunctional backgrounds. How many of the boys that MJ surrounded himself with came from that kind of background? It's easy to dismiss the claims, but we now have four named accusers:-
Jordy Chandler, Gavin Arviso, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safachuck
It wouldn't surprise me if more start to surface.
"Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts"; as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson. It also noted "an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements", as established by a number of precedents in California."
The way it looks to me is Jackson's insurance company, I presume for his tour, negotiated and settled with the Chandler family against Jackson's wishes and the insurance company paid the money, not Jackson.
"Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts"; as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson. It also noted "an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements", as established by a number of precedents in California."
The way it looks to me is Jackson's insurance company, I presume for his tour, negotiated and settled with the Chandler family against Jackson's wishes and the insurance company paid the money, not Jackson.
In the now infamous Martin Bashir documentary, MJ says something different - he claims to have initiated the payoff, because he didn't want to go through a huge televised trial. According to him, it was his decision.
The bit re: the settlemet starts at around 4.58, though the whole (around 8mins) vid is interesting.
Another interesting thing mentioned in the vid - there was a gagging order in place preventing MJ from talking about the accusations made by Jordy Chandler. Presumably, the gagging order also applied to the Chandlers.
Maybe not illegal...so are you saying it's perfectly fine then? as you didn't follow on from that apart from stating a fact.
Okay I'll follow on.........your words were disgusting, wrong and illegal. In the eyes of the law it's not disgusting, it's not wrong and it's not illegal.
Okay I'll follow on.........your words were disgusting, wrong and illegal. In the eyes of the law it's not disgusting, it's not wrong and it's not illegal.
I agree with the law.
My words where wrong haven't used disgusting or illegal...just have a look who made the original post, but yes it was a disgusting abuse of power by MJ.
But it is refreshing to find somebody who openly admits that they find it's perfectly okay for a man to sleep with children that are strangers, and abuse their power to make it happen. You won't get many that share your point of view and I am thankful for that.
Okay I'll follow on.........your words were disgusting, wrong and illegal. In the eyes of the law it's not disgusting, it's not wrong and it's not illegal.
I agree with the law.
I'm assuming you would let your children share a bed (unsupervised) with Michael Jackson if he was still alive then? Or any other man who wasn't related to your children, for that matter?
Regardless of whether Jackson derived sexual pleasure from having young boys sleeping on his bed with him his behaviour was clearly abusive. Why? Because he a) put his own gratification ahead of the best interests of the kids b) used his celebrity status to encourage the boys to enter into a situation they would never have got into with any other adult man c) put them at real risk from being victims of paedophiles in the future by encouraging the boys to believe that grown men sleeping with young boys was acceptable and fun.
Interesting though that his sleepovers just seem to have been with young boys. If his actions were innocent as the defence maintain and he was a child in a mans body why did he just want to be friends with boys and not girls too?
Comments
Thanks for that Mandy -very interesting,I do believe the police wanted to get a guilty verdict despite whether MJ was guilty or not,
I do, because he still slept with children and that is a fact, now he may not have done anything more than that, but the only way he was in a position to achieve this was by abusing the power he had. Even those that believe his innocence cannot say that is right, but they do or make excuses for him.
I also don't begrudge people who want to buy/listen to his music regardless of anything, that is art and that should be still appreciated.
on one hand you have Jackson admitting to sharing beds with young boys, which sexual or not, is inappropriate behaviour.
but on the other his two accusers and their family have/had a lot of shady stuff going on. Gavin Arvizo's familys testimony in particular was a complete shambles IMO. The FBI have raided Neverland twice a decade apart and not found anything despite his life being chaotic (you'd have expected him to have left something lying around in that mess of a house)
until someone presents some credible new evidence I don't see my 'on the fence' view point changing.
This is how I feel; Jackson was obviously a damaged man and of course it was not appropriate for him to have "sleepovers" with young boys but as far as molestation goes is there any real evidence?
I suppose everyone is different but that's my take on it.
I'm sorry but the phrase trust the art not the artist comes to mind - a lot of artistical talented people are not what you would call 'good people' - Phil Spector was a control freak whom his wife alleges abused her - there are many musicians who have been accused of being spousal abusers and then there's Roman Polanski, Woody Allen - at the end of the day you can't know for sure what sort of a person someone was but you can know if you liked their art or not. I can understand why people who have suffered child abuse want no part in the art of someone who even might have been guilty of the same crimes as their tormenters and are angry that those who feel differently but I can also understand those chose to appreciate someone's art no matter what the person who produced it was like or might have been like.
Personally I am not sure if MJ was an abuser or not - he was a very strange and very messed up individual who in some ways perhaps never really full grew up - the only thing that the Chandlers taking MJ's money proves is that THEY cared more the money than the child - it proves nothing either way about MJ.
Its all so transparant. What about all those kids who claim they were never 'abused', oh yes they are usually the ones with careers and their own money . see the pattern here.
Abuse doesn't have to be sexual...it can be emotional as well. He certainly abused his power, what isn't BS is that he slept with children.
Spot on - his supporters seem to think worryingly that his behaviour with pre pubescent boys is fine and completely normal for mj as "he didnt have a childhood".
complete rubbish , it does not make it ok at all .
the man was addicted to having young boys spend time with him as often as possible,paying the parents to go shopping and stay in top hotels while he entertains the child.
sexual abuse has never been proven but as you say emotional abuse was rampant in mj`s twisted world.
how anyone can come out with "i know its wrong for him to sleep with children but" - there is NO but .
its disgusting,wrong,illegal,and there isnt a excuse for it especially something as stupid as oh he never had a childhood of his own.
so bloody what , that is not a excuse for his frankly vile behaviour.
Does it? The child in this case has often been referred to as 'delicate'.
Would you put your child who's already in counselling through a court case where they would be called a liar to their face, have to recount in detail any abuse and be forthrightly challenged by defence lawyers and possibly see that child go over the edge as a result? It wouldn't have ended in court as Jackson's PR/Media team did would have continued to go to town on the parents and child,
As a result of a court case related to this case it is known Anthony Pellicanco who was employed by Jackson stormed into an office and threatened to physically assault two people.
For the sake of seeing justice done would you as a parent sacrifice your child who's already been harmed.
Regarding the settlement, the child had his own legal representative appointed by the parents and the court separately appointed a former judge to ensure the interests of child where protected in any settlement.
Maybe they felt they didn't stand a chance against the best defence lawyers money could buy. As this proved in 2005.
Also, it appears that his family, 'friends', hangers on, management, numerous medical attendants and those in his employ never stood up to him and said, 'No. This is not acceptable, Michael. You cannot and will not behave like this!'. I guess if they did they'd probably just get disconnected from him and 'replaced'. It's a shame nobody had the balls to stop his inappropriate behaviour. It's the same with most of the rich, famous and powerful.
BIB: Just like to correct you here, It's not illegal to sleep with children.
But why would an innocent man give it? That's the question that should be asked. Unfortunately, it seems to be largely ignored in any discussion of the child abuse allegations against MJ.
What should be looked at is the actual allegations, but MJ's lawyers spent their time picking apart the parents. Which is sad, because paedophiles often make a point of targeting children from dysfunctional backgrounds. How many of the boys that MJ surrounded himself with came from that kind of background? It's easy to dismiss the claims, but we now have four named accusers:-
Jordy Chandler, Gavin Arviso, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safachuck
It wouldn't surprise me if more start to surface.
It's the Church buying their way out of possibly being prosecuted ot whatever. Allowing the Church to pay you off, rather than taking the priest responsible to court, means that they get away with it every single time.
I think his actions and behaviour were totally abnormal and abhorrent and I am not a fan or an apologist.
But - actually - the fact that he didn't have a proper childhood and was thrust into fame from a very young age IS a very important factor. He was emotionally abused by his Father and was surrounded by sycophants and yes men his whole life. Frankly it's not surprising he was so dysfunctional and screwed up.
Does that make his actions right? No
Does that help to explain his actions? Yes.
If a person is never set any boundaries and is not normalised in childhood then it is obvious that their life will not follow a conventional path. To him, having Macaulay Culkin stay over in his bed with him was probably as normal as making a cup of tea. Who was going to tell him otherwise?
Paedophiles are usually abused in their own childhoods and the myth perpetuates itself.
Again, I am not a fan and I am not excusing his actions.
But I think it's interesting to look at WHY he behaved like he did.
"Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts"; as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson. It also noted "an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements", as established by a number of precedents in California."
The way it looks to me is Jackson's insurance company, I presume for his tour, negotiated and settled with the Chandler family against Jackson's wishes and the insurance company paid the money, not Jackson.
Maybe not illegal...so are you saying it's perfectly fine then? as you didn't follow on from that apart from stating a fact.
In the now infamous Martin Bashir documentary, MJ says something different - he claims to have initiated the payoff, because he didn't want to go through a huge televised trial. According to him, it was his decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN58GQwRoF4
The bit re: the settlemet starts at around 4.58, though the whole (around 8mins) vid is interesting.
Another interesting thing mentioned in the vid - there was a gagging order in place preventing MJ from talking about the accusations made by Jordy Chandler. Presumably, the gagging order also applied to the Chandlers.
Okay I'll follow on.........your words were disgusting, wrong and illegal. In the eyes of the law it's not disgusting, it's not wrong and it's not illegal.
I agree with the law.
My words where wrong haven't used disgusting or illegal...just have a look who made the original post, but yes it was a disgusting abuse of power by MJ.
But it is refreshing to find somebody who openly admits that they find it's perfectly okay for a man to sleep with children that are strangers, and abuse their power to make it happen. You won't get many that share your point of view and I am thankful for that.
I'm assuming you would let your children share a bed (unsupervised) with Michael Jackson if he was still alive then? Or any other man who wasn't related to your children, for that matter?
Interesting though that his sleepovers just seem to have been with young boys. If his actions were innocent as the defence maintain and he was a child in a mans body why did he just want to be friends with boys and not girls too?