Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Michael Jackson and JImmy Savile...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-10-2012, 22:17
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next to Consett.
Posts: 63,005
he went on trial and was found innocent. anyway you should research the full story and you too will realize that he was innocent if you haven't then you have no right to comment
I bet there's people out there who were found guilty but were innocent. A human jury is capable of making mistakes, especially if they're getting sick of trying to work out whether someone's innocent or guilty.
zx50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-10-2012, 22:55
jzee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,667
I believe that the greatest evidence that Michael is innocent of paedophilia is the fact that no-one has come out since he died. After his death I expected a deluge of revelations and there have been none. It was better for Mike that he went to court during his lifetime, and tried to clear his name.
A priest, who was a witness at the Chandler trial has now admitted he was abused by Jackson, he didn't tell the truth at the trial (as a child) as he didn't want people to think he was gay.
jzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2012, 23:30
SparklingEyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 276
A priest, who was a witness at the Chandler trial has now admitted he was abused by Jackson, he didn't tell the truth at the trial (as a child) as he didn't want people to think he was gay.
There was no trial with Chandler. Do you mean the Arvizo trial in 2005. If he was a child in 2005 he can't be that much older now, seven years later. Can you name him and give a link to where you read this testimony? There is an awful lot of so-called evidence about MJ on the internet which gets passed around, and when you get back to the original source it's actually wrong. If you can give a link to your evidence I would be grateful. Thanks.
SparklingEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-10-2012, 23:36
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 38,256
At least Michael was tried in court when he was alive. He did a lot for charity (supposedly like Saville) but Jackson made some superb music and was amazingly cool. Saville isn't and is a nasty piece of work, he's almost viewed in the opposite way to MJ. When Saville was alive I feel the fact he was a weirdo was brushed over and (and certainly he wasnt viewed as a paedo) his charity work/TV persona was focused on, now his true character comes out.
When MJ was alive the press hounded him with the "Wacko Jacko" tag etc but now come out with what a great performer he was.
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 00:00
whatever54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,977
There was no trial with Chandler. Do you mean the Arvizo trial in 2005. If he was a child in 2005 he can't be that much older now, seven years later. Can you name him and give a link to where you read this testimony? There is an awful lot of so-called evidence about MJ on the internet which gets passed around, and when you get back to the original source it's actually wrong. If you can give a link to your evidence I would be grateful. Thanks.
first I've heard of this rumour and I just did quick google which bought nothing
whatever54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 00:01
jzee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,667
There was no trial with Chandler. Do you mean the Arvizo trial in 2005. If he was a child in 2005 he can't be that much older now, seven years later. Can you name him and give a link to where you read this testimony?
Yes, sorry, it was 2005, Pastor Jason Francia

http://www.scotsman.com/news/celebri...abuse-1-706783
jzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 05:57
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,146
I seem to remember a lot of reviews saying Michael still had "it" but also looked rather 'out of it' and 'thin'.
I recall a website 'This Is Not It' (?) said to have been set up by fans who said they had been at the rehearseals who expressed deep concerns about MJ's state of health and they were brushed aside.

Did those fans choose to be annoymous for fear of the reaction of Michael Jackson fans and the PR machine?

Would anyone that had gone public about Jimmy Savile had been dismissed by the public and have come under a barrage of insults and Savile using lawyers and the courts?
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 06:44
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,146
At least Michael was tried in court when he was alive. He did a lot for charity (supposedly like Saville) but Jackson made some superb music and was amazingly cool. Saville isn't and is a nasty piece of work, he's almost viewed in the opposite way to MJ. When Saville was alive I feel the fact he was a weirdo was brushed over and (and certainly he wasnt viewed as a paedo) his charity work/TV persona was focused on, now his true character comes out.
When MJ was alive the press hounded him with the "Wacko Jacko" tag etc but now come out with what a great performer he was.
The 'Wacko Jacko' tag was generated by Michael Jackson and his team.

There is a PBS film made in the early 90's where a former editor of National Enquirer revealed the story behind the Oxygen chamber pictures. They came from Michael's team didn't mind what story the magazine put with the pictures as long as the word 'bizarre' was used.

Jimmy Savile created a 'bizarre' image of himself blonde hair, colourful clothing anything to get in the press. Even in 2000 when he injured his leg he was on the phone to a mate to get his picture in the press.

If millions saw nothing wrong with Michael Jackson sleeping with children as young as seven, did they have the same attitude towards Jimmy Savile being surrounded by hordes of young girls?

Did the people who found Savile 'creepy'be the same people who found Jackson 'creepy' ?
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 09:32
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 38,256
In MJ's mind he clearly saw himself as a child, who never grew up. I never got that vibe with Saville.
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 11:09
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
The 'Wacko Jacko' tag was generated by Michael Jackson and his team.

There is a PBS film made in the early 90's where a former editor of National Enquirer revealed the story behind the Oxygen chamber pictures. They came from Michael's team didn't mind what story the magazine put with the pictures as long as the word 'bizarre' was used.

Jimmy Savile created a 'bizarre' image of himself blonde hair, colourful clothing anything to get in the press. Even in 2000 when he injured his leg he was on the phone to a mate to get his picture in the press.

If millions saw nothing wrong with Michael Jackson sleeping with children as young as seven, did they have the same attitude towards Jimmy Savile being surrounded by hordes of young girls?

Did the people who found Savile 'creepy'be the same people who found Jackson 'creepy' ?

yes great post mate...



the whole wacko thing was a charade to cover up his sick pedo instincts.
a truely disgusting individual who simply had that much money he could buy off his accusers and buy off his privicy to molest children....a truely evil man every bit as bad as saville...i also believe jackson music is utter trite..completely overated a bit like his 'stolen' un-original dance moves...rock n roll legend he is NOT...sick weirdo one trick dancer he IS.
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 20:24
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,146
It gets even more bizarre, Jimmy Savile's long time PA talking about him....

“He was always photographed with what he called dolly birds because he was terrified of growing old or being seen as old. Image was vital to him.

He was like Peter Pan, forever surrounding himself with youngsters. It was his elixir.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:10
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
How many people have come out and said they or their children were abused by MJ after he died though?

None AFAIK. Which suggests Jacko was just having friends over for a sleepover (very weird but not illegal) whereas JS was into something more sinister.
Not every paedophile has the same MO. Jimmy Savile was a molester who could not and did not resist the temptation to abuse as many people as crossed his path. Michael Jackson was an altogether different type of abuser who nurtured relationships and may even have felt something akin to love for the boys whose innocence he robbed. He certainly made them dependent upon him

For those of you who have not yet done so, please read www.mjfacts.info. This site is extensively researched and it is difficult to dispute any of the arguments put forward, However, the writer puts some excellent counter arguments forward which totally dismiss the defences used by Michael Jackson fans.

My feeling, having read as much available evidence as is possible, including the trial transcripts and more, is that Michael Jackson was undoubtedly a predator. However, we can only ever have opinions. The truth lies with the boys.
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:15
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
he went on trial and was found innocent. anyway you should research the full story and you too will realize that he was innocent if you haven't then you have no right to comment

He went on trail and was found 'not guilty'. There is no such thing as an' innocent' verdict.

Of course Michael Jackson's case was helped by the 5 million dollar lawyer he employed to discredit the accusers, and by his own reluctance to take the stand.

Sadly cases can be won and lost on the sharpness of the acting attorneys. Michael Jackson had the money to pay the every best of the bunch, and he didn't let him down. I find it interesting that after the case was over, 2 of the jurors said that they had wanted a guilty verdict but had their voices drowned out by a vociferous head of jury - the same head of jury who was out partying with the Jackson team later that week.

Things that make you go hmmm.....
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:19
Mrs BBV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,506
To be fair to MJ there haven't exactly been a deluge of victims coming forward since his death. Unlike JS.
Mrs BBV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:19
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
Oh I wondered how long it would be before MJ was brought into this. Here's the difference, I say it again, in 1994 two seperate grand juries examined the evidence and rejected it, according to one there were so many contradictions and story changes by the accuser, in 2005 after months in court a jury found him not guilty, for the same reason. If anyone was abused it was MJ.

Saville is dead, he cannot refute these allegations which the media are only too pleased to assume he is guilty of. I think he probably is but we don't know until these stories are investigated, people kept quiet for years and only came forward when a TV documentary was being made, that has to make you wonder.

In all of this nobody mentions how Elvis moved a fourteen year old Precilla into his home, everyone accepted there was no inappropriate behaviour, and maybe there wasn't but I bet underage sex was as rife amoung stars since ever they existed. If these allegations are true there should be action taken against people who allowed it to continue, but let's not start bringing other unproven accusations against other people into it.

As a point of note, Priscilla was 18 when she moved to Graceland.
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:23
sparkle22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,037
there is a guy called terry george from leeds who said they had a phone friendship then he asked him to do things.
If you know what I mean touching etc he was 13 jackson was 21 and then the friendship stopped but years later he called.
And the guy in question said he believed michael was innocent over child abuse claims I do personally believe he was trying to make up for his lost childhood.
I also believe michael was bi-sexual and possibly due to his background jehovah witness was not able to express this side of himself I also might add that evan chandler was a screenwriter who wanted to make a name for himself.
And when michael refused to give him some money that's when he turned jordy was also estranged from his parents for many years michael may have been strange but I don't believe he was a proper pedophile.
sparkle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:28
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
The case files stated the mother in question's evidence was actually hilarious. But due to the severity of the accusation it was taken seriously as we'd expect. The media didn't even report the trial properly. I think he was probably asexual and innocent too. He wasn't ever a real sexual person IMO. He was a very special person. If he did it, he'd go down, there surely would be enough evidence. Jordy Chandler even said his father lied, and the kids whose mother sued him said they had meetings about what to say. In court the kids stories were different and varied upon cross examination. It makes perfect sense. Pay someone off to shut up. But they got greedy and wanted more. He had a decent legal team, (I do law at uni) I've seen the amount of uk only files against the media here. It is collosal. I was shocked, (they're all for libel mostly) at the amount. There was a comment made by the father of Jordy saying :' I hate MJ, I'm gonna get that ******'. It's clear he did it out of pure hate.

Jimmy on the other hand...well, he just abused his position. And used charity to cover it up and to get closer to kids.
Jordan never said that his father lied. That in itself is a lie. As for the comments from Evan Chandler, are you aware that the tape from where those comments came was heavily censored and pieced together by Anthony Pellicano, one of Michael Jackson's henchmen?

As for the kids stories wavering on the stand, yes they did, but I think that yours and mine might do too if we were faced with one of the US's best lawyers and his ability to put you under pressure. He was just a little boy recovering from cancer. Even if MJ didn't sexually abuse him (we will never know with certainty) there is no doubt that he physically abused him by plying his recovering body with alcohol. Those are not the actions of a loving and protective adult.
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:31
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
It is possible to make a penis erect whilst a person sleeps you know. Men get them all the time during dreams naturally (hence why they wake up with them). That proves nothing. He was cleared of the drugging charge, which would've required bodily evidence. It was a court case based on a lie, a badly constructed one at that. Easy to believe due to the situation, but under cross examination all 20+ charges fell apart. You get done if there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which can be easy to prove in these kind of cases.

Why would a grown man share a bed with a teenage boy and sleep in the nude? Come on, you are really reaching with that excuse. And there were 14 charges, not 20+
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:48
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
there is a guy called terry george from leeds who said they had a phone friendship then he asked him to do things.
If you know what I mean touching etc he was 13 jackson was 21 and then the friendship stopped but years later he called.
And the guy in question said he believed michael was innocent over child abuse claims I do personally believe he was trying to make up for his lost childhood.
I also believe michael was bi-sexual and possibly due to his background jehovah witness was not able to express this side of himself I also might add that evan chandler was a screenwriter who wanted to make a name for himself.
And when michael refused to give him some money that's when he turned jordy was also estranged from his parents for many years michael may have been strange but I don't believe he was a proper pedophile.
How do you define a proper pedophile?
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 17:55
Dan Fortesque
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 22,961
To be fair to MJ there haven't exactly been a deluge of victims coming forward since his death. Unlike JS.
Unless the media report it we'll never know.
Dan Fortesque is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 18:26
whatever54
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,977
Unless the media report it we'll never know.
you're right and given the media interest in JS, I would imagine they'd be equally rubbing their hands with glee at exposing MJ. The fact they have not reported anything, makes me wonder (possibly naively but I don't think so) if there really is nothing to report.
whatever54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 18:45
emzi27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 940
he went on trial and was found innocent. anyway you should research the full story and you too will realize that he was innocent if you haven't then you have no right to comment
Have to say I agree that I don't think MJ was a child molester.
I have done a huge amount of research on it over the past few years and read all the court transcripts. So much to support his innocence. Tom Sneddon absolutely had it in for him. A few things that convinced me MJ was innocent was the recording of Evan Chandler (who later commited suicide) saying he was going to destroy Michael Jackson's career and win big. Also the Arvizo family had also tried to extort other celebrities in the past. There is plenty of other things that suggested to me he wasn't a pedophile but I won't list them all. The journalist Aphrodite Jones' book is fantastic. She started out thinking he was guilty like a lot of people did but after studying the trial came to the conclusion he was innocent. Obviously there's no absolute proof he didn't do anything untoward, I have to admit if he was still alive and wanted my son to go for a sleepover I would have to say no lol but I don't think in my opinion MJ and Jimmy saville are in any way similar.
emzi27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 18:51
XFactorFanatic1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,699
Michael was nothing on Jimmy. Michael was king and proven innocent. His 'victims' came forward and said they were lying. Sadly it was too late, this would be the beginning of the death of Michael Jackson.
XFactorFanatic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 18:53
XFactorFanatic1
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,699
I believe he did but that doesn't make him a child abuser. Didn't the court find he did sleep with them in his bed but there was no intimacies! Just someone who was extremely naive and very badly advised by his entourage.

I agree MJ was a weirdo but judging by the stories coming out (his kids weren't conceived by sex) He didn't like to be intimate with anyone except kids and then it wasn't sexual. Of course this is all my opinion

I think MJ was desperate to relive his lost childhood hence the fairground and zoo in his garden and having kids over to play (innocently!)
Preach! I have said this since day one.
XFactorFanatic1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2012, 20:13
KatManDooo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 21
Michael was nothing on Jimmy. Michael was king and proven innocent. His 'victims' came forward and said they were lying. Sadly it was too late, this would be the beginning of the death of Michael Jackson.
Not one of Wacko's victims has ever recanted. Stop lying.
KatManDooo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33.