"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.
Utter rubbish from Jackson, it's Jackson's signature on the documents not someone from some secret insurance company. The lawyer for Chandler had no objection to the details of the settlement being made available to the court, it was Jackson who didn't want the financial details revealed.
If the settlement was between an insurance company and the family then there was no need for Jackson & his legal team to sign any documents.
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.
The other theory I have on the 'payoff' is that Jackson and his advisors had many other things they wanted to hide such as his drug habit and would have wanted to avoid a trial that would reveal such details.
You have to remember that in 1993 he was the biggest star on the planet, and while seen as increasingly odd with an addiction to plastic surgery...we knew nowhere near as much about his off stage antics as we do now. I think they thought they could pay Jordie off, get Jackson back out on tour and the whole thing would blow over, instead its became a cloud over the rest of his life.
again I have very mixed thoughts on the 'payoff' why pay out $20million if you're innocent? but then why accept money when your child has suffered so badly he's in therapy? add in the stories that the insurance company did the payoff by themselves and as with a lot of Jackson related things its not simple!
The other theory I have on the 'payoff' is that Jackson and his advisors had many other things they wanted to hide such as his drug habit and would have wanted to avoid a trial that would reveal such details.
You have to remember that in 1993 he was the biggest star on the planet, and while seen as increasingly odd with an addiction to plastic surgery...we knew nowhere near as much about his off stage antics as we do now. I think they thought they could pay Jordie off, get Jackson back out on tour and the whole thing would blow over, instead its became a cloud over the rest of his life.
again I have very mixed thoughts on the 'payoff' why pay out $20million if you're innocent? but then why accept money when your child has suffered so badly he's in therapy? add in the stories that the insurance company did the payoff by themselves and as with a lot of Jackson related things its not simple!
Evidence from the case brought by Katherine Jackson shows before the child abuse case erupted in 1993 he had a Demerol problem and was sleeping with young boys at night. Debbie Rowe went on the first part of the Dangerous tour and injected Jackson she gave evidence of him being given Propofol in a hotel room in 1997.
Something else that came apparent from his mother's case was that Jackson was a liar.
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.
Apologies, wrong poster, but no I don't agree it was abuse of power. MJ was a pop idol to many people and the kids parents allowed it to happen and obviously trusted him. I very much doubt "pedophile" enter their minds at the time of those events.
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?
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
Apologies, wrong poster, but no I don't agree it was abuse of power. MJ was a pop idol to many people and the kids parents allowed it to happen and obviously trusted him. I very much doubt "pedophile" enter their minds at the time of those events.
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
The poster probably assumed that if you don't think it's wrong, you would let your child do it.
Apologies, wrong poster,but no I don't agree it was abuse of power. MJ was a pop idol to many people and the kids parents allowed it to happen and obviously trusted him. I very much doubt "pedophile" enter their minds at the time of those events.
There you go abuse of power, had it been any other man do you think these parents would allow their children to do this? this was MJ the biggest star on the planet and MJ knew this, he could get anything he wanted, using his celebrity status and the things he could offer, that is an abuse of power...I don't know how you cannot see that.
The parents also must shoulder responsibility as well, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
Why are people assuming this...you have not yet condoned his actions, you are making excuses for him, and you still haven't answered the posters question "would you allow your children an unsupervised sleepover with MJ?" if you answer no, then you agree MJ's actions, antics where wrong...but you have already made it clear you agree with the law, so you don't see his actions as wrong. So we must assume that your answer would be yes to the question.
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
I'm assuming it because you've said you don't think it's wrong for an adult male to share a bed with a child who isn't related to them. So it stands to reason that you'd feel comfortable allowing your children to sleep with Michael Jackson (a man who isn't related to them) since you've said there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure why you're deliberately avoiding answering the question.
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?
Good post. You've raised some interesting points there.
I'm assuming it because you've said you don't think it's wrong for an adult male to share a bed with a child who isn't related to them. So it stands to reason that you'd feel comfortable allowing your children to sleep with Michael Jackson (a man who isn't related to them) since you've said there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure why you're deliberately avoiding answering the question.
Yes RG, you're making some very good posts. Frankly, if a grown man wanted to be friends with my young son, I'd think it was bloody weird, even if the guy was a massive pop star, and it would stop there.
Fair enough, sharing a bed with a child who's a niece/nephew/son/daughter/grandchild/cousin/younger sibling is not disgusting or wrong, but a child you hardly know? Who would allow that? There's no need for it either given that Jacko could afford a few guest beds anyway. There was something dodgy and not right about the whole thing.
I'm assuming it because you've said you don't think it's wrong for an adult male to share a bed with a child who isn't related to them. So it stands to reason that you'd feel comfortable allowing your children to sleep with Michael Jackson (a man who isn't related to them) since you've said there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure why you're deliberately avoiding answering the question.
Just because I say something is not wrong, doesn't mean I would feel comfortable with it.
Let's say for example a woman walking the streets alone at night (or even a man) I think you would agree that it's not wrong but for health and safety reasons, it's not a very good idea.
Smoking - it's not wrong, but it is a health risk, therefore I would not encourage a youngster to take up smoking.
Sleepovers - its not wrong but again I would not encourage it, it's a risk I personally would not take.
The above I've just stated are not wrong and not illegal but they all involve risks that I think should be best avoided.
I don't get why people wait so long to come out with these claims if they are 'true'
According to surveys 80% of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported and few end in convictions.
It was near impossible for a jury to find Michael Jackson guilty in a criminal court. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. With a rich client and a poor accuser, to raise doubt all the defense has to argue is that the accuser is lying to get money. This was the strategy in the 2005 case. Short of incidents being filmed or witnessed by third parties the jury was never going to convict.
Michael Jackson was a misfit. Simple as. Anyone in everyday society behaving as he did would have been either locked up or shunned. by any right minded person. Because he was a worldwide icon, he gets excused the most inappropriate and unhealthy behaviour which others get condemned for.
Damaged goods who inflicted plenty of damage on people close to him. Buying off women to have children for him and then giving them an isolated, motherless childhood wearing blankets on their heads in public? Hmmmm, how is that a loving father? No sorry, a thoroughly selfish, self centred man who thought money could buy him anyone and anything and just because he loved his kids doesn't mean he did right by them or put them first. He didn't. It was always about what he wanted. Any normal Joe behaving as he did would have had the social services removing their children in a heartbeat.
Even if you can argue that his motives were entirely innocent, would you really send your pre pubescent child to a middle aged man's house to sleep in his bed and play kiddie games? Is that the kind of influence you would want your child to have??
Michael Jackson was a misfit. Simple as. Anyone in everyday society behaving as he did would have been either locked up or shunned. by any right minded person. Because he was a worldwide icon, he gets excused the most inappropriate and unhealthy behaviour which others get condemned for.
I agree that the only reason his disturbing behaviour wasn't looked into by social services or whoever was because he was a mega star. Any average person doing exactly the same thing as he did, they'd have been arrested and charged. The things he got away with was unbelievable. Anyone dangling their child from a balcony would have had a visit from the social services or whatever they're called in America. His mega star status was the only thing that kept him out of prison. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was Michael Jackson fans on the jury as well.
Apologies, wrong poster, but no I don't agree it was abuse of power. MJ was a pop idol to many people and the kids parents allowed it to happen and obviously trusted him. I very much doubt "pedophile" enter their minds at the time of those events.
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
You've just described exactly an abuse of power. He used his position as a extremely rich, extremely famous man to coerce/persuade/bribe these people into allowing him to "entertain" their children unsupervised. If he had been just some random man on the street, they would have undoubtedly refused, but allowed it because of Jackson's status. He abused the power his position gave him in order to gain access to those children.
Whether he sexually abused them or not, I have no idea. The fact that he paid at least one accuser (possibly more) off is highly suspicious. You don't pay, at least you don't pay $20m, if you are completely innocent. Either he did do it, OR he didn't want embarrassing details about his drug use etc. to come out, as they inevitably would in a trial.
Anything else to add? The more that come out of the woodwork so justice is done the better, a child abuser like MJ needs to be brought to justice.
I will call him a child abuser as well, he abused his power and he will have emotionally abused these children, he may not have done anything more than that but it is still abuse.
Anything else to add? The more that come out of the woodwork so justice is done the better, a child abuser like MJ needs to be brought to justice.
I will call him a child abuser as well, he abused his power and he will have emotionally abused these children, he may not have done anything more than that but it is still abuse.
The only justice that will be done will be that yet another false claim intended to fraudulently make money will go nowhere.
The only justice that will be done will be that yet another false claim intended to fraudulently make money will go nowhere.
How do you know it's a false claim....the one thing for sure is that MJ slept with children and that is a fact, what went on behind those doors only MJ and his victims know. And to be honest they should be able to get as much money out of the estate as possible, he should never have been allowed to get away with abusing his power like he did.
The only justice that will be done will be that yet another false claim intended to fraudulently make money will go nowhere.
Bingo. You've proved my earlier point. He can't be guilty because anyone accusing him could be lying to get his money. If he was poor he'd probably have been convicted but he was rich so he got off.
How do you know it's a false claim....the one thing for sure is that MJ slept with children and that is a fact, what went on behind those doors only MJ and his victims know. And to be honest they should be able to get as much money out of the estate as possible, he should never have been allowed to get away with abusing his power like he did.
Once again, sleepovers are not illegal. What part of this do you not understand?
Aye, I corrected the poster so yes everything is fine now.
Once again, sleepovers are not illegal. What part of this do you not understand?
Illegal or not, what part do you not understand that is not right for a grown man to sleep with children, abusing his power. Just stop trying to defend him. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it okay and that it is fine to do.
Once again, sleepovers are not illegal. What part of this do you not understand?
If there was a man in a neighbourhood that regularly took children to sleep in his bed, I think usually the authorities would have significant concerns about it & act to stop it pretty quickly. The fact he was able to do it for so long without interference indicates the power of fame to pull the wool over ordinary people & the state's eyes.
Aye, I corrected the poster so yes everything is fine now.
Once again, sleepovers are not illegal. What part of this do you not understand?
worryingly this view that its not illegal so it is perfectly fine is very common with the MJ supporters.
how can it be fine to sleep with other peoples pre pubescent boys ?
even if nothing happened which i very much doubt it is still fundamentally wrong and disgusting behaviour for a grown up to partake in , no matter who they are.
worryingly this view that its not illegal so it is perfectly fine is very common with the MJ supporters. how can it be fine to sleep with other peoples pre pubescent boys ?
even if nothing happened which i very much doubt it is still fundamentally wrong and disgusting behaviour for a grown up to partake in , no matter who they are.
Comments
Utter rubbish from Jackson, it's Jackson's signature on the documents not someone from some secret insurance company. The lawyer for Chandler had no objection to the details of the settlement being made available to the court, it was Jackson who didn't want the financial details revealed.
If the settlement was between an insurance company and the family then there was no need for Jackson & his legal team to sign any documents.
The other theory I have on the 'payoff' is that Jackson and his advisors had many other things they wanted to hide such as his drug habit and would have wanted to avoid a trial that would reveal such details.
You have to remember that in 1993 he was the biggest star on the planet, and while seen as increasingly odd with an addiction to plastic surgery...we knew nowhere near as much about his off stage antics as we do now. I think they thought they could pay Jordie off, get Jackson back out on tour and the whole thing would blow over, instead its became a cloud over the rest of his life.
again I have very mixed thoughts on the 'payoff' why pay out $20million if you're innocent? but then why accept money when your child has suffered so badly he's in therapy? add in the stories that the insurance company did the payoff by themselves and as with a lot of Jackson related things its not simple!
Evidence from the case brought by Katherine Jackson shows before the child abuse case erupted in 1993 he had a Demerol problem and was sleeping with young boys at night. Debbie Rowe went on the first part of the Dangerous tour and injected Jackson she gave evidence of him being given Propofol in a hotel room in 1997.
Something else that came apparent from his mother's case was that Jackson was a liar.
Apologies, wrong poster, but no I don't agree it was abuse of power. MJ was a pop idol to many people and the kids parents allowed it to happen and obviously trusted him. I very much doubt "pedophile" enter their minds at the time of those events.
Why are you assuming this? I was disagreeing with a poster who described an adult sleeping with a child as being wrong, disgusting and illegal.
The poster probably assumed that if you don't think it's wrong, you would let your child do it.
Why are people assuming this...you have not yet condoned his actions, you are making excuses for him, and you still haven't answered the posters question "would you allow your children an unsupervised sleepover with MJ?" if you answer no, then you agree MJ's actions, antics where wrong...but you have already made it clear you agree with the law, so you don't see his actions as wrong. So we must assume that your answer would be yes to the question.
I'm assuming it because you've said you don't think it's wrong for an adult male to share a bed with a child who isn't related to them. So it stands to reason that you'd feel comfortable allowing your children to sleep with Michael Jackson (a man who isn't related to them) since you've said there's nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure why you're deliberately avoiding answering the question.
Good post. You've raised some interesting points there.
Yes RG, you're making some very good posts. Frankly, if a grown man wanted to be friends with my young son, I'd think it was bloody weird, even if the guy was a massive pop star, and it would stop there.
Fair enough, sharing a bed with a child who's a niece/nephew/son/daughter/grandchild/cousin/younger sibling is not disgusting or wrong, but a child you hardly know? Who would allow that? There's no need for it either given that Jacko could afford a few guest beds anyway. There was something dodgy and not right about the whole thing.
Just because I say something is not wrong, doesn't mean I would feel comfortable with it.
Let's say for example a woman walking the streets alone at night (or even a man) I think you would agree that it's not wrong but for health and safety reasons, it's not a very good idea.
Smoking - it's not wrong, but it is a health risk, therefore I would not encourage a youngster to take up smoking.
Sleepovers - its not wrong but again I would not encourage it, it's a risk I personally would not take.
The above I've just stated are not wrong and not illegal but they all involve risks that I think should be best avoided.
oh thats ok then , that makes it all perfectly fine and normal (sarcastic face)
According to surveys 80% of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported and few end in convictions.
It was near impossible for a jury to find Michael Jackson guilty in a criminal court. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. With a rich client and a poor accuser, to raise doubt all the defense has to argue is that the accuser is lying to get money. This was the strategy in the 2005 case. Short of incidents being filmed or witnessed by third parties the jury was never going to convict.
Damaged goods who inflicted plenty of damage on people close to him. Buying off women to have children for him and then giving them an isolated, motherless childhood wearing blankets on their heads in public? Hmmmm, how is that a loving father? No sorry, a thoroughly selfish, self centred man who thought money could buy him anyone and anything and just because he loved his kids doesn't mean he did right by them or put them first. He didn't. It was always about what he wanted. Any normal Joe behaving as he did would have had the social services removing their children in a heartbeat.
Even if you can argue that his motives were entirely innocent, would you really send your pre pubescent child to a middle aged man's house to sleep in his bed and play kiddie games? Is that the kind of influence you would want your child to have??
I agree that the only reason his disturbing behaviour wasn't looked into by social services or whoever was because he was a mega star. Any average person doing exactly the same thing as he did, they'd have been arrested and charged. The things he got away with was unbelievable. Anyone dangling their child from a balcony would have had a visit from the social services or whatever they're called in America. His mega star status was the only thing that kept him out of prison. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was Michael Jackson fans on the jury as well.
You've just described exactly an abuse of power. He used his position as a extremely rich, extremely famous man to coerce/persuade/bribe these people into allowing him to "entertain" their children unsupervised. If he had been just some random man on the street, they would have undoubtedly refused, but allowed it because of Jackson's status. He abused the power his position gave him in order to gain access to those children.
Whether he sexually abused them or not, I have no idea. The fact that he paid at least one accuser (possibly more) off is highly suspicious. You don't pay, at least you don't pay $20m, if you are completely innocent. Either he did do it, OR he didn't want embarrassing details about his drug use etc. to come out, as they inevitably would in a trial.
Anything else to add? The more that come out of the woodwork so justice is done the better, a child abuser like MJ needs to be brought to justice.
I will call him a child abuser as well, he abused his power and he will have emotionally abused these children, he may not have done anything more than that but it is still abuse.
The only justice that will be done will be that yet another false claim intended to fraudulently make money will go nowhere.
How do you know it's a false claim....the one thing for sure is that MJ slept with children and that is a fact, what went on behind those doors only MJ and his victims know. And to be honest they should be able to get as much money out of the estate as possible, he should never have been allowed to get away with abusing his power like he did.
Bingo. You've proved my earlier point. He can't be guilty because anyone accusing him could be lying to get his money. If he was poor he'd probably have been convicted but he was rich so he got off.
Aye, I corrected the poster so yes everything is fine now.
Once again, sleepovers are not illegal. What part of this do you not understand?
Illegal or not, what part do you not understand that is not right for a grown man to sleep with children, abusing his power. Just stop trying to defend him. Just because it isn't illegal doesn't make it okay and that it is fine to do.
worryingly this view that its not illegal so it is perfectly fine is very common with the MJ supporters.
how can it be fine to sleep with other peoples pre pubescent boys ?
even if nothing happened which i very much doubt it is still fundamentally wrong and disgusting behaviour for a grown up to partake in , no matter who they are.
It never has been, nor ever will be 'fine'. >:(
Mind you some people struggle with the truth.
Have a look at this.
http://www.charlesmansonfanclub.com/