Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Michael Jackson and JImmy Savile...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2013, 14:30
L-una
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 179
I'm sorry but why was an adult sharing a bed with a child that wasn't his own anyway? If creepy Joe from down the road was inviting children to share his bed would people be so quick to believe it was all innocent?
I see what you are saying,and he was certainly naive and stupid to allow it to happen.It just looks bad doesn't it and boy did he pay the price for an error of judgement.I honestly believe that it never occured to him that was he was doing could be construed as anything but him having a sleepover.Misguided certainly but his intention was never to hurt anyone.

Presumably if creepy Joe from down the road invited your 7 year old to spend the night you wouldn't agree to it in the first place? That was my point.Would you let your child spend the night anywhere you didn't trust the adults?
L-una is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-04-2013, 14:45
pinkpowerranger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 816
I see what you are saying,and he was certainly naive and stupid to allow it to happen.It just looks bad doesn't it and boy did he pay the price for an error of judgement.I honestly believe that it never occured to him that was he was doing could be construed as anything but him having a sleepover.Misguided certainly but his intention was never to hurt anyone.

Presumably if creepy Joe from down the road invited your 7 year old to spend the night you wouldn't agree to it in the first place? That was my point.Would you let your child spend the night anywhere you didn't trust the adults?
Perhaps he naive pre Jordy but then to do it again is ridiculous. Of course the parents of the children should also shoulder some of the responsibility, but I mean look at how many people say when a famous person is accused of something they don't believe that person could do it. It's as though people think they know that person personally just because they have seen them on television and liked their movies or music.
pinkpowerranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 17:30
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I'm sorry but why was an adult sharing a bed with a child that wasn't his own anyway? If creepy Joe from down the road was inviting children to share his bed would people be so quick to believe it was all innocent?
What you don't understand is the context of 'sharing a bed'. Most people create an awful picture in their mind of Michael cuddling up to a child naked under the covers, when infact there's no evidence that ever happened.

Macauley Culkin stated in the 2005 trial that he only ever slept on top the covers in Michael's bed and had always been wearing his clothes. He said they would fall asleep everywhere, in the theatre, in the arcade room, and sometimes they would simply watch a movie led on Michael's bed and would fall asleep before it finished.

Also, when Michael said he 'shared his bed' with Gavin Arvizo in the Bashir interview, he went on to clarify that he meant he allowed the boy to use his bed while he slept on the floor in a sleeping bag.

People like to take the term 'sharing a bed' and twist it to suit their own agenda, but the fact is, there are numerous people like Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Michael's own cousins that have admitted staying in his room overnight and that nothing sexual ever happened. The only people that accused him of any wrongdoing were proven fraudsters.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:13
jzee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,161
What you don't understand is the context of 'sharing a bed'. Most people create an awful picture in their mind of Michael cuddling up to a child naked under the covers, when infact there's no evidence that ever happened.
Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land, what about the pornography, and the books of nude photographs of children in Jackson's house, what about the painting of himself nude surrounded by naked children? There isn't really any doubt he had any unhealthy interest in children.

The only people that accused him of any wrongdoing were proven fraudsters.
Neither Chandler or Arviso were 'proven fraudsters', the jury just didn't find Jackson guilty. As I said earlier, a priest has now said Jackson did abuse him, the only reason he said it didn't happen at the Arviso trial was because he was a teenager at the time & thought people would see him as gay if he admitted it.
jzee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:26
sparkle22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,026
read unmasked by ian helpin sorry it's well known jordie's father just wanted michael to finance his film projects.
he was also recorded in a conversation stating he was going to bring michael down jordie also refused to testify.
I know he was only 13 but surely if michael was an abuser he would not have missed the chance to testify at the 2005 trial.
I believe yes maybe michael did experiment but I don't believe he would have intentially abused anyone.
as pointed out many of the boys he slept with have all claimed as adults that he didn't abuse them.
sparkle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:48
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land, what about the pornography, and the books of nude photographs of children in Jackson's house, what about the painting of himself nude surrounded by naked children? There isn't really any doubt he had any unhealthy interest in children.
1. Only regular heterosexual porn was found, so that's irrelevant.
2. He also had paintings commisioned of him with animals. Are you going to claim he was into beastiality? Doesn't add any credibility to the Chandler's or Arvizo's allegations.

Neither Chandler or Arviso were 'proven fraudsters', the jury just didn't find Jackson guilty. As I said earlier, a priest has now said Jackson did abuse him, the only reason he said it didn't happen at the Arviso trial was because he was a teenager at the time & thought people would see him as gay if he admitted it.
Read my previous post on the Chandler's. Evan Chandler is recorded as saying to a friend at the time 'I hired the nastiest son of a ***** lawyer and i will get everything i want. My son's welfare is irrelevant to me'. If you knew your child had been molested, would you call the police or a lawyer? He was a manipulative psycho and Jordy eventually gained legal emancipation from both his parents and never spoke to them again after the whole fiasco.

Janet Arvizo was proven to have previously extorted $150,000 from J.C Penney, when she was shown to have been caught shoplifting and was tackled by security guards. She claimed the guards abused her and the store settled to avoid bad publicity.

Chris Tucker and Jay Leno both have said that Janet Arvizo tried to get close to them with her son in the same way she did with MJ and that they were very suspicious of her motives. The Arvizo allegations were full of holes. Both the boy's had wildly different stories on different days of testimony and neither of the boys claims matched with the other. They claimed that Jackson held them hostage in neverland and wouldn't let them leave, which was later laughed off in court by the staff who worked there. Neverland staff also testified that the Arvizo boys were extremely rude and regularly mis-behaved on the grounds, e.g breaking into the wine cellar. A member of the kitchen staff said that Gavin even pulled a knife on them. Gavin's brother, star, actually admitted that he had lied under oath.

Janet Arvizo was also under investigation for welfare fraud and had been falsely obtaining money for her son's illness, holding benefits to pay for his cancer treatment when he was already covered by insurance.

So no, i'm not living in cloud cuckoo land, i've carefully analysed the evidence in both cases, and like the police in the first case and the jury in the second case, i agree that neither of them are credible. But you know better, right?
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 18:54
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
What puzzles me is that MJ paid off Jordy Chandler. Why would he pay $25million to someone he didn't abuse?
It was $15M and was negotiated and paid by his insurance company. Court documents explicitly stated that it didn't prevent the Chandler's from testiying in any possible criminal trial.

Thanks for playing.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 21:49
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,179
It was $15M and was negotiated and paid by his insurance company. Court documents explicitly stated that it didn't prevent the Chandler's from testiying in any possible criminal trial.

Thanks for playing.
I think you'll find it was the deceitful proven liar Michael Jackson who said a insurance company paid the money.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 21:51
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
I think you'll find it was the deceitful proven liar Michael Jackson who said a insurance company paid the money.
Find me the quote where he says such a thing? He never once said himself that it was his insurance company that paid it.

The court document's state that “the 1993 civil settlement was made by Mr. Jackson’s
insurance company and was not within Mr. Jackson’s control… The settlement
agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by
Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the
settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.”
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 22:10
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 43,149
I'm sorry but why was an adult sharing a bed with a child that wasn't his own anyway? If creepy Joe from down the road was inviting children to share his bed would people be so quick to believe it was all innocent?
Michael Jackson wasn't an ordinary adult. He lived in a theme park. He had never grown up. He liked the company of children. Doesn't make him a child molester. Nor does allowing them to sleep in his bed make him a child molester.

Why did parents allow their children to spend so much time with him if the very concept was so wrong? And remember, other young people who spent time with MJ testified he didn't lay a finger on them.

What puzzles me is that MJ paid off Jordy Chandler. Why would he pay $25million to someone he didn't abuse?
The theory would be that MJ or perhaps people close to him wanted the "problem" to go away. Now that doesn't automatically make MJ guilty. But perhaps it meant they felt money was an easier way of making the situation go away than going all the way to trial and potentially trashing his career. The suggestion is that the Chandler Dad knew this and that MJ's "unique" fondness of young peoples company and sleep overs etc left him wide open to an extortion attempt.

This clip is more about the other case I think but still worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhNd3C7dCc
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 22:52
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,179
Find me the quote where he says such a thing? He never once said himself that it was his insurance company that paid it.

The court document's state that “the 1993 civil settlement was made by Mr. Jackson’s
insurance company and was not within Mr. Jackson’s control… The settlement
agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by
Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the
settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.”
Who supplied that document, who is being quoted?
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 23:03
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Who supplied that document, who is being quoted?
That is from the court papers. Although it was omitted from the originally redacted documents leaked to the press, evidence by virtue of an attorney memorandum was submitted to court in the 2005 trial by Tom Mesereau because he was opposing the prosecutions claim of prior evidence. Here's the link.

http://www.mj-777.com/03_2005memo.pdf

As i said, please provide me the quote where MJ himself said his insurance paid it? You haven't because you can't

Even so, it's a relatively minor issue in a case full of huge holes. I've already proven beyond doubt that the Chandler allegations were fradulent.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 09:00
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,179
That is from the court papers. Although it was omitted from the originally redacted documents leaked to the press, evidence by virtue of an attorney memorandum was submitted to court in the 2005 trial by Tom Mesereau because he was opposing the prosecutions claim of prior evidence. Here's the link.

http://www.mj-777.com/03_2005memo.pdf

As i said, please provide me the quote where MJ himself said his insurance paid it? You haven't because you can't

Even so, it's a relatively minor issue in a case full of huge holes. I've already proven beyond doubt that the Chandler allegations were fradulent.
That 'court paper' is an objection on behalf of Michael Jackson where he 'says' the things to which you referred, Michael Jackson did not want the full settlement details revealed.

Mr. Michael Jackson submits this Memorandum in support of his (Michael Jackson) Objection to Supoena of Settlement Documents from Larry Feldman.
The Memorandum is signed by attorney R. Brian Oxman, do I need to say more?

Hopefully you understand it is Michael Jackson's version of the contents of documents he doesn't want revealed.

Larry Feldman who was a party to the settlement was quite happy to have the particular documents unsealed in 2005 Michael Jackson strongly opposed the idea, which is strange if he paid nought.

-------

Something that gets overlooked is that the court itself would have appointed someone to protect the interests of the child regarding the finances from a settlement.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 09:05
daveycrocket222
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,946
How many people have come out and said they or their children were abused by MJ after he died though?
In this day and age people just after a quick buck.
daveycrocket222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-04-2013, 14:59
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
That 'court paper' is an objection on behalf of Michael Jackson where he 'says' the things to which you referred, Michael Jackson did not want the full settlement details revealed.

Hopefully you understand it is Michael Jackson's version of the contents of documents he doesn't want revealed.

Larry Feldman who was a party to the settlement was quite happy to have the particular documents unsealed in 2005 Michael Jackson strongly opposed the idea, which is strange if he paid nought.
Tom Mesereau opposed their inclusion because they had no relevance to the 2005 trial and it was seen as depserate tactics by the prosecution to muddy the waters. It wasn't that Michael was afraid of the contents being revealed because he was an innocent man and had nothing to hide. Please don't tell me you think the civil settlement implies Jackson's guilt because i've covered this in detail already.

As i said it's still such a minor issue to argue about. It would've made no difference to the verdict. Tom Mesereau has said Jordy refused to tesitfy, for obvious reasons, and even if he did, he had witnesses who would come in and say that he told them it never happened.

The prosecution was so desperate, they tried to introduce evidence of 'prior bad acts' by saying that former neverland employees witnessed other victims abused. Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macauley Culkin were the defences first three witnesses and testified that nothing ever happened. It turned out these employees had all previously been fired for stealing property from Jackson.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2013, 10:30
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,179
Tom Mesereau was hired to represent Michael Jackson it would be bizarre if said negative things about a client.

A defence lawyer is there to say things that are in the best interests of a client and in Amercia that can mean outside the court as well as inside.

The document intially referred to as 'court papers' are no more than a statement from Michael Jackson put together by his legal team, primarily it would seem by Barry Oxman.

A month later Mon 25 April 2005....

Jackson family lawyer Brian Oxman has been sacked by the singer's lead attorney, Thomas Mesereau.

The first sign that something was amiss came when Mr Oxman was publicly humiliated in the courtroom.

He was ordered by the bailiff to leave the lawyers' area in the well of the court and take a seat in the public gallery.

Then, at close of play, in the car park, he was subjected to what looked like very public dressing down by finger-wagging Mr Mesereau.

.....it has been obvious to any courtroom observer that the two lawyers have been at loggerheads for weeks.

Mr Oxman, who was forced to sit behind his colleagues, was often dismissed by a flick of the hand when he tried to get in on a conversation.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2013, 17:54
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Tom Mesereau was hired to represent Michael Jackson it would be bizarre if said negative things about a client.

A defence lawyer is there to say things that are in the best interests of a client and in Amercia that can mean outside the court as well as inside.

The document intially referred to as 'court papers' are no more than a statement from Michael Jackson put together by his legal team, primarily it would seem by Barry Oxman.

A month later Mon 25 April 2005....
So your proof that Michael Jackson was a paedophile are silly ad hominem attacks on his lawyers and associates. Desperation.

You completely ignore that both cases are full of huge holes. Almost every single prosecution witness in 2005 perjured themselves or was more helpful to the defence. Janet Arvizo was a proven fraudster and tried to claim that MJ had somehow held her and her children captive in Neverland. During the trial, staff from the property laughed off that anyone could be held captive and log books and receipts proved she had left the grounds at least three times in that time period.

The two boys Gavin and Star, both had wildly different stories in different testimonies, more that which could be attributed to bad memory. Gavin also claimed that the molestation was instigated by Michael telling them "all boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists". Tom Mesereau proved that he had previously admitted that it was his grandma who told him that, not MJ. So the whole allegations were essentially predicated upon a lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle..._b_610258.html
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2013, 23:18
sparkle22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,026
i'm more of a casual fan and I thought he may have been guilty but now believe he is innocent.
he was not a normal adult due to his childhood he should not have invited gavin to stay in his bed however innocent.
and risk what happened a second time but it seems his good nature was taken advantage of several times.
sparkle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-04-2013, 23:57
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,521
Michael Jackson is the only person I can think of who makes Jimmy Savile seem comparatively normal.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2013, 00:10
Gilbertoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 16,880
As unbelievable as it sounds, MJ stayed at my friends house for two week. This took place shortly after the Jordi Chandler accusations surfaced in the early '90s ('93?).

From what I heard, I've no doubt in my mind that MJ did sleep with children.....but in a completely non-sexual way.
Gilbertoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2013, 09:24
L-una
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 179
So your proof that Michael Jackson was a paedophile are silly ad hominem attacks on his lawyers and associates. Desperation.

You completely ignore that both cases are full of huge holes. Almost every single prosecution witness in 2005 perjured themselves or was more helpful to the defence. Janet Arvizo was a proven fraudster and tried to claim that MJ had somehow held her and her children captive in Neverland. During the trial, staff from the property laughed off that anyone could be held captive and log books and receipts proved she had left the grounds at least three times in that time period.

The two boys Gavin and Star, both had wildly different stories in different testimonies, more that which could be attributed to bad memory. Gavin also claimed that the molestation was instigated by Michael telling them "all boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists". Tom Mesereau proved that he had previously admitted that it was his grandma who told him that, not MJ. So the whole allegations were essentially predicated upon a lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle..._b_610258.html
So if I follow i4u's logic correctly,he/she thinks if they state often enough that MJ was a liar (I think the words were 'a proven liar') that proves that he also did other things.That's some very strange logic especially as nothing he's written proves that MJ lied.

It seems that instead of using the logic of what the facts actually are.He's already decided that MJ is guilty and is trying to manipulate some very spurious information to help prove his case!
L-una is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-04-2013, 17:01
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Michael Jackson is the only person I can think of who makes Jimmy Savile seem comparatively normal.
You use the word normal like that's supposed to be a good thing. 'Normal' is just a socially constructed idea of how we're meant to behave that tells us that anyone who isn't like us or that we don't understand is strange and weird.

The more important question should be, did that person do any harm or were they kind and compassionate? If it's the latter then quite frankly it shouldn't matter how different from anyone else they are.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 06:06
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 21,179
A paedophile would believe it is perfectly normal for an adult to have sexual thoughts towards children, they would not see it as wrong or damaging to have sex with a child.

A paedophile would defend their thoughts or actions by saying they would never harm or hurt a child, they would express their actions as born out of love and affection.

Paedophiles have regularly shown the cunning, deviousness and manipulation they will use to create an environment which gives them ready access to children.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 08:40
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 43,149
Thanks for the lesson (& thread bump) i4u. I had no idea what one was. I'm so glad you've cleared that up for us.

Out of interest, why have no children (now adults) come forward since his death to accuse him of anything inappropriate?
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 10:03
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
A paedophile would believe it is perfectly normal for an adult to have sexual thoughts towards children, they would not see it as wrong or damaging to have sex with a child.

A paedophile would defend their thoughts or actions by saying they would never harm or hurt a child, they would express their actions as born out of love and affection.

Paedophiles have regularly shown the cunning, deviousness and manipulation they will use to create an environment which gives them ready access to children.
Bit of a contradiction there. On one hand you say they see it as perfectly normal and on the other you say they are devious.
tomclarky 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 02:41.