It's all a big, big lie - he was actually a manipulative paedophile.
I bet he molested those terminally ill children.
In fact, he was lying in 1985 as well, writing songs for charities in order to further his 'inappropriate' scheming.
He bought the entire jury. It's America after all.
His surgery also shows that he was definitely a paedophile. Any man that wants to turn from black to white - despite his telling us that he had a skin condition (villocolid (as seen here: http://atozbeauty.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/vitigilo22.jpg - i bet you can understand why he may have bleached if that was happening to his skin and the profound effects this can have on psychological problems) another lie!)
He truly is a weird - horrible - person.
Ah, I see. You were taking my argument and repeating it so that I could see the ludicrousness of it?
Thing is, I'm not an imaginative individual.
Come on man, your flying off the handle a little...I don't think anyone is claiming he's evil, just that he was very naive and childish and may have done some inappropriate things.
As for the vitigilo, well that image wasn't what happened to Jacko was it?..he gradually got lighter and lighter, coinciding with his surgery. I know it has no relevance to this argument, but since you brought it up...
That's not the point.
He is 'not guilty of child molestation' - what is he guilty of? Unorthodoxy?
You're just using something very basic, that you know people fundamentally disagree with (in general), without even considering the context in which it happened.
A story.
I don't think anyone is claiming he's evil, just that he was very naive and childish and may have done some inappropriate things.
Read what i've written. It's intention wasn't clear but...
Yes, and I think the fact he saw it as perfectly normal was the problem. The fact that he couldn't see it wasn't, and refused to accept other people saying it was seems to me like the actions of a child.
That was the context of the situation - as you've noted, innocence. It isn't actually wrong to do so - it is just assumed that anybody doing so would be for 'unhealthy' reasons. We seemed to have established that his reasons weren't unhealthy, i.e. 'not guilty of child molestation', yet he is still 'wrong', apparently.
No I don't. I've never said he was guilty, or even suggested it. I've raised the question that the possibility of his guilt should prevent people from dropping the questions about it, as it's a serious allegation...I've never said that he 'must' be guilty of something...Your confusing me with someone else
Okay. But you have consistently suggested that he did something wrong. We just can't accept that any man would want to sleep in the same bed children for any other reason apart from to have sex with them (because that is what we see on the news).
What the flibeddy gibbet are you on about!? I'm the one not having the peadophile argument. I'm arguing that his inability to see himself at fault for anything, and the way he decried criticism as 'unfair' and 'mean' extremely childish and as such, an irresponsible and immature thing for a middle aged father of 2 to do...
It was ill-judged. But people keep bringing up OJ as though Michael Jackson had something to hide, which he didn't. It wasn't appropriate but there isn't plenty of contradicting evidence (i.e. a court case) to suggest that he wasn't breaking the law.
My argument was about his children, and whether the fact that someone in his state of mind was a fit parent, and the fact that he had these children with a mother who doesn't hold any claim to them, and they dont seem to bare any biological resemblance to him...My point is simply, if this was a normal man, wouldn't you question it? I mean, why does this woman have no claim over them? why are they white? is he a good role model? they're perfectly reasonable questions..nothing to do with Paedophillia though.
The paedophile argument your having with someone else and have confused me with them I'm sure
Gotcha...I'm leaving this thread now before my bum falls off
The thing is there is hardly any serious evidence that he wasn't a good father to his children. Just the dangling the baby over the balcony incident.Yes, I agree...and if thats the case he shouldn't have been alowed to raise 2 children. He certainly should have been questioned about it or monitored by child services...a non famous person with these personality traits would have been. It's an excuse, but it doesn't excuse...he learned no lessons from life and wanted it all his own way, like a child, he refused to accept peoples critisisms as constructive..he blocked it out and went la la la la im not listening....Read the post I wrote above that one (In fact I'll quote it below) and thats why I think critisizing his actions are justified...he was responsible for 2 children after all
Come on man, your flying off the handle a little...I don't think anyone is claiming he's evil, just that he was very naive and childish and may have done some inappropriate things.
As for the vitigilo, well that image wasn't what happened to Jacko was it?..he gradually got lighter and lighter, coinciding with his surgery. I know it has no relevance to this argument, but since you brought it up...
Not that different to most people then.
The thing is there is hardly any serious evidence that he wasn't a good father to his children. Just the dangling the baby over the balcony incident.
Truth is IMO he did the best he could do with the hand of fate he was dealt. He never lead a normal life, had a difficult child hood the gave him body dispmorphic disorder ( just look at his face changes) on top of a split peronsaof an adult and a child. It's just a pity he was surrounded by too many yes men later in life. Who were there for what they could get out of him rather than for his on good. Which ended up in this tragedy.
He said behind the scenes in his documentary that Neverland was a dangerous place for vulnerable children to go, yet told Jackson what he had seen was 'spiritual'.
I didn't realise that Martin Bashir is now an anchor for ABC news in the States. This is how he broke the news of Jackson's death on that channel. Incredibly, he says here that in the time he spent with Jackson he never saw any illegal behaviour and doesn't suspect that Jackson actually did anything wrong.
Quite how he can miss the irony of him saying this is beyond me... It was his documentary that caused so many of Jackson's problems and Page Ranking issues.
What he's said there seems fine to me
He highlighted a disturbing aspect of Jacksons life. Did he over egg it? Maybe, maybe not. How many adults sleep in bed with other people's children? Or build a Neverland ranch to live at
At the end of the day, it was someone else that brought charges against Jackson. If they've knowingly made false allegations, they're the ones that caused the agro, not Bashir
And of course, Jackson voluntarily shared this information with Bashir. Ok he didn't expect him to use it the way he did, but that's gross naivety frankly
You're judging it by a taboo, which in this instance (due to the exceptional circumstances of the individual), is faux pas.
By him saying that he 'shared a bed' with x or y does not imply that he necessarily wanted or intended to - children tend, when sleeping somewhere strange, to sleep with an adult. Especially an adult that you trust. The connotations keep lurking in though, no?
Come off it, you're sounding like King Law in the Tevez thread
Yes it's a taboo mate, and for a bloody good reason. Technically there's nothing legally wrong with it, and that's why he wasn't found guilty of any wrongdoing
I think suggesting he was somehow forced into it by children, or didn't want or intend to do it, is just barking. Absolutely nothing that's ever come out suggests that in the slightest
It doesn't make him a paedophile. But is behaviour a paedophile would engage in. Hence the taboo
Don't go along the lines of fanboy-ism, Brad. Ahem, Ad Hominems.
I don't understand why people who say that he wasn't guilty still persist in saying that he was doing something wrong. You're applying a correlation to an individual - which is inhumane. All it props up is the initial prejudice which infers that Michael Jackson was a paedophile. I'm surprised you've missed that.
I didn't say that he was 'forced' - you're twisting my language, it doesn't wash. Is it not natural for a child to seek the company of adults if they are staying somewhere new? Or do you think he 'coaxed' them into doing so (hence suggesting 'dark' intentions)?
People seem to want to uphold the notion that he didn't do anything and the allegations are false whilst maintaining a stance that Michael Jackson harboured 'ill-thoughts' despite the only evidence for him doing so being already damned by themselves. It doesn't make sense at all.
If there is nothing objectively wrong in sleeping with children... and we seem to have established that he didn't do anything untoward... what are we trying him for? 'Weirdness'? Unorthodoxy?
Nah, you're the one putting forward the suppositions now
If you're knocking me for supposedly twisting your words by saying forced, why are you now using terms like 'coaxed' in repost? I don't know Jacksons intentions, I suspect they were harmless. But then again I don't know the bloke, he's settled rather than defended similar allegations in the past, and it's simply not socially acceptable behaviour. As I expressly stated, it doesn't make him a paedophile, and he may not legally be doing anything wrong. Then again, he might, and he might have gotten away with it
I don't agree with your assertion. I think the group of people who claims Jackson was innocent but harboured ill thoughts is very small. People either fall into he was innocent, or he was a nonce camps
One things for sure, he gave people enough reason to question him
It was ironic, i know. I just thought i'd do it anyway to see your reaction to it. We both perpetuate hypocrisy, eh?
He didn't give anybody any reason to question him. The press did, along with very questionable individuals, through very questionable allegations, that he was acquitted of.
Finally, 'socially accepted behaviour' is completely relative. You're projecting your ideals/values/standards onto him. In truth, the circumstances (given the individual) in which he 'shared a bed' with a child are not all that unbelievable when viewed in the context of his relationship(s) with many of the 1000's of children that went to Neverland and his personal love of children (not sexually). It's clear through many of his other actions (charities, songs and centre for terminally ill children at his ranch) - the picture is far more complete, instead of the dark, cynical view of his behaviour/actions judged by our own standards.
If 'shared same bed' as my six year old brother (who i was looking after) - with whom i have 'affinity' - it wouldn't be seen as questionable.
If Michael Jackson 'shared the same bed' with somebody he was looking after - whom he has/had affinity with - it is 'wrong'.
That's arbitrary and objectively wrong.
Context is everything.
So, would you let your kids go around to his place and play cowboys and indians and then snuggle up in bed together at night?
'put a sock in it'
After the sudden death of Michael Jackson Evan Chandler tells the truth.
evan
In 1993, Chandler told a psychiatrist and police that he and Jackson had engaged in sexual acts that included oral sex, the boy gave detailed description of Jackson’s genitals. The case was settled out of court for a reported $22 million, but the strain led Jackson to begin taking painkillers. Eventually he became addicted.
Now maybe for the remorse of his death Chandler decides to tell us the truth. ” I never meant to lie and destroy Michael Jackson but my father made me to tell only lies. Now i can’t tell Michael how much i’m sorry and if he will forgive me ”.Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, “If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…
Under the influence of a controversial father (Jordan Chandler) told his son to tell that Jackson had touched his penis.Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer’s genitals.
” Now for the first time i can’t bare to lie anymore. Michael Jackson didn’t do anything to me, all was my father lies to escape from being poor.”
I knew it, what a cnut.
Thought as much, will be cleared up proper soon enough...
This isn't being reported by any news networks..only on messgae boards..and it's exactly the same piece. It seems very likely it was made up by a fan and they're desperately spreading it all over the net
Doesn't help it's credibility that Jordon was the son and Evan the father.. Idiots
It's not disgraceful, it's stupid... It's not even believable. If it's not true then the lad will come out and deny it, cleared up. A lot harder to clear your name after being accused of paedophilia, if it turns out to be true it's miles worse.
Edit: If it was true I reckon it would make some difference but I still think a lot of those people with there mind made up would still see enough in all the other things to hold their position.
