|
Post by MattyJam on Oct 29, 2017 17:21:08 GMT
As you say, it is not a black and white issue. On one hand, MJ should be treated just the same as anyone else in a court of law, but on the other hand, he led an extraordinary lifestyle which is pretty much impossible for any of us to relate to. He WAS treated just the same as anyone else in a court of law, though. In fact, I would argue he was treated worse due to his fame, money and eccentricity. The prosecutors certainly did questionable things in his case and I don't think they would have gone such lengths with the Average Joe. So fame, wealth and eccentricity are a two-edged sword. I don't think they got MJ any privileges regarding these cases - on the contrary - so I don't get the public sentiment of him enjoying privileges in these cases (if there is indeed such a sentiment). It's just not true. As for his fans, thing is many of us don't simply base our judgement on whether it is right or wrong to share a bed or room with unrelated kids. I get it that those statements alone in the Bashir documentary make some people uncomfortable. MJ wasn't wise to make those comments, for sure. But this issue in itself is inconclusive. So people going on about the rights or wrongs of it is just going in circles after a while. There are so many more things to learn about these cases and if something is as inconclusive as the bed issue then you should move on to explore those other things to make a fair judgement. When you do that, then you will see, for example, that the idea you get of MJ and Gavin's relationship from the Bashir documentary, is actually totally wrong. Many people believe based on that scene that MJ had some long standing relationship Gavin at the time, regularly sleeping in the same bed etc. When reality is that they have last seen each other three years before and they never shared a room except for that one occasion with Cascio in the room. And of course, I could go on about a million details that help to find clarity about these allegations more than going in circles forever about whether it is right or wrong to share your room or bed with unrelated children. He was definitely treated worse due to the already prevalent media bias around him at that time. I wasn't suggesting for one second that he was treated any differently (in fact, I agree with you that he was treated worse), but you know there are people out there who think just because he was rich and had an expensive lawyer that he somehow bought his way out of jail. That whole "celebrity justice" mindset etc. I think that's why I get so uncomfortable when fans try and defend him by saying that you can't compare him to a random man in his forties sleeping with children. This arguement, whilst I actually agree with it, inevitably leads sceptics to believe that the fans who defend his innocence are just blind-sighted apologists, when in actuality, his status and fame, far from doing him any favours, was something that often worked against him in a court of law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 21:06:19 GMT
Looks like you are all fighting over the stuff I mentioned. Sleepovers, courts, and appearance I think I will just observe the argument for now.
The fact remains is I feel he was pilloried by the media and the court system. I feel that MJ put himself in a hole by paying out the Chandlers, I know he did not want a trial, but to some of us that was a copout. Michael could have done that trial, won it and moved on humiliating the media and the detractors and being more wise later on (Such as having the skills to tell the Arvizios take a hike).
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 29, 2017 21:56:43 GMT
Stop stating the wrong information, triumph. Michael and his legal team were fighting for the criminal trial to be put first instead of the civil one, the judge denied all motions Michael’s legal team filed being Jordan’s age the trump card for the Chandlers. Michael's rights were violated not allowing the criminal trial to be held first. themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/
|
|
milo
Wondering Who
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 124
|
Post by milo on Oct 29, 2017 22:38:09 GMT
As I can see here, many fans repeat the same misconceptions about Michael Jackson's relationship with kids as the general public. "Sleeping naked with boys; inviting kids to sleep in his room; kids in his house without their parents; paying $30,000,000 to get rid of the charges". If even the fans believe these things about Michael, there's no hope for a vindication. Oh yes, that "to get rid of the charges" thing too. Again, a loaded way to put it, especially when you know the real circumstances and reasons for the settlement ( themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/ ). That MJ settled "to get rid of the charges" is a tabloid/media narrative that, again, is just not a truthful representation of the story. He didn't settle any criminal charges - you can't settle a criminal case. He settled the civil case, because otherwise his rights to a fair criminal trial would have been compromised as the above linked article, explains in detail. I agree, it's sad that even fans repeat some of those media misconceptions about these cases. The power of repeating a lie enough... Yes, it was repeated so much on tv by those "experts" that some fans wanting to be seen as not delusional fall for these fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 30, 2017 0:39:00 GMT
^^ about the related/unrelated problem... even if it were only related children... would that make him automatically innocent then? I don't like the -well they weren't related to him only related children should sleep in your bed- argument because it doesn't change anything. Pedophiles can be members of your own family. It's even worse because normally you trust uncles/aunts/cousins etc with your kids. Yes, I always find the emphasis on the word "unrelated" strange too. As if molestations do not happen within family. In fact, most molestations probably happen by family members. I looked it up and this source states at the very top: Statistics show 93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker. Family members account for 34.2% of all perpetrators, and acquaintances account for 58.7%. Only 7% of perpetrators are strangers to their victim. That source states this information is from an American organisation, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). I think generally people are more comfortable with, say, parents sleeping with their children because it's faaaar more common in society than sleeping with unrelated children. As children, who hasn't slept in the same bed as their siblings, parents or other family members? Like you say dancingmjsdream, people normally trust your family members with their children too and there are many more situations where this scenario would be common, so all of this combined means it's therefore deemed more acceptable by society. I think hypothetically if Michael was never accused of these crimes (in order to remove any biases people might have), and a photo came out of him asleep in his bed with Prince and Paris asleep alongside him, it wouldn't get much negative attention. There have been photos ( 1, 2, 3, 4 - scroll down a bit) of Bieber sleeping in the same bed as his (much) younger brother and the comments mostly go on about how cute it is. It's just much more common in society so people don't see it as suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 30, 2017 0:52:21 GMT
I wasn't suggesting for one second that he was treated any differently (in fact, I agree with you that he was treated worse), but you know there are people out there who think just because he was rich and had an expensive lawyer that he somehow bought his way out of jail. That whole "celebrity justice" mindset etc. It's very annoying when I see people resort to comparing the case to OJ Simpson's case, as if some completely unrelated mishandled case has anything to do with the innocence of Michael Jackson? They're two completely different cases and the two suspects in question exhibited completely different behaviour. Did Michael Jackson ever publish and purportedly write a book entitled "If I Did It"? Detailing how he would've gone about how his crimes "if" it happened? No! One only needs to spend a short while looking into Jackson's case to see that he is innocent of the charges, OJ Simpson is a completely different story. On top of that if we use their logic, that because OJ's verdict was wrong that these other verdicts are wrong too, couldn't theoretically any verdict be wrong? It's a fucking moronic argument and it demonstrates that the commenter has zero clue what they are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by kaeleah on Oct 30, 2017 1:02:03 GMT
Yep, "stranger danger" sex crimes do happen, but statistically being abused by a relative or other acquaintance is more common
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 1:39:21 GMT
Stop stating the wrong information, triumph. Michael and his legal team were fighting for the criminal trial to be put first instead of the civil one, the judge denied all motions Michael’s legal team filed being Jordan’s age the trump card for the Chandlers. Michael's rights were violated not allowing the criminal trial to be held first. themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/It may be wrong, as I do not know the full details, I merely made those remarks because these allegations caused Michael a lot of distress. Did we not all feel the pain when he did that interview nearly in tears about the Police searching him and taking photos of his penis and buttocks. Go back and watch that interview and look at his face and the pleading tone in his voice, this experience just shattered him and then realise that just a few weeks earlier, he was slaying on stage with the Dangerous tour - Michael on top of the world, down to Michael common person and marginalised person being harassed by an intristically racially profiling police force. The look on Michaels face was sheer terror and fear and yet these racist and horrible cops were never taken to task over it. They convicted him in their minds before he had a chance to defend himself. All I am saying is Michael deserved better and never deserved to have to suffer that ignomy or humiliation over some made up lies by a family of vulture desparate to rip him off. Now I know they wanted a trial, I feel bad they did not get it, as they would have demolised the Chandlers and Tom Snedden and other people would have got the message not to mess with Michael again. Naive yes, but it what I believe. Michael had nothing to hide as he done nothing wrong with those kids, but most people just are not that enlightened and will always think the worst and most stupid things.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 4:59:52 GMT
Yes, I always find the emphasis on the word "unrelated" strange too. As if molestations do not happen within family. In fact, most molestations probably happen by family members. I looked it up and this source states at the very top: Statistics show 93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker. Family members account for 34.2% of all perpetrators, and acquaintances account for 58.7%. Only 7% of perpetrators are strangers to their victim. That source states this information is from an American organisation, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). I am not sure how reliable statistics like this are, though. They can only account for reported cases, but I would assume where people are abused by a close family member (father, mother, uncle, brother) the number of unreported cases is a lot bigger than otherwise, as people are more reluctant to go against their own family members and are more dependent on their families - including their abusers - than on a stranger, so they won't report them. When a child is abused by a stranger they have their parents to turn to, but when they are abused by their own parents I am sure often there is a feeling that they have nowhere to turn to. So I suspect that 34.2% is probably much higher in reality.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 30, 2017 5:03:28 GMT
I looked it up and this source states at the very top: Statistics show 93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker. Family members account for 34.2% of all perpetrators, and acquaintances account for 58.7%. Only 7% of perpetrators are strangers to their victim. That source states this information is from an American organisation, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN). I am not sure how reliable statistics like this are, though. They can only account for reported cases, but I would assume where people are abused by a close family member (father, mother, uncle, brother) the number of unreported cases is a lot bigger than otherwise, as people are more reluctant to go against their own family members. Indeed, in fact that source addresses it a few points in I believe. Unfortunately it’s the closest thing we have statistics wise so it’s not bad to use as a base.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 30, 2017 8:30:50 GMT
I don't put the 'paying the Chandlers' (however you want to word it) in the same camp as going on LWMJ and saying that he still shared his bed and holding Gavin's hand.
I see the reasons for the first one (and to be honest, this merely cemented his innocense in my eyes), but there's no way LWMJ was a good idea. In current climes it's the equivalent of Weinstein saying he still chooses to have meetings withyoung actresses in his hotel rooms. Yes, yes, I know. One is innocent and one isn't, but that's not my point. My point is if MJ was to rebuild his image then this wasn't the way.
Having said that, I try to believe that LWMJ never happened. I remember when I first saw the advert that this would be airing and was so excited. The followed the most horrific 2 hours of my MJ fandom. Even the Gavin stuff aside, I hated what I saw, and I know a lot was due to editing, but still....
Anyway, I digress. My point is, if MJ really wanted to change public perception of himself post 1993, then he should have stopped that behaviour & stopped putting himself at risk.
Of course, the other side is that he still believed that he was helping sick kids and nothing should stop that. This of course is more than admirable but to detriment of his own image & career.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 8:50:05 GMT
In some ways he tried to. He married Lisa Marie and talked about how he wanted a family, be a normal man and how much he loved his new wife and how he was getting back in the studio. Of course the media made fun of it and went on about shammo marriages and dragged the Chandler saga out longer and longer.
But by 1995 with the release of HIStory, even media hate against the statues, could not dull the brilliance. It helped HIStory was a brilliant album (It contains 3 of our current Top 10 favourite songs) and had the greatest hits as an add on. Until the millenium things inproved slightly. But yes I agree TonyM, his career would never be the same afterwards and this whole helping sick kids and hanging out with healthy ones was detrimental to his career, but I also think his ever more bizarre appearance was too.
So much for staying away, I just find Michael Jackson so interesting.
|
|
ChrisC
Wondering Who
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 200
|
Post by ChrisC on Oct 30, 2017 14:41:13 GMT
Absolutely, I think he was. Delaying things like the vitiligo information as well. It was all to generate column inches. And all things considered, he was an absolute master at it. When the industry changed after 2000 I felt MJ's approach didn't and this was something of a misstep. But prior to that I always got a kick out of it to be honest. That's a bit harsh. I definitely think MJ courted controversy at times and embraced the image of being "larger than life" but I don't think he exploited his medical problems for that; quite the contrary. Think of how much publicity and public sympathy he could have garnered if he opened up about his vitiligo and lupus. But that was never Michael's approach. We've seen his hand-written notes. His approach was to do no interviews. To invite intrigue. The whole mystique. You could argue that by MJ speaking publicly about his private medical conditions it could've generated more column inches than what it did, who's to know. But when you look at the image MJ crafted at that time to me it makes sense. It's simply not feasible for the biggest star in the world to drastically change skin tones and expect people not to ask 'why?'. I mean, if not for Michael, vitiligo would remain a pretty much unknown condition to the world at large. I think there's also a discussion to be had in there about how large swathes of Michael's black audience felt in the late 80s.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 19:23:47 GMT
Re. the Bashir interview, I think Lisa Marie was spot on with her opinion about what was happening there. Read more: www.oprah.com/oprahshow/lisa-marie-presley-opens-up-about-michael-jackson/all#ixzz4x1MIuACBThat was it basically. MJ is sitting there with Gavin hand-in-hand, Gavin putting his head on his shoulder etc, but in reality MJ hasn't even met Gavin for like three years at the time. So it is not like it reflected their true relationship. It was just an act of rebellion and stubbornness by MJ.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,423
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 30, 2017 21:37:34 GMT
Re. the Bashir interview, I think Lisa Marie was spot on with her opinion about what was happening there. Read more: www.oprah.com/oprahshow/lisa-marie-presley-opens-up-about-michael-jackson/all#ixzz4x1MIuACBThat was it basically. MJ is sitting there with Gavin hand-in-hand, Gavin putting his head on his shoulder etc, but in reality MJ hasn't even met Gavin for like three years at the time. So it is not like it reflected their true relationship. It was just an act of rebellion and stubbornness by MJ. Rebellion and stubbornness? Or stupidity? Bearing in mind it ended up with him nearly going to jail for child abuse, I'd say the latter.
|
|