Michael Jackson Death discussion thread - CHAT, NOT JOKES

Ghost Girl

shezzie wrote: »

no because to me whether they are biologically, by surogate or adoption he brought them up - he loved them - he took care of them - he raised them therefore he was their father and they were his children -

WELL SAID. blows the rest of the brain dead comments out of the water, thank you. You are a mum or a dad if you do all those things. Whos sperm or egg made you doesn't matter.

Sir Molle

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think theres a lot of people who leeched of his fame.

David Gest and Uri Geller spring to mind.

I saw David Gest presenting a Michael Jacksons top 50 videos a few months ago on VH1. Before introducing each video he'd say stuff like "I remember when Michael first played me this song and i told him to change this bit and that and then it was a hit"etc

As for Uri Geller he seemed to revel in talking to the media about Michael and seemed to get him in more trouble by doing it.

Yeah, they kind of did leech off mike a bit. Any time they appear on somehing on TV it's usually cringe worthy, but from what I've read they seemed to have both been genuine long time friends of his.

suspectpackage

Ghost Girl wrote: »

Jackson couldnt have molested kids. And it was that trial that caused his death. All that medication - he never coped well with his life any way, and used meds, we all know that, but the combination he was on now.....bet that was him trying to cope with the abuse charges and trial. F****d him up big time. The world has alot to answer for. Sensitive genuine genius that he was.

Did any one watch his sister la toya in celeb big brother last year? she opened my eyes.

I don't think he did either. He paid off the first guy to avoid all the hassel of a trial, which I would have done if a girl claimed I raped her but said she wouldn't take me to court if I gave her 10 euro (which is the equivalent of the money Jackson had to pay at the time, considering how much he had). It's hard to take the word of the kids and their parents, especially when them parents were happily allowing their kids to sleep in bed with another man regularly. Questions have to be asked about parents who would let their kids do that. Then you have Macaulie Culkin who was friends with jackson for years, slept over with him, and said it was preposterous to even think he would abuse him.

I think MJ was taken advantage of because of his naive nature. I think everyone knows he didn't abuse any kids.

Biggins

leesabunny wrote: »

hi guys,
i was just wondering is there anybody travelling from ireland next monday to london for the vigil at the o2 for michael jackson. im flying from shannon, just wanted to know anyone else going around the same time?
Leesa

LOL NO!
Sorry, I have better things to do like work, pay too many taxes and help contribute to wife and kids.
Why on earth do you have to go to London for fraks sake! Go to the nearest church for crying out loud if you want to show true honest to the heart devotion.

Geeze! I give up...

phasers

I don't really see the point of a public vigil. Paying your respects in private ftw

Sharpshooter

phasers wrote: »

I don't really see the point of a public vigil. Paying your respects in private ftw

I agree, if Micheal means that much to an individual I reckon private is more meaningful.

/each to their own though.

Sir Molle

suspectpackage wrote: »

I don't think he did either. He paid off the first guy to avoid all the hassel of a trial, which I would have done if a girl claimed I raped her but said she wouldn't take me to court if I gave her 10 euro (which is the equivalent of the money Jackson had to pay at the time, considering how much he had). It's hard to take the word of the kids and their parents, especially when them parents were happily allowing their kids to sleep in bed with another man regularly. Questions have to be asked about parents who would let their kids do that. Then you have Macaulie Culkin who was friends with jackson for years, slept over with him, and said it was preposterous to even think he would abuse him.

I think MJ was taken advantage of because of his naive nature. I think everyone knows he didn't abuse any kids.

You're wrong here actually. He paid nobody off. This is a little known fact and as Mike himself has said, people focus on the bad things rather than the good, so it's understandable that people missed this entirely. People forget that Sony had signed the biggest recording contract in music to date, worth just over $1 Billion. It was uncovered a couple of years ago that it was actually an insurance company who paid the cash to settle out of court at the time. It was an attempt by sony to protect their investment at the time since there was a slim chance that Mike was going to jail regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty. They didn't want to risk it so they pushed him to settle out of court.

Biggins

Sir Molle wrote: »

You're wrong here actually. He paid nobody off...

...Aaa ok!

It wasn't long after law enforcement's photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim for north of $20 million.

...and thats just one quick source: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

If the "Smoking Gun" is not reliable for you - how about the Times?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article446335.ece
Jackson paid $25 million to silence sex abuse claim

Sir Molle

Biggins wrote: »

...Aaa ok!



...and thats just one quick source: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

If the "Smoking Gun" is not reliable for you - how about the Times?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article446335.ece
Jackson paid $25 million to silence sex abuse claim

Sure, you can go by the a source which got it's information from Diane Diamond, a reporter with a well documented vendetta against Michael Jackson....

Or you could take your information from official court documents.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson's Insurance Company and was Not Within Mr. Jackson's Control.

Biggins

Sir Molle wrote: »

Sure, you can go by the a source which go it's information from Diane Diamond, a reporter with a well documented vendetta against Michael Jackson....

Or you could take your information from official court documents.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

It's not the only source (there are too many sources) but thats just going down a never ending road...

I. myself with the few brain cells that I still possess feel that Mr. Jackson's Insurance Company would have at least consulted with Mr Jackson in regards to payouts if only because of the media repercussions and/or financial repercussions of such a move.

To say that Mr. Jackson's Insurance Company did all their actions without having words with Mr Jackson and his management team, PR consultants, lawyers, etc and not getting their eventual approval at least by nod of acknowledgement, would for me me stretching incredulity beyond reasonable mental thinking process breaking point.

blow69

Biggins wrote: »

LOL NO!
Sorry, I have better things to do like work, pay too many taxes and help contribute to wife and kids. Why on earth do you have to go to London for fraks sake!

Maybe becaue he wants to go to London to mourn the death of his idol/hero.

Go to the nearest church for crying out loud if you want to show true honest to the heart devotion.

Assuming he is religious afterall. I'm sure if it was the Pope who died you wouldn't have a problem with him travelling all the way to The Vatican to mourn his death.

Sir Molle

The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson's Insurance Company and was Not Within Mr. Jackson's Control.

What more do you want me to say?

If you were the in charge of sony's music production and you had invested $1 Billion in someone. Then out come these allegations which could potentially ruin your investment, and even if they are not true they will probably still ruin your investment given the amount of time these proceedings would have taken. Either way Sony would have been losing money on this. $20 million would have been a bargain to protect the $1 billion investment. They were cutting their loses.

I'm sure they would have consulted Michael Jackson about it, but the fact is they were the ones pushing to settle out of court. Not Jackson.

Anyway, there are a charade of facts that pretty much destroyed the whole argument that he molested Jordy Chandler in 1993.

The kid only ever admitted to being molested by Mike when he was under the influence of sodium amytal, a drug which has a consistent history of inducing false memories based upon subconscious thoughts. Taken in to account that his father approached Jackson claiming he would destroy him if he didn't pay up before Chandler even admitted anything and that the father had been pressuring Jordy in to admitting that he was molested before he actually admitted he was molested under the influence of the so called "truth serum". The father of the boy was out from the start looking for money and he didn't stop pressuring his son in to admitting the truth until it was the truth he wanted to hear himself.

Michael Jackson sleeping with kids in the same bed may have been inappropriate. It may have been wrong, but the evidence indicates that nothing criminal took place. I believe Michael Jackson was too naive to realise how it looked to the outside world due to being raised how he was.

Biggins

blow69 wrote: »

Maybe because he wants to go to London to mourn the death of his idol/hero.

Why London? He died in AMERICA! Does London get the right to be the only place that is an official mourning place? Talk about daftness...

blow69 wrote: »

Assuming he is religious after all. I'm sure if it was the Pope who died you wouldn't have a problem with him travelling all the way to The Vatican to mourn his death.

I wouldn't have any problem with anyone actually going to the home/final place of the departed. If the pope died (and I was a catholic) I sure as heck wouldn't fly to another capital city (besides Rome) elsewhere to do my praying! O' the pope has died in Rome, lets fly to Tokyo to mourn him proper!

partyatmygaff

He was just about to do his comeback concerts in London, hence why some people are going to london.


Anyway, Why out of all of this you care what other people do to mourn their hero? Without a ticket going to LA is a waste of time for the memorial as the area is going to be barricaded to prevent ticketless people going in.
1.6 Million applied for 8670 tickets or so.

Cmon Biggins I would of thought you would of atleast known or heard of the concerts, they've been on the news since march and now are everywhere as they're cancelled.

I had tickets too

Obviously gutted, If I had won memorial tickets, I would of sold one and used the money to buy a flight to LA for the memorial.

Wishing he was still alive, was so excited to see the concerts but c'est la vie.

Biggins

Yea, in absolute fairness to the discussion, I can understand that he was about to do the concerts in London.
However (and I am not a Jackson fan thus my question) was he about to do some of his concerts else where too?
If that was the case, should all these places just become the only places that can be semi-official(?) as places to mourn him?
As places that he named that he was going to appear in, does that really make them any different to non-named places?
Surely, if fans felt so strongly in Ireland, why not hold a memorial day in a nationally recognised main church of Ireland instead?
- Its the rushing off to London bit that leaves me bewildered by all the fuss, I mean he hadn't even preformed there yet! He had just named the place!

After all - least we forget - he actually LIVED in Ireland for a while, in fact not far from me.
Surely, places where he had more of a physical connection with, would be better to go stand up and mourn him, lay flowers or what ever...
To me that makes more sense.

Its all pop madness (to me, an old head scratching fogie) to be honest.
In a few years time to a lot of people it will just be "Michael Jackson - The Man, The Myth, The Mess!"

DO'Carlo/Wex

The service is being broadcast LIVE & EXCLUSIVE on TV-FREE on Tuesday. Don't have any times to hand.

dimejinky99

The Larry King show was being shown around Neverland and they caught MJs ghost on camera...this is eerie!! hairs on your neck will freak out
http://www.heatworld.com/Article/11235/ ... -interview!

niceirishfella

Hmmmmm, looks a bit doctored to me.

Biggins

niceirishfella wrote: »

Hmmmmm, looks a bit doctored to me.

Well we are taking about Jackson so there is nothing new there.
In all honestly, all the worlds media are all scrambling for "exclusive" stories about him right now.
Anything is up for grabs at the mo - sad and depressing journalism it is to be sure.

dimejinky99

Painful to watch,,his vide interview from the molestation thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZKnI-np2Dk

Jesus Wept

dimejinky99 wrote: »

Painful to watch

Why?

Rabies

Fill the spot with anyone else, and it still would be an uncomfortable interview to watch.

partyatmygaff

Some f*ckwit politician in the U.S. called peter king is lashing out at fans who are mourning him and went so far to call him a lowlife.

Thats not the only thing, he's also one of those americans who believe in profiling people on their race.

Sent him an email with a few choice words, what a f*cking @sshole.

pikachucheeks

DO'Carlo/Wex wrote: »

The service is being broadcast LIVE & EXCLUSIVE on TV-FREE on Tuesday. Don't have any times to hand.

Yup, this is true.

It's being shown on both Sky News and TV3. Coverage starts at 5:30.

Sir Molle

The Westboro Baptist Church will be picketing the memorial, lmao.

I'd be very surprised if they're still alive by the end of the day.

walshb

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Some f*ckwit politician in the U.S. called peter king is lashing out at fans who are mourning him and went so far to call him a lowlife.

Thats not the only thing, he's also one of those americans who believe in profiling people on their race.

Sent him an email with a few choice words, what a f*cking @sshole.

Well, Jacko was a paedophile, great musician and performer, but still
a paedophile. Damn shame!

Sir Molle

Quit trolling this thread, thanks.

Quazzie

walshb wrote: »

Well, Jacko was a paedophile, great musician and performer, but still
a paedophile. Damn shame!

How was he a pedophile? Where is your proof, and why are you trolling this thread? The boxing forum must be quiet today!

walshb

Trolling, because maybe I am not 100 percent conforming here?
cop the **** on!

What is this? We have to all agree or you are trolling?:rolleyes:

As a musician/artist/performer, IMO, there was ZERO better. But, as a person, he was not what I would
call good or great or a role model and the fact is that many many believe
that he was a paedophile, me being one of them

Quazzie

We think you are trolling because you are calling someone that is recently deceased a pedophile without any evidence of such a thing being true, in what appears to be a lame attempt to get attention. That seems to be a pretty accurate description of trolling to me.