Michael Jackson's Death

[-:Undertaker:-]

His music was amazing and he was talented, however I still think he did something with those kids - hence the massive payoff one of them got. You don't pay someone off if you haven't done anything, given his Neverland ranch, 'Jesus Juice' and so on, I think he was guilty i'm afraid.

However since he wasn't proved guilty I can't really hold it against him, and I still love his music.

[dirrty]

ANYONE that does any of these:

• Pays a girl for kids

Should die.

so if someone can't have children and so decide to use a surrogate mother, they should die :S:S

[Plank]

ANYONE that does any of these:

• Calls their kids "Michael Prince" and "Prince Michael"
• Bleaches their skin - which led to cancer
• Pays a girl for kids
• Bleaches their skin, then sings a song saying skin colour doesn't matter.

Should die.

---

Sorry but we can all have an opinion.

--------------

HOWEVER You cannot say he did have incredible talents, he was very strange but that does not take away talent he had.

RIP in someways

Seriously, are these your standards someone must meet to deserve to die?

[Wolves]

ANYONE that does any of these:
Calls their kids "Michael Prince" and "Prince Michael"
Bleaches their skin - which led to cancer
Pays a girl for kids
Bleaches their skin, then sings a song saying skin colour doesn't matter.
Should die.

---

Sorry but we can all have an opinion.

--------------

HOWEVER You cannot say he did have incredible talents, he was very strange but that does not take away talent he had.

RIP in someways

are you a total noob? or is that just the vibe i'm getting?? it's already been said thousands of times in these numerous Jackson threads that he bleached his skin because he didn't want to look like his dad - who physically and some say sexually abused him, he also made Michael Jackson watch him abuse other women. Would you really want to look like your dad, after he'd done things like that to you? I don't think so.

Also;

Pays a girl for kids

If he was guilty, he'd still get sent down EVEN if he paid them off, just because he paid someone off doesn't mean he can't still get sent down, maybe he paid them off because he felt sorry for all the media coverage that the child and the family got? we will never know, but I doubt he did anything with those children, as he would have gone down for it, in 2005 and 1995. (whenever his other child abuse case was) And If you meant paid a women for kids then you're wrong because that would also be against the law, not in which the way you 'described'.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The legal implications of the pay off mean that they cannot speak out, it is all legally sorted out by lawyers and so on, otherwise they could easily of accepted the money and then gone to the police. He gives them money so they dont speak about it - sorted. The Dad argument, maybe his Dad was a little strict but I think its overblown, his father called him big nose - so what? - does that mean he had to disfigure his face, have sleepovers with children which raised interesting questions and generally act in a strange way?

I am a fan of his music, but I don't think there is really an excuse for his behaviour, child abuse or not, he still was very strange.

[Lost_Addict]

also his dad disallowed MJ a childhood forcing him to practice non stop. hence why he built never land

[AgnesIO]

are you a total noob? or is that just the vibe i'm getting?? it's already been said thousands of times in these numerous Jackson threads that he bleached his skin because he didn't want to look like his dad - who physically and some say sexually abused him, he also made Michael Jackson watch him abuse other women. Would you really want to look like your dad, after he'd done things like that to you? I don't think so.

Also;

If he was guilty, he'd still get sent down EVEN if he paid them off, just because he paid someone off doesn't mean he can't still get sent down, maybe he paid them off because he felt sorry for all the media coverage that the child and the family got? we will never know, but I doubt he did anything with those children, as he would have gone down for it, in 2005 and 1995. (whenever his other child abuse case was) And If you meant paid a women for kids then you're wrong because that would also be against the law, not in which the way you 'described'.

I NEVER said that he paid KIDS for babies. He paid a WOMAN (fully grown) for kids. Explain how his kids were never 100% white or black? Hmm strange

If my dad sexually abused me I wouldn't go and bleach my skin, or jump in mud. Only a VERY STRANGE freak would do that.

And we already know we don't get along Wolves, but honestly 'noob', you think that gets around forum rules?

Yeh.. right.

[MJJ]

The legal implications of the pay off mean that they cannot speak out, it is all legally sorted out by lawyers and so on, otherwise they could easily of accepted the money and then gone to the police. He gives them money so they dont speak about it - sorted.

The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.

If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?

Perhaps a more telling question is why would you accept money from someone who allegedly molested your child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?

[Plank]

I think the whole debate about whether he was a peado or not is completely pointless and will lead no where. No one can prove he was one, and no one can prove he wasn't.

I NEVER said that he paid KIDS for babies. He paid a WOMAN (fully grown) for kids. Explain how his kids were never 100% white or black? Hmm strange

If my dad sexually abused me I wouldn't go and bleach my skin, or jump in mud. Only a VERY STRANGE freak would do that.

And we already know we don't get along Wolves, but honestly 'noob', you think that gets around forum rules?

Yeh.. right.

Or someone with lots of money who can afford as much plastic surgery as they want.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.

If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?

Perhaps a more telling question is why would you accept money from someone who allegedly molested your child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?

Settlements negociated with money like that do require silence, otherwise it would of gone to court. This is the man who says its perfectly fine to sleep in the same room as children who are no related to him, a man who had sleepovers with little children and seemed to lose interest when they reached puberty and a man who allegedly gave kid/s 'jesus' juice which was alcohol.

Maybe because they were shallow and would rather take the money/needed the money? - You'd have to ask the family, but in court cases over the years pay offs have existed.

Either he was mentally out of his mind, was a child abuser, or was both. We can't prove/disprove either side, but whatever the truth was he remains to be seen a very, very, very strange man.