Jackson Dead

It's a shame what happened to him really - I wasn't around for most of his career but from videos i've seen, he seemed like a great entertainer before was diagnosed with vitiligo and had mental health problems - then he just went really odd.

He died a weird tranny lookalike who did strange things and tbh, I really won't miss that - it's all he would have been for the rest of his life and I don't think his concerts would have been a success (from the recently released news of the state he was in it doesn't look like he was up for it anyway).
(Sorry if that sounds a bit sick)

Hopefully now people can just enjoy what he left behind - videos of his performances and his music.
 
a little late,
But im a huge fan on MJ.
True gifted artist with he's own style,style that was never seen or heard before.
By the release of the album Thriller he made him self imortal,he wil life forever.
 
To all the people here who think he's a "tit" or whatever, I just think he's a victim of his own fame (Britney Spears being another good example). Its easy for us to sit here and say we wouldnt of done the same things if we had the same kind of fame and money but its a totally different situation when its you thats in their shoes, especially if you hadnt seen the success coming.
Yeah, he's a weirdo and yeah he might have done things in the past that would make you a bad person. I'm not trying to justify that. I think he should be remembered as Michael Jackson, the artist and not the child molester or whatever you think he is.
At first I didnt think much of his death and must admit I enjoyed pretty much every cheesy joke made about him. I probably hated him as much as the haters here did too. Its only when I turned on MTV and they were playing songs I grew up listening to that I realised "Fuck, its the dude that sang this song that just died".
Say what you want about him but its never gonna change the fact that he was and still is the biggest superstar the music industry (maybe any industry) has ever seen.
 
RuneEdge said:
To all the people here who think he's a "tit" or whatever, I just think he's a victim of his own fame (Britney Spears being another good example). Its easy for us to sit here and say we wouldnt of done the same things if we had the same kind of fame and money but its a totally different situation when its you thats in their shoes, especially if you hadnt seen the success coming.
Yeah, he's a weirdo and yeah he might have done things in the past that would make you a bad person. I'm not trying to justify that. I think he should be remembered as Michael Jackson, the artist and not the child molester or whatever you think he is.
At first I didnt think much of his death and must admit I enjoyed pretty much every cheesy joke made about him. I probably hated him as much as the haters here did too. Its only when I turned on MTV and they were playing songs I grew up listening to that I realised "Fuck, its the dude that sang this song that just died".
Say what you want about him but its never gonna change the fact that he was and still is the biggest superstar the music industry (maybe any industry) has ever seen.
Click to expand...

will Gary Glitter be remembered purely for his music?
 
Thats different. Gary Glitter was shit.
My point is to try to think of MJ the artist and MJ the person as two different people. And MJ the artist was such a huge star (can you even name someone greater?) that disregarding his career because of something he allegedly did would be unfair on the person.
But Gary Glitter the artist was so shit that he's probably glad Gary Glitter the person was such a asshole cuz atleast he'll be remembered for something now.
 
nobody's disregarding the career he had, it's more like the opposite tbh.

People are disregarding the freak he was and only praising his career, completely ignoring the things he did outside of music.
 
In the case of Michael Jackson vs. the Chandler family, not a single corroborating witness could be found to help prosecute the case and after raids were conducted on several of Jackson's homes, no hard evidence of sexual abuse was gathered.

The allegations made by Jordan Chandler (the accuser) and his father Evan Chandler seem suspect for a few reasons:

1. Ask the average parent whether they'd want justice or money for their abused child and more than likely they'd say justice, if for no other reason than to protect their child (and other children) from a future attack. The fact that Evan Chandler was willing to essentially let Michael off the hook for a few million (reportedly 2-3), made their case seem like a well-orchestrated extortion attempt. In regards to the case, Evan was later caught on tape saying, "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...Michael's career will be over."
Notice that he didn't mention jack shit about his son and justice. So much for being a concerned father...

2. Generally when victims of abuse come out with allegations against someone, other victims come forward to corroborate their story (i.e. the Catholic Church scandal, where a few parties came forward and it later led to thousands).

Very rarely do child molesters stop at just one kid, or even two for that matter. An alleged pedophile with only two accusers is kinda like an alleged serial killer with only one body. It just doesn't make any logical sense, nor does it coincide with the recurring psychological characteristics of most people who fall into those categories.

Michael later settled the Chandler case out of court, not as an admission of guilt, but at the behest of his lawyers and financial advisors who warned him that a criminal trial could cost him millions of dollars in legal fees, as well as the loss of hundreds of millions in touring and endorsement revenue.




When Mike’s case against Arvizo hit airwaves in 2005, as the case unraveled the financial motivations of the accuser’s family became much more apparent.

Similar to the Chandler case from ‘93, the prosecution couldn’t produce any credible witnesses to corroborate Arvizo’s testimony against Michael. Many of the prosecution’s witnesses were either former employees of Michael who had financial disputes with him, or had criminal convictions themselves. Arvizo’s testimony contradicted previous statements he’d made to officials saying that nothing ever took place between him and Michael, and Arvizo’s mother Janet Arvizo, an eccentric woman with a prior conviction for welfare fraud, single-handedly killed the case with her flippant remarks on the witness stand and overall bizarre courtroom behavior.

Actor Macaulay Culkin came forward in Michael’s defense and testified that no inappropriate behavior ever took place during their many times together, as did many other associates who had spent time at Neverland. Ultimately, Michael emerged from the Arvizo case with a Not Guilty verdict on all counts, but it proved to be a pyrrhic victory. The damage was already done. In the court of popular opinion, The King of Pop was an unrepentant child molester.

UJSupanova said:
nobody's disregarding the career he had, it's more like the opposite tbh.

People are disregarding the freak he was and only praising his career, completely ignoring the things he did outside of music.
Click to expand...

Like all of the charity work he has done or are we only supposed to remember negative things?


When Elvis Presley died, did the media remember him as an overweight, drug-abusing racist who dated a 14 year-old, or was he eulogized as The King of Rock and Roll?

When Woody Allen dies, do you think the media will focus on the controversy behind him marrying his own stepdaughter, or on the films "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" and how great they were? (Ditto for Jerry Lee Lewis, the rock and roll pioneer who married his 13-year old cousin.)
 
Last edited:
well said Rad. However, some of these people in here will obviously turn a blind eye on your post and come up with more excuses on how MJ is a peado.

to be honest i wouldn't waste my breath persuading some members here. once they made up there mind on someone there is no turning back.

good post. i diddnt know some of those things you mentioned. all i know is that imo he settled the first case because he diddnt want to pay all those court fee's etc. not because he was guilty, but because he wanted to settled quick and cheap.

The 2nd incident he was proven NOT GUILTY yet some kids in this forum still think his guilty and comparing him to gary glitter who was found GUILTY. I never understood why these kids think this way.
 
Its just the way the media and the people here have grown up. People tend to remember negatives a lot easier than a 100 years of positives that might have come before it.
Take Ronaldo for example. Us United fans consider him a legend (and rightfully so) whereas everyone else thinks he's a diving cunt.
 
Radiation said:
In the case of Michael Jackson vs. the Chandler family, not a single corroborating witness could be found to help prosecute the case and after raids were conducted on several of Jackson's homes, no hard evidence of sexual abuse was gathered.

The allegations made by Jordan Chandler (the accuser) and his father Evan Chandler seem suspect for a few reasons:

1. Ask the average parent whether they'd want justice or money for their abused child and more than likely they'd say justice, if for no other reason than to protect their child (and other children) from a future attack. The fact that Evan Chandler was willing to essentially let Michael off the hook for a few million (reportedly 2-3), made their case seem like a well-orchestrated extortion attempt. In regards to the case, Evan was later caught on tape saying, "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...Michael's career will be over."
Notice that he didn't mention jack shit about his son and justice. So much for being a concerned father...

2. Generally when victims of abuse come out with allegations against someone, other victims come forward to corroborate their story (i.e. the Catholic Church scandal, where a few parties came forward and it later led to thousands).

Very rarely do child molesters stop at just one kid, or even two for that matter. An alleged pedophile with only two accusers is kinda like an alleged serial killer with only one body. It just doesn't make any logical sense, nor does it coincide with the recurring psychological characteristics of most people who fall into those categories.

Michael later settled the Chandler case out of court, not as an admission of guilt, but at the behest of his lawyers and financial advisors who warned him that a criminal trial could cost him millions of dollars in legal fees, as well as the loss of hundreds of millions in touring and endorsement revenue.




When Mike’s case against Arvizo hit airwaves in 2005, as the case unraveled the financial motivations of the accuser’s family became much more apparent.

Similar to the Chandler case from ‘93, the prosecution couldn’t produce any credible witnesses to corroborate Arvizo’s testimony against Michael. Many of the prosecution’s witnesses were either former employees of Michael who had financial disputes with him, or had criminal convictions themselves. Arvizo’s testimony contradicted previous statements he’d made to officials saying that nothing ever took place between him and Michael, and Arvizo’s mother Janet Arvizo, an eccentric woman with a prior conviction for welfare fraud, single-handedly killed the case with her flippant remarks on the witness stand and overall bizarre courtroom behavior.

Actor Macaulay Culkin came forward in Michael’s defense and testified that no inappropriate behavior ever took place during their many times together, as did many other associates who had spent time at Neverland. Ultimately, Michael emerged from the Arvizo case with a Not Guilty verdict on all counts, but it proved to be a pyrrhic victory. The damage was already done. In the court of popular opinion, The King of Pop was an unrepentant child molester.



Like all of the charity work he has done or are we only supposed to remember negative things?


When Elvis Presley died, did the media remember him as an overweight, drug-abusing racist who dated a 14 year-old, or was he eulogized as The King of Rock and Roll?

When Woody Allen dies, do you think the media will focus on the controversy behind him marrying his own stepdaughter, or on the films "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" and how great they were? (Ditto for Jerry Lee Lewis, the rock and roll pioneer who married his 13-year old cousin.)
Click to expand...


Right, once i saw the line "Like all of the charity work he has done or are we only supposed to remember negative things?" it became clear that you completely twisted what i'd said to bolster your argument.

If you'd have read my post you have understood my point, which was that you can't disregard the negative stuff just because he was a good musician, just like you can't disregard his career and positive sides just because of the negatives.

Is it that hard to understand?
 
jonneymendoza said:
good post. i diddnt know some of those things you mentioned. all i know is that imo he settled the first case because he diddnt want to pay all those court fee's etc. not because he was guilty, but because he wanted to settled quick and cheap.
Click to expand...

Jackson settled with the Chandler family and their legal team out of court, in a civil lawsuit for $22 million. After the settlement Jordan Chandler refused to continue with police regarding criminal proceedings. Jackson was never charged, and the state closed its criminal investigation, citing lack of evidence

If your child was abused in the manner they claimed (acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex) would you drop the case and risk Jackson getting to other children for money?



Glitter... Well he was arrested after child pornography images were discovered on the hard drive of a laptop that he had taken to PC World for repair. That is undeniable hard proof of a crime and it totally different to Jackson being accused of something and then going to court and being found not guilty.
 
UJSupanova said:
the Arvizo family? They don't really count because they were just fucking nutters trying to make easy money.

Regardless, i don't think any right-minded individual can honestly believe nothing untoward happened when he has admitted on several occasions sleeping in the same bed as young boys and also sharing sleeping bags. Regardless of whether he was found guilty or not by the corrupt US law system.
Click to expand...

hahah posts like these give me great pleasure
 
Jesus, It's a tribute thread.
Is it hard to remember the artist?

If we could see the "inner life" of most of our fav singers/bands it would probably be almost as bad, and sometimes worst than MJ's crazyness.

As an example, Marilyn Manson is a sick man, but he has some brilliant songs IMO.

Great artist. And I will always remember - Michael Jackson the artist/singer/performer.
 
Well at least he wasn't what many musicians are today with one hit wonders and cant make another worth shit,i don't really care what he did with his billion dollar net worth.
 
Apparently on Youtube, there is a movie clip taken from CNN where you can see his ghost in Neverland....Really eerie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom