Michael Jackson- Cardiac Arrest

[thxleo]

he was a freaky man child who back then had the money to just make the whole mess go away, hell if your albums are constantly making your revenue wouldn't 20 million be a price youd pay to stop being called a pedophile? No I would not, that's my point. If you are innocent of child molestation, you don't pay anything. We're not talking about some guy saying you shoved him to the ground one night and you don't want to be hassled with a court case, so you just give him a little bit of cash to go away. We are talking about molesting a child, an accusation that does not go away. So again, I would not pay anyone a single red cent if they accused me of something that terrible. Hell no.

[Craig]

No I would not, that's my point. If you are innocent of child molestation, you don't pay anything. We're not talking about some guy saying you shoved him to the ground one night and you don't want to be hassled with a court case, so you just give him a little bit of cash to go away. We are talking about molesting a child, an accusation that does not go away. So again, I would not pay anyone a single red cent if they accused me of something that terrible. Hell no. By that same merit then the parents wouldn't have accepted the money if their children had been molested. If someone is guilty of molesting your children you don't allow them to pay you off.

[mista_mo]

By that same merit then the parents wouldn't have accepted the money if their children had been molested. If someone is guilty of molesting your children you don't allow them to pay you off. Clearly the families just wanted money. They saw a vulnerable target, that lived his life in a very...odd way, so to speak, and decided to cash in on all the rumors.

[thxleo]

By that same merit then the parents wouldn't have accepted the money if their children had been molested. If someone is guilty of molesting your children you don't allow them to pay you off. Oh brother.

[krakenslayer]

No I would not, that's my point. If you are innocent of child molestation, you don't pay anything. We're not talking about some guy saying you shoved him to the ground one night and you don't want to be hassled with a court case, so you just give him a little bit of cash to go away. We are talking about molesting a child, an accusation that does not go away. So again, I would not pay anyone a single red cent if they accused me of something that terrible. Hell no. What you're saying is that Jackson paying the family is essentially a tacit admission of guilt, and I see where you're coming from, but I think that makes some major assumptions and ignores some big parts of the issue. Firstly, you basing the assumption on what you, as a level-headed guy-in-the-street, would do. Jackson was not a level-headed guy-in-the-street. He lived a near reclusive life on his ranch, and had very little contact with the "real" world outside. Quite frankly, he probably didn't give two fucks what the papers said about him so long as it didn't impinge on the Neverland fantasy world he had bought for himself. It's quite possible that multi-millionaire Jackson - who was famous for throwing money at things almost indiscriminately - was happy to pay the money just to keep the unpleasantness of the real world outside the walls of his ranch. I'm not saying this is more or less likely than him actually being a child molester, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because, as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent until proven guilty.

[Craig]

Oh brother. By that can I assume you've realised what a pointless circling argument this is? I was just applying your logic of 'he should fight for his innocence if he's innocent and not pay them off' to the family who 'should fight for his guilt if he's guilty rather than accept his money'.

[Yojimbo]

If you are innocent of child molestation, you don't pay anything. Not true in every circumstance, thxleo. As I have previously mentioned, major insurance companies offer to settle cases which the believe have no merit because it is often less costly to settle rather than have a long and drawn out trial. In fact, many major corporations and other deep pocket entities (Michael Jackson with the big royalties from his music and ownership of the Beatles Catalog would most certainly qualify as having very deep pockets) are routinely advised by legal counsel to consider settlement as a viable alternative to facing a trial. Bear in mind that regardless of the entity's innocence or guilt the outcome of a trial is unpredictable and as such can go either in your favor or against it (again, regardless of innocence or guilt) It also should be kept in mind that Camp Jackson would have offered a settlement in the second case, however was not allowed to due to the passage of a statue prohibiting such a buyout (which did not exist at the time of the first allegation, but was put into place largely because of what had happened with that first allegation) Given that he was found not-guilty of the charges brought forth during the trial pertaining to the second allegation (whether you belief him to ultimately be innocent and guilty) it has been noted that Jackson spent upwards of 20 million in legal fees for the 2005 trial and still owes one of the law firms an additional 200-300 grand. So, as a final total figure, for defending himself in a trial where the verdict was ultimately in his favor he ended up spending in excess of the 20 million he could have offered the family as a settlement - if the regulations had allowed this at that time- to avoid the trial as he had done with the first accuser's family and this would have been less of an expenditure on a monetary level to him than going through the trial. We are talking about molesting a child, an accusation that does not go away. I do see what you are saying. But suppose he had gone to trial with the first accuser as he did with the second, and suppose he had been found innocent of the charges as he was with the second set of accusations: wouldn't folks like yourself still feel that he was guilty regardless of the outcome, as you do right now? In that sense, if the accusations will never go away no matter what you do, and if people like you are going to ignore the ruling of the court and still consider him guilty of the crime he was brought to trial for (even though he was found innocent) then I ask you what the point would be of bothering. It seems to me a zero-sum game no matter what you do.

[ProfessorChaos]

kortick, you never let me down, man. nice one.

[kortick]

Yeah. And OJ didnt kill his wife. Oh wait, he was found not guilty. Silly us for ignoring reality and not a screwed up court system. If the courts said it, then it must be true. Like I said, If you like Jackson then I accept that this is a loss to you. Im not trying to get anyone to hate him. I just am less forgiving of pedophiles. He knew the first case against him he was going to lose, thats why you settle for cash. If he thought he could win, he would have fought it. I mean it was only his entire career and reputation on the line here, nothing serious. Yes as a person he was flawed, as we all are. But this worshipping him is beyond all sense of reality.

[Doc]

Yeah. And OJ didnt kill his wife. Oh wait, he was found not guilty. Silly us for ignoring reality and not a screwed up court system. If the courts said it, then it must be true. But, with OJ wasn't there..evidence.....against him? Wtih Micheal its just allegations.

[major jay]

But, with OJ wasn't there..evidence.....against him? Wtih Micheal its just allegations. Wasn't there one kid who identified his penis?

[Yojimbo]

But, with OJ wasn't there..evidence.....against him? Wtih Micheal its just allegations. Precisely. Wasn't there one kid who identified his penis? Yes, the first accuser apparently had identified specifics regarding Jackson's naked body. But this alone, unfortunately, is not evidence of molestation, only that the kid saw him naked. As I have said before, Jackson clearly had a relationship which was inappropriate with both accusers. But the rule of the law says that in a criminal case the guilt of the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so even though we can be sure his relationship was inappropriate, you would need to prove molestation beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly, in the second case there was not enough to meet that burden. I will remind you that OJ's case also failed to meet that burden of proof, however he lost the civil case where the burden is not as great as it is in a criminal case. Yes as a person he was flawed, as we all are. But this worshipping him is beyond all sense of reality. So are we now to assume that folks here are "worshiping" Michael Jackson simply because they feel saddened by the death of this freak?

[thxleo]

By that can I assume you've realised what a pointless circling argument this is? I was just applying your logic of 'he should fight for his innocence if he's innocent and not pay them off' to the family who 'should fight for his guilt if he's guilty rather than accept his money'. Maybe the family saw the chance to get rich quick and took the money. Maybe they were complicit with Jackson sleeping in bed with their kid and other things too. Who knows? Nobody wants to answer this question directly...if you were accused of molesting a kid and were completely innocent, would you pay someone to shut up? "Oh brother" goes back to what I originally said, I must be the only person on this board that sees Jackson for what he was, a pedophile. Sorry if my different take bothered you. I know that anytime someone disagrees with the politically correct mindset on this board everyone starts nashing teeth. Your age states you are 17, so I will "assume" that means you are not to blame for your p.c. brain. You have grown up in a world that tells you how you are suppose to think, rather than allowing you to actually think on your own. Remember the bad guys are really the good guys and the good guys are actually the bad guys. Isn't that right Craig? As I have said before, Jackson clearly had a relationship which was inappropriate with both accusers. I don't mean this to sound hostile because it is not, you are always very respectful and I appreicate your posts. I really do. However, what do you mean exactly? What exactly was inappropriate? You sound like Bill Clinton.

[Yojimbo]

Silly us for ignoring reality and not a screwed up court system. In this situation, that which you call reality - it seems to me - is largely subjective. The reality is that he was not found guilty in the second case and that you choose not to accept that verdict because you perceive the system to be broken, and you have already made up your mind that he is guilty.

[Danny]

I know that anytime someone disagrees with the politically correct mindset on this board everyone starts nashing teeth. Your age states you are 17, so I will "assume" that means you are not to blame for your p.c. brain. You have grown up in a world that tells you how you are suppose to think, rather than allowing you to actually think on your own. Remember the bad guys are really the good guys and the good guys are actually the bad guys. Isn't that right Craig? I don't mean this to sound hostile because it is not, you are always very respectful and I appreicate your posts. I really do. However, what do you mean exactly? What exactly was inappropriate? You sound like Bill Clinton. really dude?, is this gonna turn into another one of those "you sheeple dont know the secret truths i know" deals?