thelordofcheese wrote: » So they'd rather have had money than take him to court and see justice done... yeah, i'm not buying your argument here. And his lawyers did the right thing, they saw some money grabbing shills and ended the court case as quickly as they could. Hardly a sign of guilt.
murfie wrote: » I realise that but the statement of I_am_Jebus that he would be a legend even if he did do those things is was I was talking about. Cant be called a legend if you have done those things, MJ or anyone else. It was not proven in a court of law so in this case it is ok to call him legend.
I_am_Jebus wrote: » I don't know really, a court of law proved him innocent. That's all that matters at present in relation to those accusations. TBH, I think Michael was 50 going on 10 and was like that most of his life (Neverland etc...) I have no doubt that some of the stuff he said and done with children was bad judegement and stupid on his part but the impression I always got was that he was a child himself. He was his own worst enemy in my opinion but I don't believe he was paedophile/molestor.
d'Oracle wrote: » It mystifies me how Micheal Jackson can be an inspiration or role model to anyone. Infact, anyone who has Micheal Jackson as a role model, is probably going to be a severely warped and dysfunctional person.
Blay wrote: » He didn't, it was proven in a court of law.
dr oatker wrote: » In fact, after the initial rush of sympathy after his death subsides you'll get all sorts of stuff being said because dead men can't sue.
RonMexico wrote: » Breaking news, no other details as of yet... EDIT: Just would like to say so long Jacko. I'm stunned.
murfie wrote: » Why would he have even offered a settlement unless his lawyers thought there was a chance they wouldnt win, How many court cases was it? How many accusations are there that we dont know of?
gimme5minutes wrote: » Not as gifted as Lennon lol...Jackson was definitely more musically gifted than Lennon, if Lennon hadn't been shot he wouldn't get nearly as much acclaim as he does. Lennon was very musically talented, no doubt about it, but Jackson was even better. If his personal life hadn't cast such a shadow over his work, and he wasn't such an easy target for mockery he would get far more recognition for that fact.
murfie wrote: » I am amazed at that opinion. How could he be a legend if it comes out that in fact he did the things he was accused of. 750 million albums or not, if he did the things that he was accused of he can rot in hell!
RonMexico wrote: » http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=pd_ts_zgc_m_music_display_on_website_more?pf_rd_p=482110191&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=5174&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PP25WVJXFAX2M9A0GHR The top 15 selling albums right now are all Michael Jackson. The top 5 albums on itunes are Michael Jackson. He is going to smash records all over the world in the next week. Unbelievable.
I_am_Jebus wrote: » Even if MJ did molest kids (and I don't believe he did) it doesn't affect the musical achievements - 750 million albums sold. INCREDIBLE!! That is one of the reasons why he is a legend.
PeakOutput wrote: » oj simpson was found not guilty and then released a book entitled something along the lines of 'if i did it, this is how i would have done it' was oj simpson innocent?ask any judge or lawyer or anyone who knows anything about law saying someone is not guilty is not the same as saying they are innocent
Blay wrote: » Eh yes it is?
PeakOutput wrote: » unless i missed the memo not guilty is not the same as innocent by any stretch of the imagination if he didnt die and this was just a thread on micheal jackson no1 would be getting their panties in a twist over jokes or accusations NOTHING HAS CHANGED JSUT BECAUSE HE DIED i hope the stories were not true but i have a nagging feeling they were he was a musical legend to many but because of the way he lived his life there are numerous people in their early to late 20s who only know him for his crazy antics and not because of his music as it was just before their time
annabellee77 wrote: » Exactly. Personally I'm not sure, not convinced either way BUT if it was true I hold the parents of those kids as culpable, if not moreso.
jazoo wrote: » Even though he was not convicted , its STILL NOT NORMAL behavior to hang out with young boys or worse to let a man like that keep his children........just because hes a celeb . Glad to see the back of him.....Im a big music fan i dont doubt that he made a significant contribution to music . but dont put his name in the same post as John Lennon
dr oatker wrote: » Elvis maybe, Lennon no He was as famous as them but musically he's nowhere near Lennon
Quazzie wrote: » I If it comes across abusive I apologize profusely, it was never meant as such. I just disagree with your statements and it wasn't meant as any kind of personal attack on you or your nature.
thelordofcheese wrote: » except there often is. Good thing they settled out of court then, what with it not being about the money.......
Blay wrote: » Nobody said there was, what is wrong is making accusations about the man that have been proven false in a court of law, but the people on boards supposedly know better than the jury in the case so go figure:rolleyes:
