It´s rather long, but worth reading! There´s a lot of info that hasn´t been presented by the media. This is a complete story of the first allegations.

Let me add to this article that police also served a search warrant on MJ that allowed them to view and photograph his body including his penis in order to compare the photographs with the boy´s description. 27th. January 1994 Reuters agency reported that the police announced that the pictures didn´t match.

www.buttonmonkey.com/misc...cher.html

Read it. I have the GQ mag it's taken from. It's certainly interesting. If i was a neutral in this i'd say it's heavily slanted in MJ's favour, but there's nothing wrong with that, considering the avalanch of anti-MJ shite i read day after day.

Marrk said:

I agree. This article is quite biased. Consider the following paragraph:

Jackson’s personal eccentricities—from his attempts to remake his face through plastic surgery to his preference for the company of children—have been widely reported. And while it may be unusual for a 35-year-old man to have sleepovers with a 13-year-old child, the boy’s mother and others close to Jackson never thought it odd. Jackson’s behavior is better understood once it’s put in the context of his own childhood.

We have several insinuations here:

1. The mother is at fault if anything happened. Because she obviously WANTED it to happen, not because she believed Michael Jackson would never do such a thing. This argument is bizarre and is similar to the "she was asking for it" rape defense. Note how the author claims the behaviour is "unusual" but justifies it by shifting the blame to the mother and "others close to Jackson" who failed to notice it (or did they? The article doesn't elaborate, and perhaps in the context of Jackson's lifestyle this behaviour was perfectly normal to people who knew him well).

2. Jackson is merely "eccentric"; he does not have problems that need to be addressed (and this article won't be addressing them).

3. Jackson is a product of his childhood.

The subsequent paragraphs illustrate where the article is going:

“Contrary to what you might think, Michael’s life hasn’t been a walk in the park,” one of his attorneys says. Jackson’s childhood essentially stopped—and his unorthodox life began—when he was 5 years old and living in Gary, Indiana. Michael spent his youth in rehearsal studios, on stages performing before millions of strangers and sleeping in an endless string of hotel rooms. Except for his eight brothers and sisters, Jackson was surrounded by adults who pushed him relentlessly, particularly his father, Joe Jackson—a strict, unaffectionate man who reportedly beat his children.

Jackson’s early experiences translated into a kind of arrested development, many say, and he became a child in a man’s body. “He never had a childhood,” says Bert Fields, a former attorney of Jackson’s. “He is having one now. His buddies are 12-year-old kids. They have pillow fights and food fights.” Jackson’s interest in children also translated into humanitarian efforts. Over the years, he has given millions to causes benefiting children, including his own Heal The World Foundation.

So we have:

MJ = good, innocent; Jordy and Co. = bad, evil

Any article that is balanced will take a good, long, critical look at Jackson's behaviour as well as that of his accusers.
[This message was edited Thu May 6 10:51:23 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Interesting. Articles completely dissing MJ without saying anything positive about him are OK and once there is one that seems to be in his favour, it gets this responce....

dag said:

Wrong. I don't like ultra-biased articles from either camp, but this is one of them. It rests just as much on insinuation as any silly anti-MJ article.

dag said:

The old Prince vs MJ quarrel will never cease.

While some threads might get a serious response, I doubt a MJ thread on a Prince forum ever will.

than why are you responding to this?

I think that people harbour the image of MJ as a pedophile simply because he settled out of court for approximately $20 million in his first case. It simply does not make him look honest or innocent. If there's one thing people remember about the Chandler case, it's that "MJ paid the kid off". The reasoning goes is that if he was actually innocent, why didn't he simply go to court. It rests on the simple fact that defendants make settlments when they generally want to to cut their losses. Many people don't look at the possible reasons, such as publicity or breaches of his privacy. But I think that making that settlment branded MJ as a pedophile permanently in the public eye. It was the worst possible thing he could do, and the biggest mistake of his career (if he's innocent).

The fact that he's now being accused for a second time does not help his case.
[This message was edited Thu May 6 11:26:25 2004 by VoicesCarry]

dag said:

People think it's fun to tease or wreck havoc.

Just because.

If you know that will happen you may be able to ignore and filter them out and concentrate on
the nice responses.

I am reacting to your surprise that people are silly here. Just concentrate on the positive things. I normally do not respond to any MJ threads. Just cuz I know I have a prejudice against his personality.

I still think Off The Wall is genius.

VoicesCarry said:

You r absolutely right VoicesCarry. And the whole second case is just reality, because of the pay off.

BlueNote
[This message was edited Thu May 6 11:11:34 2004 by BlueNote]

thank you for your explanation. Believe or not I like it. It´s great that even though you don´t like him, you´re not trying to humiliate him. I am also this way. You know what I don´t understand most? I understand that when people love someone that they dedicate some time to talk about that person, but what I don´t get the most is spending time on dissing someone. I think that´s the worst thing. I always say if you don´t like someone, leave them alone. There are always people who love you and people who don´t, but how would you feel, if all those people who don´t like you would tell you that everytime they see you and spend a lot of time just dissing you in front of everyone else.

well yeah guys, but look at it this way, if someone molested your kid, would YOU take the money from that person? I would want him to rot in hell!

dag said:

Jealousy

BlueNote

"Jealousy" ??!!
What do you mean by that? I don´t get it.

dag said:

Again, we are shifting the blame to the mother for something that is complete supposition on our behalf. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but it was likely lawyers at work. Perhaps the parents didn't want the kid to go through a trial, either. We can suppose this and that, but we'll never really know. Whatever the case, they have managed to put Michael in what I would consider a personal hell and a very compromising position. Take your pick. He will never go to a real jail even if he is convicted, simply because of his money and the leverage it brings, and she (and the lawyers) probably considered that. Better to take the $20M and try to make a better life for yourself than to see your kid's molestor go to a plush facility for a few months and then do some community service. So, putting myself in her shoes, I can see why she might have made that decision - if her motives are authentic.
[This message was edited Thu May 6 11:24:24 2004 by VoicesCarry]

dag said:

Well, they don't understand his success by comparison him to their 'loved one' or themselfs.

BlueNote

oh yeah. Got it now...exactly!!!!

stupid question...is that sneddon exposed side by people who are on his side or MJ´s. Just to know whether it is worth going there....thanks...

VoicesCarry said:

I think MJ just chose the easy way out. They wanted something which didn't hurt him much at first. I bet he had a lot of folks around who told him not to choose the money thing, but he was just tired of the whole thing. What a moron he was during that time.

BlueNote

dag said:

It tries to show how Sneddon works. Not just with MJ, but with a lot of people in or around Santa Barbara county.

BlueNote

thanks..I´ll check it out then...

mmmm....why is it that MJ gets to use his childhood as an excuse but if someone who may sell drugs or steals says, "i'm a product of my childhood" we want them under the jail.


I'm sure all the MJ fans and I use to be one of then, enjoy other artists...can ya'll post them please.


just a suggestion.

Instead of rallying around in support of a man you dont even have a clue who he is.Try directing all this energy into preventive measures.All these people all over the world,there opinion based upon his albums and the Oprah interview.That kid could use some positive energy about now no?

yo im really getting tired of these threads
cut the shyt!

The pay off did hurt him. Now this family think they can make the same accusations and Michael will just fold and hand over the cash. What they don't realise is that the Michael Jackson of 2004 is not the same Michael Jackson of 1993 (no i'm not talking physical changes).

WildStyle said:

Right...just sicker, weirder and more delusional...

Oh no,not that GQ article again...lol...it's been posted here numerous times already.

WildStyle said:

MJ can't just pay out this time, not because his some tough guy but the fact that the laws have change in Cali and this is a criminal case not a civil case. They have not sued Michael for money.

Johnny C told MJ back in 1993 that it was a bad idea to pay. Johnny C is a damn genius...he can get criminals off.

I've heard that a $15m civil suit has been filed by the family. Although they're on record as saying it's not about the money.

What to believe and what not to believe.

The family can still get money out of a criminal trial. They can then file a civil suite after the trial. In fact, they were turned down by 2 civil lawyers at the start of this thing before landing in civil attourney Larry Feldman's office. Larry Feldman was the same lawyer that got the Chandler's that settlement. Next thing you know, the kid is at a therapist claiming MJ molested him.

and they can write a book about it.