MSNBC, Matthews slandering Michael Jackson

Utterly disgusting coverage.

Taibbi repeated over and over again, "alleged child molester". 80% of his coverage about Jackson as a child molester. Matthews chimes in: all the weird stuff he did to his body, and how he lightened his skin.

Do they know that he was found "not guilty" of the few incidences of alleged abuse? Do they know that his accusers were largely discredited? Does Matthews know that MJ had a disfiguring skin pigmentation condition that caused him to use medicines (which caused his skin to lighten), makeup, and surgery to cover up?

Do these two know that Jackson had donated millions of dollars, and helped thousands of children through charitable aid and medical foundations? How can you compare a few dubious accusations of child abuse to the thousands he helped? They ignore the 99% to obsess over the 1%. Sickening!

This from the fourth estate, who for every war criminal president ignore the thousands they kill in war for meaningless tokens like "tough foreign policy". What a bunch of hypocritical buffoons.

That is something that shouldn't be forgotten or taken lightly. He was found not guilty, but that doesn't mean he was innocent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heal_the_World_Foundation

Read about his charitable foundation. Read about his donations to the United Negro College fund, allowing underprivileged blacks to fulfill their dreams. Read about the millions he gave so that thousands of children would not starve.

If he did, it really doesn't matter how much good he did for others. He messed some kids' lives up.

That's all I'm saying.

Prove the bad before invalidating all the good.

You must prove guilt, not innocence.

You live in the wrong country, they prove innocence in Saudi Arabia I hear.

I can accuse you of anything and then use the logical fallacy "prove you didn't". It is impossible to prove that you DIDN'T do something.

here. The jury could have found him innocent. They couldn't determine that he was. Jackson's high priced lawyers were able to show enough doubt to prove guilt. They found him not guilty.

And especially in the first accusation, it was the boy's word against his. How do you prove a "nothing", that "nothing" took place?

You don't have to prove innocence in court. Where the hell did you get that notion?

You cannot prove 100% that something did not happen. I'm sorry, but this is a logical fallacy that has been proven.

The defendant has to rebut the plaintiff's evidence. If the plaintiff doesn't meet the burden of producing evidence, the defendant doesn't have to do anything.

"not guilty." "Innocent" is not an option.

I understand paying off people to make certain charges go away. But there are charges that go beyond one's honor and when you have the funds to defend yourself why would you pay off someone aiming to scandalize your repuatation?

I'm not saying he was guilty but if I had the funds to defend myself ( and MJ had the funds at that time in his life ) against a charge that had the ramifications of "sexual abuse" I'd say "damn the cost." MJ had the money and he chose to pay off a possible blackmailer. That's not the sign of an innocent man from my POV.

MJ or some of his handlers decided that the settlement was a better course of action then the effects the trial(s) might have had on the brand(seen in that light the settlements might have been a light cost) since that is a very very valuable thing.

One thing to keep in mind also is that after MJ basically decided enough is enough and went a full trial and got found not guilty by the court, the lawsuits stopped(which one might read as that MJ was no longer seen as an easy mark for 'easy' money)

That is not an option during the trial.

It's guilty or not guilty.
I highly suggest you watch two movies that might very well make you think before you speak: Paradise Lost and Indictment.

Unless you have information that NO ONE else has, you cannot presume guilt. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. The defense does NOT have to prove innocence.

I remember, though, at the time of the trial the verdict was not as strong as it could have been. I'll see if I can find the details.

As a liberal, I scared even myself by presuming guilt before I had all of the facts.
In any case, sorry for the profanity...I'm a little tipsy and "punchy" from the previous day's events.

Cheers!
muffin1


:hi:

saying that they believed he was indeed guilty:



More at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/

I'm shaking my head here.

I'll be waiting. Until then, I expect you to be doing nothing but gathering your evidence, and NOT wasting our time with more utterly stupid responses.

I understand what you're saying, but people keep comparing this to the O.J. case, and I can't see that it's a valid comparison, since the known evidence is clearly NOT even in the same realm.

and their (sometimes drugged) children.

despite the prosecution having a non-existent case.

He did it to prevent the details of the accusations from going public, and it's not indicative of guilt.

except with extremely trusted people I have known a long time.

But I don't really see what that has to do with Jackson being innocent or guilty of a crime.

I am pretty sure all the details of the accusations in Kobe's case where made public. He had a preliminary hearing and it all was out, as far as I can tell.

I don't understand what you mean.

I mean, if you are going to compare the two cases and use "mountains of evidence" as a point of argument, I would like to know (seriously) to what you are referring.

To answer your question, off the top of my head I can think of a few explanations as to why Michael might have done that, as much as I agree that it looks bad. First, to try to make it "go away" quietly in hopes of salvaging his image and reputation, which may be naive, but that actually leads to my second possible explanation, that he WAS naive enough to think that it WOULD go away. Remember how insanely wealthy Michael was at the time and for how long he had had money and fame. I can imagine that it would seem that ANYTHING could be taken care of by money. A third (related, and probably not separate from the first two in my opinion) possibility, is that Michael suffered from some sort of mental illness or trauma, and thought that his behavior was acceptable (NOT pedophilia, but hanging out with children so much, etc.). I think many of us would agree that this is WELL within the realm of possibility. Even severe lack of socialization might have caused such a view of the world, I think.

The fourth possibility is that he was guilty. Of course that is within the realm of possibility. Michael Jackson engaged in some very strange and probably, at the least, inappropriate behavior from "normal" people's point of view. Now, of course, I don't KNOW that any of these are true, but I don't claim to be sure about his guilt or innocence. I just know that there is not a lot of real evidence that I have read about or which anyone on this board who accuses Michael of being a pedophile can or will provide that would lead me to thoughtfully conclude that it is more than likely that he was one. And accusing someone of being a pedophile is not something that I think people should do lightly. That is perhaps the most serious and damning accusation one can level against another, and certainly the most damning when it comes to reputation, since it seems an accusation alone can ruin a person's life and name.

I'm sorry if I went on and on, but these are my thoughts on the matter. I've thought about this for quite some time, over the years since he was first accused.

First, the settlement occurred in a civil matter not criminal (where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and a unanimous verdict of guilty is required). In the civil case, all the plaintiff (the boy) had to do was prove liability to a 51% liklihood in the mind of the jury and a unanimous verdict was not required. A settlement doesn't occur when you know you're wrong. A settlement occurs when your attorney tells you your evidence isn't strong enough, when compared to the potential exposure if you lose. Jackson's lawyer might have urged him to settle, telling him something like this: "if that innocent-looking young boy gets on the stand and tells those things about you, the jury will give him far more credibility than it would to you, a strange-looking man who has admitted his obsession with children. If the jury believes him and gives him the damages he seeks and astronomical punitive damages on top of that, you might be in for the loss of almost everything you have."

In the civil case that was settled, it was largely the boy's word against Jackson's. Jackson would have no rebuttal except to deny the boy's words and say that nothing took place. Other than through his own words, how would Jackson prove the absence of an act? Any competent attorney would have told him how dangerous it would have been in such a situation, whether the allegations were true or not. A settlement allowed Jackson to limit his potential exposure.

Is sleeping with boys in your bed at your ranch itself something that made Jackson liable? Probably not, as it was done with the parents' knowledge and consent. Jackson admitted that he was sleeping with children. It's just a short stretch for a jury to make from mere sleeping to improper touching and Jackson left himself completely at the mercy of profiteers, if the allegations were untrue and merely done to capitalize on a very easy defendant who would have no way of defending himself in that situation. Jackson should never, ever have put himself in that kind of precarious situation. He brought it on himself. But the mere fact of settlement proves absolutely nothing.

Your point? :eyes:

Grow up

with, and likely sexually abused.

Jackson's financial records have never been disclosed; he wasted money faster than the federal government on all kinds of crap, including the maintenance of Neverland and multiple divorces in community property states.

I want a link for this.

Michael Jackson's Big Payoff
Agreed to pay $15 million to settle boy's 1993 sex abuse claim
JUNE 16--Michael Jackson agreed to pay $15.3 million to settle child molestation charges leveled against him in 1993 by a California boy, according to a confidential legal agreement. A heavily redacted version of the 31-page document, a copy of which you'll find below, was obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond.

The January 1994 agreement contains a one-line reference to Jackson delivering "confessions of judgment" totaling $15,331,250 to the boy's attorneys. However, since the entire eight-page section of the agreement titled "Settlement Payment" is not included in the document, it is unclear how the eight-figure payout was distributed to the boy or what his parents were paid. However, a reference to the establishment of a "qualified funding asset" would indicate that an annuity (likely tax free) was a central part of the settlement.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

right?

$15 million for MJ was (at his peak) play money.

Prosecutors: Michael Jackson on the brink of bankruptcy
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV
Monday, March 14, 2005 Posted: 1:10 PM EST (1810 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (Court TV) -- Michael Jackson owes $450 million to creditors and the government and "is on the precipice of bankruptcy," a prosecutor told a judge in the pop icon's child molestation trial Friday.

The prosecutor called Jackson a "spendaholic" who racked up $35 million in annual bills while earning just $12 million a year.

"He has a billionaire's spending habit, but a millionaire's budget," senior deputy district attorney Gordon Auchincloss said during a hearing to determine whether prosecutors can review certain records from Jackson's bank and accountants.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/jackson/index.html


:hi: Anything else? Google is your friend....

If I have 100 million and blow 99 on hookers and cocaine, and then spend the $1 million as a charitable contribution, nobody would seriously say that the charitable contribution was the CAUSE OF MY BANKRUPTCY! You're citing his revenue after he already blew the enormous fortune he had in the 80's.

Civil cases are not the cause of Jackson's financial situation, it was poor money management that put him in the bankruptcy scenario.

Jesus Christ, the fact that I had to explain this to you is fucking pathetic.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson

You think he spent hundreds of millions settling cases? Don't tell me you're thick enough to believe that.

I also have a concept that all his millions were spent a long time ago, and that the payments he made out to this family (and possibly others) is what finally drove him to the brink of bankruptcy. The fact that someone needs to explain that to YOU is even more fucking pathetic.

Mismanagement of funds notwithstanding, if you have $16 million dollars left you're FAR from bankrupt, but if you spend 15.5 million of that paying someone 'hush money' it'll put you in bankruptcy real fucking quick...

run and pay taxes on Neverland, a fleet of cars, yachts, and jets, etc. you are already near bankruptcy.

I'm telling you that you are being absurd in suggesting that settling civil suits caused his bankruptcy. He settled that suit for $22 million; do you think a billionaire is troubled by this amount? Obviously not. Like your OWN LINK SAID: he blew his money, and $22 million is relatively insignificant for billionaires. He was not driven into poor financial condition due to civil suits. *facepalm* Good God, that's dumb.

Please respond, I need more comedy.

his net worth was estimated between $350 -$750 Million.

Your second mistake is your comment about $35 million/year to run things. The report I linked to said he was a "spendaholic" who spent almost 3 times as much as he made per year. He could have/should have sold off some of those cars, yachts and jets and took some responsibility for his spending.

I don't begrudge him his money, nor do I begrudge anyone else theirs. Micheal Jackson made a ton of money, and he built his own little world in which he dwelled with it. Hey, if you can go make hundreds of millions and want to drink champagne that flows out of gold faucets in your house, it's none of my concern, or business. The bottom line, though, is the fact that if you owe $450 MILLION in debts with a $12 million/year income, $15 million (or $22 million) is going to bankrupt you. Period.

you can "allege it" all you want but that's just crap because NOT guilty is NOT guilty!

Pit the MJ fans against the ones that are not and get people all worked up so they will not notice what is happening in DC and the world.

We are suckered in again.

mansion? I can see it in a studio apartment. It's more than a little creepy and shows completely bad judgment on his part.

"You said in that documentary that many children have slept in your bedroom. You said...and I'm going to quote here, 'Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone,'" Bradley remarked. "As we sit here today, do you still think that it's acceptable to share your bed with children?"

"Of course. Of course. Why not?" Jackson asked. "If you're going to be a pedophile, if you're going to be Jack the Ripper, if you're going to be a murderer, it's not a good idea. That I'm not. That's how we were raised. And I met, I didn't sleep in the bed with the child. Even if I did, it's OK. I slept on the floor. I gave the bed to the child."

"But given all that you've been through...given the allegations...given the innuendo, why would you put yourself in the position where something like this could happen again?" Bradley asked.

"Well, I'm always more cautious, but I would never stop helping and loving people the way Jesus said to. He said, 'Continue to love. Always love. Bring on the children. Imitate the children. Not childish but childlike,'" Jackson replied.
more ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/entertainment/main5115351_page2.shtml\

How is having a child sleep in his bedroom "loving people the way Jesus said to".

every allegation made against him in this regard was groundless?

Another take on it is that all that money donated to help kids was a PR stunt to cover for the pedophilia. The same money that paid for those things paid to keep the allegations out of court. MJ was fortunate to be among the entertainment industry's elites, so he was treated differently.

You say he was acquitted, yet two of the jurors in his 2004 case who immediately after the trial said he was innocent came out a brief time after and said he was guilty. Any chance they were overwhelmed by the spotlight of his celebrity in rendering their original verdict, only to rue it later?

Yes, I know that celebrities are often targets of blackmailers etc, but in MJ's case, it was always for the same thing. He could have put an end to it by foregoing the sleepovers and the invites to his ranch to young kids. He could have continued to help kids through his donations without putting himself in positions that were compromising for him.

Sometimes the best thing to do is to avoid situations so there's not even a chance of being accused of something.

And, BTW, if MJ had illegal sexual contacts with even 1% of the kids that were ever around him, that's enough to have the label be a factual representation of him being a pedophile.

AFAIK, I appreciate Tweets giving a counter to the rampant TV coverage that ignores of glosses over MJ's pedophilia.

It is really dangerous to praise someone who was the celebrity face of pedophilia. Pedophiles loved MJ for what he represented to them. I am not surprised, yet still bothered by so many people unwilling to call him what he seemed to be, a pedophile.

They were attempting to extort money from Jackson.

If these people really believed their kids were victims of abuse, why did they always take the money? Hell, why did they let their kids spend time with Jackson?

Those people are mostly extortionists and others who were paid money by media outlets to make up stories.


But let's assume you are correct: despite being found "not guilty", he molested children. Does that justify a 99% focus on allegations over molestation and skin pigmentation over the thousands of people he helped through his charities? No, it does not.

He was eccentric, not a criminal.

That he opened himself up to extortion does not make him a criminal.

Next pedophile in court can just claim he is eccentric and unfairly targeted.:puke:

Did he ever spend time with little girls, too?

Having read what went public about the alleged molestation, I actually don't think he was guilty. But still, a grown man can't try to be a child himself. That's not eccentic, it's unhealthy for everyone involved.

sleep with them. And, look at all those charities.

Is this the same country with "innocent until proven guilty" or Iran?

And, no. NOTHING absolves one from molesting a child. It is worse than murder, IMO.

Were you or someone you know molested as a child?

Don't take it out on Jackson.

You are vile in your worship of a pedophile.

but honestly your accusations are so over-the-top that it sounds personal.

If not, them I'm wrong.

One kid testified, swore that Jackson gave him handjobs and blowjobs. He drugged kids and slept with them. The man was sick. He was a tragic case. He was abused and exploited as a kid, and grew up to do the same. And, no matter what other good he did, he messed up some kids' lives.

ETA: BTW, you know someone who was molested as a child. We all do. It happens far too often to gloss over it when eulogizing a celebrity.

"But let's assume you are correct: despite being found "not guilty", he molested children. Does that justify a 99% focus on allegations over molestation and skin pigmentation over the thousands of people he helped through his charities? No, it does not."

No, no more than focusing on a benevolent rapist's or murderer's crimes would be justified if it applied to only 1% of their life's activities. :sarcasm:

There are certain offenses against society that label one for life in the eyes of society. Rape, murder and child abuse are those kind of offenses.

BTW - you ask me to "read up on" the people who made these allegations. Do you think that any such reading will contain the amount of weirdness and questionable behavior one would find in "reading up on" on MJ to balance against MJ? Seriously? If reading up on his accusers is fair play, then so is reading up on the accused. Who did you think is going to win that comparison? MJ? Don't think so.

Because this sounds like a trial of public opinion, not of evidence.

who brought the allegations about MJ. You wrote:

"If these people really believed their kids were victims of abuse, why did they always take the money? Hell, why did they let their kids spend time with Jackson?"

That qualifies as parents engaging in what this parent would call weird behavior, ie: letting kids spend time with a person who had been accused of raping children. You then go on to say this weird behavior led them into criminal activity:

"Those people are mostly extortionists and others who were paid money by media outlets to make up stories."

Where is your evidence to support your claims that these parents were extortionists? For them to be extortionists, the crimes could not have happened. If the crime of extortion was committed, MJ could have brought legal action against them. Your defense of MJ via a smearing of the parents who brought action against them is as evidence free as the "trial of public opinion" you rail against.

That is what you're saying here. And it's fucking sick.

show on him today because everybody is doing a show on him today.

and, since Tweety and I are about the same age, I completely understand and agree with him.

The MJ phenomenon completely missed us - we're the Beatles, the Stones, Springsteen - so, yeah, Tweety (and I) were honestly shocked and puzzled by this hysteria accompanying his death.

I've finally decided that it's a generational thing.................

And OJ was acquitted, too.

by dying. :p

:eyes:

despite the fact that the woman had no case in court, and was suspected by many of lying about rape.

Does that make Bryant a criminal?

Convict without evidence, guilty until proven otherwise!

Thank god we have a court system to protect people from you.

never thought he was all that great.

It only means that the prosecution didn't present enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury of the defendant's guilt.

Several jurors that voted to acquit said later they didn't necessarily think he was innocent and that nothing happened. Nope. It was just that the prosecution didn't find enough evidence that something did.

OJ was found "not guilty" of two murders. Does that mean he's innocent and that someone else killed his ex-wife and her male friend? Yeah, sure.....

Or does it mean that the prosecution and investigating officers screwed up when presenting their case, so any doubts the jury may have had couldn't be assuaged?

Overkill, maybe, if you're report is accurate, but not slander.

It may hurt for some to hear it again, but it did really happen.. he was an alleged child molester, He had MONEY, and paid off more than a couple of families, who were willing to sell their child's misfortune.

He was acquitted, but there's a big difference between a legal "not guilty" and a "he didn't do it" in the real world.


He claimed to have vitiligo, and having known many people with vilitigo, I can tell you that it's a blotchy disease, and rarely completely changes pigmentation they was his complexion changed. He was unhappy in his own skin, literally, and had the money to attempt to change himself. It's sad, bcause he was a handsome young man.

Philanthropy & good deeds do not excuse pedophilia. You cannot "buy" your way out of it..Many priests tried that route too.

Why do we give the benefit of the doubt to any politician?

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have, as commander-in-chiefs, presided over the deaths of innocent people during war. Clinton ordered airstrikes on facilities containing innocent people. Why is his entire legacy not those deaths? Why is the good relevant for him but not for Jackson, especially considering the far more heinous crime of taking life vs. molestation?

in an airstrike.

That's why the crime of murder is punishable by a greater penalty than molestation.

I'm starting to get the eerie feeling this is personal for you, too. No rational person would seriously compare molestation to killing.

There comes a point where horrible is just that - horrible.
Yes, the law makes distinctions, but even some killings are less bad than molestation (killing in self-defense, for example).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hide:

I find it ironic that some of the most hate-filled posts so closely resember what is apparently being posted at Free Republic as well...

The need to demean others (live or dead) and to be judgmental to the nth degree is not simply a RW trait, it seems.


I don't know if he was ultimately guilty of the accusations. He was acquitted. He was also an incredibly broken person, who to me, screams the effects of serious lifetime abuse, himself. I have no problem giving him some benefit of doubt in death and compassion.

RIP Michael.

so what if his neverland ranch looked like the "perfect draw" for little boys.

Yes, TV is full of people who will say anything for money, absolutely anything.

coincidence the parents and kids making the allegations just happened to fall into big piles of money walking down the streets. Happens every day on the streets of LA, that's why it's called paradise...

in the hallways leading to the rooms where the boys slept with him? Why did he admit to giving them wine before bed? Why did he admit that he was "loving" these boys alone in his bed? Why did he turn his property into an amusement park? Why can't he maintain an adult intimate relationship?

Normal people don't do any of these things.

I'm sure the parents sent their kids in there with all kinds of different understandings and motivations. I'm sure he's also been unfairly accused in some instances.

But he wouldn't be paying off those parents if he could win in court. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence: The Prosecution has to prove a law was broken. They must have had enough evidence, including intimate details of MJ's private parts, to convict.

It's just wishfull thinking that he's not a molester.

that there was plenty of evidence -- that has not been discredited -- that he was a serial molester.

I am disgusted with the coverage -- there is way too much of it. He's not a head of state, he's an entertainer who appears to have died of a drug overdose. Let's move on.

And her "fair and balanced" coverage?

There is a whole world out there and we've been subjected to wall-to-wall Michael Jackson. What a farce.