• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

It's not a jury acquittal.

You're probably the only person here who thought it was.

And settling out of court over a criminal matter, as opposed to a civil one, is also very much an example of Jackson being "above the law". If a not rich/famous person offered their alleged sexual assault victim money to stop cooperating with a police investigation, that person would be charged with witness tampering.

The settlement was not a criminal matter, it was a civil matter. The father of the alleged victim instigated the financial settlement.
 
We really need and example of what " above the law ' means to you, so we can know why we are wrong.

It means that you are "exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else."

MJ was, in fact, investigated and charged under the same laws as everyone else is investigated and charged under. He was not above the law.
 
There were trials. Jackson got off two of them for technical reasons.
* By "technical reasons" you mean that in the first case, the California police spent $2 million investigating Jackson and then declined to press charges. The boy's mother did not believe her son had been molested. The boy's father, who was later found to be nearly 70 thousand dollars behind on childcare payments chose to pursue a civil suit. The boy himself (Jordan Chandler) was found to have been on psychoactive drugs around the time of his own testimony to the authorities; administered by his father for a dental procedure.

* In the second case (People v. Michael Jackson in 2004-5 based on claims made by Gavin Arvizo), Jackson WAS in fact acquitted of all charges.

* I'm less familiar with the Wade Robson lawsuit / allegations.

All this at a time when tabloids would pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for mere pictures of celebrities. Which I presume they still do.
 
Last edited:
That's still not what "above the law" means. The best you can say is that these people didn't come to the attention of the law. Except Jackson of course because he was acquitted at trial.

"Above the law" means to be so powerful or important that the authorities turn a blind eye to your criminal behaviour or pull strings on your behalf, or your victims daren't take official action.

In the Hollywood environment Harvey Weinstein was "above the law", though no more. Jimmy Saville was similarly "above the law". The behaviour of both was known, but few dared complain. Such complaints as there were were swept under the carpet.

It doesn't mean what you claim just above, at least not in everyday parlance. In fact the only people that match your description would be dictators who are able to pass laws specific to themselves.
 
Last edited:
It's not a jury acquittal.



And settling out of court over a criminal matter, as opposed to a civil one, is also very much an example of Jackson being "above the law". If a not rich/famous person offered their alleged sexual assault victim money to stop cooperating with a police investigation, that person would be charged with witness tampering.
How can someone settle a criminal charge out of court?
 
Except he was investigated and charged which means he is not above the law, he was acquitted.
On that one particular charge. How you seem to be rather pedanticly wanting to use it no one outside fiction has ever been above the law.
 
On that one particular charge. How you seem to be rather pedanticly wanting to use it no one outside fiction has ever been above the law.

Does the phrase 'above the law' mean 'went through the legal system but the outcome wasn't what I think it should have been', or does it mean 'didn't have to go through the legal system because of their power in society'? I agree those definitions are not interchangeable, and some here are using the former while others are using the latter.
 
* By "technical reasons" you mean that in the first case, the California police spent $2 million investigating Jackson and then declined to press charges. The boy's mother did not believe her son had been molested. The boy's father, who was later found to be nearly 70 thousand dollars behind on childcare payments chose to pursue a civil suit. The boy himself (Jordan Chandler) was found to have been on psychoactive drugs around the time of his own testimony to the authorities; administered by his father for a dental procedure.

* In the second case (People v. Michael Jackson in 2004-5 based on claims made by Gavin Arvizo), Jackson WAS in fact acquitted of all charges.

* I'm less familiar with the Wade Robson lawsuit / allegations.

All this at a time when tabloids would pay tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for mere pictures of celebrities. Which I presume they still do.

You might want to watch the show.
 
I've never been particularly interested in MJ's music catalog, being more of a 60s and 70s rock and roll fan, but in view of the debate which this new film seems to have inspired I have to ask.

Is it okay to listen to music he made before he may or may not have become a pedophile scum, or is all of it off limits to right-thinking people?
 
It's perfectly nice and wholesome to sleep in the same bed as a young boy. Not out of necessity mind you, but simply because it's so nice to touch, smell and feel them. No one should hesitate to leave their kids completely alone with a person who admitted doing so. Just like i wouldn't suspect someones wife or husband of infidelity if they were to sleep together with someone other than their spouse. There's no reason to assume that it isn't perfectly innocent.

Note: This is what MJ fans really believe.
 
I've never been particularly interested in MJ's music catalog, being more of a 60s and 70s rock and roll fan, but in view of the debate which this new film seems to have inspired I have to ask.

Is it okay to listen to music he made before he may or may not have become a pedophile scum, or is all of it off limits to right-thinking people?

Anything before "Thriller". That's when he sold out.
 
It's perfectly nice and wholesome to sleep in the same bed as a young boy. Not out of necessity mind you, but simply because it's so nice to touch, smell and feel them. No one should hesitate to leave their kids completely alone with a person who admitted doing so. Just like i wouldn't suspect someones wife or husband of infidelity if they were to sleep together with someone other than their spouse. There's no reason to assume that it isn't perfectly innocent.

Note: This is what MJ fans really believe.

This asexual wants to know why everything has to be about sex.
 
It's perfectly nice and wholesome to sleep in the same bed as a young boy. Not out of necessity mind you, but simply because it's so nice to touch, smell and feel them. No one should hesitate to leave their kids completely alone with a person who admitted doing so. Just like i wouldn't suspect someones wife or husband of infidelity if they were to sleep together with someone other than their spouse. There's no reason to assume that it isn't perfectly innocent.

Note: This is what MJ fans really believe.
Also, locked door. That's completely innocent.

It's lucky he didn't have young girls around in the same situation.... that might have caused a fuss.
 
Last edited:
he didn't have young girls around
It seems that he was a pedophile with a strict interest in boys. He also modified himself to look like a woman.

It looks like a female cougar preying on young boys. From the boy's perspective, Jackson was something like a woman with a penis. There was almost no masculinity at all.

Michael Jackson was probably always gay or trans and simply had no sexual interest in females or adult males.
 
It's perfectly nice and wholesome to sleep in the same bed as a young boy. Not out of necessity mind you, but simply because it's so nice to touch, smell and feel them. No one should hesitate to leave their kids completely alone with a person who admitted doing so. Just like i wouldn't suspect someones wife or husband of infidelity if they were to sleep together with someone other than their spouse. There's no reason to assume that it isn't perfectly innocent.

Note: This is what MJ fans really believe.
I've done all of the above. Because the kid(s) belonged to an ex or my sister. Because sometimes letting them lay down on my shoulder was the easiest way to get them to go to sleep so I could get some alone time with their mother(s). Or because my sister was sick, sleepless, and at wit's end trying to get her kids down. In at least one case because the kid was autistic, wore a diaper, and smelling them was sometimes the easiest way to determine whether they had soiled themselves. I've even taken showers with kids and stripped naked in front of kids that were not my own before (context: Family changing rooms at a swimming pool; kids young enough not to be trustworthy by themselves).

Obviously, I must be a pedophile, right? :rolleyes: Grow the **** up.
 
Last edited:
On that one particular charge. How you seem to be rather pedanticly wanting to use it no one outside fiction has ever been above the law.

Actually there were 14 charges I believe. Not guilty on all of them.
 
Corey Feldman has always defended MJ, saying there was never any untoward activity between them (although he was molested by other Hollywood figures.)

I believe that may be true, as although MJ cared for him, he was likely not his "type". I'd be more interested to hear Macauley Culkin say the same, with such conviction.

Culkin testified at MJ's trial and said Jackson never did anything inappropriate with him.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom