Michael Jackson

[wehatepalace]

A lot of people were saying that he was f***ed and wouldn't have been able to do his shows before he snuffed it.........he looked pretty good here just two days before he died.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/article300101.ece?vxSiteId=6247211d-66e0-4454-b73a-3f1610efa39a&vxChannel=Michael%20Jackson&vxClipId=1347_SUN25138&vxBitrate=300

 

[Marc]

people do drop dead at 50 ya know, just because he looked well before does'nt mean to say he was'nt gonna die!

 

[Gazwag]

who knows what was charging around his bloodstream

 

[severnside gull]

questionable if he could have knocked out 50 nights no matter what

 

[wehatepalace]

people do drop dead at 50 ya know, just because he looked well before does'nt mean to say he was'nt gonna die!

oh yeah i know, just think it makes even sadder ! He was looking so good one day and dead a couple of days later !
I was just getting at the fact most people were saying that the tour would never have happened (they were right of course) but I thought he looked remarkably good.

 

[Mr Burns]

He should have invited Gary Glitter up on stage with him, so they could both share it with all the kids.

There's no difference to me between the two of them, other than Jackson paid his way out of trouble.

Both scum, and neither will be missed in Springfield............................. (lights fuse and runs)


(11 pages)

 

[beorhthelm]

i didnt think he'd be able to put on a show, but the footage does show an active performance, if a little toned down on his past. still dont think he had 50 nights in him, and if the stories are correct he was getting through rehersals with pain killers.

 

[Bhafcman]

He should have invited Gary Glitter up on stage with him, so they could both share it with all the kids.

There's no difference to me between the two of them, other than Jackson paid his way out of trouble.

Both scum, and neither will be missed in Springfield............................. (lights fuse and runs)


(11 pages)

here we goo all the anti Mj's and if he really "molested" those kids why did the parents take him for a civil instead of a criminal case i think people should jus stop eating up what the media say cos if he did really molest those children their parents would have taken him to criminal court instead of suing him.case closed

 

[Jam The Man]

He should have invited Gary Glitter up on stage with him, so they could both share it with all the kids.

There's no difference to me between the two of them, other than Jackson paid his way out of trouble.

Both scum, and neither will be missed in Springfield............................. (lights fuse and runs)


(11 pages)

You really are a morose knob.. can't recall a thread you've ever made without knocking someone. Spot on about Glitter, utterly clueless about Jackson.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

here we goo all the anti Mj's and if he really "molested" those kids why did the parents take him for a civil instead of a criminal case i think people should jus stop eating up what the media say cos if he did really molest those children their parents would have taken him to criminal court instead of suing him.case closed

Could be that a criminal case would cost too much to pursue in the American legal system. With a civil action both sides normally come to an agreement on compensation without admission of guilt.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Could be that a criminal case would cost too much to pursue in the American legal system. With a civil action both sides normally come to an agreement on compensation without admission of guilt.

The second case was just LAUGHABLE though. the mum had used her child 3 times before in cases, in which every time the judge had raised concerns over her stories. all 3 trials ended with her and her child losing before the jacko case.

ALSO the boy and his mother only decide after the documentary with bashir that he has infact been molested YEARS AGO. stank of jumping on the 'sharing bed with kids' bandwaggon, which ANYONE could see was purely just that, jacko (being a person ROBBED of his childhood, not knowing what context people would take his words in) saying something which people jumped on.

IF he did infact do such things there is NO WAY IN HELL he would admit to sharing a bed with a child.

 

[Bhafcman]

Could be that a criminal case would cost too much to pursue in the American legal system. With a civil action both sides normally come to an agreement on compensation without admission of guilt.

yes and no and the parents don't bring a criminal case the state attorney does and since the only evidence that was available was the testimonies (suprise suprise) there was never any evidence found there could never be a criminal case

 

[Bhafcman]

The second case was just LAUGHABLE though. the mum had used her child 3 times before in cases, in which every time the judge had raised concerns over her stories. all 3 trials ended with her and her child losing before the jacko case.

ALSO the boy and his mother only decide after the documentary with bashir that he has infact been molested YEARS AGO. stank of jumping on the 'sharing bed with kids' bandwaggon, which ANYONE could see was purely just that, jacko (being a person ROBBED of his childhood, not knowing what context people would take his words in) saying something which people jumped on.

IF he did infact do such things there is NO WAY IN HELL he would admit to sharing a bed with a child.

finally someone talking sense it was quite clear those people wanted his money and the media being known to be leaches sold papers by jumping onto the anti jacko wagon

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

He should have invited Gary Glitter up on stage with him, so they could both share it with all the kids.

There's no difference to me between the two of them, other than Jackson paid his way out of trouble.

Both scum, and neither will be missed in Springfield............................. (lights fuse and runs)


(11 pages)

Thank f*** you are not in charge of a court of law. Glitter had 10000 porno pictures of kids on his computer, Jackson had NONE. Glitter fled to Asia to have sex with with numerous 10-14 year old Girls and escape Justice. Jackson had sex with no underage children and fought his case in a court of law and won.

Apart from that you are absolutely right.

 

[clapham_gull]

finally someone talking sense it was quite clear those people wanted his money and the media being known to be leaches sold papers by jumping onto the anti jacko wagon

What do make of the allegations of the English bloke, who met Jackson when he was a child. The phone calls etc..

 

[Bhafcman]

What do make of the allegations of the English bloke, who met Jackson when he was a child. The phone calls etc..

and how legetimate was this? why didnt he take this to the law if it was soo much of an offense? and it was quite clearly a public stunt to promote his clubs people should stop tryin to make a name and living out of michael and i suppose you believe the black woman who's been saying she fathered michael's kids cos she has as much proof as this english bloke

 

[Bhafcman]

Thank f*** you are not in charge of a court of law. Glitter had 10000 porno pictures of kids on his computer, Jackson had NONE. Glitter fled to Asia to have sex with with numerous 10-14 year old Girls and escape Justice. Jackson had sex with no underage children and fought his case in a court of law and won.

Apart from that you are absolutely right.

and exactly what made him scum and i'm suree not even the president could pay his way out of a case and something that big would leak effortlessly

 

[clapham_gull]

and how legetimate was this? why didnt he take this to the law if it was soo much of an offense? and it was quite clearly a public stunt to promote his clubs people should stop tryin to make a name and living out of michael and i suppose you believe the black woman who's been saying she fathered michael's kids cos she has as much proof as this english bloke

I have no idea, I willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, I was only asking a question.

What I do find strange is how people like yourself are so defensive when allegations are made about him and (as proved above) get readily aggressive towards anyone criticism him.

It's not Jackson I find strange, there are many example of stars over the years with odd behaivour. It's his army of oddball fans, hanging off his every word.

I spend a lot of time on his forums during the trial and there were countless examples of people quite ready to believe him when he said he'd had only a couple of operations on his face.

.. and aggressively attacking anyone who suggested otherwise.

Well here's a question. Would you be happy for your children to share their bed with Michael Jackson ?

Or would you be happy for your children to be around someone, quite obviously it seems addicted to some very very strong and possibly illegally perscribed medication ?

Look at it in the cold light of day, forget the music and the dancing. We are talking about a man addicted to drugs who shares his bed with other people's children. I'm not suggesting abuse, but that behaviour would have him monitored 24 hours a day in this country.

Why can't Jackson fans get their head round that ?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

What I do find strange is how people like yourself are so defensive when allegations are made about him and (as proved above) get readily aggressive towards anyone criticism him.
?

personally i only get tetchy on the subject when people openly ignore a judgement made in a court of law, or judge someone as guilty before the real judgement is made.

There is no evidence to say that he did it, thus he MUST be assumed not-guilty.

Its like when someone is going to trial on day 1 and people are throwing stuff at them, before a judgement is even made, yet if the person gets off the charges do those same people make themselves as visible in coming forward and apologising? no, its complete un-just and just a highlight of our easily influenced society.

 

[Bhafcman]

I have no idea, I willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt, I was only asking a question.

What I do find strange is how people like yourself are so defensive when allegations are made about him and (as proved above) get readily aggressive towards anyone criticism him.

It's not Jackson I find strange, there are many example of stars over the years with odd behaivour.

Well here's a question. Would you be happy for your children to share their bed with Michael Jackson ?

i'm not being aggressive and dont intend to towards people who say things about him bcos we are all welcome towards our opinion however i find it quite annoying that people are still accusing him of being a peado when he was found not guilty twice and there was never any evidence suggesting he was guilty but only testimonies made against him and if i knew him well and trusted him i'm suree they'll be no problem i'm suree he didnt jus randomly walk up to those kids and ask them to sleep over he'd have got to know their family 1st