Michael Jackson dead @50

[MultimediaMan]

Tell the kids he molested over the last 30 years that he died too young.
He lived longer than he deserved.
Yes, his parents robbed him of his childhood, but that does NOT excuse his actions as an adult.

Good riddance, I won't miss him.

Kruzin,

Now, Settle down and tell us how you really feel...

Seriously though, a lot of people seem to forget just how "bad" this guy was. Never mind every one who knew him seemed to take advantage of him. Even his first wife (who seemed the most "normal" of the whole bunch) mentioned he was a really odd person.

He was likely criminally insane vis a vis his fascination with young boys and trying his utmost to shed his past looks. Yes his father beat him, yes he was robbed of his childhood, no it doesn't give him the right to go around and mess up others lives, too.

My wife and I are at odds here: she's trying to eulogize him, while at the same time being concerned about the Level 3 Sex Offender living 840 feet from the school. She gets mad when I fail to see the difference.

[Dr Mordrid]

My wife and I are at odds here: she's trying to eulogize him, while at the same time being concerned about the Level 3 Sex Offender living 840 feet from the school. She gets mad when I fail to see the difference.

While I liked his early music and admire the talent involved, I'm totally with you on this one. He's been a monster for the last 25+ years.

[Kruzin]

While I liked his early music and admire the talent involved, I'm totally with you on this one. He's been a monster for the last 25+ years.

Exactly.
And for some reason, people seem to be willing to excuse his behavior just because he was musically tallented.
I liked his music in the 80s and 70s.
When he went weirdo after 'Thriller', I woke up and saw something wasn't right with him. It all went downhill after that.


I don't care how talented an individual is.
I don't care how terrible that individuals father was.
If a person can't understand right from wrong 20-30 years later, that person needs to be removed from the gene pool.

I only hope his kids can escape his legacy...

[KRSESQ]

Don't think for a second I was excusing his actions. Most intelligent, reasonable people could overcome such an upbringing and not let it twist their wiring. But most intelligent, reasonable people aren't surrounded by lackies filling them so full of oxycodone and demerol they don't know well enough not to dangle an infant over a hotel balcony.

Simply put, MJ CHOSE to surround himself with such toadies and lackies because their fawning over his every wish gave him a sense of overwhelming power that was reinforced every time he went out in public or walked onstage. Add staggering sums of money to the mix and naturally he would feel like God. He CHOSE to ignore the advise of those who really cared for him, who urged restraint. The ability to buy oneself out of trouble is a powerful opiate.

His life was nothing less than Greek tragedy. Whatever made him the way he was, he had the power to overcome it. Instead he let it consume him. Just like every other tragic hero (or antihero) in human history.

Kevin

[Umfriend]

I did not like his music. I still am not sure whether he molested kids or not (and he was acquitted...). He was weird alright. Weird people are easier to portray as criminaly weird.

[Helevitia]

Admittedly I am not an expert on his case with child molestation, but how the **** does anybody here think they know whether he is guilty or not?

[Dr Mordrid]

Two $20+ million USD settlements within 10 years, a statement by MJ himself that he liked "sleeping" with young males and statements by several people who worked for him....not to mention sworn statements by the minors involved and statements by former employees about his homosexuality and partner preferences.

Now....I don't think he was a pedophile but a pederast....the latter preferring pubescent/adolescent partners and the former pre-pubescent children.

[Umfriend]

There is no arguing with people who hold fixed accusations against wierd people.

[Brian Ellis]

Now....I don't think he was a pedophile but a pederast....the latter preferring pubescent/adolescent partners and the former pre-pubescent children.

Sorry, Doc, totally wrong!

Paedophilia is having a sexual desire towards children of any sex or age, but not necessarily physically expressing that desire in any act. If you are turned on by a provocative photo of a mature 14-y.o. girl in a pose designed just for that, you are, strictly speaking, a paedophile even if the majority of men would be likewise. Paedophilia, per se, is not criminal. The possession of pornography of a paedophilic nature is criminal in most places but is very difficult to prove, except in blatant cases.

Paederasty is a physical act of sexual relations between a man and specifically a boy of any age with or without anal penetration. Paederasty is always criminal in most places. If the allegations against MJ are founded, he was a paederast but the evidence against him is purely circumstantial and has not been upheld in court and is therefore deemed innocent (even if one can speculate he may not have been).

A word of warning: in US jurisprudence, libel can survive the death of the defamed. Anyone writing that MJ was a paederast could be accused of libel, even now, unless that he had definitive proof that can be upheld by a court that he was. Suspicion is not enough.

[VJ]

I'm with umfriend on this one...


But I did like quite a lot of his songs: that baseline of Billy Jean, the intro of Smoothcriminal, the videoclip of Thriller (and many others)... But as Sasq has mentioned: that Jackson passed away some time ago...


Jörg

[Dr Mordrid]

Sorry, Doc, totally wrong!

Paedophilia is having a sexual desire towards children of any sex or age, but not necessarily physically expressing that desire in any act. If you are turned on by a provocative photo of a mature 14-y.o. girl in a pose designed just for that, you are, strictly speaking, a paedophile even if the majority of men would be likewise. Paedophilia, per se, is not criminal. The possession of pornography of a paedophilic nature is criminal in most places but is very difficult to prove, except in blatant cases.

Far easier to prove than you think since here cross examination of the child can be limited to a video deposition in some jurisdictions and the defense attorney has to be on very good behavior. Some think it's almost too easy.

A word of warning: in US jurisprudence, libel can survive the death of the defamed. Anyone writing that MJ was a paederast could be accused of libel, even now, unless that he had definitive proof that can be upheld by a court that he was. Suspicion is not enough.

Perhaps, but we have a concept here you don't have in Europe: jury nullification. If the jury feels as I, especially in civil cases where other civil proceedings have occurred and settled as in this manner, it's not worth bringing the case. You couldn't find a jury outside of S. Central LA that would let their kids spend an unguarded second wiuth the man.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) pedophilia is when a person either has acted on sexual urges towards children or experiences recurrent sexual urges & fantasies about children.

Child being defined as between birth and puberty (adolescence).

Pederasty is limited to adolescents by definition.

Legally there isn't a difference if the adolescent is below the age of consent, but medically and historically there is.

[MultimediaMan]

Libel has a very broad definition, but it only applies in a very narrow range of cases.

If person Y says that person X is has done something as a statement of fact, when that something demonstrably has not occured, then that is grounds for Libel. The standard of proof is fairly high for Libel: Incontrovertible Fact in Toto or affirmation of malicious intent is usually required to satisfy Libel.

However, if person Y expresses the opinion that person X is has done something, then that it just that: an opinion.

In the Criminal court case involving MJ, he was found innocent of all of the criminal charges brought against him, and all of the civil cases were brought against him were settled out of court (With Prejudice, I believe).

This means that while MJ may have been innocent in the eyes of a Criminal Court, there are questions as yet unanswered in Civil Court which would have to be satisfied to bring about a charge of Libel against a public or private person levelling an accusation against MJ. Any U.S. court would find that sufficient evidence exists to allow the public opinion to be expressed that MJ may have been involved, even guilty, of activities which were illegal, even if found innocent in a court of law.

Notoriety works both for and against you in the case of Libel - mostly against you, if you are the plaintiff.

[Umfriend]

I have two questions:
1. What does "With prejudice" mean in the context of out-of-court settlements?
2. I know that in the UK (and here as well), civil cases are judged on "the balance of probability" wheras criminal cases require evidence "beyond reasonable doubt". Is that true in the US as well? In that case, settlements may mean much less.

Assuming I am right on #2 and given that he was acquited on all charges in the criminal case I'd say that I find it morally questionable to judge him as is done by some. I'd keep my kids away from him, sure, but I'd know and admit I might do so for no existing reason.

He was weird. Luckily, that is not a criminal offense.

[Dr Mordrid]

Without prejudice means that the case can be re-filed using the same claim.
With prejudice means that the case cannot be re-filed using the same claim.

Civil court in the US uses English Common Law principles quite a bit, there are enough differences to fill a textbook, but in preponderance vs. shadow of a doubt we are the same - preponderance is 51% and shadow of... is 99.9%

A great example is OJ Simpson who was acquitted in the criminal case and lost $30 million in the wrongful death civil case filed by the Goldman family. Look how his guilt in the murder is openly discussed even though he 'won' the criminal case - not a jury in the US would give him an award if he sued all the TV commentators, bloggers etc. that have vilified him since those trials.

Settling with those 2 boys for almost twice what OJ lost in civil court, and not even having the guts to face a jury in those cases, opens him up as someone who bought his way out of trouble.

[cjolley]

It's also important to remember that, for example, in the case of me calling him a pedophile and being sued for it, it is not the case that I would have to provide a preponderance of the evidence that he was actually a pedophile.
After all, I would be on trial, not him.
I could successfully defend myself without ever providing ANY evidence of him committing illegal acts with children.
As stated above, it could be just an opinion of mine derived from the settlements, it could be his status as a public figure, stories from the news paper, even English ones .
There is just no chance at all that he or his estate would prevail in a civil libel suet regarding accusations of pedophilia in the US.
It would be trivial to provide a reasonable rational for making that statement.