The Unofficial Michael Jackson Thread

[Avro Arrow]

I've read many books about him, and one of them is called Michael Jackson Conspiracy. The author is investigative journalist and true-crime writer Aphrodite Jones, and she wrote it to cover the events of the 2005 trial. Many are initially dismissive toward the book because of its title, but Mrs. Jones openly admitted that while those events were actually happening, she condemned him like everyone else. It was only after he was acquitted, and she saw her colleagues immediately chasing the next story instead of reporting his innocence, that Aphrodite started on a different path. She approached judge Rodney Melville, and asked for permission to examine the evidence. He agreed, and as a result all the quotes in her book are lifted directly from the court transcripts. Among many things, she wrote about Wade Robson being the first witness to actually speak for the defense, and how Tom Sneddon brought Debbie Rowe in, thinking she would condemn Michael...only to be shocked when the reverse happened. Other celebrities are also mentioned who warned Michael about the Arvizo family, including George Lopez, Jay Leno, and Chris Tucker. Reading that book helped settle my own mind, because all the mass negativity in the press at the time had left me genuinely confused.

Thanks for the response. It's obviously difficult to try to refute a book I've never read, but I did try to at least look into it a bit after you mentioned it. From what I've been able to gather, the book suffers a lot in the credibility department. It is apparently very one-sided: the forward is written by the defence attorney, and she apparently never even talked to anyone on the prosecution side. She apparently openly deifies Jackson in a few different passages. As well, it appears she is unable to provide convincing proof of the "conspiracies" she presents, nor does she provide any solid motive as to why the alleged participants would engage in a conspiracy in the first place. And of course, as @EnderAKH mentioned, some testimony from that trial that helped her argument were later admitted to be lies.

The book is, however, seemingly very popular with throngs of Jackson fans who just willingly accept his innocence as a matter of faith. (Who apparently celebrate an annual "Vindication Day", that I was heretofore unaware of, and wish I still was.)

Oh, and as you mentioned, this book covered the 2005 trial only, but apparently Jones herself said in a 2014 interview that she doubted Jackson's innocence in the 1993 Chandler case.

I think that was more than I've looked into this subject at any time in my life. I feel like I need to go take a shower.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I had a friend who was deeply invested in the fantasy that Michael Jackson was a child like individual who had never grown up and that's why he liked to have children as companions.

This kind of person does not exist. They especially don't exist having grown up surrounded by fame, money, celebrities and Hollywood. The only way you'd remain an innocent child through all that is if you had a significant intellectual disability which Michael Jackson did not.

I asked her if Michael Jackson was soooo innocent and with such a kind, pure heart would she be okay about her own 10 year old son sleeping in bed with him? After listening to all this crap about this fantasy idea of Michael Jackson, the innocent child, I was gratified to see she hesitated and said.. no. But she didn't want to go beyond that and draw any conclusions as to why she said no.

So I'd say the same to you @Moviefan2k4 . If you had a son would you let him sleep in bed with Michael Jackson?

 

[cooleddie74]

Michael Jackson was a sick man who needed more help than he ever got. We were blessed with his music but his life was a dumpster fire of abuse, a stunted childhood with a nasty, domineering father and a complete inability to relate to children with healthy emotions. He only did what he knew, but he was so broken he found some of that behavior completely normal, and it wasn't even close.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Michael Jackson was a sick man who needed more help than he ever got. We were blessed with his music but his life was a dumpster fire of abuse, a stunted childhood with a nasty, domineering father and a complete inability to relate to children with healthy emotions. He only did what he knew, but he was so broken he found some of that behavior completely normal, and it wasn't even close.

I don't know if he did find that behavior completely normal. He went to great lengths to hide it. He had cameras and sensors with an alarm in the hall to his bedroom. He employed classic grooming techniques directed at the children and their families, he's absolutely textbook. He knew he was committing crimes and that he had to hide it.

 

[cooleddie74]

Good points. He was not healthy and showed it.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I know there's a tendency to see him as a wounded child who was abused and for this we should have some sympathy. I don't share this sentiment. The child grew up, became an insanely rich, manipulative abuser who preyed on vulnerable children and their families. He made his choices. He had more resources than most people on this planet and he used them for evil.

 

[cooleddie74]

Even most sick people know right from wrong. I mean...KIDS.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Thanks for the response. It's obviously difficult to try to refute a book I've never read, but I did try to at least look into it a bit after you mentioned it. From what I've been able to gather, the book suffers a lot in the credibility department. It is apparently very one-sided: the forward is written by the defence attorney, and she apparently never even talked to anyone on the prosecution side. She apparently openly deifies Jackson in a few different passages. As well, it appears she is unable to provide convincing proof of the "conspiracies" she presents, nor does she provide any solid motive as to why the alleged participants would engage in a conspiracy in the first place. And of course, as @EnderAKH mentioned, some testimony from that trial that helped her argument were later admitted to be lies.

The book is, however, seemingly very popular with throngs of Jackson fans who just willingly accept his innocence as a matter of faith. (Who apparently celebrate an annual "Vindication Day", that I was heretofore unaware of, and wish I still was.)

Oh, and as you mentioned, this book covered the 2005 trial only, but apparently Jones herself said in a 2014 interview that she doubted Jackson's innocence in the 1993 Chandler case.

I think that was more than I've looked into this subject at any time in my life. I feel like I need to go take a shower.

I'm aware of Mrs. Jones' conflict regarding the 1993 accusations, but I've also read a fair bit on those events myself. Another author named Geraldine Hughes wrote a book titled Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations, first published in 2003. In the early '90s, Mrs. Hughes was a legal secretary working for Barry Rothman, a lawyer hired by Evan Chandler to handle a lawsuit he was filing against his wife June, who he accused of cheating on him with Michael. When she refused to back down regarding his jealousy, he threatened to go to the press. This prompted Michael to hire lawyer Bert Fields and private investigator Anthony Pellicano. On Pellicano's advice, Jordan's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a phone call between himself and Mr. Chandler, where the latter ranted about how his own son's welfare was "irrelevant", and he was only concerned with taking Michael down. You can read about the whole thing at this page - its pretty brief overall.

https://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/1993.html

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm not a fan of him music, and he grunts too much when he dances.

 

[Malicia]

I've put a couple of users on Ignore status, just because I know trying to reason with them wouldn't make any difference.

What a laughable statement. I thought you might have more substance than that but clearly not. Calling out someone as a troll is against board rules so I will not do that but from where I'm sitting all the clues are there and starting a thread about Michael Jackson and then refusing to discuss the most defining aspects of his life and going as far to happily saying you have blocked other people is just weird and not in a good Trekkie/Nerdy way.

 

[Jack Wolfe]

I don't know if he did find that behavior completely normal. He went to great lengths to hide it. He had cameras and sensors with an alarm in the hall to his bedroom. He employed classic grooming techniques directed at the children and their families, he's absolutely textbook. He knew he was committing crimes and that he had to hide it.

And he turned his "ranch" into an amusement park to lure children and disarm their parents. Jackson created the perfect honeypot to guarantee a supply of victims, and traded on his fame and history to avoid suspicion. He was a sick twitch, and to deny the fact isn't naïvety, it's willful stupidity.

On another note; while he had his share of decent songs, his overall catalogue isn't that great. Weird Al Yankovic's renditions tend to be more entertaining and inventive. Certainly an improvement on the source material.

 

[BillJ]

I know there's a tendency to see him as a wounded child who was abused and for this we should have some sympathy.

As someone who is the result of a "complicated" childhood, it isn't easy to escape what happens at that age. It sticks with one for pretty much every day for the rest of one's life. It is a battle.

It looks like, over the long run, Jackson wasn't able to escape his demons. I believe he should've served prison sentences for what he did to those two young boys, at the same time, I can have sympathy for the lost child.

 

[cooleddie74]

^
All of this.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

I got it! The Unofficial Harvey Weinstein Appreciation Thread.

In a 4-3 ruling today the New York Supreme Court overturned Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction saying that women who weren't part of the case shouldn't have been allowed to testify.

 

[BillJ]

In a 4-3 ruling today the New York Supreme Court overturned Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction saying that women who weren't part of the case shouldn't have been allowed to testify.

That is okay. California is waiting for him!

 

[HotRod]

In a 4-3 ruling today the New York Supreme Court overturned Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction saying that women who weren't part of the case shouldn't have been allowed to testify.

He'll still die in prison, and that's what matters.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don’t see a problem with enjoying his music regardless of whether he did it. He’s dead, he can’t profit from it. Now they’re just good songs.

Except The Girl Is Mine. Seriously that is a poorly written song. They wasted their one Paul McCartney collaboration on it.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I don’t see a problem with enjoying his music regardless of whether he did it. He’s dead, he can’t profit from it. Now they’re just good songs.

Except The Girl Is Mine. Seriously that is a poorly written song. They wasted their one Paul McCartney collaboration on it.

Some people can't separate the work from the person, but in this case I feel there weren't many differences. Michael said he never felt more at home than while he was performing on stage, and often experienced intense emotions of isolation and depression otherwise. I think that's part of why he worked so hard, just to take his mind off everything else in his mind. He clearly loved sharing his art, but he also struggled with some very deep conflicts and "inner demons" that most never knew about. When he felt cornered by anyone, even those honestly trying to help him, he had a very bad habit of shutting them out. He didn't know how to trust a lot of people, especially adults, because so many wanted a piece of him in some way.

As for his work with Paul McCartney, they actually collaborated twice. "The Girl Is Mine" was released in 1982 for the Thriller album, while another song called "Say Say Say" was recorded for Paul's fourth solo effort Pipes of Peace, released the following year. The two originally got along very well, and it was Paul who introduced Michael to the business of music publishing. When Michael told Paul he would someday own the Beatles' songs, McCartney thought he was joking. The ATV music catalog containing those rights came up for sale in 1985, and the owners first approached Paul out of respect. But he turned them down, feeling their $47.5 million asking price was too high. When Michael bought them, Paul felt betrayed...but if you ask me, he mostly brought that on himself.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Some people can't separate the work from the person, but in this case I feel there weren't many differences.

You know I'm bad, I'm bad (bad, bad)
You know it (really, really bad)
You know I'm bad, I'm bad (bad, bad)

Okay then.. can't argue there.