Be prepared to never see the MJ episode of The Simpsons ever again...

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36333 posts) -

Comicbook NOW!

In the wake of the HBO documentary series Leaving Neverland, The Simpsons producers decided to pull the episode "Stark Raving Dad," which featured the family forming a friendship with a character voiced by Michael Jackson.

Leaving Neverland includes allegations of sexual assault by Jackson against minors, prompting a stark examination of the late singer's legacy. Producer James L. Brooks told the Wall Street Journal that pulling the episode was a logical decision in the wake of the allegations.

“It feels clearly the only choice to make,” said Brooks, adding that executive producers Al Jean and Matt Groening agreed. “The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this."

Variety reached out to Jean, who confirmed his alignment: "I agree with Jim, nothing else to add."

"This was a treasured episode. There are a lot of great memories we have wrapped up in that one, and this certainly doesn’t allow them to remain," Brooks told the WSJ. "I’m against book burning of any kind. But this is our book, and we’re allowed to take out a chapter."

The Simpsons episode was popular among fans partly because of the intrigue surrounding Jackson's involvement. The role was uncredited, and the storyline surrounded a man in a mental hospital who insisted that he was indeed Michael Jackson despite looking nothing like the pop superstar. It became something of an urban legend until Groening confirmed Jackson recorded the dialogue in a recent interview. Jackson did not sing on the show because of contracts with his record label, but he didn't mind going uncredited.

"Stark Raving Dad" featured Homer meeting the Michael Jackson impersonator in the mental hospital, and he takes his new friend home when he gets out. The character strikes a bond with the children and helps Bart write a birthday song for his sister Lisa. The character admitted that he was not Jackson at the end of the episode and left the family's lives, further adding to the mystery.

Brooks said they will remove the episode from FXX's "Simpsons World" streaming section and from future home video releases, as well as taking it out of rotation for syndication. But the producer stressed that it will take time to make it happen.

Kind of ironic they are caving to a controversy, given their efforts to defend Apu and use Lisa and Marge to attack the politically correct. Besides that, I'm really mixed on this.

Avatar image for SOedipus
#2 Posted by SOedipus (11508 posts) -

I remember that episode and I'm not a huge Simpson fan. I don't see what this accomplishes other than 'protecting their image'. It's not like the episode is gone forever. They can do their best to try to sweep it under the rug and I can't blame them for trying. I'm mixed on this as well.

Avatar image for AFBrat77
#3 Posted by AFBrat77 (26716 posts) -

I wish they would leave Michael Jackson alone, he wasn't a pedophile, he was pushed into the spotlight while he was in grade school with little say in the matter and he spent his entire life trying to find a connection to youth he never had. A tragic figure. He was never comfortable (from what I've seen) when he wasn't performing because he never learned to develop normally.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#4 Posted by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

He touched so many children. Why can't people see that? He should be remembered as a toucher of children if that was in fact the case.

He could be hanging out with Jimmy Saville as we speak, upside down, being poked with little pitchforks.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#5 Edited by uninspiredcup (33637 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

Comicbook NOW!

In the wake of the HBO documentary series Leaving Neverland, The Simpsons producers decided to pull the episode "Stark Raving Dad," which featured the family forming a friendship with a character voiced by Michael Jackson.

Leaving Neverland includes allegations of sexual assault by Jackson against minors, prompting a stark examination of the late singer's legacy. Producer James L. Brooks told the Wall Street Journal that pulling the episode was a logical decision in the wake of the allegations.

“It feels clearly the only choice to make,” said Brooks, adding that executive producers Al Jean and Matt Groening agreed. “The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this."

Variety reached out to Jean, who confirmed his alignment: "I agree with Jim, nothing else to add."

"This was a treasured episode. There are a lot of great memories we have wrapped up in that one, and this certainly doesn’t allow them to remain," Brooks told the WSJ. "I’m against book burning of any kind. But this is our book, and we’re allowed to take out a chapter."

The Simpsons episode was popular among fans partly because of the intrigue surrounding Jackson's involvement. The role was uncredited, and the storyline surrounded a man in a mental hospital who insisted that he was indeed Michael Jackson despite looking nothing like the pop superstar. It became something of an urban legend until Groening confirmed Jackson recorded the dialogue in a recent interview. Jackson did not sing on the show because of contracts with his record label, but he didn't mind going uncredited.

"Stark Raving Dad" featured Homer meeting the Michael Jackson impersonator in the mental hospital, and he takes his new friend home when he gets out. The character strikes a bond with the children and helps Bart write a birthday song for his sister Lisa. The character admitted that he was not Jackson at the end of the episode and left the family's lives, further adding to the mystery.

Brooks said they will remove the episode from FXX's "Simpsons World" streaming section and from future home video releases, as well as taking it out of rotation for syndication. But the producer stressed that it will take time to make it happen.

Kind of ironic they are caving to a controversy, given their efforts to defend Apu and use Lisa and Marge to attack the politically correct. Besides that, I'm really mixed on this.

Don't really see a problem with Apu. There are a few stereotypes on the show. Homer being one of a blue-collar American. Grounds Keeper Willie is far worse but you don't see us complaining.

Loading Video...

Regardless, the shows quality is now such that it's not something worth the investment. It really should be cancelled imo.

The Simpons reliance on guest stars has largely been detrimental to the show.

Some of the earlier ones like Leonard NImoy, the X-files crossovers and Mel Brooks are great stuff, but they started to have entire episodes basically worshipping them.

But again, the show straight up sucks now, cancel it.

Loading Video...

-

That was interesting documentary, far from being the child-like figure ignorant to the world he seems highly manipulative and devious. With hindsight it was pretty obvious. He was put on some pedestal as some Jesus like figure beyond that depravity mere mortals would do, Embarrassing.

The UK had something similar with Jimmy Savile, he was prolific, with members of the BBC fully aware of what he was doing. With the Public funding him through licensing fees. We got a carefully scripted apology, that was nice of them.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#6 Posted by Ovirew (9076 posts) -

Ah yes, the modern world where we re-write history and omit things that are deemed inappropriate.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#7 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1238 posts) -
@Ovirew said:

Ah yes, the modern world where we re-write history and omit things that are deemed inappropriate.

A few weeks ago they removed MJ's wax figure from a mall in Denmark because "families complained". I'd say the Christian right wing jerkoffs always get what they want, but I won't because that would be inappropriate.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#8 Posted by foxhound_fox (97958 posts) -
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

I'm really tired that so many people still believe the atrocious court cases that Michael was dragged through in the 1990's. Educate yourself and realize that Michael was a gift that we threw in the trash.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#9 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166559 posts) -

@PfizersaurusRex said:
@Ovirew said:

Ah yes, the modern world where we re-write history and omit things that are deemed inappropriate.

A few weeks ago they removed MJ's wax figure from a mall in Denmark because "families complained". I'd say the Christian right wing jerkoffs always get what they want, but I won't because that would be inappropriate.

Are you saying only Christians are against child sexual abuse?

Avatar image for davillain-
#10 Edited by DaVillain- (36868 posts) -

This isn't the first time this crap happened. The Simpson lost the 1997 episode when Homer went to NYC and that episode was removed due to 9/11 and seeing this Michael Jackson removed is somewhat late but stupid at the same time.

Did they also removed Donald Trump as well?

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#11 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1238 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:
@PfizersaurusRex said:
@Ovirew said:

Ah yes, the modern world where we re-write history and omit things that are deemed inappropriate.

A few weeks ago they removed MJ's wax figure from a mall in Denmark because "families complained". I'd say the Christian right wing jerkoffs always get what they want, but I won't because that would be inappropriate.

Are you saying only Christians are against child sexual abuse?

Uh, no... I'm calling out this bs witch-hunting some people do in order to prove their moral superiority and have things their way. They don't necessarily have to be Christian, or right wing.

Avatar image for Ovirew
#12 Posted by Ovirew (9076 posts) -

@PfizersaurusRex: Oftentimes it's left-wing people who start witch-hunts to prove their woke intellectual superiority. I don't really see where the Michael Jackson thing is really partisan though?

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#13 Posted by Solaryellow (4930 posts) -

Whatever the case may be, he was an intriguing individual. I find it perplexing how, at one time, his own sis said he was a pedo and now her opinion is changed just like the two men (from the documentary) who changed their stories.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#14 Edited by PfizersaurusRex (1238 posts) -

@Ovirew: Maybe I'm just too partisan about it. Whatever. Thing is, they felt like they had to censure their own show as "it's the only choice to make" (meaning there is no choice). That's not supposed to happen in a free world. But they gave up and backed down to follow the dominant politically correct stream, to put it politically correct...

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#15 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44043 posts) -

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#16 Edited by uninspiredcup (33637 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

It reminds me of. Jimmy Savile done it for about 60+ years and the public didn't know until he was dead. It wasn't 2-4 kids, it was literally hundreds including raping fully grown people like nurses and physically and mentally disabled people, all over the place including the likes of BBC center.

You're right though there is no actual concrete evidence.

Watching that documentary and the testimony from both the supposed victims and their families, I believe em, they were convincing. The idea of MJ marrying a woman as well (which the doc claims he was told to do specifically for image), even before that, that really seemed off.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#17 Edited by Sevenizz (3899 posts) -

Good, ban his crappy music off the radio too. Everytime I hear it I’m reminded that a child predator sang those words.

He wasn’t even talented. He didn’t write, produce, play an instrument, or even choreograph himself.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#18 Posted by Sevenizz (3899 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: ‘Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be.’

MJ has a history of paying off his accusers, you realize. An innocent person does not do such things.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
#19 Posted by Baconstrip78 (1380 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: Not Catholics.

Avatar image for Jag85
#20 Edited by Jag85 (13535 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

It reminds me of. Jimmy Savile done it for about 60+ years and the public didn't know until he was dead. It wasn't 2-4 kids, it was literally hundreds including raping fully grown people like nurses and physically and mentally disabled people, all over the place including the likes of BBC center.

You're right though there is no actual concrete evidence.

Watching that documentary and the testimony from both the supposed victims and their families, I believe em, they were convincing. The idea of MJ marrying a woman as well (which the doc claims he was told to do specifically for image), even before that, that really seemed off.

MJ is most likely innocent. What makes me so sure? Because that is the court's verdict. MJ took all of his accusers to court, the court analyzed all the evidence, and the court determined that MJ is innocent of all charges. And not just once, but MJ went to court multiple times to prove his innocence. And yet, despite proving himself innocent in court, people still refuse to let it go and accept the court's verdict that MJ was innocent. How convenient that, now that MJ is no longer alive to defend himself anymore, the media decides to revive these allegations against him. Trial by media makes a mockery of the rule of law.

As for Jimmy Savile, he never went to court over his allegations. That's where the difference lies. Savile never proved himself innocent in court, but instead the BBC helped him cover up his crimes, and they did everything in their power to prevent it ever going to court. The difference lies in the fact that MJ actually went to court multiple times to prove his innocence, whereas Savile prevented it from ever going to court. That's what makes Savile most likely guilty and MJ most likely innocent.

And finally, where is the outcry over rockstars who are alleged to have sexually abused children? The likes of David Bowie, Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin, are all accused of sexually abusing children, a.k.a. "baby groupies". Yet there is no mainstream media outcry against these rockstars. Why single-out MJ? If they're going to go after MJ, then they might as well go after all the rockstars accused of sexually abusing children.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#21 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44043 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@mrbojangles25: ‘Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be.’

MJ has a history of paying off his accusers, you realize. An innocent person does not do such things.

You mean like a settlement? Yeah I know that's a more legal, above-ground solution, but it's still a payoff.

@Jag85 said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

It reminds me of. Jimmy Savile done it for about 60+ years and the public didn't know until he was dead. It wasn't 2-4 kids, it was literally hundreds including raping fully grown people like nurses and physically and mentally disabled people, all over the place including the likes of BBC center.

You're right though there is no actual concrete evidence.

Watching that documentary and the testimony from both the supposed victims and their families, I believe em, they were convincing. The idea of MJ marrying a woman as well (which the doc claims he was told to do specifically for image), even before that, that really seemed off.

MJ is most likely innocent. What makes me so sure? Because that is the court's verdict. MJ took all of his accusers to court, the court analyzed all the evidence, and the court determined that MJ is innocent of all charges. And not just once, but MJ went to court multiple times to prove his innocence. And yet, despite proving himself innocent in court, people still refuse to let it go and accept the court's verdict that MJ was innocent. How convenient that, now that MJ is no longer alive to defend himself anymore, the media decides to revive these allegations against him. Trial by media makes a mockery of the rule of law.

As for Jimmy Savile, he never went to court over his allegations. That's where the difference lies. Savile never proved himself innocent in court, but instead the BBC helped him cover up his crimes, and they did everything in their power to prevent it ever going to court. The difference lies in the fact that MJ actually went to court multiple times to prove his innocence, whereas Savile prevented it from ever going to court. That's what makes Savile most likely guilty and MJ most likely innocent.

And finally, where is the outcry over rockstars who are alleged to have sexually abused children? The likes of David Bowie, Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin, are all accused of sexually abusing children, a.k.a. "baby groupies". Yet there is no mainstream media outcry against these rockstars. Why single-out MJ? If they're going to go after MJ, then they might as well go after all the rockstars accused of sexually abusing children.

Yeah, MJ went to court, his alleged victims had their day/s in court...multiple times...nothing.

This is with the whole world also pretty much wanting him to be guilty, too.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#22 Posted by foxhound_fox (97958 posts) -

Did nobody watch the videos I posted?

People have been trying to take financial advantage of a child trapped in a man's body for 30 years, and now that he's finally dead, they are trying to take financial advantage of his estate.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#23 Edited by uninspiredcup (33637 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:
@Sevenizz said:

@mrbojangles25: ‘Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be.’

MJ has a history of paying off his accusers, you realize. An innocent person does not do such things.

You mean like a settlement? Yeah I know that's a more legal, above-ground solution, but it's still a payoff.

@Jag85 said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@mrbojangles25 said:

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

It reminds me of. Jimmy Savile done it for about 60+ years and the public didn't know until he was dead. It wasn't 2-4 kids, it was literally hundreds including raping fully grown people like nurses and physically and mentally disabled people, all over the place including the likes of BBC center.

You're right though there is no actual concrete evidence.

Watching that documentary and the testimony from both the supposed victims and their families, I believe em, they were convincing. The idea of MJ marrying a woman as well (which the doc claims he was told to do specifically for image), even before that, that really seemed off.

MJ is most likely innocent. What makes me so sure? Because that is the court's verdict. MJ took all of his accusers to court, the court analyzed all the evidence, and the court determined that MJ is innocent of all charges. And not just once, but MJ went to court multiple times to prove his innocence. And yet, despite proving himself innocent in court, people still refuse to let it go and accept the court's verdict that MJ was innocent. How convenient that, now that MJ is no longer alive to defend himself anymore, the media decides to revive these allegations against him. Trial by media makes a mockery of the rule of law.

As for Jimmy Savile, he never went to court over his allegations. That's where the difference lies. Savile never proved himself innocent in court, but instead the BBC helped him cover up his crimes, and they did everything in their power to prevent it ever going to court. The difference lies in the fact that MJ actually went to court multiple times to prove his innocence, whereas Savile prevented it from ever going to court. That's what makes Savile most likely guilty and MJ most likely innocent.

And finally, where is the outcry over rockstars who are alleged to have sexually abused children? The likes of David Bowie, Elvis Presley, the Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin, are all accused of sexually abusing children, a.k.a. "baby groupies". Yet there is no mainstream media outcry against these rockstars. Why single-out MJ? If they're going to go after MJ, then they might as well go after all the rockstars accused of sexually abusing children.

Yeah, MJ went to court, his alleged victims had their day/s in court...multiple times...nothing.

This is with the whole world also pretty much wanting him to be guilty, too.

MJ? He was quite a loved public figure at the first incident. A billionaire with some of the best lawyers in the world. Even his own supposed victims were defending him.

OJ Simpsons was guilty as sin and look what happened there. He almost decapitated his wife and ended up with people cheering him as he sped away from the police and cheering with joy as he walked out of court, just like MJ.

Just cause a court deemed it so doesn't make it such.

Avatar image for SOedipus
#24 Posted by SOedipus (11508 posts) -

Avatar image for stup1dch1ck3n
#25 Edited by stup1dch1ck3n (3 posts) -

Ive never been a big fan of the simpsons either. I wonder if South Park is going to change any of their reruns...

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#26 Posted by Sevenizz (3899 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: There was a trial in the 90s where the child accurately described Michael’s penis. Naturally, that was settled with cash too.

Avatar image for horgen
#27 Posted by Horgen (120575 posts) -

Does this Leaving Neverland documentary bring any new info about MJ?

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#28 Posted by uninspiredcup (33637 posts) -

@horgen said:

Does this Leaving Neverland documentary bring any new info about MJ?

On the case? Not really. It just went into excruciating detail of what happened and effects on the people.

Have to say, those parents really came across as dim, like they had been indoctrinated into a cult or something.

Avatar image for horgen
#29 Posted by Horgen (120575 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:
@horgen said:

Does this Leaving Neverland documentary bring any new info about MJ?

On the case? Not really. It just went into excruciating detail of what happened and effects on the people.

Have to say, those parents really came across as dim, like they had been indoctrinated into a cult or something.

Then why pull his music of radio stations or other works he has done now? It's not like this was unknown to anyone born at least up to the 90's.

Avatar image for Jag85
#30 Posted by Jag85 (13535 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

@uninspiredcup: There was a trial in the 90s where the child accurately described Michael’s penis. Naturally, that was settled with cash too.

The boy claimed that MJ's penis was circumcised, yet the investigation found that his penis was not circumcised. And that was the only case that ended with a cash settlement, which MJ claims is because he wanted to avoid a "media circus". Either way, after a media circus did eventually break out with the Martin Bashir documentary in 2003, MJ did go to court in 2005, where he was declared "not guilty" on all charges.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#31 Posted by foxhound_fox (97958 posts) -
@Jag85 said:
@Sevenizz said:

@uninspiredcup: There was a trial in the 90s where the child accurately described Michael’s penis. Naturally, that was settled with cash too.

The boy claimed that MJ's penis was circumcised, yet the investigation found that his penis was not circumcised. And that was the only case that ended with a cash settlement, which MJ claims is because he wanted to avoid a "media circus". Either way, after a media circus did eventually break out with the Martin Bashir documentary in 2003, MJ did go to court in 2005, where he was declared "not guilty" on all charges.

He was encouraged by his legal team, by Sony (whom he just inked a massive deal with) and family to pay it off and make it go away. Being extremely self-conscious about his body, he didn't want pictures of his nude body paraded around in the court room, or released on the media, so he just decided to make it go away rather than fighting it, being extremely embarrassed by the whole thing, but still winning.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#32 Posted by Sevenizz (3899 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: Or you know...guilty.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#33 Edited by uninspiredcup (33637 posts) -

@horgen said:
@uninspiredcup said:
@horgen said:

Does this Leaving Neverland documentary bring any new info about MJ?

On the case? Not really. It just went into excruciating detail of what happened and effects on the people.

Have to say, those parents really came across as dim, like they had been indoctrinated into a cult or something.

Then why pull his music of radio stations or other works he has done now? It's not like this was unknown to anyone born at least up to the 90's.

My guess is the documentary is really convincing. Convinced me 100% and I was defending him a few weeks back on this very forum.

Better just watching it for yourself and deciding.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#34 Posted by foxhound_fox (97958 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@foxhound_fox: Or you know...guilty.

Or, given the actual evidence available to us, including the alleged victims testimony (that he was circumcised but turned out uncircumcised), there is no reason to suggest guilt.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#35 Posted by Sevenizz (3899 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: Except, where there’s smoke - there’s usually fire.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#36 Posted by foxhound_fox (97958 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@foxhound_fox: Except, where there’s smoke - there’s usually fire.

Okay, if there's fire, prove it. A court of law tried more than once to prove him guilty and failed. All his alleged victims (more usually their parents) have been shown to want to take advantage of him financially.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#37 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166559 posts) -

@Baconstrip78 said:

@LJS9502_basic: Not Catholics.

What?

Avatar image for horgen
#38 Posted by Horgen (120575 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

My guess is the documentary is really convincing. Convinced me 100% and I was defending him a few weeks back on this very forum.

Better just watching it for yourself and deciding.

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Avatar image for sonicare
#39 Posted by sonicare (56757 posts) -

@horgen said:
@uninspiredcup said:

My guess is the documentary is really convincing. Convinced me 100% and I was defending him a few weeks back on this very forum.

Better just watching it for yourself and deciding.

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Neither was OJ or Caylee Anthony or George Zimmerman. All of whom were clearly innocent.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#40 Edited by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

They don't come much darker than Wacko Jacko.

Having your own personal amusement park only you and kids can go in is like hanging around outside the school playground with a bag of sweets times ten trillion.

Jackson was a man living in a pure fantasy bubble living off royalties and his Beatles catalogue.

He would spend money like water and leave a trail of destruction wherever he went.

He spent alot of money paying off kids to keep their mouths shut.

Loading Video...

Of course, this video is absurd, she's about 15 years too old.

I think he was euthanised by his family. He was just too much trouble.

Avatar image for Jag85
#41 Posted by Jag85 (13535 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@horgen said:

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Neither was OJ or Caylee Anthony or George Zimmerman. All of whom were clearly innocent.

Not familiar enough with Caylee Anthony, but regarding OJ and Zimmerman, they got away due to a technicality. They were declared "not guilty" of murder because the defense could not provide sufficient evidence to prove they had the intent to murder "beyond reasonable doubt", despite it being clear they were responsible for the victims' deaths. If they were instead charged with manslaughter, then they could've potentially been behind bars for a long time. But because they were charged with "murder", that made it more difficult to convict them. And the "double jeapordy" law prevents them from being charged again for a similar crime regarding the same case. After the OJ case was over, he was later charged with "wrongful death" and ordered to pay damages to his wife's family... which is a slap on the wrist, but it demonstrates that he was at least responsible for his wife's death. In comparison, MJ was never ordered by the court to pay any damages whatsoever to the kids' families.

It's also worth noting that, in the case of both OJ and Zimmerman, a dead body was found at the scene, so there was at least evidence at the scene pointing to them being the killers. In comparison, when the police investigated MJ's Neverland ranch in the early '90s, they found no evidence of child sexual abuse anywhere at his ranch.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#42 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19733 posts) -
@foxhound_fox said:
@Sevenizz said:

@foxhound_fox: Except, where there’s smoke - there’s usually fire.

Okay, if there's fire, prove it. A court of law tried more than once to prove him guilty and failed. All his alleged victims (more usually their parents) have been shown to want to take advantage of him financially.

This! People forget that Michael Jackson was mentally abused as a child. Forced to be an adult, never had any real friends outside from his brothers and sheltered his entire life. It's always been work and no play. Michael has made "friends" and those same "friends" try to extort money out of him.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#43 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19733 posts) -
@jackamomo said:

They don't come much darker than Wacko Jacko.

Having your own personal amusement park only you and kids can go in is like hanging around outside the school playground with a bag of sweets times ten trillion.

Jackson was a man living in a pure fantasy bubble living off royalties and his Beatles catalogue.

He would spend money like water and leave a trail of destruction wherever he went.

He spent alot of money paying off kids to keep their mouths shut.

Loading Video...

Of course, this video is absurd, she's about 15 years too old.

I think he was euthanised by his family. He was just too much trouble.

Where's the proof? Nothing more than allegations. Michael's worth was billions and he nearly owned majority of Sony Music. You don't think there's some sort of extortion against him? He's already proven with the court of law that he's innocent. Leave the man rest in peace!

This modern day book burning is turning us backwards.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#44 Edited by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: MJ seems to engender a kind of zeal in his fanbase which errs on the insane.

He went on Top of the Pops and pretended to be Jesus and a drunk Jarvis Cocker jumped on stage and brandished his buttocks in protest as how MJ was portraying himself. The song was Earth Song.

MJ is like Nintendo or Disney. Insidiously cloying and inviting you to turn your brain off and make believe it's fairy land and McCauly Culkin turning up in the Black or White video looking like MJ's bitch isn't a scene from f*cking hell.

He just could not be normal. He made no effort with his fans. If you want to know how he saw his fans watch the Moonwalker film where they are depicted as ravenously selfish and totally inconsiderate to him. He wrote the single Just Stop Dogging Me about his fans and the media he was not equipped to deal with.

You could blame his dad and that would be fair but that's not fair. He should have grown up but didn't need to. So he never matured as a person which ultimately lead to his early death.

PS. He was spending far more than he was earning when he died.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#45 Edited by FireEmblem_Man (19733 posts) -
@jackamomo said:

@FireEmblem_Man: MJ seems to engender a kind of zeal in his fanbase which errs on the insane.

He went on Top of the Pops and pretended to be Jesus and a drunk Jarvis Cocker jumped on stage and brandished his buttocks in protest as how MJ was portraying himself. The song was Earth Song.

MJ is like Nintendo or Disney. Insidiously cloying and inviting you to turn your brain off and make believe it's fairy land and McCauly Culkin turning up in the Black or White video looking like MJ's bitch isn't a scene from f*cking hell.

He just could not be normal. He made no effort with his fans. If you want to know how he saw his fans watch the Moonwalker film where they are depicted as ravenously selfish and totally inconsiderate to him. He wrote the single Just Stop Dogging Me about his fans and the media he was not equipped to deal with.

You could blame his dad and that would be fair but that's not fair. He should have grown up but didn't need to. So he never matured as a person which ultimately lead to his early death.

That underline, is why I'm never trusting you at any of your rants

Do I believe MJ is an oddball? Yes! Is he a convicted pedophile? No! The entire documentary is nothing more then allegations, and ALLEGATIONS =/= they're true!

Nothing on your rambling shows anything that MJ is guilty

Avatar image for jackamomo
#46 Edited by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: justice is not cheap in America.

The court cases are circuses. The lawyers are performers. You should see his lawyer.

He must be expensive.

Avatar image for warmblur
#47 Posted by warmblur (2505 posts) -
Loading Video...

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#48 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19733 posts) -
@jackamomo said:

@FireEmblem_Man: justice is not cheap in America.

The court cases are circuses. The lawyers are performers. You should see his lawyer.

He must be expensive.

And? So you saying he bought out the justice system, including all evidence against him as well as his accusers to stay silent? That's "Government pollutes waters, turning the frogs gay" conspiracy even makes Alex Jones smart

Avatar image for jackamomo
#49 Edited by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: I'm sorry your hero had a bad rep then died.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#50 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19733 posts) -
@jackamomo said:

@FireEmblem_Man: I'm sorry your hero had a bad rep then died.

What bad rep? He died in good terms, and lived a fulfilling life! He was proven innocent at the court of law, and was a billionaire! Sorry, that your stupid conspiracy didn't folly to paint him the villain you so desire to fulfilll your nihilism.