Michael Jackson suffers cardiac arrest - Dead at the age of 50

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by NHL009

I've read a lot of reports that he put that in his will to give the catalog back to Paul. He said he was sad that they lost their friendship. Sly move beating Paul out for his own catalog though. It was either back to Sir paul or to his kids.

Would be nice if it was back to Sir Paul. Good thing to do. Imagine going on tour and having to pay somebody to sing your own songs?

Jackson was loaned 300 million from Sony a few years ago, part of that deal gave Sony the chance to buy part of Jackson's stake in the catalogue...Sony owns the other 50%...So the most Paul could possible get is 25% back...Sony may end up with the other 75%..Another interesting note is that Yoko Ono is the one who convinced Jackson to buy his stake in the catalogue, after Paul tried to convince her to team up with him to purchase it.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

I'm listening to Rome now and I'm expecting this to be a banner show.

[Bagor]

Just got texted this one. For the soccer fans.

What's the difference between MJ and Alex Ferguson?
Ferguson will be playing Giggs in October.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Damn, thats huge. It was owning that Beatles catalog the really made Jackson wealthy beyond belief, no this own music.

It's also what ruined their friendship.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think the "pedophilia" angle is a really tough one in this case. The actions of the family look more like extortion than the actions of a family seeking justice against someone who abused their child, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. However, it's worth keeping one thing in mind: until Martin Bashir's hatchet job on Michael and the boy in question, the family had no interest in going to court.

My instinct--based on nothing other than seeing interviews with him--is that he was not a child molester, but a deeply unhealthy, broken individual who believed that he was still a child. In the Bashir documentary he seemed perpetually confused, naive, and like a person who was being victimized by the people around him constantly.

With that said, I wouldn't want my kids "spending the night" with a person who so clearly believes himself to be a child. I think that sort of "Peter Pan" syndrome leads to profoundly unhealthy relationships with children, and do have the risk of being harmful even if they aren't abusive.

I don't know for a fact that he didn't abuse the boy in question. But nor does anyone else "know for a fact" that he did. But Jackson doesn't really fit the profile; pedophiles are adults who victimize children in a predatory way--they get off on power, control, hurting, etc. They are truly evil, scum of the earth people who deserve no sympathy. The thing is, the vibe I got from Jackson was different--it was more like he was in every important sense a child himself, vulnerable and sad as well as neurotic and mentally broken.

And he was clearly a musical genius. The Chaplin comparison is a good one; there's no escaping the fact that Chaplin liked very young girls--he was sort of famous for it. But that doesn't change the fact that he transformed the world of film. Michael Jackson was on the same order in terms of being a musical innovator.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I I don't know for a fact that he didn't abuse the boy in question. But nor does anyone else "know for a fact" that he did. But Jackson doesn't really fit the profile;

What profile DOES jackson fit?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by stang

What profile DOES jackson fit?

Sad, emotionally damaged Weirdo? Is that a profile?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Apparently Michael Jackson left the Beatles catalog to Paul McCartney. That seems like a classy thing to do.

That's not right. It's not fair to Ringo, or the estates of John and George.

[beachy]

Just wanted to add IMO - it is shocking he is gone so young but I am not sad about it at all. Fact is, I was a big fan of his back in the 80's (grew up listening to his albums) and yes, he is a musical genius but he was completely tarnished in my eyes when he went so weird and started hanging out with little boys, having parties with them and having them sleep in his bed -- blech.
Sorry, I just can't have respect for him as an artist when he is doing the things in his personal life and exploiting his wealth & fame to take advantage of young boys who idolize him....sorry but there will be no tears shed here.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

That's not right. It's not fair to Ringo, or the estates of John and George.

I am pretty sure they still have their original stake in northern songs, unless they sold it..well in John's case Yoko calls the shots..she didnt want anything to do with it

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think the "pedophilia" angle is a really tough one in this case. The actions of the family look more like extortion than the actions of a family seeking justice against someone who abused their child, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. However, it's worth keeping one thing in mind: until Martin Bashir's hatchet job on Michael and the boy in question, the family had no interest in going to court.

My instinct--based on nothing other than seeing interviews with him--is that he was not a child molester, but a deeply unhealthy, broken individual who believed that he was still a child. In the Bashir documentary he seemed perpetually confused, naive, and like a person who was being victimized by the people around him constantly.

With that said, I wouldn't want my kids "spending the night" with a person who so clearly believes himself to be a child. I think that sort of "Peter Pan" syndrome leads to profoundly unhealthy relationships with children, and do have the risk of being harmful even if they aren't abusive.

I don't know for a fact that he didn't abuse the boy in question. But nor does anyone else "know for a fact" that he did. But Jackson doesn't really fit the profile; pedophiles are adults who victimize children in a predatory way--they get off on power, control, hurting, etc. They are truly evil, scum of the earth people who deserve no sympathy. The thing is, the vibe I got from Jackson was different--it was more like he was in every important sense a child himself, vulnerable and sad as well as neurotic and mentally broken.

And he was clearly a musical genius. The Chaplin comparison is a good one; there's no escaping the fact that Chaplin liked very young girls--he was sort of famous for it. But that doesn't change the fact that he transformed the world of film. Michael Jackson was on the same order in terms of being a musical innovator.

This sums up my feelings as well. My buddy's sister said it best after watching the documentary you mentioned. Her main point was that while he no doubt acts in an inappropriate manner around children, when it comes to actually sexually molesting them, it doesn't seem like he'd even know what to do.

While a case could definitely be made for molestation, I think there's an equally strong case that he was totally extorted. That's why I'm not quick to jump on Rerun's bandwagon of hatred towards the guy, because I just can't be certain he did anything sexual (and in my opinion, neither can anybody else).

As for his music, no doubt he was one of the most influential artists of all time. Personally I feel about him as I do the beatles. He brought something new and fresh to the table and forced people to think about music in a new way, but on a personal level i find the music to be overrated.

[Igottago]

^^ Of course you can be certain. There are posters on CP who are certain that he was guilty. They know for sure, 100%.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think the "pedophilia" angle is a really tough one in this case. The actions of the family look more like extortion than the actions of a family seeking justice against someone who abused their child, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. However, it's worth keeping one thing in mind: until Martin Bashir's hatchet job on Michael and the boy in question, the family had no interest in going to court.

My instinct--based on nothing other than seeing interviews with him--is that he was not a child molester, but a deeply unhealthy, broken individual who believed that he was still a child. In the Bashir documentary he seemed perpetually confused, naive, and like a person who was being victimized by the people around him constantly.

With that said, I wouldn't want my kids "spending the night" with a person who so clearly believes himself to be a child. I think that sort of "Peter Pan" syndrome leads to profoundly unhealthy relationships with children, and do have the risk of being harmful even if they aren't abusive.

I don't know for a fact that he didn't abuse the boy in question. But nor does anyone else "know for a fact" that he did. But Jackson doesn't really fit the profile; pedophiles are adults who victimize children in a predatory way--they get off on power, control, hurting, etc. They are truly evil, scum of the earth people who deserve no sympathy. The thing is, the vibe I got from Jackson was different--it was more like he was in every important sense a child himself, vulnerable and sad as well as neurotic and mentally broken.

I think the most damning evidence against him is that he paid the other kid 20 million or whatever to drop his lawsuit against him. Couple that with this kid and the 2 others the DA alleged had been abused but wouldn't press charges, and that sounds like enough circumstial evidence to me.

I mean, he may be innocent, and so may OJ and Barry Bonds, but there comes a point when you have to admit you are in denial.

It is what it is, if people want to overlook it and just celebrate his music, so be it. But to claim his innocence of some level of criminal pedophilia is pretty much naive, IMO.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by the crispy badger

and your 750+ million selling albums are better?

lol!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Jackson was loaned 300 million from Sony a few years ago, part of that deal gave Sony the chance to buy part of Jackson's stake in the catalogue...Sony owns the other 50%...So the most Paul could possible get is 25% back...Sony may end up with the other 75%..Another interesting note is that Yoko Ono is the one who convinced Jackson to buy his stake in the catalogue, after Paul tried to convince her to team up with him to purchase it.

How does Sony jump from 50% to 75%? I don't get where you got that.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by the crispy badger

and your 750+ million selling albums are better?

I'm guessing you think there's no hamburger better then a McDonald's burger.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think the most damning evidence against him is that he paid the other kid 20 million or whatever to drop his lawsuit against him. Couple that with this kid and the 2 others the DA alleged had been abused but wouldn't press charges, and that sounds like enough circumstial evidence to me.

I mean, he may be innocent, and so may OJ and Barry Bonds, but there comes a point when you have to admit you are in denial.

It is what it is, if people want to overlook it and just celebrate his music, so be it. But to claim his innocence of some level of criminal pedophilia is pretty much naive, IMO.

I think the complete opposite. I personally know people that have been victims of abuse, and there is no amount of money in the world that would make them drop the charges. This looks like extortion, plain and simple. For a guy like Jackson, paying millions of dollars is just easier.

This whole thread illustrates how pathetic we are as a society. All the decades of teaching tolerance and acceptance obviously hasn't done a thing. If someone doesn't fit inside our happy little circle of what we consider to be "normal" then they must be pedophile.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by valo403

How does Sony jump from 50% to 75%? I don't get where you got that.

sony owns 50%~ Jackson owns 50%~ Sony gave Jackson a loan - part of the deal of that loan is Sony can get 25% of Jackson stake if they want it...

[Reggie Dunlop]

Michael Jackson was as ruthless and manipulative in his personal life as he was in business.

I openly laugh at the misguided grief expressed by others.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think the most damning evidence against him is that he paid the other kid 20 million or whatever to drop his lawsuit against him. Couple that with this kid and the 2 others the DA alleged had been abused but wouldn't press charges, and that sounds like enough circumstial evidence to me.

I mean, he may be innocent, and so may OJ and Barry Bonds, but there comes a point when you have to admit you are in denial.

It is what it is, if people want to overlook it and just celebrate his music, so be it. But to claim his innocence of some level of criminal pedophilia is pretty much naive, IMO.

You're free to believe that. As a parent, I find the notion that any parent would trade their child's innocence for 20 million dollars of hush money even more naive.