www.ditl.org

Yeah, so very true...

Tsukiyumi wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:...I gotta tell you, he was amazingly talented.

It's scary how talented the guy was. Unfortunately, genius is often paired with insanity...

Aye, sad but true. I watched 'Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough' about a dozen times or so today.

IanKennedy wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote:And, I don't care how much of an impact he had on music, when the last 10+ years of his life were plagued with molestation charges, he is no longer a good man in my book.

So in your book you are guilty even when you are proven innocent? They say that there's no smoke where there's no fire, but, he was an extremely easy target. I'm not sure it wasn't just people trying to make money off of him. Anyone can be accused of such things, I sincerely hope that nobody ever accuses you of something like that, how would you defend your self against it?

Well, when you pay out millions of dollars to stop key witnesses from testifying, usually not a tactic taken by an innocent man.

Lt. Staplic wrote: Well, when you pay out millions of dollars to stop key witnesses from testifying, usually not a tactic taken by an innocent man.

Think you'll find that is highly, highly illegal. Rather he paid the actual 'victim' to not prosecute.

Thorin wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote: Well, when you pay out millions of dollars to stop key witnesses from testifying, usually not a tactic taken by an innocent man.

Think you'll find that is highly, highly illegal. Rather he paid the actual 'victim' to not prosecute.

Yes your right, I misunderstood.

Either way, it doesn't sound like something an innocent person would do.

not necessairily, the extent he went to to buy off the 'victim' may not be something quite so innocent, but lots of people will settle ouside of court if for no other reason than they don't want to pay court fees

IanKennedy wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote:And, I don't care how much of an impact he had on music, when the last 10+ years of his life were plagued with molestation charges, he is no longer a good man in my book.

So in your book you are guilty even when you are proven innocent? They say that there's no smoke where there's no fire, but, he was an extremely easy target. I'm not sure it wasn't just people trying to make money off of him. Anyone can be accused of such things, I sincerely hope that nobody ever accuses you of something like that, how would you defend your self against it?

He wasnt proven innocent, he paid the kid to STFU.

Lt. Staplic wrote:not necessairily, the extent he went to to buy off the 'victim' may not be something quite so innocent, but lots of people will settle ouside of court if for no other reason than they don't want to pay court fees

I agree. Personally I don't know if he was guilty or not. We can't know for sure so we can't for sure say he endangered those children.

Monroe wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote:not necessairily, the extent he went to to buy off the 'victim' may not be something quite so innocent, but lots of people will settle ouside of court if for no other reason than they don't want to pay court fees

I agree. Personally I don't know if he was guilty or not. We can't know for sure so we can't for sure say he endangered those children.

not with absolute certainty, but multiple cases where he paid tens of millions of dollars each to try and hush it up, doesn't seem innocent to me.

How do you know he didn't just decide to give them a big sum of money to get them to shut up and leave him alone? It's not as if he'd miss a few million.

Let's face it, the guy was a perfect target for all sorts of lawsuits. He was definitely an oddball, but I'd hesitate to call him a paedophile without actual proof.

There's a lot of stuff in his actions that makes people think he was a pedo. You can come up with an innocent explanation for most of it though. Still, the innocent explanation is often just as weird as the implication that he was a pedo. To a lot of people the way he acted was weird enough that when the allegations started to fly they were believable.

From my understanding the first kid who he settled with was able to discribe a birthmark of MJ's penis... yeah nothing sus about that at all

Lt. Staplic wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:

Lt. Staplic wrote:And, I don't care how much of an impact he had on music, when the last 10+ years of his life were plagued with molestation charges, he is no longer a good man in my book.

So in your book you are guilty even when you are proven innocent? They say that there's no smoke where there's no fire, but, he was an extremely easy target. I'm not sure it wasn't just people trying to make money off of him. Anyone can be accused of such things, I sincerely hope that nobody ever accuses you of something like that, how would you defend your self against it?

Well, when you pay out millions of dollars to stop key witnesses from testifying, usually not a tactic taken by an innocent man.

Gosh that would have landed him in jail, perverting the cause of justice is a very serious crime. I'm sure the US has an equivalent, I just can't remember what it's called at the moment.

He did, on the first case, pay the person bringing the case an out of court settlement and that is probably why there was other cases. It's a stupid thing to do. It basically says to people if you claim this against me then you will get a bucket load of money. He learned from that one and went to court on the second one. That he was found innocent of, if he had done that in the first case then there would have been no others. That first payoff was a stupid move on his part.

You know what? I dont care if he did or he didn't. Its history. If he did, those kids will probably be scared for ever. And I am truly sorry. If he didnt, his name is tarnished forever without need, and I am truly sorry for his sake. However, I shall remember him for his truly unparallelled talent and skill, not for his failings.