Michael Jackson - Bad 99p on Google Play - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Top Comments

(5)
40 Likes
Factualgnome

Or just him paying $20million for it to go away.

Perfect example of somebody forming an opinion based on nothing more than press misinformation.

The settlement (which Jackson initially didn't want to pay), was a strategic move. What it DID NOT do is make the case go away, as suggested by you 'Factualgnome' - perhaps you should change your username to 'talking-out-of-my-****-troll'.
Trolls don't make a habit of reading too much but perhaps some others will be interested in this. It's bound to be a long spiel but I have some time on my hands.

I'll explain why Jackson didn't face trial in 1993, but first some preamble.
Jackson befriended the Chandler family after his car broke down mid-journey and they helped him on his way. He paid for holidays, presents etc for the whole family. Evan Chandler - the first accuser's father who had become estranged from the family and was jealous of Jackson's relationship with his wife and children - wanted to fund a film project and approached Jackson for money. Jackson refused (several times). Chandler eventually tried to blackmail Jackson. jackson refused. Jackson hired a Private Investigator who recorded Chandler as saying he was going to destroy Jackson if he didn't get what he wanted. (this audio clip was played on national news and has been available on the net for years)
Shortly after his threats, Chandler launched his CIVIL claim against Jackson. That's right, he didn't go to the police to make a formal criminal complaint against Jackson supposedly abusing his kid, he filed a claim for financial compensation through a lawyer. Would that be your choice of action? Or would you prefer criminal prosecution followed up by a civil case later, as is customary in the USA? In fact, when the police read the headlines and launched their own investigation the Chandlers were not cooperative at all. Again, wouldn't you want to prosecute your kids so-called abuser?

Now for the strategic part.
As a minor, Jordy chandler was entitled to a speedy civil trial. A criminal trial, should it be required would need to take place after a lengthy criminal investigation. This meant that the potential criminal trial would take place AFTER the civil trial because the civil proceedings had already begun. Not only that, but in defending the civil trial Jackson's lawyers would need to unveil much of the same defence they would later need in a criminal trial. This was obviously bad news for Jackson who would be at a distinct disadvantage if the prosecutor knew his defence in advance. Jackson's lawyers argued that Jackson's rights to a fair criminal trial outweighed Jordy's rights to a speedy civil trial. The judge disagreed and the civil case was allowed to go ahead as planned. The burden of proof is much lower for a civil trial, and a loss for Jackson had the potential to generate headlines around the world declaring him a paedophile, regardless of the fact that he would at that point have not actually been found guilty of any crime by a criminal trial. Newspapers don't necessarily care about the facts, context, legal jargon. they're not bothered as long as the headline draws in customers. Those headlines could potentially have made it very difficult to find an impartial jury.
As a result, Jackson's lawyers' recommendation was that the best course of action to protect his legal defence in the criminal trial, which after all could in worst case result in jail time, was to pay a settlement to the Chandlers. Jackson was furious but reluctantly agreed. After all, he just signed the biggest recording deal in history and had plenty of money - $20million was a fraction of his wealth.

Now important facts about the settlement document itself.

It has been freely available on the net for years and indicates the settlement was for 'negligence', NOT child abuse.
Also, it specifically states that the Chandlers were entitled to cooperate with legal proceedings against Jackson.

So to make things very clear for you 'gnome' - the settlement doc specifically DID NOT prohibit the Chandlers taking part in the investigation, or trial, and most definitely did NOT make the case go away!


The reason why Jackson did not go to trial.

As I said before the Chandlers were not cooperative during the investigation. Not before the settlement. Not after the settlement. they wanted nothing to do with it. Not the action of a concerned father IMO.
The District Attorney took the case to a grand jury - the people who would decide whether the case could go to trial. After reviewing the evidence against Jackson THEY decided the case was not credible and so THEY decided it should NOT go to court.
the DA took the case to a second grand jury. the second grand jury (made up of a different group of people) concurred with the first grand jury. They too decided the case wasn't credible and rejected it.

That my friend is why Jackson didn't go to court.

Sure, he paid a settlement as a strategic move to protect his criminal defence. A defence that as it turns out he didn't need. In hindsight he could have not made the settlement and still wouldn't have had to go to a criminal trial.
Unfortunately the world's press span the story by suggesting (if not explicitly stating) that a settlement was an indication of guilt, which it blatantly was not given the circumstances. This was a stance that the media continued to use for a number of years after the settlement was made, and after the settlement docs were made available.

Now in case there was still any doubt in your mind about the strength of the '93 case against Jackson. In case you don't believe the ruling of two separate grand juries as to the strength of that case. The judge in the 2005 trial allowed the evidence from the 1993 investigation into the case against Jackson. Therefore the jury in the 2005 trial had access to all that information, and even with that knowledge found Jackson not guilty of all charges. The judge gave them instructions that if they couldn't find him guilty of the prescribed charges they had the option of finding him guilty of lesser charges. However, they couldn't even find a reason to do that.

I read the information from the 2005 trial as it became available and was utterly amazed at how detached the press stories were from reality and it has given me a very healthy dose of scepticism when it comes to reading the news from any outlet.

There were so many myths about Jackson perpetuated in the press (and by clueless internet trolls) based on nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations.
For example, some corrective statements based on legal evidence:
There was NO incriminating DNA found anywhere. None.
Jackson DID NOT give kids alcohol. He didn't like drinking it in front of kids so he called it 'Jesus juice' and drank it from cans specifically so they wouldn't know. the only time the kid was drunk at Neverland was when he and his brother broke into Jackson's cellar and helped himself (while Jackson was at an awards ceremony in Germany - NOT even in the country!)
There was NO child pornography found at his properties (common sense proves this coz posessing this material is a crime and Jackson was never charged with that crime!)
There were NO secret FBI files - all FBI files were made available to the prosecutor and used where appropriate. In fact the Jackson file was never closed until he died and at no time did the FBI feel it necessary to arrest him. Another indication of the type of case they had against him.
Child services investigated Jackson themselves and found no case to answer.

There are many more but these are most common misconceptions.

Edited By: bobmoo79 on Jun 30, 2014 16:08: additional information
33 Likes
Metallica4life2013
Not voting either way but I wouldn't give him or his estate a penny

I doubt he needs your penny ;)
25 Likes
qwerta369
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.

Here you go. It's only a single though so it's not quite as good a deal as this:
Gary Glitter: Rock and Roll Part 2 - Google Play - 99p

Let us know what it's like.

Edited By: MisterMadHatter on Jun 30, 2014 14:56: Wrong spelling of 'Glitter'
17 Likes
99p ... Not BAD at all
12 Likes
asiot
whatever happened to jacko? hardly hear from him these days

Unless you've changed your number and not told him, perhaps you're too old now

All Comments

(131) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
3 Likes #1
Not voting either way but I wouldn't give him or his estate a penny
3 Likes #2
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.
33 Likes #3
Metallica4life2013
Not voting either way but I wouldn't give him or his estate a penny

I doubt he needs your penny ;)
2 Likes #4
what is wrong you guy's?
17 Likes #5
99p ... Not BAD at all
25 Likes #6
qwerta369
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.

Here you go. It's only a single though so it's not quite as good a deal as this:
Gary Glitter: Rock and Roll Part 2 - Google Play - 99p

Let us know what it's like.

Edited By: MisterMadHatter on Jun 30, 2014 14:56: Wrong spelling of 'Glitter'
#7
Good price but agree with some comments hat would not contribute to his estate - but if is your thing get in!
2 Likes #8
MisterMadHatter
qwerta369
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.

Here you go. It's only a single though so it's not quite as good a deal as this:
Gary Glittler: Rock and Roll Part 2 - Google Play - 99p

Let us know what it's like.

What is more worrying is that some people will continue to do so
1 Like #9
whatever happened to jacko? hardly hear from him these days
12 Likes #10
asiot
whatever happened to jacko? hardly hear from him these days

Unless you've changed your number and not told him, perhaps you're too old now
3 Likes #11
asiot
whatever happened to jacko? hardly hear from him these days


He's living with Elvis :p
#12
Never heard of him
2 Likes #13
He's doing time Sharmon,it ain't so bad ,he has his good friend Ronnay Barckay for company heeee heeee
4 Likes #14
Great album, easily second best to Thriller. If I didn't already have physical copy, digital copy and Vinyl would purchase :)
#15
Not Bad anyway :)
#16
am I being thick or is this 99p for the album or the single? looks like the single...if so how is that a bargain?
#17
kenzo
am I being thick or is this 99p for the album or the single? looks like the single...if so how is that a bargain?
Its the album
2 Likes #18
Absolute bargain for an awesome album!
4 Likes #19
http://img2.tvtome.com/i/u/vL/c90e96a3b0ab4313c3a10f4c52a56fd9.jpg
2 Likes #20
https://fireden.net/4chan/images.4chan.org//vg/src/1397581824596.gif
#21
sorry already spent my money helping Jonathan king and Gary Glitter so i am going to have to pass on this one for now - maybe if it goes down to 50p i will grab a copy.
#22
Metallica4life2013
Not voting either way but I wouldn't give him or his estate a penny
qwerta369
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.

I thought Glitter was banged up but Jacko was acquitted... they used the chewbacca defense iirc
3 Likes #23
great price for one of the best albums of all time
2 Likes #24
C'hamon this is hot! Eeee, eeeeeeee.
1 Like #25
Fantastic price for one of the best albums of all from the king or pop.
4 Likes #26
Am I the only person here who actually knows anything about the trials? Read through this and see if you're still making the same jokes by the end.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#The_trial
2 Likes #27
Innocent until proven guilty, which he never was. So why all the hate?

Great album imo
5 Likes #28
TygerrTygerr
Am I the only person here who actually knows anything about the trials? Read through this and see if you're still making the same jokes by the end.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#The_trial

People don't like reading. They base their opinions on tabloid headlines.
3 Likes #29
thecresta
TygerrTygerr
Am I the only person here who actually knows anything about the trials? Read through this and see if you're still making the same jokes by the end.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#The_trial

People don't like reading. They base their opinions on tabloid headlines.
regardless what people say about Michael Jackson he will always be the king of pop,
It's a shame how he was treated because of stupid media zombies
1 Like #30
In my opinion - this album is superior to Thriller. And I think it was his biggest seller here in the UK too, until the time of his death.
#31
thecresta
TygerrTygerr
Am I the only person here who actually knows anything about the trials? Read through this and see if you're still making the same jokes by the end.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#The_trial
People don't like reading. They base their opinions on tabloid headlines.

Or just him paying $20million for it to go away.
#32
Factualgnome
http://img2.tvtome.com/i/u/vL/c90e96a3b0ab4313c3a10f4c52a56fd9.jpg

Wow, the album cover looks well different close up!
1 Like #33
One of the greatest albums of all time by the King of Pop.
2 Likes #34
Factualgnome
thecresta
TygerrTygerr
Am I the only person here who actually knows anything about the trials? Read through this and see if you're still making the same jokes by the end.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson#The_trial
People don't like reading. They base their opinions on tabloid headlines.

Or just him paying $20million for it to go away.

Jackson didn't want to pay, his lawyers and record company did.

You know nothing about the case so jog on.
#35
It's in every charity shop for a £1 or less (could have bought it today with Dangerous for 99p).
1 Like #36
I love it when people say "jog on". It makes them sound all arrogant and southern.
2 Likes #37
qwerta369
I love it when people say "jog on". It makes them sound all arrogant and southern.

Skip on
#38
I'm not a big fan of MJ, but 9 tracks were released as singles. That must be some kind of record (no pun intended).
1 Like #39
Gotta love a bit of Michael...
https://thehuffingtonguepost.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/fakenose.jpg
3 Likes #40
qwerta369
I'd rather buy Gary Glitter Rock & Roll Part 2.

So you'd rather buy an album of a confirmed pedophile than an accused Pedophile? I understand, you need confirmation of the crime before you support them.

Also One is dead and other is rotting in a Bangkok Prison, Only one of the two actually needs the money.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!