Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Michael Jackson GA‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
POV problems
The point of view of this article is not very neutral. The writers, in particular, go out of their way to disparage the motives of everyone who criticized Jackson— even though he clearly was guilty of, at the very minimum, spectacularly poor judgement. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I Think You're The One With The POV Problem
To the person who wrote on the talk page that Michael Jackson was guilty. I think it sounds like you're the one with the POV problem here. Did you know Michael personally? Have you talked to him about his life? No. I don't think so.
You cannot judge a person like that without knowing who they are and talking to them. Michael was a caring and lovely person. He worked hard and obviously he became successful because of that hard work. Some people are jealous of people who work hard and are successful like Michael was. They are so jealous that they will do anything to take advantage of kind people. Maybe you should stop believing everything you read and hear and start thinking for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.204.30 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
the photos and more information
The public is still missing many things on the case but it's hard to write them all to a comment. I will only mention a few things.
The boys description was about a splotch “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”. Later Sneddon mislead the public assuming that people have a bad memory. Sneddon talked about a dark blemish in the examination which make the description totally wrong without any similarity.
Members of grand jury (2 in Santa Barbara and 1 in LA)gave an interview to Larry King and they said no damaging evidence was heard that the prosecution didn't even asked them to vote for an indictment. The first 2 grand jury met and finished prior to the settlement.
Jackson's 5th Amendment right was violated. Plus he was the only one that asked for the civil trial to postpone and begin after the criminal trial would be over. He was the only one asking for justice. But he was never charged because there was no evidence.
The amount of the settlement was 15,331,250 not 22millions. The Chandlers could still testify in a criminal trial according to the settlement document. In fact the prosecution didn't even need Jordan Chandler because according to the 1991 law the alleged victims didn't need to testify. A relative could speak for them or a police officer that interviewed them. That was already done in the grand jury and they didn't find merit in it. Sneddon changed the law after this case.
Chandler was the one who was asking the settlement even before Jordan Chandler tell him (after the sodium amytal) that he was molested. Evan made the allegations first to blackmail Jackson. He didn't pay and Evan went public. The reason we know about this is because he didn't pay him.
An uneducated public is not even aware that in civil trials the judge force both parties to have 2 meetings in order to settle their case outside courtroom, otherwise a civil trial date will not be set. And an uneducated public does not know what violation of the 5th Amendment is. He had no choice period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.14.78 (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
the settlement date
According to the actual settlement document the procedure took place on January 25th not on January 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.55.123 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
POV Problems?
You cannot judge a person like that without knowing who they are and talking to them. Michael was a caring and lovely person.
Your first statement is a demand for someone else not to press their point of view. Your second line is completely your own personal point of view.
Black, Kettle, Pot, look it up.