Did Michael Jackson really molest children, and how did he die?Did Michael Jackson really molest children, and how did he die?

14 Answers | Add Yours

ms-charleston-yawp's profile pic

Noelle Thompson | High School Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted on

No one can ever truly know whether Michael Jackson actually molested the children involved.  Such is the case when such vast sums of money are involved.  However, again in my opinion, I don't think he did molest those children.  I think he was someone who never experienced his own childhood and tried to gain some of that childlike innocence in his (albeit skewed) relationships later in life.  This saddens me.  What saddens me more is how even that small glimpse of the innocence of childhood was ripped away by these allegations.  Then again, if molestation truly was involved, then those glimpses of childhood SHOULD have been ripped away.  A vicious circle.

As for the cause of death, this seems to change every day in the news, but last I heard, Michael Jackson was actually hooked up via IV to an intense, hospital-grade sedative that he should have never been allowed to take (possibly administered by his private doctor or possibly self-administered).  This dangerous drug in combination to the other drugs in his system caused his heart to stop.  Some accounts say that his personal physician was with Michael at the time and tried to revive him.  Other accounts say that no one was with Michael at the time and his personal physician, in finding Michael dead, only pretended to revive him.  Either way, no one got to Jackson in time. 

Buddy Holly, Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and more.  *sigh*  All taken before their time.

timbrady's profile pic

timbrady | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted on

Post #10 says sometimes "you get the justice you can afford." This view may seem cynical, but I think he's exactly right, frequently. A battery of high-paid defense attorneys can overwhelm publicly-funded DA's. On the other hand, the power of the state when leveled against a single individual can be enormous, which accounts for the presence of so many legal restrictions in prosecuting a defendant.

When Jackson, Simpson, or anybody else is found "not guilty," the verdict does not mean that person's innocence was proved. It means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt. There's a big difference, although it is frequently confused by the public at large. But here it gets tricky. Since a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty, then a "not guilty" verdict says he was presumed innocent and still is. So, Jackson and Simpson were both presumed innocent in the legal sense to begin with and did not lose that presumption at trial.

Now it gets even trickier. Does being legally "innocent" mean the defendant actually didn't do what he was accused of doing? This is two separate issues. For anyone who really didn't do what he is accused of doing, it becomes a nightmare since it is impossible to prove a negative. Doubt will always persist, and these defendants will always have critics and supporters, reading the evidence as they see it, regardless of how a jury saw it.

 

  Good summary of a complicated legal and moral issue.

mshurn's profile pic

Susan Hurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Post #10 says sometimes "you get the justice you can afford." This view may seem cynical, but I think he's exactly right, frequently. A battery of high-paid defense attorneys can overwhelm publicly-funded DA's. On the other hand, the power of the state when leveled against a single individual can be enormous, which accounts for the presence of so many legal restrictions in prosecuting a defendant.

When Jackson, Simpson, or anybody else is found "not guilty," the verdict does not mean that person's innocence was proved. It means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt. There's a big difference, although it is frequently confused by the public at large. But here it gets tricky. Since a defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty, then a "not guilty" verdict says he was presumed innocent and still is. So, Jackson and Simpson were both presumed innocent in the legal sense to begin with and did not lose that presumption at trial.

Now it gets even trickier. Does being legally "innocent" mean the defendant actually didn't do what he was accused of doing? This is two separate issues. For anyone who really didn't do what he is accused of doing, it becomes a nightmare since it is impossible to prove a negative. Doubt will always persist, and these defendants will always have critics and supporters, reading the evidence as they see it, regardless of how a jury saw it.

 

markchambers1966's profile pic

markchambers1966 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Adjunct Educator

Posted on

We may never know. The fact that he paid off Jordan Chandler for such a huge amount does weigh against him. And the court acquittal did seem to be in sympathy for an ailing hero in the face of some strong evidence. It is always difficult to separate the genius of the man musically with the person who lies behind. I think his death was caused by the proscription drugs and the fact he was pushing his body so hard for the concerts in London.

timbrady's profile pic

timbrady | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator

Posted on

I will hold with the court's decision, but we must never forget that sometimes you get the justice you can afford.  When I read some of this thread, I couldn't but think of O.J. Simpson who was convicted in Civil but not Criminal court.  The difference is, of course, the degree of certitude needed for a conviction, but it will always seem odd to me and most people that you can be guilty and not guilty.  Another variable in the legal system is the judge.  In the OJ case, it was clear that Ito was in way over his head.  This may or may not have influenced the outcome, but it will always cast a pall over the whole thing.

That being said, the answer to the above question is that we will never know, but in the legal sense, at least, it is that he did not molest children.  We have another week or so to go to get the final word on how he died.

lhc's profile pic

lhc | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Educator

Posted on

As stated above, I don't think we'll ever know for sure, a view reinforced by a series of Vanity Fair articles written over the years.  Jackson's life and his legal entanglements were nothing if not a circus, and the parade of witnesses for and against him in court were in many cases unreliable at best, and sycophants at worst.  I find it humorous, in a gallows sort of way, that even the United States legal system wasn't immune from the frenzy of parasites that surrounded Jackson. 

akannan's profile pic

Ashley Kannan | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I think if there is a response to the question it lies in the insulation of fame.  Jackson approached a level of fame in the 1980s, in particular, where he became so exponentially famous and wealthy, that it became nearly impossible for anyone to say "no" to him.  This might have been by Jackson's own design, but as we see him cast into the portals of beyond with his death, it is evident that the trappings of fame applied to both Jackson and the people around him.  Certainly, we will never be able to fully ascertain the full extent of his relationship with children.  Perhaps, the children themselves and Jackson were the only reliable sources.  However, the fact that Jackson was able to surround himself with children and no one saying "no" or advising him in a stringent and clear way against this is indicative of how fame creates a world around the celebrity where the term "no" is invisible.  This might also help to explain aspects of his death.  Certainly, the role of prescription drugs is present.  If this is the case, Jackson's doctors had a problem saying, "no," and others who enabled him suffered from the same affliction.  I cannot endorse the voices that are coming out now, after his death, and saying, "I told him no."  It just seems inauthentic. Whether this inability to articulate "no" to him was something by design or unintentional, I believe it played a role in both his demise and his death.

drmonica's profile pic

drmonica | (Level 2) Associate Educator

Posted on

In the United States, when a person has been tried by a jury of his peers and found not guilty of a charge, then he is exonerated in the eyes of the law. In the eyes of the public, however, it might be a different story altogether. True to the cliche that where there is smoke, there must be fire, it is difficult if not impossible for a contemporary celebrity to fully escape being tainted by sordid charges like those leveled against Michael Jackson, regardless of what the courts rule.

As the public is aware, "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent." The state has a burden to prove a case, and if the case is not proved, then the defendant is released. This does not mean that the defendant is necessarily innocent of the charge, but rather that the state did not prove its case.

mshurn's profile pic

Susan Hurn | College Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Michael Jackson's recent death has created much news coverage of his life and career. It has renewed discussion and speculation about his relationships with children. On two occasions, charges were brought in California, accusing him of child molestation. In the first case, Jackson made a financial settlement with the family of the boy involved, and criminal charges were later dropped. In the second case, a trial was held and Jackson was acquitted by the jury. Many people still believe that he did do what he was accused of doing, even though he was not convicted in a court of law, but many others believe he was accused unjustly. As for his exact cause of death, this is yet to be determined. Results of toxicology tests are not expected to be released for another few weeks.

kim-c's profile pic

kim-c | Student, College Freshman | (Level 1) Honors

Posted on

No way! People just wanted to take advantage of MJ because he was the biggest superstar on the planet. Michael Jackson paid Jordan Chandler because the trial went on for so long and he wanted to end it. It proves his innocence because the damn kid took that huge sum of money, therefore, revealing an extortion attempt from Michael. If Michael Jackson really molested him (which he didn't), than Jordan Chandler would've said 'no' to Jackson's money and continue on with the trial but he got what he wanted, which was money and he "tried" to make people think that MJ was a child molester. Chandler should be running scared...I would if I was him. Jordan Chandler is nothing but a fake and every swear word in the book. Michael Jackson was the biggest icon globally and as his older brother; Tito Jackson said:

"My brother was the greatest entertainer that we've ever seen. He was something special. I think Michael got to a point where they didn't understand the heights that he had reached. When you are so high there is nowhere else to go but down. And the same people that put you at those heights are the very people that will bring you down. Michael had no reason to hate anything or hurt anyone."

For MJ's death, I remember waking up and reading the news captions on my TV and the headline said: "Michael Jackson dead at 50: coroner." Michael Jackson died from a cardiac arrest in his home in Los Angeles.

May The King Of Pop Finally Rest In Peace. I love you MJ.

xoxbeautiful-nerd's profile pic

xoxbeautiful-nerd | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted on

he did not molest children, he had two sons of his own, and a daughter who loved him. and he died from a sudden stop in the heart.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

It is possible that Michael Jackson is guilty, just as it is possible that the people who question his innocence are guilty of maligning the name of an Innocent person.

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

The charges of child molestation were officially investigated and argued out before officers of law. After, the due process of law, the charges were not found to be correct. After all this we cannot consider Micheal Jackson guilty without questioning the system which exonerated him of these charges.

epollock's profile pic

epollock | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

I don't think anyone will know for sure.  He did say in an interview that he was around them all the time and they stayed at his ranch when he was there. That was one of his problems in which he let things get out of control coupled with the fact that no one told him he shouldn't do that.

We’ve answered 318,989 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question