If he were still alive would you let your young child spend the weekend at his house while you helped OJ search for the "real killers"? (I assume since he was acquitted too you assume he's innocent).
The first case never went to trial because he gave the kid's family $20 Million dollars (not something innocent people generally do). In the second case he probably just had better lawyers.
I'll answer.
question: no, and I wouldn't let my kids spend a weekend at your house either.
As for the rest of what you wrote- wrong. MANY people pay off settlements even when they are innocent. Yep, happens all the time- especially with companies, celebrities, etc. However, if you did your research before spouting off misinformation, fed to you by the biased media, you'd see the COURT DOCUMENTS which say that his insurance company paid the settlement on Jan 1994.
Oh and right- he was so much richer and more powerful in 2004 to get better lawyers for that case- than he was in the early 1990's. riiiiighhhht. *rolling my eyes* Laughing my butt off that he just had better lawyers in the 2nd case. He could have gotten any lawyer he wanted for any amount of money in the 90's- he was much richer then, more popular a celebrity, etc. back then than he was in 2004-2005!
Also if you did your research you'd see there is a reason for the settlement in the 90's. You'd see that the laws were different back then and due to some of the judge's decisions prior to the civil case- it was a lose/lose situation even for an innocent man. Look it up, if you really want to know the truth rather than just have fun posting someone is a pedophile (which I find disturbing in itself, btw. Just my opinion.) Laws changed by 2004... and he was able to get a criminal case FIRST, and so he did.. and he was found innocent.
(do you even know the facts of the criminal case? Do you even know the accusations made by the Arvizo family were that Michael Jackson started molesting this boy AFTER the Bashir documentary, AFTER a "reporter" contacted CPS after seeing the documentary, AFTER Gavin was already receiving flack from only his peers after seeing the Bashir documentary, AFTER CPS had already investigated the case and interviewed the Arvizo family- at which time they denied any wrongdoing on MJ's part and that he was a father figure who'd helped "heal" Gavin/etc., AFTER the media already went bazerk after the Bashir documentary. Did you know that? Maybe now that you know that- you will see how ridiculous that is. So he knew the boy for years and decided to molest him
AFTER the whole world started thinking he was up to hanky panky with the boy they saw on the documentary? Yeah, that really makes sense.... not. Thank goodness the jury had enough sense to realize that made no sense whatsoever)
Ofcourse the media only reported what they wanted to report and many blind sheep ate into every bit of it. The court of public opinion is not a fair court, since the media can be so biased and say whatever they want to say without proof. You are one of many that have played right into their hands.
Just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a tv screen don't make it factual, actual.
Oh and btw- spouting off that he died of a drug overdose isn't really completely fair either. Unless you were there to know something we don't know? Because as the case stands now- his death has been ruled a homicide, cause: injection by another. You make it sound like he was a heroine addict who OD'd and that is not the case. We don't even know that Michael asked for all those drugs- at this time we only know the word of the man (hesitate to call him a dr, because of his actions before and after Michael's death as well as the fact that he wasn't licensed to practice in Ca anyway) -from search warrants that are the only facts the public knows at the time- that Michael wanted propofol/diprivan to sleep and Murray ADMITTEDLY gave numerous drugs all night long- which are not drugs that should be given in that combination/amount- trying to avoid giving the diprivan because according to him "he felt" Michael was addicted to diprivan. Then he goes ahead and gives the propofol to him and Michael dies.
(not to mention all the suspicious, or at the very least "weird" things that go on after the "doctor" supposedly realizes Michael has stopped breathing.. according to his own words & his cellphone records- such as how long it is until he has someone call 911 after he makes several other calls for over 40 minutes on his cellphone. Yeah he made sure Michael was well beyond the "possibe revival point" before anyone was called to possibly save him. Chief of paramedics report states lividity had already set in when paramedics arrived, body temperature unknown but the room was "stifling hot" when they arrived.. do you know why that would be? I bet you can guess. There is a REASON the coronor listed it as homicide and it wasn't because a "druggie overdosed"... that's for sure.)
(ps. just FYI- I'm not sure I believe in any "murder conspiracy" stuff. I personally think that Murray was doing things he knew he shouldn't- or that any doctor should know- but he was doing it for the money. I personally believe that he did it for the money but he wasn't properly trained in anesthesiology and wasn't prepared for any problems with it. My opinion is that when trouble arose- he didn't have the proper equipment or training to deal with it but he tried to revive Michael. I believe he was afraid to immediately call 911 because he didn't want to be caught giving intravenous drugs he shouldn't be administering in a home setting, without a license to practice there and without the proper training to administer those drugs as well as without the proper revival equipment/etc. When he was unable to revive him- he went into "cover my butt" mode. I do not pretend to know who he called during that time, but I would venture a GUESS that it was probably to people who KNEW all about him giving drugs to help Michael sleep... possibly to ask "what do I do?" and from that point on -once 911 was called- his actions SEEM to be all about making sure it appeared he did nothing wrong as well as "confused" the time of death. I think he probably really just wanted to revive Michael without anyone being the wiser- and when he was unable to do so- he freaked out. That's just my opinion though.
It is also my opinion, solely based on comments made from other doctors/nurses that Michael had requested diprivan from and/or commented about it- that he said he was "fine" taking it as long as "his doctor monitored" him, that Michael did not think he'd die with his dr monitoring him and that he thought it was a perfectly safe method of getting some "sleep" as long as he was monitored by a dr. I have a hard time faulting him for this- since it's basically trusting a dr and most people do trust doctors. His mistake was that he got a dr that would agree to doing it solely for the money instead of saying "no, it's too dangerous"... as well as trusting a dr who wasn't qualified to administer this nor prepared to handle any breathing problems/etc. as an anesthesiologist in a hospital setting would. From what I have "heard"- which may or may not be fact- apparently last time Michael toured and for many years he had a "mini-clinic" go along with him on tour- along with an anesthesiologist "taking him under" at night and "bringing him back up" in the morning. If that is the case, we have no way of knowing if he had breathing problems back then but that anesthesiologist was prepared and capable of handilng any problems without anyone being the wiser- perhaps even Michael himself! If that is true, it is very likely that Michael assumed he'd be safe this time too... he just didn't handle things as well this time with his decision of WHO he chose as the dr. Michael was too rich for his own good. Not the first time someone was too rich for their own good -with disastrous results ofcourse. If he hadn't been able to afford to pay enormous amounts to get a dr to agree to do this- he'd have kept getting the "no" answer from everyone he asked. Problem is he had the money to finally get a debt-ridden dr to agree to it. And it's too bad that some doctors can be "bought" to say yes to anything, if the patient is rich enough.)
The above was a specific answer to Bashir's inquiry about the child accuser in the LA court case. Not a general statement. However, Jackson provides that in the very next question....
