https://www.vladtv.com/article/253184/elvis-presleys-wife-priscilla-speaks-on-dating-him-while-she-was-only-14
Verified not accused for money yet never any media outrage then or now and definitely no hit piece documentary.
No racist double standard there folks.
And Jerry Lee Lewis married his thirteen-year-old cousin when he was twenty-two.
Those were different times.
How DARE you be reasonable and mature in the face of faux outrage?!
And, OP, what racist double standard? You do know that The King was Native American, right?
Lewis's career took a major hit for doing that.
Though where he was from, it wasn't considered that unusual.
I guess you can't trust any singer whose estate ends with "Land".
shareFunny how nobody's rushing to fund documentaries about stuff that's been a matter of public record for decades.
shareProbably because there's no showbiz backroom handshakes being made to orchestrate a media lynching campaign in this case. This is how you can have phony, selective, often racially biased media lynching campaigns in an attempt destroy certain individuals without any incriminating evidence whatsoever & at the same time look the other way on others whose transgressions are as you say a matter of public record.
shareIf Jackson had just married his underage victims the way Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis did, then everything would be forgiven!
At least in some populations.
Who said anything about Jackson? Problem is no established evidence there. Just very inconsistent & surprisingly few accusations given the massive financial motives & a decades long non stop corrupt media lynching campaign propagating that narrative.
shareIf you're trying to hold random strangers on the internet to the same standards of proof as a jury trial, dude, you're going to find reality very frustrating.
I'm not sure what point your trying to make. That opinions are only meant to be challenged in a trial? There would be almost no discussion on the internet between random strangers if that were the case.
shareOne of the many reasons I can't take any of Jackson's defenders seriously is they keep repeating variations on the theme of "He can't have been a pedophile, because he was never convicted", which is frank illogic; many crimes take place without anyone ever being convicted as a result, that doesn't mean there was no crime. The same people also like to say that since Jackson was found innocent in a court of law that means he didn't commit the crimes he was accused of, which is also illogical, as people do get away with crimes if the DA can't produce enough evidence to convict. Being found innocent or guilty in a court of law is not actually the same as actually BEING innocent or guilty of a crime, as miscarriages of justice happen all the time.
And the sad fact is that pedophilia is easier to get away with than some other crimes, because unless the perpetrator is really stupid, the only witnesses will be the perp and a child whose memory will always be considered unreliable. So there will never be absolute proof of Jackson's innocence or guilt, anyone who insists they absolutely positively KNOW he was innocent, or guilty, has their head up their ass.
Elvis living with a 14 year old girl, on the other hand, is undisputed.
The reason I can't take Jackson haters/guilters seriously is because they value conjecture, innuendo, debunked financiallly motivated hearsay & the blatanty corrupt & an unethical media wich hunt narrative over proven facts & evidence.
Jackson was one of the most documented people in history his entire life. His every move was watched & scrutinized. He was always surrounded by security & other staff in which no one who hasn't been emphatically discredited has ever reported anything to support the accusations. The weak cop out of "well we may not have any actual evidence of guilt but we don't have absolute evidence of his complete innocence either" Holding the standard of innocence to having to prove an absolute negative not how the law or real life in general works.
When all of the provable lies and inconsistencies are on the side of the accusations & none on the side of the accused the judgment should be easy for any reasonable unbiased person.
In any case this is the Elvis board any further non Elvis discussion should happen elsewhere.
Elvis "passionately kissing" 14 year olds isn't disputed either and there has never been a shred of media or public outrage about that. Elvis was hardly unique in this regard btw. Jimmy Page? Ted Nudgent? It's a very long list of documented rock star creeps whose transgressions were ignored. I wonder why that is.
40 YEARS.THATS THE REASON..THE OUTRAGE CULTURE IS NEW AND THE WWAY PEOPLE VIEW AND RESPOND TO CELEBRITIES AS WELL AS SEXUAL POLITICS IS VERY DIFFERENT.
share"Jackson was one of the most documented people in history his entire life. His every move was watched & scrutinized."
Oh gosh, that's why he had that secret underground bedroom! Nothing nefarious about inviting his little boys down there, all he wanted was a bit of privacy. Sure.
Frankly, it's pointless discussing the Jackson case. I wasn't there, you weren't there, neither of us knows what actually happened, except that you think you do. As for me, well, I don't know what happened, but I wouldn't have let a child anywhere near him from the late 80s on.
Well it seems you want to ignore my suggestion to not further derail this discussion since it's an Elvis board.
I'll just say that if Jackson haters/guilters didn't get their disinformation from anti MJ sites they would know that the "nefarious" room was a security panic room (very common for people who live in mansions to have) that was built before he ever purchased the property. The only thing nefarious is the "Mj & his little boys in the secret room" scenario being conjured up out of thin air.
Wether you or i were there is immaterial as again i will say in a rational world the burden of innocence is not predicated on the absolute proof of the of a negative. You can believe what you choose to believe but can't reasonably justify it based on that.
The accumulated evidence regarding the accusations have time an again pointed to that of innocence of the accused & provable untruths & flat out lies of the ever so financiallly incentivised accusers.
I'm done talking to you, so you can stop complaining about a thread hijack. You are absolutely convinced of something you can't have any certainty about, and you don't wish to change your mind.
Now, does anyone else want to talk about Elvis's drug addiction? The heavy-duty prescription drugs? Funny how none of the fans will say anything on that subject.
I'm glad you finally decided to move on. What it boils down to is that there is more accumulated evidence to support the belief of innocence in the case of MJ than there is accumulated evidence that definitively proves you're not a (insert something bad) which is another example why it's unreasonable to place the burden of innocence on proving a negative.
I'm not familiar with Elvis's drug use which on its face i find pretty minor compared to the double standard regarding his (and many others) documented sexual improprieties with adolescent girls.
I thought they didn't fool around in tell she was the age of consent.
sharePricilla wasn't the only underage girl Elvis had overnight "sleepovers" with and it's still an overt a case of sexual grooming even if we were to give the benefit of the doubt & believe the unlikely story that there was never any sexual contact beyond the already line crossing "passionate kissing" going on well before she was of age, something she openly acknowledged to have happened.
shareBummer.
I thought Elvis was cool.