Michael Jackson

I love it when someone gets all smug but they’re wrong 🤣 you’ve completely fabricated that I’ve stated Michael Jackson stood trial for Jordan Chandler 🤣 nowhere did I state that. I stated Evan settled out of court for his accusations, and MJ was acquitted for all charges he stood trial for. Don’t come at me if you can’t follow someone’s post that wasn’t even for you 🤣

I can’t help but notice how you’ve also ignored the part where you were called out for stating parents SHOULD go for a cash settlement and let the alleged abuser walk free rather than go for justice and punishment if their child is sexually abused.

You’re coming across a little bit unhinged if I’m honest

What’s do you mean usually? Theres was only Savile and he was not a global star.

It’s disingenuous to be surprised that others have not come forward given the power and wealth of the Jackson family and the corporations promoting his music. And given the mad behaviour of fans online and in real life.

I don’t believe that 11 year old boys come forward and claim to have been molested by someone they looked up when the haven’t. Particularly not 30 years ago. On these boards we are not allowed to query women who report sex offences whether as adults or children, quite rightly. Indeed the women on these threads who choose not believe these children would be devastated not to be believed of their own experiences.

I don't know if he was guilty BUT it's blurry in the sense that the parents were complicit in enabling him if it was true and for quite a long time after it started happening; the Evan Chandler situation where he actually lied is a massive issue; and lastly, where are the floodgates? Usually after a child molester dies lots of people start sharing their stories. There have been 2 people and that's it. It's really odd.

He was definitely guilty of inappropriate behaviour and a narcissist but whether it went as far as actually molesting them is hard to say because of all the issues around it. Also, we weren't in the court room and privy to the nuances of the case.

Part of his mentality was that he was trying to harness the childhood he didn't have which is why he invited them into his house and did the things he did.

I honestly just don't know but I don't think any jury would be unbiased either way.

You said he was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges but he didn’t stand criminal trial for the offences against JC.

The later case against MJ from the Chandlers was originally brought by JC himself and it was not to get more money from MJ it was to get him to keep to the terms of the settlement which was that he would not attempt to denigrate JC in the media.

Which is what I clearly stated 🤦🏻‍♀️ or did you read a couple of random words and totally ignore the part where I stated Evan Chandler accepted an out of court sum??
Also, please don’t have children if you would happily accept a pay off from someone you believe molested them, rather than see them punished. What a truly, truly absurd thing to say. There is no such thing as “settling” if your child has been sexually abused

You can’t have spent that much time on it - MJ did not face a criminal trial over Jordan Chandler - it was a civil case that MJ settled out of court.

What parent would put a child through a public criminal trial with a global superstar rather than settle a civil case?

And those would be considered circumstantial evidence

Exactly.

Did you follow the court cases at the time? If you did then you’d understand why. He was not found guilty, he was overwhelmingly acquitted of all charges-and the loudest accuser at the time, Evan Chandler, agreed to an out of court settlement sum (what parent would accept cash instead of seeing the person they’re accusing of molesting their child go to prison) Evan Chandler again tried to get money out of Michael Jackson years later regarding one of his songs.
Micheal Jackson was very much a cash cow in the 90’s and early 00’s. I was a huge Michael Jackson fan starting from the thriller days (still am, admittedly) so I spent hours upon hours poring over all the information released, anything I could get my hands on really-if he was guilty I wanted to know for sure before I burned all his albums.
The simple answer is, he was not guilty.

Other names that have been mentioned, were guilty, which is why they were ‘cancelled’

And those would be considered circumstantial evidence.

My point is, any trial relies largely and often entirely on circumstantial evidence. The pp saying:

Circumstantial evidence might be used but it doesn’t secure convictions. Hence why he was still acquitted in spite of all that circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Which is naive gobbledygook.

I think that is a line from a parody video that someone posted&got deleted.

🙄 seriously?!? What do you think he was doing with those 'little guys' It's scary how many make excuses for the FACT that he liked sharing a bed with children.
He's a full blown nonce and I hope he's rotting in hell, scumbag.

His musical legacy will die if enough evidence comes out that he was actually a paedophile. Which I think it probably will in the long run.

Nope. But the police did find fingerprints of Gavin Arviso and a thumbprint of on MJ’s on Mj’s “Barely Legal Hardcore” porn mag.

@HungryLittleCrocodile

I think he was stupid to have made young teen boys his friends, and have them stop over, but he was not convicted of any wrongdoing

Stupid is one possibility. But that implies that the only reason he had boys for sleepovers was because of stupidity. Do stupid people generally behave like this with kids? If there was an adult man in your neighbourhood inviting kids for sleepovers, would you tell your kids ‘Oh don’t worry about Barry, he’s just stupid’. You wouldn’t question why Barry wanted the kids to come over?

You seem naïve.

Yes, I meant direct eyewitness testimony. And as a general rule, almost all cases are built on circumstantial evidence.

You're not going to get fingerprints on a penis, though.

Got it in one

Fingerprints would depend - fingerprints on the weapon would be direct evidence. Eye witness testimony is also direct.

Almost every case is won or lost on circumstantial evidence! It is very rare to have direct or video evidence of a crime being committed. Even DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial evidence.

Courts don’t find people “innocent”. The prosecution did not adequately prove their case.

Well that’s not true, Lucy Letby was convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence.

You got a giggle out of me with this one

Personally, I'm still going to play music that I like. All these debates about guilt are pointless when he's been dead for so long and we'll never know exactly what happened.

I don’t know why you keep saying this. Of course people know the difference.

The real problem here is that you can’t understand why people wouldn’t take a court verdict as the last word on guilt. But there’s a difference between the legal outcome of a case and the truth, as any miscarriage of justice signifies.

Bottom line - either MJ a was a paedophile or he wasn’t. If he was and he did indeed abuse multiple boys over a period of time, the court findings are neither here nor there.

No. I did not use the BBC to justify my so-called argument. I linked a report from the BBC - a factual report - stating that the latest court case is able to procede.

You really are clutching at straws.

Michael Jackson lawsuits alleging sex abuse can be revived, US appeals court says (bbc.com)

Which is also why the ‘top notch lawyers got him off’ theory doesn’t fly. Many wealthy celebs have been convicted of sex and other criminal offences based on the weight of evidence. The fact that Jackson wasn’t isn’t indicative of anything (including actual guilt or innocence) other than there wasn’t enough evidence for a safe conviction at the time. Doesn’t make him innocent, but legally it doesn’t make him guilty either - and that, despite gut feeling, or other evidence coming to light since the trial, is a fact.