Michael Jackson

Why is it so difficult for people to accept a simple point of law. Someone asked if Saville had been convicted. The answer is no, he died before anyone knew what he’d been doing. Someone else posted that this was the same as Jackson in principle - basically because everyone knew Jackson was really guilty. That’s absolute nonsense. And what you’ve posted her is totally irrelevant to the point being made. Whatever your feelings about Jackson, he was tried and found not guilty. Legally, at the time of his death he was not guilty. Not so Saville, by way of the fact he was never brought to justice. Fact.

Who would you consider a reliable source then? The cops investigating him, and the mountains of rather damning evidence found at his ranch? MJ himself, who is on camera saying he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Denial is thick on here. It's mystifying.

I think a lot of the parents actions damage their own integrity. There does seem a pattern where the parents were happy to allow free access to their children when they themselves were being flown around in private jets, sent on multi thousand dollar shopping sprees and showered with gifts so expensive that most people can only dream of then only when their supply of money was cut off decided to sue. It can't all have just been grooming. All of these parents claim to have been too afraid to say anything but openly admit to using the money for their own gain while they had access to it. Yes it's possible that a global superstar was so powerful that they did not know what to do but there does seem a degree of knowing exactly what to do when they were financially benefiting from the arrangement. Were any of them still living the superstar lifestyle at the time they decided to sue or had their funds already been cut off long before? We've all said nobody would give the creepy binman down the road such easy access to our children but these parents did so freely in return for homes and all manner of other riches.

They are not though.
The system often fails victims of abuse- either because things never make it ti court, or because it's easier to get out of the siruation if you are a billionaire.
Very few opowerful people get convicted.
Harvey Weinstein had his conviction overturned (!!!!)- does this inspire your faith in legal system? Innocent as they come.
Prince Edward managed to settle out of court. His story in the interview held so well, didnt it?
MJ used vurnerable kids, and had behind him a massive legal and financial machine to support him.

Because not all of the 'accurate' descriptions turned out to be accurate. Incidentally, Vanity Fair is not the most reliable of sources.

I'm sorry, but how is that related to the drawing of the vitiligo pattern, and other facts that corroborate the little boys he seduced and abused stories?

10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations | Vanity Fair

I wasn’t talking to you I was responding to @pam290358 claim that

“Whatever your personal opinion the law says he was not guilty.”

I simply pointed out that one of the law enforcers involved in the investigation is on record as saying he thought he was guilty.

I’m not sure why you find it hard to understand that a. People don’t need pointing out that MJ was not found guilty whereas Savile was never tried as they’re aware of it and b. It’s irrelevant to the issue of whether MJ was, in fact, a paedophile.

None of which is relevant to this point though. I was pointing out that there is a difference between someone not standing trial because they died before their crimes came to light, and someone actually standing trial and being acquitted. Personal opinion is irrelevant - in the eyes of the law Jackson was not guilty, whereas Saville was never brought to justice. I’ve looked back through the thread and this point has been made several times, by several different posters. I don’t understand why it’s seemingly so difficult to accept.

How naive are uou? 'He would have been found guilty had there been a shred of proof!'

When there's money and international stars people turn a blind eye. Just look at the RKelly court cases.

Initially taken to court and found NOT guilty even though LOTS of people including his music team/company knew what was going on.

However a few years later thanks to some amazing detectives, families and a very peristent reporter, subsequent charges were filed, including the same earlier ones , and he was found guilty of massive number of charges. He thought his fame would keep him safe, saw himself as invincible in the same way MJ did.

Try reading that that post again. The poster wasn’t referring to Jackson. They were defending themselves against a poster who had quoted them and appeared to be accusing them of saying some pretty unpleasant things, which they actually hadn’t. Nothing at all to do with defaming or libelling the dead.

One of the FBI agents who worked on the investigation didn’t think he was innocent though. He said that if WR and JS had been ready to talk/testify at the time, the case would have been much more likely to succeed. I think he’s right. Indeed I think if those boys had brought a case together MJ would have gone to jail.

The two are totally different. Saville was dead before his crimes were discovered. He wasn’t found guilty or innocent because he didn’t stand trial. Jackson stood trial twice and was acquitted. Whatever your personal opinion the law says he was not guilty.

It depends what you call credible.

I believe the documentary put forward a number of very credible arguments. As I said, I've never really been able to tell one way or another. I still think there's a lot we will never know. I just don't think it's that clear cut.

If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

James Safechuck was a 36 year old man when his father was sued over distribution of profits. The company was worth around $8.5 million in total. The plaintiffs claimed to be owed roughly $300k (around £230k). The matter was settled out of court.

Can you really believe a 36 year old man would invent sexual abuse against a global star to help his father raise cash for business?

Well it tells you that in the documentary. The family of one owed a hell of a lot of money in a failed business and were about to be sued for a ridiculous amount of money. That was a rather convenient time to suddenly decide to take out a lawsuit against the estate for approx the same amount they were about to be sued for.

As I said upthread that documentary was funded ultimately by Sony. Who own a major stake in MJ’s catalogue.

I don’t know what “timed their lawsuits.. conveniently” even means? Convenient for what?

Personally I wouldn't no. I can't imagine anyone thinking it was ok if it was Nigel the dustman from number 38. The parents in many cases freely gave access to their children because they also benefitted from being a friend of the king of pop and were totally starstruck.

I've never really been able to tell one way or another. The YouTube documentary Michael Jackson - Square One has made it even more difficult for me because it presents a very different view of how these children entered his circle. It presents some pretty compelling evidence of extortion. Even the recent young men who made claims had timed their lawsuits rather conveniently. It's a long watch but certainly gives a different perspective on many angles of the case and does come over very credible.

What?! Parents shouldn't be doing this kind of thing either, they are far more likely to be abusing their kids than any stranger is, fact. My mum also used to put me in the bath with my dad, there was absolutely no need for that. Especially since I was old enough (7/8) to still remember it now. Why would a grown man need to be in the bath with a child?! The dad or other male family member is the biggest threat to any child, not some stranger. I certainly wouldn't have allowed my parents to do that if I had kids, they could forget ever seeing them.

No it doesn't help, just because a jury found him innocent, that doesn't mean he was innocent and you know that. As far as I am concerned he was guilty as sin and his victims are the ones who should be defended nor a dead nonce!

Ok, let’s say you don’t believe the men in the documentary who accused him of abuse. Fine.

But you must have seen the interview with him where he happily admits he had boys stay over at his house. In his bed. Boys he didn’t really know. If he was not a super talented pop star but instead, a shop worker, bank manager, bin man - whatever, just a regular man - would you think that behaviour was normal and ok? Does that it scream massive red flags to you? Would YOU let your child stay at a stranger’s house, let alone in their bed??

There isn't any dispute that Jackson shared his bed with young boys because he admitted it himself.

Fans come up with strange, improbable explanations of why he would have done that.

The problem is that five of the boys he shared a bed with say that Jackson did sexually abuse them.

So, what's more likely? That Jackson is the only adult man ever to have some innocent reason for constantly being alone in bed with little boys or that those boys/men are telling the truth?

The fans are grasping at straws and a musical to celebrate Jackson's life is in the worst possible taste.

Which was kind of my point- the fact there was no conviction did not mean he was not a dangerous pedo.
Many rich and famous get away with the worst crimes because their money protects them, and MJ was no different.

No. He was dead by the time the scandal broke.