Michael Jackson

That was one court case. You seem to be deliberately overlooking all the other victims who have come forward, who have been privately paid off, those who the police are aware of, and those who are seeking currently recognition of his crimes against them as little boys.

Objective is not the term I would use to describe your posts on this thread.

Objective ? Recognising that not being privy to all the evidence in front of the jury when they retired to consider their verdict means l’m not in a position to judge either way ? Forgive me if l’m wrong but your last paragraph makes me wonder if this issue is somehow personal for you. If that’s the case then l apologise and maybe it’s best to draw a line under this.

It’s better than yours .

I am not "trolling", as you weirdly put it, your posts. You said you had "never denigrated the testimony of the witnesses", which was not how I remember your postings, and I went back to see if I had misinterpreted something and came upon this gem.

Good for you your life was not blighted, ruined, or cut short because of the actions of some pedophile. Perhaps you would not be so doggedly... whatever it is you're being on this thread.

Since you appear to be trolling my posts l’ll save you the trouble of finding this one copied and pasted below, in which l tried once more to explain what l meant. Note the question at the end - the same question l posed to the OP in response to her picking up the point. Interesting that neither of them are interested in responding, in spite of one poster doggedly tagging me because l wasn’t answering a totally irrelevant question to their understanding.

Mirabai · Yesterday 16:29

I’m inferring you don’t actually have kids as this approach is very strange.

You either believe your kid of you don’t. If you do, you know they’re telling the truth about abuse and the perpetrator is found not guilty - if you took the approach you outlined above you would simply lose your child’s respect and trust for good.

Rosscameasdoody · Yesterday 16:46

I give up. And yes I do have children. I just don’t believe in standing by a family member if there is any doubt as to the veracity of their accusations against someone, and that, as I’ve explained several times, would depend on the circumstance - whether they were a truthful person, whether their evidence had been adequately weighed during the trial, and whether I had any reason to doubt them even before the verdict had been returned. It’s not black and white.

Let me ask you a question. If your adult child was accused of being a paedophile and they were adamant that they were innocent, would you continue to believe them even if they were convicted ?

And as l said, none of them are defending him personally.

Jesus H. Christ.

You keep banging on about that one court case. There are multiple other victims, often reporting a similar pattern of grooming and abuse. The police investigating over the decades believe there are more victims. There are others who are known to have been paid off. Do yourself a favour and read the Slate article I linked. Here it is again:

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations: The complete list of accusations. (slate.com)

And for someone who is "not defending him" you have posted let's just say an extraordinary number of posts on this thread.

It's complex.

I have no doubt he abused those children. But, the time to take action would have been while it was happening. Lots of people complicit in why that wasn't so - a large scale systemic failure that is all wrapped up in how fame, money, power and patriarchy operates.

Probably the best thing is focusing on doing better, now.

On a related note I do think we've become quite puritanical but also scattershot with this whole notion of cancelling artistes especially after death. It was different before, when we had religion to tell us what was right and wrong. Not that I want to return to that but there were clear rules. Now we just decide that something makes us uncomfortable, retrospectively, we look at it through our personal purity lens and the opprobrium begins and thanks to how information gets around so fast and in such volume before you know it every fucker is shouting about it on the internet.

Scratch the surface and a lot of men are problematic in one way or another, because the world enables problematic men to thrive. Hell, a lot of people in general are problematic. We all have bad days, are mean to people, get short tempered etc. If you only ever consumed art made by people who are nice all the time you'd be closing yourself off to a heck of a lot of content. And ofc in 40 years' time those same people wouldn't be viewed as nice because at some point they'll have said something that people in 40 years disagree with.

35 - which, l grant you is quite a bit, but not ‘upwards of 45’. And if you actually read my posts l am not defending him personally, or his behaviour, which l’ve described as odd and concerning, but not proof in itself of abuse, otherwise he would have been convicted. Simply saying that he was acquitted and regardless of people’s ‘gut feelings’ that was because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. He’s dead it’s going to take something extraordinary to overturn that verdict, if it’s even possible. At no point have l offered any opinion as to whether l personally think he’s guilty or not, or even questioned, never mind denigrated the testimony of the witnesses. And you quoted me before posting, so it wasn’t unreasonable to assume your comments were directed at me.

Totally agree.
Radio/tv turned off if his music comes on. I know he was never convicted but along the same line RKelly, convicted paedophile/groomer .....He was initially found not guilty. Allowed to continue the abuse before more details.came.out, thanks to some.brave individuals, and he was convicted
I watched the documentary where people.still adore him for his music. I know some US stations have banned him but j can't listen to him at all.

Granted, Gill never faced charges in a court of law, but....https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-gain-nothing-by-destroying-eric-gill-s-beautiful-works-of-art/
The family dog FFS!!!

Yes if he was just some Bert Bloggs down the road you wouldn’t let your kids within a mile of the weirdo, but because he made Thriller and is rich, people bend themselves backwards to find him wholesome. Hence why some parents willingly let him abuse their kids. Thick.

No adult should be sleeping in the same bed as a child, I used to get into my parents bed as a kid and it makes me sick now, they never should've allowed it. Although nothing untoward happened.

I was responding to a point you made that if the accusations were "sleeping in a bed with children" and if he'd been charged with that, he'd of been convicted.

My post was about the general tone of this thread, and referred to "how many posters on MN of all places seem to be perfectly comfortable with a grown man sleeping in a bed with random children"...

I was not accusing you, personally, of being fine with a grown man sleeping in a bed with or putting his hands down the pants of little boys, aged between 7 and 10 (clearly his preferred "type").

Though, given you've posted upwards of 45 times on this thread defending him and denigrating the testimony of the (many) victims, one would have to assume you do support MJ and hence this behaviour.

Not sure anyone here, whether for or against MJ, would say his behaviour was normal. I certainly wouldn’t, but that in itself doesn’t prove he was guilty of the abuse he was accused of.

I don't think I did say you disagreed, if I did I apologise. Yes absolutely, there is nothing wrong with that at all, on that we can agree.

Where have l said l disagree with that ? Everyone has their own opinion and the debate around those opinions is part of free speech. I’ve challenged others and been challenged myself. Nothing wrong with that.

Again one more time just for you as you seem to have ignored all my other posts I did NOT state that as fact, I asked if that was what happened. It's not batshit to believe he was a nonce, or to state that opinion. What is batshit is to believe that his behaviour was fucking normal!

I have to say, as soon as I started watching Neverland I thought the Australian man was being dishonest, or putting something on. I watched the rest not coming to any conclusion, it was just at the start

That documntary is a hit piece and very well acted! No investigative journalism happened there. There are several documentaries that debunk it and show they were lying. I've watched the documentary and all of the many debunking it. They want money.

The only ‘correcting’ l can find from this poster is directed at you, for the ridiculous assumption that defence lawyers get to hand pick juries. This thread gets more batshit with every post.

Just because he was found innocent that doesn't mean he was innocent though.
People can say what they want it's a free country and we have freedom of speech(for now).

He wasnt convicted! He was investigated by the FBI and police and they never found evidence of anything. The alleged be victims were proven to be lying.

The two men who made the 'documentary' were also known liars who defended mJ in his previous cases. Their documentary has been debunked - there are several documentaries demonstrating that they lied.

I’m not. I’m simply doing what everyone else here is doing - expressing my opinion, which is basically that all the conjecture in the world doesn’t change the fact that the jury decided there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Opinion isn’t fact and doesn’t take into account that juries are privy to information not released to the public. Even allowing for the fact that feelings run high on subjects like these, expressing an opinion either way does not entitle other posters to level unfounded accusations of things that have clearly never been said or even implied.