To judge people for supporting MJ?

I’m 44 and have been a MJ fan since I was about 10 (before the 1993 allegations), so I have lived through the accusations and headlines.

I am not baffled by people believing he’s innocent, I’m on the fence myself but the more I read about it the more I lean towards innocent.

In any case there’s not enough certainty for me to stop listening to his music

Just to add - innocent of SA, I do agree he was very troubled, did a lot of inappropriate and foolish things and probably shouldn’t have been responsible for 3 children of his own

Yeah it makes me sick tbh.

So true. Actually very few geniuses throughout history were nice decent people.

I don’t care what talent or musical genius he had, he abused children and that overrides anything else he ever did.

And it’s only music anyway! How does it help people? Saville did much more actual good in the world with his charity stuff and you don’t hear anyone defending him and rightly so.

This is where I agree with you. So many hugely talented people through history who were nasty. A lot of us can seperate the talent from the persona.

A lot cant though and would rather fingers in ears and pretend he was an overgrown schoolboy.

I get that MJ is very recent and therefore people's feelings are very strong and raw.

But - the bigger question is: what do you do about great artists who are also very nasty human beings? For example:

• Richard Wagner - nasty piece of work in general and a rabid anti-Semite
• Eric Gill - amazing sculptor and artist but had sexual relations with his daughters
• Leni Riefenstahl - genius film maker and best friends with Hitler

or, on a milder level:

• Charles Dickens - emotionally abused his wife (dumped her when she 'got fat' after 9 pregnancies and stopped their children from seeing her) and also kept a young actress as a pet, hidden away where he could visit when it suited him.
• Evelyn Waugh: superb writer but a horrible, spiteful snob

I think MJ was a pop genius. I don't know what to think now, and I get that you can't ignore his behaviour. But it doesn't change his status as a great creative artist.

So OJ was found not guilty but thats "different" because there was blood so its ok to assume hes guilty (which of course he was)

Oscar Pistorious not guilty but blew Reevas brains out with a big gun so thats different than Jackson eh?

What utter piffle, and what evidence, may I ask, would one expect to see from a child claiming to be sexually abused by the Prince of Pop?

Some say their evidence wasnt consistent and varied, well first of all they were children and secondly id be confused if given the smount of "Jesus Juice" those children were.

Ergo im afraid innocent doesn't come into it for me.

So many people are fine with what he was obviously doing as an adult. That is exactly how predators carry on and on. Most people are fine with it, until uts their own child.

I’ve recently seen claims that MJ protected children from Epstein and paedophile rings. I cannot understand the level of delusion.

Who used his fortune to build a fun fair and have children stay with him and sleep in his bed without their families. Feed them ‘Jesus juice’ which was drugged Coca Cola. Kids from poor families who could easily be discredited as money grabbers. And who could not afford the legal clout that Jackson could.

Portray yourself as an eccentric ‘humanitarian’ with a Peter Pan complex. Invite McCauley Caulkin over and appear to have an innocent regard toward children. Very clever. Exactly what a very rich manipulative peado would do.

I’d be interested in your answer to the question I posed in the post of mine you quoted here though…

Recent media ructions suggest Paris might think there’s some truth, La Toya originally condemned him, I know this was recanted. But I figured since evidence doesn’t matter, I can make some outlandish claims. Since he is innocent of course. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

@Scarlettjune he originally denied he was abused. That’s what convinced me. He was asked by a teacher if MJ had abused him, and denied it. And he has since stayed pretty much out of the spotlight. Hasn’t sold his story. His parents were absolutely not upstanding characters, but that doesn’t mean Gavin wasn’t a victim. Regardless of my opinion, how can you not conclude that he was an abuser, based on the evidence (not just limited to the Arvizo trial). MJ admitted to sharing beds with young boys. Outside of a close family connection, that is not normal behaviour. Is R Kelly innocent because he was previously acquitted of a similar crime?

Disagree. It’s not the job of the general public to ‘go educate themselves’, form opinions, and witch hunt people they have suspicions about. That is the job of legal professionals and the justice system.

His daughter and sister do not think he is guilty.

Yanbu. At all.

A lot of things in that case suggest that he was innocent in that particular case.

Im interested to hear your opinion.

What happened in that case that made you think he was guilty of that case?

@raisinglittlepeople12 no, he wasn’t. He was not naive 😂. He groomed his victims, families and the public into thinking he was Peter Pan. Genuine question: if your neighbour had an atrocious childhood, was beaten by his father and forced to go out and earn money for the family at a young age, would you defend this person choosing to have sleepovers with prepubescent children as a adult? Even if they tell you that sharing a bed with children is a beautiful thing, and an act of love. Even if they aren’t related to them. If not, why not?

Even his daughter and sister thinks he’s guilty ffs.

I don’t agree that the allegations are true, so I disagree generally with your viewpoint. For example, one of the families only made claims after he stopped giving them money and access, and two of the claimants had different stories until getting the same lawyer. To me he was clearly ace and hugely mentally naive. He felt like a child and he feared adults’ intentions so he befriended children. It was very inappropriate but not because he fancied them. He just had mental problems

@Scarlettjune oh I see. So Gavin’s family asked for it by requesting a meeting with him. And his mum might have a questionable character. These obviously point to MJ’s innocence.

@Scarlettjune and OJ? Was he a poor misunderstood weirdo? Oscar Pistorius was originally found not guilty of murder. R Kelly was found not guilty of sex with a minor, and was later found guilty of sex trafficking. MJs lack of convictions means absolutely nothing.

I even think there is a difference between MJ and OJ.

OJ was found not guilty yes. But there is blood evidence that strongly suggests that OJ did it.

In the Gavin Arvizo case, there was no strong evidence that suggested that MJ did it.

Gavins family asked MJ would he meet Gavin as Gavin was sick. Gavins mother lied and said that MJ wouldnt let her leave neverland. His mother had also previously tried to get money out of someone

There is a difference though. Jimmy Saville was never tried in a court. Michael was and was found to be not guilty of that case

@OneDreamyGreenMentorrather than put my child through a very public trial and be vilified by MJ supporters, I probably would. Then spend the money on decent therapy for my child. I don’t blame the parents in taking the money at all. They knew they wouldn’t stand a chance against him.

I have no interest in seeing it and think he probably was guilty, but it's only my opinion. There's no legal proof which means someone else is entitled to think he's innocent.

I think assuming everyone seeing the movie supports chidk abuse is frankly ridiculous and absurd.