Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?

702 replies

InnocentOrGuilty · 12/05/2024 09:48

Of the sexual abuse of boys.
I'm interested in a poll.
G = you think he was definitely guilty
I = you think he was innocent
(Stemming from a debate with DH last night!)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Cascais · 12/05/2024 20:44

I

Itsmychristmasdress · 12/05/2024 20:46

And how people just forget him casually dangling a baby over a balcony, again imagine John two doors up doing that. There would, rightly, be outrage.

PiIIock · 12/05/2024 20:46

So how do you explain the porn?

You don't even need to be following any of this to know this isn't true

StandingMyGround888 · 12/05/2024 20:47

@Mirabai don't try to get out of it now. You said endless porn and images of young boys. If you meant adult legal heterosexual porn, which it was, why insert it into a sentence trying to make it look like you were speaking about images of child sexual abuse. Don't be disingenuous.

Yes he had heterosexual porn. What does that have to do with this? Nothing except to illustrate that his sexual interest was in grown women.

With regard to the "pictures of boys":

"Many of these books were discarded as inadmissible evidence because they were commercially available art books that anyone can purchase legally. Of the titles that were entered as admissible evidence, it was not because they were pornographic but, rather, because the prosecution felt that they might potentially bolster an argument that Jackson “could have” used the books as grooming material and in an attempt to prove some sort of predilection on Jackson’s part for males (since a few of the titles featured artsy photographs of nude males; however, these were generally titles that featured adult erotica of both sexes). The “sadomasochism” books were adult books featuring adult subjects ( Madonna’s “Sex,” for example, was a book that he was known to have shopped for in the early 1990s) and because none of these materials fit the legal definition of child pornography. This left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing situation of having to build a case on Jackson’s adult legal porn collection, which was-let’s just say-healthy, but not that unusual for a single guy. Let’s remember, these people invaded his private quarters, after all. The full list of Jackson’s adult porn that was confiscated in the Neverland raid has been widely available for many years, and consisted of over 1800 images of nude adult women. You can find the full list here. But essentially, this left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing position of trying to build a case of child molestation against a man for whom the only “evidence” they had was issues of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, Barely Legal, and the like ― along with, well, a lot of art books. The thing you have to keep in mind is that the prosecution never had one shred of what we might call “smoking gun” evidence ― the kind that usually leads to an easy, “case closed” conviction in cases like this. There were no explicit love letters written to any child, no photos of himself or children engaged in sexual acts, no video tapes of himself with children in lewd acts, no taped phone conversations, no online “sex chats” ― in other words, none of the things that can usually lead to an easy conviction in such cases. You have to remember that Jackson was under constant FBI surveillance for over ten years. The reports eventually concluded nothing to be found. A search of over sixteen computer hard drives seized in the 2003 raid revealed nothing except that he occasionally visited a few adult legal porn sites where he liked to log in as “Dr. Black” and “Marcel Jackson.” Juicy gossip fodder, yes. Illegal; no."

It had been insinuated he used porn to show to minors. This was a cheap tactic of the prosecution and demonstrated to be a weak argument by the fact that the magazine he supposedly used to do this was not even published at the date of the supposed offence.

Michael Jackson’s Porn

Michael’s home was raided in November 2003 after he had been absent from Neverland for 3 weeks. This is the complete list of the pornography found in his possession. What porn was found? 1 E …

https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/michael-jacksons-porn/

Itsmychristmasdress · 12/05/2024 20:47

StandingMyGround888 · 12/05/2024 20:36

Michael Jackson was not in possession of any child pornography.

Yeah yeah, those books were "art". The lengths people go to to defend very obvious pedophiles is mind blowing.

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 20:48

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 20:38

How do you know it’s biased if you have listened to it? He’s one of the 3 people discussing the case.

because if the podcast is real crime they will not talk about a non crime

also why didn’t the FBI agent speak up widely?

so he is Jim Clement right?
I will look it up

ohfook · 12/05/2024 20:51

Yes I do but I think we are very forgiving of talented men in our culture. But if I told you about my mate Jim who works in the bank, is mainly friends with thirteen year old boys and invites them to sleepovers where they sleep in his bed, nobody's going to be volunteering their kids to go to Jim's next sleepover because deep down we know it's fucked up.

I do believe though the extent to which you can separate the artist from the art is a personal choice and we all make different decisions. I used to love the lost prophets but found I could no longer listen to them once Ian Watkins actions became known. I do feel bad for the other members of the band though to have their work tainted like that. However I did continue to listen to the rumjacks even after their singer was convicted of domestic violence and the dead south after the allegations towards Danny Kenyon came to light.

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:53

Of course he’s guilty. Him being found not guilty is entirely down to a dodgy US justice system and star power.

I am absolutely amazed that anyone could think he was not a pedophile. Why do people think that? Why would he behave so very much like a pedophile if he wasn’t one?

And even if you believed he’s innocent - we know for a fact is that he groomed pretty little boys into being his little friend - man in his 30’s and 40’s befriending 8-11 year olds who would dress up like him and hold his hand - then swiftly dumped them for another pretty little boy once they got too old. At the very least, are people not deeply disturbed by that aspect of his life?

StandingMyGround888 · 12/05/2024 20:57

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:53

Of course he’s guilty. Him being found not guilty is entirely down to a dodgy US justice system and star power.

I am absolutely amazed that anyone could think he was not a pedophile. Why do people think that? Why would he behave so very much like a pedophile if he wasn’t one?

And even if you believed he’s innocent - we know for a fact is that he groomed pretty little boys into being his little friend - man in his 30’s and 40’s befriending 8-11 year olds who would dress up like him and hold his hand - then swiftly dumped them for another pretty little boy once they got too old. At the very least, are people not deeply disturbed by that aspect of his life?

This was the age he himself became famous. I have written about this earlier in the thread that it was a psychological projection.

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:58

FunLurker · 12/05/2024 10:01

I think he's guilty.
What I don't understand is why the parents were allowed to be brought off.
Yes he was child like on the screen but he was still seemed capable of bringing up 3 children, run a house among things

I’m quite dubious about his parenting abilities. He did dangle that baby off the balcony and I’m amazed that a man who was twice charged with child sex abuse could hold on to some random kids that weren’t even his. Did LA childrens services not get involved I wonder

StandingMyGround888 · 12/05/2024 20:59

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:58

I’m quite dubious about his parenting abilities. He did dangle that baby off the balcony and I’m amazed that a man who was twice charged with child sex abuse could hold on to some random kids that weren’t even his. Did LA childrens services not get involved I wonder

Found Not Guilty.

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:02

@Mirabai
I read on wikipedia that Jim Clemente was a SA victim as a child

Maybe he is projecting a little

Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?
Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?
Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?
cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:04

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:58

I’m quite dubious about his parenting abilities. He did dangle that baby off the balcony and I’m amazed that a man who was twice charged with child sex abuse could hold on to some random kids that weren’t even his. Did LA childrens services not get involved I wonder

Who was twice charged?

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:08

@StandingMyGround888

You said endless porn and images of young boys. If you meant adult legal heterosexual porn, which it was, why insert it into a sentence trying to make it look like you were speaking about images of child sexual abuse. Don't be disingenuous.

You’re the one trying to get out of it. You misread what I said, jumped to conclusions and now you’re trying to blame me. It is there in black and white that I did not say child porn.

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:09

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:02

@Mirabai
I read on wikipedia that Jim Clemente was a SA victim as a child

Maybe he is projecting a little

So a policeman investigating a burglary is biased if he’s ever been burgled himself? Pull the other one.

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 21:10

Carly944 · 12/05/2024 16:44

People sell their children for fame.

The parents were also guilty.

Did you see leaving neverland.

One of the kids parents said "oh we had such a great time, Michael brought us round the world, he brought us to concerts, he bought us a house'. So when he said can I bring little Jimmy away on tour with me and stay in my hotel room, we said yes.

I thought it was very bizarre. I remember in the documentary one of the mothers was still talking about how great her time with Michael Jackson had been, even though her child had said that he was raped by Michael Jackson.

I do think Stephanie Safechuck was deeply regretful and sorry for her actions and she took accountability for her part in it. She admitted she got lost in the game and stardom and didn’t take care of her child.

However Joy Robson…hmm. A highly ambitious momager whose limits knew no bounds to make her young child famous. I think if someone slipped her a truth serum she’d say it was all still worth it knowing what she now knows. Yes her son suffered but she had a glamorous life. Horrid woman

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:10

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 20:58

I’m quite dubious about his parenting abilities. He did dangle that baby off the balcony and I’m amazed that a man who was twice charged with child sex abuse could hold on to some random kids that weren’t even his. Did LA childrens services not get involved I wonder

It’s quite extraordinary that SS did not get involved affer what was found at his house. In the U.K. it would certainly have sparked an SS investigation.

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 21:12

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 17:21

Innocent and all the ‘evidence’ against him are lies

Can i ask - what to you is the threshold for guilt? He has had 8 or 9 credible accusers, has been charged twice, behaved like the rest prod’s biggest pedophile, built a children’s playground in his back yard and groomed little boys.

So what king of ‘evidence’ do you need to tip the scales?

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 21:13

A Wikipedia page 😂 why do you think the FBI found sexual images of little boys in his house?

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:13

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:09

So a policeman investigating a burglary is biased if he’s ever been burgled himself? Pull the other one.

Every human being alive is biased and the bias spill out in all areas of life

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:14

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 20:48

because if the podcast is real crime they will not talk about a non crime

also why didn’t the FBI agent speak up widely?

so he is Jim Clement right?
I will look it up

First watch Leaving Neverland, which they discuss. Then listen to the podcast. Then come here and tell us you think he’s innocent.

The FBI investigated crimes - they discuss that. Leaving Neverland alleges crimes were committed. They discuss that. It’s a discussion of crimes. In the same way that we discuss Savile’s crimes - unless you believe he was innocent too?

BlowDryRat · 12/05/2024 21:14

Very guilty. I don't listen to his music anymore.

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:14

YaMuvva · 12/05/2024 21:13

A Wikipedia page 😂 why do you think the FBI found sexual images of little boys in his house?

1- a laughing emoji on this topic is very distasteful

2- no sexual images of little boys were found

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:14

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:13

Every human being alive is biased and the bias spill out in all areas of life

Edited

If everyone’s biased it’s hardly worth mentioning then.

cultjarteriaky · 12/05/2024 21:16

Mirabai · 12/05/2024 21:14

First watch Leaving Neverland, which they discuss. Then listen to the podcast. Then come here and tell us you think he’s innocent.

The FBI investigated crimes - they discuss that. Leaving Neverland alleges crimes were committed. They discuss that. It’s a discussion of crimes. In the same way that we discuss Savile’s crimes - unless you believe he was innocent too?

Ah low blow - expected.