Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations?

[fartotheleftside]

For me it’s undeniable and the evidence is overwhelming, but I’m shocked by the amount of people who don’t.

@YourAmplePlumPoster Jimmy Saville was never found guilty in court = innocent. Yes?

The courts can and do get it wrong. People are allowed to disagree with the court decision and still believe him to be a peadophile. I certainly do. Same as I believe OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

Absolutely. He was a seriously creepy man.

What a considered, thoughtful response. As I've said before this is a complex, difficult subject, and none of us know the truth.

Yes I do, he was obviously a pedo.

Yes I do.

He's yet another powerful and rich man to get away with abuse.

And yet another man my DM excused whilst my DF hated. Jesus, all about the menz with her.

It is true that he was found not guilty and that none of us know the truth. But the OP’s question is do we believe the allegations. I personally do believe people who say they were abused as children. I agree with the legal system but at the same time court cases rely on evidence. How easy is it to prove you were sexually assaulted years ago? So I don’t read ‘not guilty’ as ‘he didn’t do it’.

Nobody is saying that but people are allowed to have their opinions!

If anyone else was found to have pornographic books showing naked images of children and openly admitted having sleepovers with young boys, and lived in what was essentially was a kids playground, and was frequently pictured, and known to have close friends that were young boys, then most people would draw their own conclusions. Of course there might be a completely reasonable explanation for all of that but ive yet to hear it

This along with Leaving Neverland and the recent documentaries that interviewed police and the prosecution services leaves very little doubt for me.

Whoever mentioned the VF article written at the time - very interesting! I do think he did it and he was not a nice man but interesting to consider the difficulties of proving anything and how the shock that parents would allow this kind of obfuscates the issue

But Jimmy Saville was dead and couldn't stand trial, whereas Michael Jackson stood trial before a Jury and was found innocent. Are you saying the Jury was wrong or we should not have Jury trials? This is our system of trials as it is with the Americans. 12 jurors are selected. In the case of the US, the jurors will go through a selection process where they will be rejected if showing any bias. So a jury was selected and found him not guilty. Why do you think a jury found him not guilty?

People aren't "found innocent" in court.

He wasn't found guilty over one child.

Several more children have made accusations.

Jackson's publicly seen and admitted behaviour towards young boys was extremely concerning and inappropriate.

Why didn't they get their day in court? Because they settled for money outside of court. If you think money is more important than punishing an offender, that's on you. I don't have too much time for people who just want to extract money like that. It made their case less credible.

Why would you pay off someone for something you didn't do 🤔

What do you mean? Either you are innocent or guilty. The verdict was Not Guilty. Therefore he was innocent of all charges. Do you have a reason as to why 12 jurors found him innocent?

I don't know. Why would you accept money from someone if you want justice? I bet there are loads of accusations against celebs every day and some of them just pay money to get them off their back.

Yeah I mean Wade and James wanting $400m between them doesn't exactly say "it's not about the money" does it?

If someone did something bad to me I would want some big time recompense too. People go on about justice and jail sentences, that doesnt benefit me.

https://variety.com/2026/music/news/michael-jackson-lawsuit-sexual-abuse-cascio-brainwash-1236730000/

Apparently $11.2 million wasn’t enough.

Being found “not guilty” doesn’t mean a person has been proven innocent. It means the court decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the case wasn’t strong enough to justify a conviction, not that the person has been officially declared innocent.

Eh? Either you are guilty or not guilty. Not guilty means you are innocent and free to go. That was the verdict of the jurors in this case.

No it doesn’t! Where have you got that daft idea from? They didn’t find him innocent at all. Do you not understand the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt? The state failed to prove their case. The defence did not prove his innocence. And I believe several of the jurors expressed very different opinions after the trial.

I believe the allegations, and I find it quite distasteful that people are calling victims of CSA liars simply because he has a good back catalogue. Normal grown men do not behave like that with children, irrespective of how awful their childhood was.

The jurors will have been thoroughly vetted for bias in this case and dismissed accordingly. That is how the US justice system works.

Are you saying that a trial with evidence presented to a Jury and a verdict of Not Guilty is not valid? What more do you need?