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.

Did you not read that poster’s previous points? She’s claiming that he was found innocent by a jury. He absolutely wasn’t.

Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”. That is the same for every defendant, whether it’s MJ or Dave who has been charged with fraud.

It's a basic fundamental fact of the legal system that a 'not guilty' verdict does not mean 'innocent'. This is something I'd think every secondary school child would understand. I'm in no waying saying that this basic fact about how the law operates has anything to do with MJ's guilt or innocence - all we know is that he was found not guilty of one set of charges. Not that he was found innocent.

I’m going to have one more go and then I’m stopping because I’m beginning to think you’re on a wind up. Of course I’m not saying that someone found Not Guilty isn’t free to go home and carry on with their life. Nobody is saying that because it doesn’t happen. But that wasn’t your point. Your point was that he was found innocent. And what I and many other posters have been trying to explain to you is that Not Guilty does not = innocent. Innocent means that a person did not commit the crime. Not guilty means that the prosecution could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a person committed the crime. Therefore, the court does not pronounce someone as “innocent” but rather “not guilty”, as they did in his case.

Google it if you don’t believe me. Type ‘Does Not Guilty mean innocent?’ into the search bar and see what comes up. Perhaps you’ll believe it if you see it on a solicitor’s website.

Yes. There is a lot of evidence. If his trial was now then he would be convicted

People can be guilty but create no evidence/sufficiently hide the evidence. The court then can't prove them guilty but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent.

OJ Simpson, for heaven's sake. Sometimes juries can just decide what they want to be true.

A bit like the MJ fans on this thread.

Yes, I believe he was a paedophile.

More former child-victims speak out.

They were books of naked photos of boys, created by known pedophiles, They pass them off as 'art books', like a legal way of having naked pictures of children.

The British library had to restrict access to these books because pedos rip pages out of them, they are now only accessible with an invigilator.

I remember a documentary about pedophiles, it may have been Louis Theroux, one pedophile in jail had a picture on his wall of a little boy playing holding a hose or something like that, he may have taken it from a newspaper or magazine, I think he may have had it confiscated from his cell in the end because they knew exactly what he was doing with that picture even though it was legal.

The family of Michael Jackson sued the concert promoter, blaming them for acting negligently in hiring and supervising Conrad Murray.

So the family of Jackson also went after money, even though Conrad Murray had already been charged and he was facing justice and a jail sentence.

I despair anytime I see a social media post about a rape or sexual assault where the person has been found not guilty. There's always a few who ask 'well is she going to be done now for making false accusations?' 🙉🙉

They definitely did not turn out to be false.

If he did genuinely want to give other child stars the childhood he didn't have then would he not have realised it was dangerous considering people kept warning him, and when he was accused of sexual abuse and when Brett Barnes and Wade Robson were put on TV at 11 saying he didn't do anything bad to them, would he not have thought to himself hmm this is actually very risky for children and not in their best interests?

I noticed later after the Gavin Arvizo case that when he and his lawyer said he wasn't going to let boys sleep in his bed anymore so as not to make himself vulnerable anymore, there was never any mention about the position that it put boys in, or consideration of the fact that the boys he slept in beds with always had people questioning whether they were abused.

And Casey Anthony. Do people accept her verdict? I certainly don't.

Completely agree. These people really are thick as pig shit, it makes me furious. I’d never wish for a similar crime to be visited on them or anyone they love, but I do wonder how they’d react if they ever found themselves in that situation and whether they’d recognise how stupid they’d been previously. Somehow, I doubt it.

I don’t understand how anyone can continue to deny that this man was a pedophile.

Now, to add to the allegations is the Cascio family. Has anyone watched the programme with them 60 Minutes Australia? All of the siblings were sexually abused, including the sister.

All of these people are not lying.

And when people say oh, he didn’t do anything to Macaulay Culkin, well no of course he wouldn’t. Like all abusers, he chose his targets well.

I did completely believe it but the more I read about it the more doubts I have.
I think the only thing we know 100% is that MJ behaved inappropriately and was emotionally abusive (“replacing” kids when they got too old etc).
The fact that MJ is dead now and there’s so much money to be made from him complicates things, you can’t defame the dead and a dead person can’t face a criminal trial.

So no I wouldn’t have let my kids have a sleepover with him, of course not, but that doesn’t mean MJ sexually abused anyone.
Not saying he definitely didn’t I’m saying we just don’t know

I think there are enough testimonies from enough people, now to constitute proof. This sort of thing does not follow every deceased pop star around the way it does Michael Jackson.

The Cascio children (now adults) say that MJ would actually groom them to respond to questions from their parents or the police about whether anything inappropriate was going on. He would also tell them that if the sexual abuse was discovered, they would all go to prison. That is evil.

One thing that stuck in my mind from ‘Leaving Neverland’ was a tape recording of a phone call that MJ was having with James Safechuck. The way he was talking to him sounded exactly like you were intruding on a phone call of MJ talking to his lover. Not a 10 year old child.

He was a sick pervert but people don’t want to believe it because he had so much charisma.

Yep. It's all good easy now to say he abused them. Funny how they are choosing to do this now with the movie and heightened interest in him 🤔

Tell me, why do you think he had his quarters set up so that a bell rang warning him of anyone approaching his bedroom?

Why do you think he had so many sleepovers in his bed with prepubescent boys?

Why do you think a collection of "art" books of nude little boys was found in his bedroom?

The Cascio’s aren’t pursing a criminal case, as far as I’m aware. They want more money - on top of the millions they received a few years ago.

You don't sound at all on the fence.

You can’t pursue a criminal case against someone who is dead. Abuse cases are hard to proved years after the fact.

All of these people were brainwashed to support him no matter what. In the same way that some people are still defending him on this thread.

Well I don't see why someone who wasn't a paedo would repeatedly groom and make a concerted effort to share a bed with underage boys.

No other hetero or gay grown man would do that. Ever.

His pathetic fake childlike squeaky voice and pretending his favourite hobby is climbing trees when he's 45 years old does not make him look innocent. It makes him look calculating and frankly disturbing.

Exactly.

The most obvious explanation is usually correct but there are still plenty of people doing the most ridiculous mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible.

Thanks for correcting me on that. But it’s a reach to argue people have been brainwashed.