Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

So as you acknowlege uncertainty, would you agree with me it is apalling to call those ex 'special friends' of Jackson's who say he abused them liars?

I don't understand your question sorry. Do you mean it's wrong to call them liars?

Yes.

I would say the evidence in its totally absolutely is damning.

And it’s not reasonable to decide that every single person who behaved like this is a pedophile except Michael Jackson. Because he’s special in some way. He wasn’t. But he sure fooled many many people with this lost child narrative.

This is an image of what MJ would have looked like without skin lightening and plastic surgery.

I believe that if he had looked like this whilst sleeping with little boys, nobody would have thought it was all fine and dandy - they’d have immediately seen he was a pedo.

He managed to fool people into thinking he was a special doll-like person who didn’t possess the same sexual urges as the majority of men. It was a powerful ruse.

I wouldn't make definitive claims about individuals’ honesty where the facts are contested. I think better to avoid language that could discourage people from reporting abuse or being heard seriously.

Good, glad to hear it.

😬 I know what your trying to say however ... Not sure linking appearance to guilt is appropriate or reliable, and the racialised framing here is in poor taste. If we’re discussing allegations, it should be based on evidence, not what someone looks like.

Don’t even go there - this has nothing whatsoever to do with race. And you know it.

‘Linking appearance to guilt’

No. I’m linking the fact that people find it easy to convince themselves that MJ isn’t a pedophile because he presented himself in a feminine, unthreatening way instead of a masculine one. And he changed his features to look like some alien or doll.

i believe it was at least in part calculated. People like those of you on this thread have swallowed the idea that MJ was a special human with special rules that he was entitled to.

@MyTrivia I’m not questioning your intent. I’m saying the way appearance is being used in that argument is what feels uncomfortable and unhelpful

Well I personally think that calling people liars when they say they were sexually abused and saying there is no evidence against MJ is ‘in poor taste’ but here we are.

We're not just discussing allegations, we're discussing why people want to put fingers in their ears, which arose because the OP wanted to pull the thread, even though the thread has been civil.

I think his appearance may well have played a part in why people see him this was as some kind of unearthly creature who is just not like the rest of us.

It could be argued that his very unusual appearance ‘othered’ him to some people, in contrast to the argument made by @MyTrivia

We should be discussing the allegations in terms of the evidence as @Hubhubba26 points out.

Who made you the dictator of what should be discussed on this thread?

Michael Jackson was a master of illusion. For good and for bad. It’s completely relevant to want to discuss why some people have convinced yourselves that he’s different from any other person to ever exist before or after him. So much so that you conclude his sleeping with hundreds of children behind locked doors and walking around with them like they were his date was not for nefarious reasons.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Sorry, that comment was a bit poorly worded. @Hubhubba26 articulated it better than I did.

@MyTrivia back to mine and @fundamentallyauthentic point on evidence...there isn't any pertaining to "hundreds" of children sharing his bed. Or if there is please shareX

Security personnel at Neverland had to keep an official log book of who was staying at Neverland and which room they were in. He states that hundreds of children were logged as sleeping in Michael Jackson’s room over the time that he was employed there.

Been on holiday but I was prolific on the other thread and just catching up on this one. I was Margchanningsglass on the other thread but nane changed for outing reasons on another discussion on here.

I won't bore everyone shitless with my arguments on his guilt again but interestingly I follow the Behaviour Panel on YouTube. Its four experts with 20 plus years each in military and public body language and behaviour analysis. Greg Hartley, Scott Rouse, Chase Hughes and Mark Bowden. Very well respected and used at the highest level.

They've analysed interviews from everyone from Jon Bonet Ramseys families to the McCanns to serial killers.

They've an interesting one on Michael Jackson. And he does not come across as truthful.

They also analysed an interview of one his victims. He will possibly never be held to account. But believing a child victim rather than the perpetrator is my stance.

And ill repeat one thing i said on the other thread.

He was a virgin at 35 when he married Lisa Marie. A man who had neither had sex with man or woman, but had little boys in his bed.

I mean we could go round the world for a short cut about the little details but goodness me. !

This is basically my stance. People rarely would put themselves in the position of calling out a person such as Michael Jackson without pause. He was totally idolised and obtained Demi-godlike status. Even the money they stood to be awarded if they won could not make up for a life of hiding and death threats. In these instances I believe it is always best to believe the children. It’s not as simple as he wasn’t found guilty, we know from other famous cases what enormous amounts of dispensable cash can buy you in these situations. There is no way on earth it would have gone to trial unless they believed there was enough incriminating evidence. I keep coming back to the same facts that he preferred the company of young boys, a certain age, a certain look. Why not girls? Why was any of this okay? Alarmed and locked rooms. Young children sleeping over unchaperoned. Money can buy you a lot of silence.

Just watched the Behavioural panel on him again. These are guys with 80 years experience between them and it was actually two of his child victims they give opinions on.

They are interviewed as adults and the panel were unanimous in believing their accounts.

Thank you - I’ll take a look at this.

He may well have been othered in a positive way, which is what @MyTrivia suggested.
It's an absolutely huge reach and highly disingenuous if you're trying to suggest that it's his appearance that made people critical of him sleeping in bed with little boys, because as you well know most people would find the behaviour disturbing, sickening and would believe anyone who did this was a pedophile regardless of what they looked like.

We can discuss the allegations whatever way we like, and if yourself and @Hubhubba26 believe that we should be discussing the allegations in terms of evidence then maybe you should do that then, but generally when people provide the evidence you yourself ignore it or minimise it.

We can discuss the allegations whatever way we like, and if yourself and believe that we should be discussing the allegations in terms of evidence then maybe you should do that then, but generally when people provide the evidence you yourself ignore it or minimise it.

I don’t always have time to dig into where the sources of information are that’ve been posted here as evidence. Certainly some stuff here that’s been posted with no credible source is questionable. Do you think that lawyers on both sides in the forthcoming Safechuck and Robson trials will be putting forward copied and pasted chunky sized posts from Reddit? I am much more interested in the actual evidence than I am about hearsay.