Michael Jackson and the new documentary

[joystir59]

Leaving Neverland, being shown at the Sundance film festival and in the spring on Channel 4....I love his music and have believed he was vilified by the racist media, and by greedy individuals and families after his money; but am really not so sure of his innocence any more. I guess that's my aibu- that we have to listen to his accusers don't we? I was sexually abused as a ternager, and not believed. It was a profoundly damaging experience.

Excellent analogy ifan

The apologists should "get it" by now

I very much doubt they will.

There's far too much investment in their zealous idolatry.

They come from a perspective that it's simply not possible that this man could have done this because otherwise their years of intense fandom are laid to waste.

Most people take a far more pragmatic view. They might like and appreciate his music, even been to concerts but don't define themselves or persona around the impact an artist has on their lives.

Therefore they take a position based on probability and reason.

Just looking online (and even this thread) at some of the rationale as to why this "definitely" didn't happen shows the lengths some people need to go to in order to maintain their illusion of a man they've probably never even met.

It would be bonkers if it wasn't actually frightening and dangerous that some people can be so invested in a celebrity that they are willfully blind to obvious and serious child safeguarding issues.

I wanted to believe he was innocent sobadly, because I watched him grow up and developers into a massive musical talent and performer. I mean, he was just phenomenal. Added to which he seemed such a humanitarian and all round good guy. I looked for evidence of him being straight and of him being innocent but kept seeing images and video footage of him with a boy. Different boys at different times but just one at a time. And then there were the allegations, and the pay offs. And just so much smoke there just had to be a fire. I haven't seen Leaving Neverland but I'm pretty sure when I do I will totally believe Wade Robson's and James Safechuck's testimony. I totally understand why Robson lied to protect Michael Jackson and why it took both of them.years and years to realise they had been sexually abused. I have been there myself.

I don't agree @Ifangyow

Why have a judicial system at all if even you're found innocent you're still guilty and vice versa.
Knowing what we know today about fake new and the lengths people will go to to sell headlines we still try people by media/social media and favour that result over what is/was found in an extensive investigation.
We criticise crappy news papers like the daily mail on a daily basis and we all say 'you can't believe everything you read in the paper!'. Yet we do believe it. Then we repeat it and distort it.
An example on this thread 'MJ admitted himself that he slept naked with naked children'. No he didn't. That's not true yet it's come from somewhere.
Whether you believe it to be true or not, find it strange or odd (I believe it but find it inappropriate) is neither here nor there but what MJ actually said was he shares his bed with children followed up by saying there is nothing sexual about it at all.
(On a side note that's a big admission for a supposed predatory pedophile who would probably want to keep that fact quiet if he was indeed molesting said children when in his bed).
Who said it believes it as fact, others read it and believe it as fact when it isn't one.
People may have read it and knew it wasn't exactly true but didn't say anything to contradict it or put it right, so it stays there un corrected like any media and completely false.
People say 'he always did give me the creeps, he's a weirdo, definitely guilty'. Fine but someone who got the opposite feeling from him and found him to be kind and nice is wrong and dismissed.

I'm not a pedophile apologist (he was found innocent), victim shamer (saying you don't believe some doesn't mean you don't believe all other victims), conspiracy theorist or super fan (fan yes but an equal fan of fleetwood Mac and the black keys) I just don't believe in this case that MJ is guilty. It's not for my own peace of mind either because of 'the stardust in my eyes'.
I loved Rolf Harris as a child as I was in to art and never missed an episode of animal hospital but I'm not trying to defend him at all. Found guilty and rightly so.
I'm not on the side of others posting in his defence either about ages of consent etc.

Ive done the research, looked at the facts, history and credibility of the people involved. There's a lot more to the story, a lot lot more.
You may never change your mind about MJ and that's fine but if you really look at the facts there's plenty there to at the very least give him the benefit of the doubt.

If anyone has ever watched programmes like Lie to Me or Crocodile tears you'll know about body language experts and all the subtle clues we give away subconsciously.
A British expert in the field wrote a book about MJ and has a video channel on YouTube that's very interesting to watch (it's not just about MJ). CJ Baxter. Look him up, or not, is up to you.

There are some evil people in the world we know that and it's hard to believe people can hurt children in any way shape or form but they do. It's also hard to believe people would lie to such an extent for their own personal gain or get their children to lie but they do.
I believe he's innocent but honestly can't say 100% that he is- neither can anyone say that he's 100% guilty.

For the same reason that I gave Pollysproggle.
Just because someone has been found not guilty doesn't mean that they are innocent. It just means that there isn't enough evidence to bring that conclusion, either circumstantial, verbal or physical.

@SemperIdem no one said "gay fuck", it was "gay fucker", which is no more or less pejorative than calling someone "obtuse", both of which are descriptions of behaviour, both of which are personal attacks. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

@Ifangyow equally the opposite could be true: just because someone looks guilty doesn't mean they aren't innocent.

I see no apologists here- there are people who assume he's guilty & those who prefer not to assume either way until seeing proof.

An "apologist" is someone who knows he's guilty but defends him- bit of an exaggeration to call people on this forum.

@DeRigueur Totally agree with your pp.

@frankiesamson

An "apologist" is someone who knows he's guilty but defends him- bit of an exaggeration to call people on this forum.

Exactly. Apart from an actual pedophile I can't think of anything worse to be called.

@pollysproggle agreed, it is unspeakable to call people paedophile apologists, barely a level better than a paedophile and I would suggest that in fact breaks the forum guidelines since it's a personal attack. I have seen no evidence of any paedophile apologists here at all.

Guys, I just wanted to post this to ask you all to please calm down, just because someone prefers to keep an open mind rather than presuming guilt, does not make them automatically a paedophile apologist. That is a very insulting term & barely any better than calling someone a paedophile.

No but when someone starts harping on about age of consent being as low as 12 in the US (which is bullshit) when we're talking about a 7 year old victim or that a child confused digital penetration with the man "brushing up against them" then they are a paedophile apologist. You said those things frankiesamson.

@FromEden I did not say those things & your post has been reported. Just because I prefer to keep an open mind about whether or not he's guilty does not make me a pedophile apologist & neither is anyone else here supporting pedophiles. That's a vile accusation.

You said this:

Age of consent in uk is 16. This is from google for USA:

The federal law establishes the age of 12 as the minimum age of consent

Which is right? They can't both be, unless different areas somehow change moral values, which as you imply, are black & white.

And also more irrelevant nonsense about the age of consent. And you did say the other stuff but it was deleted and rightly so.

@FromEden Ah but quoting ages of consent from google in order to demonstrate how ridiculous laws can be, is very different to saying "child confused digital penetration with the man "brushing up against them"" , which I still maintain I did not say.

... and if MJ did do the things suggested, then I doubt very much it was limited to a child of 7; in the 2009 documentary there was a child of 13 holding his hand, hence why discussing legal ages of consent is relevant, particularly when google lists it as 12-18 being a grey area in US law & 18 upwards being legal.

There is no grey area. Michael Jackson was an adult well over the the of 18 at the time of all his "friendships" and his friends were younger than 14/15. The age of consent is utterley irrelevant.

which I still maintain I did not say.

Well it's lucky for you that your post from 29/01 at 16:33 has been deleted. The replies haven't though

@FromEden I didn't say that. Not even close. I said according to google, the US age of consent is a grey area from 12-18. I'm only quoting google. If you don't like it, write to the US government. I'm sorry you aren't able to read, but given that this is a forum, I can't help you with that.

Link:

lmgtfy.com/?q=age+of+consent+usa

PS- I'm in no way saying sex with children is okay, and I personally think the age of consent should be 18. I just think some of the people on MN need to stop name-calling or exaggerating insults. Just because I am undecided about MJ does not make me a "pedophile apologist". Thanks

In my eyes it does because you are trying to imply that because the age of consent is low in some places that there is some debate to be had as to whether they were abused. There isn't. Those children were groomed and abused, it's there for all to see. So age of consent is completely irrelevant.

Also, I live in the US and I've never heard of any state where the age of consent is 12. Each state sets its own age, I guess the federal guidelines are there to ensure none go below that age, but most or all are in the area of 16-18 as far as I know.

I met someone in real life this week that couldn't possibly believe that someone who made such lovely music could do that. I said well over 5 men/boys have accused him now, there must be something not right going on there. She got really angry at me and said he was a child in his head and that he couldn't possibly have done it. I said he was a grown man with little boys sleeping in his bed, even if he didn't do anything that's still not right. She started shouted at me he was innocent and was a little boy in his mind and that he made amazing music. I said what would it take for you to believe he did something wrong, more boys to come forward.

This was when I was shocked.

She said even if they did come forward they would be liars and after his money and I wouldn't believe them.

That is the michael Jackson myth right there.

frankie

Which US states have 12 as the age of consent? You keep stating that this occurs in the US but here is the list of age of consent in each state and, to my eye, they all say 16, 17 or 18. Please point out which State says 12 years.

www.ageofconsent.net/states

Or maybe I can’t read either, but I can’t see a single “12” on that list...

“Each U.S. state has its own general age of consent. As of August 1, 2018, the age of consent in each state in the United States is either 16 years of age, 17 years of age, or 18 years of age. The most common age of consent is 16 which is a common age of consent in most other Western countries.”

This is from my google search - from 1/8/18 the age of consent in the US is either 16, 17, 18.

*However in the 1880s the age of consent was 12 years, maybe the site you’re referencing hasn’t been updated since then (lol).

A 1996 video has emerged where MJ is quizzed on whether he has abused young boys. He doesn't come out of it well.

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-giggling-sexual-assault-13954006