Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Michael Jackson and the new documentary

618 replies

joystir59 · 27/01/2019 12:08

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
liverbird10 · 27/01/2019 18:53

I have never believed he is guilty.

pollysproggle · 27/01/2019 18:54

Could be, or could be a lie to get that money to 'keep you comfortable for the rest of your life'.
The first case ever brought was the Jordan Chandler case. A civil suit filed by his father.
Didn't go to the police for a criminal case , just filed a civil suit for compensation.
Sounds fishy to me!

ImTheDamnFoolThatShotHim · 27/01/2019 18:56

MsLucyLastic

"I always wonder whether those willing to overlook MJ's behaviour, due to his great musical talent, would have been as quick to overlook Ian Huntley's actions, on the basis of him being a great caretaker."

Best answer I've seen on this and any similar subject.

AnoukSpirit · 27/01/2019 18:57

Presumption of innocence is an entirely legal concept that means you are legally innocent until proven legally guilty. Without a finding of fault the law cannot be used to punish. That is all it is there for - to determine whether there is a legal basis for punishing someone.

But it doesn't change facts. It doesn't mean factually innocent until proven guilty. Presumed legally innocent is an entirely separate concept.

People never want to believe that their idols, heroes, charming community figurehead, or friendly neighbour could be capable of monstrous acts. They want to believe the people who do monstrous things look like monsters all the time. It makes them feel safer.

Even on the occasion that a sexual assault is caught on film or camera or witnessed, perpetrators are still found legally not guilty or argue it was consensual (sometimes convicted regardless, sometimes not). It is ridiculously difficult to prove, to a legal standard, with our cultural baggage and collective denial on how sexual abuse occurs, that an offence took place. But that doesn't alter reality.

Very, very few sexual abusers ever admit to it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, because there is such stigma attached. They want to believe for themselves that they are not monsters either.

Court proceedings for sexual abuse aren't scientific fact-proving exercises, it is a legal undertaking that does not even have anything to do with "justice". Somebody is not innocent just by virtue of never having been successfully prosecuted, and nobody is required to pretend they are (defamation laws not withstanding).

I realise the world feels nicer and safer if sexual predators looked like easily identifiable monsters and all cases of sexual assault could easily be proven either way. But the world isn't that nice, safe, predictable place, and that is not how it works. People who seem wonderful do terrible things that sometimes do not come packaged up with "proof" that forces us to accept what's happened.

People are welcome to shield themselves from reality using denial, but I'm not required to join them in their denial.

Personally, I find it thoroughly credible that children would have spent a very long time denying anything bad happened to them, maybe also believing it was a relationship and they were special, before eventually many years later coming to understand as adults what truly happened to them and eventually being able to accept - to themselves - calling it what it was. That's a very common, normal reaction to sexual abuse.

Victims of sexual abuse use denial to protect themselves just as much as anybody else.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/01/2019 18:59

pollysproggle

I have no idea either way, but it would be far easier to get in to the civil courts and be able to put this in the public eye than it would be to make a criminal case against someone that has enough money to lock the system up and get the gag clauses that so many have paid for.

SouthWestmom · 27/01/2019 18:59

Honestly what mental health condition could he have acquired that kept him in a child like state and just liked hanging out with kids? As far as we know he didn't have learning disabilities and a cognitive age of 7 for example? Even then it wouldn't be appropriate to socialise with children and sleep with them. People are so naive.

And families do sell their kids, even in Britain. Ian Watkins anyone?

pollysproggle · 27/01/2019 19:01

@DeRigueurMortis
I agree being a fan would make me more likely not to believe he is guilty however there are plenty of fans commenting here that say they now believe he's guilty and do not listen to his music anymore so that point is moot.

Being a fan has made me do my research believe me. I've read and watched extensively for conclusive evidence and there is none. If I'm proved wrong so be it but for now I choose to believe he was innocent.

AnoukSpirit · 27/01/2019 19:01

Didn't go to the police for a criminal case , just filed a civil suit for compensation.

Different burden of proof.

Have you never seen the same thing happen in this country where CPS wouldn't prosecute and therefore the victim was prevented from accurately labelling what had been done to them until they pursued it "for compensation" - where it only had to be demonstrated on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt?

Has it never occurred to you that some people just want the sense of justice from having legal recognition of what was done to them, and that in our crappy systems sometimes that is the only way it can ever be achieved?

pollysproggle · 27/01/2019 19:03

@AnoukSpirit
Yes I have. His father didn't have a failed criminal case then went to the civil courts. He didn't even visit a police station and try.

MyShinyWhiteTeeth · 27/01/2019 19:04

MJ wasn't very socially aware in terms normal social interactions. I don't know if autism has every been suggested or if his behaviour was due to his abusive childhood. He clearly had issues.

He had intense friendships with young boys. I suspect he lost interest in them as they aged due to their increased maturity not due to them growing up. I don't think he was sexually interested in young boys. I suspect he was asexual.

I don't think there has been a credible witness ever. Every time someone has made allegations about MJ they have clearly had an agenda and always been easily discredited.

Men that were friends with MJ as children and have been successful in their life (so no need to earn money from their connection to him) have been critical of him, some were clearly still upset he lost interest in them as they grew up but they've not accused him of sexual abuse.

Some of the children he were involved with were obviously devastated when he dropped their friendships, some tried to abuse his friendships (their families, perhaps, were more to blame for this than the boys themselves). In a few cases this was clearly extortion attempts.

Ex staff that were fired made allegations - years later in some cases - their characters were not good and their stories were dismissed very quickly.

In all I've read there has never been a 'decent' person that has spoken against MJ and accused him of being a paedophile.

I don't know if he is innocent. If he isn't then there should be more credible witnesses.

AnoukSpirit · 27/01/2019 19:06

I've read and watched extensively for conclusive evidence and there is none.

Well, unless he filmed himself sexually abusing children then I presume there is nothing you would accept. Most abusers aren't quite that stupid though - they want to get away with it.

But I think you know that and just aren't prepared to engage with the possibility the world is not clear cut and safe.

liverbird10 · 27/01/2019 19:08

I do struggle with this, especially as I was an abused child myself. I'm not an enormous fan of Michael Jackson's music, although I do like it and appreciate his talent. I just have never believed that he was an abuser. Odd.

picklemepopcorn · 27/01/2019 19:13

I don't think anyone here, now is trying to excuse it because of his genius. Some don't believe it. Some think the music can be judged separately.

UnderMajorDomoMinor · 27/01/2019 19:17

I had no idea about john Peel. I really don’t think that was widely covered in the press. The Beeb have a serious problem and it just doesn’t seem to be getting better, we seem to be seeing some stuff coming out.

Cocolepew · 27/01/2019 19:17

No grown man takes 7 year old boys out with him unless he is a peadophile, who else would be interested?
Ffs Neverland had everything a young child could want.
He knew what he was doing, he did know all about normal social interactions, he wasn't a fucking hermit.
He got away with it because he had money and power.

Michael Jackson and the new documentary
Michael Jackson and the new documentary
southeastdweller · 27/01/2019 19:19

We're never going to know, I think, what happened. Is there any evidence about it? Thought not.

I can easily separate the guilty pervert from the artist. I still enjoy watching Polanski films, for example.

MsLucyLastic · 27/01/2019 19:21

ImTheDamnFoolThatShotHim Thanks Blush

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/01/2019 19:22

No grown man takes 7 year old boys out with him unless he is a peadophile, who else would be interested?

Before anyone else jumps on this.
I can see what you are trying to say, but it really needs more context.

Fiddie · 27/01/2019 19:28

We always turn the radio of if one of his songs come on.

Everyone should know exactly what he was.

MsLucyLastic · 27/01/2019 19:30

AnoukSpirit - brilliant answers.

Wearywithteens · 27/01/2019 19:32

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn at the poster's request.

alaric77 · 27/01/2019 19:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NotANotMan · 27/01/2019 19:38

'Innocent until proven guilty' is for court, and quite right. It's not for general belief and understanding of reality. There is stacks of evidence to support the assumption that MJ was a paedophile who abused children. Doesn't mean he should have been locked up without a guilty verdict but also doesn't mean we have to believe he was innocent because he wasn't found guilty in court

pollysproggle · 27/01/2019 19:38

@AnoukSpirit
Of course I wouldn't want to see that kind of evidence but if it were found I'd have a reason to change my mind wouldn't I?
A shred of evidence to the fact would give me doubts and in fact I have had doubts of course, plenty of times that's why I have looked into it so much.
I don't want it to be true because I'm a fan- correct.
That doesn't mean I'm blinded to the fact it could be true. I read/watch the bad and good and don't just go looking for like minded people who think he's innocent. I'll watch this new documentary which I already know doesn't paint him in a good light at all.
I've made my mind up to the point I can knowing what I know with my own opinion thrown in.
That's all I can do and from that believe he's innocent.
Extremely odd and troubled but innocent.

Hushnownobodycares · 27/01/2019 19:39

The furore about John Peel was inexplicably short-lived.

Auntie however as ever knew best, waited for it all to die down and presented a blue plaque to be displayed in his home village in 2017.
Unbelievable.