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.

My abuser was a 'nice' man. Looked attractive, had a winning personality, was a trusted member of my family. Rolf Harris was a beloved entertainer. MJ was a beautiful child star with an angelic voice and amazing dance moves, who grew up to be the King of Pop, a deserved title. As others have said, paedophilic behaviour is more prevalent than we'd like to think, and not carried out by recognisable 'monsters'.

No SouthEastDweller, it displays that a criminal conviction very often bears no relation to whether the person did the crime.

It also shows how a good lawyer can get a client to walk out of court free, irrespective of evidence.

The most credible accusers were used. They weren't credible at all. There wasn't enough evidence to proof he was guilty.

There is something tragic for me in having seen the child star grow into a man. The brilliant arc of his career, his sheer talent. The irony of his Heal the World foundation and all the many millions he gave to better the lives of children, and that his estate still gives, and then, if true, the horror if him abusing children.

It's not a 'massive new story', it's a re-hashed story of the same old stuff. Michael Jackson was always being accused of abuse/paeodophilia when he was alive and was subject to various investigations from my recollection. He can't now be tried again because he's dead. Of course, that is just a trifling little obstacle for the gutter press.

It's about money, it always is. That and a generally stupid public who will always worship their 'idols' and then throw pitchforks at them when they feel let down by them. Celeb fawning is even worse now so goodness knows what horrors will unfold in years to come.

This is one of them there pitchfork threads so beloved of MN.

It also shows how a good lawyer can get a client to walk out of court free, irrespective of evidence.

Yes, but you don't know that happened in the case of MJ. It's all speculation.

LucyLastic, no. Where did I say you couldn't have an opinion?

There are no facts, but opinions as they say, are like noses, everybody has one.

Something people don't generally get right away is that along with grooming children, these people can charm and groom adults too. That's why they can be the beloved and trusted pillars of the community.

I feel sorry for his kids. Not really old enough when he died to have concrete memories of him as a person. They must be so torn, not knowing what to believe.

Obviously I also feel sorry for any kids he abused. I hope his own kids weren't part of that. I'd like to think he was just a crazy eccentric who felt like a child himself. I'm no MJ fan so not defending him at all. But it's odd that some kids who spent a lot of time with him said nothing happened.

The horror of being falsely accused of being a paedophile - going to court, 'winning' the court case but still being a suspect!

Hmm what Sadie said.
Yes it's disturbing but there you go 🤷🏾‍♀️

I do wonder why some people have such a vested interest in MJ NOT being a peadophile?

The police made a public statement that they had no doubt he was guilty. Why didn't MJ sue them, I wonder? Please don't forget that not all evidence is admissible in court. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though, just that it can't be used for procedural reasons.

Some of the posters on this thread seem to be shockingly naive about the pathology of paedophiles. Michael Jackson fits so many of the most prevalent traits of paedophiles that it is scary.

Peadophiles Don't abuse every child they befriend. So there can be lots of statements from children saying he didn't touch them. It means nothing.

The fact that some of the parents were from questionable circumstances......don't you think paedophiles also realise that and know they can easily groom such people? Who are more likely to be swayed than someone from a staunch, law abiding, middle class family?

Peadophiles make it their business to set their life up in such a way as to have ready access to young children. The fact that Neverland had an amusement fair and zoo isn't an accident.

They are also careful to choose their victims carefully. Who can be manipulated? who won't speak out? Which family will be most easy to convince? Which family could be bought off?

Perhaps if he had walked round with a scarlet P on his chest, then maybe some people would accept the reality of the situation.

Every single red flag for Paedophilic behaviour was ticked in the case of Michael Jackson. Not a single one missing. Its like the forensic profile of a child abuser was written for him. Prefers the company of children, check! Grooms the whole family, check! Has a favourite child he showers with gifts , check! Home set up to be attractive to children. check! Tries to spend time alone with child with no interruptions. Even owned books of naked boys which were produced by known paedophiles. Also, umm, all the kids who said he did it!!! He was utterly brazen .
I simply cannot believe anyone would think he was innocent. As for the characters of the accusers, well they have survived child rape , repeatedly, for years. Its not surprising that they are are not that stable is it???

In addition, of course he didnt abuse Macaulay Culkin or any other famous id. Its called plausible deniability!

I am keenly of how the press vilified MJ, because he was black and brilliant. But we do have to listen to his accusers don't we? It could be true that he abused children. There has been a lot of smoke

People need to wake up. The guy was a full on paedophile. Just because he made some great music should not disguise this. He needs to be pigeon holed along with Gary Glitter.

Even on this thread people have said they can't believe it of him as they grew up loving his music.

Says it all really.

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this but I have relatively little confidence in the judicial system after sitting on a jury several times. That there was insufficient evidence and that he was found not guilty isn't conclusive proof that he was innocent. The last case I sat on showed me that.

It was an assault case. There was very little evidence and if the trial had continued we'd have found him not guilty as there really was insufficient proof, however the trial was stopped half way as for some reason he chose to plead guilty. He had committed the crime and it turned out had a long criminal history of similar. That was quite a shock for us as there was so little proof either way. Of course it's a completely different scenario but if he'd kept his mouth shut he'd have walked free, even though he had committed the crime.

If anyone has seen the series... The people v oj Simpson will see how even when all facts and odds stacked agaisnt someone... A team of amazing lawyers, hugely expensive lawyers can still pull off an innocent verdict

He was fairly obviously an abuser. He was clearly good at grooming adults as well as children.

By the way, the presumption of innocence is a legal principle to ensure a fair trial. Once someone’s dead and can’t be tried, there’s no obligation on any of us to presume their innocence.

I used to love MJ a decent to see him in concert. He was a fantastic performer.

But a psychologist would have had a field day with him. There’s his awful childhood, his obsession and lying about his cosmetic surgery and turning WHITE (his whole family seem to have had a good go with their noses too), closeted away, having boys hanging off his arms, the plainest looking wife in history for a mega star, children who look nothing like either of them.......

Now, if they were disadvantaged kids and he’s just letting them go on the rides fair enough. NOT sleeping over. Good grief!!

I don't like MJ's music. I don't even understand why anyone thinks he made great music. Not interested in his dancing, either.
If I had to bet, I'd bet he was innocent of sexually molesting (and worse) children.
I want a high burden of proof before I think someone should be labeled guilty.

Seems like he had severe boundary issues. And nobody messes up their face like he did if they aren't screwed up (mental health). I can see for myself what he did to his face.

The cynic in me can see that he probably wouldn't have dared abuse Macauley Culkin because he was a well known star rather than a vulnerable nobody.

Well said StillIRise87.

I think the reason I am so vehement about this, is that is people refuse to believe the very obvious signs of paedophilia, how will they recognise it in adults around their own children?

Will people just wait until their children made allegations, by which point abuse may have been going on for years?

Paedophiles are not "other". They are your friends, family, neighbours. They are pop stars too.

joystir59 exactly. He couldn't have been bought off and would have been believed if he had spoken out. I have no doubt MJ didn't lay a finger on Macauley Culkin. But he was useful to MJ.....gave him the ability to deny he was a paedophile.