Why are people still deluding themselves about Michael Jackson??

[waxahatchee]

If any grown man I know invited children to sleep in his bed with him there would be absolutely no question about what was going on. I am sure that most people would agree, why are so many people still deluding themselves about this?? Makes me so cross, why do they even play his music on the radio??

I'm not a fan of MJ and he could well have been an abuser, I don't know. But I am very distrustful of people who seek the media with stories about him years after he has gone and can't defend himself.

I'm going to watch the documentary but I'm really not sure how credible I believe the 2 men to be. I'm not closed to the idea MJ may have abused children, but I do wonder particularly in Wade's case with the little I know of either of them (nothing about the other guy, little about Wade)

I don't know really why we need 4 hours of salacious details of CSA... it will be emotive, triggering and isn't necessarily true despite all that is said. It could be true, but we will never really know despite how emotive it is.

I hope to watch Taj's documentary also if he gets that done.

I know most people will automatically assume that someone who behaves like MJ must be a paedophile but we can't actually KNOW.
I think there are people whose behaviour we don't understand because it isn't 'normal' to us so we fit it to our perception of paedophile or something else.
I have no idea whether MJ abused those boys or not. I'm concerned he may have but hope he didn't.

I know most people will automatically assume that someone who behaves like MJ must be a paedophile but we can't actually KNOW.

Sexually abusing D.C. IS the behaviour of a paedophile. There's no assumption about it. There are multiple witness statements and a tonne of evidence.

@ColeHawlins

No armchair diagnosis here. I have 2 DC with ASD, one severe, so I know what I'm talking about thanks.

You have children on the spectrum and you think "normal" is the appropriate word for not autistic?!

@ColeHawlins

'Normal' is what I said. Because other people don't consider ASD behaviour as 'normal'.
That's not what I believe, hence the ' '

🙄

No armchair diagnosis here. I have 2 DC with ASD, one severe, so I know what I'm talking about thanks.

Half of MN have autistic children. It doesn't qualify you to diagnose someone you haven't met transatlantically.

Sexually abusing D.C. IS the behaviour of a paedophile. There's no assumption about it. There are multiple witness statements and a tonne of evidence

There is no actual physical evidence or proof. Only testimony, as far as I am aware.
The whole point is he can't be called a paedophile if we don't know if he did abuse.
If we kneels for sure there wouldn't be all this speculation and confusion.

Knew....not kneels.

I watched part one last night and I have to say I was on the fence before but you can’t listen to James Safechuck’s testimony and not believe him. That happened and I absolutely stand by the victims. They and their families were groomed and abused and while he was alive Michael Jackson had enough money to buy himself “innocence”.

@ColeHawlins

No, but it does help you notice some of the signs and behaviours.

I said possibly he could have been on the spectrum. What's wrong with me saying that? It's been said many times before by other people.

Like I said, MY opinion.

There is no actual physical evidence or proof. Only testimony, as far as I am aware.

No, there's more than that.

No, but it does help you notice some of the signs and behaviours.

Yep and I can't see any in MJ. It's a horrible red herring being trotted out by the gormless super fans.

@ColeHawlins

I'm not going to reply to you any more after this but just to clarify, I am in no way an MJ superfan. I'm not even really a fan. And the same could be said for you, you're not qualified to say he didnt have it, just because 'you don't see any signs'..

I agree, we don't know what happened, and why these men are coming into the open after all these years, 10 years after MJ death and not during MJ trial in Santa Barbra. It was very suspect that MJ had boys over to his ranch, it may or may not have been innocent. We will never really know.

Mmm!

Facts:
MJ was an unusual man
He had unusual tastes and proclivities
He had a lot of money, could hide/buy many things, be easily blackmailed
He did have 'sleepovers' with many young children over many years

Simple conlcusions
Now, I don't know about you but that last one is the singly most important one of all... he had unusual relationships with children. That is not in doubt, he said so, everyone he ever met says so.

Those relationships are absolutely fine if you believe that MJ was a wounded adult who felt and acted like a little boy, wanting recreate a childhood that he never had

They are not appropriate if you do not consider that using a child to make yourself feel better is not OK.

You don't have to go any further than that! MJ used children to satisfy some need in himself. He did whatever he did for his own selfish reasons and what he freely acknowledged doing was unusual, at best, psychologically damaging at least...

I cannot believe that ANYONE would consider MJs own explanation for his actions as reasonable! You'd have to believe that he was a Truly Special Snowflake for his actions to be acceptable!

Ludicrous!

Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Canada and New Zealand have taken his music off air (radio) I think that’s a good start.

I watched part one last night and I have to say I was on the fence before but you can’t listen to James Safechuck’s testimony and not believe him.

I haven't seen it but I've heard lots and lots of people say exactly the same. I love MJ's music and would have considered myself a fan back in the 80s. I didn't believe the 90s allegations at the time, an absolute media circus. And the reason we can't convict someone on hearsay is there for a very good reason and he's not here to defend himself etc. But I believe MJ did those things to those men when they were little boys and I believe there were others who will one day find the strength to say so too. MJ's fame and wealth was part of the grooming process, which he focused as much on those boys' parents as he focused on the boys themselves. Our fascination with celebrity is ingrained in us to such an extent that we refuse to believe our idols are capable of hideous things because they bring us so much joy. How could they? Well, I once worked very closely with a police sergeant who was a child abuser. I liked him. I respected him. He was good at gis job. And all the time he was capable of monstrous abuse. I live with that deeply disturbing knowledge every day. I believe MJ's victims.

Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Canada and New Zealand have taken his music off air (radio) I think that’s a good start.

But that's been the opinion for decades, long before this documentary! It's just knee jerking

It's far harder to remove MJ's influence on music than not playing him and seems quite unfair on other artists since

The problem I have with this documentary is that it is one sided and therefore biased in favour of the alleged victims.
One has to remember that MJ was acquitted of all charges after extensive investigations. He was strip searched, items were taken from his home. He was acquitted of ALL charges. In addition, there hasn’t been any new evidence. The two victims have just claimed they were abused and people automatically believed them .
If you think about it, anyone can accuse a dead person of anything and sully their reputation without any evidence. That is dangerous territory .
I am not a fan of Michael Jackson or his music. However, I am very uncomfortable with this retrial by media , particularly since the man is no longer alive to defend himself

I am very surprised to read so many posters blithely talking about complainants and their families being after money. I don't think it is that simple.

I know a bit about the Chandler case, having read the book a relative wrote, which I recognise is not impartial.

Chandler's parents (already divorced when he met MJ) were a shit show. The whole thing was brought to an end by an uncle who realised what was going on.

There was a police investigation, but MJ escaped prosecution when Jordan Chandler refused to give evidence, unable to face the attention. Bear in mind that he would not have been an anonymous witness. Hands up which of us would throw our 13, 14 15 year olds into a media storm like that?

The family accepted a settlement, knowing it would taint JC as money-grubbing, because he needed help and they did not otherwise have the money. Also, it was a tacit recognition that MJ had something to make amends for and that was the best result they could get.

The settlement included terms preventing JC from giving evidence against MJ, which, unbelievably, was not against the law in California at the time. The law was changed as a result of this case.

I said I would not return to this thread until today.
The documentary is in two parts - part 1 tonight 9pm channel 4 which will be triggering (describes the abuse and grooming) and part 2 tomorrow also 9pm (describes the coming to terms/realization that the man they loved had abused them).
I will be watching, one-sided or not, as I have heard MJ's side already and at length. (no credible witnesses/10000 books etc)
Brett Barnes is suing.
Whether any of the other boys ever comes forward to vindicate Wade and James remains to be seen, but given how they have been treated, I would not be surprised if they didn't.
mjandboys.wordpress.com/michaeljacksonsyoungfriends/