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??

Roomba no.. where is this list

I feel that he was a very kind man

Well jog on with that view, because most of the rest of us can see a paedophile hiding in plain sight. Your arguments are at best naive, at worst deeply offensive, and have all been addressed earlier in the thread, nost movingly by victims of child abuse, and also by experts in the field.

@teyem Jordan admitted after his fathers death that the allegations were made up and he was forced to lie by his abusive father...and so the cycle continues.

Budsbegginingspringinsight - Abducted in Plain Sight is a masterclass in how to be a bad parent.

Everyone I know who has seen that documentary (and everyone posting about it on the internet) is of the opinion that the parents were completely derelict in duty and looked the other way so as to cover up their own proclivities. The paedophile in that case didn't need to do any grooming; he was handed the poor daughter on a plate with a spring of parsley as garnish for good measure.

The age he got to the boys... he forced a wedge between the boys and parents.

I was shocked to see Sean Lennon!!

Irma.

He was a master groomer. Who collided with naïve stupid parents.

Dirty john had Very similar mum...

Gene Simmons on Michael Jackson:

"Gene Simmons on Michael Jackson:

"I knew Michael. I ran into him a few times... I was always
taken by his innocence and he was always very polite and kind.

"But as time moved on, and no matter what my fond memories and fond images of Michael were, with one allegation of paedophilia after another and another and another… Oh dear. I knew some of the musicians he toured with, and specifically one who quit because of seeing boys coming out of the hotel rooms. And then you factor in that his travel agent was put on the stand and in court said that she was authorised to fly to Brazil and bring boys back to America for him… Well, you know, where there’s smoke there’s fire. There’s no question in my mind he molested those kids. Not a doubt.

"What we do know is Michael settled for $20 or $25 million to keep one suit dead and the other one was $3 or $4 million. Now what $25 million dollars means is if somebody said the most vile thing about me and I paid a lawyer $500,000 a year, I could defend that case for 50 years for the amount of money that Michael paid to make it go away.

"Michael’s on tape going, “Give the kids Jesus juice.” Which is wine. I
mean, it’s just endless. So on one hand he’s a sad kind of a character
who seems to have been lonely… And incidentally, there’s never been a single female of any age that I’ve ever known about who has ever made a claim that she has had a physical relationship with Michael, ever. In fact, while he was alive, I never heard about mature men ever making that claim either – and believe me, you can’t keep it a secret. If you’re a celebrity, somebody somewhere will say, “Oh yeah, I shagged him.”

"The only sexual references ever made about Michael Jackson that were made by anyone, anywhere around the world, have always been made by kids, and specifically males usually 10 to 14 years of age; never females, that age or older, and never grown men. Oh, I don’t think this is going away any time soon."

Seems I was wrong about the Chandler settlement: it did not contain any provision about JC not testifying. In fact it expessly stated that JC was not prevented from giving evidence. However, JC could not be compelled to do so.

I can't find anything that says that can't, just that he has been in hiding since with a new identity, that is sister is too fearful of the wrath of MJ fans to say anything publicly and that his Dad killed himself. Could you link please?

Who collided with naïve stupid parents.

Colluded with the parents, more like. I don't think I'd shag a bloke who had abducted my 13-year-old dd and "married" her in Mexico. That's not naive, that's seriously warped.

Sorry, interrupting thread. Back to MJ: I would be interested to look at the historic finances of the families of the young friends of MJ. It beggars belief, but some people are prepared to "sell" their dcs.

Watching the Leaving Neverland documentary I found the two men who were Jackson's boy 'companions' entirely compelling. Having read Dan Davies' excellent account of Jimmy Savile's crimes I was also struck by the parallels:

• the use of fame , media exposure and connections to attract people but also to reassure them that exceptional behaviour was to be expected
• long history of 'odd' public behaviour and statements acting as a kind of double shield (so odd it can't be suspicious) and amplified by both Savile and Jackson
• 'odd' behaviour and unusual appearances explained away as naive or unworldly ('childlike') and them being perceived as asexual or possibly celibate / repressed homosexuals (Jackson's 'prettiness', Savile's obsession with his mother)
• supposed legitimate reasons for having victims (children, and in Savile's case young girls and vulnerable people) constantly around them were built into their professional 'acts'
• astonishing level of risk-taking, grooming and touching victims in public, in proximity to parents and authorities
• flattery and wooing of families and others with access to victims (Jackson's supposed helping of careers and need for friendship, Savile's old-fashioned hand-kissing and 'good works')
• paying off of victims who complained (and in Savile's case threatening lawsuits via his police contacts)
• the huge number of adults complicit in facilitating the abusers' access to their victims, or not reporting what they knew: employees, colleagues, institutions and families (Jackson's entourage, nurses warning kids in hospitals about Savile) many of whom had a financial or status interest in maintaining the images of the abusers
• plenty of other respectable employees / professional collaborators / famous friends protesting the abusers' innocence 'because that is not the man I knew' / 'he was only ever the perfect gentleman to me'
• use of isolated places to take victims to separate them from families / help (Neverland, hotels, Savile's various boltholes and horrible caravan)

And hiding everything in plain sight - it was there for everyone to see if they actually wanted to.

They were still groomed.

People can't believe this happen abducted in plain site is extreme but shows how it can

CantstandmLMs
Evidence please. I can't find any. Seems like another lie by the enablers.

Just for the record, I'm not saying that you are lying CantstandmLMs but I can't find anything to that effect on Google, once again, could you link please? Thanks

Jordan admitted after his fathers death that the allegations were made up and he was forced to lie by his abusive father.

Source for this?
Have read that Gavin also recanted but there is not a credible source for either.

That poor man showing his "trophies" that MJ gave him.His hands where shaking so bad.

buds
There is a list here but I have not gone down the rabbit hole regarding its veracity (I say this because I know at least one list produced in the media had been doctored)

lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/michael-jacksons-porn/

Last week, I saw a talent show performance by little girls of around 8 years old, heavily made up and gyrating to Michael Jackson's highly suggestive "The Way That I Feel".

Naïve, stupid parents are more common than some seem to think.

Jordan admitted after his fathers death that the allegations were made up and he was forced to lie by his abusive father.

No he didn't. That's a total lie.

The documentary was a journalistic nightmare, so totally unbalanced and failed to give key facts about the complainants (previously defended MJ swearing on oath and both complainants have changed their story no less than 6 times and the twice they’ve tried to sue MJ’s estate it’s been thrown out of court.

What has become of society where we believe everything that is fed to us? This is precisely why both the UK (Brexit) and the US (Trump) are in the mess that we are in because we feed off this media propaganda with questioning a possible alternative truth.

These baseless accusations have decimated a dead mans reputation, what about his poor children?

And by the way - I’m not saying I believe MJ is innocent, I’m simply saying how can any of us really know?

He had a parchant for little boys that's for certain, the way he was talking about the children in a flirty and inappropriate way, doesn't scream innocent childlike man to me. At best he was odd and creepy at worse he abused the boys that came to stay with him.

There has to be base for these accusations of sexual abuse! His behaviour does not exactly make me confident to say he did not abuse young boys.

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

It was Radar whose list was ''interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources...''

With MJ it is very difficult to sort between fact, opinion and probability (hence one of my previous comments about it being Not Proven) and so much has been put out there on the net, you have to sieve through it all to try and make an informed opinion. Because the new allegations occurred 3 years after his death not at the time of his death and there has only been one more accuser since the documentary came out (Michael Jacobshagen, who has also written about MJ in the past for monetary gain) it is not the same as the allegations that went into double figures in the Saville case 12 months after he died although there are comparisons to be made between the two.

I think with this you will either accept that the men's testimony is evidence enough and that it came late because they were triggered by their own sons' births and that is how abuse is.
Or you accept that no new evidence has come to light and that this documentary would be prosecuted for slander were Jackson alive, had it been made at all.

Very few witnesses are ever the perfect credible witness, and the good lawyer's job is to smear in any way they can, which is why female rape victims are torn apart on the stand for what they wore or what they drank or how many boyfriends they had etc
The problem with the Jackson case was that everyone who has ever spoken out against him especially his staff has always had some lack of credibility. It makes coming forward so much harder.
Add to that the backlash and death threats from his fandom, it makes it damned near impossible.

and the twice they’ve tried to sue MJ’s estate it’s been thrown out of court.
This is another red herring that keeps coming up. The way people present this it's like they are saying the claims were deemed without merit, which isn't the case. One was found to be time-barred (brought too late) and the other was a claim against two Jackson-owned companies, with the court ruling the corporations themselves weren't liable at law.

In neither instance were the merits of the allegations considered.

@aero - he was clearly very eccentric and suffered with a myriad of mental health concerns but what’s astounding is people’s readiness to believe a one sided documentary that fails to give additional details which may lead one to question the truth in these men’s statements.

What is also strange is why they are attempting to sue the estate? Is this really about justice or is it driven by money.

None of us know, but to vilify a man (a dead one at that) that has not been convicted of these crimes is saddening.