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??

If you are unable to think outside of the box, I have nothing but sympathy for you.

Us - is all of us who are not in control of the world. Where's the cure for cancer they keep saying they'll get? How rich are the pharmaceutical companies? How many people die from side effects of meds? Why are there chemicals in our food and water? Why are we being increasingly monitored day by day when most of us are law abiding citizens? On and on and on it goes.. but most just don't bother to question, not a single thing! Jeez, even diabetes associations recommend a diet that doesn't help diabetes!

The messages in the songs were important, regardless who sang them or if you hated them. Since his death, the world has become increasingly Orwellian.

Please waken up.

One thing I've always wondered is why have only people looking for money come forward? Macaulay Culkin has vehemently denied being sexually abused by him, yet was alone with MJ the most out of any child. I recall an interview with him where he said some weird stuff definitely went on - MJ drinking out of a baby bottle for example - but said it was never sexual. He's either repressed a hell of a lot memories or is telling the truth. And I think its odd that a pedophile could spend that much time alone with a small boy and not abuse him. I think the only people who have zero to lose by speaking the truth are his children and Macauley Culkin. And they have said nothing. Why would that be, unless he was innocent?

FWIW I personally think he's guilty as hell, but as he's dead the only way it could be "proven" so to speak is if his children or Macauley Culkin confirm it.

If you are unable to think outside of the box, I have nothing but sympathy for you.

Us - is all of us who are not in control of the world. Where's the cure for cancer they keep saying they'll get? How rich are the pharmaceutical companies? How many people die from side effects of meds?...

@Luckystar777 in the nicest possible way you sound like a tin foil hat wearer gone completely bonkers.

What is the supposed connection between your Big Pharma conspiracy theory and MJ's personal conduct? I can't even follow what you're talking about.

Nice label to stop people asking very valid questions in the world we live! LOL, I don't do labels. I wish you well. That's my final word to you Cole, as I do not argue when there is no point doing so.

One thing I've always wondered is why have only people looking for money come forward?*

I'm not sure that it's true that those who have come forward with allegations are all seeking financial compensation. Those that have been forced into civil action (because they can't get a criminal law remedy for whatever reason - most recently because of statute of limitations) have no choice but to claim damages in pursuit of justice - that is how civil law works. The same thing happened in the OK Simpson case, for example.

Macaulay Culkin has vehemently denied being sexually abused by him, yet was alone with MJ the most out of any child

Culkin and also whichever Corey it was. Both famous. You could legitimately conclude that that's either because MJ was more circumspect around rich, famous children or that victims with public images & careers to protect would be advised not to go public, or both.

Why are there chemicals in our food and water?

Lol.

I find it quite amazing that MN is full of people saying "I believer her" when it comes to supporting women and girls who have been attacked, abused and exploited.

But ask the same of people when it comes to Michael Jackson's victims...and on MN of all places! I'm just trying to imagine a thread where someone says that they have been told that a young boy has come forward to say that they are being abused, and posters respond by saying that it can't possibly be true and that the boy (or his family) must have nefarious reasons for doing so because the abuser is a lovely talented quirky man who is innocent of any ulterior motives

He locked himself in a room with a boy and told the bodyguards not to disturb them because they were on their honeymoon. Not sure what the bodyguards would have got out of lying about that.

Put it this way, I wouldn't leave my children in the care of the kind of people who insist on performing mental gymnastics so that they can keep their peadophile heroes.

Just to remind all those saying MJ was found not guilty, so was R Kelly even though they had video evidence of him having sex with a minor.
Just because MJ did not assault every child he had over, does not mean that he did not assault another.
A rapist does not rape every woman he meets, a peodophile does not abuse every child they meet. An abuser does not abuse every potential victim but it doesnt mean they dont abuse.

As part of my job, I listened to a journalist interviewing James and Wade, recorded the day after the documentary premiere at Sundance. I believe them both.

It's interesting that Michael Jackson's estate isn't suing the documentary makers, but instead have chosen to sue HBO for breach of a non-disparagement clause in a contract signed in 1992 for showing the Bucharest leg of the Dangerous tour.

**It's interesting that Michael Jackson's estate isn't suing the documentary makers, but instead have chosen to sue HBO for breach of a non-disparagement clause in a contract signed in 1992 for showing the Bucharest leg of the Dangerous tour.

They have no other course of action here because you can't defame a dead man. The film makers can't be sued for demation or libel, and can cheerfully appear on TV and radio calling Jackson a paedophile without fear of legal retribution. Your rights in this regard die with you, in the US and in the UK. Interesting timing for these guys to come out with a new allegation, when they don't legally have to use the word "alleged" in the press any longer.

There are reams of evidence to suggest that Robson and Safechuck are opportunists. Before making this documentary Robson tried to shop a book about it. No one would touch it. Then the two came together in 2013 to sue the estate. The case was thrown out. Their stories have changed time and time again. Both are proven perjurers.

Dan Reed, the film maker, has admitted that he chose not to feature any testimony or evidence that would diverge from his chosen narrative. The fact is that this "documentary" presents a shocking and graphic description of child abuse, which is obviously compelling viewing. It never questions the validity of those claims though and relies on shock tactics. It doesn't challenge the witnesses. It's a prosecution with no defence and that should always be challenged. There is a burden of proof and these men should not be held above it.

I could direct you to a number of legitimate sources. I don't mean Michael Jackson fansites, I mean, for example, the 361 page FBI report that's freely available under the freedom of information act, where they found no evidence of wrongdoing on Jackson's part. Or transcripts of court documentation from Robson's attempted claim against the estate where he's found to have witheld evidence under deposition. Even Robson's original testimony in the 2005 abuse trial where he faces aggressive cross examination. Did he lie then and convince a judge and grand jury or is he lying now? How can you trust this testimony if you can't trust his original one?

There's more. There's so much more. If you'd like to read both sides of the story it's all out there. If you'd like to convict a man on, "no smoke without fire" and a documentary you haven't seen yet, well sure. You do you.

I believed one of his bodyguards way back. He said inappropriate stuff went on & often, he took flagrant risks in semi public moments with touching/fondling: & became aggressive if the bodyguard tried to distract him to stop it. (one instance with boy on his lap while he was in audience of charity thing with Prince of Monaco).

Put it this way, I wouldn't leave my children in the care of the kind of people who insist on performing mental gymnastics so that they can keep their peadophile heroes.

This.

Either MJ was an unusual, asexual, manchild who liked prepubescent boys (but not girls) and courted them and hung out with them and slept with them in a fun way and sat them on his knee (I saw the pics on the Reddit thread) because he was reliving his lost childhood and he had no interest in any form of adult sexual relationship OR he was a paedophile.

In addition, the porn in his bedroom showed under age boys. You can't tell me he only looked. And a v v young boy accurately described a birthmark near his genitals. (the documentary about the trial shown years back). And why did girls never 'sleepover'. Funny that.

Not true. The porn in his bedroom was legal, heterosexual porn. The prosecution tried to enter collectible art history books into evidence. I can direct you to the court documentation that proves this.
And that description of his penis? Absolutely inaccurate and proven so by Jackson's autopsy, the most glaring error being that he wasn't circumcised when the description said he was. Again, I can post you to the documention. Y'know, actual evidence rather than hearsay?

And girls absolutely did sleepover. Including Robson's sister, who also testified that Jackson did nothing inappropriate (do you want to see the court transcript?).

It's funny how we support women who are abused with #webelieveyou but young boys are to be ignored because they are accusing a famous person people liked

Not about this is it. For a start there are plenty of people who do the complete opposite of supposed abused women. There are also plenty of people who believe young boys accusing famous people.

If you meant that Michael Jackson's music is still played because it was young boys he allegedly abused, but that of men accused of abusing women were you're also making no sense.

If all the art produced by men was stopped, no longer aired or banned, film pickings would be slim, the radio less varied and the sporting word missing some stars.

I find it quite amazing that MN is full of people saying "I believer her" when it comes to supporting women and girls who have been attacked, abused and exploited

I think its really silly to assume guilt or innocence before someone is tried in a court of law.

Michael Jackson underwent due process and was found not guilty. He was investigated by the FBI. No evidence of wrongdoing was found whilst he was alive. Now that he's dead people can come out and allege anything. They cannot be sued for libel.

All we have now is speculation. I remember when he died I thought how long will it be before attempts are made to destroy his legacy? Personally I think this what this is. That and money. By the time he died it had been 'open season' on MJ by the press for some time.

I notice when ultra famous people die every tom dick and harry comes out the woodwork talking about them when they are no longer alive to defend themselves. I noticed when Whitney died within days all the things she would never have wanted out there, were put out there by former 'friends' including outright lies and other crap.

He can't be put through due process or retaliate now he's dead. I think the motives behind these claims based on the timing are highly questionable.

I remember watching the Martin Bashir interview with him ,I thought he came across as very naive and quite delusional,I have no idea wether he abused children or not but what loving parent would leave their children with him?Clearly they cared more about money than their children.

I like his music.

I think it is very unfair to make a one-sided documentary about abuse when one of the subjects already stated under Oath that he was not abused and there is no balance. It is playing on prejudices against MJ.

I think that he had issues. I don't know whether he abused anyone, but I could say that about anyone.

One thing that I always wondered is that in videos with the Jackson 5 he always seems much more 'with it' than he did later in life. It may be down to his family situation growing up, but I do wonder whether something happened to make him regress and become more child-like (head injury perhaps).

Girls stayed too. Robson's sister was one of them. She also testified that nothing inappropriate happened, BTW.

In a clip I have seen one of the men who accuses MJ of abusing him says he was one of the kindest and most generous person he ever met and he also sexually abused me

This certainly would have been part of his grooming but also people who do really terrible things can also have a side that is kind, generous, clever, loving and so on

And this may at times be part of their grooming strategy and other times it might be genuine- I think many people think abusers will always abuse every child/person they can it’s not that black and white many will have relationships be that sexual, friendships, as a parent or work colleague that are not abusive and appear to be good relationships

The prosecution tried to enter collectible art history books into evidence. I can direct you to the court documentation that proves this.

Have you seen those two "collectible art books"?

And have any of these girls accused him of abuse? Surely if he was innocent and people were just trying to taint his image and were just after money then there should be at least some girls accusing him too...

That's assuming he even had the same number of girls sleep over as he did boys of course.

Either way it looks suspicious imo.