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??

That list is incredibly upsetting

Not a cult member but wrt his laptops, if he had an unhealthy interest in young boys, why are the sites and images he accessed of teen girls? Surely his prediliction would have extended to his online activities?

The book - The Boy is on the recommended reading list for NAMBLA (North American Man- Boy Love Association) members ie Paedophiles.

If Michael Jackson was guilty of anything he would’ve gone to jail. I didn’t watch the documentary and I don’t intend to, my personal opinion is that he was 100% innocent, he was investigated and nothing was found. The parents of these young kids took advantage of Michael and got paid a lot of money,as for him sleeping in the same bed with the boys I guess he wanted to have a sleep over like any other child cos he missed out on his childhood and no I’m not one of those fans who believe the kids are his biological kids. Michael had a lot of issues and it was easy to tell from his interview, he hated being black and went to the extend of deforming himself and not having children that may resemble him, he was many things but not a peadophile. None of us here knew him as a person but you want to condem him because you watched an interview, what happened to innocent until found guilty.

Sadly child sexual abuse is very hard to prosecute

Often the feeling of the child/children involved are very complex, they will not necessarily feel anger towards their abuser and will often feel guilty and the shame they feel make it hard to get statements from them

It there is physical evidence that a child had been raped that doesn’t mean there will be dna evidence

And when people do finally find the courage to speak out usually when they are older and have a better understanding of what was done to him them look at the backlash they receive

These men have nothing to gain. MJ had a huge amount of people relying on him and would have been willing to turn a blind eye and even cover up for him. His career was also many many others people’s career

I guess he wanted to have a sleep over like any other child cos he missed out on his childhood

So it was therapy for him?

Sounds like the excuse the parents used in ‘Abducted in plain sight’ for allowing a grown man to sleep in their daughters bed.

Just wanted a sleepover? He was an adult. Not a some lost boy from Peter fucking Pan.

@howismovingbungalow

Yep, that's true. Victor Gutierrez, a member of NAMBLA who wrote a graphic"tell all" book about Michael Jackson's relationships with young boys (and was successfully sued by Jackson for $2.7 million. He never paid and fled the country) was good pals with ol' Blanca Francia. There's a photo of them together in the book.

Funny story, the allegations currently appearing in Finding Neverland echo the storyline of Gutierrez' book with a spooky degree of accuracy.

Agree @Frission. And the paedophile in 'Abducted in Plain Sight' groomed all the adults into thinking what he was doing was normal. That is what paedophiles excel in.

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=vgGNJzstxXX2mQ4jsf4tdw

Huffington post article wrt items found which is an interesting counterpoint. I now sound like a sympathiser - I'm not, I have no skin in the game aside from procrastinating, but I do think beyond reasonable doubt should mean you question everything.

Yes it isn’t just about grooming the child it’s grooming all those around them

And some people will have their own interests at heart plus being who he was he could surround himself with yes people

Stab in the dark here - it might be because there's no evidence?

Yes, having a child describe the markings on the underside of your penis in interview is totally not suspcious at all. Totally normal to have a warning system rigged up to let you know when someone is coming to a room that’s set up like a kids bedroom, where you’re sharing a bed with an unrelated child. Very normal to give minors wine before getting into bed with them.

Give me a break.

I’ve seen so many people commenting on Abducted In Plain Sight about how useless her parents were, but people are more than happy to gloss over and ignore obvious concerns if they made music or films or books they like. People are disgusting.

If anyone has paid attention to the things that have come out since Weinstein, and thinks Michael Jackson didn’t abuse any children, then I have no idea what to say to those people.

Watch the documentary An Open Secret, about the way powerful men in the entertainment industry abuse boys.

Totally agree with you @SinkGirl.

An Open Secret should be watched by all.

I'm not saying I don't believe he was guilty in some or all cases, but I do find it odd that one of the men in the recent documentary only brought up the accusations after he was declined for a role as a choreographer for the cirque de soleil show and after being told that he couldn't sue the estate for billions - the figure reported was over a billion, not millions.

@sinkgirl

The description of his penis was proven inaccurate by Jackson's autopsy. And not just a little bit off, quite apart from the markings not matching, Jackson was uncircumcised when the description stated the opposite.

The FBI search of Neverland found no such warning system.

These are facts that can be proven with legal documents freely available under the freedom of information act.

Why would they have needed to wait for the autopsy to prove those claims wrong? He was examined whilst still alive so if any claims of what his genitals looked like didn't match the reality then it would have been picked up on long before his death.

The circumcised / uncircumcised issue has been widely reported, but it can't be proved that the description did say circumcised. Not even by people who have seen the available court documents. That marks were correctly identified can be confirmed. The details of the books found is also more complex than suggested by devlinson's very passionate defence

@MyBestFriendIsAHamster

This was picked up upon in 1993, as part of an investigation that resulted in no trial after 2 grand juries refused to indict due to lack of evidence. I focused on the autopsy, the result of which are easily found on google, because I don't quick access to a legal document regarding the 1993 investigation. I don't like to make a point without receipts.

But... are you suggesting he regrew his foreskin?

I think, as many others have said, that a major issue is how the children's parents came across - heartbreaking a common part in many of the stories of children in Hollywood/media, they come across as willing participants either in almost wanting something to happen for reasons or expecting something horrible to happen and treating that abuse their child suffers as part of the price for fame and fortune. There is also the "are the parents coaching them to make things up" which is less in other stories but came up a lot with this.

I think between those and the very odd stories - true and rumours - that came out about MJ, whether he was an abuser has become almost a footnote, which is really sad, if true, for those he abused. It's been more what is the weirdest story we can find, which of the rumours are true, and what involvement did the parents have. Personally, not really a fan, and mostly I just think it's sad that this became more about his weirdness rather than better protection for kids and young people in a very toxic media culture that could better prevent abuse and parental exploitation that still goes on.

CheeseToastie123

Tell me about it then. I'm open to hearing evidenced facts.

Yes I would like to see something credible that backs up the whole circumcised/uncircumcised thing. I have heard the whole thing how the alleged victim claimed that he was circumcised when he wasn't but haven't seen anything concrete to back up the claim that the alleged victim described him as being circumcised.

Plus even if it was true then, like I already said, he was examined long before his death so any inconsistencies would have been picked up on long before then.

But... are you suggesting he regrew his foreskin?

No .

I have seen the open secret documentary (vimeo iirc) and agree that it should have had as much impact as Berg's previous documentary but Michael Egan's failed lawsuit made edits necessary.

I assume the 5 year statute of limitations is why Wade would not be prosecuted for perjury in 2005 but if he harmed *Gavin Arvizo's case then that is tragic - unless the people who believe Robson/Safechuck don't believe Arvizo/Chandler. I haven't seen the Neverland doc - did Gavin receive an apology? He was vilified at that trial.

Brett Barnes has always defended Jackson as has Culkin. Unless they have also been in denial, I doubt they will speak out now.
There may be confidentiality agreements in place with staff etc but if Weinstein taught anything it was that NDAs can be broken eventually and a domino-effect will topple you, even with money and power.

The director of Leaving Neverland hoped to do a second documentary with Gavin/Jordan but neither have addressed the recent documentary - Gavin Arvizo has never sold his story and Jordan Chandler has also tried to live anonymously (iirc both received death threats).

(*the latter now married and his mum is married to a man named Lt. Colonel Jay Jackson— which makes her name ironically, Janet Jackson - just me, then)

If he was guilty, would the victims have accepted pay offs, or was it that people were chasing money in a litigeous society

If he was innocent, would he have paid people off? After all, there was no evidence right?

If a male neighbour befriended your children and arranged sleepovers would that be ok? Nope

Then why is this the case with Michael? And please dont start the whole " he had a mind of a ten year old" shit