Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Michael Jackson, veto?

206 replies

InkyPinkyPonky95 · 02/01/2021 21:56

It's up to you to decide whether you think MJ is a pedo or not, everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusion... but I think he was guilty and it's kind of ruined his music for me.

I won't storm out of a restaurant if one of his songs comes on! but I won't play his music myself because I can't separate his music from how disgusted I am by him.

That being said, for those that do believe he is guilty do you now veto playing his music? Has it ruined his music for you too? Or have you found a way to compartmentalise your feelings about it?

Side note: I understand not everyone thinks he's guilty, that's fine! Completely up to you to decide what you think. Not here to judge, just to hear other people's feelings.

OP posts:
ElizaLaLa · 04/01/2021 15:37

Lots of producers and executives are rapists or exploiters so there's a high chance all mainstream music has been worked on by a nonce.

But I don't listen to MJ anymore.

knittingaddict · 04/01/2021 17:33

@tisnotthedamnseason

Can we all please stop saying 'child pornography' it's offensive and inaccurate. The correct term is child abuse images. It's not porn.
I know. I listen to lots of podcasts and the US ones all seem to still use that phrase. Makes me wince every time I hear it.
Russellbrandshair · 04/01/2021 19:53

I'm in two minds about this but as a PP said, would you accept a payoff to keep quiet if your own child had been abused?

I’m sorry but I really don’t get this argument because it ALSO APPLIES TO MJ!
If someone accused you of molesting a child and you were completely and utterly innocent you would surely be outraged and why would you pay them off? If you’re innocent there will be no evidence whatsoever to incriminate you. Him paying them off indicates his guilt to me. It’s exactly what R Kelly did to his victims- paid them off to keep quiet and they were scared because he had far more rich, powerful lawyers than them so they figured there was no hope of challenging him. There is a world of difference between a free court appointed lawyer and one of the best criminal defence attorneys in the country.

In the US if the chances of proving a criminal case are low (and the district attorney feels not enough to convict) then a civil case where compensation is paid is the next step. So this is not entirely unusual.
Remember that most rapes also don’t make it to criminal court due to lack of evidence but it doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

maddiemookins16mum · 04/01/2021 20:14

He is really not played as much these days.

lunasunshine · 04/01/2021 21:58

@Russellbrandshair

I'm in two minds about this but as a PP said, would you accept a payoff to keep quiet if your own child had been abused?

I’m sorry but I really don’t get this argument because it ALSO APPLIES TO MJ!
If someone accused you of molesting a child and you were completely and utterly innocent you would surely be outraged and why would you pay them off? If you’re innocent there will be no evidence whatsoever to incriminate you. Him paying them off indicates his guilt to me. It’s exactly what R Kelly did to his victims- paid them off to keep quiet and they were scared because he had far more rich, powerful lawyers than them so they figured there was no hope of challenging him. There is a world of difference between a free court appointed lawyer and one of the best criminal defence attorneys in the country.

In the US if the chances of proving a criminal case are low (and the district attorney feels not enough to convict) then a civil case where compensation is paid is the next step. So this is not entirely unusual.
Remember that most rapes also don’t make it to criminal court due to lack of evidence but it doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

@Russellbrandshair

In the 1993 case, Jordan Chandler’s father tried to sue MJ for $20million. MJ refused to pay this and his private investigator sent a counter offer for $1million. Evan Chandler refused this and expected MJ’s team to come back with a higher offer. They refused and reduced their offer to $350,000. When they realised that MJ wasn’t going to pay them any higher, Evan Chandler tried to go back to the original $1million, but MJ said no. His investigators also said that they only engaged in the negotiations to show that Evan Chandler was trying to negotiate for money over his son’s “abuse”. Michael could have easily bought their silence at this stage and prevented the whole thing from becoming public, but he didn’t.

Civil complaints are usually filed/heard following the completion of criminal cases. In this case, the Chandlers were pushing for the civil case to be heard BEFORE the criminal case. MJ was put in a very difficult position. If he took the civil case to court, it would have harmed his criminal case because it would give the prosecutors a huge advantage and they would have heard his defence in advance, therefore they would have been able to study it and tailor it accordingly. There are many other reasons that I won’t bore you with, but basically if MJ would have gone into a civil case with the Chandler family, it would have severely damaged his right to a fair trial, so on the advice of his layers he very reluctantly “paid them off” for an undisclosed sum.

Once the civil trial was settled, the Chandlers could have proceeded with a criminal case against Michael Jackson and have him locked up for good. Well, they didn’t. They took the money, refused to co-operate with the authorities and decided not to proceed any further. Jordan Chandler, the alleged victim, sought emancipation from his parents and never spoke to them again a year after this case was settled (aged 15).

Ironically, the law that allowed the civil case to be heard ahead of the criminal case was changed as a direct result of what happened in this case. An accuser now cannot pursue a civil case before the criminal case.

This is why the Gavin Arvizo case went to a criminal trial. And, after a lengthy court case with one of the most aggressive lawyers in town (who detested Michael and was desperate to see him locked up), MJ was found innocent on all counts. There was not one shred of credible evidence.

Things are not as black and white as they seem.

Frankola · 04/01/2021 22:48

His behaviour with children was dangerous and inappropriate. He wasn't found guilty in court but we all know sometimes, for lots of reasons, justice does not prevail (OJ?!)

I loved his music but cannot listen anymore. I cannot ignore my beliefs enough.

I'm shocked that people seem to be defending or diminishing his actions due to his childhood. Yes, its commonly understood that childhood environment forms behaviour. Yes we know that those abused often become abusers but that does not get anyone off the hook. It does not reduce the damage they have caused. As an adult with an understanding of the world and moral code those people make a choice. He made a choice.

Russellbrandshair · 04/01/2021 22:54

@lunasunshine

Let’s say he was innocent (and I don’t believe that for a second) why on earth would he not stop inviting boys into his bed after the first court case? Why the fck would you do that a second time knowing that not only are you opening yourself up to a court case but it is damaging the children you supposedly care about. It’s damaging for children to think that kind of behaviour is normal even if you aren’t an abuser. You do it because it’s a compulsion and you can’t stop. That’s why.

One question that no one can answer is this: if MJ loved and cared about those kids so much then why couldn’t their parents stay over with them? These were young kids, some undergoing cancer treatment. They would have felt much more comfortable with a parent present but none were present.

He’s a pedophile. That’s why.

Russellbrandshair · 04/01/2021 22:54

Also just because those CD parents were greedy is not evidence that abuse didn’t occur!

lunasunshine · 04/01/2021 23:30

@Russellbrandshair

Also just because those CD parents were greedy is not evidence that abuse didn’t occur!
But it’s also not evidence that abuse DID occur.

Jordan Chandler - parents clearly exploited MJ for money and had no interest in pursuing a criminal case.

Gavin Arvizo - went to a lengthy criminal trial. Found innocent on every count. Not one shred of evidence. Even before the trial, MJ had the FBI observing him for 10 years, which included 3 unexpected raids on Neverland. They found nothing.

James Safechuck & Wade Robson - only conveniently remembered the abuse AFTER he passed away and not here to defend himself. These two are so shady it’s laughable, and they are many many examples of them lying throughout the entire documentary. James Safechuck said he was abused in the train station at Neverland. That didn’t even exist until 2 years after the alleged abuse had stopped. Wade Robson only remembered he had been abused when he went for a job to choreograph the MJ Cirque du Soleil show in Vegas and didn’t get it. There are so many more examples of this.

There are many children that spent time at Neverland and all of them absolutely 100% denied any wrongdoing - Macaulay Culkin,
Corey Feldman, Brett Barnes ..

I know that this is an area which obviously stirs up a lot of strong emotion from people but I like to look objectively at the facts.

I have no idea where you’ve heard/read that Michael Jackson refused to let their parents stay over with them? I’ve never heard of that. In fact, his ex-bodyguard of 10 years claimed the opposite to be true, that pushy money/fame hungry parents would push their children onto him! And Michael was too nice and naive for his own good.

Notimeforaname · 04/01/2021 23:54

pushy money/fame hungry parents would push their children onto him! And Michael was too nice and naive for his own good

Yes. This too. All those parents practically threw their kids into Michael's home. You see them in documentaries and clips. He didn't kidnap anyone and keep the kids hostage. These parents kept sending their children. Even after the court cases? Why?

Notimeforaname · 04/01/2021 23:55

lunasunshine
And no I don't believe I've seen the documentary you mentioned earlier. I will definitely check that out thanks!Smile

PrincessScarlett · 04/01/2021 23:59

Corey Feldman has since said he wonders whether MJ was grooming him after initially defending him. And Corey Feldman was already being abused by others in the industry so his outlook as a child was already pretty warped.

BadLad · 05/01/2021 01:07

Time to rename the "We believe you" campaign.

We believe you. Well, unless your abuser made music we like, in which case he's innocent until proven guilty.

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 05:30

@knittingaddict Thank you. Smile

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 05:34

[quote lunasunshine]@Cokie3 I’d love to know what ‘blatant evidence’ you know about?[/quote]
You clearly haven't read the FBI evidence they confiscated from Neverland. Or boys testimonies.

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 05:45

Lunasunshine, Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

There is an interview with Jackson's lawyers that as soon as they learned the penis description matched the photo, they paid out because they knew they were in trouble and couldn't defend Jackson.

Sinful8 · 05/01/2021 05:49

@Russellbrandshair

I'm in two minds about this but as a PP said, would you accept a payoff to keep quiet if your own child had been abused?

I’m sorry but I really don’t get this argument because it ALSO APPLIES TO MJ!
If someone accused you of molesting a child and you were completely and utterly innocent you would surely be outraged and why would you pay them off? If you’re innocent there will be no evidence whatsoever to incriminate you. Him paying them off indicates his guilt to me. It’s exactly what R Kelly did to his victims- paid them off to keep quiet and they were scared because he had far more rich, powerful lawyers than them so they figured there was no hope of challenging him. There is a world of difference between a free court appointed lawyer and one of the best criminal defence attorneys in the country.

In the US if the chances of proving a criminal case are low (and the district attorney feels not enough to convict) then a civil case where compensation is paid is the next step. So this is not entirely unusual.
Remember that most rapes also don’t make it to criminal court due to lack of evidence but it doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.

Because even without evidence you could lose all your deals/opertunities.

Hush money and dealing with it when your career is over may be wiser

faithfulbird20 · 05/01/2021 05:56

I feel the same as you. The man was evil.

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 05:58

@lunasunshine it's clear you've done zero research except from Jackson fan sites.

He was not 'found' innocent re Arvizo, there is no such thing in a court of law. There was evidence yet of course Jackson's fame got him off.

A common LIE from the Jackson stans is that the FBI followed Jackson for 10 years. FALSE. They only helped the police on one case, and all up, investigated him for around one and a half years.
Not 10 years. Also you are clearly not aware of the NAMBLA book and naked boy photos the FBI found. Certainly not 'nothing' as you say.

James Safechuck & Wade Robson - realised the abuse after they became fathers. Which is NORMAL as child Psychologists have said. This is completely normal. Also, Jackson was more use to them financially if he was alive, they would have got more money. So if they were only after money, they would have tried for it when he was alive. It made no sense from a financial perspective to wait until he died.

There are zero examples of them lying throughout the entire documentary. The station was PROVEN TO HAVE EXISTED, in fact, deeds proved that the station existed, and a tv advertisement for Neverland showed the actual station IN THE AD at that time. The 'the station never existed' LIE was soundly debunked. You clearly weren't told that by the Jackson stans, were you. Also, Safechuck said they were looking at wedding rings. This was backed up by the fact that a tv news anchor watching that remembered something he covered and found archived footage of Jackson and Safechuck looking at wedding rings. This, BACKED UP WHAT SAFECHUCK SAID.

"Wade Robson only remembered he had been abused when he went for a job to choreograph the MJ Cirque du Soleil show in Vegas and didn’t get it. There are so many more examples of this."
That is NOT an 'example', that is you twisting it to suit your agenda. The Vegas show was well before he realised. Well before. Stop presenting Jackson fan LIES as 'examples'. You have no examples of lies, whatsoever. None.

Providora · 05/01/2021 06:00

@ViciousJackdaw

I'm in two minds about this but as a PP said, would you accept a payoff to keep quiet if your own child had been abused?

If the alternative was having my child aggressively cross examined about their sexual abuse by the best defence lawyers money can buy? And having the perpetrator's powerful PR team drag me, my child, our lives through the mud for years? I'd probably take the money.

Sinful8 · 05/01/2021 06:01

@Cokie3

Lunasunshine, Jackson was not 'found innocent'. There is no such thing in Jurisprudence. They found there was not enough evidence to convict, which is not the same as 'innocent'. Most of the jury said later they felt he was guilty.

There is an interview with Jackson's lawyers that as soon as they learned the penis description matched the photo, they paid out because they knew they were in trouble and couldn't defend Jackson.

So he's innocent then, you know innocent until proven guilty?
Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 06:02

@lunasunshine There are many children that spent time at Neverland and all of them absolutely 100% denied any wrongdoing - Macaulay Culkin,
Corey Feldman, Brett Barnes ..

Um.....paedophiles don't abuse EVERY child they come across. Your thought process is very immature and lacks reasoning.

Also, paedophiles traditionally choose families from BROKEN HOMES such as Chandlers and Arvizos. They don't choose the Culkins because that found was well-known in Hollywood. Why would he choose a respected and prominent family? Try THINKING. With Feldman, he admitted (although he didn't see it as abuse at the time) that Jackson gave him wine at 13, and showed him pornographic magazines at 14. That, is clearly abuse.

Elfinghecking · 05/01/2021 06:02

'pushy money/fame hungry parents would push their children onto him! And Michael was too nice and naive for his own good'

MJ was a paedophile. Not 'nice and naive'. Plenty of people have contact with children without sexually abusing and raping them.

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 06:04

@Sinful8 That is a legal process. It does not mean he is actually innocent. I bet you think OJ Simpson was 'innocent' too?

Cokie3 · 05/01/2021 06:16

Re the "The FBI investigated Jackson for 10 years" lie:

"The FBI:

DID NOT follow MJ, ever;

DID NOT tap his phone;

DID NOT put surveillance on MJ;

DID NOT search his residence (neither Hayvenhurst, Century City, the Hideout nor Neverland);

DID NOT open an investigation into molestation against him; and

DID NOT do anything that they would normally do in a federal case.

The FBI never, ever investigated Michael Jackson for child molestation.

The FBI was not involved in investigating MJ. The FBI merely assisted local law enforcement with resources when requested. So they helped interview people outside local law enforcement’s jurisdiction, or analyze a video or computer for local law enforcement as they had proper technology available.

There was never an “FBI investigation”, it was always the FBI helping local police departments on specific tasks requested of them. Even on the FBI website they say:

The “FBI didn’t investigate Jackson, the files now available show the FBI working with other agencies.”

On the page containing the actual FBI files they say:

Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.

Even with this disclaimer by the FBI fans still insist that somehow the files prove something. The Jacksons too are spreading misinformation about the FBI files. Taj Jackson, someone who has recently made somewhat of a crusade against “lies”, repeats this falsehood in interviews:

When asked if he found any of the child molestation accusations to be true, the vocal nephew of the pop legend spoke in Jackson’s defense as the allegations being false and went on to reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the Thriller singer for 10 years….

When Truthers say “they inspected all of MJ’s computers and every page has NOTHING written on it,” this is also false. The relevant FBI file with a page dedicated to each computer is missing 3 pages – page 4, 5 and 6. There are another 120 pages redacted from this file. That is not to say MJ had child porn on his computers – he would have been arrested for that if there was – but it is impossible to say whether there was anything shady on his computers or not as we cannot view the complete, unredacted file.

There wasn’t much information in those files anyway

Of the 679 pages in the FBI’s Michael Jackson file, only 333 were released, and of those released 196 related to extortion threats against Michael Jackson and others in 1992; 8 pages related to a videotape which only related to Michael Jackson because the title was “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favourites, an All Boy Video Anthology”; and 18 pages related to a request made of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group to provide advice and assistance to local authorities concerning the Arviso investigation in 2004.

That leaves 111 pages directly related to MJ, and most of those are heavily redacted so as to become meaningless or contain public information. If anything, the remaining pages raise more questions rather than absolving MJ. For instance, in this file is a handwritten note which reads:

“P/R called from Toronto Canada. She and her husband work in Children’s Services.
On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand canyon. Train
continued to CA. They had a compartment in car that Jackson had
four compartments.
Jackson had a male juvenile 12/13 with him along with adult staff. Boy was ID’d as Michaels “cousin”.
Jackson was very possessive of boy. At night, P/R heard questionable noises through wall.
She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.”

Remember this is in 1992, before allegations of pedophilia about MJ became public.

The FBI had nothing but a passing interest in Michael Jackson, and preferred to leave investigations of him to local law enforcement. To bring up the FBI files as proof that he wasn’t a pedophile or a child molester is absurd."