Blazing row about Michael Jackson

[PLP432]

I know it sounds ridiculous on the face of it but hear me out.

I was in a shop with DP last night and they were playing Michael Jackson music. I commented that I don't like hearing his music as I can't get past everything he did. Yes, I know he wasn't convicted but he openly admitted to sleeping in bed with random children, showering together and whatever else.

DP said "we have different opinions on that, he's a really good artist" to which I replied something about Rolph Harris being a good artist and Jimmy Saville being a good fund raiser.

DP then goes on to say he doesn't think MJ did anything untoward with the children and he thinks it's all innocent and because he had a "childlike mind" due to not having a proper childhood.

I said that was no excuse and plenty of people have bad or unusual childhoods and don't groom children.

He was getting defensive and talking about how he was found not guilty in court, to which I pointed out how few rape and sexual abuse cases even make it to court let alone conviction.

I asked whether he'd listened to anything the men on Leaving Neverland said before he formed his opinion that MJ wasn't guilty of anything. He said no, and refused to look it up.

It descended into a row and I was very hurt by some of the things he said, as I have a history of child sexual abuse and rape - which he knows all about.

I asked him whether he would have gladly left our DS in the company of someone like MJ unsupervised and he took a while to answer before saying "I don't know"

I said how that concerned me from a safeguarding perspective to which he took huge offence, started shouting and told me to return all of the presents i'd bought him as he doesnt want them anymore, the immature dickhead.

Now we're not talking.

Was I being unreasonable here?

WTAF have I just read

Gavin Arvizo was a 13 yo cancer patient. His evidence was strong enough to warrant a charge and very strong trial. Who has he ‘grifted?’. And what JC Penney case? Isn’t that a shop? Do you even have sources for this garbage?

The long and short of it was all the Arvizos were caught lying on the stand.

Source? I followed the trial closely I don’t remember this other than the usual defence team nastiness

The jury didn't believe a word from any of them, especially not Gavin and his brother Star.

Ha! Have a look at the jury interviews. A nice selection of dipshits and MJ fans. One man did actually say Jackson was a pedophile.

Prosecutor Sneddon had his head in his hands when the mother proved to be a spectacularly bad prosecution witness on the stand.

Source?

Showering?! Michael Jackson never did admit to Showering with minors at all which is what you suggested! That allegation came from disgruntled ex-employees who were discredited on the stand also

His maid caught him showering with Wade Robson. Which Robson later admitted when he finally came to terms with the abuse.

What about the other 8 allegations? Are they all liars too. Gosh isn’t Michael Jackson unlucky! Being repeatedly targetted with the same accusation, poor lamb.

Yes such an unlucky chap! I mean the man befriended little boys and slept with them in his bed. Imagine someone as wonderful as that being accused of CSA various times by credible people. What a miscarriage of justice

About as much proof and conviction as with Saville. Do you doubt he is a nonce too?

Why did you believe his accusers were lying? And not the man who is very obviously the embodiment of a pedophile?

No one is ever ‘found innocent’

HTH

Because I found them extremely unconvincing.

Savile wasn't tried though, was he? So he wasn't acquitted. I don't know why people find that so hard to understand.

Me too. I didn't believe them whatsoever. I also thought it was very convenient that they said all of this after he was dead. Probably after a fat payout from his estate.

Jackson initially had one person come forward

Wrong.

Allegations dated back way before Jordy Chandler

Actually if we are to believe the allegations, Robson would be the first. George never made a complaint he just sold stories to the media. Hardly worth even listening to.

he paid money to drop the case due to pressure from his music company

Which is not the actions of an innocent man.

Actually the legal documentation shows he was denied 6 separate times to have the criminal trial for his freedom ahead of the civil suit for his money. The solution was to have a Stay Motion or a Protection Order on Civil Discovery but he was denied them also which was a breach of his constitutional rights and helped lead to a change in the law. Loss of income is neither here nor there.

(he couldn't tour during the legal proceedings

Can you point to the legislation on this please?

Also his History tour didn’t start til ‘96 - tours and schedules are organised years in advance. There is nothing to say this was planned for 1995.

Irrelevant. This was during the Dangerous Tour in 1993 which he was bang in the middle of.

Then there were the guys from leaving neverland, who have both proven to be incredibly unreliable

How so?

12 versions thus far, 60+ proven lies in the film itself and more worryingly the fact that it told the complete polar opposite version of events to their own legal filings, complaints, declarations and depositions that were running AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

It's also worth mentioning that the FBI searched his house top to bottom and found nothing

Wrong. They found books with naked pictures of boys in

They found 2 art books that are actually in The Library of Congress. The JUDGE and the PROSECUTION both released statements confirming no child porn or erotica of any sort were found in any of the raids as it was yet another story going round the media at the time and could have endangered the trial. There were 3 surprise raids when he wasn’t even in the country and you’re telling me an art book that was confiscated in 93 and never replaced with anything was all this ‘master criminal’ ever needed….. right

They also took The Gynoids - I wonder why you’re not mentioning that 🤔😂

@Bales23

Never land is a recount of men who profited financially off MJ and are now seeking to profit more from his estate.

Ah so you’re one of those people who thinks it’s ok to sexually abuse children if you throw money and opportunities at them? Gotcha.

And I absolutely 100% think all victims should profit financially from their abusers. And I’ll tell you why: because the deep seated trauma of CSA inevitably always has a financial impact on its victims / especially in the US where healthcare is expensive. When you are a victim of CSA, that trauma infiltrates ^every fibre of your existence’. You never get over it.
Some financial examples of the top of my head:

• Decent and effective trauma counselling. This is almost always expensive no matter where you live and is required in the long term to be effective
• Trauma almost always leads to MH issues which can lead to economic inactivity. So if you can’t get out of bed because all you can think of is the times you were raped by a pop star, you’re not likely to hold down a job
• This in turn affects careers Long-term - victims of CSA Miss out on promotions and opportunities if their ill health prevents them from building their career up
• In the case of Jackson’s victim, money was what was leveraged to facilitate child abuse. That can leave victims with a very unhealthy relationship towards money
• CSA victims are more likely to have relationship breakdowns because the Jackson’s of the world ensured their perception of a healthy relationship was fucked up. This has financial impacts

Sp why the fuck shouldn’t victims be financially compensated? I sincerely hope all of Jackson’s victims bleed the sick bastard and his revolting family dry and enjoy every penny - but guess what. NO amount of money can buy your way out of trauma.

IG you are the kind of person who puts a rich man’s wallet above the safety of A CHILD have a fucking word with yourself.

But hey so sorry other people’s ‘sad tales’ (WTF the OP was sexually abused as a child) are trying to ruin your enjoy of a song

I really hope some of you are not parents

Well even more reason to not compare them - Jackson the pedophile (I’m saying it because he WAS one) went to court. Do you have any idea how high the bar is to take a CSA case to court? Saville never was taken to court.

Also do you think guilty people are always found guilty?

What about my earlier post - what do you have to say for the way he befriended little boys then dumped them when they got too old - again and again and again? Or they creepy way he procured his children. Because they ain’t his and we have no idea who their parents are?

Yes and let’s not forget, not all pedophiles abuse all children they come into contact with. Just the way not all rapists rape all the women they know.

I think MJ purposefully didn’t abuse some boys - Culkin and Corey Feldman to name two - because he wasn’t some innocent flower, he was a shrewd abuse who needed a couple of back-up boys should any of his victims ever disclose the abuse.

And didn’t it work a treat. Except Feldman believes his victims and Culkin only ever shared HIS experience

The victims know. And many of us know - id put my life on it. I’m absolutely shocked people think he can’t be TBH.

And BTW having MH issued/being ND doesn’t mean you can’t be an abuser.

Source?

OP I’m sorry you’ve had a pasting here.

PSA; I don’t think OP is upset about the whole ‘seperating the art from the artist’ thing. She’s (rightly) concerned that her husband doesn’t think the world’s most obvious pedophile was actually a pedophile, on the premise he ‘likes his music’. He’s also pretty blasé about leaving his children with a man who is an obvious pedophile and has had many very strong accusations against with coupled with self-confessed dodgy behaviour. the fact it’s a hypothetical situation is neither here nor there - it gives the OP a window into her husband’s total inability to assess risk. A man who already let his DD hang out with a pedophile because he put her safety and her needs below his belief that this random bloke was nothing more than the victim of rumours.

OP should run for the hills and perhaps be dubious about giving access of their son to a man who had absolutely zero ability to assess risk when it comes to pedophilia. I know that I certainly wouldn’t risk my child’s safety by leaving them with a pedophile apologist. Would you?

In what way?

I disagree, I think decent people who have partners who are CSA victims don’t behave like minimising dicks and that it’s very unhealthy to bottle it up and take the stance that speaking about your abuse is controversial

I’m also horrified at the vile people on here who are saying OP is projecting her abuse onto her views about MJ. Anyone with half a brain can see he’s a nonce. Have a word with yourselves.

You’re absolutely right.

But it doesn’t mean he didn’t abuse them.

I know there is a theory he groomed the parents too but honestly I think Robson and Safechuck’s parents were greedy grabby fame hunters, and probably shirked off any inkling they had about their son’s safety because “Oh but look at the amazing lives we now have”. Especially Joy Robson who moved her children to a different continent to pursue Jackson and his contacts. I found Stephanie Safechuck’s to be remorseful and very self reflective in LN but honestly Joy Robson can FTFO - very ‘poor me how was I to know’ and speaking so warmly about the man who abused her son. I reckon if you slipped that woman some truth serum she’d say “Yeah he abused Wade but it was worth it for the life and career we all got out of it”.

Unless you are a victim of his or personally know a victim of his then you can’t possibly know that.

I don’t know because I’ve never met him and wasn’t there when the apparent abuse was taking place.

Here’s a revelation : Jackson could do what the man down the road would do and sayNo you can’t be my friend and sleep in my bed that’s weird”.

But he didnt

It did nothing of the sort (debunking the victims statements)

FFS

Predators are still predators even if they did experience CSA.

I saw this. That’s basically their ‘smoking gun’. However all they had was evidence of the planning application. That’s it. That was their mountain of defence. They also didn’t address that the memories of CSA victims are very infalliable when it comes to dates and times - it’s often why historical accusations are difficult to bring to trial. If you have the brain of a traumatised child, you can’t piece the jigsaw together as well as other people can. And the law requires a more factual base than that.

That Jackson family funded piece of tosh is as embarrasing and prove nothing, except that his loved ones are deluded sacks of shit

Can you provide an actual source not a photo that is clearly doctored?