To think it's tragic if Michael Jackson was indeed innocent

[pregahes]

It's a real shame for someone who created incredible music to have their legacy at risk. It’s just tragic, considering the impact his music had on so many. It's tragic either way, if he's guilty for the victims and if he's innocent for himself.

I'm a huge fan and at one point t thought he was guilty but kore recently change of heart. I think there would be more victims if he weee in fact guilty. Somethings doesnt add up.

It's tragic

he was not found innocent. A non guilty verdict does not mean innocent. Learn the difference.

I was a huge fan of MJ. I haven't been able to listen to his music since watching the Leaving Nevèland documentary as I 100% believe the men in it. MJ presented a childlike persona and his soft spoken voice was a part of this but it was not his true voice. There were times his true, deep, manly, spoken voice slipped, you can see examples on You tube if you search on there. He definitely seemed to have a type and age of boy he spent time with and once they got past a certain age it looks like he was no longer as interested in them. I find the oddest thing is that after the allegations Jordy made, you'd have thought MJ would have made it impossible for further allegations to be made against him by making sure there was no ammunition at all, by not spending time alone with children again etc. But he continued the same pattern as before, befriending new boys and their families and having sleepovers etc. Why would he do this? It makes me believe that his behaviour was pathological/ compulsive which is a trait of paedo's, who are seemingly unable to stop their behaviour.

Anyone who thinks Jackson was an innocent adult reliving his missed childhood needs a few sessions with people who investigate child abusers.

Lots of famous rich men got away with loads back in the day who in courts today would be dragged over the coals and imprisoned. Hell R Kelly who didn’t know he was all fucked up, other artists even mention it in their songs and he only went down recently.

Bloody heehee makes me want to be sick. Comedians cracking jokes about Jackson it was / is an open secret. Just like r Kelly just like Rolf and savillie and Weinstein. All abusive men and people knew just like to rug sweep.

👏

OP seems to be deliberately avoiding these uncomfortable questions

How many Jackson defenders would be happy to let their young child share a bed with a grown man who isn't their father or close relative?

Has Mumsnet been infiltrated by some group of CSA apologists? Only half tongue in cheek.
There are a number of threads discussing various claims of CSA and most contain posts from people excusing the behaviour of the alleged or confirmed perpetrators.
It is really disturbing to read posts which deflect from or ignore the evidence.
Hopefully they never have to go through the pain of dealing with CSA with their own children or grandchildren ☹️

im sure you’re aware he paid off the victims with huge sums of money, I assume you feel prince andrew is also innocent. As he was never even tried and paid huge sums of money.

I believe the victims. Their stories are compelling. I also know for a fact my father was staying at a very well known high end hotel decades ago in Scotland, and Jackson was too. With a young boy. Who was not his son. In a suite but Sharing a room according to a member of staff who he knew (he was a frequent guest there).

He was very uncomfortable when he saw him with the boy and how he interacted and told me on his return.

on the balance of probabilities I think Jackson was a prolific paedophile and the story that he just never grew up and liked the company of young boys is a weak defense.

‘Not guilty’ means exactly that.

It does not mean innocent. That’s why people are found ‘not guilty’.

It’s literally there in the words.

MJ presented a childlike persona and his soft spoken voice was a part of this but it was not his true voice. There were times his true, deep, manly, spoken voice slipped, you can see examples on You tube if you search on there

Ive just done this and you’re right. His “real” voice was much more masculine. Why would he pretend to have child-like voice? 🤔

Having worked for a Child Protection dept, working with abused kids, I wouldn’t say, quite honestly, his actions come across as being innocent.

But, as has been seen before, wealthy people often pay out huge amounts to make allegations go away.🙁

I think he was quite manipulative and used this "child in an adults body" persona to get away with abuse. His house, which was a massive playground for kids, was seen as an attempt to recreate his childhood. But really it was a setting to draw children in and groom them.

I read somewhere (or perhaps it was in one of the documentaries) that Michael Jackson actually had a deep, masculine voice. So that soft, childlike voice wasn't his real voice, just something he used in public. I find that quite striking.

He was hiding in plain sight.

The stuff the FBI found in his house alone is enough to condemn him. Porn beside the bed. "Art books" that depict children's bodies. Children's fingerprints on them. "Art" pieces that are pornographic. That alone is sexual abuse by exposing children to sexual material.
I can't understand how anyone defends him.
He held his baby over a balcony for gods sake, in plain view of the world.
Why are you defending him???
And I can completely understand why they took the money. To avoid the malicious glare of the press. Those men are victims.
Op did you watch finding Neverland?

Hee Hee's a nonce.

"if he was indeed innocent"

The verdict was not guilty.

Barry down the road wouldn't have parents rushing to leave their kids in his company.

One of the things that deeply shocked me about the Neverland documentary was the mother who left her 7 year old with Jackson whilst the rest of the family went off travelling, then proceeded to drag her son from Australia to America in the hopes Jackson would 'do something' for him.
What was it about the billionaire Michael Jackson that gave parents the idea it was OK for their kids to stay overnight with him? There's no way you would leave your 7 year old with Barry down the road whom you have just met for days on end. Barry wouldn't have the status or wealth to groom parents to the point where they were travelling half way across the world to put their kids in his path.

By the time the Martin Bashir documentary came out, suspicion surrounding Jackson was rife, and had been for many years. Yet there were kids there with him whose parents had consented to them staying at his house.

Jackson is definitely guilty, but one of the things that has obfuscated his guilt in the minds of his greatest supporters is the number of parents who appear to have thrown their kids at him, despite his reputation. It made any trial look like a money making scam on the part of the parents.

It's notable that the well-known child stars such as Macaulay Culkin have said he didn't touch them. Of course he didn't. He wasn't stupid enough to do anything to a high-profile kid who was already loaded so he couldn't buy the parents off.

Oh, well, I guess OJ Simpson is innocent too then. 🤔

I’m not sure. Part of me wonders whether he was trying to recreate the childhood he wished he’d had. His was ghastly by all accounts.

He travelled with young boys, played with them in his house and they spent the night in his bed. These are the actions of a paedophile.

He was a child sex abuser.

You can like his music without ignoring that part of him. He was sexually attracted to young boys and used his fame to gain access to them, right under their parents noses (and yes, I'm judging the parents here too).

Nobody would because any adult could be a nonce. It's still possible to believe he's (one very specific case) innocent and have appropriate safeguarding.

I'm not sure why they would be mutually exclusive.

Personally, I don't know if he is. That's not me saying maybe I'd let my child have a sleepover with a random bloke. They're two different propositions.

Found liable in civil court

Where the standard of proof is lower, balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

if it looks like a rose and smells like a rose,
it's a rose

Yes, where the balance of proof is different, and more pertinently: we all know that he absolutely did murder two people. The fact that he was not criminally convicted for it says nothing whatsoever about his innocence. People are found not guilty every day of crimes that people sitting in the courtroom know very well they did, in fact, commit.

Jackson has never gone to civil court over these issues, probably because he knew very well that on a "balance of probability" basis he would lose in open court. Like nearly all child sexual abusers, he chose his victims carefully.