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

Yes you are allowed to believe what you like, the same as the rest of us. It's not toxic and there is no abuse, it's just debate on the very emotional and important subject of child safety essentially. No one asked you to post on this thread you chose to do that, but then it got too big for you and you don't loke it? Oh well run along and be "the best that you can be" and have a great day!

It is true what they say about MN, it has some highly toxic people that are abusive to others through a screen

Having someone disagree with you is not the same as being abused. In fact, a robust debate is helpful to clarify and consolidate your stance

@Waitingfordoggo that is an incorrect assumption to make.

@StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance Which assumption?

That I don't know anything about the criminal justice system.

The fbi monitored him for months. They didn't get a shred of evidence against him. Wade Robson came out with his story after he didn't get the job at michaels estate. Before that MJ was being fleeced by him

@StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance. Yes, well it was surprising that someone who has some knowledge of the CJS didn’t know that victim testimony can be enough to convict a person.

Well, like I said, that's not the case.

@StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance. You say you have knowledge of the justice system but simultaneously prove (with your own words) that actually your knowledge is limited. Make it make sense!

I mean, my knowledge of the justice system is limited. I don’t work in that field and have never been involved in a case. That lack of knowledge is not a source of shame (I also know very little about medicine, technology…) But I did know that cases in which someone is accused of sexual abuse or rape can rely on testimony alone.

@Waitingfordoggo a jury or court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony alone which, without supporting evidence will prove difficult. These prosecutions are less likely to succeed but there is always the possibility.

Victim testimony = witness testimony

Witness testimony = evidence.

The need for a criminal justice process preceded the development of forensic science and CCTV, so for half a second of human history, victims of sexual abuse were thought to be worth listening to.

Correct. I suppose I worded my previous posts wrong as when I referred to evidence, I was implying the physical kind, such as paperwork, phone calls, video etc. But yes, testimony is considered evidence in a trial.

Yes, he wouldn't have had the tools of massive fame and massive wealth at his disposal if he were Mike-down-the-road. And that plus a shedload of lawyers and enablers no doubt made it easier for him to offend like he did. But the emotional fundamentals of grooming are the same no matter the wealth and fame of the perp. He might have been a less prolific offender or been caught sooner if he'd been less famous. Or maybe he'd just have to have been smarter and not got away with hiding in plain sight to the extent that both he (and Savile) did.

See also: Jerry Sandusky.

Yes. As has already been discussed on the thread- this is one of the reasons why rape convictions are woefully low. It is possible to convict on testimony alone though- which is the bit you appeared to be unaware of earlier in the thread. And yes, testimonies ARE evidence.

Anyway…I seem to be derailing so back to the topic: I believe MJ was a massive nonce and it’s a tragedy that he was never convicted for his crimes. Billie Jean is an absolute banger of a track but sadly now tainted by the fact that the artist was an abuser.

Wrong on all counts.

@Waitingfordoggo I don't know what to think. He definitely behaved oddly and not in a way a normal man would behave. I agree with what someone said upthread about how he acted like he was in a relationship with these boys, talking to them for hours on the phone, wanting to take them on tour with him etc.

By Jackson's own description of his behaviour it was at the very least highly inappropriate - there can surely be no doubt over that. I see little reason to doubt that it went further than that.

We have photographic evidence of Jackson publicly dangling a squirming baby over a balcony railing. At one point during the awful incident, he was holding the baby over a drop with one arm so he could hold a cloth over the baby's face with the other hand.

And I'm supposed to trust that this man didn't abuse children behind closed doors, despite the testimony from victims and families?

The idea that it is TRAGIC that a person who has admitted to doing deeply disturbing things, and photographed doing others, might be considered to be someone who does other deeply disturbing things is just crazy. At worst - the 0.01% chance he is innocent turns out to be true - then we have labelled someone who gave us every indication he was a paedophile as a paedophile falsely, and that does not seem like that serious an issue. Mistakes happen.

Is it tragic if someone hides their face and then doesn't get recognized? Is it tragic that someone decides to become a competitive eater and finds themselves putting on weight? Is it tragic that someone behaves in a manner that screams "I'm a paedophile" and some people believe him? No.

A tragedy would be if someone spent their lives helping vulnerable kids, who presents as a model citizen, ends up getting falsely accused. That would be tragic.

@KarenNotAKaren the $24 million lawsuit was for James Safechuck rather than Wade Robson.

His face in the second picture! Monster!

How they hell was he allowed to keep those kids after that? Good God!

Do you have a source for this? Who was the lawsuit with? Did Safechuck only then talk about his accusations?

Come on.

He paid an estimated $23 million to settle a child abuse case out of court in 1994. Then - by his admission - he continued sleeping with little boys. He discussed this live on television in 1995. Most people who had been falsely accused of child abuse would take a long, long time before they felt comfortable being alone with a child again. He went back to sharing a bed with kids a year later! He knew full well this would put him at risk of further accusations, especially given that he'd paid millions of dollars to one of the previous boys he'd shared a bed with. The only explanation is that he couldn't help himself.

Furthermore, why was sharing a bed with kids so important? Even if he truly did want to relive his childhood, why did he need to sleep with kids? I remember going top-and-tail with friends a few times during sleepovers, but it's not an integral part of childhood.

And he clearly didn't have the mind of a child. He rwas shrewd enough to rip off Paul McCartney. And "Billie Jean" and "Smooth Criminal" were not written by someone with the mind of a child.

There is no evidence of him having had any interest of adults of either sex. The people he chose to take on tour with him were little boys. The people he chose to sleep with were little boys. The people he held hands with in public were little boys. And he gradually lost interest in them around the time they hit puberty.

There's more I could write, but that's enough for now. Once you add all these things together, I can't see any scenario in which Michael Jackson was not a paedophile.

A picture is worth a thousand words in this case.

I wouldn't have carried a baby around a living room like that, in case I dropped the baby!

I do wonder how Los Angeles child services didn’t remove his children. He seemed to bug other people’s kids, and then the balcony thing…he was also a twice accused pedophile. You can guarantee Barry from Asda would not have sole custody of his kids. Did Jackson pay someone off?