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

You: "I because of that song try to be the best that I can and thats only down to listening it time and time again."

Me: "Seriously? You only try to be a good person because of a song?

From this post you sound simple minded"

Me now: I'm not being "highly toxic" or "abusive".

I'm incredulous that you credit this song as the reason you try to be a decent human being.

This was my only contribution to this thread. I chose your post to respond to as I feel it perfectly illustrates a feebleness of mind so prevalent in the MJ Is Innocent camp; a fanatic fervour so blind as to cloud independent, critical thinking, ie. you didn't decide to be a decent person for yourself - the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" told you to.

I wasn't "bashing" you in my first post - I was offering you an opportunity to reread and amend your statement - but because of your response, please take this as an official bash.

@KarenNotAKaren Square One documentary available in Amazon prime. Whether true or not I was just making a point for clarification on your reply to the lawsuit early in the threat.

@ZoeCM very well summed up.

Ah the documentary commissioned by MJ’s people full of fallacies? Yeah I would t listen to word of that it proves nothing about the man’s so-called innocence

An interesting discussion, and although I've always been convinced he was guilty, it's so mind blowing to see folk who dismiss the evidence found at Neverland.
Even more interesting is the point of view that it's just arrested development and he wanted to interact with children due to his horrendous childhood, including having a full sized funfair in his garden. If it was just a wish to have children's company, wouldn't he wish to interact with girls and boys, from what I see it was filtered to very specific ages, boys only, who looked a certain way, and if he merely wanted their company why ditch them when they got older and outside his filter age?

Talented man, not my music taste, but in his personal life an absolute monster

@KarenNotAKaren I personally think that MJ has too many red flags and looks guilty for being so weird with kids. However, let’s be clear that you can settled outside court even if you are innocent. Also, that wealthy people can be taken advantage this way for financial gains. Apparently, in 2023 Robson and Safechuck were given permission by court to move to trial so let’s see what happens next.

Meant to add, I'm glad I don't judge entertainers moral code on the words they sing.....I love Alice Cooper who sang "I love the dead before they're cold"🤐

I am exceedingly diverted by @App13’s claim to be so moved by MJ’s Man in the Mirror, and not even realising he didn’t write it. You can’t make this stuff up…

Her behaviour does NOT add up. People do not talk in fond terms about someone who has supposedly abused their son, even if their original relationship was a happy one.

The fact people on this thread saying his innocent speaks volumes. Imagine some mega star celebrity taking you under their wing with the sole purpose to sexually abuse you. I suspect there is many more but too frightened to speak out against Michael because of his fans. Many came forward after Jimmy's death and they were believed. Jimmy was weird and didn't have the level of fame that Micheal so it's easier to accept. Micheal like Jimmy hid in plain sight.

Have you weighed up the other side of the argument though? You can't just assume he was guilty and may I remind you he was tried in a court of law and found not guilty!

But that doesn’t convince people of anything.

He was found ‘not guilty’ because successful prosecutions in sexual assault cases are virtually impossible.

It is one person’s word against another’s. There are never any witnesses to call upon. It doesn’t take much for a reasonably adept defence lawyer to sow the seed of reasonable doubt, and then it’s impossible for a jury (or even a judge acting alone) to convict.

That doesn’t mean they are innocent (or the word ‘innocent’ would be used).

And unfortunately - you cannot legislate people’s thoughts.

MJ may have been found not guilty, but that doesn’t stop anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together from knowing he posed a threat to - or, at least, wasn’t safe to leave alone around - young boys.

One wonders why he paid squillions to families if he wasn't culpable, as a nice gesture?

Why only befriend only boys of a certain age and look

I could list a lot of other points but they've been posted already

I think people are fully aware of the other side of the argument and have weighed it up accordingly.

You will find examples of criminal cases that have resulted in innocent people being convicted and being incarcerated, and of guilty people being acquitted who go on to commit further crimes, so "not being found guilty" is not the winning argument you wish it was.

OJ for example

Killed two people and had a shit hot defence team

I came across someone on YT who claimed they were good friends with MJ’s spirit and that he’s innocent because he told them. They then went on to say that MJ lived a previous life on a planet in a different star system to ours, where it was perfectly acceptable to have relationships with children. I cannot get my head round that amount of delusive grandiosity.

This is why I think if she was very honest she’d say the abuse was worth what they all got from the association. She spoke with more passion and affection about Jackson than she did about her own family

I’ve weighted it up and I don’t have the slightest shred of doubt about his guilt, and I haven’t seen a scrap of information that would support his innocence.

Can I ask why YOU think someone who wasn’t a pedophile was acting so very much like a pedophile?

Ok...how about the fact that they have never found an ounce of child porn and searched his house/belongings from top to bottom? Because that's usual isn't it! Not like they have 100s or 1000s of images on their hard drive.

I have never EVER heard of a Paedophile who didn't have 100's or thousands of indecent images on their hard drive.

I still don't know what to think but I enjoy researching cases and looking at court documents so this might be next on my list.

I was thinking regarding McCauley Culkin. He is Paris' godfather and is very close to Paris so even if something did happen to him, he would be unlikely to speak about it as he wouldn't want to hurt Paris.

Child abuse, not ‘porn’.

Isittimeformynapyet given the tiny proportion of sex offenders who are tried and convicted it’s improbable there are many innocent men convicted for these offences.

How many have you actually heard of? Only the few that make the National news.

Not even one who was surrounded by 100s of live boys?

No maybe but not so much in 2005.

And they did find naked pictures of boys FWIW

God I could never imagine giving someone credit for not having electronic indecent images of children (please do not call it child porn BTW) but behaving in literally every other way like a great big massive disgusting nonce. WTAF is it with the nonce’s fans?!

Like when they say “yes he was charged and in court but he wasn’t found guilty” like being charged for child molestation is something that is totally normal and easy to happen.

People like this is why pedophiles get away with their crimes.

I have. And in 2005 online indecent images of children were much rarer than they are now.

What do you think about the fact he had photos of naked boys in his home?