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

Gods, I hadn't heard that one, nor, thankfully, seen that photo.

That's a great example of what this article talks about - and the attitude we're seeing from some of these Jackson fans.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/comment-why-the-art-world-is-blind-to-sex-crime/zi5k30qid

What that article highlights is that the art - by males - is important but the children aren’t

Can I just take a moment for the allies of CSA survivors who have come out on this thread and have - at least for me personally - made me feel empowered and strong. Especially @StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance who has resorted my faith in human kind right now

This

Should my child ever be a victim of CSA I would absolutely hate them to testify it spoils terrify me

I haven’t seen the pictures and don’t intend to but the Aaaaht world does seem to be so very obnoxious that it believes that their pursuit of a higher meaning of beauty trumps the safety and comfort of chidlren.

Absolutely agree with this.
MN is one of the only places I talk about the CSA I suffered. Because its one of the only places where people seem to believe me.

Oh my love.

I believe you. I am so so sorry for what you went through. Please PM if you need a friend.

I was thinking about this thread earlier and why it’s so very important for us CSA victims to be believed.

I think it’s because we are socialised to think that men are Good People and that a man who is not shows obvious signs, like Saville, and so it’s on US to avoid the Obviously Not Good Men. And in people denying our claim, even in the face of these obvious men, it focusses on us our unlikelihood of fitting the victim role.

For example, people expect CSA victims to be terrified of sex. In my Uni years I was very, very promiscuous. I can’t even count how many men I have had sex with. Not quite the shaking, petrified CSA victim you’d expect. A therapist has since told me that CSA victims associate sex with love and affection so are actually far more likely to be promiscuous than not, because we believe that’s the only valid way love of expressed. How sad is that.

My rapist was a family member. My mum knows. She knew when I was a child. She still has a relationship with this man, and gaslights me constantly into thinking nothing is wrong. She actually recently told me I was lucky to have him and her in my life. I feel like I’m going mad sometimes - how can a MOTHER know her child was raped and still behave like the rapist is the best thing since sliced bread. It happens - and the utter cunts on this thread trying to outsmart the intelligent women by saying “Oh the legal paper actually said XYZ haha fools” deny MY experience and that if everyone who ever got raped as a child because I’m not a good enough victim and HE has a wife who loves him so how can he be a pedophile.

I think I need to stop posting on this thread, it’s not good for me.

Thank you. Mine was also a family member. My mum told me it was my fault and wasn't rape because if it was I'd have bruises. She then "strongly suggested" that I moved out while the dust settled.

I'm sorry for what you went through.

Do you know wha the sickest thing is about the fact my mum still adores my rapist?

I go along with it

She knows what he did. I’m nearly fucking 40 years fucking old and i don’t have the balls to say to my mum “STFU the man you’re fawning over raped me as a child. How could you keep a relationship with him knowing that? Why are you pretending like it didn’t happen?”. But like the weak twat that I am I sit and say nothing. I nod and simper and be obedient because the very few times I’ve plucked up the courage to say “BYW mum can we talk about my rapist and how you still have a relationship with him and expect me to” she basically says “la la la” and sticks her fingers in her ears.

This man raped me at age 6. And I still listen to him being fawned over. I say NOTHING. I’m a smart strong women who can easily stand up for herself - but my rapist is my Achilles heel. Don’t anyone fucking dare say that survivors should ever do XYZ before they’re believed. Unless you have been through it you have NO idea. As for the simpering idiots who make excuses for them - congratulations you are a child abuser enabler. Hope that makes you happy.

That's so lovely of you to say 🥺. I do feel bad for my stance earlier in the thread and I admit that I perhaps shouldn't have commented without all the facts and I am sorry if my words upset anyone.

I have yet to catch up on the rest of the thread but would anyone be interested in continuing this discussion in a second thread as it's nearly full?

@nolongersurprised this was interesting to read. Makes me sad though that a child has to go through all that on top of already having potentially suffered SA. I can completely understand another poster upthread, I think it was @Mirabai who said about not wanting to put children through even more trauma with a trial.

I completely agree with you that a 'regular' person would not have got away with this. This goes back to my concern about using members of the public who aren't legally qualified to make these very serious decisions. It takes many years of training to understand the law and how it should be applied. I believe there could have also been some sort of pay off. I heard someone say recently on the internet that if you've got money in the USA then you can pretty much make anything go away.

I was talking to my DH about it and he has no doubt that MJ was a paedophile. What normal man behaves like that? If my DH behaved like MJ did, I'd be long gone.

I'm no expert but just going on my experiences with my neurodiverse daughter, if MJ had 'arrested development' or something similar, there would be other signs of this, such as his mind being young in other areas. His songs would be written very childlike, his vocabulary would possibly be limited, he wouldn't have been able to cope with being the businessman that he was.

@KarenNotAKaren Broke my heart to read what you went through, as well as @Terfosaurus. I can't even begin to imagine how it would feel to have your own mother stand up for the abuser. I was SA at 17 years old but this was minor in comparison to what you have gone through and I never old anyone about it at the time. Actually, looking back, I didn't even realise it was SA at the time, that understanding has only come since I have got older and have more understanding of the world. But like I said, it was NOTHING compared to what you both and others who have posted on here have been through.

I've seen partial images of some of them and that's quite enough.

The Aahht world is always happy to shrug off child rape - look at their indifference to Polanski's crime.

@KarenNotAKaren

I believe you. And I am so sorry about what you went through.

This is what I do not get if people could see MJ behaved senseless towards children with alarming red flags. How did the parents allowed their kids to sleep with him in the same room. Clearly a creep then and still a creep now there are not excuses for the parents or for the people hired by MJ facilitating these meetings. Looking the other way is an understatement here.

And the media too. Watched Finding Neverland for the first time properly and they were reporting "MJ with his young companion" like it was totally normal. And, as a result, I think too many were desensitised to the fact that it totally wasn't normal or acceptable

Really sorry to hear of your experiences @Terfosaurus & @KarenNotAKaren 💐💐

To go back to this post from yesterday - surely MJ created that himself. That’s where it all came from. I think the extent of his manipulation is underestimated, even with what we know now.

The Peter Pan shtick, the damaged child star recreating the childhood he never had - he invented this persona himself to get access to children. His staff and publicity merely promulgated it. It was like a little cult.

And as he got more mentally ill, more drug-addicted, his face more freakily mashed with plastic surgery, and the abuse of children leaked out and couldn’t be suppressed - the more intensely his PR promoted this narrative.

Any man who could groom a child who had recently almost died from cancer - Gavin Arviso - has a psychopathic level of manipulation.

@Mirabai in Jackson's defence, though (and only on this point) I do think the remaining childlike thing had innocent origins.
Jackson suffered from the problem a lot of child stars do...their fans don't accept that they grow older. He spoke a bit about being an awkward, gangly teen and having people look past him and ask where 'little Michael' was. He aged out of 'cute'. People didn't want teen Michael with acne, they wanted cute child Michael. To keep himself in 'the game', whilst transitioning into being accepted as an adult artist, I suspect at the start he was genuinely trying to retain his appeal as a child. Interestingly, as a young teen he became increasingly unhappy with his looks, as many of us do, but it's worse when you are in the public eye and everyone expects you to look like you did 4 years ago at an age when you change a lot. He had surgery on his nose before 'off the wall' and ... well the rest is history.
I absolutely do think later the childlike thing was something he could hide behind, and he and those for whom he was their meal ticket used it in that way but I don't think that's why it started. Once he became an adult artist in his own right, it suited his own agenda to keep the man child persona going.

@Mirabai it's not really any different to other adults who worm themselves into positions with access to children - scout leaders, caretakers, teachers etc I mean we have the DBS checks but they're only valuable if that person has previously been caught but at least some of us are increasingly conditioning ourselves to be cautious and not just assuming a DBS makes them squeaky clean. But somehow people that fall under the category of celebrity (music, film, sport) are still being given ready-made excuses for any unacceptable behaviours whether it's children or not. How many times have we heard "that is so unfair on xxx because it will ruin his football/swimming/acting career"? Like somehow it makes a difference?

Which is why children - and some parents, clearly - need to appreciate what healthy boundaries are.

It doesn’t matter if someone has never been found guilty, if they act like a peadophile they shouldn’t have access to children. MJ acted like a paedophile - it’s heartbreaking that parents gave their children over to him and it’s heartbreaking that the adults around him pretended not to notice.

@nolongersurprised and also why, in the countless safeguarding trainings I've participated been, safeguarding is everybody's business but too many take the view that someone else will deal with it

As I said, the following posts contains all 22 pages of the 1993 civil settlement. As you will find on page 7, it states the following:

"Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation."

So, personal injuries is simply alleged and not proven. And, crucially, the settlement itself does not resolve claims of sexual molestation whatsoever.

You have heard previously that the civil trial was allowed to proceed ahead of the criminal process, including the investigation. You've also heard that the law in California was subsequently changed in order to specifically prevent civil process from proceeding ahead of the criminal process with respect to felonies including alleged sexual abuse. That change vindicates Michael Jackson's legal team's argument in 1993.

Hence the settlement. And it is reasonable that settlements in a civil process are NOT indicative of either wrongdoing or an admission of wrongdoing.

The settlement document itself also states the following:

"This Confidential Settlement shall be suitable to a court of competent jurisdiction to be duly approved as may end required under applicable law."

The Parties are suitably represented by their respective legal representatives and the Court scrutinised the agreement to ensure it was fair to the parties.

Furthermore, there is no prohibition on any of the parties from cooperating with law enforcement thereafter. Indeed, any of the parties are free to do so.

5-9.

10-13.

14-17.