Michael Jackson

[C4tintherug]

Why has Michael Jackson not been cancelled?

I don’t understand why a musical has been made out of his music, and why his music is played at school discos and is still everywhere.

After I watched the documentary where the men described how he raped them, I won’t listen to his music at all, in fact, I feel a sense of disgust when it is played publicly.

I don’t understand why we seem to have cancelled everyone else except him. Is it because he died before he was officially found guilty?

No one who believes it's possible to defame the dead, either through libel or slander, is in any position to 'correct' anyone.

Same goes for anonymous user handles on the internet.

On one of the other MJ threads a while ago there was a list, I didn't save it and it was a very hard read to be honest. I'm sure if you google it you'll find it though.

Alarm bells and one way glass to alert him someone was approaching bedroom.

A door hidden at the back of his closet that opened to a secret bedroom.

The police found in the hidden room peterpan pillow cases stuffed with 'creepy' dolls.

Also in the hidden room, nude pictures adorned the walls, to desensitise the children who slept there.

Jackson admitted taking boys in there for long periods of time.

A game room and arcade with a bed that he would sleep in with the boys.

A cinema with a hidden room that had one way glass, he was almost caught here by a victims mother.

A pool where a security guard said in court that he caught Jackson preforming oral sex on Jordon Chandler.

In a 2003 raid police found photos of nude children in a triple locked closet.

Drugs used for sex addiction and another secret room hid by a jukebox.

Because he's innocent. Proven innocent in a court of law.

HTH.

One of his little boy victims was able to accurately draw for the investigators the pattern of vitiligo on the underside of MJ's penis. I wonder what the "innocent" reason for that child having such intimate knowledge of an adult's penis and its underside would be?

Because he was so ridiculously talented and absolutely iconic.
The biggest pop star for children of the 80s, his music is renowned worldwide.

people don't want to think about it as bit prepared to never listen to a jackpo song ever again, it's grim really. Everyone was more than happy to cancel saville because well he was saville the two didn't compare and saville was the right kind of predator.

Or James Brown for that matter

As was OJ Simpson initially.

Also was Jimmy Saville ever convicted?

One person was also ‘accurately’ able to describe how he was circumcised. The autopsy said he wasn’t circumcised.

No. He was dead by the time the scandal broke.

Which was kind of my point- the fact there was no conviction did not mean he was not a dangerous pedo.
Many rich and famous get away with the worst crimes because their money protects them, and MJ was no different.

There isn't any dispute that Jackson shared his bed with young boys because he admitted it himself.

Fans come up with strange, improbable explanations of why he would have done that.

The problem is that five of the boys he shared a bed with say that Jackson did sexually abuse them.

So, what's more likely? That Jackson is the only adult man ever to have some innocent reason for constantly being alone in bed with little boys or that those boys/men are telling the truth?

The fans are grasping at straws and a musical to celebrate Jackson's life is in the worst possible taste.

Ok, let’s say you don’t believe the men in the documentary who accused him of abuse. Fine.

But you must have seen the interview with him where he happily admits he had boys stay over at his house. In his bed. Boys he didn’t really know. If he was not a super talented pop star but instead, a shop worker, bank manager, bin man - whatever, just a regular man - would you think that behaviour was normal and ok? Does that it scream massive red flags to you? Would YOU let your child stay at a stranger’s house, let alone in their bed??

No it doesn't help, just because a jury found him innocent, that doesn't mean he was innocent and you know that. As far as I am concerned he was guilty as sin and his victims are the ones who should be defended nor a dead nonce!

What?! Parents shouldn't be doing this kind of thing either, they are far more likely to be abusing their kids than any stranger is, fact. My mum also used to put me in the bath with my dad, there was absolutely no need for that. Especially since I was old enough (7/8) to still remember it now. Why would a grown man need to be in the bath with a child?! The dad or other male family member is the biggest threat to any child, not some stranger. I certainly wouldn't have allowed my parents to do that if I had kids, they could forget ever seeing them.

Personally I wouldn't no. I can't imagine anyone thinking it was ok if it was Nigel the dustman from number 38. The parents in many cases freely gave access to their children because they also benefitted from being a friend of the king of pop and were totally starstruck.

I've never really been able to tell one way or another. The YouTube documentary Michael Jackson - Square One has made it even more difficult for me because it presents a very different view of how these children entered his circle. It presents some pretty compelling evidence of extortion. Even the recent young men who made claims had timed their lawsuits rather conveniently. It's a long watch but certainly gives a different perspective on many angles of the case and does come over very credible.

As I said upthread that documentary was funded ultimately by Sony. Who own a major stake in MJ’s catalogue.

I don’t know what “timed their lawsuits.. conveniently” even means? Convenient for what?

Well it tells you that in the documentary. The family of one owed a hell of a lot of money in a failed business and were about to be sued for a ridiculous amount of money. That was a rather convenient time to suddenly decide to take out a lawsuit against the estate for approx the same amount they were about to be sued for.

If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

James Safechuck was a 36 year old man when his father was sued over distribution of profits. The company was worth around $8.5 million in total. The plaintiffs claimed to be owed roughly $300k (around £230k). The matter was settled out of court.

Can you really believe a 36 year old man would invent sexual abuse against a global star to help his father raise cash for business?

I believe the documentary put forward a number of very credible arguments. As I said, I've never really been able to tell one way or another. I still think there's a lot we will never know. I just don't think it's that clear cut.

It depends what you call credible.

The two are totally different. Saville was dead before his crimes were discovered. He wasn’t found guilty or innocent because he didn’t stand trial. Jackson stood trial twice and was acquitted. Whatever your personal opinion the law says he was not guilty.