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?

One of the FBI agents who worked on the investigation didn’t think he was innocent though. He said that if WR and JS had been ready to talk/testify at the time, the case would have been much more likely to succeed. I think he’s right. Indeed I think if those boys had brought a case together MJ would have gone to jail.

Try reading that that post again. The poster wasn’t referring to Jackson. They were defending themselves against a poster who had quoted them and appeared to be accusing them of saying some pretty unpleasant things, which they actually hadn’t. Nothing at all to do with defaming or libelling the dead.

How naive are uou? 'He would have been found guilty had there been a shred of proof!'

When there's money and international stars people turn a blind eye. Just look at the RKelly court cases.

Initially taken to court and found NOT guilty even though LOTS of people including his music team/company knew what was going on.

However a few years later thanks to some amazing detectives, families and a very peristent reporter, subsequent charges were filed, including the same earlier ones , and he was found guilty of massive number of charges. He thought his fame would keep him safe, saw himself as invincible in the same way MJ did.

None of which is relevant to this point though. I was pointing out that there is a difference between someone not standing trial because they died before their crimes came to light, and someone actually standing trial and being acquitted. Personal opinion is irrelevant - in the eyes of the law Jackson was not guilty, whereas Saville was never brought to justice. I’ve looked back through the thread and this point has been made several times, by several different posters. I don’t understand why it’s seemingly so difficult to accept.

I wasn’t talking to you I was responding to @pam290358 claim that

“Whatever your personal opinion the law says he was not guilty.”

I simply pointed out that one of the law enforcers involved in the investigation is on record as saying he thought he was guilty.

I’m not sure why you find it hard to understand that a. People don’t need pointing out that MJ was not found guilty whereas Savile was never tried as they’re aware of it and b. It’s irrelevant to the issue of whether MJ was, in fact, a paedophile.

I'm sorry, but how is that related to the drawing of the vitiligo pattern, and other facts that corroborate the little boys he seduced and abused stories?

10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations | Vanity Fair

Because not all of the 'accurate' descriptions turned out to be accurate. Incidentally, Vanity Fair is not the most reliable of sources.

They are not though.
The system often fails victims of abuse- either because things never make it ti court, or because it's easier to get out of the siruation if you are a billionaire.
Very few opowerful people get convicted.
Harvey Weinstein had his conviction overturned (!!!!)- does this inspire your faith in legal system? Innocent as they come.
Prince Edward managed to settle out of court. His story in the interview held so well, didnt it?
MJ used vurnerable kids, and had behind him a massive legal and financial machine to support him.

I think a lot of the parents actions damage their own integrity. There does seem a pattern where the parents were happy to allow free access to their children when they themselves were being flown around in private jets, sent on multi thousand dollar shopping sprees and showered with gifts so expensive that most people can only dream of then only when their supply of money was cut off decided to sue. It can't all have just been grooming. All of these parents claim to have been too afraid to say anything but openly admit to using the money for their own gain while they had access to it. Yes it's possible that a global superstar was so powerful that they did not know what to do but there does seem a degree of knowing exactly what to do when they were financially benefiting from the arrangement. Were any of them still living the superstar lifestyle at the time they decided to sue or had their funds already been cut off long before? We've all said nobody would give the creepy binman down the road such easy access to our children but these parents did so freely in return for homes and all manner of other riches.

Who would you consider a reliable source then? The cops investigating him, and the mountains of rather damning evidence found at his ranch? MJ himself, who is on camera saying he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Denial is thick on here. It's mystifying.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept a simple point of law. Someone asked if Saville had been convicted. The answer is no, he died before anyone knew what he’d been doing. Someone else posted that this was the same as Jackson in principle - basically because everyone knew Jackson was really guilty. That’s absolute nonsense. And what you’ve posted her is totally irrelevant to the point being made. Whatever your feelings about Jackson, he was tried and found not guilty. Legally, at the time of his death he was not guilty. Not so Saville, by way of the fact he was never brought to justice. Fact.

There were a few inconsistencies in the witness statements, casting doubt on their reliability and two were found to be dishonest. One witness described him as circumcised. The post-mortem report confirmed he wasn’t. You don’t need a top lawyer to make mincemeat of that. Documentaries and the newspaper and magazine articles, which some people are taking as ‘fact’ wouldn’t have been admissible in a court of law.

l hate it when MN makes outlandish assumptions that those with money must have ‘bought’ justice. Money didn’t do Epstein any good, he died in jail awaiting trial. Ghislaine Maxwell will probably die in jail. Others include Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, R Kelly, Max Clifford, Mike Tyson, lan Watkins (lost prophets). All able to afford top legal representation, all brought to justice on the weight of the evidence against them. Why is Jackson any different ? Because the jury of his peers found there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, at the time of his trial.

I have no idea whether Jackson was guilty or not - and neither does anyone else here, beyond their own personal opinion. It would certainly seem so on the evidence found since his original trial. But given that he’s dead and not here to defend himself it seems the verdict will stand, and the problem l have is that some people on this thread are so incensed by that, they are attacking anyone who disagrees, citing ‘evidence’ that wouldn’t see the light of day in a courtroom and generally going to ridiculous lengths to deny that, legally, the original verdict remains unchanged because the charges were not proven in a court of law.

This thread is going round in batshit circles. l’m out.

Because nothing was ever proven in a court of law, so he remains an innocent man however you feel about the veracity of the claims against him.

It also hasnt been proven in other ways like others who didnt face court i.e. Savile. At least one of Jackson's accusers admitted lying.

If we get to a place where we cancel people on what is essentially the unproven word of another (so hearsay) - its a very dangerous place to be societally speaking.

Can't believe I'm having to explain this, and it doesn't paint you in a good light.

Who would you consider a reliable source then? The cops investigating him, and the mountains of rather damning evidence found at his ranch? MJ himself, who is on camera saying he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Denial is thick on here. It's mystifying.

I'm not in denial. I've said repeatedly I don't know one way or another what to think. I just don't think unverified links are proof of anything. If you can find some actual proof please post it.

There is nothing wrong with my understanding - l’m neither obtuse, nor stupid, as you seem to be implying. I haven’t defended Jackson in any way, l don’t know any more than the next person whether he’s guilty or not. On the weight of the evidence at the time of the trial clearly the jury felt that couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it seems unlikely that will change in the face of evidence that’s come to light since, because you can’t put a dead man on trial .

I’ve simply pointed out the facts as they stand. But like many others on this thread when you have no credible argument against fact, you resort to insult and make unfounded accusations based on assumption and bias.

Unverified links... Do you mean the Vanity Fair article, whose author spent more than a decade investigating the allegations? Do you mean the BBC? Do you mean the televised footage of MJ telling his interviewer he slept in the same bed as these little boys?

Or his interesting/odd reaction to being asked if he is a pedophile, here:

Still not proof though, is it? You do know what proof is? None of that would be permissible as evidence of court. None of it. I'm asking you to show me proof. Not link after link that wouldn't be permissible in a court of law as proof. The fact you think the BBC is unbiased says it all really.

I think what it comes down to in the end is whether something would be accepted as admissible in a court of law. And a lot of media stuff quoted as ‘evidence’ on this thread simply wouldn’t be. We’re going round in circles here with things that have been done to death throughout the thread.

For a start the whole point is that MJ groomed the families just as much he did his global fans into believing he was above suspicion; and he targeted families who were not well off, or in GA’s case he had just had cancer, as they were more likely to be grateful for financial assistance.

The motives of the parents in getting involved with MJ is irrelevant to the issue of whether he abused their children.

Several posters have tried to point this out and have been insulted and accused of supporting a paedophile, which is clearly not the case. Most of the things posters have used as ‘evidence’ to support what they’re saying wouldn’t be admissible in court - it would be scrutinised and deemed hearsay or prejudicial, but the attitude seems to be ‘ well what the hell, it’s MJ and we all know he’s guilty anyway’.

As a poster above said, some people simply can’t accept that Jackson was found not guilty because the evidence at the time didn’t prove the case against him. Maybe there is sufficient evidence which has come to light since, that would result in a conviction but you can’t put a dead man on trial, so like it or not, the verdict stands. All the argument in the world about what should have happened won’t change that. Neither will the accusations that he bought justice with expensive lawyers. Plenty of other high profile and wealthy celebrities have been jailed on the evidence against them, so that argument simply doesn’t fly.

But this is MN and when logic and fact flies in the face of opinion, people turn to insults and baseless accusation of supporting a paedophile when it’s nothing of the sort. One poster even suggested that another poster who disagreed with them would be happy to hand over their children to a paedophile !! Kind of blows any argument they had out of the water and portrays them as a bit desperate. I don’t know whether he’s guilty any more than the next person. What’s important is the rule of law, because without it, we have mob rule. And from some of the opinions on display here, that’s clearly what some people would prefer.

@DotAndCarryOne2

Testimony from the 5 boys he abused would always be admissible in a court. Indeed if all 5 had testified together, it’s unlikely that MJ would have avoided jail.

The contents found at his ranch - is also admissible as evidence, including circumstantial evidence indicating a strong interest in pictures of naked boys.

It’s strange that you can’t understand that the not guilty verdicts are not relevant to the issue of whether he was in fact a paedophile.

Of course it isn’t irrelevant. Its crass to absolve the parents who were happy to give access to their children in return for money.

Read the post again. The second paragraph of it.