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?

🙄 seriously?!? What do you think he was doing with those 'little guys' It's scary how many make excuses for the FACT that he liked sharing a bed with children.
He's a full blown nonce and I hope he's rotting in hell, scumbag.

I think that is a line from a parody video that someone posted&got deleted.

And those would be considered circumstantial evidence.

My point is, any trial relies largely and often entirely on circumstantial evidence. The pp saying:

Circumstantial evidence might be used but it doesn’t secure convictions. Hence why he was still acquitted in spite of all that circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not the same as evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Which is naive gobbledygook.

Did you follow the court cases at the time? If you did then you’d understand why. He was not found guilty, he was overwhelmingly acquitted of all charges-and the loudest accuser at the time, Evan Chandler, agreed to an out of court settlement sum (what parent would accept cash instead of seeing the person they’re accusing of molesting their child go to prison) Evan Chandler again tried to get money out of Michael Jackson years later regarding one of his songs.
Micheal Jackson was very much a cash cow in the 90’s and early 00’s. I was a huge Michael Jackson fan starting from the thriller days (still am, admittedly) so I spent hours upon hours poring over all the information released, anything I could get my hands on really-if he was guilty I wanted to know for sure before I burned all his albums.
The simple answer is, he was not guilty.

Other names that have been mentioned, were guilty, which is why they were ‘cancelled’

And those would be considered circumstantial evidence

Exactly.

You can’t have spent that much time on it - MJ did not face a criminal trial over Jordan Chandler - it was a civil case that MJ settled out of court.

What parent would put a child through a public criminal trial with a global superstar rather than settle a civil case?

Which is what I clearly stated 🤦🏻‍♀️ or did you read a couple of random words and totally ignore the part where I stated Evan Chandler accepted an out of court sum??
Also, please don’t have children if you would happily accept a pay off from someone you believe molested them, rather than see them punished. What a truly, truly absurd thing to say. There is no such thing as “settling” if your child has been sexually abused

You said he was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges but he didn’t stand criminal trial for the offences against JC.

The later case against MJ from the Chandlers was originally brought by JC himself and it was not to get more money from MJ it was to get him to keep to the terms of the settlement which was that he would not attempt to denigrate JC in the media.

I don't know if he was guilty BUT it's blurry in the sense that the parents were complicit in enabling him if it was true and for quite a long time after it started happening; the Evan Chandler situation where he actually lied is a massive issue; and lastly, where are the floodgates? Usually after a child molester dies lots of people start sharing their stories. There have been 2 people and that's it. It's really odd.

He was definitely guilty of inappropriate behaviour and a narcissist but whether it went as far as actually molesting them is hard to say because of all the issues around it. Also, we weren't in the court room and privy to the nuances of the case.

Part of his mentality was that he was trying to harness the childhood he didn't have which is why he invited them into his house and did the things he did.

I honestly just don't know but I don't think any jury would be unbiased either way.

What’s do you mean usually? Theres was only Savile and he was not a global star.

It’s disingenuous to be surprised that others have not come forward given the power and wealth of the Jackson family and the corporations promoting his music. And given the mad behaviour of fans online and in real life.

I don’t believe that 11 year old boys come forward and claim to have been molested by someone they looked up when the haven’t. Particularly not 30 years ago. On these boards we are not allowed to query women who report sex offences whether as adults or children, quite rightly. Indeed the women on these threads who choose not believe these children would be devastated not to be believed of their own experiences.

I love it when someone gets all smug but they’re wrong 🤣 you’ve completely fabricated that I’ve stated Michael Jackson stood trial for Jordan Chandler 🤣 nowhere did I state that. I stated Evan settled out of court for his accusations, and MJ was acquitted for all charges he stood trial for. Don’t come at me if you can’t follow someone’s post that wasn’t even for you 🤣

I can’t help but notice how you’ve also ignored the part where you were called out for stating parents SHOULD go for a cash settlement and let the alleged abuser walk free rather than go for justice and punishment if their child is sexually abused.

You’re coming across a little bit unhinged if I’m honest

I can see now what you were trying to say, but unfortunately your written English was confused and inarticulate.

There needed to be a full stop after: He was not found guilty, he was overwhelmingly acquitted of all charges; then no “and” before the next clause relating to Evan. In fact the whole confused para was 3 different sentences all run together.

I ignored your last para as it was so obtuse. If you cannot understand that the trauma of a global sex offence trial for a child would be as bad as the original sex offence, I can’t help you.

@Mirabai i genuinely have no idea what you’ve posted, frankly I have more interesting things to do, like cleaning the cat litter tray. Do stop trolling me, find something more worthwhile. You got something wrong, get over, move on and don’t have kids

I’m the original poster and I can confirm that my post was nothing whatever to do with Jackson. The poster made some unfounded comments which I took to be aimed at me, that I took exception to. My reference to libellous was in respect of those comments. The poster answered me by telling me they were general comments about the thread, and not aimed at me, but they had tagged me so it seemed personal. If you look back through the thread you’ll hopefully make sense of it.

Yep. Direct evidence that he slept in a bed with boys. Not proof that he abused them.

I have made sense of it, thanks.

You cannot 'libel' an anonymous screen handle.

As much as I dislike abusers, and think he almost certainly was one, it hasn't changed my opinion of him as a musician one bit. I've always thought he had one of the most annoying voices in the music industry.

No, but the platform can be sued if they let libellous posts stand. Why do you think posts are taken down all the time ? And your original post very clearly demonstrated that you mistakenly thought the poster was defaming Jackson. At least admit you were wrong.

Original post quoted.

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.

My wording is very clear. To 'libel' someone in UK law means you have to have defamed them in such a way as this would harm their reputation. You cannot 'harm' the reputation of an anonymous screen handle.

Posts are removed from MN all the time and for a variety of reasons as per talk guidelines. They are only defamatory if they attack the reputation of a named individual.

It's like breaking rocks on this site today. Is it the heat?

The only difference with these men is that they are famous. Men (not all but an immense proportion of them) would dearly love to have sex with young girls (or boys) and you'd be naiive to believe otherwise.

The times I was accosted, hooted at, by men old enough to be my father, whilst I was walking to school - in school uniform. These odious men undoubtedly had children of their own and wives at home probably ranting away on a chatboard just like this one, about other paedophiles. But... not my Nigel!

The only difference being that their creepy Nigel isn't famous, hasn't achieved celebrity. Still a paedophile though.

@WhimsicalGubbins76 You’ve posted a lot of nonsense and now you’re claiming to be “trolled”. Ok. You’re no loss to the discussion.

Whiny falsetto with strange hiccoughs. Pedestrian composition. Banal lyrics. Weird grindy crotch dancing, And a mashed up face. What’s not to love eh?

The one thing that is interesting about his lyrics, although disturbing, is that they can be now read as a kind of coded confessions.

Oh God, me too. All those silly vocal affectations made my teeth itch.

Plus nonce.

There seems to be a really poor understanding of the difference between evidence and proof.

He actually denied inviting kids into his bedroom he says the kids always wanted to stay with him and he never invited them which I think is an important distinction to make. He's not weirdo Barry down the road who kids are afraid of he was the biggest star in the world who most kids would do anything to meet. So completely different dynamics. I'm not saying it means he didn't also abuse them but I think it's important to take these things into account and look at other possible explanations. And yes it was still hugely appropriate and he shouldn't have allowed it to happen but nothing he has admitted to is actually illegal (maybe it should be) but inappropriate doesn't always mean illegal. There's a lot of misinformation about what was found. Literally heterosexual porn and some art books, that he got sent by fans, that's it. If there was anything worse he 100% would've been found guilty.