AIBU to be shocked by public celebration of Michael Jackson?

[2021x]

Now the MJ film is out my social media feed is flooded with people doing the dances and talking about the movie etc. My local cinema is holding special events and screenings.

I personally have no doubt that he was a predatory paedophile. All the signs are there, especially how he talks about how he would never hurt a child and sharing a bed with them is the "most loving thing you can do in the world". He manipulated the world into thinking he had a "child-like persona" but was able to manage a music career worth millions... which someone who is naive would never be able to manage.

I also do not judge people who enjoy his music. It was very popular at the time, and would be associated with all types nostaligic memories. I listen to problematic artists all the time, but I don't pretend that they weren't abusive.

AIBU to be astounded that any business/media outlet would be seen dead even associating with him let alone celebrating such a horrifically abusive man.

Exactly. There's some shite said on here 🙄

I don't think he was a pdf, so..... no

Thank you I'll take a look at the court documents etc.

Yeah that is a bonkers argument in almost every country there are plenty of people of colour convicted and go to jail!!

Apparently the fingerprint evidence was thrown out of court. The fingerprint expert admitted under cross-examination that the magazines were not tested for fingerprints until roughly a year after they were seized, and that the materials were handled without gloves by Arvizo who was allowed to handle them during some kind of grand jury hearing, compromising the validity of the evidence.

I don't think it was thrown out of court, source?

I believe it was just one magazine that Arvizo touched in court, and his prints were on several. Gavins younger brothers prints were found on at least one.

The defence also accused the boys of lying and rifling through the briefcase containing porn magazines.

Jacksons cousin who was 12 at the time of the case said that he saw Gavin and his little brother both watching porn on MJs bed and 'doing nasty things' and they suggested he did the same, he said he told Michael they were watching porn but not about the masturbation and Michael didn't believe it 'he thought they were cool and he didn't think they would do that'.

The extents that the defence would go to to make young boys look like little deviants and MJ look like an innocent little flower is disgusting.

I'm surprised Michael didn't try to report these boys for trying to groom him instead.

Yeah that's why the music is used, otherwise it most certainly wouldn't have been

Just as a reminder "Leaving Neverland" is available for free on Channel4, previously More4

Jacksons cousin who was 12 at the time of the case said that he saw Gavin and his little brother both watching porn on MJs bed and 'doing nasty things' and they suggested he did the same, he said he told Michael they were watching porn but not about the masturbation and Michael didn't believe it 'he thought they were cool and he didn't think they would do that'.

I think you've got mixed up again. I don't know of any cousin involved who went on trial to say that. Can't recall if anyone's pointed out already, but it was Gavin's brother Star who said during the trial he saw Gavin being molested. He didn't say he'd been. Star wasn't the most reliable of witnesses - the defence pointed out he'd lied under oath before, in a different case, which was about their mother suing a company, the mother went onto win a huge amount. Not only did Star lie in that trial, so did the mother (as testified by a paralegal). And she'd previously been done for welfare fraud.

Agree. I’m finding it weird seeing the posters everywhere.

Massive eyerolls when I give way to a Dublin Bus with the paedo on the side

I didn't get mixed up.

Rijo Jackson testified that he saw Gavin and his brother watching porn and masturbating and if you had just quickly googled 'Michael Jackson cousin 2005' you would have easily found that information.

Yes, sorry - you didn't get mixed up this time @kkloo . Important to note that the cousin was a witness for the defence. Not sure why you bothered to bring it up - it doesn't exactly point to or suggest that Jackson abused anyone, which is why his testimony has been largely forgotten.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-may-19-me-jackson19-story.html

Do you normally have difficulty following discussions?

I think it's clear from my post my thought process behind bringing it up. We were discussing the fingerprints. I said that the defence then tried to say that the boys were lying and had sneaked a look at the porn in the briefcase. I also followed that with what Jacksons cousin had said, and finished by saying they were trying to make them look like deviants compared to MJ who was an innocent little flower.

I thought it was fairly obvious. I also didn't think it needed to be pointed out that he was a witness for the defence seeing as I said the extents the defence would go to make them look like deviants was disgusting.

There is one reason, and one reason only, why MJ has not been cancelled.
Money.

His legacy is worth too much money to too many people who have a vested interest in making sure his legacy and music / royalties survive.

His music will never be banned from radio or TV. There will always be movies, plays and books about his life. Too big to cancel.

You simply cannot compare someone like MJ, worth uncountable billions worldwide in merch and royalties, to some piddling UK artist like Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville, both easy to cancel relatively speaking.

Worth too much, guilty or innocent, to too many people.

Money.

It's really annoying that so many people are comparing the situation to Jimmy Saville who literally abused hundreds of people and the enquiry found so much evidence once they joined all the dots together.

This isn't the same for MJ. The accusers are in my opinion not credible and there is no credible evidence.

He was eccentric and misunderstood and I get that that is odd and a lot of people find it concerning with the sleeping with children in his room, but I honestly believe he is innocent and had a pure heart and wanted to protect children not harm them. He gave so much of his energy, time , his money for charity and to help children, he's one of the biggest philanthropists ever. I would honestly change my opinion if credible evidence was brought. I just don't believe a word that Safechuck or Robson said in their film so for now I choose to trust he was innocent and will continue to celebrate his more than 40 years of legendary musical achievements!

Totally agree
That post was offensive. Shame on that poster

I don't think Michael Jackson abused anywhere near the number of victims that Savile did, which is why there was so much more evidence and testimony against Savile.

Also Savile's enquiry happened after his death and is not the same thing as a legal trial where the defendant can hire lawyers to discredit complainants and present the defendant's image in the most positive way.

I said it before but the Channel 4 documentary released this year changed my mind. I found the evidence compelling, whereas previously I thought he was innocent and it was all a misunderstanding.

You could and people absolutely did say all of this about Savile:

He was eccentric and misunderstood and I get that that is odd and a lot of people find it concerning with the sleeping with children in his room [hanging out with teenage girls], but I honestly believe he is innocent and had a pure heart and wanted to protect children [people] not harm them. He gave so much of his energy, time , his money for charity and to help children [people], he's one of the biggest philanthropists ever.

On the other hand there's people who say people only pointed the finger at him because he was black. That's also offensive.

It reminds me of the reaction to Johnny Depp - different alleged issues of course, but the adoration from defenders…

@BertieBotts I don't think anyone ever thought Jimmy Savile was pure? Didn't he actually make jokes about what he was doing? It was an open secret. The question is why the useless British police did nothing...however in America they went after Jackson hard.

but I honestly believe he is innocent and had a pure heart and wanted to protect children not harm them.

What did he need to protect them from that made them safer in his bed? 🤔

But Johnny Depp proved it in court in the US that Heard had defamed him by calling him an abuser.

He gave millions of pounds to children's charities who protected children! He built the fairground which literally thousands of deprived and poorly children visited etc.