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.

The reason he had children sleeping in his room - I don't know. I agree it is odd. But I know that often children asked to stay over. They stayed with their own parents there too. Jackson's nieces and nephews stayed regularly and other friends stayed with their children like the culkins etc. but having people stay over isn't evidence of criminal behaviour is it.

Nor is children asking to stay evidence of none - grooming.

Acknowledging the history of racism isn’t offensive, it’s factual
That doesn’t mean that every accusation is because of race, but it does mean that we shouldn’t ignore the possibility that bias can influence how situations are interpreted

Acknowledging the history of racism is something completely different.

I don't have an issue with people considering the possibility of bias influencing a situation, but in regards to MJ people often state that it WAS because he was black, not that it may have influenced it.

And holding onto it beyond any kind of initial consideration is a huge reach, he was sleeping in bed with little boys and bringing them everywhere. It was deeply disturbing behaviour and not something that people would only see or be more likely to see as suspicious just because an individual was black.

Elvis was a groomer and he largely got away with it, but had it been the 90s people would have been eyeing him with suspicion if he was bringing girls as young as 7 around with him everywhere and always replacing them once she got to a certain age.

To be fair, Saville also raised millions for children's hospitals and was instrumental in building several medical units. It was argued that he did it, partly, to facilitate himself getting closer to children. It's not out with the realms of possibility that MJ built Neverland to attract children. Just saying.

I don't think the argument that MJ did a lot for charity absolves him of anything. And for the record I am undecided on his guilt. But just because he did charity work does not mean he can't also have been an abuser. The two things can be true at the same time surely?

Paedophiles dont abuse every kid they meet, only ones they can groom or who are otherwise vulnerable. In fact they probably see it as useful for them to have children who could attest to how nothing happened to them, especially ones as famous as Macaulay culkin and Corey feldman. I believe the MJ accusers. Culkin was the most famous child star in the world at the time, I highly doubt mj would be that stupid

Did Elvis groom girls of 7?

That's shocking, I had no idea.

Never been a fan so he has not been on my radar, apart from his too young wife.

Nooo..I meant he groomed Priscilla! but IF he had been bringing girls as young as 7 around with him like MJ was with boys then people would have had something to say about it, this was nothing to do with skin colour.

@nomas

Sorry forgot to add, Elvis did groom others around Priscillas age 14/15, not sure if that was reported at the time, I know there was one when he was close to 40 but she said he was a gentleman through their relationship, but Elvis was very weird about sex and I think he had a Madonna/whore complex so if he didn't do anything sexual with her it wasn't because he wasn't a child abuser, it was just part of his sexuality and he was still getting his kicks from being with her.

I've never been an Elvis fan but I did read Priscillas book years ago.
I think everyone is in agreement that she was groomed even though some don't like her, but important to note that even her stories about Elvis have often changed too. In her book she described what sounded like Elvis raping her, later on she said that was seriously overstated. In the book she said that once she had Lisa Marie he was no longer into her sexually and he'd never been able to have sex with a woman who had a child, but I saw her on loose women a few years back and that was brought up and she said something like 'no we had sex in our own way, I know what you're getting at but I don't want to talk about it'.

Depp is a scumbag and the English verdict still stands and wasn't overruled by the US verdict.

It's not available anymore.
HBO and channel 4 have the rights to it but HBO were forced to take it down because back in the 90s they had the rights to show an MJ concert and in the contract it stated something like they could never show anything disparaging about MJ....or something like that. I'm not sure why channel 4 had to take it down because they do have 'Leaving Neverland 2' up, but presumably it's related to the HBO mess?

The owners/makers can't sell it to another streaming site until 2029 I believe.

He probably did love children, he probably thought it was fine to abuse them because he loved them. There's pedophiles who call themselves 'child lovers' or 'boy lovers' and they want relationships with those kids and convince themselves it's fine. Maybe that's why he was so convincing to people when he talked about how much he loved them.

Neverland was just Michaels version of Hefs playboy mansion.

I find the absolute desperation for some people to believe MJ was completely innocent, utterly bizarre. It’s entirely possible to listen to his music whilst also acknowledging that he was probably abusing pre pubescent boys.
You didn’t know the man - he wasn’t a friend of yours. Why do you need to wholeheartedly believe in his ‘purity of heart’ (🤢) in order to appreciate that he made some good music?
It’s like a weird cult where plenty of evidence is there to suggest the great leader isn’t a good person but the followers just blindly defend them anyway.

The UK court case wasn't against Amber Heard. It was against the newspaper!! He didn't have enough evidence to prove the newspaper defamed him and there was malace behind the printing the article. It was a completely different case.
I watched the entire 5 weeks court footage live for the US trial and the evidence was overwhelming that Amber Heard was an abuser herself and that she was lying and he was the one who ended up injured and not her.

The judge in the UK case ruled the article as substantially true, finding that 12 of the 14 alleged domestic abuse incidents occurred. He said he accepted that Heard was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Depp.

As I said, the English ruling doesn't cancel out the UK ruling and that still stands.

In the UK trial as Heard wasn't a party in the case a lot of the evidence couldn't be used in the trial. In the US trial the jury had the full suite of evidence.

The Depp trial was fascinating to watch. The evidence was very compelling that Amber was an abuser. Depp was shown to have his issues with drink and drugs but he would try to actively avoid conflict with Heard. They had a terrible relationship but he didn't abuse her.

They didn't, the judge ruled loads of it inadmissable.

Equally some people here are absolutely adamant he abused children,even when evidence disputes that he did.

If you could watch that and think he's not an abuser in any way and look at Michael Jacksons relationships with little boys and think he's just a sweet angel man protecting children then I don't know what to tell you......

Yes that's what I said

Did you watch it? Honestly the evidence was very compelling, there were literally recordings of Amber saying that she would tell everyone he hit her and would destroy him etc.

But there isn’t plenty of evidence in this case, as has been mentioned again and again.

But my question is - why do you need to wholeheartedly believe that he’s innocent? You can still listen to his music if you choose. You don’t know he didn’t abuse little boys. There’s plenty of evidence for there to at least be doubt. What is it that makes you absolutely have to believe that this man, who you never knew, is innocent when there is so much evidence to suggest that he may not be?
As I said, it’s cult-like. Worshipping someone no matter what allegations are made against them.

Probably because of his deeply inappropriate and weird obsession with boys of a certain age and sleeping in beds with them, who got dropped once they got too old and replaced with a new 'special friend', and because he's had multiple accusers and multiple staff have witnessed him behaving inappropriately with these boys.

Yes you can be damn sure that would make me adamant that he abused children, just like I'd be damn sure if it was any other man who was behaving like that with children. And I'd be correct.