Michael Jackson

[Tothemoonandback]

Ha. No need for a trial then, just show the judge the album covers! Haha
I previously assumed he was guilty because of the number of accusers. Every time anyone would raise it with me I'd be like "oh come on now. So all 4 accusers are lying?! Yeah right"
But then someone pointed out how often Jackson has been sued. He's had more paternity suits than abuse allegations. And paternity suits are easily disproven now that DNA evidence is so easy. In the time before DNA forensics I could imagine people saying "ok so Jackson has 10 paternity suits against him. I really doubt 10 people are lying". Yet they were.

Where you've got a situation with 2 broke accusers who are suing the Jackson estate seeking millions of dollars, I think this brings credibility into question and you have to look at the allegations more closely.

I don't know if Jackson did it. I certainly won't be muting or cancelling him on the basis of posthumous allegations though when there's such a huge financial incentive to potentially lie about this and you can see from the court documents that both accusers were in dire financial difficulty in the weeks and months before they claim to have remembered the abuse they had always previously denied

 

[Miss Havisham]

But he wasn't ever found guilty of anything yes he was weird but why does it take a solid yes they've been guilty for someone to back off them and not just say he was accused therefore he's guilty

Justin and Blake how many people have called him names because of this and are still even though he did fa

How many people went off jonhnny depp and still probably hate him even though he was cleared

I said on the Ryan Reynolds page that celebs and men especially should be protected against accusations that ruin lives

I suppose people will look at further information, that comes to light as the years pass. I didn’t pay much attention to the MJ accusations back in the day - thought it likely that he was an oddball, but probably harmless. I felt it likely that he could have had false accusations made against him.
On gathering more information recently (including the recent BBC documentary), I feel that it is very likely that he was guilty.
Still an oddball, and likely that some of the accusations against may have been false - but I do now believe some of the accusations and feel that he did abuse children.
Some of the children (who are now adults) will defend him, as I feel that MJ was manipulative and clever enough, not to abuse all of the children that he “slept with”.

We know that guilty people leave courtrooms every day, with a “not guilty” verdict. There is also the possibility that he may well have been both guilty and innocent of the various accusations made against him.

There are plenty of abusers who got away with it plain sight - Saville being the obvious example.

 

[White rose]

How does proven innocent work? It’s not the same as not guilty.

Unfortunately, many SA cases don’t even make it to prosecution stage - and if they do, they are notoriously difficult to prove.

Show me the evidence he done it. There is none but what there is, is parents on phone calls saying they will destroy him, past attempts for parents of false sexual claims, Gavins mother was took back to court for this, also welfare fraud. She saw a opportunity and took it. Money speaks.. she chose money over her child because didn’t gavin cut all contact with his parents after this? This kid was made to say these lies to fill the pocket of his parents.

Plenty people who have nothing to gain financially from this have said Michael we nothing but a child in a man’s body. I don’t agree with him sharing a bed with a child but as far as sexual abuse goes I 100% believe he didn’t touch them.

Yes I know plenty about sa cases I’ve been thru this and let me tell you money was the last thing on my mind, I wanted justice.

You may think this wrong of me but I feel for him. All this when the man is in his grave and can’t defend his self. A one sided story is better then two sided when it comes to trying to getting £££.

 

[Tothemoonandback]

Not sure where I read it but apparently MJ offered Lisa Marie's children's dad a million dollars to adopt them. I can well imagine. To MJ anything had a price

"Apparently". Right.

Well Riley (Lisa Marie's daughter) has said in her own words in a recent interview "I loved him" when talking about Michael Jackson
Lisa Marie said of Jackson: "He was an amazing person, and I am lucky to have gotten as close to him as I did and to have had the many experiences and years we had together,"......"I desperately hope that he can be relieved from his pain, pressure and turmoil now. He deserves to be free from all of that and I hope he is in a better place."

Still can't get away from the fact he let (mostly)young boys in his bed. Whatever the facts,this is wrong surely??

Yes it's definitely stupid and put everyone in a vulnerable position. Hanging around with children (boys and girls) in bedrooms should never have been acceptable and his family or someone close to him should have stopped it. It's unclear whether Jackson was actually sleeping in beds with children, potentially just sharing a room from time to time as Jackson seemed to suggest in the Bashir documentary. But still. I take your point. It was stupid and naive. This sort of behaviour, certainly in western culture, is not acceptable for a reason (but I have listened to others who say it's far more normal in other cultures).

That said Jackson grew up in a tiny house with loads of siblings and was always on tour on the road, sharing bedrooms with his brothers constantly. So you can sort of see the whole arrangement, whilst still stupid, seemed more normal to him. He did not have a "9 to 5" job so the idea of bedtime or normal hours didn't apply in the same way. Jackson's choreographers would often say Jackson didn't have a normal body clock; he would usually practise dancing all night and just sleep in the day.

People would come and stay at Neverland for weeks at a time (people like Mark Lester and Diana Ross' family including son Evan). They all attest to be giving free access to the whole of Neverland including Jackson's bedroom. So it seems as if that room wasn't treated like some sacred room for sleep. More of an activity room on two stories that people would play and sleep in.

 

[KINGAA]

I don't know how anyone could watch Leaving Neverland and not believe those men. It was one of the most compelling and heartbreaking things I've ever watched, that was 6-7 years ago and everyone just brushed over it.

Now with this new biopic that's a total biased account produced by (and starring) his family, I wonder if the conversation will come up again.

read this,

I think MJ was dodgy as they come but that documentary was filled with false and fake scenarios. I don’t believe Wade one bit because of that doc.

Also to note from that article: As for Jackson’s legacy — let us remember not a single dollar goes into his pockets anymore. He is dead. According to his will, his money should be benefiting his elderly mother, his children who have been orphaned, and charity. To date, his estate has brought in at least $1 billion since his death. That means, if his wishes are followed, there’s about $200 million to spare for charities. That’s probably more than any living celebrity has given to charity lately.

 

[Tothemoonandback]

Yes famous people can definitely get the best lawyers.
But I read all the OJ details and I see how he got away with murder there. It wasn't just the best defence lawyers, the prosecution messed up sadly.

I don't rely on the media reporting of the 2005 Jackson trial as they were ridiculously anti Jackson and I couldn't understand what was going on. I stuck to reading the court transcripts (because I'm a bit of a nerd like that!).

I found this article very interesting about 2005 trial:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/610258/amp

I don't agree about all these "rumoured" NDAs that you have no evidence of whatsoever and is based purely on speculation. If you look at the court transcript from the AEG wrongful death suit after Jackson died (brought by the Jackson family), the court went through all Jackson's accounts and no huge NDA payments mentioned. Also the FBI were investigating Jackson on and off for a ten year period. Tapping phones and all sorts. They never found any evidence and NDAs with big payouts, would very likely have been picked up. If you have the time or inclination I'd personally read the court transcripts - very interesting !

 

[Harlot O'Scara]

He was a paed, the backbending fans will do to excuse him is wack. I loved a lot of his music, honestly I still listen to some of it, they are an undeniable indelible part of musical history. But I can still acknowledge he was a nounce. There is so much similarity in victim testimony. He groomed children and their families; I don't believe he nonced every child he hung out with (like Mark Ronson, mentioned above) but he would test them by eg exposing them to pronography and seeing what he could get away with and which children were more vulnerable or had parents he could fool. He had an alarm system set up so that if anyone approached his bedroom he'd have plenty of notice. His housekeeper warned people to keep their kids away from him. He was pictured with a never ending string of young boys who mysteriously stopped hanging out with him after a certain age. HE LITERALLY SAID WITH HIS OWN MOUTH HE SHARED A BED WITH KIDS. I would not be surprised if some of the details were inaccurate, some of Wade's words sound a bit off to me, but no matter the intimate details it is irrefutable he had sick and inappropriate relationships with children he groomed. He was a nounce. Occams razor.

The fans are on a hiding to nothing trying to quote Mark Ronson as a defence because he himself said Jackson slept in Sean Lennon's bed and Mark slept on the floor.

Jackson was far less likely to predate the rich/famous kids he hung around with because they or their parents had a lot more money and power than the like of Wade Robson or the Chandlers.

 

[Tothemoonandback]

I can't help but believe the allergations. They have nothing to gain by saying this now surely.

these two accusers have literally millions of dollars to gain by saying this now.

they may well not have been paid for the documentary but they are suing MJs estate for millions in the civil courts

I personally found the documentary really believable at first but the more I’ve read about the accusers the more their credibility is brought into question and I’ve realised how biased that tv programme actually is. I think MJ is a total weirdo but even a dead weirdo deserves a fair hearing and he’s not been given that.

Both of the accusers have money troubles and one of the accusers (James Saffechuck) happened to remember he was abused by MJ just a few days after his family business was sued for millions. He also says he was abused daily in a building which categorically has been shown not to have existed until years after the abuse ended.

the judge in the civil case has reprimanded one of the accusers for lying about certain technical matters (existence of the estate) and also fabricating evidence. If some of what they are saying is clearly lies in just not sure it’s fair to say we must believe them unquestionably about the alleged abuse

one final thing. I know all too well from personal experience that abuse victims can be in all sorts of denial and shame about their abuse for many years. But Wade Robson stood in the dock of the criminal court in 2005 *AS AN ADULT* and denied he had ever been abused by MJ. He was asked if MJ had ever touched him inappropriately and all sorts of specific questions. Wade said no. But now (2020), Wade claims that in 2005 (when he was already an adult) he didn’t know what abuse was (he has to say this because of statute of limitations and because he wants max financial
Compensation ). I feel like there’s some really obvious questions here that aren’t being asked. The whole thing with Saville is that it was always covered up when Saville was alive and victims were not given a chance to come forward. Many were silenced when they tried to talk. With MJ these questions were asking in a courtroom when MJ was alive. Total opposite . MJ stuff makes no sense.

I think MJ might well be innocent here

I was a Michael Jackson fan (not fanatic) and was ready to disbelieve them. Having watched it all and other interviews, such as Oprah I have NO doubt he was a very powerful, manipulative paedophile. I believe every word those two men shared.

Just because a predator is dead, does not mean we should discount the victims and in this case does not make his HIDEOUS crimes forgivable.

im sort of in the same camp as you in that I used to love MJs music but was never a fan

I completely believed the documentary at first

after a couple of weeks of feeling disgusted by it all, I decided to do some research. At the very least what I would say is that “documentary” is ridiculously biased and I’m actually angry as a viewer that I was misled like that. It made it seem as if both accusers would have no reason to lie but actually both Have denied abuse while lives but claimed abuse when facing financial difficulty (that doesn’t mean they’re lying but it should have been mentioned). Also these accusers conduct in the civil court case has actually been a disgrace. They’ve been reprimanded by judge for lying about various issues (not the abuse, other matters) and for Deliberately concealing evidence.Whole thing is actually shocking and has made me really distrust TV programmes and journalists as they just go with a story and run with it and don’t give their audience all the information. If you’re interested in reading more about this it’s actually fascinating but remember not to rely on tabloid sources and instead rely on court documents and transcripts

 

[Web30]

I've not read it but I understand LMP in her book has said that MJ and LMP were meeting up for like 4 years after the divorce to see if they could make things work between them.

Yes I have heard the same, they stayed close friends. Her daughters said in interviews she remembers it as a real relationship

 

[Upintheair83]

Plenty of people have shitty childhoods with horrible abuse.

That’s no excuse to welcome and encourage little kids into your bed. Mostly male kids.

MJ had a type for his muses, he didn’t abuse all of them, just the ones he thought he would be able to.

Not all paedophiles will abuse all kids they have access to, there are carefully selected victims.

MJ’s abuse of kids was so normal he felt able to say multiple times how natural it is to share his bed with kids, under guise of Slumber Party.

Parents who were stupid or vulnerable enough to be paid off welcomed invitations from MJ for their sons to share his bed. Grooming takes many forms.

A CSA or SA victim always has a time when they feel strong enough to tell. There could be a trigger such as parenthood, other victims speaking out, a trauma.

The MJ force is big, and they have money to keep any negativity suppressed. The fan cult who will threaten and terrorize, are reasons not to speak out.

For sure there are other victims out there. MJ found young boys attractive. His marriage to LM was a sham. And he never had sex with Debbie Rowe.

Ugh.

I agree with a lot of things you say here. However i also have a few different opinions too. I actually feel his marriage to Lisa Marie wasn't a sham- I think they genuinely did love each other, after his death she did an interview with Oprah and it was clear she loved him dearly, and they had a very physical relationship. But not that it has any bearing on whether he abused children. Men who are married can still abuse children
But il be honest I do struggle to believe Gavin Arvizo, the child from the 2005 trial. I followed the trial extremely closely and there just wasn't the evidence there. It just came across like a total fabrication and the evidence was extremely weak. The whole family came across as grifters. And they were a family that you would think if he did want to abuse, then they were the perfect targets- low income family, clearly struggling for money, especially with gavins cancer, literally handed him on a plate to him. And yet there just seemed no evidence at all.
As I say I'm not saying he didn't have red flags,or didn't abuse children. But iv just always found the evidence to be extremely weak. Yes his behaviour was grossly inappropriate and the sleeping in bed with children- well I can't get my head around it. Just why, other than abuse would you do that?!..... but I dunno, in terms of the law i would have come to the same decision as the jury.
Pat brown, criminal profiler, did an excellent video on him, its on you tube if anyone is interested.
She did mention how narcissistic he was and that he probably had personality disorders too- I'd never actually thought about that before about him.- but makes total sense when it was pointed out.

 

[skysky101]

I feel like it's more to do with people being blinded by a celebrity and being star struck. Maybe people think famous people are more trustworthy than your average joe.

 

[Miss Havisham]

She married him days after the divorce from her previous husband - with her mother warning against marrying him, concerned she was being used.

They divorced quickly - with LMP citing his controlling behaviour. It’s well documented that he was pressuring her into having children (she already had two) and she feared that she would be then dumped with a custody battle to follow. She said he was controlling and isolated her.

As for her maintaining a connection to him following the divorce, I’m sure there were complexities - but they were literally married for a year. Likely that the year that they were married, was not normal in any sense.

The overall impression is that she was used and also seemed vulnerable.

Not the first sham showbiz marriage - and certainly wasn’t the last.

 

[Sir Lancelot]

Don’t want to hear his music ever again. There’s no smoke without fire, & let’s be honest since the early 90’s there’s been a hell of a lot of smoke.

Just out of interest, what do you listen to?
I'm only asking because if you can't separate art from artist you may find you run out of things quite quickly.

 

[annanuttall]

I always thought his lawyer was kind of creepy himself.

 

[White rose]

The hair was very badly dyed. I'm surprised it didn't burn his scalp. And there is no way those children are genetically his which probably means he was unable to produce children.

Bigi is his double. They are his kids no matter what.. would you tell someone who can’t have children and adopted that they are not their kids.

 

[Miss Havisham]

If nothing has come out in 17 years,it ain't coming out now.

Plenty has been discussed in the past 17 years. People make up their own minds - but it will be based on his behaviour. What they knew at the time and what they have become aware of more recently.

 

[Yano]

His crisis publicist has done an interview admitting he had books of naked children and ordered videos with them in it. I'll put the relevant stuff I found on Reddit under a spoiler but if you want to see for yourself it's here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1t1h12h/in_new_interview_michael_jacksons_crisis/

Spoiler: MJ Transcript

He handed me a book and he said it was Michael's. It was all of naked men and things like that. And I said, "Frank, you know, I know Michael from firsthand was fooling around with some of the fans." I said, "Uh, you know, why is he looking at um you know, naked pictures of men?" I said, "It's fine, but you know, you told me Michael's heterosexual. We never Oh, he just looks at it for the artistic value, but I'm hiding it. You know, I'm I'm He's hiding it. He's not like showing it to anyone."

"He's not disclosing anything. So, I said, "All right, Frank, you keep the book. I'll take the bag. I'll bring it to the city." Something struck me wrong.

I stopped at my house. I said, "Let me go. Let me see what he's handing me. I don't know what he's handing me." So, I opened the bag and um I start flipping through it and I found a magazine and it was a a nudist magazine called Naturally.

Um turned out I started flipping through it. I was like, "Okay, it's just pictures of nudist women and adults." And then it flipped to the section um where it was videos of kids, naked kids uh and their families, some with just naked kids uh with circles around Sharpie, black Sharpie circles around the videos to be ordered. I almost had a breakdown. And I literally did have a breakdown because there was pictures of naked kids. I said, "This is what Frank handed And obviously at that time it just snapped.

He was covering up for him. There's something here. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And um turned out uh I didn't bring it into the city yet. I end up going into another attorney. I was very scared at the time. Uh we're in this big case all over the media, all over the globe. Uh, Sergeant Oel had stopped the house and he was on his way back to Santa Barbara, went to another attorney. They immediately picked up the phone to him and said, "Vincent found something that was very concerning, which may be important to you." And he was very disgusted by it. Sergeant Obel says, "I'm on a plane just about getting on the plane back to Santa Barbara. We'll have to meet at a different time."

He gets on the plane. I had an attorney, another attorney. Uh, I still had Joe because I had my information at Joe's office. Uh, turns out I asked, you know, when can I get it back? Um, I stayed with Joe for a bit more. Uh, Techapena, I'm in the office. I wanted to show Joe cuz I tried to convince Joe, you know, also represent me in bringing this to the district attorney's office. You know, he was the one that I chose. He was a high-profile, very strong attorney in New York.

Right at that point, he goes, "Give me the magazine." I said, "No." I I looked next to me and it was Frank that was sitting standing right next to me. So, I wanted to turn this into the district's attorney's office. He kind of got me because he asked for it right in front of Frank. I end up handing it over and that was the last time I've seen it.

The good news is is that when I found this magazine, I took pictures, I documented it. Um, I confronted Frank about it. Frank said that uh this was a phase that him and Michael went through watching these videos and Michael would select these naked children's videos to be ordered uh by Frank and Frank would, you know, facilitate this.

Here is the YT video timestamped:






This is just some of the things taken out of his house when he was arrested. At the time, his fans defended it claiming the books were 'artistic' yet during the trial, some of them were shown and there were pictures of young boys completely naked with everything on show. This isn't the first of people who worked for him who has admitted to knowing and seeing things but as usual, his fans will ignore it and defend him when if it was anyone else, people would rightly be screaming for his head.

View attachment 3978279

This last bit is like in Austin powers where hes like that penis pump isn't mine and then the next things in the box are the book he wrote about him and his penis pump

 

[Dexy]

Are they saying the date of the abuse ending was wrong? So he claimed it was 14 but it was later. How would he not know what age it all stopped? The article shows the planning permission for the train station being 93 not before.

James Safechuck claimed that he was abused by Michael Jackson at the train station at Neverland up until he was 14, that’s 1992. The permit for the station was issued in 1993. The station itself was built in 1994. When asked about this inconsistency the director of LN said that maybe they had got their dates wrong meaning a 3/4 year discrepancy with Safechuck being 17 at the end of abuse and of course this matters because it doesn’t fit the “ he liked little boys and dropped us when we got to 14 “ narrative which they claim.
---

Michael Jackson was wealthy enough to have a public relations team to protect his reputation. One of the biggest PR stunts was when Jackson married Lisa Marie Presley. This happened around about the time of the Jordy Chandler court case.
Is it not possible that Jackson was also wealthy enough to hire people to lean on witnesses, so they would be too afraid to speak the truth during a court case. I know it sounds far fetched, but these things happen.

I don’t think that’s far fetched at all - look at Prince Andrew and the Epstein ring! Now they have been protected!
I don’t think it was the case with MJ though.
The whole world knew about the allegations immediately. It makes me laugh when people say he paid them to be quiet. Like how?How on earth did his money help him at all ? It didn’t. His home was ran sacked several times. He was scrutinised, followed, strip searched, all followed by a five month trial. They didn’t find anything incriminating.
If he’d been that powerful as people like to make out we wouldn’t have heard about these allegations at all.

 

[Web30]

The problem is, Leaving Neverland failed the victims because the director was pushing so hard for a story he wanted to portray that he allowed it to be picked apart with facts proving factually incorrect moments which added more doubt to a story that needed a public backing. I think it did more harm than good to MJs victims and I do believe there are more out there that haven’t come to terms to comprehend what grooming actually is. It’s a shame but yeah, Leaving Neverland was a stupid decision from all involved.

It would be so interesting to see how this would’ve played out if he lived, like I genuinely think he’d be in prison now.

I think if he'd have done those 50 shows it would have finished him off anyway. He wasn't well after years of drug abuse.

 

[GiggleBee]

You know that for a FACT do you?

Also from what I understand this documentary focuses around 4 boys. All of who ‘came out of the woodwork’ years and years ago and their parents took money to be silenced didn’t they???

Wasn't it proven years ago that he wasn't guilty? And let's face it who lets there child sleep round a mans house?
Micheal was allowed custody of all his children, so obviously the social didn't think he was a danger.
Yes MJ was weird but I honestly believe he was to child like to actually do anything to these boys.
Jimmy Saville on the other hand looked dirty and perverted.

At the end of the day I'm just stating my opinion, were all entitled to our own opinion.