Yeah I think MJ was innocent of what he was accused of
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I agree he was stupid and irresponsible at the very least for doing that. I wouldn't let my child share a bedroom with any adult. Having said that I do struggle to believe that he's guilty based on lack of hard evidence and the accusers seeming very money hungry.
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.
Yeah as a parent of two boys what the duck are the parents doing letting their kids stay with him?
It's absolutely ridiculous! If it was Joe blogging down the street you would run a mile. I can't believe they allowed it
It is I'm glad it isn't just me. I thought I would be roasted for victim blaming but it's entirely the parents fault putting their kid in that position
I remember in the first documentary when at least one of them said that they had no relationship with their parent(s) any more, I just thought, 'yeah, that tracks'. The very idea of letting your kid have 'sleepovers' with an adult stranger, what the duck. Did all the holidays and gifts make them lose all common sense?!
Clearly did that's awful imagine seeling your child's innocence for free holidays and gifts they should all be investigated
In addition to the monetary benefits, they seemed starstruck and 'honoured' to be guests of MJ. I suppose they felt they had 'made it' by mixing with elites. Not that this excuses any of the parents.
Suppose it makes sense
He groomed them. Offering this and that for them to be awed over while he did what he did. I'm not excusing them or absolving them of blame because as an adult you know if something is too good to be true, it usually is but he knew exactly what he was doing...picking people who had nothing and offering them the world only to throw them out when he was done and move on to the next family.
That's really sad for the families
This is something I've often thought. Many people, including Paul McCartney have told stories about how ruthless MJ was in business. So many people who met him say his regular voice was deeper. Lisa Marie said they had a normal sex life during their marriage. His music videos were often overtly sexual, and he often seemed incredibly angry in them. Start adding these anecdotes together and you start moving further and further away from this Peter Pan theory.
Another thing I've thought about the whole situation is, even some of the kids he befriended who support him to this day, all seem to say they lost regular contact with him once they grew up. Even if nothing sexual occurred, surely the concept of befriending kids, travelling on tour with them, being their best friend, then ditching them once they got too old, is abusive in itself?
This sounds more like the natural progression of life and would in large part have to do with the kids getting their own lives and other interests once they grew older, not so much MJ stopped calling because they got older. As kids they went to Neverland to jump up and down on bouncy castles and have fun. But teenagers won't be prioritising petting llamas, and MJ isn't going to help them write a CV to get a corporate job when they turned 20.
I doubt he was ever a best friend to any of these kids, I think that as adults they exaggerate their childhood connection to MJ for obvious reasons. By some accounts he was hardly ever there when sleepovers were happening and it was just kids running amok in his house. I think MJ found a safety blanket in having kids around and nothing more (which is also wrong, because kids are not supposed to be parenting some adult stranger).
How exactly does this constitute abuse, exactly? Are all of the people you made as friends in your youth still your friends today? What made MJ any different, people may not be friends forever, that's normal life. So because one is a celebrity it means that you have to keep the friends you've made when you were young and dropping them is abusive, that's dumb.
Michael Jackson was a regular dude, who dressed in jeans and, shirts and slacks, a businessman... MJ KoP was an alter ego for the stage, he dressed flamboyantly, was aligned to Neverland; although he didn't stay there much, that's not who the real Michael was. MJ KoP was a character.
How was he ruthless in business more than anyone else in that industry? He was a businessman who, at least in his younger days, before he was overcome by prescription drugs, other physical and medical ailments including what seemed to be depression (my opinion), he did exactly what Paul did, by music catalogues which includes music by various artistes. Paul was given first dibs in purchasing the catalogue and he refused, MJ did not, he, by the way, had to fight others who were willing to pay the price for it and he did in 1985. Paul lost out too damn bad...
Last edited:
I just watched Michael Jackson: The Trial on Channel 4. I always adored his music but thought he was a bit weird and ultimately believed everything I read about his abuse of children. Now I’m not so sure having watched this. Knowing now how much Martin Bashir manipulated the whole Diana situation, did he do the same with his reporting on MJ?
No. Jackson still had little boys in his bed. You cant manipulate that
He said openly there was nothing wrong with having kids in his bed.
Star struck parents enabled it.
If Dave the Plumber down the road did that there would be an outcry but as it was MJ it was fine. The king of pop, the dude who never grew up.
I believe he abused kids, hid in plain sight and paid off whoever. Epstein shows that money and power is enough to shroud crimes.
MJ did the same for sure.
Great musician and dancer, but definitely a paedophile.
Star struck parents enabled it.
If Dave the Plumber down the road did that there would be an outcry but as it was MJ it was fine. The king of pop, the dude who never grew up.
I believe he abused kids, hid in plain sight and paid off whoever. Epstein shows that money and power is enough to shroud crimes.
MJ did the same for sure.
Great musician and dancer, but definitely a paedophile.
It’s sad to see people still trying to defend this absolute freak. He was literally hiding in plain sight all along, no different to Savile. Wake up
Totally a Savile situation.