MJ: can we finally accept he was innocent? - Michael Jackson Discussion

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

"I rest my case"
Starts laughing hysterically

reply

It's so hypocritical in this current culture of accepting everything no matter how strange that so many people still hold his being different & eccentric i.e. "weirdo" against him.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

MJ wasn't stupid. He was well read and both created and ran a multi-million dollar business.

I didn't follow either trial, so I've had some catching up to do in the past week. No, I can't and don't accept he's innocent. Quite the reverse.

Making himself very appealing to, and being around, kids is exactly what a pedophile does. Does the name Jimmy Savile ring a bell? If you don't know about him, I suggest you run a few Google searches.

In point of fact, 2 months after he settled out of court with the first case, he married Lisa Marie Presley. Then there is famous date with Brooke Shields, accompanied by Emmanuel Lewis.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Well, Emmanuel Lewis was very sexy indeed...
ahah, just trolling:-)
Ok, you're right about the wedding with Lisa Marie, that was a photo op.
But that was for the fans and the media in general, to REDEEM his carrer.
What I meant is, a super evil mind with such a plot to lure his preys would have covered his moves much better waaay before then. He was practically never seriously dating anybody, and everybody knew that. Usually for cases like him they start wondering if he's gay.
He risked everything to get to the kids, and never thought about covering up his intentions with a pretend wife or gf?
I think it makes more sense that he was not risking anything because he was not doing anything wrong.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"Well, Emmanuel Lewis was very sexy indeed..."

Well, I can't argue with ya there :)

I think the fact that the wedding was only 2 months after the first trial ended is telling. For the fans and his career, sure, but it worked quite nicely to put out that "Hey, I'm just a regular guy. Not gay, and definitely not into little boys" PR. ... Oh, yeah, people were starting to think he was gay.

I'm not saying he was an evil genius, but you have to understand pedophilia is a compulsion.

He did have a pretend wife, although honestly I think his relationship with Lisa-Marie was more complex than that. One thing he's claimed over and over is he felt lonely and isolated. That I buy. As Elvis's daughter, another superstar, she'd have understood his isolation more than most people. Then he had a second pretend wife, the mother of one of his kids.

If you look at how pedophiles groom their victims and their families, MJ was classic, but on steroids because of his enormous fame and fortune.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Jackson was a very bright guy, who managed to rise from the slums of Gary, Indiana, to untold wealth and world fame.

It's a damn shame that he chose to spend his fortune and intelligence on getting into the pants of other people's little boys, but that's exactly what he did. And he was bright and dedicated enough to get away with it, too, he was never convicted as long as he lived.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

MJ was a very bright guy? Have you ever heard him talking? He sounded bordeline retarded.
He didn't manage squat, he was a trained cute monkey for his father. He was super famous by the age of 8, I doubt he had a saying in that. His handlers later on used that fame to propel him to superstardom.

His only intelligence whatsoever was an artistic one: he was great at makin catchy pop tunes, and at performing dance moves onstage. And he was dedicated to this art.

If he was intelligent, like you claim, and wanted to get into little boys pants, then your theory contradicts itself: what intelligent, rich and famous pedophile would go about his urges the way he supposedly did?
Wouldn't you think there's a more private, secretive, safe and direct way to get into little boys pants for somebody with tons of money to burn?

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Dude, everything about his public persona was an act, totally fake. He wasnt naive or stupid, and he wasnt a testosterone-free manchild either; people who did business with him reported that away from the cameras he had a normal deep adult voice, and knew how to get what he wanted from a contract negotiation.

And yes, he was smart enough to get away with diddling little boys, he'd change out his "favourite" every year or two, and never did time for it. That's not the act of a stupid man.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Yes, MJ was Kayser Soze, we can see how that totally worked in his favor throughout his life. What an evil genius!

I'm afraid we are gonna go back and forth on this forever, this is like Oswald being the responsible of JFK death or not, you can argue either side forever we'll never be able to say who's right for sure.

I personally find it easier to believe that Oswald was not very likely to have done it on his own, and that MJ was very likely to be a victim of his own weird act.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

I agree that this is likely to turn into one of those endless, pointless, unresolvable arguments, and I'm also willing to bow out rather than waste the effort. Thank you for being reasonable about it.

And like I keep saying, there's always going to be ambiguity and room for argument about Jackson, he lied so much and hid so much that it's never going to be possible to resolve some questions.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

MJ was very likely to be a victim of his own weird act.

Or more accurately a victim of a biased, agenda driven media, & opportunists exploiting his being "weird" against him hypocriticaly in an age of tolerance & acceptance of people who are different no less.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

So I think our answer is "yes, we can accept he was innocent"

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

If you look at Threadkiller's posts, he believes MJ is innocent, because racism, and he's not above knowingly lying to further his agenda. So yes, he is and always has been on board, seemingly, with you. Although I acknowledge you said you've also been playing devil's advocate on this.

reply

[–] kellycallie (728) 5 years ago

AHAHA I know. I listened to him speak in some court deposition video on youtube and the answers he was giving reminded me of someone with either an Autism spectrum disorder or another kind of intellectual disability. He was very far from an intelligent individual.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Yes I agree!
But apparently, we are mistaken: if you ask it to people on the internet, it's all a big plot by a genius evil mastermind who acted his whole public life as a retard, while in reality he hid a secret iq of 180 (like Kayser Soze).

reply

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

Sorry, he's too guilty in my eyes!

reply

[–] RoloTony (1163) 5 years ago

I was the 80's kid who's room was plastered with MJ items. I even made my own sequined glove despite being made fun of for it. This man was the moon and stars to me - and in some ways he still is. I defended him blindly for decades.

Now I'm in my 40's. I've been around. I can tell when people are liars. I can read between the lines. And most importantly, I've learned that no matter how amazing someone can appear to be - they can still be the most awful person you can imagine in private. We were all victims to The Halo Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect)

And I believe Wade and James. I believe he was a pedophile. I believe all the stories now - James and Wade are not lying. I do believe that MJ did not think he was a pedophile, though. And I believe that he believes he would never harm a child. You can tell these boys loved him - genuinely. So his actions were rooted in what he believed and twisted into love and caring. So he seems innocent to some because MJ truly believes he's innocent. He's not acting.

That being said, he was a rampant pedophile in the legal sense. I believe now.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

I don't agree with your final decision to think he was guilty.
But I like your attitude as somebody that thinks he did it, saying that you also believe he thought he was innocent. I could belive that myself more than some evil genius scheme where MJ pretended he was naive (and quite stupid) while in reality he had this planned all along.
Your interpretation is the best I've seen from anybody that tthinks he's guilty.
I was never a huge MJ fan, I find myself kinda playing devil's advocate here because all this late accusation quite fishy, and they are still just a one sided tale vs quite a few investigations that proved him innocent. So I don't fall under the halo effect, yet I think he was innocent.

reply

[–] RoloTony (1163) 5 years ago

I’m positive Wade wouldnt have said anything if MJ was still alive.

Wade said it was when he had his own child and he imagined his own child in this sexual situation that he began to come to grips with how wrong it all really was. Fair enough. Having your own children opens the world to you in a new way.

That being said - I think suing the family is in poor taste. MJ made him and gave him his life as a choreographer. If he wants to let everyone know the truth then fine. We deserve to hear it. But to also say “and I want 20 million dollars” just cheapens the whole thing.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

RoloTony I agree with you on the money part. I'm very sorry if these guys are telling the truth, it wouldn't be fair as they should be getting some compensation for their suffering, especially from somebody that rich.
BUT, it does cheapens the whole thing in an unrecoverable way.
It makes them look like they just want the money, rather than justice or at least for the truth to be known. I understand it's a difficult position to be in (if they didn't want the money, than we would be saying "hey, if they think he's so guilty then why don't they ask for some compensation?"), it's a lose lose situation to be in, I feel sorry on many levels for them if they are the victims. But from the outside, this whole ambiguity makes me think that they are not that honest.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

True, it is a lose/lose situation, no matter what they did or do. Victims should be awarded some financial compensation, because that's reasonable, yet at the same time, people understandably view that as it being greedy and too easily point to it as the sole motivation behind a lawsuit. And, as you pointed out, on the flip side, if they didn't ask for compensation, people would be thinking that was suspect too.

What's become overwhelmingly clear to me now, and changed me from sitting the fence, is the pattern that's emerged, the very clear and obvious pattern on MJ's part of the elaborate grooming both the children, their parents, and even other family members. I've now read some of the trial testimony from the 2005 trial and he did the exact same thing to Jorden Chandler and his family. There was other testimony that's very troubling, too.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I've said something similar to Rolo somewhere in these threads, but those are two extreme viewpoints, and I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.

I think he knew perfectly well he was having sex with these kids, which he had to know made him a pedophile, but I also think he truly believed he loved them, and that they loved him, and that somehow, with him, that made it different. Because he believed he was different. I also think he was telling the truth when he said he'd never hurt a child. He himself was physically and emotionally hurt as a child, and because he never physically or emotionally hurt a child out of anger, as was done repeatedly to him, therefore he never did and never would hurt a child. I think even the idea of doing so really was repugnant to him.

He repeatedly told the kids the sexual contact was an expression of love, and for them to not tell anyone because "ignorant people wouldn't understand," and that if they told anyone, both his and their lives would be ruined, and they'd spend the rest of their lives in jail. I think he believed that, although under it all he had to have known it was wrong.

He wasn't investigated quite a few times, nor does the one not guilty verdict mean he was proven innocent. Don't remember now if I've asked you, but have you seen Leaving Neverland?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Hi Catbookss, yeah I've seen leaving neverland. I found a few things quite contradictory in the tale we are told, that's why I posted this post here in mj profile.
I think your position is similar to RoloTony. I disagree with you both but I find that position to be the best one from the accusation camp.

But, like you stated, he must have known under it all that he was doing something wrong.
That's the part that, to me, makes it unbelievable: what kind of person, pedophile or not, in that position (the most known star in the world, with a huge amount of money), knowing that what he's doing is wrong, doesn't find an easier, safer way to deal with his perversions? I could understand, maybe, him molesting them once or twice.
What is described in that movie (I wouldn't really call it doc, it's almost fiction from how poorly any "truth" is handled) is a repeated, every day more than once a day, over the year perpetrated abuse (that nobody noticed at that time........totally umbelievable, sorry). That's such a reckless, careless, self destructive behaviour that I don't find it fits the character.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

What things in it did you find to be contradictory?

Yes, my position and RoloTony's is similar. I take it even further, which I'll explain in a bit.

Yes, he had to have known, underneath it all, what he was doing was wrong. But denial is a very strong thing, and obviously he had a lot to lose by not being -- and staying -- in denial about it.

MJ was trained by his own parents to lie and cover things up. His mother turned a blind eye to the severe abuse Joe Jackson dished out to her kids, and to herself. He was sexually abusing at least two of his daughters, and she knew, but did little about it. The kids weren't supposed to say anything about it, they were supposed to portray themselves in photo ops and interviews, to the public, as being the perfect American family. IOW, he learned early on that image was everything, and denial was integral.

Only MJ and La Toya ever broke away and said the truth. La Toya eventually was sucked back into the fold, and remains there still. The others have remained silent and toed the family party line.

The other factor I mentioned was I learned MJ & family were Jehova's Witnesses, and were raised in that very strict, very oppressive religious environment. MJ only broke away from it when he was in his late 20s, I believe.

Pedophiles don't just molest once or twice. As I said to you in an earlier reply, it's a compulsion, and the way he behaved was textbook classic pedophile behaviour. He was reckless, careless, and self-destructive, aside from the child molestations.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Ok he was self destructive and a bit reckless, but I still cannot believe that he couldn't think of any better way to get that. Either that, or he was fine with this whole unbelievable scenario because he KNEW, 100% sure, that everybody was fine with it: the kids, the parents and everyone else. In that case, I can believe that he thought "this is good because I love them, they love me, and we are all fine with this, it's our own personal business and nobody should interfere".
Otherwise, even if he only doubted the parents, it's too crazy for anybody in his position, with such fame and career and responsabilities, to behave like this, even more so for somebody who was self destructive and reckless: why would he never admit everything then? He admitted on many times that he thought that sleeping with kids is acceptable.
Obviously, that's not the case for most adults, but he decided to defy that notion publicly, even in front of the judge. So why not go the whole truckload and say "I think it's fine to enjoy each other's private parts if we care for each other"? How do you draw the line between "he was a crazy loon pedophile criminal" and "but he was not THAT crazy"?

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

He was more than a bit reckless, but remember he was protected by having what many millions of dollars could buy him. Part of that was an elaborate security/alarm system leading up to his private two-story bed chamber, and even more there was a second "secret" bedroom leading off his main bedroom. Lots of guards, and everyone was required to sign a NDA to help ensure nothing got out.

Even still, it did. Two of his security staff spilled the beans, and two maids. But, having the money to be able to buy silence, and if not that, discredit anyone who knew anything, ensured him a lot of safety. As did his fame and his self-created "I'm just a sweet, innocent, soft-spoken guy who happens to love kids" image. Lisa Marie Presley said that isn't the way he really spoke -- the whispery, I'm-so-sweet thing. He spoke in a normal voice with her, and swore. It bugged her that he had this put-on act. But hey, it served him well. People are still buying it.

As far as I know, he never claimed it was fine to sleep with other people's children in front of a judge. I believe he half bought, because it helped to justify his actions, having sex with these kids was "loving," and the only thing wrong with it was "ignorant people wouldn't understand." So the whole world, in his view, was ignorant about this.

"How do you draw the line between "he was a crazy loon pedophile criminal" and "but he was not THAT crazy"?"

Because like everything else, nothing is stark black and white, but is somewhere on a continuum.

You seem to not know much about pedophiles and how they operate, and that's key to understanding this. Here's a short clip that may help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7VMY8aZHVk

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

Thank you for your posts here. As always, very informative!

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Thank you, and back atcha!

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

IMHO Jackson knew perfectly well that other people and the law disapproved of his relationships with little boys, but he thought he was right, and that the disapproving authorities, parents, and public were wrong.

There are few things more dangerous than a criminal with a clear conscience, and Jackson was probably one.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Otter I like that idea, at least he would have the intention of perpetrating such a reckless plan. But that would make him, again, an evil genius, only in this case he also has an evil agenda (proving that he's right, so he SHOULD do that for the love of justice).
Come on, this guy doesn't fit the bill.
I'm not a cop, but if I have to decide between:
1-crazy evil man who molests kids, and does so very publicly and openly, risking everything he has achieved for what anybody would suspect actually was happening
2-idiot who doesn't realize the position he's putting himself in, and the many blackmailers that are just after a tiny fraction of his loads of millions
In America, after all these metoo and many shameless accusation, I have no doubt which one is the most likely.
Knowing a bit about Jackson, his past accusations and his accusers, even more so.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

IMHO Jackson very likely had Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which BTW I think is common among the highest level of celebrities. If you're not familiar with the disorder, do read up on it, and if you do you'll understand a lot about people who have the wealth and fame to get away with anything, actually going ahead to use their wealth and fame to get away with anything!

Basically, they think they're the only person in the world who matters, and that other people are just there to serve, or to be used. People with NPD don't think that rules or laws apply to them. If they want to, for instance, screw little kids, they may be vaguely aware that other people will try to stop them and will take steps to prevent being stopped , but they won't believe that those people have any *right* to interfere with their sexual needs. So yes, some people with NPD will flaunt immoral behavior or "hide in plain sight", and go on national TV holding hands with a little boy or something, because they don't really get why it's a problem.

And BTW personality disorders have nothing to do with intelligence, both stupid people and smart people can have them. Personally I think Jackson was fairly smart, smart enough to earn about a billion dollars, although obviously he wasn't smart enough to hold onto it.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Otter that's a very fitting conjecture for a case like this one, he could totally fit the bill. Yet, I don't see him as a person with NPD.
He never stroke me as somebody that thought too much of himself, if anything he was very insecure and almost humble, like he knew he achieved a lot of success thanks to his musical talent, but didn't really seemed to believe he was the cock of the walk.
He looked like the opposite, like he was in such a high profile position notwithstanding his own inadequacy, and he behaved like he knew that.

Guys, I think many of you are doing an excellent job at profiling this case, but I think we'll never know for sure as many responses to such valid conclusions are as valid as yours (like mine) because Jackson was quite difficult to really know: we're all judging from outside evidence (including these allegations from people that knew him and accuse him), and unfortunatelly nobody was ever there with MJ when these incidents happened (I consider myself fortunate not to ever be there because it's weird in any case).

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Yeah, we'll never really know what went on or who Jackson really was, because Jackson himself is dead, and the only witnesses to the worst side of him were children at the time. But also because we can ever really *know* a famous person, everything we hear about them is filtered by distance and the media, and in most cases, fudged and controlled by the celebrity's publicist. It's the publicist's job to present the celebrity to the public as the best possible version of the real person, or someone unlike the real person. It's a safe assumption that the real person is worse than the public persona, sometimes a lot worse.

Jackson deliberately presented the "manchild" persona, that was what he wanted the public to see. It wasn't a persona that any manager or publicist would have approved, they would have wanted him to drop the "good boy" persona as he grew up and look like a sexy macho straight man, which was apparently something Jackson couldn't or wouldn't do. So yeah, I'm willing to concede that the eccentric manchild was the real Jackson, or a version of the real Jackson that had been presented via some very expensive publicists and an entertainment media wearing kneepads.

But remember, it's a safe assumption the real celebrity is always worse than what's presented to the public. So if you apply that logic to a grown man who has plastic surgery to look like Peter Pan and goes on national TV cuddling with a little boy and saying they share a bed... what do you get?

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I agree with Otter that he most likely had NPD, although I arrived there via a somewhat different route.

He was anything but humble, although that is the image he projected. Consistently.

In researching this, I stumbled across a video of 2000 of his personal items he gave to an auction house to sell for him. Among them were a 12-foot elaborate throne (which he had obviously used to sit in), a full-on bejeweled crown on a royal pillow (with the letters MJ on the crown), a bejeweled scepter, and a portrait of himself he had commissioned of his being crowned a king.

He named one of his sons Prince.

He also very much wanted to be knighted by the Queen, and tried to buy a knighthood for himself.

He also commissioned his version of da Vinci's Last Supper, with himself in the center, in Jesus's place, the only one sitting on a velvet throne (with a crown behind him), surrounded by his "disciples," Einstein, Edison, JFK, Lincoln, Disney, Charlie Chaplin, Elvis, and Little Richard. This painting hung over his bed.

Are these the actions of someone who's humble and overtly insecure, or someone who's terribly arrogant?

I said overtly insecure because those with NPD, underneath it all, are driven by shame and terrible insecurity. His perfectionism (self-admitted) bears this out. Nothing he did was ever good enough. He'd internalised his father's horribly abusive voice and made it his own.

That's how I came at it, but what Otter said makes sense. Having NPD, he thought he was above it all, different from everyone else, and therefore entitled.

reply

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

Why that would entail admitting that they're wrong, like an adult or something.

Facing the fact you're a sheep is psychologically difficult, so they'll opt to make it more difficult by digging a rabbit hole with their ego.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

I've heard this a lot on the old IMDb board.

A middle-aged, unmarried man moves in at the end of the street. He starts putting up all kinds of fun games and rides to attract kids. He zeroes in on kids from unhappy or broken homes and makes them his special friends. He seems unable to make or sustain healthy relationships with women, but he keeps attracting children, and even has them spending the night. Eventually there are children talking about how he gives them wine, shows them inappropriate pictures, talks about inappropriate things, and tells them if they ever tell they'll both spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Do you send your little boy over to this man's house for a sleepover? Of course you don't, not if you care about your little boy.

This is where folks usually say, "Aha! And if you really believed he molested your little boy, would you accept one of his many payoffs? I wouldn't!" Did you miss the part about the unhappy or broken homes? The parents of these children aren't model citizens in the first place. He chooses carefully. He finds parents who can be bought off. He plies them with presents so their guard will come down. If the children were the parents' first priority, they'd have told him to keep his presents; their children weren't for sale.

If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, it probably is a duck. What's truly sad is that you'd excuse anything he did because you like his music and performances. Such is our culture of celebrity worship.

reply

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

"A middle-aged, unmarried man moves in at the end of the street. He starts putting up all kinds of fun games and rides to attract kids. He zeroes in on kids from unhappy or broken homes and makes them his special friends.... talks about inappropriate things, and tells them if they ever tell they'll both spend the rest of their lives in prison."

These are rumors that have been debunked by Macaulay Culkin, Corey Feldman, Taj and Brandi Jackson and plenty of grown previous kids that spent the night with him. He literally just played games with them and went on his way. And there's an infinite number of reasons a relationship can fail. Him being a little on the weird and shy side can't help.

"This is where folks usually say, "Aha! And if you really believed he molested your little boy, would you accept one of his many payoffs? I wouldn't!" Did you miss the part about the unhappy or broken homes? The parents of these children aren't model citizens in the first place. He chooses carefully. He finds parents who can be bought off. He plies them with presents so their guard will come down. If the children were the parents' first priority, they'd have told him to keep his presents; their children weren't for sale."

Where are these kids by the way? They'de be adults now. They can come out in the wake of this documentary and say it. I mean, it's gotta to be some good closure. Nothing's stopping them, other than the fact they don't exist and this narrative you just spun was a fantasy.

"If it walks, quacks, and swims like a duck, it probably is a duck."

If the Earth looks flat than it must be flat.

"What's truly sad is that you'd excuse anything he did because you like his music and performances. Such is our culture of celebrity worship."

It's called compassion and rational skepticism. His music and fame have nothing to do with it. And it's a broken record excuse from people like you at this point.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

It's interesting that MJ's fans don't want to answer the question when posed about some non-celebrity who moves down the street, is single, middle-aged, and basically sets up an amusement park in his yard and requests that the young neighborhood boys have sleep-overs. They don't want to answer based on what it would look like in anyone else other than MJ.

There are kids who later said nothing happened; there are kids who later said something did. This isn't surprising in abuse situations. Assuming you're a guy, and some older man took an interest in your life while your parents didn't, you'd feel special -- especially if they were pretty cool. If they took you places, talked to you about things you liked to do, acted as if you were special, you'd develop a bond with them. This is called "grooming." A molester typically takes his time choosing the right child, and grooming him until he's sure when he goes to the next level, the child won't talk.

What tends to seal the arrangement is that when he finally figures out what's going on, he realizes he was complicit. He didn't scream, run tell his parents, or even say he didn't want to go back to the "weird" man's house. That feeling brings shame. He doesn't want to tell. That's what predators count on.

It's called compassion and rational skepticism.

Your compassion is for MJ and your skepticism is for the boys.

Again, if some non-celebrity moves down the street, is single, middle-aged, and basically sets up an amusement park in his yard and requests that the young neighborhood boys have sleep-overs, do you let your son sleep with him?

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

Destinata, I think you have some of the weakest rationale here.
1, in my case, and in many other cases "defending" MJ, I'm not much of a fan of him. I like some of his music, some I cannot stand, but he's not at all one of my favorite musicians, artists or whatever. I can appreciate he was good and I understand that his fame was huge and hugely overblown. So cut the crap about "you like his music so you'd excuse anything he did". I think that goes for a small percentage of those in his camp, certainly not for me.
2 I don't think anybody defending him will let his minor son sleep with a non-celebrity like you described, nor with a celebrity that you didn't describe, nor with MJ.
The answer to your question is no, but nobody's arguing in favor of this idea. What are you getting at?
3 The duck-theory is the basis of false accusers and racist bigots everywhere, it's their motto actually so I can only tell you to change it because it's what leads to any discrimination possible.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

1) That is certainly true for most fans I’ve dealt with. It’s not true for you? I’ll accept that. See? No need to get nasty.

2) Thank you for a direct answer to a direct question. I don’t think so, either. From long experience talking to MJ fans on IMDb, I know you’re wrong about people not letting their minor son sleep with MJ. They would. They’d trust him implicitly. “He was misunderstood and totally innocent, so why not let my minor son sleep with him? He just played games. Ask any of those who slept with him who are defending him!”

3) I’m trying to get the people who think he’s totally innocent and misunderstood — the one true victim in all this — to see this from the point of view of those of us, and the police, and the prosecutors who were dealing with a man who walked, talked and acted like a child molester.

We’re not talking about anyone else but Michael Jackson, so don’t equate my arguments with “race bigotry.” My point was a guy who has an alarm in his room for someone coming down the hall isn’t doing it for burglars. Again, if we put all the pieces together they only fit one way. You think not. Don’t take the detective’s exam.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

"Don’t take the detective’s exam"
That's a funny one, seriously you made me smile:-)

I disagree with your points, and btw I do have an alarm in my bedroom and it is exactly for burglars coming up from downstairs, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree: like I said it's a case that it's impossible to crack 100%, on either side of the table.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

His was for people coming down the hall. Up from downstairs gives you a bit of warning, although most security systems are on the windows and doors, not the hall outside the main bedroom.

reply

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Heisenberg
You have it backwards, and protest too much. MJ looked like the type who people would normally shy away from--but in his case, they were in awe and revered him. If he was not famous and so-called talented, nobody would allow their children anywhere near his bedroom.

It's not just due to our paranoid-society that thinks every man that takes interest in a child is a child molester. In his case, MJ went above and beyond making himself look suspicious. The sheep don't even like their sons becoming overly-friendly with an alpha-man (regardless of how judgemental and unfair it is), much less a raving homosexual. And even though most homosexuals are not pedophiles, parents are not going to hang their hats on the odds--except when it came to MJ. But since he was an entertainer and a musician, his looks are considered "arty". Since when is a "sweet gentle" soul never a seductive-narcissist who is plain phony and a user.

MJ was a poster boy for a narcissistic, transsexual--in--the--making, effeminate homosexual. If ever refused your son to get acquainted (sleepovers) with such an adult as MJ, you'd would be a hypocrite. And nice how you brought the racist-accusation into the hopeless mix.

The 20million dollar settlement really made him look "innocent" also (though the boy did not remotely deserve that amount).

reply

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

So you're pretty much repeating the same arguments instead of trying to refute the ones I already countered them with. Your second paragraph is just a red herring. I can tell I'm going to go in circles with you... but let me comment on a few nuggets of worth here...

I thought I was already clear on this, I don't give a shit about celebrity and fame. They're just people with a better job than me and I only ever cringed at the the celebrity worship culture that protected guys like Bill Cosby. I would show the same level of compassion for any man whose being blamed by sheep for the conclusions they jumped to. My skepticism isn't aimed at the imaginary victims but the ACCUSATION. If an accusation is on the table, I need evidence before I consider it true. "He's weird though," and "look, he kinda acts like one," aren't good enough. If you're that much of a simpleton to be that easily persuaded, never serve on a jury and make sure you stick to medial jobs.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

*sigh*

Of course I’m repeating my arguments, because you by-passed them. The guy ahead of you said no one ever makes the argument that they’d let their child sleep with Jackson. Well, why ever not? He’s all misunderstood and innocent and stuff.

And of COURSE you don’t care about celebrity. No one who argues for MJ ever cops to that. 🙄

Bill Cosby is in prison. MJ always got off. He paid off a lot of people, but he always got off. And he even has people defending him. Part of what I was trying to do with that argument you’re trying so very hard to ignore is point out that your garden variety pervert wouldn’t get the pass that MJ did. The weirdo at the end of the street would have everyone keeping their kids away, not people saying, “Hey, gang! I think he’s just misunderstood! The way you’re acting is what fuels false accusers, race bigots and discrimination!” No, folks would be sending the cops over there for welfare checks on any kids they saw going into the house; they’d be asking the mothers exactly how much they really know about the guy, etc.

You need evidence. There are plenty of experts in pedophilia who will tell you that if MJ wanted to look like a pedophile, he couldn’t have done a better job. They’d describe the process of grooming a child, and explain it was exactly what MJ did. They’d describe the compulsion and recklessness, which MJ also had. There were all the payoffs, which innocent people don’t do or have to do. (“But they always come after rich people!” Then why aren’t all rich people accused of sex crimes?) And then there are the accusations.

No, you don’t want evidence. You want real time film of events, and then you’d likely say the tapes had been doctored like Mel Gibson’s fans did...until he confessed. And then they claimed “The Russian b***h asked for it!” Not that you’re impressed with celebrity. Heck, they told me they weren’t, either. 🙄

reply

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

"Of course I’m repeating my arguments, because you by-passed them. The guy ahead of you said no one ever makes the argument that they’d let their child sleep with Jackson. Well, why ever not? He’s all misunderstood and innocent and stuff."

I actually presented counter-arguments, you're the one that's avoiding them.

"And of COURSE you don’t care about celebrity. No one who argues for MJ ever cops to that."

I don't care about celebrity. I don't know what else to say. Except, do you have any evidence that I'm...oh wait, never mind. You don't need evidence to believe in imaginary facts.

"Bill Cosby is in prison. MJ always got off. He paid off a lot of people, but he always got off. And he even has people defending him.... the guy, etc."

You could have suspicions of someone. I had them of MJ too. I lot of his fans did. But I didn't form a conclusion until an examination of the evidence was done. I would hold this true equally for MJ and the weirdo at thee end of the street.

"You need evidence. There are plenty of experts in pedophilia who will tell you that if MJ wanted to look like a pedophile, he couldn’t have done a better job..... And then there are the accusations."

An Appeal to Authority based on a pop-science is not hard evidence. There's a reason criminal profiling is rarely used today in a court of law. It's less than useless as a science.

"No, you don’t want evidence....Heck, they told me they weren’t, either."

Actually, yeah I do. Show me that movie which shows MJ showing sexual feelings for a kid and I would hang the man myself. And you have a weird way of asserting people's motivations. You just can't go of the conclusions you jump to.

reply

[–] Destinata (2605) 5 years ago

You said, “These are rumors that have been debunked....” You didn’t say if you’d let your son sleep with the weirdo down the street who wasn’t famous. Or, for that matter, if you’d go around the neighborhood telling everyone that he’s being judged too harshly. I was correct when I said you skipped right over my points all together.

You say you don’t care about celebrity, but you avoid the question of whether you’d take the same attitude toward someone who wasn’t famous — just some single, middle-aged guy with an affected, high-pitched voice, who moved into the big lot at the end of the street and set up an amusement park to attract kids and asked the neighbors if their little boys could sleep over.

So lets say one of the neighborhood boys accused the weirdo at the end of the street of molesting him, which seemed to confirm a lot of the rumors circulating, but he was found not guilty. Would you let your son sleep with him now that he’s all innocent and misunderstood and stuff?

You wouldn’t believe expert psychologists who’d dealt with child after child who’d been molested, or police who’d had case after case of child molestation. You dismiss them all as “pop-science.”

Okay. So why did MJ have that alarm that warned him when someone was coming down the hall to his bedroom? A detective who’d searched MJ’s house said it was set up just like other pedo’s houses he’d seen before, all the way down to that alarm. But that’s “pop-science.”

Don’t tell me film would convince you. A movie that shows MJ feeling up a little boy could be an MJ impersonator. And once that thought hit you, you’d be right back defending him. Been there, done that with the Mel Gibson fans. If you don’t want to believe, you won’t.

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

You make an excellent point. If some people believe MJ's having sleepovers with little boys, and with them sleeping in MJ's bed, is completely as MJ claimed -- utterly benign and innocent -- why wouldn't they allow their own small sons to do it?

BTW, slight correction. The alarm system was on the stairway that lead to his bedroom. I can see no reasonable explanation for it. Neverland was guarded by his security 24/7.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

Why bother with pesky facts and evidence when you can simply propogate a bunch of unsubstantiated salacious rumors & innuendo?

reply

[–] L1 (1316) 5 years ago

TheReacher,
Do you need films of evidence to believe Jimmy saville is guilty? Weistein? Cosby?Rolf Harris? Cardinell Pell?
Any other man accused by multiple people of sex crimes? No? Just Michael then.OK

reply

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"These are rumors that have been debunked by Macaulay Culkin, Corey Feldman, Taj and Brandi Jackson and plenty of grown previous kids that spent the night with him. He literally just played games with them and went on his way."

Actually, it has not been debunked. Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman have both said they spent nights with MJ, and nothing untoward happened. As you said, they said they played video games and so forth. I absolutely believe Corey, and probably Macaulay, although I'm less certain of him. But that obviously doesn't mean what Wade, James, and others have alleged isn't true. Pedophiles don't target every child they come across and are around.

Not to point out the obvious, but both Wade and James once said the very same thing, back when. Sandusky's adopted son did the same, and like Wade and James, even testified to it.

I've listened to what Brandi and Taj had to say, and none of it debunks anything either.

"Where are these kids by the way? They'de be adults now. They can come out in the wake of this documentary and say it. I mean, it's gotta to be some good closure. Nothing's stopping them, other than the fact they don't exist [...]"

It would be good closure, but I don't see how can say there's nothing stopping them. Look at all the hate, suspicion, and vitriol being heaped on everyone who's spoken out so far. Wade has received at least one death threat by an unhinged fan. They are under public Klieg lights, and not in a good way. Would you want that? I sure as hell wouldn't. Would it be the right thing to do? Yes, but I can understand why someone wouldn't want to subject themselves to all that.

Jordan Chandler had to move out of the country to avoid it all. Of course it's a lot easier to disappear like that when you've got $20 million to work with. But most wouldn't have anywhere near that kind of resource.

I agree with Destinada that your compassion is reserved solely for MJ, and your skepticism solely for Wade and James.

reply