Be prepared to never see the MJ episode of The Simpsons ever again...

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for jackamomo
#51 Edited by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

@jackamomo Why couldn't you stay out of this thread you idiot.

nihilism

I'm Buddhist.

Avatar image for sonicare
#52 Posted by sonicare (56836 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@sonicare said:
@horgen said:

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Neither was OJ or Caylee Anthony or George Zimmerman. All of whom were clearly innocent.

Not familiar enough with Caylee Anthony, but regarding OJ and Zimmerman, they got away due to a technicality. They were declared "not guilty" of murder because the defense could not provide sufficient evidence to prove they had the intent to murder "beyond reasonable doubt", despite it being clear they were responsible for the victims' deaths. If they were instead charged with manslaughter, then they could've potentially been behind bars for a long time. But because they were charged with "murder", that made it more difficult to convict them. And the "double jeapordy" law prevents them from being charged again for a similar crime regarding the same case. After the OJ case was over, he was later charged with "wrongful death" and ordered to pay damages to his wife's family... which is a slap on the wrist, but it demonstrates that he was at least responsible for his wife's death. In comparison, MJ was never ordered by the court to pay any damages whatsoever to the kids' families.

It's also worth noting that, in the case of both OJ and Zimmerman, a dead body was found at the scene, so there was at least evidence at the scene pointing to them being the killers. In comparison, when the police investigated MJ's Neverland ranch in the early '90s, they found no evidence of child sexual abuse anywhere at his ranch.

He just admittedly sleeps with young boys in his bed. totally normal behavior

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#53 Edited by MirkoS77 (14464 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@Sevenizz said:

@uninspiredcup: There was a trial in the 90s where the child accurately described Michael’s penis. Naturally, that was settled with cash too.

The boy claimed that MJ's penis was circumcised, yet the investigation found that his penis was not circumcised. And that was the only case that ended with a cash settlement, which MJ claims is because he wanted to avoid a "media circus". Either way, after a media circus did eventually break out with the Martin Bashir documentary in 2003, MJ did go to court in 2005, where he was declared "not guilty" on all charges.

Circumcision is very difficult to substantiate anything as the foreskin can simply be retracted, so it's flimsy evidence at best. As far as I read, the boy correctly identified two markings on MJ's penis as well.

As a big fan of MJ, I found this documentary convincing. At the very least, his proximity to these boys and parents was unnerving, irresponsible and inappropriate. He took great lengths to groom these relationships over many years. One thing that's always struck me is that the relationships MJ cultivated always appeared to involve young boys. If the rationale in defense of him is that he loved children, then why wasn't he close to young girls as well? MJ took extreme lengths to groom on specific targets and focused in to win the confidence of those very close to them. If he adored all children I'd think it'd be indiscriminate and not preferential, and all would've been treated equally. They weren't. It was boy after boy after boy.

That said, I'm sick and tired of people referring to Wade and Robson as victims. It's an automatic and arrogant presumption, and if you at all question it, you're a pedophile defender and are "victim blaming". The thread on this documentary on ResetERA is nothing but a hate circle jerk of MJ, and even innocent questions are getting people day or week bans predicated on such justifications. MJ's guilt has simply not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, and at this point, it never will be. I despise the #Metoo movement, not because I advocate sexual abuse or wish to victim blame, but because once an accusation is made, someone's guilty. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Then in a matter of days their career is gone, ties are cut, and they are socially damned and painted in the worst light. This movement is toxic, it's dangerous, and while it's founded on the best of intentions, it has turned malignant and destructive.

With a very heavy and saddened heart, I have to say that I do believe that MJ is probably guilty. His overwhelming preference for boys, his honing in on only one person and their family, the similarity of Wade and Robson's separate testimonies yet telling nigh identical tactics of allure......it simply feels too suspect and calculated by MJ. Plus the testimonies are so intricate and vivid in explicit detail, and lies generally are done in broad strokes. If he's genuinely not guilty, he was still breathtakingly irresponsible and manipulative. I fail to buy the excuse that someone like that could've been so naive.

Avatar image for ogden
#54 Edited by Ogden (7 posts) -

I remember that episode a

Avatar image for ogden
#55 Edited by Ogden (7 posts) -

He must be expensive.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
#56 Posted by Baconstrip78 (1396 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic: You said “Are you saying only Christians are against child sexual abuse?”.

Catholics don’t seem to mind it. Any sensible person would have abandoned that church and it’s aptitude for concealing pedo priests years ago.

Avatar image for Jag85
#57 Edited by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@MirkoS77:

From what I've read, the boy said he had discolouration on his penis, and they found this to be true. However, it was already well known by this point that Michael had a skin condition that leads to discolouration across his body, hence how his skin went from black to white. So if he had discolouration across his body, then it's a given his penis must've also had discolouration. You don't need to actually look at his penis to figure that out. That could've easily been something the parents figured out and told the kid to say.

It's not the first time such a documentary was released. British journalist Martin Bashir released a similar documentary on Michael Jackson back in 2003, and it convinced much of the public that MJ was guilty of being a pedophile. And that's why Michael went to court, to prove his innocence, in 2005. If MJ wanted, he could've settled out-of-court and paid-off the accusers. But he didn't do that, instead choosing to go through the entire legal court process to prove his innocence. After all of the evidence was examined in court, they declared that he was not guilty of all charges. If MJ were alive today, he'd likely go to court again, and the verdict would likely be the same. It must be convenient for the filmmakers that he's now dead, and can't defend himself anymore against these allegations like he did back then. It must also be convenient that we now live in a #MeToo era where "trial by social media" determines guilt with no regard for due process or the rule of law.

As for the testimonies given by Wade and Robson, they're similar to the testimonies previously given by McCauley Culkin and Corey Feldman, up until the point where the alleged sexual assault occurs. The difference being that Culkin and Feldman say that no sexual assault occurred, whereas Wade and Robson claim that a sexual assault did occur. If what Wade and Robson claim was true, then why didn't MJ sexually assault Culkin, Feldman, or other boys who gave a similar testimony yet say he never assaulted them? And the fact that their testimonies are similar to previous boys who testified in defense of MJ would make it seem that Wade and Robson may have borrowed those similar details of their stories from those other testimonies, but changed it to make it look like MJ assaulted them.

And finally, according to many of the people who knew MJ, as well as his ex-girlfriends, he was usually very shy around girls, so that could be why he only became friends with boys rather than girls. Many of the people close to him have also said he's always had a child-like personality, and always behaved like a child, so it's not like he only did that to get the attention of young boys, but he was child-like around everyone. It's also worth noting that, while men and boys being close could be interpreted as pedophilic behaviour in Western cultures, it's considered to be socially acceptable in various Eastern cultures where many don't perceive that as pedophilic behaviour.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#58 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -

@Jag85: Thank you Jag! Great work! People seem to forget that Vitoligo is a terrible skin condition to colored people. Michael was unfortunate to have it. His mom was very religious and heavily part of the Jehova Witness cult, which he NEVER experienced Birthday Parties or other kid activities. He worked his entire life, was forced to practice everyday, and never had a chance to make friends in school.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#59 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@sonicare said:
@Jag85 said:
@sonicare said:
@horgen said:

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Neither was OJ or Caylee Anthony or George Zimmerman. All of whom were clearly innocent.

Not familiar enough with Caylee Anthony, but regarding OJ and Zimmerman, they got away due to a technicality. They were declared "not guilty" of murder because the defense could not provide sufficient evidence to prove they had the intent to murder "beyond reasonable doubt", despite it being clear they were responsible for the victims' deaths. If they were instead charged with manslaughter, then they could've potentially been behind bars for a long time. But because they were charged with "murder", that made it more difficult to convict them. And the "double jeapordy" law prevents them from being charged again for a similar crime regarding the same case. After the OJ case was over, he was later charged with "wrongful death" and ordered to pay damages to his wife's family... which is a slap on the wrist, but it demonstrates that he was at least responsible for his wife's death. In comparison, MJ was never ordered by the court to pay any damages whatsoever to the kids' families.

It's also worth noting that, in the case of both OJ and Zimmerman, a dead body was found at the scene, so there was at least evidence at the scene pointing to them being the killers. In comparison, when the police investigated MJ's Neverland ranch in the early '90s, they found no evidence of child sexual abuse anywhere at his ranch.

He just admittedly sleeps with young boys in his bed. totally normal behavior

Did they admit to drugging them or sip alcohol before bed?

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#60 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@jackamomo said:

@jackamomo Why couldn't you stay out of this thread you idiot.

nihilism

I'm Buddhist.

Did you just called yourself an idiot? LOL

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#61 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -

@Jag85: Brandi Jackson speaks about Wade Robson, states that he's a liar and a cheat

Avatar image for Jag85
#62 Posted by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: I came here to post the same article. The documentary completely hid her existence, even though she was the only person who was so close to both the accused (MJ's niece) and the accuser (Wade's girlfriend). And that's because she would've exposed the lies in the documentary.

Avatar image for horgen
#63 Posted by Horgen (121131 posts) -

@sonicare said:
@horgen said:
@uninspiredcup said:

My guess is the documentary is really convincing. Convinced me 100% and I was defending him a few weeks back on this very forum.

Better just watching it for yourself and deciding.

Yet he has never been convicted in court, right?

Neither was OJ or Caylee Anthony or George Zimmerman. All of whom were clearly innocent.

Exactly. :P

I just find it odd to act now. There is nothing new as far as I understand.

Avatar image for saltslasher
#64 Posted by SaltSlasher (1312 posts) -

That is whack considering the same people who testified that he was innocent are now making a documentary post-mortem that he was a sex offender.

I find the making of this documentary very distasteful, short of them having some legitimate evidence, that isn't just stories, then I wouldn't even acknowledge this and damn sure wouldn't if I was running Simpsons.

Seriously, of those who would truly get upset and call Fox or their sponsors that the content is bad, is gonna see the episode with Michael Jackson's voice and even know its him, its literally some huge fucking stark raving man in an institution. Literally no one who even knows its MJ's voice is gonna give a shit. Take it off TV cause who cares, but don't pull from Streaming, that's madness.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#65 Posted by LJS9502_basic (167117 posts) -

@Baconstrip78 said:

@LJS9502_basic: You said “Are you saying only Christians are against child sexual abuse?”.

Catholics don’t seem to mind it. Any sensible person would have abandoned that church and it’s aptitude for concealing pedo priests years ago.

Child sexual abuse happens in every demographic. I hope you're not one of the MJ supporters because he's a known abuser for decades.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#66 Posted by mattbbpl (17464 posts) -

I watched it yesterday. Good episode.

I'm not a fan of removing media from circulation for these reasons. I wish Bla,e was still available as well.

Art forces us to think and face our demons, our culture, our hiztory, and the mindsets that inspired them. Either love Michael Jackson or hate him, this robs us of a small peice of insight into those things.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#67 Posted by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

I heard he was gay.

Avatar image for Macutchi
#68 Posted by Macutchi (6878 posts) -

the biggest revelation to come out of all this for me is it was actually michael jackson who voiced leon kompowsky in that episode and not an impersonator

Avatar image for Jag85
#69 Edited by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man said:

@Jag85: Brandi Jackson speaks about Wade Robson, states that he's a liar and a cheat

Wade Robson claimed that MJ prevented Wade from interacting with girls. And yet Michael introduced his own niece Brandi to Wade. And in the documentary, Wade completely hid the fact that he had a long-term relationship with Brandi during and after the time of the alleged "abuse". Wade was also responsible for the breakup of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. And there's plenty of other tea she revealed in the podcast, but I've only heard some of it so far. Brandi, who was around both Michael and Wade during most of the time the alleged "abuse" happened, and who was both close to her uncle Michael and had a long-term relationship with Wade, says she is 100% confident that Michael had never done anything inappropriate with children and that Wade is a compulsive liar.

Another thing I might add is that, when the police investigated MJ's Neverland ranch in 1993, they found no evidence of paedophilia, child porn, or even any evidence of homosexuality or gay porn, but all they found is pornography of adult women. Someone of his stature could've easily gotten access to child porn, or even created his own child porn. And if he was into boys, then there should've at least been some gay porn somewhere. Yet there was none of that, no child porn or gay porn, found anywhere at his ranch when the police suddenly showed-up unannounced to his ranch in 1993, but instead all they found is adult heterosexual porn, which would indicate that MJ was neither into males or children, but was a hetereosexual man into adult women.

Also, there have been many people who knew MJ as kids that have testified in defense of MJ, saying he never did anything inappropriate with them. Whereas the few people making such accusations usually turn out to be untrustworthy or unreliable, or have ulterior motives. When you look at all the evidence from both sides of the story, as the court did back in 2005, the most likely conclusion is that MJ is innocent, which is the verdict that the court had reached.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#70 Posted by mattbbpl (17464 posts) -

@Macutchi said:

the biggest revelation to come out of all this for me is it was actually michael jackson who voiced leon kompowsky in that episode and not an impersonator

Except for the singing, funnily enough (and when Leon returned to using his own voice).

Avatar image for radley78
#71 Edited by Radley78 (3 posts) -

The Simpsons are silly heads.

I haven't watched the MJ documentary. Somebody said somethign along the lines of:

"There's no new evidence. It's just stories and MJ isn't here to defend himself. So, it's just weird."

Has anybody watched the documentary and got a good reason to watch it despite this fact?

Avatar image for AFBrat77
#72 Edited by AFBrat77 (26738 posts) -

Again, I would bet anything Michael Jackson isn't the monster people accused him of being.

Imagine yourself being shy and thrust into the spotlight at 6 or 7 for essentially the rest of your life! Constantly watched closely and scrutinized. Christ, no wonder he had problems, that's a recipe for disaster!

But he wasn't a pedophile, I'm just certain of it. Maybe I understand him because he was my generation (GenJones) or if there is any truth to astrology (his birthday was 1 day difference to mine 3 years earlier). But I just somehow know it.

I think that he was always trying to recapture his youth that was arrested way too damn early. The guy was always shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, but an absolute powerhouse talent when he was performing, his release. But he didn't know how to be himself or even like himself when he wasn't on stage. And he was always being watched by the media. The whole thing was tragic, even despite the money. I don't think he could ever enjoy it. The Pepsi accident made everything far worse for him. It makes me sad, he was THE MAN in the 80's, though I will always say his album "Off the Wall" from the 70's was his best.

And you can bet anything people would lie to get his money.

I won't be watching any special that beats up on a dead man like this, especially one that's innocent.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#73 Posted by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -
@nintendoboy16 said:

Comicbook NOW!

Kind of ironic they are caving to a controversy, given their efforts to defend Apu and use Lisa and Marge to attack the politically correct. Besides that, I'm really mixed on this.

Not sure attacking the rabidly politically correct is the same as defending a pedophile. The saddest part about this is that no one had the guts to protect his victims while he was alive.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#74 Posted by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -
@FireEmblem_Man said:
@jackamomo said:

@FireEmblem_Man: justice is not cheap in America.

The court cases are circuses. The lawyers are performers. You should see his lawyer.

He must be expensive.

And? So you saying he bought out the justice system, including all evidence against him as well as his accusers to stay silent? That's "Government pollutes waters, turning the frogs gay" conspiracy even makes Alex Jones smart

Have you heard of Jimmy Saville? He had nowhere near the wealth of Michael Jackson but was protected by his fame.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#75 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@GarGx1 said:

Not sure attacking the rabidly politically correct is the same as defending a pedophile. The saddest part about this is that no one had the guts to protect his victims while he was alive.

Michael already proved his innocence at the court of law and there was no proof of him holding a kiddy porn ring in his Neverland Ranch after it was raided. Also, the accusers were caught lying under oath.

@GarGx1 said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:

And? So you saying he bought out the justice system, including all evidence against him as well as his accusers to stay silent? That's "Government pollutes waters, turning the frogs gay" conspiracy even makes Alex Jones smart

Have you heard of Jimmy Saville? He had nowhere near the wealth of Michael Jackson but was protected by his fame.

Yes, I'm well aware of Jimmy Saville, but the big difference is there were hard evidence against him over allegations against Michael.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#76 Posted by Jackamomo (2156 posts) -

@GarGx1:and the Royal Family, and the BBC. But tbh I'm sick of being outraged by peado's at this point. There are statistically the same amount as there has ever been so it's a kind of pointless missdirection of rage and my time.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#77 Posted by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: Yet in 1993 the charges were settled out of court. Also money and fame can protect anyone, especially in America.

The floodgates are only just opening.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#78 Edited by uninspiredcup (35001 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man said:
@GarGx1 said:

Not sure attacking the rabidly politically correct is the same as defending a pedophile. The saddest part about this is that no one had the guts to protect his victims while he was alive.

Michael already proved his innocence at the court of law and there was no proof of him holding a kiddy porn ring in his Neverland Ranch after it was raided. Also, the accusers were caught lying under oath.

@GarGx1 said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:

And? So you saying he bought out the justice system, including all evidence against him as well as his accusers to stay silent? That's "Government pollutes waters, turning the frogs gay" conspiracy even makes Alex Jones smart

Have you heard of Jimmy Saville? He had nowhere near the wealth of Michael Jackson but was protected by his fame.

Yes, I'm well aware of Jimmy Saville, but the big difference is there were hard evidence against him over allegations against Michael.

Was their? It's largely people (on mass) saying he done X, from what I understand.

Masses, and masses, and masses of them. Like, hundreds. He might be the most prolific offender on record.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#79 Edited by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@GarGx1 said:

@FireEmblem_Man: Yet in 1993 the charges were settled out of court. Also money and fame can protect anyone, especially in America.

The floodgates are only just opening.

What floodgates? Nothing more than just accusations that need to be triple checked again? How many times will they try to destroy Michael? Show the damn proof, because the video I saw on HBO was one sided with no interviews from the Jackson Family to defend him. SHOW ME THE PROOF!

The document came out at the right time where outrage culture is now dominant.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#80 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:
@GarGx1 said:

Not sure attacking the rabidly politically correct is the same as defending a pedophile. The saddest part about this is that no one had the guts to protect his victims while he was alive.

Michael already proved his innocence at the court of law and there was no proof of him holding a kiddy porn ring in his Neverland Ranch after it was raided. Also, the accusers were caught lying under oath.

@GarGx1 said:
@FireEmblem_Man said:

And? So you saying he bought out the justice system, including all evidence against him as well as his accusers to stay silent? That's "Government pollutes waters, turning the frogs gay" conspiracy even makes Alex Jones smart

Have you heard of Jimmy Saville? He had nowhere near the wealth of Michael Jackson but was protected by his fame.

Yes, I'm well aware of Jimmy Saville, but the big difference is there were hard evidence against him over allegations against Michael.

Was their? It's largely people (on mass) saying he done X, from what I understand.

Masses, and masses, and masses of them. Like, hundreds. He might be the most prolific offender on record.

That's still not a good answer, where are the finger prints, where are the extortion hush money? Where is the evidence? It's nothing more than a he say/she say!

Avatar image for Jag85
#81 Edited by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@GarGx1: MJ was pressured by the people around him to settle out of court in 1993, as the court case and media circus would've hurt his career at that point. After allegations resurfaced in 2003 with the Bashir documentary, MJ refused to settle out of court and instead decided to settle things once and for all in court, where he was declared innocent in 2005. If MJ was guilty, then he could've settled out of court again, but decided not to because he realized the media would use that against him, so he went to court to prove his innocence and shut the media up once and for all... at least for 14 years, up until now, the era of #MeToo and fake news, where due process and rule of law have been thrown out the window, falsehoods are being accepted as truths, people are guilty until proven innocent, and trial by social media rules the day.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#82 Edited by MirkoS77 (14464 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@MirkoS77:

From what I've read, the boy said he had discolouration on his penis, and they found this to be true. However, it was already well known by this point that Michael had a skin condition that leads to discolouration across his body, hence how his skin went from black to white. So if he had discolouration across his body, then it's a given his penis must've also had discolouration. You don't need to actually look at his penis to figure that out. That could've easily been something the parents figured out and told the kid to say.

It's not the first time such a documentary was released. British journalist Martin Bashir released a similar documentary on Michael Jackson back in 2003, and it convinced much of the public that MJ was guilty of being a pedophile. And that's why Michael went to court, to prove his innocence, in 2005. If MJ wanted, he could've settled out-of-court and paid-off the accusers. But he didn't do that, instead choosing to go through the entire legal court process to prove his innocence. After all of the evidence was examined in court, they declared that he was not guilty of all charges. If MJ were alive today, he'd likely go to court again, and the verdict would likely be the same. It must be convenient for the filmmakers that he's now dead, and can't defend himself anymore against these allegations like he did back then. It must also be convenient that we now live in a #MeToo era where "trial by social media" determines guilt with no regard for due process or the rule of law.

As for the testimonies given by Wade and Robson, they're similar to the testimonies previously given by McCauley Culkin and Corey Feldman, up until the point where the alleged sexual assault occurs. The difference being that Culkin and Feldman say that no sexual assault occurred, whereas Wade and Robson claim that a sexual assault did occur. If what Wade and Robson claim was true, then why didn't MJ sexually assault Culkin, Feldman, or other boys who gave a similar testimony yet say he never assaulted them? And the fact that their testimonies are similar to previous boys who testified in defense of MJ would make it seem that Wade and Robson may have borrowed those similar details of their stories from those other testimonies, but changed it to make it look like MJ assaulted them.

And finally, according to many of the people who knew MJ, as well as his ex-girlfriends, he was usually very shy around girls, so that could be why he only became friends with boys rather than girls. Many of the people close to him have also said he's always had a child-like personality, and always behaved like a child, so it's not like he only did that to get the attention of young boys, but he was child-like around everyone. It's also worth noting that, while men and boys being close could be interpreted as pedophilic behaviour in Western cultures, it's considered to be socially acceptable in various Eastern cultures where many don't perceive that as pedophilic behaviour.

I'm familiar with Bashir's documentary and past accusations. MJ should've never initially settled out of court, it may have been quick and painless at the time but in the long-term is only lent affirmation of guilt to those going after him. Pedophilia is an accusation that you don't settle, you fight it vehemently from the get-go with everything you've got. I still see it as one of MJ's poorest judgements that he paid, thinking it'd go away.

It's disingenuous to compare Feldman and Culkin to Wade and Robson due to power dynamics. The former had celebrity, exposure, and the financial means and public backing far past the point than the latter did. Wade and Robson were, aside being "famous" only by proxy to Jackson, fairly unknowns. Targeting Culkin and Feldman would've been far more risky, but getting close to them to the same degree while stopping short at abuse granted Jackson an immense degree of plausible deniability by those whose social status would've had them viewed in much higher esteem and credibility and who truly believed him innocent due to him not crossing that line with them. Abusers select their targets very carefully, and they usually do so towards those who will be viewed in lower repute and with a higher degree of skepticism (due to holding motives such as financial gain that a celebrity would have much lesser incentive towards), things that can be used to then heavily discredit them, and hence those who are unknown are not to be given the benefit of the doubt above those who aren't. I don't think it's a surprise that if MJ did abuse children, he didn't move on those who held more privilege, resources, and exposure but he kept them just as close. He only crossed the line with those who were unknowns and not affluent.

Further, guys who are shy around girls are generally intimidated by them, so I'm highly skeptical that as a grown man, he was intimidated by those decades his junior. And while I don't doubt that MJ enjoyed childlike things, I don't believe he literally held the mentality of a child which seems to be the point his defense is predicated upon. You can see he wasn't like this in his interviews (such as with Oprah), his business decisions (which were oftentimes prudent, shrewd and merciless), and his performances. He was a grown man, and if I were to concede he were childlike and innocent in any way, it resided in the context of an adult mindset, not a literal psychology of being a child. He made decisions in his life, both personal and professional, that required mature discretion.

This is not a position I'm too keen on arguing. I was born in the late seventies, I grew up with MJ when he was not just a super star, he was downright magical. I consider him one of the greatest talents to have ever lived who gave much to the world but I can't let that nostalgia and appreciation blind me to facts of his personal life that are extremely questionable, even without proof of abuse. MJ's grooming of the families, his smothering these kids with gifts, his intense targeting of only a few specific kids and families and doing everything to shower them with the best his lifestyle had to offer. The guy was nigh obsessive in his attention. All for nothing in return? I think you'd have to do serious mental gymnastics to attempt to come to the conclusion that this was all some product of exceptional naivete and grand innocence, or that they guy was simply extremely lonely or whatever.

Just out of curiosity....have you watched the documentary yet?

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#83 Posted by Sevenizz (4069 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: I hate this defence and take a step back and think about what you’re writing. Whenever I hear ‘Michael was abused and didn’t have a childhood - that’s why he’s wierd’. Look at that - LOOK AT IT! You’re excusing and dismissing all of his abuse to children as if it’s ok because Michael too has suffered. No really - that’s what you’re doing! Michael was not well and shouldn’t have been around children...period. To the parents turning a blind eye because they were lavished with gifts to Michael’s staff that accommodated and facilitated his abuse - they need to be ashamed of what they did and held party responsible.

Watch the documentary. Every parent should.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#84 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -

@Sevenizz: I did watch the documentary, and I also watch rebuttals of the documentary, and so far, the Documentary is all one sided, with the same accusations as well as a different story from before. It's nothing more than allegations.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#85 Posted by Sevenizz (4069 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: The doc is called ‘Leaving Neverland’ for a reason. It tells two similar stories of abuse. Why would they need to show another viewpoint? You don’t need to debunk your subjects in a doc - just tell their story.

Allegations or whatnot, they’re quite convincing. And they have a lot of receipts backing up their claims.

Avatar image for almsteadt
#86 Posted by almsteadt (5 posts) -

Better just watching it for yourself and deciding. Now

Avatar image for Jag85
#87 Edited by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@MirkoS77:

I think I've already addressed most of your arguments in my other posts:

@Jag85 said:

MJ was pressured by the people around him to settle out of court in 1993, as the court case and media circus would've hurt his career at that point. After allegations resurfaced in 2003 with the Bashir documentary, MJ refused to settle out of court and instead decided to settle things once and for all in court, where he was declared innocent in 2005. If MJ was guilty, then he could've settled out of court again, but decided not to because he realized the media would use that against him, so he went to court to prove his innocence and shut the media up once and for all... at least for 14 years, up until now, the era of #MeToo and fake news, where due process and rule of law have been thrown out the window, falsehoods are being accepted as truths, people are guilty until proven innocent, and trial by social media rules the day.

@Jag85 said:

Wade Robson claimed that MJ prevented Wade from interacting with girls. And yet Michael introduced his own niece Brandi to Wade. And in the documentary, Wade completely hid the fact that he had a long-term relationship with Brandi during and after the time of the alleged "abuse". Wade was also responsible for the breakup of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. And there's plenty of other tea she revealed in the podcast, but I've only heard some of it so far. Brandi, who was around both Michael and Wade during most of the time the alleged "abuse" happened, and who was both close to her uncle Michael and had a long-term relationship with Wade, says she is 100% confident that Michael had never done anything inappropriate with children and that Wade is a compulsive liar.

Another thing I might add is that, when the police investigated MJ's Neverland ranch in 1993, they found no evidence of paedophilia, child porn, or even any evidence of homosexuality or gay porn, but all they found is pornography of adult women. Someone of his stature could've easily gotten access to child porn, or even created his own child porn. And if he was into boys, then there should've at least been some gay porn somewhere. Yet there was none of that, no child porn or gay porn, found anywhere at his ranch when the police suddenly showed-up unannounced to his ranch in 1993, but instead all they found is adult heterosexual porn, which would indicate that MJ was neither into males or children, but was a hetereosexual man into adult women.

Also, there have been many people who knew MJ as kids that have testified in defense of MJ, saying he never did anything inappropriate with them. Whereas the few people making such accusations usually turn out to be untrustworthy or unreliable, or have ulterior motives. When you look at all the evidence from both sides of the story, as the court did back in 2005, the most likely conclusion is that MJ is innocent, which is the verdict that the court had reached.

Also, like I said above, men and boys being so close isn't considered abnormal in Eastern societies. In Japan, for example, men and boys routinely bath naked together in hot springs (and in feudal Japan, even opposite genders used to bathe naked together). Also, here is an Indian perspective:

The Michael Jackson Moral Project

The shock around an adult ‘sharing a bed’ with a child never really took off. Most Indians have a vastly different exposure to adult-child relationships. Adults tend to have more leeway with physical gestures — you can kiss someone else’s kid, carry them, sometimes play without a prior relationship with the parent. In rural and urban environments, plenty of parents leave their kids in neighbours’ homes for an entire day of looking after, when busy. Children have fallen asleep, woken up, been fed and then taken home. Most Indians have a sense (if not experience) of living with extended family. Co-sleeping is extremely common.

Ultimately, what matters is due process and the rule of law. The court had access to significantly more evidence than what has been shown in either the Martin Bashir or Leaving Neverland documentaries, yet the court declared MJ not guilty of all charges. And that's because the court examined evidence from both the prosecution and the defense, not just one-sided evidence from the prosecution only (as both those documentaries did) without examining the evidence from the defense. When weighing up evidence from both sides, the court's verdict was that he was innocent.

I've watched as much of the documentary as I could, but not the entire documentary (it's too long, and would require a lot of time). I've also seen some rebuttals of the documentary, but again not all of the rebuttals (which would also require a lot of time). Here are some rebuttals I'd recommend checking out:

Exclusive Interview: Michael Jackson’s Niece, Who Dated Leaving Neverland Star Wade Robson, Explains Why She’s Sure He’s Lying

So Wade Robson... [A Thread]

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#88 Posted by LJS9502_basic (167117 posts) -

@AFBrat77 said:

Again, I would bet anything Michael Jackson isn't the monster people accused him of being.

Imagine yourself being shy and thrust into the spotlight at 6 or 7 for essentially the rest of your life! Constantly watched closely and scrutinized. Christ, no wonder he had problems, that's a recipe for disaster!

But he wasn't a pedophile, I'm just certain of it. Maybe I understand him because he was my generation (GenJones) or if there is any truth to astrology (his birthday was 1 day difference to mine 3 years earlier). But I just somehow know it.

I think that he was always trying to recapture his youth that was arrested way too damn early. The guy was always shy and uncomfortable in the public eye, but an absolute powerhouse talent when he was performing, his release. But he didn't know how to be himself or even like himself when he wasn't on stage. And he was always being watched by the media. The whole thing was tragic, even despite the money. I don't think he could ever enjoy it. The Pepsi accident made everything far worse for him. It makes me sad, he was THE MAN in the 80's, though I will always say his album "Off the Wall" from the 70's was his best.

And you can bet anything people would lie to get his money.

I won't be watching any special that beats up on a dead man like this, especially one that's innocent.

Hey dud I have national monuments to sell you.................if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck......it's a duck. And the fact that he continued to be alone with young prepubescent boys and gave them alcohol sure is walking and quacking.

I will NEVER understand hero worship.

Avatar image for AFBrat77
#89 Posted by AFBrat77 (26738 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic:

Come off it LJ, there's no hero worship here. I just think theres more to the picture here. I don't think that's his thing. Call it gut instinct, and I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I understand people are quick to draw negative conclusions about him here, but he was never proven guilty anyways. People after his money.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#90 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

@FireEmblem_Man: The doc is called ‘Leaving Neverland’ for a reason. It tells two similar stories of abuse. Why would they need to show another viewpoint? You don’t need to debunk your subjects in a doc - just tell their story.

Allegations or whatnot, they’re quite convincing. And they have a lot of receipts backing up their claims.

Why? If you're gonna make a documentary to tarnish someone, at least be sure you're gonna tarnish it well.

Yeah, quite convincing to known liars. Where were the Receipts back in 2005 when they accused him again? You're not gonna convincing me that receipts are the hard evidence unless I see what they were for.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#91 Posted by Sevenizz (4069 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: Again you didn’t understand what the doc’s purpose was. To give a detailed account of two children who were abused. You can defend a pedophile all you want, but that still doesn’t change the fact that MJ was a sexual predator. Too many victims have come forward at this time with too similar of stories.

Avatar image for FireEmblem_Man
#92 Posted by FireEmblem_Man (19846 posts) -
@Sevenizz said:

@FireEmblem_Man: Again you didn’t understand what the doc’s purpose was. To give a detailed account of two children who were abused. You can defend a pedophile all you want, but that still doesn’t change the fact that MJ was a sexual predator. Too many victims have come forward at this time with too similar of stories.

Yet, you still bring no proof, neither does the documentary. The 2 accusers are proven liars and you continue to call MJ a pedophile. Accusations are NOT evidence

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#93 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1792 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man said:
@Sevenizz said:

@FireEmblem_Man: Again you didn’t understand what the doc’s purpose was. To give a detailed account of two children who were abused. You can defend a pedophile all you want, but that still doesn’t change the fact that MJ was a sexual predator. Too many victims have come forward at this time with too similar of stories.

Yet, you still bring no proof, neither does the documentary. The 2 accusers are proven liars and you continue to call MJ a pedophile. Accusations are NOT evidence

Yeah, just because you see it in a magazine or see it in a TV screen don't make it factual. Leave him alone, you tabloid junkies.

Loading Video...

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#94 Posted by Sevenizz (4069 posts) -

@FireEmblem_Man: If you can say that every accusation, every clue, every video, every fax, etc etc was refuted by you - without a bogus fan site with a strong bias discounting claims - then good for you. In my world, 34 year old men do not send faxes or videos to 7 year olds, do not ask parents to leave their child with them for a year, and DO NOT sleep in the same bed as said children.

Did you watch the Oprah breakdown? With professionals in the field claiming MJ categorically fit the mould and patterns of similar sex offenders?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#95 Edited by MirkoS77 (14464 posts) -

@Jag85:

We're not going to come to an agreement, but a few things.

I don't understand how bringing up other cultural norms or customs suddenly make those actions morally permissible in others? Sleeping or bathing which children isn't a western thing, and Jackson was born and raised in the west with western values. He'll be judged by such. That is the relevant factor that needs to be looked at when ascertaining the acceptability of his degree of intimacy as an adult with young children. You can make anything morally permissible when placed in the light of whatever culture you chose to best convenience your position, it's really not a valid justification or excuse.

MJ's niece would obviously testify in his defense, she is his niece and furthermore would've never seen any abuse so in her eyes she'd be convinced what she said was the truth. I highly doubt Wade spoke to her of any abuse at that time, and she wasn't there when it would've happened, nor does Wade's affair preclude the possibility. This doesn't prove anything more than the testimony of Robson and Safechuck of which you reject.

Finally, being found not guilty in a court of law isn't proving someone innocent. It simply means there wasn't enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Aside, I though in the raiding of Neverland in '93 the authorities did find books that had pictures of children in various states of undress and even those who were nude kept amongst other pornography? It wasn't illegal because it didn't have them in explicit acts, but why would he have such a thing, and especially have it in the same area he kept pornography?

Avatar image for Jag85
#96 Edited by Jag85 (13635 posts) -

@MirkoS77:

My point about cultural norms is that it's not a universal thing, but varies depending on culture. And even in the context of Western culture, I don't remember there being much outrage over it back in the days. MJ's close friendship with Macaulay Culkin, for example, wasn't seen as suspect back in the early '90s, up until the first allegations came out in '93, and then people started being more suspect about it. If anything, the MJ allegations may have helped popularize the notion of men & boy relationships being pedophilic in Western culture.

I would recommend listening to Brand Jackson's podcast in the link I posted above. She goes over a lot of details, only a few of which I mentioned from what little I heard (I only listened to a fraction of the long podcast). She goes into a lot of detail about her long-term relationship with Wade Robson during and after the time of the alleged abuse. She also contradicts a number of claims made by Wade in the documentary. Like the claim that MJ didn't let him near girls, which is contradicted by the fact that MJ introduced him to his own niece, apparently after Wade told him that he had a crush on his niece. Wade also says in the documentary that MJ told him something like "this is what you do with someone you love" before sexually assaulting him, which Brandi contradicts by noting that Wade was very much in love with her yet didn't try to do anything sexual with her for a long time. And she claims that he was very much a heterosexual male, with no clear hint of homosexuality. And why would he even hide her existence from the documentary in the first place? Considering how she was a big presence in both of their lives during that time, and the only person so close to both the accused and accuser at the time, it raises questions over why he would try to hide her existence from the documentary. But these are just some of the things I remember, off the top of my head. There's a lot more stuff in the podcast.

As for the pictures allegedly found at MJ's ranch in 2003 (not 1993, just for the record), that was from an internet "leak", which the County of Santa Barbara noted contains some forged information that weren't there in the original documents. So it's possible that the pictures of children were among the forged information added to the documents. And even if it was legit, there were no such pictures found at the '93 raid, at the time the alleged abuse happened, where we know that they only found pornography of adult women, with no inappropriate pictures of children anywhere at the time.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#97 Posted by Sevenizz (4069 posts) -

Here’s Michael speaking about his abuse...

https://youtu.be/6p8CgdRLnDQ

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#98 Posted by uninspiredcup (35001 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

Here’s Michael speaking about his abuse...

https://youtu.be/6p8CgdRLnDQ

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#99 Edited by LJS9502_basic (167117 posts) -

@AFBrat77 said:

@LJS9502_basic:

Come off it LJ, there's no hero worship here. I just think theres more to the picture here. I don't think that's his thing. Call it gut instinct, and I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I understand people are quick to draw negative conclusions about him here, but he was never proven guilty anyways. People after his money.

If it wasn't his thing he'd have stopped being alone with young boys after the first accusation.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#100 Posted by comp_atkins (35861 posts) -
@mrbojangles25 said:

You'd think after what? 25+ years of this shit? they'd finally give it a rest.

Nothing has been proven, and nothing will be. This is simply a case of people taking a rumor and mystery so incredibly far out of context that it's actually more important to them to speculate and/or believe in something untrue than admit they don't know or *gasp* it's a big boring nothing-burger.

if there's money to be had it will not end