5,031 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 19, 2024 12:43:40 GMT
Nothing to see here ...
|
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 19, 2024 12:56:46 GMT
Yes, it’s very easy to judge people at their (clearly mentally ill) worst.
|
|
692 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by capybara on Feb 19, 2024 14:13:02 GMT
No intention of seeing this but I must say, I’ve never quite understood how someone with so many serious allegations levelled at them has maintained this untouchable status, even after death.
There will always be people who bury their heads in the sand but I can’t think of any other star whose fanbase would ignore the accusations en masse.
The documentary interview with his victims was harrowing. Maybe one day they will get the respect and closure they deserve, having been robbed of any chance for justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Feb 19, 2024 14:33:16 GMT
No intention of seeing this but I must say, I’ve never quite understood how someone with so many serious allegations levelled at them has maintained this untouchable status, even after death. There will always be people who bury their heads in the sand but I can’t think of any other star whose fanbase would ignore the accusations en masse. The documentary interview with his victims was harrowing. Maybe one day they will get the respect and closure they deserve, having been robbed of any chance for justice. "I can’t think of any other star whose fanbase would ignore the accusations en masse." Ever heard of Donald Trump? The documentary with MJ's "victims" was actually rubbish if you look at their history with Michael and the motives behind the accusations. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy was a total nutjob with serious mental health issues but rather than 'burying my head in the proverbial sand', I look at the facts. I wish others would do the same rather than assuming everything they see in a documentary is true or the whole story. |
|
5,250 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Feb 19, 2024 14:48:12 GMT
God help you all if the nutjobs who reply to tweets about MJ find this thread...
|
|
5,031 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 19, 2024 15:08:30 GMT
God help you all if the nutjobs who reply to tweets about MJ find this thread... Or people with a mental health diagnosis and who find some of the terms used here offensive |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 19, 2024 15:39:50 GMT
He was nothing more than a commodity in the end, having being sold for parts to pay for his elaborate lifestyle. If he’d had a decent team actually MANAGING him, instead of YES men keeping him medicated and creaming off a fat profit he might still be with us (to be held accountable for his misdeeds). I don’t believe that any of his team thought he’d actually manage his run of O2 shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Feb 19, 2024 15:52:50 GMT
God help you all if the nutjobs who reply to tweets about MJ find this thread... Or people with a mental health diagnosis and who find some of the terms used here offensive Good observation - I'll look for your protestations here the next time I am referred to here as someone MJ's "cray" fans would likely agree with? |
|
3,559 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Feb 19, 2024 18:26:54 GMT
"The Cray Twins"... "The Italian Nutjob"... So many potential plot options on this thread.
|
|
2,044 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 20, 2024 13:06:16 GMT
Not sure when referring to any group of people as crazy just because they have a differing opinion to others was acceptable? Maybe try saying those that agree with my opinion might show up and support that theory, rather than referring to me or anyone else as "cray"? Let's do better. No, I’m talking about the cray-zee fans. (And it’s much quicker to say it that way!) Oh, I've encountered them on youtube and instagram. They will tear down any criticism with forensic level comeback. |
|
2,044 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Feb 20, 2024 13:07:08 GMT
No intention of seeing this but I must say, I’ve never quite understood how someone with so many serious allegations levelled at them has maintained this untouchable status, even after death. There will always be people who bury their heads in the sand but I can’t think of any other star whose fanbase would ignore the accusations en masse. The documentary interview with his victims was harrowing. Maybe one day they will get the respect and closure they deserve, having been robbed of any chance for justice. America particularly hates having their idols tarnished. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 16:14:18 GMT
Regularly sleeping in beds with children that are not your own is weird behaviour, whether it's illegal or not. Anyway, I've booked for this as a fan of theatre rather than MJ, just as I was happy to watch Steve Coogan playing Jimmy Savile on TV. I never said it wasn't weird, but it doesn't mean he was a peodophile either.....there is a difference....and again, probably for a different thread as it is the show we should discuss here, not the morals of someone none of us will ever know the truth about. The bedroom he shared with multiple children night after night had easily-accessible adult material, his mattress had unidentified male DNA on it, he had a couple of books authored by known paedophiles full of suggestive photographs of boys plus multiple accusers over an extended period of time giving very detailed accounts of abuse. Plus he was obsessed with childhood and children, and behaved in inappropriately friendly ways with them - taking them to adult events as his +1 instead of a date, sitting them on his lap, being incredibly touchy-feely with them, spending hours on the phone to them, saying that spending time with them was the thing that made him truly happy, etc. If it were anyone but Michael Jackson I don’t think many people would say that they ‘could never know the truth’. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 16:20:28 GMT
That's where I draw the line. I love listening to Michael Jackson's music, but I'd never have gone to Thriller Live or this if he was alive to benefit. Now he's dead, he can't benefit so it's fine to patronise his music. If you don't want to go, out of consideration to his victims, that's fine too. There's no right answer, so everyone can make this decision for themselves. I guess my problem has always been with the parents as much as MJ, and the fact that things have always been ‘settled’ out of court. Taking the money rather than letting things play out in open court speaks just as much about their morals as his. These are all properly messed up people being used by a morally bereft legal system and its players, with barely a thought for the lives it is affecting. They have not always been settled out of court. The Arvizo case went to trial. It’s incredibly hard to get a jury to convict a famous person, though. Some of the jurors in the Arvizo case later said they were convinced he was a paedophile, they just had an incredibly high evidence bar for convicting him in their heads. Basically they’d decided they would acquit him on the specific charges unless there was video of him with the boys. Which there obviously wasn’t. Edit: I do agree that this thread will quickly become unwieldy if the MJ stans decide to flood it with defenses if him, so the mods may find they have to take some remedial action to allow the actual show to be discussed. I fully support any deletion of my posts required should that happen. |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 20, 2024 16:35:06 GMT
Bear in mind that the minimum age for membership here is 13 so all posts need to be appropriate for readers of that age please.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Feb 20, 2024 17:55:03 GMT
I guess my problem has always been with the parents as much as MJ, and the fact that things have always been ‘settled’ out of court. Taking the money rather than letting things play out in open court speaks just as much about their morals as his. These are all properly messed up people being used by a morally bereft legal system and its players, with barely a thought for the lives it is affecting. They have not always been settled out of court. The Arvizo case went to trial. It’s incredibly hard to get a jury to convict a famous person, though. Some of the jurors in the Arvizo case later said they were convinced he was a paedophile, they just had an incredibly high evidence bar for convicting him in their heads. Basically they’d decided they would acquit him on the specific charges unless there was video of him with the boys. Which there obviously wasn’t. Edit: I do agree that this thread will quickly become unwieldy if the MJ stans decide to flood it with defenses if him, so the mods may find they have to take some remedial action to allow the actual show to be discussed. I fully support any deletion of my posts required should that happen. About that Arvizo case - not sure where you are getting your facts but Google could be your new best friend. That Arvizo case resulted in perjury charges. All lies as the mom making the claims was a welfare cheat and a grifter whose story didn't hold up. She pleaded guilty to perjury. Whatever the jurors drew their conclusions on were false claims and have since been debunked. www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-24-me-jackson24-story.htmlwww.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-500-1344353Instead of scare mongering that MJ fans might hijack this board in his defense, maybe try not posting nonsense that would draw them here in the first instance? |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 18:21:47 GMT
The poor woman didn’t understand what paperwork to file after receiving a compensation payment and was caught out on a technicality. It doesn’t mean her son was not sexually abused, it means she didn’t understand the US welfare rules around compensation payments.
If the family had been focused on money and not justice they’d have gone after Jackson for a multi-million dollar out of court payment, and avoided the stress of going through a trial.
Frankly it just goes to show how Jackson’s expensive lawyers’ strategy was to influence the jury by attacking the parents, not by addressing the actual testimony of the boys and physical evidence found.
A cursory reading of the stories you linked to shows that the matter was indeed raised in court. It is definitely not true that all the evidence presented has been ‘debunked’, although MJ stans always make claims like that.
I am fully, fully aware of all the ‘debunking’ claims out there. We can take it as read that as far as the fans are concerned every single thing has been debunked, all of the accusers, all of the witnesses, all of the physical evidence presented, even at times Jackson’s own words out of his own mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Feb 20, 2024 18:37:43 GMT
The poor woman didn’t understand what paperwork to file after receiving a compensation payment and was caught out on a technicality. It ruined her life. It doesn’t mean her son was not sexually abused, it means she didn’t understand the US welfare rules around compensation payments. If the family had been focused on money and not justice they’d have gone after Jackson for a multi-million dollar out of court payment, and avoided the stress of going through a trial. 'Poor woman'? She was a total scam artist. Comedians Jay Leno, Chris Tucker and George Lopez each came forward on how she aimed to use her son's cancer as a means to grift money and suspected her of coaching her son on what to say to get their sympathy and their cash. All of this was pretty well publicized after her allegations were proven as false. She was subsequently (according to NPR) charged with fraud and perjury in the Jackson case and took a plea agreement. That had nothing to do with welfare scams or a technicality. She lied and got caught. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 18:45:25 GMT
In America, the land where it is totally normal for people to fundraise for cancer treatment, a mother asking to help to pay for a child’s cancer treatment is hardly a grifter.
But it doesn’t matter if she was, it wouldn’t change the likelihood that Jackson was a paedophile based on how *he* behaved with her son and other young boys, and the forensic evidence gathered from his bedroom.
Kicking up dirt in the mother is a distraction tactic.
Poor woman - her kid got cancer, she tried her best to get him help, she made some stupid mistakes in the process, and she got her life ruined.
|
|
|
|
Post by shownut on Feb 20, 2024 18:50:12 GMT
In America, the land where it is totally normal for people to fundraise for cancer treatment, a mother asking to help to pay for a child’s cancer treatment is hardly a grifter. But it doesn’t matter if she was, it wouldn’t change the likelihood that Jackson was a paedophile based on how *he* behaved with her son and other young boys, and the forensic evidence gathered from his bedroom. Kicking up dirt in the mother is a distraction tactic. What forensic evidence? If it supported her claims then why was the charged with fraud and perjury and why did the accept a plea bargain? That makes zero sense. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 18:52:03 GMT
I can’t go into details on the forensics as it is not suitable for the board’s age limit.
I am sure you know that the ‘fraud and perjury’ charges were about not declaring the compensation payment on the welfare claim, which was the matter raised by the lawyers in court during the case. Truly irrelevant to whether MJ molested any kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2024 19:05:03 GMT
It is highly unlikely the truth will ever be uncovered, for every piece of evidence that has been put forward to support the case against him there is evidence or arguments that discredit that counters it.
Personally, I'm sat on the fence, while his behaviour was definitely unusual, I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves the claims made against him.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 19:07:29 GMT
There is no relationship between the forensic evidence and the perjury charges - they were entirely separate matters.
From what jury members said afterwards, the bar they had set themselves to convict was so high that the forensics didn’t affect their decision. Although it was persuasive evidence that sexual activity with some children was *likely* to have taken place, it wasn’t conclusive proof that the sexual activity with Arvizo had taken place.
It’s strong evidence that Jackson was a paedophile, though.
You don’t actually need to prove that Jackson molested any particular boy to believe that he was sexually interested in children.
Edit: if the standard of evidence to convict a paedophile of child abuse was ‘conclusive proof’, most cases would fail. It is very very hard to conclusively prove anything. The standard we use is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In most cases with evidence like MJ’s you would get a conviction. Put it this way - if you are on the fence about Jackson you should also be on the fence about Saville. The evidence is of the same type, there is no ‘conclusive proof’ of the Saville accusations either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2024 19:16:18 GMT
There is no relationship between the forensic evidence and the perjury charges - they were entirely separate matters. From what jury members said afterwards, the bar they had set themselves to convict was so high that the forensics didn’t affect their decision. Although it was persuasive evidence that sexual activity with some children was *likely* to have taken place, it wasn’t conclusive proof that the sexual activity with Arvizo had taken place. It’s strong evidence that Jackson was a paedophile, though. You don’t actually need to prove that Jackson molested any particular boy to believe that he was sexually interested in children. Likely to have taken place, doesn't mean that it has though - and that is the important bit, there is no conclusive proof. Even with the forensic evidence you keep talking about, it is unidentified male DNA on the mattress, with that a) no-one knows who's DNA it is, and b) as it is on a mattress it could have been there for a long period of time as people don't wash their mattress (as far as I know). None of this means it belongs to children as he let family members stay in the house when he wasn't there - so it really could be anybodies. As for proof he was sexually interested in children, you really do need evidence to back that up. I could call anyone on here a shoplifter - that doesn't make it true, but if I provide evidence then it does make it true. While the idea of no smoke without fire intrigues me and makes me research more - equally I haven't seen or read anything over the years that conclusively proves he is guilty of anything other than being unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2024 19:17:41 GMT
Edit: if the standard of evidence to convict a paedophile of child abuse was ‘conclusive proof’, most cases would fail. It is very very hard to conclusively prove anything. The standard we use is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In most cases with evidence like MJ’s you would get a conviction. Put it this way - if you are on the fence about Jackson you should also be on the fence about Saville. The evidence is of the same type, there is no ‘conclusive proof’ of the Saville accusations either. None of the evidence against Saville has been discredited to the extent that the evidence against Jackson has. |
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 20, 2024 19:33:56 GMT
The evidence he was sexually interested in children is the books of photos of boys, the pictures he put on his bedroom walls of children, the testimony of multiple about his behaviour, and his visible behaviour with them as testified to by his staff and caught on camera.
We all recognise that people like looking at pictures of the people who attract them, enjoy spending time around those people, want to hold their hands and cuddle them and be physically close to them.
The behaviour of Jackson would not have been unusual if the people had been adults - if either or both sexes - rather than children. He behaved around children how most people behaved with girlfriends and boyfriends.
As for the possibility that other family members used his bedroom in ways that would result in their DNA being in his bed, it’s not technically impossible, but it’s unlikely given that they had their own rooms. Quite frankly it’d be a weird thing to do and certainly would have been noticed by the cleaning staff who would have needed to clean the bed up before he returned. Also, it would be provable - you’d be able to DNA test family and staff and match them up. The defense didn’t even attempt that.
|
|
