Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

It's worth pointing out that the majority of those who he had staying with him to this day still maintain he didn't abuse them, surely if he was a predatory paedophile he would have abused them all at some point and they'd be coming out now for a chance to sue the Jackson estate for millions of dollars? what do they have to lose? I'm not saying he's innocent I'm just saying that it's a dangerous route to go down prosecuting people based on a documentary, I don't care either way my main problem with all of this is the trial by media and re-writing of history and banning good music.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's worth pointing out that the majority of those who he had staying with him to this day still maintain he didn't abuse them, surely if he was a predatory paedophile he would have abused them all at some point and they'd be coming out now for a chance to sue the Jackson estate for millions of dollars? what do they have to lose? I'm not saying he's innocent I'm just saying that it's a dangerous route to go down prosecuting people based on a documentary, I don't care either way my main problem with all of this is the trial by media and re-writing of history and banning good music.
Click to expand...

This is by far the most bizarre post I've read on this!
 
the_r_sole said:
This is by far the most bizarre post I've read on this!
Click to expand...
They have a point really.
Anyway, when we look back on it, was it right for the case to be dropped by settling out of court? I think cases like this should not be allowed to be settled financially. If this kind of wrongdoing has been done, it needs to be punished.
I don't like the fact that many don't take action at the appropriate time although kind of understand why that is. I've not see the documentary yet, but why now? Why not years ago especially when the accusations were made then?
Not sure we'll ever know the exact fact(s) of the case but there's a chance he's got away with it Jimmy Saville style, partly in this case due to having the £ available to "pay off" his previous acusers - and they took the money too and ran. Lets hope if this is all true that he never re-offended after his previous acusers enjoyed the big £££ they got paid from it.
 
DarrenM343 said:
They have a point really.
Anyway, when we look back on it, was it right for the case to be dropped by settling out of court? I think cases like this should not be allowed to be settled financially. If this kind of wrongdoing has been done, it needs to be punished.
I don't like the fact that many don't take action at the appropriate time although kind of understand why that is. I've not see the documentary yet, but why now? Why not years ago especially when the accusations were made then?
Not sure we'll ever know the exact fact(s) of the case but there's a chance he's got away with it Jimmy Saville style, partly in this case due to having the £ available to "pay off" his previous acusers - and they took the money too and ran. Lets hope if this is all true that he never re-offended after his previous acusers enjoyed the big £££ they got paid from it.
Click to expand...

They have a point that because not every child is saying Michael Jackson abused them, that he couldn't have abused a small number of them? Absolutely bizarre leap there imo!

What I don't understand with the court cases, why would a guy with endless funds and the best legal representation want to pay someone off to settle out f court rather than completely clearing their name, if someone was accusing me of abusing a child I'd put absolutely everything into clearing my name rather than shutting them up....
 
dowie said:
Do you know how many young boys he slept with?
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying I fully agreed. But we still don't know the full facts and are now finding him guilty from based on documentary.
Did sleeping with them involve touching inappropriately or not?
As sick as it is, I wouldn't be too surprised if after the first round of allegations parents let their kids go there fully armed with "if he touches you anywhere, you must let me knoiw "- fully prepared to try to get £ out of it.
As I said above, this should not have come this far and should have been fully investigated back in 1993 or whenever the first round of acusations came out. Money should not have exchanged hands to "pay them off".
 
Last edited:
DarrenM343 said:
I wasn't saying I fully agreed.
Click to expand...

What were you agreeing with when you said he had a point?

I'm not saying that the basis for that claim (that the majority haven't stated he didn't abuse them) is false, but I don't know either way - surely you need to know how many he actually had coming over and sharing his bed or at least have some rough indication in order to agree that there was some point based on that?
 
SexyGreyFox said:
What you fail to understand is that abuse lasts a lifetime and you can protect the abuser for decades and only come clean when you are now 'safe'.
My daughters have a 25 stone rugby playing mate who recently came out with his problems and his abuser is a 9 stone weakling in his 60s.
His mates want him to take revenge on him or do it themselves but he is so scared of this man that he made everybody promise not to do anything, he also doesn't want to go to the Police because he is scared.

I also think back a couple of years ago when the Crewe Football Trainer was accused of abuse by several adult males, these were big burly fit men and they were all crying like little babies and felt so dirty.

i do have my own personal story at 8 but I was very lucky because it stopped before proper sexual contact happened.
I kept that secret until several years ago.
Click to expand...

You do not understand my point. It has got nothing to do with abused or abusers. Its got everything to do with the fact that someone is being made guilty out of opinions on a documentary in the media without any facts or evidence. Take it out of context if a documentary came out tomorrow with people saying the Beatles stole all their records from Status Quo without any real evidence would everyone place it as fact even if what they said seemed true and plausible?
 
dowie said:
What were you agreeing with when you said he had a point?

I'm not saying that the basis for that claim (that the majority haven't stated he didn't abuse them) is false, but I don't know either way - surely you need to know how many he actually had coming over and sharing his bed or at least have some rough indication in order to agree that there was some point based on that?
Click to expand...
Agreeing that he's being found guilty now more than ever based on a documentary and he's of course, dead.
Sharing his bed is not proving guilt of his accusations however. Odd, yes. He was someone who missed out on his childhood however too.
Balance of probabilities,he's probably not entirely innocent but it's not been proven in a court. People are making money out of it all tho.
Laws need changing to stop the wealthy buying their way out of investigations for sure.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's worth pointing out that the majority of those who he had staying with him to this day still maintain he didn't abuse them, surely if he was a predatory paedophile he would have abused them all at some point and they'd be coming out now for a chance to sue the Jackson estate for millions of dollars? what do they have to lose? I'm not saying he's innocent I'm just saying that it's a dangerous route to go down prosecuting people based on a documentary, I don't care either way my main problem with all of this is the trial by media and re-writing of history and banning good music.
Click to expand...

John Wayne Gacy didn't slaughter and bury everyone who attened his regular BBQ socials, but I gaurantee he bloody loved killing people.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Spot on, but that's what I'm saying, this isn't about proof of guilt to the standard expected in a court of law, it's about balance of probability and everyone gets to set their own standard based on how important they view certain aspect of this to be.

As an example, you and others in this thread place a great level of significance on the previous testimony, for me that's less relevant because of what I know about how abuse victims often tend to process their experiences. Neither of us is "right" per se, but I wouldn't call you an idiot for holding that view, it's valid because it's difficult to reconcile previous actions with what is happening now. What I will say is if you look a but further into the impacts of abuse and the way people tend to act following it then I think you'd find that aspect of things significantly less compelling.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that it's unacceptable to draw an opinion based on what a lot of people would call a significant, possibly overwhelming level of circumstantial evidence. It's not, I'm not a judge but I can say I wouldn't have wanted him anywhere near my kids.

I agree on the enquiry, at the least the victims deserve one, I doubt we'll get one but I won't change my opinion in him just because it will never be tested in court.
Click to expand...

Excellent post :)
 
adam cool dude said:
You do not understand my point. It has got nothing to do with abused or abusers. Its got everything to do with the fact that someone is being made guilty out of opinions on a documentary in the media without any facts or evidence. Take it out of context if a documentary came out tomorrow with people saying the Beatles stole all their records from Status Quo without any real evidence would everyone place it as fact even if what they said seemed true and plausible?
Click to expand...

They didn't have facts or evidence on Jimmy Savile but when multiple witnesses tell the same story in the same way in the same order it hits home. If you watch the Oprah interview it will make more sense, the audience is full of experts and adults who were abused and every word hits home.
 
adam cool dude said:
And what if a documentary came out tomorrow saying their uncle was killed by him without any evidence but the story sounded correct and made sense?
Click to expand...

That's not an easy question to answer, because admittedly my analogy was a little abstract. However, I'll try - I have no direct experience of dealing with the familes of murder victims, however I do have experience of dealing with the familes of children who have been sexually molested. I would always give any victim the benefit of the doubt, even in the absence of physical evidence. Additionally, I find it very hard to believe that any person (or persons in this case), would concoct an elaborate story of grooming and abuse, soley in the pursuit of financial gain, at great detriment to their families and their own self-image; many fans of MJ truly despise these guys. I concede that the testimony might be embelished, but in my mind, there's sufficent circumstantial evidence to strongly suggest that he was molesting children.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
They didn't have facts or evidence on Jimmy Savile but when multiple witnesses tell the same story in the same way in the same order it hits home. If you watch the Oprah interview it will make more sense, the audience is full of experts and adults who were abused and every word hits home.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am not making myself clear. You cannot simply convict someone of a crime based on a documentary without any evidence. Ignore the whole Paedo and abuse thing it doesn't bother me either way. I am talking purely about democracy. Jimmy Saville was different as there was a whole enquiry opened up and it was investigated. This hasn't yet but in my opinion should be. He must have had hundreds of kids at his place over the years.
 
Billy Jean was not his lover, he was bad, but now he's just a man in the mirror.


Music was ok let's just , let all future royalties go to abused children charity. Not the possible charlatans who have came out if the woodwork, nor he's incredibly rich family
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Who has been convicted of a crime based on a documentary without any evidence?
If you're on about MJ he hasn't been.
Click to expand...

Well that’s disingenuous, trial by the mob is seemingly in vogue recently, so even though he’s not formally convicted by the proscribed legal institution, people don’t care about that. In the minds of the pliable, a character assassination is more than enough to destroy someone regardless of truth. Especially nowadays.

I believe MJ was an abuser, brought on by his own abuse, whether or not I believe serial liars is worthless regardless of circumstance.

If it’s not done by the book, it’s just quackery. I also disagree vehemently with individuals who seem to live vicariously in whatever mindless fan base for their favourite celebrity, who see anything negative as a personal attack.

I don’t know what recourse there could be now, and I don’t really know if a saville style investigation is possible in the US, but something more thorough would be desirable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom