Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

Tephnos said:
Wasn't Savile's case never investigated back then but an inquiry now has shown fairly damming evidence? Haven't looked into it too much. MJ survived inquiries back when he was alive and was never found guilty of anything. I don't think it is right to compare them.
Click to expand...

Savile was never convicted of anything by the police which is what you indicated was the way to judge the jackson case. When all you have to prove in court is reasonable doubt it becomes very difficult (as with the oj case).
With savile there were reports at various times which weren't properly investigated by all accounts - I don't think with abuse cases like this you can't just say, the guy wasn't convicted therefore that must mean he was innocent
 
Savile's post mortem conviction was the result of an extensive official inquiry. Jackson's is the result of a TV company making a documentary where the only evidence heard is the case for the prosecution.

How much money would be made by a documentary about Jackson not being an abuser?
 
MikeTimbers said:
Savile's post mortem conviction was the result of an extensive official inquiry. Jackson's is the result of a TV company making a documentary where the only evidence heard is the case for the prosecution.

How much money would be made by a documentary about Jackson not being an abuser?
Click to expand...

What do you mean post mortem conviction?

Neither have or will be convicted. I've not watched this MJ documentary but I've read about the various allegations, it seems pretty clear that both are sex offenders.
 
dowie said:
What do you mean post mortem conviction?

Neither have or will be convicted. I've not watched this MJ documentary but I've read about the various allegations, it seems pretty clear that both are sex offenders.
Click to expand...

Call it "conviction" then. Savile was never convicted in a court of law but his reputation is tarnished for eternity as the result of an official inquiry that heard many witnesses. Jackson has been "convicted" as the result of trial by media.
 
MikeTimbers said:
Call it "conviction" then. Savile was never convicted in a court of law but his reputation is tarnished for eternity as the result of an official inquiry that heard many witnesses. Jackson has been "convicted" as the result of trial by media.
Click to expand...

Well if they have the means to carry out a similar official inquiry in the US then perhaps they should, though I suspect part of the reason for that is the institutions involved - BBC, hospitals, care homes etc... whereas in Jackson's case it was the kid's own parents who allowed them to stay over etc...
 
hadn't appreciated channel 4 were jointly responsible ... and the guys now left c4 ..that'll look good on his CV

Argonon-owned BriteSpark Films has appointed Channel 4 commissioner Tom Porter as its director of programmes.
In the new role, Porter – who will begin in April – is to help develop and grow the business. Focusing on the UK market, he will oversee the new slate of programming as well as bring in commissions.
The exec was at C4 for six years, straddling both specialist factual and news and current affairs briefs.
His credits include Syria Across The Lines, Hunted, Our Guy In China and North Korea – Life Inside The Secret State.
He was also jointly responsible for Amos Pictures’ Channel 4/HBO co-production Leaving Neverland, which has been acquired for international distribution by Kew Media Distribution.
Click to expand...

also

michael-jackson-accuser-wade-robson-is-ready-for-donations-with-a-new-non-profit-designed-to-cash-in-on-leaving-neverland
 
dowie said:
Well if they have the means to carry out a similar official inquiry in the US then perhaps they should, though I suspect part of the reason for that is the institutions involved - BBC, hospitals, care homes etc... whereas in Jackson's case it was the kid's own parents who allowed them to stay over etc...
Click to expand...

Or it could simply be the fact that they'd end up with insufficient evidence to 'convict' him. MJ and Savile's cases just aren't similar at all.
 
dowie said:
Neither have or will be convicted. I've not watched this MJ documentary but I've read about the various allegations, it seems pretty clear that both are sex offenders.
Click to expand...
It’s strange to see how this has been reported in the media, as if it’s totally new. MJ was dogged by rumours of inappropriate behaviour towards children and faced several accusations from both alleged victims and other witnesses over a period of years when he was alive, but a lack of physical evidence prevented prosecution as each case boiled down to he said / he said.
 
sityeuropa said:
Worth checking out a rebuttal. Seems to have done his research.


Click to expand...

This is just as much of an eye opener. Safechuck claiming on film they had a honeymoon in Disney Land Paris in 1988 yet it didn't open till 1992. He points out plenty of other errors as well. For example his mother danced when Michael Jackson died in 2009. Yet Safechuck in his legal papers states he didn't realize he was abused till 2013 when he tried to sue.
 
Last edited:
I haven't watch this and probably never will, But i did watch Abducted in plane sight, and if the parent's of the kids MJ is supposed to have abused are as stupid as those from Abducted, I could believe it did happen, But we will never know the full truth.
 
I don't find it very believable tbh, the way they were explaining things just wasn't convincing at times. It also comes at a time when supposedly one of these "victims" is in financial trouble after blowing the millions he previously got from Jackson, which is a bit suspect.

MJ had his day in court years ago and these people (who were then way in to the 20s) came out to defend him, after having not had contact with him for years by that point. With Savile cases were clearly swept under the carpet and the BBC was involved in covering it up. It was laid out when investigated properly.
 
In complete isolation I felt both of the guys were extremely believable.

I also feel that both of the boys were molested by Jackson.

However, all of the 'noise' and inconsistencies, rebuttals and previous fundamental contradictions make swiss cheese of their version of events.

I can understand why people are calling them out for BS.

My belief is based upon the simple premise that unless their is a parent/child relationship, adults full stop should not be sleeping in bed with children that they have no familial relationship with.
 
I'm not all the way through the second one yet but by god are both mothers dreadful!

As a separate point I don't get why people get so emotionally invested in stars. He was obviously a complete mental case and it is in no way reasonable to have even the version of friendships he portrayed with little boys, let alone the one he seems likely to have had.
 
This could have been told in one episode. The second segment seems to follow the formula:

Men claiming he touched them
Mothers talking about trial
Trial footage
Talking about touching
Both men saying they didn’t want to go to court
Men saying they loved MJ

Very repetitive :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom