This,
Ive raised 3 kids and no adult ever suggested they have a sleep over in their home . WHEN THEY DONT HAVE KIDS
Like WTF did they have Michael sleep at their house the next week ???
You will receive mixed answers on this issue because it's hard to answer; his lawyers were effective, and the fact is the child stopped cooperating, though the original kid is cops are unsure whyhe stopped cooperating. As for the rest, it's difficult to verify facts when the publicity over the last 30 years has used it as sensational, attention-grabbing segments, which sucks because if it's true, he deserved life in prison. If not, then those kids should apologize and make amends.
Actually if you read into the allegations it's no wonder he's treated as innocent and got aquitted:
* The Arvizos claimed Jackson abducted them (with threats to send them to Brazil in a hot air balloon) yet evidence proved they freely left the ranch on the alleged dates of captivity multiple times to visit shops, lawyers and Family Services regarding a separate custody matter.
* Star Arvizo insisted he saw a specific pornographic magazine in Jackson's possession before being revealed it wasn't published until months after he last saw Jackson.
* The Arvizo’s credibility is undermined by their history of welfare/insurance fraud and a prior incident with J.C. Penney where they lied in court about SA after being caught shoplifting and faking bruises
* Gavin Arvizo’s testimony regarding the frequency of the alleged abuse fluctuated starting at "less than 5 times," then exactly 5, then 7 and finally to 2 times.
* Star Arvizo initially claimed to see Jackson’s hand on top of Gavin’s clothes, then changed the story to say it was inside the pants. He also claimed he saw Jackson touch Gavin’s butt and that on the second occasion he witnessed Jackson had his penis out of his underwear; he later denied in court that he ever said or saw those incidents meaning under his own admission they were just fabricated lies.
* When Gavin Arvizo took the stand, he claimed that Jackson had told all boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists. But Jackson's lawyer showed that the boy had previously admitted his grandmother made that comment, not Jackson
* Robson was asked if he was shopping a book and his emails proved that he had lied under oath and had sent a book to 3 publishing houses who turned it down. In a draft of the book he described himself as "a master of deception".
* In his emails (which he tried to conceal but was forced to reveal) he also asked his mother if certain tabloid falsehoods online about him and Jackson were true to which she replied no yet those stories still later ended up in his testimony.
* Robson says he was first touched during a 2 night sleepover with his sister however in his 2013 book draft he said nothing happened on those nights.
* Robson alleged he was abused at the ranch while his family went to the Grand Canyon, which is contradicted by his mother’s sworn deposition which stated Wade accompanied the family on that trip.
* Robson stated he was abused at Neverland hundreds of times contradicting his mother’s sworn testimony that he was only at the ranch approximately four times.
* Both Wade and his mother claim he didn't speak up because he felt shame yet in his deposition he claimed he didn't understand he was abused until 2012 and therefore never felt shame. Furthermore in a blog post he said a fear of being labeled gay made him stay quiet however previously in his 2016 deposition he says it was not a factor. Also Robson said he didn't understand what had happened was abuse yet in an interview he said “I never had that experience and I hope that it never happened to anybody else” showing he did understand pedophilia was evil. Furthermore he said that when Jackson asked him to testify he told him the acts were disgusting lies which contradicts Robson’s narrative that Jackson tried to normalise it and make it seem like love
* Robson claims he lied as a kid because Jackson coached him for the grand jury testimony however Robson had actually spoken to the authorities 8 months before that testimony.
* Robson claims he doesn't care about money and what's to embolden other victims but Robson originally filed a creditors claim under seal, attempting to extract a private settlement from the Estate with zero publicity and only went public with the allegations after the Estate refused to pay.
* James Safechuck claimed he was abused daily in the Neverland train station during the late 80s however construction permits and photos prove the station was not built until 1993 and did not open until 1994.
* James Safechuck's mother claimed she was happy when Jackson died in 2009, a reaction that contradicts James’s own narrative that he did not "realize" he was abused until 2013.
* Safechuck claims Jackson showed him CP movies however after multiple raids that went to illegal lengths no CP was ever found
* Jordan Chandler's description of Jackson's penis was incorrect e.g. he claimed it was circumcised but Jackson's autopsy proved he was uncircumcised and he claimed it was black when it was actually white. If there was a match he would've been arrested but instead neither DA submitted the photos as cause to arrest plus the criminal investigation would've had enough evidence to proceed at least with an indictment but it had nothing.
* Evan Chandler was recorded on a phone call admitting that helping his son Jordan was irrelevant to him and "If I go through with this, I win big time" or else it would be a "massacre".
* Before going public with the allegations Chandler attempted to negotiate a smaller financial settlement which Jackson declined
* Police used coercive interrogation tactics with other children including lying about possessing nude photos of them, calling Jackson a molester and saying that he abused Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman and if they admit they were also abused it would allow the police save other children yet dozens of children still defended Jackson. They also ignores Feldman telling them someone else touched him as a child and then lied by saying he never told them anything
* Jackson was forced to settle the case since the judge ordered a deposition from him but the civil case was before the criminal case so Jackson was forced to give away his defence case meaning the prosecution could then tailor the criminal case to circumvent his defence case. There was an unfair legal disadvantage that violated his constitutional right to a fair trial so he was forced to settle. But Jackson only settled the civil case meaning the criminal case wasn't void and actually continued. However in the end there was no evidence that could've been used leading to 2 separate grand juries to not have an indictment.
* Jackson lost all four motions to postpone the civil trial and have the criminal trial first (what guilty rich man would do that?). Additionally, the Chandlers sought a compressed timeline and requested that the civil trial be held within 120 days leaving Jackson's team very little time to prepare for the civil trial while also managing the ongoing criminal investigation. This too at a time when the police had seized all of Jackson's personal records and refused to hand over copies of them or even a list of what had been taken. According to the Chandlers’ lawyer’s legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, “The District Attorney’s office was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights, and the Court was weighing heavily in favour of the 13-year old boy”
* 5 former bodyguards sued for $16 million claiming they "knew too much," and had negotiated a $100,000 fee for a TV appearance instead of going to the authorities.
* These bodyguards admitted in subsequent depositions that they never observed improper conduct and the group was sanctioned $66k for perjury and hiding evidence, eventually being ordered to pay Jackson $1.4 million
* Chacon and McManus who were other employees claimed to witness abuse but failed to report it to police choosing instead to sell stories to the press and file a wrongful dismissal lawsuit which was dismissed as fraudulent and malicious.
* Chacon and McManus were found guilty of stealing over $50,000 from Jackson. McManus further admitted during testimony to a prior conviction for defrauding a relative’s children by stealing from their estate
* When Jackson's former maid Francia took the stand in 2005 regarding a story about Jackson and Robson showering and laughing she initially claimed in 1993 that she went into the room because she thought the water had been left on but then said it was because she heard voices. Initial mentions of nudity and physical contact disappeared from her testimony.
* Furthermore while Francia was on the stand in 2005 it was revealed to her that in her 1994 deposition she claimed she actually only saw a man's shadow in the shower and Robson wasn't there. Plus in her 2016 deposition she claimed she only heard Jackson laughing further contradicting her story. She also admitted to selling stories to the tabloids instead of telling the authorities and when told to bring the tabloid contract to her deposition was found to have lied about not possessing it and instead destroyed it.
* Francia also claimed in the 2004 prosecution’s motion and her 2016 deposition that she saw Jackson in the theatre with a boy but in her 2005 testimony said she'd never been in the theatre while Jackson and children were there. She also claimed she stopped working for Jackson due to witnessing abuse but it was revealed that in 1993 she had said it was because of coworker disputes e.g. after getting caught snooping through their purse plus blaming others for her actions and getting them fired.
After being thoroughly investigated for decades, having 70 sheriffs raid his home numerous times including areas not even covered by search warrants, having defense documents from the home of his assistant stolen, his private investigators office being illegally raided, millions being spent by the district attorney to satisfy his zeal to get Jackson, the DA fabricating evidence etc... the authorities found no evidence & unsurprisingly he was aquitted on 14 counts despite the judge adding extra charges and a rebuttal case which contained heresay evidence (normally not admissible), prior bad acts evidence being allowed, being in an area with a high conviction rate and the most bias character assassination in journalistic history which even the jury saw despite being told to avoid media coverage.
What a wall of copy-pasted propaganda.
Let me ask you something:
How many people do you personally know who habitually sleep with other people's prepubescent sons?
It is not. Accurate, that is.
But it is a seeminly convincing mixture of lies, misleading truths and one-sided interpretations of events, many of which are taken out of context.
I could put a lot of work into debunking these claims, but it would require half a thesis each. It's clear that the user copy-pasted, I could do the same, and the text post would grow into a monster and no one here would bother to read it, let along fact-check it.
Just one example:
>Star Arvizo insisted he saw a specific pornographic magazine in Jackson's possession before being revealed it wasn't published until months after he last saw Jackson.
It was a specific *brand* of magazine, not the specific *edition* that Star recognized, and he even tried to clarify that in cross-examination.
And maybe a second one:
>James Safechuck claimed he was abused daily in the Neverland train station during the late 80s however construction permits and photos prove the station was not built until 1993 and did not open until 1994.
James Safechuck never said he was abused "daily" at the train station, and he did not specify a date of abuse there. In his lawsuit, he says that the abuse was ongoing from 1988 to 1992, and that if finally stopped as he "fully reached puberty", which is far too vague to preclude that Jackson still abused ihm in 1993 or even early 1994.
And so on and on it goes.
Ultimately, it's all a big distraction from the fact that the greatest piece of evidence is Jackson's own pattern of behavior. Which is what we should be talking about.
James Safechuck quite literally did say that he was abused in the train station everyday, it’s on video for fuck sake. I think it’s so ironic that people like you claim that people who think MJ is innocent are delusional when you’re trying to make up that there are no inconsistencies in the accusations.
Who is that Zombie fan being hysterical on main? 😭
Yeah, no. The "it happened every day" is part of a larger passage that this dude conveniently cuts off.
>"There was a castle in the theme park and upstairs had a bedroom, you could see if somebody's was coming.. it had just a small bed.. it's upstairs, and up there we would have sex. The pool and the jacuzzi... oral sex. Like holding your breath and then going down ... kinda like a game. At the train station, there was a room upstairs... and we would have sex up there too. It would happen every day. It sounds sick but it's ... kinda like when you're first dating somebody, right, and you do a lot of it. So it was very much like that."
Maybe you shouldn't consume so much fan-made media.
there's just no talking with you people. those are facts. legally and logically relevant facts. you make a small blank statement. I don't care either way. Most of my favorite rock bands did really bad stuff in their youth. I still bump them and buy their records, so I really don't care. But god damn it, this guy has 99% of all facts presented on his side. Wtf more do you need ? After the first case, a lot of families left their kids alone with Jacko, does that not make your brain light up in regards to who was the actual predator ? I am taking the list above and sharing it ad nauseum.
I couldn't care less about his community. I just read the facts, multiple times, from multiple sources. Everything you claim is based on speculation. Everything I claim is based on fact.
And it's funny you're talking about reality checks, when currently the world is basically rubbing your face in how out of touch his delusional haters are.
And the movie will get a sequel, so his haters and accusers will gouge their eyes out for another few years.
Billie Jean is #5 globally on Spotify. Bye.
Your comments reads like a copy paste of every irrational fanboy/girl.
It is adorable that you think fans buying 3-4-5 tickets is winning the public over.
If you want to talk about the truth, you’re welcome!
The FBI literally found books like “Boys will be boys”, “In search of Young beauty” and “The boy, a photographic essay”, which featured photographs of boys engaged in various activities clothed, semi-nude, or nude, in some photos with genitalia; or in positions that border on the erotic. AND they found those specific books in a locked drawer in his closet!
> And the movie will get a sequel
Oh boy… you truly are something else.
Do you seriously believe they will make a sequel about a career going down the tubes, child abuse allegations from every direction, horrible plastic surgery, dangling kids from balconies while abusing every drug known to mankind, while [looking like this!](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/dt0AAOSwPLphWSzM/s-l1200.jpg)!
🤣🤣🤣
They already filmed an extra hour and a half, they just took it out of the movie, due to legal issues. I never said how they would portray that time period.
They will make it more glossy and friendly than it was, which is why I don't like the fact that the estate is doing the movie. But talks have already started. They originally covered until 1995. But now since it's another movie, hopefully they will cover the next 20 years.
" every drug known to mankind " this is why there's zero credibility with you folks, you just make stuff up, no wonder you believe his accusers, you are like them
The important thing is, his accusers feel like shit tenfold right now, thank god. Like, I am seriously not concerned about their mental health. Must be horrific to see
Michaels crimes against children is getting more publicity now than ever. Literally in every thread I see people being astonished about the facts they didn’t know about, like the creepy books or the alarm system, or the nude photo of Jonathan Spence that the FBI found (try challenge me on that one!)
Just look at this post alone. The overwhelming majority agrees it is OBVIOUS he is guilty of being a child abuser.
Again, outside of the Michael echo chamber nobody believes Michael is Peter Pan 😂
I take it that you probably do not know anyone who habitually sleep with other people's prepubescent sons either.
That's because the only people who would would have an interest in doing so are pedophiles.
Oh, and Michael Jackson. 🙃
" That's because the only people who would would have an interest in doing so are pedophiles. "
Too bad science disagrees with you.
Fast&Furious-level-of-intelligence type of reply incoming:
You are dismissing mountains of solid facts against your position. Research isn't your strong suit. You have google, so I don't need to share anything with you. I just need to see a record-breaking crappy movie to make sure the sequel gets made, so that I can prolong the crying of this dude's accusers.
No sources? Yeah, that's what I thought.
>*I just need to see a record-breaking crappy movie to make sure the sequel gets made, so that I can prolong the crying of this dude's accusers.*
Kudos to that level of pettiness, really.
Do you think it will impress a lot of people in this comment thread?
Shoot or the two books of teen boy nudes they found in the first investigation? Or the creepy baby shrine he has in his room when he od
All the creepy hand written notes about love not violence
How many people do *you* personally know who habitually sleep with other people's prepubescent sons?
Would you let your little boy sleep in the bed of a good acquaintance, if the guy wanted it really much, and maybe gave you a gift or two? If he told you that he loved your son so much?
Is it impossible that nothing bad happened? I think it’s sus af but it’s not impossible that it really was just innocent. I’ll give it a 70/30 rn for it likely being pedophile shit.
I'd estimate the probability much higher, based on Jackson's observable pattern of behavior, which does not just include sleepovers.
Based on the Duck Test, Jackson doesn't just look, walk, and quack like a duck, he has also been accused of being a duck by witnesses, paid money for these witenesses in order not to testify to his duck-ness, and very much likes to swim.
If you don't mind, what do you have to say about the facts presented here: [https://www.tumblr.com/sprinkledsalt/814423585883078656/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson](https://www.tumblr.com/sprinkledsalt/814423585883078656/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson)
I don't really know who to trust on this topic.
They are either completely incorrect or have missing context purposefully left out. Unsurprising given the author made baseless claims that Jackson bathed in sheeps blood and sacrificed cows to cast a voodoo spell. https://meanmachine829.medium.com/10-undeniable-fake-news-about-mj-an-easily-debunkable-racist-vanity-fair-article-93d461833978
I've never really read them but given they published an article like that I wouldn't trust them or any of the media. With that long list of credibility issues posted earlier almost none of it was reported by the media. Even broadsheets like The Telegraph & Times were rallying behind the accusers whilst completely side stepping the many acts of perjury.
This article looks at how awful the propaganda was during the 2005 trial and why the media can never be trusted with this case: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258
The question is the same, WHY would a 30 year old man insist on having sleepovers with CHILDREN? You can track all the dates, “facts” etc. but he was a grown man sleeping with children.
If it was anyone else, this would have raise suspicions when it started and he would be JUSTIFIABLY JUDGED by society.
People who do thorough research tend to see things very differently. Relying only on fan blogs and YouTube videos isn’t serious research, it gives a one-sided picture.
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/ The analysis of the court documents, depositions, investigations etc can be found here which show what I've summarised
I think of Michael Jackson no differently to Epstein now. No Jackson defender will ever be able to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why Jordan Chandler was able to accurately describe the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. Jackson defenders just come up with the nonsense that the police were lying.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/ng-interactive/2026/apr/18/michael-jackson-biopic-jaafar-jackson
It’s also impossible to explain why Jackson paid Chandler approximately $22 million other than that the allegations of sexual abuse were credible.
Forensic experts found Jackson’s fingerprints and those of some boys who slept in his room on erotic photos that the singer kept. I’m sorry but there’s no plausible innocent explanation for that.
The only defence Jackson’s fans can offer is that the police were lying, or seeking to discredit the victims on the basis they were after money. No one questions the right of the much older Epstein victims to seeks compensation after what they suffered, but the pattern of Jackson’s defenders is just to attack the much younger victims and question their motives.
I defy any neutral to watch Leaving Neverland and not be utterly convinced by the testimony of those men.
Chandler did not accurately describe Michael Jackson’s penis.
He said Jackson was circumcised. He wasn’t. That’s a glaring, binary error.
The 2005 prosecution omitted this and instead cherry-picked a supposed match (a “mark”). But Jackson had vitiligo (widespread irregular pigmentation), meaning his skin was covered in marks. In that context, pointing to a generic “mark” isn’t exactly compelling evidence.
The problem is that neither the description nor the photos have ever been released publicly. Everything people cite, on both sides, comes from secondary reporting. So you can push back on my claim, but you’re relying on the same kind of sources.
That’s not accurate. Statements from Dworin and Weis aren’t secondary accounts, they were directly involved in the Chandler investigation and have both confirmed that the description matched. That comes from law enforcement, not media interpretation.
The circumcision claim, on the other hand, traces back to a Smoking Gun article that doesn’t provide a primary source. That’s exactly the difference: one comes from people who worked on the case, the other from an unsourced media claim.
Dworin and Weis being directly involved does mean they’re first-hand investigators, not media commentators. But that doesn’t make their later statements the same as verifiable primary evidence we can actually examine.
The key issue isn’t who they are, it’s that the underlying reports/photographs they’re referring to still aren’t in the public record.
You’re shifting the standard. Statements from investigators directly involved in the case are considered primary source testimony, even if every piece of evidence isn’t publicly released. That’s how legal and investigative work functions.
And more importantly, you’re applying that standard selectively. The circumcision claim relies on an unsourced media article, not on any verifiable primary document. Those two things are not equivalent.
I’m not shifting the standard. “Primary evidence” refers to the original materials themselves such as reports, photos, transcripts, physical evidence, or sworn court testimony. Statements made years later to the media, outside any publicly available formal record, are not primary evidence and are subject to issues like memory, selection, and hindsight bias.
And I’m not being selective either. We’re on opposing sides of this argument, both making claims that rely on non-primary evidence - accounts of the evidence rather than the evidence itself. We’re not going to resolve this unless the primary material becomes publicly available, so we may as well leave it there.
You’re creating a false equivalence. Statements from investigators directly involved in the case don’t carry the same weight as an unsourced media claim. Not everything is equal just because not all material is public.
You’re quick to use labels that sound impressive but aren’t actually being substantiated. First “shifting the standard”, then “selective”, now “false equivalence”.
Why is it a false equivalence? I’m not saying the sources are identical in authority. I’m saying both claims rely on underlying material that isn’t publicly available or independently testable. In that sense, both are second-hand accounts of unseen evidence.
What exactly do you mean by “false equivalence” here? Are you saying there is publicly available primary material that makes one claim independently verifiable and the other not? If so, what is it?
It’s a false equivalence because not all non-public sources are equal. Investigators directly involved in the case had direct access to the evidence, while the circumcision claim comes from an unsourced media article. Those are not comparable.
Calling The Smoking Gun an “unsourced claim” is a mischaracterisation. It’s a document-based outlet, not vague hearsay.
Besides, even if one source is “better”, it doesn’t resolve anything. Both rely on material we can’t independently test, so neither is conclusive.
On that basis, this doesn’t come close to supporting a definitive “match” claim. At most, the public record shows conflicting accounts, not a settled fact.
The issue isn’t whether an outlet calls itself “document-based,” it’s whether it provides a verifiable primary source. The circumcision claim still traces back to an article that doesn’t cite any primary document you can actually examine.
In contrast, statements from investigators directly involved in the case are based on direct access to the evidence. That’s not the same category.
Saying “both aren’t conclusive” ignores that not all sources carry the same weight. Conflicting claims don’t automatically cancel each other out, you still have to look at where they come from.
The Smoking Gun does cite primary legal material, including the Linden affidavit, which isn’t publicly available in full. By “document-based outlet” I mean it reports on and reproduces legal filings and investigative documents, often with access to underlying material that isn’t otherwise public.
Meanwhile, retrospective media comments from investigators are still non-independent secondary accounts of evidence we can’t independently examine, so I don’t see them as particularly strong evidence in themselves. You’re criticising me for “false equivalence”, but I’d counter that you’re selectively overstating the difference in evidential weight between the two sources.
But none of that changes the core point. Source hierarchy doesn’t resolve anything when both sides ultimately rely on non-public, non-verifiable evidence. We can’t independently check it, so it doesn’t support a definitive conclusion.
That’s not accurate. The Linden affidavit has never been made public, so it cannot be independently verified.
And The Smoking Gun likely used the drawing found in Victor Gutierrez’s book in its article. That’s not the same as citing a verifiable primary document.
So no, this is not comparable to investigators who actually had direct access to the evidence.
There’s no evidence The Smoking Gun relied on Gutierrez. That’s purely your speculation. If we’re just making things up, I could just as easily claim your sources are biased or selectively recalling events, but without evidence that’s just as baseless.
Exactly, so what did The Smoking Gun actually rely on, if the underlying document isn’t publicly available?
That’s the point: without access to a verifiable primary document, you’re being asked to trust a media interpretation, not independently checkable evidence.
That’s a false dichotomy. It assumes the only options are Gutierrez or full public access, which isn’t how legal-document reporting works. Outlets like The Smoking Gun routinely reference affidavits, filings, and evidential material obtained through legal or court-connected sources that aren’t always publicly posted in full.
You’d need evidence that they specifically relied on Gutierrez - otherwise, you’re just substituting one assumption for another.
No, you’re the one relying on a media article that doesn’t contain any actual documents. I used statements from Weis and Dworin, who were directly involved in the Chandler case.
If you can’t tell the difference between a primary source and a media source, that explains why you think MJ is innocent.
No, you’re the one relying on a media article that doesn’t contain any actual documents. I used statements from Weis and Dworin, who were directly involved in the Chandler case.
If you can’t tell the difference between a primary source and a media source, that explains why you think MJ is innocent.
There is **NO publicly verified evidence** that any drawing “matched” photos, and even if such a claim was made, sketch comparisons are subjective and too unreliable to prove anything. The alleged photos and drawing have never been released for independent review. There was no court case where this specific type of evidence was formally tested and verified in a way that produced a conviction or definitive legal conclusion. Different parties also made conflicting claims about whether anything “matched"
For once, can you all try to come with evidence that is ACTUALLY confirmed beyond dispute, and not just alleged claims? In the case of Jeffrey Epstein, there were documented investigations and widely reported evidence, including photographic material and convictions related to his crimes. In contrast, there was never a criminal conviction proving Michael Jackson guilty of the charges made against him, and he was acquitted in court. Keep in mind that at the time of the allegations, he was one of the most famous people in the world, and the lack of a legal finding of guilt should tell you something. You all LACK critical thinking
You realise certain things he did drew the line for some people?
For some people just hearing a 40 year old wank saying he’s slept in a bed with “”all of em” draws the line and they don’t care what anyone says it’s over.
For some it is the porn books or the documentary regardless of what was debunked or not that’s where some draw the line.
For some it’s the fact that 11 pre pubescent white kids have come out, this may draw the line regardless of who’s father did what, people care about the fact that hear were kids, and the overall pattern.
For some people La Toya draws the line.
Some people believe he’s innocent fair enough many believe he is guilty that’s fine it’s down to your own research.
The greatest entertainer in the world and the King of Pop with the best selling album in the world who was a kid by heart and acted like a kid with other kids. That means sleepover parties. The only people who make something sexual about a sleepover party are the people who are s\*ck in their mind and the ones the society needs to be protected from. If there's any other person in your bedroom than your partner, we know what time it is...
A kid by heart who had a massive collection of pornography all over his house and books, magazines and polaroids of naked kids in a locked file cabinet in his bedroom. The Peter Pan shit is hogwash.
While this is very likely true in MJ's case, 'no smoke without fire' is a deeply illogical phrase that has been used countless times to indiscriminately persecute anyone who is deemed 'other'.
I think his relationship with minors was, at very best, suspect. The people who defend him citing the court acquittals would never he so forgiving of a random person accused of the same thing who hadn’t also entertained them with smash hit songs.
I find it odd how he started as being known for being overly innocent and kind, soft spoken etc. then it was like something switched in his brain and he started acting so abnormal. Watching interviews of him after the 90s he had a really creepy aura about him.
Fwi, his soft spoken voice is fake, he actually had a very deep voice but I believe he put that voice on to give a non-threatening image. He groomed the whole world.
Why are you being downvoted when it is literally true???? lol
All of these artists I know speak with a higher register if they want their voice to preserve better when needing to pull off high notes:
Ariana Grande
The Weeknd
Sade
Norah Jones
Sampha
Cat Power
Sufjan Stevens
Corinne Bailey Rae
Tracy Chapman
Frank Ocean
Esha Tewari
Khamari
Elias Rønnenfelt
And all of Michael Jackson’s brothers do it too. Saying “he put that voice on to give a non-threatening image. He groomed the whole world.” is beyond weird.
Maybe you dweeb93 and your seven upvotes are the ones who need help. You all lack a crazy amount of critical thinking to a point where it just becomes sad.
Did you believe Justin Biebers accuser when they made sexual assault allegations on Twitter, for example? People love to attack and accuse famous people for money, and that trend has just increased over the years.
And by the way, the Cascio siblings, notice how the moment their settlement of 5 years was over, 17 years later after his death, they suddenly pop out of nowhere with new “details” saying they were abused. I mean clearly shows that they are all snaky opportunists.
But hey! Some people just can’t open their eyes. And the downvotes shows all of the people that stand with the ones against Michael Jackson are all **Willfully Ignorant.**
Why is this getting downvoted? I was always told that this was the exact reason he chose to speak in a higher tone of voice because he thought it would help preserve his voice.
You are delusional. There is literally ZERO evidence that he did any of those accusations. There are a lot of evidence the people who made the accusations lied about a lot of things. There is ZERO evidence Michael ever lied about something. He even admitted he had fun and innocent sleepovers. Which person who has ever molested a child would admit on any sleepover? You people have a sick brain or are bad people themselves.
"he had fun and innocent sleepovers" Dude, you wouldn't believe a random middle-aged man sharing his bed with a series of children to be something "innocent". Police found a collection of books, magazines and polaroids of naked kids in a locked file cabinet in his bedroom, as well as porn all over his fucking house.
Also, zero evidence Michael lied about something... Eeeeh dude he regularly lied about his obvious numerous cosmetic surgeries and the conception of his children.
Every victim describes the same pattern of grooming. Showering the parents and the child with gifts, giving them money, houses, cars, making phone calls to the children that lasted hours on end, showing them pornography, introducing them to masturbation, then oral copulation, then anal and so on.
He made some great music, but he was a monster.
This cropped up here recently.
There was somehing to do with a hidden room.
Dude owned CP.
And the kids could all correctly identify a mark he had on his dick.
And... The dude was abused and insane.
So, I'm gonna go with, yeah.
I haven't got a clue. Somewhere, eons ago. Doesn't really matter to me if it isn't true. Dude's dead.
Sorry for the lazy (but honest) reply. But I just don't have anything for you.
So, you base your opinion on something that isn't even true. And you stick with that opinion based on lies. Yeah, that's how it works. It's a good thing we have judges and a jury who check for actual evidence and not some; "i thought that, I thought this, I read this somewhere". You actually that st\*pid?
You are aware of the concept of being wrong, surely?
And when I stated "And now I just don't know" Is the opposite of 'sticking to my opinion'.
And you have the gall to ask if *I'm* stupid?
Are you reall? ; "And the kids could all correctly identify a mark he had on his dick.".
This has been debunked so many times it's laughable people still believe this.
Because listening to it means buying his music which means giving more money to the Jackson estate. Same thing goes for the movie that just came out
If you believe that what happened to those kids is true, them you don't want to give money to a family that protected that dude for years.
He has been proven innocent by a 12-heading jury on all aspects. People rather believe a jury who has looked at all the evidence (which there wasn't beside the made up accusations and lies which have been debunked) than believing Bluemeerkat12 on Reddit. It's a good thing we have judges and a jury cause otherwise people would be verdicted without doing anything wrong.
I mean, the justice system being what it is, I've heard countless cases of rape/sexual violence where the perpetrator was "found not guilty" not because they didn't do it, but because of a lack of evidence. Some victims never come forward for that exact reason, they don't wanna spend thousands just to be confronted by defense attorneys trying to question everything they remember. It's a hard thing to confront when you're the victim.
It is really difficult to win a case like that, where big money is being moved around and everybody's motives and truths are questionable. I choose to believe the victims, because I've seen people being acquitted for shit they had done, but not enough evidence, so there you go.
But eh, I don't care what other people listen to, I also don't care that you don't agree. Peace and love to all of you out there lol
He has been proven innocent by a 12-heading jury on all aspects. People rather believe a jury who has looked at all the evidence (which there wasn't beside the made up accusations and lies which have been debunked) than believing Zerichardson on Reddit. It's a good thing we have judges and a jury cause otherwise people would be verdicted without doing anything wrong.
Of course he was, no one pays multi millions to their accuser to make the allegations go away if they're innocent.
A good friend of mine is a massive fan and she won't have a word said against him, thinks he was just an innocent soul who was utterly misunderstood and did no wrong.
Ffs educate yourself. He wanted to go to court maybe before spouting piss know first the real story of why it didn’t.this is what’s wrong with this world - folk like you who have absolutely no idea what yr speaking about and won’t educate yourself as you prefer your version of untruths
ACTUALLY, innocent people and their insurance companies pay all the time to stop a media circus. Michael’s insurance company PUSHED for the 1994 settlement because it was cheaper and faster than a years long trial. Michael even signed a paper saying he was not guilty. He later proved he was innocent in a 2005 trial where he was found not guilty on every single count.
Despite ten years of FBI work and many raids on his home, the police never found any illegal evidence. Evan Chandler, the father of the first boy, was caught on tape saying, "If I go through with this, I win big time. There is no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever". He also said Michael would "never sell another record". Shortly after these tapes, Evan and his lawyer asked for 20 million dollars to not go to the police lol. The 2005 jury looked at everything for fourteen weeks. Here is what they said after:
One juror said they had a lot of stuff to look at, but none of it proved he was a criminal.
The jury did not believe the boys mother. They thought she was a scam artist who just wanted money
The jury leader said they tried to ignore his fame and just look at the facts. When they did that, they saw that he was NOT guilty
So the first claims started as a threat for money from an opportunist. The 2005 jury confirmed that even with all that evidence, there was nothing to prove he was a criminal lol
The FBI never carried out a full blown federal investigation on MJ's allegations.
MJ was investigated by the California law agency two times between 2004-2005 and 1993-1994 so basically a total of two years.
Since it was a high profile case, the FBI offered technical and investigative assistance, but that was it.
You can find all of this in the official FBI website regarding MJ.
I can't maintain more than an acquaintance level with people who defend him. I turn the radio off. It would be part of the litmus test of who I would trust with my kids. My exes mum defended Michael Jackson heavily and for me, having supported multiple adult survivors of child sexual abuse who were cross examined in court, I realised if I ever had kids with my ex her judgement was coming nowhere near my kids.
I think he was weird. Maybe a pedo. But I think theres weird parts to both sides of the story.
People love to say what youve said. You wouldnt pay millions to for false allegations.
But its always forgotten just how bad it was for these pre internet celebrities even without bad publicity.
The dude was all sorts of fucked up. I think misunderstood is a great way to put it, probably not in the same way your friend put it though.
There are a bunch of people who know all sorts of shit about Michael jackson, but are still confused about the white skin, or the plastic surgery. There are rumours about him having a deep voice. There are anecdotes about him being like this or that. Theres so much cover of Michael jackson and people are still full of misinformation.
I think the neverland documentary coming out after his death is a bit odd.
I was molested. Idk if my parents would have settled on anything if my molester was michael jackson. Its a lot of money, but also I was their kid and I had been molested.
The second case was acquitted by a jury on all 10 counts.
There was that huge media uproar about something that didnt have any substantial evidence, despite a huge media campaign about all the evidence the prosecution had.
The kids from the neverland documentary had previously said multiple times nothing had happened. Then he died and suddenly they had been molested for years and years.
Like ok maybe they were coerced by jacksoj at some point.
But at no other point in their lives did anyone ever question them or explain to them what was going on?
They said it was only when they had children themselves that they had an epiphany on the fact that it was bad.
One of them had applied to work for a Michael jackson production and was denied, then like a year later he realises how bad it was and sues for 100s of millions.
I also feel like, the dude could just buy some kids and fuck em.
I dunno. Probably a pedo. Definitely misunderstood. The media definitely made loads of money spinning stories about him.
"no one pays multi millions to their accuser to make the allegations go away if they're innocent"
That's what I feel.
Michael Jackson didn't want the world to know about whatever he did/had with/about children.
Although I don’t know what the truth is, in all fairness it wasn’t actually MJ who wanted to settle the allegations with pay outs, Michael actually wanted to fight it in court but his management, business advisors and Sony pushed him to do otherwise as they hoped this way it would stay in the dark and nothing was made public as they said this could’ve ruined his career and there was too much money at stake.
It wasn’t actually a criminal court case it was a civil one which to me points out that the intention at the beginning was all about gaining money rather than justice. If my kid had been molested I’d want that person behind bars.
> no one pays multi millions to their accuser to make the allegations go away if they're innocent.
Insurance companies do, if they assess the risk to them is potentially greater. The big settlement in his lifetime was made by Jackson’s insurers, not Jackson, and likely saved them money on the legal costs of a trial alone.
This other major settlement made was by Jackson personally, and although huge by normal standards, $2 million, this is significantly cheaper than just the legal costs even if he was found innocent.
Although what you say is true for normal people in UK, the US system of plea deals and settlements and crazy legal costs is very different to the UK legal landscape; plenty of of Americans accept a guilty plea to lessor charges or make settlements even if they are completely innocent. It’s messed up.
Not defending him. I have no strong feeling on him either way. But this isn’t really good evidence in itself.
The only reason it was settled because if Michael went to court the costs being payed were going to be astronomical so that why they settled/resolved it and keep in mind. Michael asked about this with his lawyers.
>no one pays multi millions to their accuser to make the allegations go away if they're innocent.
Not that I'm suggesting he's innocent, but if you're stupidly rich, a payment like that to make an allegation go away could still be cheaper than if your reputation is destroyed.
Exactly. If you’re richer than god, you’re better off paying than risking even a slim chance of being found guilty.
That said, he was definitely a diddler.
Notice that nobody ever says “I hate his music, but think the way he acted around kids was normal”
Because it wasn’t, and only the most deluded fans can pretend otherwise
Ugh, you never have seen him with kids you m\*ron, have you? You never actually have seen him together with Macaulay Culkin, have you? You're so delusional.
I really got into this topic a few years ago. Yes. Two things stand out far and wide, and they are confirmed, not disputed fact:
Jackson's most famous accusers during his lifetime are Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo. (Arvizo was the one famously seen holding Jackson's hand in the famous Martin Bashir doc so many people have seen).
Today, both Chandler and Arvizo are still alive, but have essentially gone very quiet and avoided the limelight.
Now, here is where the facts becoming convincing:
* Johnnie Cochran, later OJ Simpson's lawyer, representing Jackson, brings about a settlement with Chandler and his family. The settlement is reportedly about $20 million, or, as much as Jackson paid to buy Neverland Ranch. Now, if you were innocent, would you pay the equivalent of your house to make the case go away?
* Fast forward to a few years ago. Jackson is dead. Gavin Arvizo gets married - and invites anti-MJ journalist Diane Dimond, and prosecutor Ron Zonen to his wedding. Apart from that, we don't really hear of him. Now think about this: if Arvizo was indeed lying about Jackson's molestation of him, why two decades later invite the prosecutor, Zonen, who did everything he could to have Jackson locked up - but failed - to his own wedding? That seems very, very unlikely. This fact alone swung it for me.
Lastly, Jackson was friends with Sean Lennon, John Lennon's son, as a kid. Watch Sean's music video 'Bubbles Burst' on YouTube and draw your own conclusions at to what Sean thinks of Jackson.
Your research is so god awful it's hard not to lol. Michael didn't want to settle but his insurance company told him to cause they where scared of a year long case which would drain them financially. And besides that he was on tour, to continue touring they told him he/the insurance company needed to settle. It was his mistake for believing them rather than going to court (which he wanted). He also signed not guilty.
"Fast forward to a few years ago. Jackson is dead. Gavin Arvizo gets married - and invites anti-MJ journalist Diane Dimond, and prosecutor Ron Zonen to his wedding. Apart from that, we don't really hear of him. Now think about this: if Arvizo was indeed lying about Jackson's molestation of him, why two decades later invite the prosecutor, Zonen, who did everything he could to have Jackson locked up - but failed - to his own wedding? That seems very, very unlikely. This fact alone swung it for me. "
Do you even read what you said? You can't be that st\*pid can you? Is your IQ really lower than 75? Hahaha.
No, he is innocent. I researched into the Jordan Chandler case and that was just extortion, no molestation took place. I listened to the court transcripts on youtube and wow the inconsistencies in the Arvizo family’s testimony were shocking!! the lies that came to light of the alleged “false imprisonment” and “child molestation” really changed my perspective. I strongly encourage people to read the court transcripts themselves. If you don’t want to read them, they’ve also been uploaded as audio on YouTube. Here’s the playlist: https://youtu.be/zzui5gTTeuE?si=UV2QYzZMtaJcJpVu
Survivor here 🤚 so don’t give me that you have no idea BS. My answer, No. And if any accuser wanted to truly send a message, they’d sue for nominal damages instead of millions. Emmanuel Lewis would have said something. You can bet your ass Macaulay would have said something. No way he’d be able to keep his mouth shut about something like that. And no amount of hush money would work on someone like that. So then what about Kieran? And Emmanuel’s brother? And all his superstar associates kids? His nephews? His entire teams kids? Waaait for it… his own boys? You think MJ drew a magical line with famous kids and anyone in the family? If rampant abuse was the case, his own kids would have been victims as well. And where are all the little girl victims? He wasn’t gay.
His team never should have paid people off. Sounds ridiculous but the rich kidnapper rule. You pay one napper off they’re gonna keep ransoming. MJs team couldn’t be bothered with the additional stress and finances would ensue with court. MJs mental health was already bombing.
Was the guy cooky? Absolutely. Irrevocably damaged from a nasty father? Totally. Doped up and ruined by painkillers? Definitely. Raped little boys? Nuhuh.
The arguments the MJ defenders have is that he was proven innocent in a court of law and also nearly every accuser has seemingly tried to get some financial gain out of the accusations. On top of that a lot of accusers defended when he was alive and now are accusing him.
What convinced me recently was watching a doc on the trial in 2005 on Channel 4. They made a good point that people don’t take into account.
It’s easy forget now how famous Jackson actually was. It’s hard to describe but there has never been a level of fame like it. He is easily the most famous person to ever be officially documented to of ever lived.
With this comes an incredible amount of power. He and the team around him could easily spin narratives about his accusers and to make the accusations less credible, which is kind of what they did.
Jackson was a master of dictating the narrative. In the case in 05 the day his accuser took the stand was the day he turned up to court in pyjamas, that’s all the media spoke about.
If you listen to testimonies of the 05 case against him, there is A LOT that didn’t see the light of day in the wider media, after reading that for me it’s hard to say he is innocent.
Yes you can. Witness testimony is consired evidence. Do you know what they said about the witness testimonies? That they where b\*llocks and unfaithful.
MJ himself admitted he slept in bed with kids and at one point had “Macauley culkin one side and Kieran the other” just watch this [interview](https://youtu.be/MMrOZte3hvo?si=ASgi6YbrKQPl1JZA). He also happily said he’d let his kids sleep in beds with other adults who weren’t their parents. His out was to compare himself to Jack the Ripper by saying he wasn’t like him.
A kid was able to describe his d**k. He was a pedophile. Stop defending him. There is so much evidence of what he truly was. Yet his crazy fans choose not to see it. You can't take that he tricked you into believing his lies. He openly admitted to sleeping with children. How can you defend that.
Hard to say, you’ll get a lot of people saying I wouldn’t dare dream of having a sleep over with kids etc but Michael didn’t have a normal life growing up. I haven’t done a deep dive into the case so it’s just what I’ve seen online.
Didn’t the fbi do a huge raid on his home and only find like naked cupids of what they deemed as child pornography ? I also find with any of these high profile pedos they don’t just do a few times but to literally every child they met.
But with all evidence and his behaviour it’s hard to argue he didn’t do anything.
Nah, the FBI only provided technical and investigative assistance to the investigation of Michael Jackson. The bulk of the investigation was carried out by California law enforcement for a total of two years ( 1993-1994 ) and (2004 - 2005). You can find this on their official website.
'Didn’t the fbi do a huge raid on his home and only find like naked cupids of what they deemed as CP ? I also find with any of these high profile pedos they don’t just do a few times but to literally every child they met.'
He has 11 accusers right now. The Californian police didn't find any CP, but they did find books filled with child nudity filed away in a locked closet in his master bedroom. One of those books 'Boys will be Boys!' was written by two convicted pedophiles Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew using pseudonyms. There was also a nude photo of a boy believed to be Jonathan Spence, a boy Michael was close to.
It’s bizarre that people still think there is a ‘debate’. It was settled long ago, the man did pretty much the worst thing human beings can do and people still idolise and worship him. He should be in the Saville ranks by now
It was settled long ago?? Yes, by being proven innocent by a 12 head judge. On all counts. You do know there wasn't even any evidence except the witnesses stories. In the 2005 criminal trial, the jury largely found the stories of the prosecution's main witnesses—specifically the accuser's family—to be **inconsistent, non-credible, and untruthful**.
But hey.... Dragon\_m4st3r knows more than the jury and knows more than anyone, you have evidence of the wrongdoing. Can you please share the evidence with us? Cause the accusers couldn't but yes, you can.
It's laughable and you are the evidence what is wrong in this world.
I’ve been unbiased about the entire situation. The only people who know what really happened are the people that were actually there, regardless of what “facts” have been presented. Sexual abuse is one of the if not the hardest things to prove. Only 25 in 1000 cases are proven.
I’m not going to say his accusers are lying and I’m not going to say they aren’t.
However, I will say that diehard fans need to calm the fuck down about it towards people who do believe he is guilty. He was acquitted, so why tf do you even care if someone believes he did it?
Normally I would agree with your sentiment. But the media bias against Michael Jackson is jaw dropping. There are tons of facts that stack in his favor and definitely against his accusers' favor that have always been thrown out the window. If the media ever presented the story with a balanced attitude based on fact that would've been acceptable, but that never happened so of course us fans will go hard for him. And it's a big moment for his fan community, if we can't go hard now, when ? : ))
Stop thinking then. Michael Jackson NEVER gave money to his accuser(s). His insurance company did and they advised him to settle cause they where scared for a years long trial which would deplete them financially. On top of that Michael Jackson was touring and if he settled he could stay on the tour (which was already planned out). Michael himself never wanted to settle and he wanted to go to court. IF you think you know something maybe next time ACTUALLY know something and know fact's instead of making up lies and b\*llshit.
In 1994, Michael Jackson settled a civil lawsuit with Jordan Chandler for a total reported amount of approximately **$23 million**. This settlement was paid by Jackson's insurance company, **Transamerica Insurance Group (TIG)**, rather than by Jackson personally. The insurer chose to settle to avoid the high costs and uncertainty of a trial, despite Jackson's desire to fight the allegations, according to reports.
Do some research you lying brick.
Also worth noting that in the UK he'd have probably been found guilty.
The offences he was charged with were criminal not civil (obviously) so it would have been him vs the Crown, not him vs his victims as it was in the US. So he couldn't have paid them off and doing so would have landed him with extra criminal charges.
It was in Leaving Neverland, according to the documentary his own staff knew he had an alarm system that would ring a bell in his bedroom when someone was coming down the main corridor.
They weren’t “rejected” on the merits. Those were procedural rulings, not findings that their allegations were false. Their cases have moved forward and are set to go to trial.
Being downvoted for literally telling the truth, lol. All of the people against Michael Jackson are so willfully ignorant, it is sad. They throw around rumors rather than actual confirmed evidenc
So you're fine with the man having alarms on the way to the bedroom that he had children staying in with him? I'm worried about intruders I alarm the doors and windows of my house to keep them out entirely not one that trips whenever anyone (including his own staff and visitors it wasn't turned off in the day) walks down the long hall to the bedroom.
He didnt have one alarm that tripped whenever a person stepped into the corridor. First of all because it would be set up everytime anybody would walk there, which is inconvenient. Also because it would have to be installed by someone and that person would find it suspicious.
Well that's what the documentary claims and if the people claiming it are correct it's as you say, very suspicious. About as suspicious as a grown mam having kids sleeping in his bedroom which MJ did.
Ohhh. The "About as suspicious as a grown man having kids sleeping in his bedroom which MJ did."
That's not suspicious. What is suspicious is you thinking anything sexual about that. That makes you the pervert not Jackson. You are the one giving a sleepover a sexual meaning. Are you maybe touched by your cousin on a sleepover or something? That you don't know there isn't anything sexual about a sleepover.
I think you either touched yourself or you lacked a lot of love in your life. I hope you will receive some love some day. And I also hope there will be a day you'll realize there isn't anything sexual about a sleepover.
I believe Jackson is guilty, however, I don't read too deeply into the alarmed bedroom.
1) Rich people commonly have lots of security. It's not unusual to want privacy.
2) if you believe Neverland staff, Jackson molested his child friends all around Neverland . So why would Jackson only alarm his bedroom?
Just because having an alarmed bedroom is common doesn't make it any less unnerving. The world we live in today makes it clear that nonces are more prevalent than I'd ever suspected so why is an alarmed bedroom walkway less suspect?
This guy had a homeless man enter his home and live in secret for days in one of his closets. Why indeed would you need alarm sensors when you are Michael Jackson. People parachuted on his property.
No, absolutamente no, me parece que MJ era una persona muy noble, le faltó la infancia que tuvimos la mayoría y por eso hizo el rancho Neverland donde invitaba niños para que pudieran ser niños, él tuvo una infancia muy dura y por eso eran sus comportamientos extraños e incluso infantiles, es cierto que dormía con niños en su habitación, pero nadie toma en cuenta cómo era su habitación, no dormían en la misma cama, como ya dije él era una persona increíblemente noble y por esa misma “ingenuidad”, se podría decir, dejo que mucha gente se aprovechara de él
There's no evidence even the accusers couldn't give any evidence, so yes. In the 2005 criminal trial, the jury largely found the stories of the prosecution's main witnesses—specifically the accuser's family—to be **inconsistent, non-credible, and untruthful**. Even a random guy on the streets would be found to be proven innocent.
Even if he didn't do anything illegal that can be proven, at the bare minimum he outright admitted that he slept in the same bed as children and called it a beautiful thing. That should be at minimum seen as *extremely* inappropriate and would put anybody else on a registry if they did it.
The man also said he never had any sort of work or plastic surgery. They guy changed everything about himself, to the point he used a fake voice and people think this man wasn't guilty.
Also, who tf wants to sleep in the same bed as a child that IS theirs, let alone isn't. It's fucking annoying.
He didn't use a fake voice you m\*ron, how can he have a fake voice if he speaks with it? That makes it his voice. You aren't the same person in a job interview or with your best friend, are you fake in the job interview then?
"Also, who tf wants to sleep in the same bed as a child that IS theirs, let alone isn't. It's fucking annoying."
We can see you never got any love when you where a child. I hope you'll ever find someone who gives you the love you deserve.
There was obviously something weird and inappropriate going on, probably related to the childhood he never had himself.
One thing that really surprises me is the absence of his name in the Epstein Files.
Yes. Watched an old interview with him recently and the way he justifies his actions by saying he’s not like Jack the Ripper is…a choice.
I also noticed he said he slept in the same bed as the culkin brothers. Yet Macauley says this didn’t happen. Methinks he was paid off.
All I’m saying is, half of you who have energy for MJ on here wouldn’t have the same energy for all your favourite politicians going to see a certain billionaire on a certain island somewhere in the americas
MJ wasn’t on no Epstein list or whatever. And trust me a man like Epstein would have loved to have courted MJ’s attention in the 90s - come on the man was as big as Jesus at that point
Yes I'm believe it true,years ago he made friends with a boy in England well michael Jackson was trying to talk dirty to him,The boy all contact with him true story look it up
A few years back, I was on a train with Owen Jones and Paul Gambaccini, and they were talking very loudly, so that the whole carriage could hear them. Paul Gambaccini mentioned about how one time they ran a radio competition for a kid to have a phone-in with Michael Jackson. He said it was very obvious during the phonecall with the kid that Jackson was masturbating down the phoneline.
I only report what Paul Gambaccini told a carriage full of passangers on the train from Manchester to Euston many years ago (Iirc Owen Jones was trying to compose a joke about Liz Truss's government, and so it must have been about that time).
I often wonder is he had a personality disorder or something. In videos he says “Michael Jackson would never hurt a child” and that sounds ok… but what if he didn't see his self as Michael in those instances. He often referred to himself as forever young. I know a lot of people talk about having an inner child, but what if he took that seriously. Like he seriously saw his self as a child… I don't know, I definitely agree that his childhood ruined him, but I also don't think being the most famous person in the world helped.
Yeah nobody should denounce what he allegedly(definitely) did but knowing his inner circle and how he was raised it makes some sense why he grew up to become a monster
I used to think he was a peado, and for a very long time nothing could of changed my mind.
I had a conversation with one of my teachers at school, who said to me "if a man sexually abused your children, you would want him to burn in hell and spend the rest of his days in prison, where they abuse child molesters"
Fast forward to being a parent and I couldn't agree with her more.
Yes he most likely had a very unhealthy relationships with children, and he was definitely a strange dude, but after reading all the case notes, I gotta believe he wasn't a peadophile.
After watching Leaving Neverland I don’t have any doubts. I just can’t believe those men lied about it…all those graphic details…I cannot not believe it
I think he was a deeply troubled man who had many mental problems and I think he was stuck in a child's mindset. As Dave Chappelle once said "Why not Macaulay Culkin?". I guess he took one too many right hooks from dear ol' papa and it perma brain damaged him.
I think he wanted to have sleep overs, sure. Probably had many. but I don't think he did anything sexual. Still creepy though.
So you think the men in Finding Neverland lied about being abused as children despite their highly specific and detailed accounts which often match each other’s?
Which is the entire problem and doesn't excuse it.
When I was 12 or 13 it wasn't that unusual to knock one out near or with your mates, and this isn't unusual for teenage lads.
By most victims accounts this is the very least of the behaviour Jackson got up to with lads around that age, so the "trying to relive his youth" thing stacks up, but obviously isn't excusable when you're not another boy of that age, but rather a man in his 40s.
it may explain it, but it certainly doesn't excuse it.
It's not a conversation that comes up often obviously when you're in your 20s/30s/40s but when it has been mentioned it's way more normal than you'd realise.
It wasn't "gay" either, more "look what we can do haha". Much like around the same age we weren't suicidal but would do stupid shit like jumping off a roof on your bike that you'd have to be suicidal to do in adulthood.
Yes absolutely. Never had a real girlfriend, was sleeping in the same bed with them, the alarm system and hallway of doors and not to mention the whole Peter Pan persona. All hallmark signs of a peadofile.
I find It hard to say. I've been a fan of his since I was 8, when he died. Growing up I started to look up his personal life other than the music, up to this day, and I'm more inclined towards believing that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not sexual. People say that we wouldn't excuse the same behaviour on a random person, and it's true and I won't, but he definitely wasn't a normal person, both because of his life story and his fame that made him a target: since his childhood he went from living in a small space with all of his brothers, no personal boundaries or privacy, with an abusive father, to life in the showbusinnes where he was a kid surrounded by adults, constantly working, struggling to develop real relationships, no childhood and extreme loneliness besides his toxic family, this would deeply damage anyone. And then he distanced himself from the family too. There is weird stuff coming from both ways for sure, it's kinda insane that so many people had the chance to come forward when it mattered and things would have been in their favour, and they either didn't or they did it in such a questionable way.
I’m disgusted by the fact that a film has been made about his life, to the point where if I open Reddit on my phone and see an ad for it, I report it as inappropriate.
Take a guess how I feel about Michael Jackson.
I'm more towards yeah he fucked around, there's way too much weirdness to his life. I'd like to hope he was reliving a missed childhood or whatever but even that shouldn't have been happening really.
He admitted to having sleepovers with little boys. That alone is grooming behaviour, you don't have to specifically prove any sexual contact took place.
2 sides to every story. Not defending him but it's every time they're dead and not hear to defend himself. He was certainly weird at least.
Meanwhile there's an orange ape with blonde hair who's listed quite clearly within certain files that's running a certain nation freely and nothing is being done about that...
World is cooked.
> 2 sides to every story. Not defending him but it's every time they're dead and not here to defend themselves. He was certainly weird at least.
We talking about Savile or Jackson here?
Always believed it but with everything over the past 12-18months and the Mackaulay Culkin stuff Im actually willing to believe the "saving kids from Epstein" line
John Niven (former A&R guy for London Records turned novelist) wrote this fantastic article which was, amazingly, publisher just days after Jackson died -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-jackson-bad-and-very-dangerous-1731258.html
Sums it up for me.
Also see Niven's fantastic novel Kill Em All which features a villain clearly based on Jackson. Needs to be made into a film, unlikely though as the film adaptation of his first novel (Kil Your Friends, also fantastic) was utterly dreadful to the point the audio was mixed so badly you could barely hear the dialogue.
Because it’s bad, it’s bad, shamone (bad, bad, really, really bad)
You know it’s bad, it’s bad (bad, bad)
You know it (really, really bad)
You know it’s bad, it’s bad (bad, bad)
Shamone, you know (really, really bad)
And the whole world has to answer right now
Just to tell you once again
It’s bad?
I’m always 100% a victim believer but I genuinely think he was just a damaged, mentally unbalanced man who regressed into childhood as much as he could. And had the money and status to indulge it.
I think Michael Jackson was weird in some aspects but l think he was innocent and the allegations were just people milking some money. How do l know this? There was no actual proof of anything and most of the kinds who were around him at the time - including McCaulay Culkin - defended him on multiple occasions.
There were however new revelations of how the parents of some of the kids he had at Neverland were encouraged by their own parents to sleep with Michael and other weird stuff.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- When replying to submission/post please **make genuine efforts to answer the question given**. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' **you may receive a ban for violating this rule**.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
269 Comments
Spare_Knowledge_8455@reddit
HollowForgeGames@reddit
marzilibeach@reddit
Standard-Box-3021@reddit
resixresi@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
cerberus8700@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
nefon05@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
nefon05@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
TX18Q@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
TX18Q@reddit
West-Calligrapher3@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
TX18Q@reddit
No_Hurry7691@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
ProfessionFancy7021@reddit
DoNotMicrooowave@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
Pussilamous@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
AaronRulesALot@reddit
flowersinthedark@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
resixresi@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
resixresi@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
Electronic_Worry_927@reddit
Bubblegumbitch_13@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
fanlal@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
fanlal@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
resixresi@reddit
SatisfactionEast9815@reddit
fanlal@reddit
SerCoreyTrevor@reddit
the_merkin@reddit
resixresi@reddit
Scotchdude1979@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
electricbowl08@reddit
fanlal@reddit
fanlal@reddit
Temporary-Prune-9237@reddit
Scotchdude1979@reddit
Ok_Toe_2694@reddit
Temporary-Prune-9237@reddit
Temporary-Prune-9237@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Thegreatbeedle@reddit
sneaksby@reddit
mrhippoj@reddit
Barkasia@reddit
mrhippoj@reddit
poptimist185@reddit
StunningPizza3747@reddit (OP)
dweeb93@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
Ok_Toe_2694@reddit
MulberryBeneficial84@reddit
Specialist_Box_8482@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Thegreatbeedle@reddit
Djinjja-Ninja@reddit
NoFalcon4850@reddit
Dry-Cheesecake-6515@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
iwillgetwhatiwant@reddit
fanlal@reddit
Few-Location540@reddit
fanlal@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
iwillgetwhatiwant@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
Careless_Soup_109@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
HugsandHate@reddit
zecrichardson@reddit
Personal-Pea-5964@reddit
BlueMeerkat12@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
BlueMeerkat12@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
zecrichardson@reddit
Djinjja-Ninja@reddit
West-Calligrapher3@reddit
Ok_Toe_2694@reddit
imatornadoofshit@reddit
fanlal@reddit
Aethelu@reddit
mdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdmdm@reddit
marzilibeach@reddit
MagentaChair2@reddit
Big_Escape_8487@reddit
Vivid_Sun_5636@reddit
WinnerExpensive189@reddit
fringe_eater@reddit
nikhkin@reddit
HansJordi@reddit
Djinjja-Ninja@reddit
nikhkin@reddit
Zealousideal-Low3388@reddit
West-Calligrapher3@reddit
Pixelater3000@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Careless_Soup_109@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Electronic_Worry_927@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Electronic_Worry_927@reddit
fanlal@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
fanlal@reddit
purple_temperance@reddit
DiznerdUnfairBanned@reddit
Electronic_Worry_927@reddit
Antique_Duck9178@reddit
Long_Wait_3078@reddit
julialoveslush@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Electronic_Worry_927@reddit
NoPie1049@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
julialoveslush@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
julialoveslush@reddit
NoPie1049@reddit
SteveBruceGod@reddit
imatornadoofshit@reddit
DiznerdUnfairBanned@reddit
Pixelater3000@reddit
Dragon_M4st3r@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Pixelater3000@reddit
thadoctordisco@reddit
No_Hurry7691@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
MagentaChair2@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
fanlal@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
fanlal@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
fanlal@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
fanlal@reddit
RecentTwo544@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Barkasia@reddit
WinnerExpensive189@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
StunningPizza3747@reddit (OP)
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
Empty_Bell_1942@reddit
fanlal@reddit
Empty_Bell_1942@reddit
fanlal@reddit
Ok_Toe_2694@reddit
Mysterious-Show-2333@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
Mysterious-Show-2333@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
Careless_Soup_109@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
Careless_Soup_109@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
Whole-Net-2138@reddit
Nice-Goose-7599@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
Jazzlike-Grape-1999@reddit
Shot-Specialist-9841@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
HarlequinKing1406@reddit
girlandhiscat@reddit
CelebrationFit7615@reddit
MagentaChair2@reddit
thadoctordisco@reddit
quite_acceptable_man@reddit
Subaruforever38@reddit
julialoveslush@reddit
SWFC_wawaw_fan@reddit
Sea-Stranger-3822@reddit
weierstrab2pi@reddit
Personal-Pea-5964@reddit
weierstrab2pi@reddit
Personal-Pea-5964@reddit
Personal-Pea-5964@reddit
On_The_Blindside@reddit
aliensupastar@reddit
Totodile336@reddit
Upbeat_Psychology_71@reddit
lisa-on-the-moon@reddit
Hampshire-UK@reddit
BusyBeeBridgette@reddit
Temporary-Prune-9237@reddit
Opening_Nose_2347@reddit
jamesdownwell@reddit
NoQuit8614@reddit
Opening_Nose_2347@reddit
RecentTwo544@reddit
Opening_Nose_2347@reddit
RecentTwo544@reddit
Opening_Nose_2347@reddit
followthewaypoint@reddit
chiakoiv@reddit
lidlberg@reddit
West_Yorkshire@reddit
Clueingforbeggs@reddit
medlilove@reddit
YumBukkake@reddit
Mediocre-Opinion@reddit
Low_Border_2231@reddit
290Richy@reddit
jamesdownwell@reddit
Ok_Cow_3431@reddit
RecentTwo544@reddit
MountainMuffin1980@reddit
nikhkin@reddit
RecentTwo544@reddit
CreativeAdeptness477@reddit
reggieko13@reddit
idontlikemondays321@reddit
HamsterEagle@reddit
Boring-Equivalent315@reddit
Mysterious-Sock39@reddit
maxmarioxx_@reddit
AcceptableRedPanda@reddit
Bibb5ter@reddit
So_Gawjus@reddit
Plastic-Lie1492@reddit
AcceptableRedPanda@reddit
MixingWeedWithWine@reddit
Alarmed-Syllabub8054@reddit
Upstairs-Balance9846@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit