People don't want to believe because they like his music imo

Yeah I think so too

No, I think it's as Livia says and pointed out strongly in her post.

There are dubious actions from those complaining.
Why wait until he isn't alive too.

He's had trials, where were these people then.
Even Macauley Culkin was at a trial.

He may have been strange, however there's not in my view any justification for ceasing to play his music.

I mean love or hate Michael Jackson, you cannot cover music history or charts from the 70s to the 2000s leaving out this extremely huge star and influence in music.

Even moreso when he isn't here to be submitted to these accusations, especially after being thoroughly investigated and tried years ago.
Cleared in effect too.

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

Trump is alive and 100% a crook and still 30% of the American population refuse to consider it because he is sticking it to the "elites". It's not inconceivable that 30% or more would excuse Jackson on the basis of he sang a good tune.

Whatever ones views on Jackson, he was a very flawed individual. If he was guilty, he can't do any more harm now, and I tend to believe that those coming out the woodwork at this point are after a fast buck. He is a prime target for that.

The test I put on him is this. Would I have allowed my children to go for "sleepovers" with him .... not a chance in hell.

Well it's not just that is it, these two spent a lot of time around him when they were kids and have given very detailed testimonies of how he abused them. Then consider also that he himself said he shared beds with children, he surrounded himself with them, he had to pay off the first family who accused him and there were all these accusations and reports around for years

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

Well... I mean... It does get you off the hook. People like to believe that Saville didn't get away with his crimes because they were discovered after his death and his "name is mud" but really that doesn't mean anything. Dead is dead, he wasn't caught while he was alive, and he got away with it. There isn't some Saville ghost out there going "Oh nooo, my reputation!". He doesn't exist any more.

I know it's important for victims to feel like they're getting some justice by these things being exposed post-humously but if we're looking at it pragmatically, the dead perpetrator doesn't give a ****. They don't give an anything. They're just a memory.

Well legally it does, I just mean that it shouldn't make someone immune to accusations or scrutiny

No one wants their hero to be a child molester.

Jimmy savile raised millions for charity but was a paedophil.

One of those boys at least was a proven liar,so for me once a liar always a liar,you don't like him,fair enough but it will cloud your perception of him, he was trialled and found innocent, some just seem so desperate for fame and money they can say anything about him now.I'm not buying any of it.

Oj Simpson was found not guilty of murder when we all know he did it, I see this case in the same light.

You could also say ,people want to believe it because they didn't like him

I will wait to see what this new documentary raises, though the fact that these two appear to have previously lied under oath should be raising some kind of red flags.

The BBC's reaction is ludicrous, he has not been convicted of anything....

it's not like the BBC doesn't have history. It's banned all sorts of stuff over the years with no legal basis to do so. It's not like Jackson's music is current, who really gives a toss if the beeb never played any music again, let alone MJ's greatest hits

I never said they should stop playing his music. I loved his music back in the 80's/90's too, it was fantastic. I'm also not suggesting a dead man should go on trial, what's the point? All I'm saying is he had a very odd relationship with children and imo there probably was something funny going on, I thought that when he was alive also :shrug:

Oh I had an argument with my sister in law about Michael Jackson one time, she was absolutely adamant he wasn't a paedo and I asked her that question, would you leave him babysit your kids then? ..........No answer

You could say that but I actually like his music alot so...........

Not for me, I loved his music (and still do)

Watched it and I have to say, I personally am inclined to believe their stories. The documentary doesn't even paint him as a monster - even they're saying he was the kind, wonderful, childlike personality that everyone believes him to be...... It's just that he was also really messed up and that part of those friendships was sexual experimentation. It's very strange listening to it. They clearly loved him (maybe STILL love him?) and were willing participants at the time. They say they weren't scared or upset during any of it, they felt special and like they had a special relationship with him. They would wait for hours by the phone for his phone calls and got jealous when he was seen with other kids. It's only when they got older and look back on it that they realise how wrong it all was.

I honestly don't know if Jackson himself even really understood that what he was doing was wrong... And he did think it was a "normal" expression of love and that others people just wouldn't understand. He doesn't come across as a predator even though the things he got them to do are objectively horrendous. Sadly I think it's a case of MJ being both a victim himself, and a victimiser of others... His childhood and fame completely warped his psychology, his understanding of what childhood is, and created some twisted ideas about sexuality and affection.

mj had a lot of issues with the press and his acquaintances trying to slate him for attention, so something doesn't sit right joining in with this to slate a dead man. The day he gets convicted tho, is a different story

I never said being dead lets anyone off the hook. It's just yet another convenience.

These people whose testimonies you're investing in also spent a long time defending Michael Jackson.

It wasn't a Rose McGowan (or even Jimmy Saville) style keeping quiet until finally being able to speak out but actively defending him. Makes any of their claims completely dubious now they're deciding to change their tune 10 years after the man's death.

I honestly don't think there's much question over whether or not it's true in this case. I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance over his guilt because people desperately want to believe in his innocence... And the fact of the matter is, he was prosecuted twice for child sex offences and the first time it was dropped because he made a HUGE out of court settlement, and the second time he would almost certainly have been found guilty if Wade Robson hadn't defended him again.

Their stories have a level of detail that make them totally feasible and explain their actions afterwards. What they describe, and their emotional response to it, is classic for child grooming. The idea that they, and their families, have concocted some elaborate scheme to say they were abused when they weren't is... Far fetched, at best.

I know he hasn't been convicted of anything and is unlikely to be posthumously convicted like Saville, but for me on a personal level I have very little doubt that he engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviours with children.

Again I don't think he was "faking" being who he was and was some calculating predator... I think he was a very damaged man himself and really believed that the relationships he had with these boys was real love and that others just wouldn't understand. But that doesn't mean he's innocent.

This

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

would i let him babysit

NO