Convicted of what? His crimes were only uncovered after his death - I can't find any reports of posthumous convictions

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/a...cusations.html

Exactly. He was never convicted but as usual the GP love to do trial by social media and hearsay and expect to be taken seriously. I’ll stick with the courts.

Just for some further info because... I mean come on, guys... those saying it's just a few people where most defend him... it's simply not true and the information is there for anyone to find. You don't need to just follow the documentary. In fact, yes, I would advise not blindly believing a documentary and following up for yourself, but as most people won't, I'll share what I've seen:


Terry George

Has stated that MJ sexually harassed him in telephone calls at the age of 13

Emmanuel Lewis

Says MJ never engaged in any sexual activity or talk with him / defends him

Johnathan Spence

Testified on MJ's behalf when he was a kid in the 90's, REFUSED to testify for him in 2005 and won't talk about him. A nude picture of Johnathan was found at the Neverland Ranch.

Sean Lennon

Has said that Michael never touched him, but has also mentioned watching porn with another boy and MJ.

James Safechuck

Testified for MJ in his early teens, refused in 2005, and has obviously now outright stated that he was abused.

Wade Robson

Defended Michael in the 90's AND in 2005, has of course now stated that he was abused and (if you watch the docu :idc: ) thoroughly explained why he testified for the defense.

Macaulay Culkin

Has always defended Jackson

Brett Barnes

Has always defended Jackson

Jordan Chandler

Outright stated that he was abused, lawsuit was settled out of court so there was never a trial. Jackson was NOT "found not guilty".

Anton Schleiter

Has never accused Jackson but has also never defended him; refuses to talk about their relationship. Also, MJ freely admitted in interview that the song "Speechless" was inspired by Anton. Make of that what you will. Lyrics below.



Kendall Cunningham

Another one who refuses to defend Jackson, though also has never outright stated that abuse occurred. Police found semi-nude photos of him at Neverland.

Omer Bhatti

Was a huge part of MJ's life, one you would expect to be defending him. Won't talk about it.

Aaron Carter

Has made confusing, contradictory statements, publicly defends MJ but has been recorded in conversations saying that he was given alcohol and drugs, and also woke up to find Michael on his bed on at least one occasion. Said things to a journalist, later publicly claimed he never said them, but it had secretly been recorded.

Gavin Arvizo

Has outright accused Jackson of molestation. This went to court and there was found to be insufficient evidence; largely due to the testimony of Macaulay Culkin, and Wade Robson who has now stated that he lied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

For those not keeping count; of 14 "special young male friends", 5 have outright stated there was abuse; a further 6 refuse to talk about it much (3 of those there's other questionable evidence or conflicting statements), and just 3 speak out in defence of him. Only one of those (Macaulay Culkin) has done so under oath that hasn't now been recanted.

But when will you stick with your ban? :facepalm:

:laugh2:

TS you seem very desperate to get the people who do not go with this story to believe it, when MJ was found innocent were the FBI , the police and anyone else who investigated it , were they all lying? he was found NOT guilty,just curious how some are happy to disbelieve the powers that be , but believe these men who are known liars, none of us will fully know ,but it seems some think they do ,like they were actually were there. I think it's a money making scheme, but we will never know but pretty strange they didn't come out while he was alive , too many discrepancies for me to believe 100 % that he was a paedophile ,I will watch the documentary but I have no doubt it's all made them tons of cash, plus no one has mentioned what about MJ children in all this , if he has never touched a kid inappropriately how horrible for them all this is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...eg?imwidth=700

...Leaving Neverland changes everything. The most devout fans will continue to refuse to believe it,
but their hero is unmasked now as what James Safechuck, after a quarter century of heartsick loyalty,
was finally able to call “an evil man”. The difference this time is that these are not sordid criminal
allegations which can be bought off or discredited.

The documentary presents an intimate and wholly credible portrait of the emotional experience of two
boys who loved Michael Jackson deeply, and who were sick with jealousy when they were supplanted by
a younger model. There is an excruciating moment when you realise why his victims couldn’t bring themselves
to testify against Jackson. So expertly had they been groomed, they didn’t even perceive what he had done
to them as abusive. Only when James and Wade each had a child of their own was the wicked spell finally
broken. Looking at their little boys, they realised that they could not have been complicit in the
violation of their own innocence. The guilt was Jackson’s alone.


“How could the mothers have let their little boys get into bed with a 30-year-old man?” That’s one
of the many disturbing question thrown up by this programme. Following a nervous breakdown, Wade
told his mum that he had no feelings for her whatsoever. James was quicker to realise that his parents
had also been groomed by the wily superstar.

Weren’t we all? It was evident for decades that, in Jackson’s big boy’s toystore, there lurked a real monster.
Like Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Savile, he was hiding in plain sight. If there is a broader message here, it’s that,
in a contest between fame and morality, rightful conduct comes a very poor second to celebrity power. It’s no coincidence
that, until now, only negligible entertainers like Savile and Gary Glitter have been held to account. Do You Wanna Be in
My Gang hardly bears comparison with Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’, does it? Our worship of fame, idolatry in its worst
sense, kept Michael Jackson safe and small boys in danger.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thin...es-many-years/

That's probably in every newspaper today,I don't know ,once we get those claws in we like to draw blood.People had already decided years ago that their perception of him was the right one.

I think the type of abuse that happened is very telling and that of an immature adult, all boys basically having the same things jappen to them in almost the identical way....Imo says a lot and makes him guilty imo.

Honestly I'm not desperate for people to believe it, though I personally do believe it. I'm just keen for people to look at the whole picture objectively and not with blinkers on, and not to automatically assume it must not have happened because he was never convicted. Several boys / men have now said it happened (read my above post) - more have said it happened than have defended him - and the FBI and police did find evidence - pictures for one, and a staff member who stated that she saw Jackson getting out of his shower with a boy is another - just not enough evidence to secure a conviction. I know many people put a lot of stock in that, but the legal system (for a good reason) is set up so that things must be proven beyond reasonable dount, which means that even if courts and juries think someone is "probably guilty" that's not enough for a guilty verdict, the proof has to be concrete and in this case he was very careful. It means nothing regarding whether or not his conduct was questionable.

There is in fact a brief snippet in the documentary of one of the jury members who makes it pretty clear that they found it all highly suspect - but had to return a not guilty verdict due to the lack of physical evidence.

Anyway... like I said, I'd just prefer if people could make up their own mind with full reasoning after actually watching it and reading up on the trials and other statements that are available, rather than just assuming. "He wasn't convicted so that's that!" is never going to be enough for me. I guess it's OK if it is for other people but there's no real point continuing to argue that one.

Well Parmy,kids who are abused usually try and stay away from someone who is abusing them, not stay there and keep going back for more, and actually defend him,sorry but not buying it unless proof is oncoming,as for the parents being groomed aswell,sorry don't believe that either,they were probably more interested in what MJ could give them, Jackson was a lot of things but a master manipulator ? I don't think so,but we wont ever know .

Why should people who don't believe it have blinkers on? I have read a lot on it especially about Jordan Chandler and his father, I can and will make my own mind up, there are conflicting stories on all sides,so for me at the moment, I think it's all quite dodgy.

Believe it or not; I was inclined to believe that he was innocent and just unfairly misunderstood before I watched the documentary and did some more research. I also still don't think he was a monster or "evil" though for me, now, he has clearly ruined a number of lives. He was horrendously mistreated as a child and was (very obviously, no matter what you believe about his guilt) a very unwell man who wrecked his body with surgery and drugs and ended up dying young. It's a tragic story from all angles. And that was the most surprising part of this documentary, honestly. It's NOT a smear-piece, it's not trying to paint him as some deeply sinister monster, it's a very open and honest account from people who clearly still admire other things about him despite everything.

Moreover; even if you DO come out of it believing that he was ever sexually inappropriate with children and simply loved their company... even if they are lying... he still hugely mistreated these children. He scooped young kids up, told them they were special, lavished them with attention and adoration and then would drop them as soon as they got a little older and move on to someone else who was special and adored. That in itself is emotional abuse.

Sorry Kazanne but this is simply 100% incorrect and shows that you have little if any understanding of the issues surrounding paedophiles and grooming. You're picturing abuse as force. Grooming is not about force. Grooming is when adults convince children that what they're doing is OK, loving, a normal expression of a close connection, but that it should be a secret because others "wouldn't understand".

It is VERY, VERY COMMON for abuse victims to defend their abuser well into adulthood. This is simple fact.

Well, tbf, when it comes to whole families being groomed it's not as though that's unheard of.

Which set of blinkers are those then, I see a lot of assumptions on both sides so such comments are dismissive and patronising. A proper legal conviction is totally relevant when slurring the name and reputation of someone who can no longer defend themselves. He was one of the most famous people in the world, one of the richest and eccentric and odd. A perfect target for such mud-slinging.

Like none of the accusers could possibly have anything to gain by lying. Too many unanswered questions so assume the worse. Unless they are looking for financial recompense what is there to gain for anyone in continuing to upset his family with what amounts to little more than gossip with many having ulterior motives for keeping that ball rolling.

Without a conviction let the dead rest in peace. What if all the the doubters are actually wrong, do you ever think of that?

First of all you don't ever need to apologise to me..:wavey:

The remarks about kids staying away from their abusers is a fair point when it is the type of abuse that physically hurts them, this was not that type of abuse..this type of abuse was tender and loving in Michaels head and the kids would have went along with it believing it was Michael showing them love to begin with...as the boys grew older and more wise to what was actually going on they then started distancing themselves from him did they not?


Michael Jackson was a master groomer who found it easy to get away with it for years due to his fame and fortune.....


Ps, TS highlighting the photos that were found by the police at neverland of naked and semi naked boys tips the balance further towards this sick bastards being guilty.... I hope he rots in hell for abusing others after being abused himself..

I'm. Wondering how many kids would have been drugged beforehand mind, ones with no recollection of events.

But you know all about it, right? And everyone who doesn't share your own opinion is wearing blinkers. Looks like you're the one in blinkers, TS, with the greatest respect.

There is no irrefutable evidence or Jackson would have died in Jail.

The people who are now blackening his name, after he's dead of course, accepted HUGE non-disclosure payments. And now they're disclosing, so the first thing that should happen is that they should be sued for the return of those payments.

Objection... supposition.

Isn't it all.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

The man's dead. When he was alive they were happy with their non disclosure payments of million and millions of dollars. Now he's dead they're back for more. How I see it in a nutshell.

I was abused myself as a child so I think I have an inkling of what I am talking about,so please don't presume I don't have any understanding because I do . I suppose it depends in this case on our own individual thoughts on this and who do we believe,there are also articles on Chandler lying on the internet,depends what you want to believe, this is just one of many. https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/jordan-chandler-lied/

I know enough about it to know that the assertation that "all victims of childhood abuse try to stay away from their attackers and would never defend them" is patently false, yes. Groomed children do "go back for more". Groomed children do often "defend their abusers". This isn't my opinion, it's the facts (and not only that, but the purpose) of grooming.

"Grooming is when someone builds an emotional connection with a child to gain their trust for the purposes of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or trafficking.

Children and young people can be groomed online or face-to-face, by a stranger or by someone they know - for example a family member, friend or professional.

Groomers may be male or female. They could be any age.

Many children and young people don't understand that they have been groomed or that what has happened is abuse."

This is direct from the NSPCC. But by all means, brand it "just my opinion" if it helps.

See this is what happens people imagining stuff and adding to the falsehoods, Chinese whispers and people believing it all, it makes me more determined to stick with what the courts said.