[user104658]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

all of this coming to light now he's dead and can't defend himself

Would you say the same of Jimmy Saville? Should it just have been left buried because he was dead?

Originally Posted by parmnion

Don't worry, his nephew is on radio saying he wasn't a paedophile because he didn't touch him...swore on his kids life urging God to strike her down if he was lying......not sure how he knows......


Maybe it's all the royalties the family will lose out on that's sparked his memory.

The logic is truly bizarre... "he didn't molest every single child he encountered, therefore he must not be a paedophile". That's really not how it works and they talk in the documentary about how there were loads of kids around... OBVIOUSLY, he wasn't molesting all of them... but he had "a special relationship" with certain ones. I mean that part of the story is undeniable; you can literally see it playing out in press photography. He would have a boy aged around 10 who was always by his side, they would hit the early teens and disappear, and a new "favourite" would suddenly be in their place next to him. It's also perfectly feasible that he had a "platonic" (creepy as it is to use that term in this context) friendship with Macaulay Culkin, as if you look at their life stories, they had a VERY similar childhood so that specific friendship might have been based on that and never have gone anywhere perverse.

The idea that "MJ didn't abuse Macaulay Culkin, so he can't have abused any of the other boys" is a totally false logic. It's like a rapist going to court and his female lawyer arguing "He can't have raped this woman, because he's never even TRIED to rape me."

Maybe those sexual feelings never developed in that case. Maybe it was never his intention there. Maybe he realised that Culkin being so high profile meant that it was likely to come out if he did anything with him (he was the biggest child actor in the world at the time). Who knows. It's all speculation / opinion of course, just pointing out that there's no logical argument for the statement "didn't abuse some = didn't abuse any".