Just a reminder and setting a thread up for discussion ahead of the doc on Ch4 tonight at 9pm, part 1 of 2. It's nearly 2 hrs long!
Wadda ya all reckon...guilty?
Guilty as sin! You don't pay tens of millions of quid to shut people up if you're innocent (see: Donald Trump)
On a tangent: If you want to read a great book, that is achingly funny, and wrong on just about every level, about a character who most definitely isn't Michael Jackson (honest!) then this is bloody brilliant!!
Like Savile, it’s been known for years, but like, shhh, it’s ok, cos he’s Michael jackson! Until he’s dead.
Wonder who’d play him in a film. That’s the important thing.
Guilty as sin! You don’t pay tens of millions of quid to shut people up if you’re innocent
I'm not so sure. Not defending jacko, although there's a Forbes article that gives a very good insight into the accusers in this documentary, but
a) the money is a drop in the ocean for a Jacko sized celebrity
b) if youre in the public eye, you're viewed as guilty as soon as any accusations are made, even if they are false, so i can understand why the hugely wealthy would pay to avoid a trial by media
Listening to This story on Radio 2 today and I can’t understand what there parents were up too, staying in the bedroom next door. When Jacko was alive I wouldn’t let my kids go to the States let alone go in his bedroom. All very odd.
My gut feeling is that he's an easy target. He was a bit - ok, a lot - weird and basically a child who never grew up, far as I can gather. It's not hard to see how someone might see making allegations as a way to a quick buck, nor to anticipate how quickly they'd be believed because weirdo.
Of course, that's no defence, as Project Yewtree has proven he could easily have been guilty as sin too. (And look at how the Theroux / Savile documentary turned out!) I guess I've really no opinion either way at the moment, I don't know enough about it.
Being discussed on the Media Show on R4 right now.
The Forbes article
While of course it can take years for victims to find the courage to speak out, there are questions about the motives of the 2 here
He made Ebony and Ivory so he's definitely guilty of some crime.
My gut feeling is that he’s an easy target. He was a bit – ok, a lot – weird and basically a child who never grew up, far as I can gather. It’s not hard to see how someone might see making allegations as a way to a quick buck, nor to anticipate how quickly they’d be believed because weirdo.
Is is pretty much how I see the whole saga.
I watched a programme on Sky Arts about him and his lifestyle. Most of it was stock “I think he’s guilty/I think he’s innocent” kinda media platitudes. But there were plenty of interviews from people who did seem rather ambivalent or ignored the media accusations lain at Jackos feet. There was quite an in-depth piece on his association with Chandler and a few other kids who the media seem to have forgotten about. Quite a few TBH, something like 10-12 other kids...
Sadly, the programme did rather taint my view on him more than I have given it thought.
Great muso’ undeniably brilliant and a work/task master and perfectionist of the highest order. Iconic, sadly the image I still see is him holding his child over the railings of the hotel ....
What an idiot.
The Forbes article
Interesting read, that. Pretty much confirms what I thought earlier. Cheers.
I guess if nothing else, if the allegations were true there'd a lot more people coming forward with corroborating stories.
Yes that is interesting article, thanks for linking. Whether he was guilty of sexual misdemeanours or not it is clear that as a grown man he had many friends who were male children who he hung around with and stayed at his house! How many men do you know that have no adult friends and lots of children friends... a bit ****ing odd!
How many men do you know that have no adult friends and lots of children friends… a bit **** odd!
100% odd.
However he basically did not have a childhood. He was working full time from a young age. His later relationship with children was an attempt to have the childhood he never had.
There's no way a grown man should have had children sleeping in his bedroom, and no parents should ever have put their children in that position (although it's reported his "bedroom" was actually over 3 floors) but I err on the side of him not actually sexually abusing the children.
The Jordy Chandler case was completely blown out the water.
A 10 year FBI investigation found nothing.
And as cougar said above, more would have come out by now if it was true
Wonder who’d play him in a film. That’s the important thing.
That kid from Stranger Things for the Jackson 5 years, Will Smith for the 80’s and maybe Colin Farrell in a wig for the later years.
How many men do you know that have no adult friends and lots of children friends… a bit **** odd!
more than just not having a childhood - he had huge numbers of manic fans crowding everything he did since a very early age plus surrounded by 'yes' men for all that time - no real mates, the type that would tell you that you were messing up - it is not surprising that his sense of reality was so different.
I can't believe it - having the parents sleeping next door for one. Something is also seriously messed up with the parents if they weren't completely sure of what was going on.
Something is also seriously messed up with the parents if they weren’t completely sure of what was going on
Don't watch "Abducted In Plain Sight" then, you'd be amazed what parents can turn a blind eye to/be talked in to
Okay this is a bit more graphic than I would like..errr
Grimm isn’t it 😢
So would he not be pulled up for lying under oath in previous years? Basically he's now saying in this "documentary" All sorts of heinous things happened.
I have no idea how the law work (especially in America), but it seems like a bit of an own goal?
Yeah surely it's perjury(or the US equivalent)
Seems like manipulation of the parents almost as much as the kids.
Star struck people swayed by money and influence...
My missus is shouting at the telly...
I can’t think of Michael Jackson with out South Park playing in my head
I can't think of a lot of things without thinking of South Park anymore.
Even the latest series are ****ing funny, god knows how they keep going in the age when satire is dead.
I've been playing bits bo selecta during the ad breaks.
Evenings at neverland make this seem pretty normal:
Seems former MJJ exec Clyde Jenkins has an opinion on the matter.
Putting Jackson to one side.
I thought it was an excellent doc that was sadly all too educational.
I was rooting for MJ. I thought he was a victim of celebrity. Then I watched half of the first episode and felt sick. He's guilty. But so is society. We're so easily glamoured. The parents of the children involved couldn't see what was happening in front of them because they were so enamoured by the cult of celebrity. It's a Sick society that made MJ what what he was. We're all a little bit complicit.
The massive problem is the fans they are so fanatical they forced him to a reclusive lifestyle which cant have helped his mind state & probably contributed to any allegations.
I'm not saying he's guilty but if I was a celebrity pedophile, I'd build a funfair in my back garden.
(Jimmy Carr joke. Can anyone remember any more?)
Without even watching it (how very STW!), listening to it all this week, the parents of all these folk are guilty of being utterly incompetent. Would you allow your kids to sleep over at a complete strangers house, famous or not?.
I dunno. I mean, it's easy to say that with the benefit of post-allegations hindsight, but realistically if your kid had won a competition to spend a weekend with - I don't know, some pop star du jour, Ariana Grande or some such - realistically would you say no? Potentially breaking your kid's heart in the process.
We’re all a little bit complicit.
No we are not.
Please explain how I am so easily "glamoured"?
Gobuchul, i was talking about society in general. As a species we can't seem to get enough glamour. It's that phenomenon that put MJ where he was. If you've never fallen head over heels for a celebrity or glamorous product then kudos to you.
Without even watching it (how very STW!), listening to it all this week, the parents of all these folk are guilty of being utterly incompetent. Would you allow your kids to sleep over at a complete strangers house, famous or not?.
Well, every week of every year there are kids having sleep overs all over the world. Some parents hardly know the other childrens parents or who they're sleeping over with all that well...
It's not just celebrities that we should be questioning, there's plenty of evidence to suggest such acts are being committed in the Home or the Homes of relations...
I'm not condoning MJ's actions, I think he was a misguided fool and open to all sorts of manipulation and pressure.. but ultimately HE made the choice to act in such a way that ended up the way it did/has.
And Cougar makes a valid point.. ^^
The massive problem is the fans they are so fanatical they forced him to a reclusive lifestyle which cant have helped his mind state & probably contributed to any allegations.
precisely - why can't these people just be fans of his talent instead of becoming manic idiots.
Well, every week of every year there are kids having sleep overs all over the world. Some parents hardly know the other childrens parents or who they’re sleeping over with all that well…
Well there are sleepovers, and there's handing your 7 year old over to an adult you've just met, for a five day "play date", while you go off on an RV holiday to the Grand Canyon, with no way of getting in touch...
The two mothers seemed to have a lot in common. They both seemed star struck by Jackson and had great ambition for their talented kids, to the extent that they didn't blink at behaviour that would have caused most parents to pause for thought, at the very least. Jackson appeared to use his god-like status to groom all the family members, not just the kids.
Regardless of the truth of what actually occurred behind closed doors, the archive footage of Jackson repeatedly appearing with a succession of young boys, walking around holding hands, transitioning from limo to hotel, etc was deeply strange and unsettling. Often there was no parent in sight, and the child seemed to be filling the place that an adult consort would have occupied in a conventional rock star public appearance. Everyone just turned a blind eye, or explained it away as the child who never grew up.
Regardless of the truth of what actually occurred behind closed doors
"... I'm just going to make something up anyway"?
They were holding his hand, not his winkie. Sure, it's odd behaviour, but as I said at the start that doesn't mean we can automatically conclude that he's a nonce just because he's a bit odd.
Theres quite a contrast between the majority "hang 'em high" attitude on the thread about the Shoreham pilot (where there is a lot of reasonable doubt and many possible exculpatory issues and events).
And here, where two young men (who clearly and scarily still have confused and contradictory feelings about MJ who was at one point their best friend) are accusing someone of molesting them as children.
Doubts rule here and certainty rules over there.
For those who still think MJ innocent, I have a question.
What on earth would it take to convince you that he was guilty?
What on earth would it take to convince you that he was guilty?
Evidence.
"faceplant"
For those who still think MJ innocent, I have a question.
What on earth would it take to convince you that he was guilty?
For those who still think MJ guilty, I have a question.
What on earth would it take to convince you that he was innocent?
"Evidence"
So obviously the very strong circumstantial evidence of his behaviour throughout a large part of his life combined with a documentary showing the statements of two people who claim he molested them aren't enough.
m'kay
This may be relevant...
it might also be a complete bag 'o shite - "reportedly made the macabre discovery". I find it unlikely that he wouldn't have been prosecuted at the time if there had been illegal stuff that they actually had proof of.
So obviously the very strong circumstantial evidence of his behaviour throughout a large part of his life
His behaviour being seemingly to enjoy the company of children? Better round up all the parents and teachers whilst you're at it too, then.
Circumstantial evidence only really legally has merit if it's beyond reasonable doubt. (And that demonstrably doesn't apply here as it's been tried in court.) Like I said at the outset, he was weird, but that doesn't automatically make him a criminal. Smooth or otherwise.
combined with a documentary showing the statements of two people who claim he molested them aren’t enough.
Two people who defended him to the hilt until their money ran out?
Where are all the others corroborating their claims? Were the rest of the kids all ugly or something?
And again, it's been tried in court. So the answer to your question is clearly no, it's not enough.
“… I’m just going to make something up anyway”?
They were holding his hand, not his winkie. Sure, it’s odd behaviour, but as I said at the start that doesn’t mean we can automatically conclude that he’s a nonce just because he’s a bit odd.
I didn't say anything about what happened in private. I'm not making anything up, and I don't know what others have or have not made up. I'm commenting on what everyone can see as public behaviour, and in my opinion that sustained pattern of behaviour was beyond a bit odd.
For some reason, this reminds me of Alan Dershowitz's defence of OJ Simpson...
Oh, and Jeffrey Epstein:
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1101609160653848577
in my opinion that sustained pattern of behaviour was beyond a bit odd.
And you're welcome to your opinion. I don't overly disagree. I don't fancy your chances in a court of law either though. The logical leap that he must be a kiddie fiddler because he was "beyond a bit odd" still doesn't butter any parsnips.
For some reason,
I think we all know the reason.
Cougar,
Maybe not behaving like a child and family grooming pederast would be a start.
Think of all the ways in which MJ could have put his detractors to shame by saying, "the parents were always in the room" or "of course I didn't spend the night alone with someone elses children, and here are the parents to back that up" or "heres the CCTV".
But he did none of that. So on balance I'll believe the accusers for now.
I don't think its cut and dried, and if this was just one accuser with a clear financial motive (like operation midland) I'd be a bit more reticent, but we are where we are.
For what its worth the most f'ed up thing about it, for me, was that the accusers came across like they still love him despite everything. He really did a job on them.
His behaviour being seemingly to enjoy the company of children? Better round up all the parents and teachers whilst you’re at it too, then.
I think you might question the behaviour of a teacher who devotes large amounts of time to a one to one relationship with one specific child, in preference to other relationships, or even a parent who repeatedly takes a selected child off on extended business trips?
I think we all know the reason.
Steady on, next you'll be saying this is relevant:
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/895372199787474950
Think of all the ways in which MJ could have put his detractors to shame by saying,
So, he should've lied?
I think you might question the behaviour of a teacher who devotes large amounts of time to a one to one relationship with one specific child, in preference to other relationships, or even a parent who repeatedly takes a selected child off on extended business trips?
I might well indeed, yes. But I'd then consider the evidence before reaching for the pitchforks.
he was weird, but that doesn’t automatically make him a criminal. Smooth or otherwise.
Well played sir.
So obviously the very strong circumstantial evidence of his behaviour throughout a large part of his life
Indeed it is literally not enough because there was a trial that went on for 18 months which found him not guilty and provided literally no physical evidence whatsoever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson
We're not going to see a better test of the evidence than that.
In other (uncorroborated) news,
Just finished the first half. Powerful stuff, gives a real insight into how children and parents are groomed.
Luckily I’m estranged from my parents so don’t have to groom them. I find a good, sturdy boar hair brush, followed by some pomeade with good hold does a fine job on the children though.
In other (uncorroborated) news
Speaking of unjustified "logical leaps", that FB post jumps from alleging Wade Robson is an abuser to the hash tag #MJInnocent!
I don't know whether Robson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour, but it's not unknown (for obvious reasons) for victims of abuse to become abusers themselves.
Luckily I’m estranged from my parents so don’t have to groom them. I find a good, sturdy boar hair brush, followed by some pomeade with good hold does a fine job on the children though.
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
What about horses?
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
What about horses?
Well, there was one offender, liked horses, whilst wearing women’s knickers and toothpaste...
Well Corey Feldman, who says that he was abused by people in the industry when he was younger, says that MJ never touched him. Seems strange for MJ to miss an opportunity if he was actually like that :
Can you seperate the art from the artist?
If Jacko was guilty should we still listen to his fantastic music?
Can you seperate the art from the artist?
If Jacko was guilty should we still listen to his fantastic music?
Personally, I can.
And long term VW Beetle sales didn't suffer too much from being designed by Adolf H. so I guess most other people can too.
Lost Prophets, anyone?
It's quite easy to forget about the Lost Prophets as they weren't greatly popular... likewise the collective works of Rolf Harris was quite easy to ignore.. some kids cartoon shows in the 80s, a bad painting of the Queen and a daytime programme about sick pets. Gary Glitter.. some reasonable pop songs from the 70s... very easy to forget. Gets a bit harder to erase the works of Jimmy Savile but the BBC have been quite successful not repeating any of his topofthepops episodes or his Saturday show.
But it's not going to be quite so easy to make Billie Jean disappear which comes from the greatest selling music of all time! I don't want to forget about his music...the songs are great.
Well watched this back to back last night and I was completely convinced by it up until the point where he mentioned suing and money. Why on earth if he wanted to convince people and do it for purposes of healing and getting the truth out for the sake of others that had gone through this did he bring money into it which just gives any defence /media/fans the ammunition to say he's just doing it for money. He could have just given all the info to media outlets and police and refused any kind of money for interviews or documentaries and certain not pursued money from the Jackson family. Why would he want any connection to them after everything that happened and everything his family were already bought off with? I'm now just really confused and unsettled as I'd rather believe their story than believe that both those men could speak about all that stuff in such a genuine and upsetting way if it was all made up to get money.