Well someone who accused him post death of abuse was one of the key witnesses for the defence during his trial when he and members of his family who travelled with him and MJ testified the very idea of abuse was absurd and he was never touched. Now post MJ death when the MJ estate is booming and being pursued by many creditors.. he now claims he was abused and wants a lot of money.
Personally I feel he is innocent. Mesereau did enough to convince me as did defence witnesses such as Macaulay Culkin. Yes he probably shared beds with kids, had sleep overs, did things that grown adults wouldn't normally do but did he sexually abuse them? I doubt it.
Quite possibly...but it doesn't have to be sexual abuse, I certainly think the kids suffered emotional abuse, even if it was just the fact of all the media attention & court (which you can't tell me wouldn't have been emotional for a child), none of which would have happened if it wasn't for MJ. So sexual abuse maybe not, but a child abuser in the emotional sense then yes.
Quite possibly...but it doesn't have to be sexual abuse, I certainly think the kids suffered emotional abuse, even if it was just the fact of all the media attention & court (which you can't tell me wouldn't have been emotional for a child), none of which would have happened if it wasn't for MJ. So sexual abuse maybe not, but a child abuser in the emotional sense then yes.
I've never been able to make up my mind on this one, but completely agree that it was mistreatment, abuse if you will, emotionally and mentally.
I've never been able to make up my mind on this one, but completely agree that it was mistreatment, abuse if you will, emotionally and mentally.
You also have to look at the kids he usually made friends with, generally they came from dysfunctional families...what type of person usually targets those types of children?
Children/Parents people won't believe.... just saying.
It's very hard to get at the truth. Certainly a damaged genius. Seems he was probably guilty of some 'dubious' behaviour at the very least, but I think it likely that many of the claims of sexual abuse were also dubious.
I've never been able to decide just how aware he was that some of this dubious behaviour was wrong.
It would seem he didn't know how to be a child and he didn't know how to be an adult - he was stuck in-between in some no man's land. For this reason I'm not certain that he ever had a clear idea of the boundaries between the two relationships.
A lot of confusion in a very fragile mind. It is/was all very sad.
You also have to look at the kids he usually made friends with, generally they came from dysfunctional families...what type of person usually targets those types of children?
Children/Parents people won't believe.... just saying.
I think that point, and the one below made by The Finisher are not unrelated. He might not have had the capacity to know right from wrong, and shunned or was shunned by those stable and strong enough to set him straight. Hence being left with the vulnerable type of child from the unstable type of background.
It's very hard to get at the truth. Certainly a damaged genius. Seems he was probably guilty of some 'dubious' behaviour at the very least, but I think it likely that many of the claims of sexual abuse were also dubious.
I've never been able to decide just how aware he was that some of this dubious behaviour was wrong.
It would seem he didn't know how to be a child and he didn't know how to be an adult - he was stuck in-between in some no man's land. For this reason I'm not certain that he ever had a clear idea of the boundaries between the two relationships.
A lot of confusion in a very fragile mind. It is/was all very sad.
I too believe he was guilty & chose specifically children from dysfunctional or poor families in the knowledge that they would be less likely to be believed or able to stand up to the intense cross examination & bullying tactics that all lawyers use.
I have no problem with any of the victims families accepting money from Jackson. It happens in a lot of cases. Cases get settled & money given. Therapy costs a lot of money in the USA & from what I've read it seems that there was a lot of therapy needed for Jordy.
Maybe Macauley Culkin could have benefitted from some too.
That fact that he apparently bribed...I mean, paid off......um..."gave" a young lad over $20 million to keep shhtum, I mean, hushed up...um....not tell tell people "things", says a lot.
If you're innocent, and you know you're innocent, you would take it all the way through the courts to prove your innocence....not buy someone's silence.
In my humble opinion, I would say there could be a probability of slight embarrassment occurring in a previous time.
When he paid off that lad who had claimed had assaulted him, then either:
1. He was a paedophile who should have been charged, and/or
2. He was being blackmailed to pay up and avoid a court case.
Both are unacceptable. There should have been a sexual assault case or an extortion / blackmail case.
Well he faced a second trial and numerous charges and was found not guilty on all charges, about 9 of them too.
One thing that I always found a bit disturbing and this was after he settled out of court on the Jordy Chandler situation was in the video of Tell Me Why I think its called with 3T who are his nephews. There was one scene where he put his leg over litterally over one of the others legs and locked his leg in like, I found that off putting as well as the look on his face.
Then there was another clip where he moves towards one of his nephews and its quite obvious the nephew kind of backs off or wants too.
I don't want to believe he was guilty of the things he was accused of, but I have some doubts. Hopefully he was innocent.
I think he was the best at his job. I wont go into the accusations, except to say it seems pretty hypocritical when people trust and believe a legal system if it finds someone they don't like guilty and the call that same system a sham when someone's found not guilty on all charges.
I think he was the best at his job. I wont go into the accusations, except to say it seems pretty hypocritical when people trust and believe a legal system if it finds someone they don't like guilty and the call that same system a sham when someone's found not guilty on all charges.
I don't always trust the legal system to work and it often doesn't. In cases with celebs, there is a chance that juries won't convict if they are fans.
There are sometimes cases where people get found not guilty on racism by juries but the evidence was strong and I've often wondered what was going on with those cases.
There are and have been high profile miscarriages of justice too.
I don't always trust the legal system to work and it often doesn't. In cases with celebs, there is a chance that juries won't convict if they are fans.
There are sometimes cases where people get found not guilty on racism by juries but the evidence was strong and I've often wondered what was going on with those cases.
There are and have been high profile miscarriages of justice too.
The jury was vetted by both the prosecution and the defence for bias and people were removed and replaced by both sides.
The reason he was found not guilty is because the best case they could find to try to pin on him was ridiculous.
The jury was vetted by both the prosecution and the defence for bias and people were removed and replaced by both sides.
The reason he was found not guilty is because the best case they could find to try to pin on him was ridiculous.
But how much are juries vetted and how much can they really tell from people with their answers? I doubt very much, its probably on instinct isn't it?
no question he had relationships with children which go way beyond what they should be, and from the outside they very well have looked abusive. On the other side, Michael Jackson was totally messed up, so its possible he was not sexual with them. Of course that is not to say that relationship was healthy for those children., it just may not have been sexual.
Of course its possible that I think this due to his lawyers, but for whatever reason im not ready to say he had a sexual relationship with children.
The jury was vetted by both the prosecution and the defence for bias and people were removed and replaced by both sides.
The reason he was found not guilty is because the best case they could find to try to pin on him was ridiculous.
Well OJ got away with it, again a big celebrity & idol to many Americans. So I wouldn't trust the American justice system all that greatly when it comes to celebrity/idols...you only have to look how easy someone like Lindsay Lohan gets it more lenient.
I'm not convinced of his musical genius but unlike other dead celebs there haven't been a string of victims coming forth to demand compo from his estate for ruining their lives.
Comments
Quite possibly...but it doesn't have to be sexual abuse, I certainly think the kids suffered emotional abuse, even if it was just the fact of all the media attention & court (which you can't tell me wouldn't have been emotional for a child), none of which would have happened if it wasn't for MJ. So sexual abuse maybe not, but a child abuser in the emotional sense then yes.
I've never been able to make up my mind on this one, but completely agree that it was mistreatment, abuse if you will, emotionally and mentally.
You also have to look at the kids he usually made friends with, generally they came from dysfunctional families...what type of person usually targets those types of children?
Children/Parents people won't believe.... just saying.
I've never been able to decide just how aware he was that some of this dubious behaviour was wrong.
It would seem he didn't know how to be a child and he didn't know how to be an adult - he was stuck in-between in some no man's land. For this reason I'm not certain that he ever had a clear idea of the boundaries between the two relationships.
A lot of confusion in a very fragile mind. It is/was all very sad.
I think that point, and the one below made by The Finisher are not unrelated. He might not have had the capacity to know right from wrong, and shunned or was shunned by those stable and strong enough to set him straight. Hence being left with the vulnerable type of child from the unstable type of background.
I have no problem with any of the victims families accepting money from Jackson. It happens in a lot of cases. Cases get settled & money given. Therapy costs a lot of money in the USA & from what I've read it seems that there was a lot of therapy needed for Jordy.
Maybe Macauley Culkin could have benefitted from some too.
Dirty Diana. She was just 17 and you know what I mean.
If you're innocent, and you know you're innocent, you would take it all the way through the courts to prove your innocence....not buy someone's silence.
In my humble opinion, I would say there could be a probability of slight embarrassment occurring in a previous time.
Well he faced a second trial and numerous charges and was found not guilty on all charges, about 9 of them too.
One thing that I always found a bit disturbing and this was after he settled out of court on the Jordy Chandler situation was in the video of Tell Me Why I think its called with 3T who are his nephews. There was one scene where he put his leg over litterally over one of the others legs and locked his leg in like, I found that off putting as well as the look on his face.
Then there was another clip where he moves towards one of his nephews and its quite obvious the nephew kind of backs off or wants too.
I don't want to believe he was guilty of the things he was accused of, but I have some doubts. Hopefully he was innocent.
I don't always trust the legal system to work and it often doesn't. In cases with celebs, there is a chance that juries won't convict if they are fans.
There are sometimes cases where people get found not guilty on racism by juries but the evidence was strong and I've often wondered what was going on with those cases.
There are and have been high profile miscarriages of justice too.
The jury was vetted by both the prosecution and the defence for bias and people were removed and replaced by both sides.
The reason he was found not guilty is because the best case they could find to try to pin on him was ridiculous.
But how much are juries vetted and how much can they really tell from people with their answers? I doubt very much, its probably on instinct isn't it?
no question he had relationships with children which go way beyond what they should be, and from the outside they very well have looked abusive. On the other side, Michael Jackson was totally messed up, so its possible he was not sexual with them. Of course that is not to say that relationship was healthy for those children., it just may not have been sexual.
Of course its possible that I think this due to his lawyers, but for whatever reason im not ready to say he had a sexual relationship with children.
It wasn't a normal jury selection. The jury selection went on for a while. They vetted more than 300 people to get a jury of 8.
Well OJ got away with it, again a big celebrity & idol to many Americans. So I wouldn't trust the American justice system all that greatly when it comes to celebrity/idols...you only have to look how easy someone like Lindsay Lohan gets it more lenient.