Michael Jackson and JImmy Savile...
 

Similar situation?

Created Neverland which attracted children to his home, children competiting to be chosen to sleep with Michael, often seen openly hand in hand with young boys...yet fans saw nothing wrong?

He made costly settlements, when taken to court revealed he'd slepted in the same bed alone with a boy as young as 7 without the parents knowing.

Michael worked endlessly raising millions for charities especially childrens.

When Michael was proscecuted children who claimed to have been abused refused to testify, similarly with Jimmy Savile police could not take cases forward because complainents refused to provide further evidence.

Would Jimmy Savile had hired the finest lawyers and got off, and having done that made it clear he was truly untouchable by the law?

How many people have come out and said they or their children were abused by MJ after he died though?

None AFAIK. Which suggests Jacko was just having friends over for a sleepover (very weird but not illegal) whereas JS was into something more sinister.

MJ - total weirdo, but I think if anyone had been abused by him they'd have rushed out of the woodwork after his death, never mind crawled.

I'm not convinced about this, some of them were paid a lot of money

I don't doubt that Jordy Whatshisface was, but if he's abused on the scale of Savile, he can't have paid everyone off.

'Micheal Jackson' remains a huge multi-million dollar industry, even (especially?) after his death. Even before the recent revelations, no-one was going to make a penny from JS. Very different scenarios.

MJ was NOT a pedophile!!! when are people gonna realise this and stop being brainwashed by the media

I believe he did but that doesn't make him a child abuser. Didn't the court find he did sleep with them in his bed but there was no intimacies! Just someone who was extremely naive and very badly advised by his entourage.

I agree MJ was a weirdo but judging by the stories coming out (his kids weren't conceived by sex) He didn't like to be intimate with anyone except kids and then it wasn't sexual. Of course this is all my opinion

I think MJ was desperate to relive his lost childhood hence the fairground and zoo in his garden and having kids over to play (innocently!)

How do you know he wasn't? Surely it's just as daft to be saying that he wasn't as it is to be saying that he was. Basically, no-one can know for sure except MJ (who is dead) and the boys he was friendly with - some have claimed abuse while others have said nothing untoward occured when they spent time with MJ. So we have mixed messages about what happened.

I'd like to think MJ was innocent, however I find the whole business of the payouts odd. There was more than one boy paid off. Why would you pay $25million to someone if you were innocent...and if you were innocent, why would you continue to allow young boys to share your bedroom knowing full well that would make you vulnerable to further accusations from boys and their families out to make money?

do you have any proof to support what you have said?

or are you just brainwashed too?

there are many forms of abuse, and he abused his position with children in order to sleep with them. he was very open and honest about doing so in a tv interview. normal middle aged men don't do that with other peoples kids for innocent reasons. you wouldn't let your 40 year old next door single male neighbour sleep with your own 14 year old kid would you? even if he told you he wasn't a pedo?

I totally agree with you and no of course I wouldn't allow my kid to be in that situation. I do think due to his background he wasn't *normal* in the *normal* sense . IMO I think he was very sad and lonely which goes to show money doesn't buy happiness

Actually one did, a priest, a witness at the Chandler trial, who said he lied about not being abused by Jackson because he thought people would think he was gay.

Difference between UK and US law.

The estate owns his trademark and would probably still fight any claims as it would dent MJ's business.

Nobody has anything to gain from outing Saville.

Not that i agree MJ was likely to be to the extent of Saville, he seemed to have the same kids around him for long times. But yes the patterns are very similar.

he went on trial and was found innocent. anyway you should research the full story and you too will realize that he was innocent if you haven't then you have no right to comment

have you looked and researched the full story or are you just going off what the media has told you?

As I said before, we can't know with 100% certainty what happened - only MJ and his accusers can.

He was found Not Guilty. That doesn't mean he was innocent, simply that the jury wasn't convinced of his guilt.

I liked MJ as a performer, but he was a damaged person. There were occasions when his behavior was questionable and I just can't get my head around the idea of an innocent man giving millions of dollars to someone who was falsely accusing him. Surely if he was innocent, it would have made more sense to spend some of that money on hiring a decent legal team.

that's no proof he wasn't a peadophile. he went to court over a number of different charges relating to child abuse. if you research the full story you will find that he was not found innocent.
if that is the full extent of your proof, something which is no proof at all, then you have no proof whatsoever that he was not a peadophile. it sounds like you have simply been brainwashed by the media

Kids are annoying for the most part, and all he was interested in was hanging about with them. It's very weird behaviour, and that's why most people (including myself, a hardcore Jacko fan as a kid) lean towards the fact that the reports were plausible.

I agree with you on this. I think loads would've come running out the woodwork complaining about Michael Jackson.

As for the ones who DID complain about abuse while Michael was alive, I hope they were making it up. I'd like to think he was innocent.

Oh I wondered how long it would be before MJ was brought into this. Here's the difference, I say it again, in 1994 two seperate grand juries examined the evidence and rejected it, according to one there were so many contradictions and story changes by the accuser, in 2005 after months in court a jury found him not guilty, for the same reason. If anyone was abused it was MJ.

Saville is dead, he cannot refute these allegations which the media are only too pleased to assume he is guilty of. I think he probably is but we don't know until these stories are investigated, people kept quiet for years and only came forward when a TV documentary was being made, that has to make you wonder.

In all of this nobody mentions how Elvis moved a fourteen year old Precilla into his home, everyone accepted there was no inappropriate behaviour, and maybe there wasn't but I bet underage sex was as rife amoung stars since ever they existed. If these allegations are true there should be action taken against people who allowed it to continue, but let's not start bringing other unproven accusations against other people into it.

I researched his 'full story' (as much as it is, anyway) believing him innocent, and TBH it absolutely convinced me of his guilt. This is, of course, still just an opinion - as is yours - but the truth is not out there for any of us to know for sure.

You can't tell anyone they "have no right to comment" just because you don't like what is being said. Everyone has the right to their opinion on a discussion forum, whether you agree with their view or not.

Do you not find it strange that even no further false allegations came out about MJ when he died? I mean he hung around all these kids, met thousands more. A lot were 18+ when he died. You would have thought even if they were making it up, a few would have tried it on in the hope of making a few bucks. Very strange ... there must be some legal protection in place by the estate.

Well, that this whole forum shut down then and a police state introduced......:D :D