[jzee]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

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.

I think two failed prosecutions would have put people off to some extent.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by jzee

I think two failed prosecutions would have put people off to some extent.

It's difficult for girls/women to come forward and I think boys/men find it even more so.

[Becky Sharpe]

Originally Posted by i4u

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?

Good question!

The Observer, Sunday 14 October 2012
How my father may have helped Jimmy Savile escape justice:
The son of George Carman QC recalls the powerful effect he had on newspaper groups

[PlausibleDenial]

Originally Posted by aneesarzaza

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

If you read the court transcripts and interviews online one of the children could describe distinct markings on michael jacksons penis which could only be seen when erect. Remember michael's skin condition meant that he looked like a marble worktop, yet this kid knew.

If a grown man giving children wine (jesus juice) and then showing them his penis is not a pedo then who is?!

[guffybear]

two peas in a pod. both deemed as untouchable so they get away with it

[Inspiration]

Originally Posted by i4u

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.

Where have you seen that Jimmy Savile victims were refusing to provide evidence? From what I've seen the victims who spoke out at the time of the crimes were simply not believed for various reasons, some situational that they couldn't avoid.. such as having a troubled past. Others because of who he was and no one would believe he was that type of man. And as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to prove accusations. Things are buried with time. But to suggest victims withheld evidence is wrong imho. Maybe i've missed something.

The MJ case is in no way similar. For a start, there were plenty of people who suspected MJ was up to no good with kids. There was a much more fertile ground in which to plant seeds of accusations there. Nothing was stopping people coming forward out of fear no one would believe them. The California legal people were practically begging them to come forward promising rich rewards for doing so.

And let's not forget that while there were a couple of cases against MJ, there were also young witnesses who testified that he did nothing to them. My personal long standing view on MJ is that he was innocent of the accusations. Did he perhaps do things with kids which were out of the ordinary? Yes. Christ, the guy had a theme park in his back garden. He was anything other than ordinary. But it doesn't make him a child abuser.

I don't agree with trying to mix what is happening now with what happened to MJ in the past and trying to suggest one proves the other.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

Where have you seen that Jimmy Savile victims were refusing to provide evidence?

Sussex police said they began an investigation of sexual assualt in 2008 which could not proceed...

The attack was alleged to have taken place in Worthing in 1970. But Police said the victim was "unwilling to co-operate in any investigation".

The Newsnight investigation appears to have begun by a reporter seeking out a couple of women who'd formerly been at Duncroft. One of the women has said she was extremely reluctant to take part.

Experts have repeatedly said those who are abuse when young can take decades before they can talk about it.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by Inspiration

The MJ case is in no way similar. For a start, there were plenty of people who suspected MJ was up to no good with kids. There was a much more fertile ground in which to plant seeds of accusations there. Nothing was stopping people coming forward out of fear no one would believe them. The California legal people were practically begging them to come forward promising rich rewards for doing so.

Apologises for appearing to be picking on but you raised various matters also raised by others.

Have you witnessed the wrath of MJ fans? They apparently attacked a news presenter in a car park. Some British fans flew to the US to have 'words' with the father of an alledged victim.

People talk of Jimmy Savile being threatening which stopped people going to the police or media. Michael Jackson had Anthony Pellicano working for him, the man who was sentenced to 15 years for hacking, having explosives and getting up to some unsavoury buisness.

Later Michael had Marc Schaffael maker of gay porn moves working for him, who was fired. A year later Marc was back at Neverland making a charity record and the rebuttal video and holding the passports & furniture of the family who made allegations in 2005.

The flood of accusations against Jimmy Savile has happened after the TV programme...as I indicated it appears no one went to the media or police on his death.

[i4u]

Was a difference that Michael Jackson had love affairs while Jimmy Savile had encounters?

Jimmy Savile regarded TOTPs as a happy hunting ground, did Michael Jackson think the same about Neverland?

The children we know about with Michael had split family's with a tendancy for the father not to be around.

When Jimmy Savile did questionable things it was said 'it's only Jimmy', look at the things Michael did to delibrately build up a 'bizarre' reputaion.

So when he slept with young children, again it was said 'it's only Michael'.

[i4u]

Did Jimmy Savile ever talk about Michael Jackson and the accussations?

[iseloid]

Originally Posted by johartuk

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.

The case files stated the mother in question's evidence was actually hilarious. But due to the severity of the accusation it was taken seriously as we'd expect. The media didn't even report the trial properly. I think he was probably asexual and innocent too. He wasn't ever a real sexual person IMO. He was a very special person. If he did it, he'd go down, there surely would be enough evidence. Jordy Chandler even said his father lied, and the kids whose mother sued him said they had meetings about what to say. In court the kids stories were different and varied upon cross examination. It makes perfect sense. Pay someone off to shut up. But they got greedy and wanted more. He had a decent legal team, (I do law at uni) I've seen the amount of uk only files against the media here. It is collosal. I was shocked, (they're all for libel mostly) at the amount. There was a comment made by the father of Jordy saying :' I hate MJ, I'm gonna get that ******'. It's clear he did it out of pure hate.

Jimmy on the other hand...well, he just abused his position. And used charity to cover it up and to get closer to kids.

[iseloid]

Originally Posted by guffybear

two peas in a pod. both deemed as untouchable so they get away with it

Michael Jackson was destroyed financially and by public opinion on the cases. How is that getting away with it. He was arrested and had 2 huge court cases over molestation

[iseloid]

Originally Posted by PlausibleDenial

If you read the court transcripts and interviews online one of the children could describe distinct markings on michael jacksons penis which could only be seen when erect. Remember michael's skin condition meant that he looked like a marble worktop, yet this kid knew.

If a grown man giving children wine (jesus juice) and then showing them his penis is not a pedo then who is?!

It is possible to make a penis erect whilst a person sleeps you know. Men get them all the time during dreams naturally (hence why they wake up with them). That proves nothing. He was cleared of the drugging charge, which would've required bodily evidence. It was a court case based on a lie, a badly constructed one at that. Easy to believe due to the situation, but under cross examination all 20+ charges fell apart. You get done if there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which can be easy to prove in these kind of cases.

[gregsanison]

The thing that Savile had in common with Jackson is that they asked the same question when they met St Peter at the pearly gates - "Where's the children's section?"

[i4u]

Originally Posted by iseloid

The case files stated the mother in question's evidence was actually hilarious. But due to the severity of the accusation it was taken seriously as we'd expect. The media didn't even report the trial properly. I think he was probably asexual and innocent too. He wasn't ever a real sexual person IMO. He was a very special person. If he did it, he'd go down, there surely would be enough evidence. Jordy Chandler even said his father lied, and the kids whose mother sued him said they had meetings about what to say. In court the kids stories were different and varied upon cross examination. It makes perfect sense. Pay someone off to shut up. But they got greedy and wanted more. He had a decent legal team, (I do law at uni) I've seen the amount of uk only files against the media here. It is collosal. I was shocked, (they're all for libel mostly) at the amount. There was a comment made by the father of Jordy saying :' I hate MJ, I'm gonna get that ******'. It's clear he did it out of pure hate.

Jimmy on the other hand...well, he just abused his position. And used charity to cover it up and to get closer to kids.

If your child had been abused is it not likely to say what the father said?

If MJ's relationships were innocent how come the mother of a defence witness did not know her son aged 7 from the first night spent it alone with Michael Jackson in the same bed?

A mother for the prosecution recounted a similar situation in relation to her own son.

Jimmy Savile is said to have targetted 'vunerable' teenagers, Michael Jackson attached himself to a boy described as 'delicate' and another who I believe had a life threatening illness.

We've had people say they did not draw attention to Jimmy Savile's actions for fear of their jobs, Michael Jackson had people directly on his payroll say the wrong thing and your of a job and criminal thug Pellicano wiould be after you.

Why was Marc Schaffeal a gay porn director reinstated at Neverlands and given the task of producing a charity record to make millions for himself, Michael & one other?

People have been accussed of being blind to the rumours about Jimmy Savile, which he dismissed.

Recently we had Kenny Ortega's shocking emails revealed about about the health of Michael Jackson just days before he died, but Kenny then edited the 'This It Is' film which I believe does not have a whiff of Micheal being ill.

If you were a victim and saw how a PR machine could so easily ignore major incidents and sideline anyone who said they'd witness such evenyts, would it not put victims from ever speaking out?

[moonvisage]

There is one thing that i think is similar between michael jackson and jimmy savile,and that is the massive false front they both projected to the world.
Michael Jackson had a massive false front regarding his wealth,which turned out he was in astronomical debt.
Jimmy Savile had a massive false front that he was a direct friend and adviser of countless politicians and royalty,which turned out not to be true.
In both cases,they were both blatant liars,and everybody working for them and with them lied also to keep their false front going.
I wonder if it would be a good idea if politicians,bankers etc all publicly denounced such people as not being connected to them,rather than keeping quiet and allowing them to continue fleecing everyone and every thing.

[abibble]

Originally Posted by PlausibleDenial

If you read the court transcripts and interviews online one of the children could describe distinct markings on michael jacksons penis which could only be seen when erect. Remember michael's skin condition meant that he looked like a marble worktop, yet this kid knew.

If a grown man giving children wine (jesus juice) and then showing them his penis is not a pedo then who is?!

He also said MJ was circumcised...when he wasn't. Let's not forget how Sneddon falsified evidence just so he could prosecute MJ. Or how the FBI Investigated Michael for 13 years and found nothing to pull him out on.

[abibble]

Originally Posted by i4u

Recently we had Kenny Ortega's shocking emails revealed about about the health of Michael Jackson just days before he died, but Kenny then edited the 'This It Is' film which I believe does not have a whiff of Micheal being ill.

I seem to remember a lot of reviews saying Michael still had "it" but also looked rather 'out of it' and 'thin'.

[Cyril_Sneer]

Originally Posted by i4u

Recently we had Kenny Ortega's shocking emails revealed about about the health of Michael Jackson just days before he died, but Kenny then edited the 'This It Is' film which I believe does not have a whiff of Micheal being ill.

That would be Ortega, who also did a press conference telling people "he's as a fit and healthy as i am"

[SparklingEyes]

I’m pleased this thread was started.
As soon as the Savile allegations appeared I thought of MJ. The similarities are there – the weird appearance, huge charity world especially around children, surrounding themselves with important people and kids.
After Michael died I did a huge amount of research on the internet because I just had to know whether the allegations against him had been true. The difficulty is there is still so much conflicting evidence and I find myself swinging constantly between believing his total innocence and thinking there was something odd going on.
The facts are that MJ was secretly dating Lisa Marie Presley (secretly, because she was still married to her first husband) at the time of the first allegations by Jodie Chandler’s father. It was LMP and Elizabeth Taylor who persuaded MJ to settle because they could see he was going mad, and had become dependent on drugs, as a result of the trauma of being accused of child molestation. MJ did not want to settle, but his insurers insisted upon it.
This was possibly the biggest mistake ever made in the life of MJ. His lawyer Tom Mesureau, who defended him successfully in the trial against the Arvizos, said he would never have allowed the settlement to be paid because that was the beginning of the end with Michael’s health, career, reputation etc. From that moment onwards right minded people suspected something had gone on, because who in their right mind would pay millions if they were innocent?
I have watched videos of MJ on YouTube strenuously denying he is a paedophile, or gay, or tried to buy the bones of the elephant man etc.
I want to believe in his total innocence. But I do believe he, and he alone, was the architect of his own downfall. You cannot blame the people around him. Many people around him tried to warn him that it was totally irresponsible and unwise to allow children into his bedroom (even if it was a two-storey room as big as some people’s flats); and tried to stop him being so dependent on drugs to sleep. But he chose to ignore them.
Whatever his public persona as a quiet speaking, gentle man – and I believe he was those things – he was also supremely successful and talented and had an ego to match. He told the people around him what to do, they didn’t tell him what to do. And there is plenty of documentary evidence on the internet to suggest that people did try to stop him surrounding himself with kids and try alternative ways of getting to sleep.

[SparklingEyes]

Originally Posted by paralax

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.

Yes, I often think of this when Jackson and Presley fans argue amongst themselves on the internet. Elvis Presley may not have had full sex with Priscilla until they married, but her own autobiography lays bear all the other intimate sexual stuff they got up to prior to that. Elvis took a 14-year-old girl and brought her to his home where, for want of a better word, he 'groomed' her to be his perfect wife, and this involved sexual games. Isn't that child sexual abuse?

[SparklingEyes]

Originally Posted by Cyril_Sneer

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.

I believe that the greatest evidence that Michael is innocent of paedophilia is the fact that no-one has come out since he died. After his death I expected a deluge of revelations and there have been none. It was better for Mike that he went to court during his lifetime, and tried to clear his name.

[FunkyJawa]

Originally Posted by moonvisage

Michael Jackson had a massive false front regarding his wealth,which turned out he was in astronomical debt.

Not true at all. At worst he was cash poor and asset rich. I suggest you google Sony ATV catalogue ownership and work out how he could possibly be poor.

Don't believe everything you read.

[tracystapes]

MJ being accused of being 'that word' is what ruined him. He was a shadow of his former self after those allegations (particularly the second lot of allegations). It was cruel what people did to him, admittedly at times he didn't help himself (i.e. having children stay in the first place) but that ceased a perfect opportunity to gain a lot of money out of a insanely rich person.

[FunkyJawa]

I think people that feel MJ was guilty find it hard to change their minds despite what has happened with savile since he died. It's a fact thousands of children visited Neverland and none that would be adults now have raised complaints since he died. I'm glad about that.

Ultimately I think Michael was strange and damaged by his early fame and the press helped him into an early grave in the latter part of his career. Yes, he made some mistakes,via naivety and stupidity but no, i don't think he was ever guilty.