Quantcast
"Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Forums - General Discussion - "Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Thriller and Invincible or Bad and Dangerous

Good guy, wrongly accused 54 51.43%
 
Talented Bad guy 28 26.67%
 
A little of both. 23 21.90%
 
Total:105
Peh said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
The age of consent is 13 or 14 in some Asian and European nations. Michael Jackson thought he was above the law 

Got proof or is this just nonsense made up by you?

There was that time when he showed up late to court in his pajamas and cried his way out of being found in contempt...



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Around the Network
Dark_Lord_2008 said:

His critics called Jackson out for appearing to be above the law. Celebrities are protected and have top lawyers and appear to be above the law and they can get away with a lot more things than the normal citizens of this world. Celebrities get lighter sentences or get off for crimes that anyone else would get prison time. 

Despite the top laywers he had, he couldn't avoid the humiliating investigation, part of which was the photograph of his genitals and moreover the court in 2005. Being a celebrity means nothing. You 're not above the law, you are not protected. Jackson was acquited because the court find no sign of his behaviour, hidind any sexual act against under age children. Simple as that.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
The age of consent is 13 or 14 in some Asian and European nations. Michael Jackson thought he was above the law and he got away with it and he was never convicted during his life time. If an offender was seduced or had consent, could it be a defense against these types of charges? Cardinal George Pell a well respected high ranking member of the Catholic Church and the Pope's finance man in the Vatican, was brought to justice and showed to the world that no one is above the law. It was proven the Pell did not consent nor was he seduced by the boys, he took advantage of his position and was opportunistic and brazenly denied the allegations.

Go do some research on Bill Shorten and the rape allegations. If Bill was a Catholic Bishop and not a Politician he be behind bars. Both wishy washy word verse word scenarios.



 

 

Machiavellian said:

The problem is when people look to make money from such issues that causes people to question events.  I have seen people believe they were molested because someone kept telling them they were.  It's one thing to come out from years of abuse and want to set the situation straight, its another to seek a crap ton of money first.  The problem with this whole thing is that there is a crap ton of inconsistent information along with the fact they tried to sue the estate for a lot of money when they became broke.  It puts into question was everything about money more than actual incidents.

When all is said and done, trying to make a profit off of the situation will always cloud everything they say.  It they want to be creditable then first not seek the money but instead set the situation first.  Either way, they have a chance to make their case only after the man is dead and cannot defend himself which also taints their case.

I get what you're saying but then again, injured party usually demands compensation for anything they've suffered. There's nothing wrong with that, at least I see nothing wrong with wanting money from someone who assaulted you, raped you etc. 

Set the situation right, what does that even mean when you have been sexually abused as a child? And in this case, most likely also manipulated. By someone they knew and many people idolize. 

And the fact that the man is now dead could also be a reason why they are now able to tell their whole story in public.

Anyway, I don't really want to debate whether he's guilty or not. I already wrote my thoughts about MJ and it hasn't changed. If you want to believe he's innocent then ok, but I just find it disturbing there's MJ fans all over the internet acting like they know what happened and shaming his alleged victims. Yes I understand it's hard to believe such things from an artist you love but then think for a second how hard it must have been for parents of these kids and kids themselves. 



I believe Michael Jackson is guilty. I didn't watch the documentary though. Was the dude ever convicted? Or was the statute of limitations protecting him as it had happened years ago?



Around the Network
KiigelHeart said:
Machiavellian said:

The problem is when people look to make money from such issues that causes people to question events.  I have seen people believe they were molested because someone kept telling them they were.  It's one thing to come out from years of abuse and want to set the situation straight, its another to seek a crap ton of money first.  The problem with this whole thing is that there is a crap ton of inconsistent information along with the fact they tried to sue the estate for a lot of money when they became broke.  It puts into question was everything about money more than actual incidents.

When all is said and done, trying to make a profit off of the situation will always cloud everything they say.  It they want to be creditable then first not seek the money but instead set the situation first.  Either way, they have a chance to make their case only after the man is dead and cannot defend himself which also taints their case.

I get what you're saying but then again, injured party usually demands compensation for anything they've suffered. There's nothing wrong with that, at least I see nothing wrong with wanting money from someone who assaulted you, raped you etc. 

Set the situation right, what does that even mean when you have been sexually abused as a child? And in this case, most likely also manipulated. By someone they knew and many people idolize. 

And the fact that the man is now dead could also be a reason why they are now able to tell their whole story in public.

Anyway, I don't really want to debate whether he's guilty or not. I already wrote my thoughts about MJ and it hasn't changed. If you want to believe he's innocent then ok, but I just find it disturbing there's MJ fans all over the internet acting like they know what happened and shaming his alleged victims. Yes I understand it's hard to believe such things from an artist you love but then think for a second how hard it must have been for parents of these kids and kids themselves. 

Yes, injured party do ask for compensation.  What the injured party do not do is wait until they are in financial trouble to then look for compensation.  I personally do not know if MJ is guilty or not.  If he is, I hope he burn for what he did, if he is not then its unfortunate what has happen to him.  Either way, this documentary did not do anything to set the record straight but instead left a lot of questions.  Waiting until the man is dead to then come for the money no matter how you look at it appears suspect.  The whole thing appears suspect.  

As to MJ being dead is the only reason they can tell their story, I have to call BS on that.  What it means is that they do not have to worry about having to prove their allegations which every person should have the right to do when accused of something.  I have seen way to many people wrongly accused of something to just let that slide.



RaptorChrist said:
I believe Michael Jackson is guilty. I didn't watch the documentary though. Was the dude ever convicted? Or was the statute of limitations protecting him as it had happened years ago?

No, MJ was acquitted of all charges.  If anything the Statute of limitations is protecting the 2 in this documentary because they do not have to prove their claims.  



KiigelHeart said:

And the fact that the man is now dead could also be a reason why they are now able to tell their whole story in public.

Or because they're both now broke has-beens. 



Machiavellian said:
RaptorChrist said:
I believe Michael Jackson is guilty. I didn't watch the documentary though. Was the dude ever convicted? Or was the statute of limitations protecting him as it had happened years ago?

No, MJ was acquitted of all charges.  If anything the Statute of limitations is protecting the 2 in this documentary because they do not have to prove their claims.  

And they're free from being prosecuted for perjury if they lied in court.

(See! I take everything into account!)



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

d21lewis said:
Peh said:

Got proof or is this just nonsense made up by you?

There was that time when he showed up late to court in his pajamas and cried his way out of being found in contempt...

Tom Mesereau, Michael Jackson's defense lawyer, explained why that happened in the Michael Jackson episode of True Crime with Aphrodite Jones.

This explanation is at 33:17 of the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cn1xQZ-IFc