By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

 

Thriller and Invincible or Bad and Dangerous

Good guy, wrongly accused 55 51.89%
 
Talented Bad guy 28 26.42%
 
A little of both. 23 21.70%
 
Total:106
Machiavellian on 04 April 2019
KiigelHeart said:
Forgot this thread existed but the documentary was aired yesterday in Finland for the first time on a show called Docventures. Didn't watch it yet though. They had a discussion afterwards and instead going back and forth whether Jackson is innocent or not, the documentary served as an introduction to discussion about sexual abuse towards children. The discussion helped many people seek help and talk about their experiences already.

I'd just like to point out that it's not out of ordinary that victims don't even realize they've been abused until they're grown up and/or something triggers their memories. They know something about them is broken but they don't know what it is, the brain blocks such traumatic events from their memory. Futhermore, it's unreasonable to expect victims to remember timelines or even locations clearly. Just think about some even from your childhood and try to remember an exact year it happened. Memories are quite unreliable. So all this "It couldn't have happened in 1993 everything is debunked and they're lying!!!!" is pretty disturbing stuff and will not do any good for others who are still silent about their suffering.

These people who now speak were children back then. Allegedly abused by someone close to them who they trusted. Someone who has millions of fans ready to defend him and shame the victim. Can you really blame them for inconsistencies in their statements?

Finding solid proof in cases like this is also very tricky as time has passed. More often than not it's words against words.

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.



Around the Network
Dark_Lord_2008 on 05 April 2019

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.



Peh on 05 April 2019
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?



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Dark_Lord_2008 on 05 April 2019
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?

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. 



d21lewis on 05 April 2019
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...



Around the Network
Quodam_Diem on 05 April 2019
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.



Cobretti2 on 05 April 2019
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.



 

 

KiigelHeart on 05 April 2019
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. 



RaptorChrist on 05 April 2019

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?



Machiavellian on 05 April 2019
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.