Micky Jackson in trouble again

Mr.Wemmick

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How was he a text book groomer? If he was a groomer, he was on a scale all of his own. He got parents to offer their kids to him and got to abuse them in the comfort of his own bed with everyone knowing they were in his bed but thinking it was ok :pac: What other groomer could get away with that? (If he did it)

So did Priests. They got kids away from the parents, easy peasy, under the umbrella of the respectable Catholic Church. Children sleeping over in priest's houses, happened a lot.. and on religious trips where bedrooms were shared.

I don't get it. Have people been asleep, do not know what went on in our country with religious paedos?

Hollywood have got away with it for years. Agents taking away kids for movie auditions, older actors as mentors, etc. etc.

Jackson was so famous, his activities and movements were photographed a lot so we have the evidence of all his little companions holding his hand, being with him most the time.

Talk about wilful ignorance! :rolleyes:

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

Victims often lie because they've been conditioned by their abuser to do so. They're told they'll get in trouble/go to jail/no one will believe them. The abuse utterly messes with their heads. This is standard stuff.

What exactly would interviewing someone who wasn't molested by Jackson achieve, other than indicate that he didn't abuse every single child he came in contact with? I don't understand this all or nothing viewpoint some posters have - that he either abused hundreds of children or none. Any child abuse is sick, regardless of the number of victims.

The purpose of this film was to tell the stories of the two men, that's it.

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

Every single convicted abuser out there has come into contact with children they didn't abuse, so what point am I missing.
Do you mean like a character reference to say what a good person he was. Where have we heard that before..
I have no doubt plenty of children had good experiences at neverland, but in the context of abuse allegations it is absolutely meaningless.

Hannibal_Smith

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

So did Priests. They got kids away from the parents, easy peasy, under the umbrella of the respectable Catholic Church. Children sleeping over in priest's houses, happened a lot.. and on religious trips where bedrooms were shared.

I don't get it. Have people been asleep, do not know what went on in our country with religious paedos?

Hollywood have got away with it for years. Agents taking away kids for movie auditions, older actors as mentors, etc. etc.

Jackson was so famous, his activities and movements were photographed a lot so we have the evidence of all his little companions holding his hand, being with him most the time.

Talk about wilful ignorance! :rolleyes:

I hope you're not accusing me of being willfully ignorant. I haven't decided what i believe, so don't try and decide for me thanks.

If it's true, Jackson is far from a 'text book groomer' as the other poster claimed. He was in a league of his own. I don't think any parent sending their kid away with a priest would have known and accepted that their kids would be sleeping in a bed with the priest.

El_Duderino 09

I haven't seen the doc yet. But I plan to watch it tonight. I gather it's pretty bad for Jackson.

But the thing I don't like is the fact that were being expected to make up our minds based on a TV documentary. I would leave all this kind of thing up to the court system.

Would I leave my children with Jackson? Not a chance. But that's not enough to say he was definitely an abuser.

I suspect he probably was but I wasn't there and there are lots of people who were there and their accounts differ wildly.

I'm going to be controversial a d say I dont know for sure one way or the other. But I would act with caution with my own children's safety.

oceanman

airy fairy wrote: »

Why do people need evidence?
Were there recordings of the sex abusers in the church?
Why is the MJ situation no different? Why is he not being condemned?
Blinkered vision.
MJ groomed the parents.
MJ groomed the kids.
Sex abuse survivors can take decades to finally realise that they were abused. A trigger could take a lifetime to happen. And when it does, it can be catastrophic to the abused.
It's obvious that many posters here do not know what grooming is, or have experience of it.
Look at the Opera interview After Neverland if you need a little insight.
Watch Spotlight to gain a little knowledge.
Some posters here need to wake up to reality and be a little compassionate.

you have to be joking ...without evidence you have noting. how would you convict someone in a court of law without evidence?

Mr.Wemmick

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I hope you're not accusing me of being willfully ignorant. I haven't decided what i believe, so don't try and decide for me thanks.

If it's true, Jackson is far from a 'text book groomer' as the other poster claimed. He was in a league of his own. I don't think any parent sending their kid away with a priest would have known and accepted that their kids would be sleeping in a bed with the priest.

No, not you specifically, but generally in this thread wilful ignorance is constantly inferred.

Yes, parents did know. Poorer times, religious hostels often had many group bedrooms. Teachers or priest sharing with kids wouldn't have been questioned. That was the the power they had back in the day.. just like Jackson's power, a film mogul's power, a movie agent, a football coach, an olympic swimming or gymnastic coach, on and on..

Parents are not always strong and assertive, they often assume pure innocence on behalf of a predator - and if they do not have the mindset of a Paedo, it will never dawn on them.

LessOutragePlz

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Have we abandoned the fabric of the justice system in almost every country in the world?

The man has not been been found guilty in a court of law and never will be.

All these allegations are just that simply allegations with absolutely zero proof.

People love to hate and judge others especially on the internet and of course they will continue to do so because it's gives them some sick sense of satisfaction.

fryup

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

joe40 wrote: »

Every single convicted abuser out there has come into contact with children they didn't abuse, so what point am I missing.
Do you mean like a character reference to say what a good person he was. Where have we heard that before..
I have no doubt plenty of children had good experiences at neverland, but in the context of abuse allegations it is absolutely meaningless.

but it isn't meaningless...as stated above hundreds even thousands of children visited Neverland over the years with many having sleepovers...and in that time we've had 4 abuse accusations, one of which was withdrawn, another one proven to be false in a court of law...and now these current two given by two men with dubious backgrounds

above all else MJ is dead 10 years now...if he was such a prolific abuser ..why haven't others come forward?? and why haven't others come forward since the release of this documentary??

i think this whole sorry affair with Robson & Safechuck stinks to high heaven

Mr.Wemmick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

For danger of repeating what has been said many times in this thread:

It is acknowledged and accepted amongst many in the judicial system, the police, social care workers, rape counsellors the world over that child abuse cases are incredibly difficult to prove and is the main reason we have million and millions of victims and very few convicted well-known predators.

Pyscholgists and scientists will tell you how a developing child's brain will block out the damage and trauma so that the facts become dream like to a child, they are often confused and the inconsistent retelling of events are portrayed as lie after lie and are loved by defence lawyers.

It is rare that there is clarity and definite proof unless there are witnesses and/or more kids willing to tell their stories similar to the cases in Ireland with the RCC.

If it's all just a money grabbing exercise, how come none of his accusers have been girls? Surely some of the girls who visited Neverland are just as likely to have money grabbing parents as the boys? How come none of them have gone looking for a pay out? Also how come other megastars aren't facing multiple allegations of abuse?

I actually think if he had a similar pattern of behaviour with little girls there would be a much bigger outcry. People seem to think that because he was hanging around little boys, it's more plausible that the whole thing was innocent.

McFly85

Ultimately, while you could consider the motives of the 2 men questionable(it’s just about money), I believe them, as there have been multiple accounts of MJs pattern of behaviour with young boys, much of it very public. However, I do understand that it wouldn’t hold up in court as there’s no ‘smoking gun’. At best, it may help others to come forward or deal with what happened to them.

One thing I can’t get my head around, since he allegations began in the early 90s, is that neither MJ or anyone in his entourage/law team decided that if he wants to sleep in bed with children that the rooms should be surveilled? I mean surely after he paid off Jordy Chandler(one of his biggest regrets) would they not have decided to put in place measures against other, future allegations? Can’t imagine he wouldn’t have had a problem with it if nothing illegal was happening?

MadDog76

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

Serial killers don't murder everybody they meet, rapists don't rape everybody they meet etc.

Paedophiles need a combination of the right time, the right circumstances, the right victim in order to pounce....... it's about opportunity.

What would be the point in interviewing somebody who wasn't a victim?

Hannibal_Smith

McFly85 wrote: »

Ultimately, while you could consider the motives of the 2 men questionable(it’s just about money), I believe them, as there have been multiple accounts of MJs pattern of behaviour with young boys, much of it very public. However, I do understand that it wouldn’t hold up in court as there’s no ‘smoking gun’. At best, it may help others to come forward or deal with what happened to them.

One thing I can’t get my head around, since he allegations began in the early 90s, is that neither MJ or anyone in his entourage/law team decided that if he wants to sleep in bed with children that the rooms should be surveilled? I mean surely after he paid off Jordy Chandler(one of his biggest regrets) would they not have decided to put in place measures against other, future allegations? Can’t imagine he wouldn’t have had a problem with it if nothing illegal was happening?

I was watching the Martin Bashir interview and Jackson insisted he always slept on the floor and the kids were in the bed. Again, how true that is...?

Apparently after the second case (the one in 2003 I think) the family intervened and told him to stop kids sleeping over, it was only going to lead to trouble and to spend more time with his family and apparently this is what he did.

LessOutragePlz

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

For danger of repeating what has been said many times in this thread:

It is acknowledged and accepted amongst many in the judicial system, the police, social care workers, rape counsellors the world over that child abuse cases are incredibly difficult to prove and is the main reason we have million and millions of victims and very few convicted well-known predators.

Pyscholgists and scientists will tell you how a developing child's brain will block out the damage and trauma so that the facts become dream like to a child, they are often confused and the inconsistent retelling of events are portrayed as lie after lie and are loved by defence lawyers.

It is rare that there is clarity and definite proof unless there are witnesses and/or more kids willing to tell their stories similar to the cases in Ireland with the RCC.

So based on this he is guilty?

It wasn't too difficult for Jimmy Savile's victims to come forward and tell their stories, or Rolf Harris's victims or Max Clifford's victims or Stuart Hall's victims among others.

I'm sorry but if he was a paedophile like many in this thread claim he was then many more victims would have come forward by now and told their stories.

Why hasn't this happened?

Because it's all lies and false allegations trying to besmirch a dead man.

McFly85

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So based on this he is guilty?

It wasn't too difficult for Jimmy Savile's victims to come forward and tell their stories, or Rolf Harris's victims or Max Clifford's victims or Stuart Hall's victims among others.

I'm sorry but if he was a paedophile like many in this thread claim he was then many more victims would have come forward by now and told their stories.

Why hasn't this happened?

Because it's all lies and false allegations trying to besmirch a dead man.

How many have come out with allegations? 3? 4? Is that not enough? Why does there have to be many more victims before he can be considered an abuser?

Is your argument really that there needs to be a minimum amount of victims?

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

4 accusations so far two of which went out the window...and the other two from two dubious men

hardly damning material now is it?

sligeach

airy fairy wrote: »

Why do people need evidence?

Unbelievable. What a thing to say. Imagine a prosecutor saying that to a judge and jury.

LessOutragePlz

McFly85 wrote: »

How many have come out with allegations? 3? 4? Is that not enough? Why does there have to be many more victims before he can be considered an abuser?

Is your argument really that there needs to be a minimum amount of victims?

No there doesn't have to be a minimum amount of victims. One victim is too many in any case of child abuse. My point is that if he was a paedophile as many on this thread claim he was then why would he only abuse 3 or 4 children. When he had access to thousands of children down through the years. My point being that he would have abused many more children and if so there would have been many more victims that would have come forward and made more allegations.

Why hasn't this happened?

marklazarcovic

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I hope you're not accusing me of being willfully ignorant. I haven't decided what i believe, so don't try and decide for me thanks.

If it's true, Jackson is far from a 'text book groomer' as the other poster claimed. He was in a league of his own. I don't think any parent sending their kid away with a priest would have known and accepted that their kids would be sleeping in a bed with the priest.

He is completely text book, his manipulation of his image,his stating he 'loves' children and would never hurt one,the very best (worst) pedos hoodwink those around him/her into believing they love kids and would never hurt them,it's why they are successful for so long, they join clubs with free access to children, scouts,sports,church,schools, there is a definite pattern for the abusers who abuse outside of the home circle,MJ fits it perfectly .. he got the kids delivered to him because he was MJ ..

Parents are 100% guilty of not seeing the obvious imo aswell,just as guilty as MJ.

McFly85

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

4 accusations so far two of which went out the window...and the other two from two dubious men

hardly damning material now is it?

4 along with his observable & admitted behaviour isn’t alarming enough? How many is?

Mr.Wemmick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So based on this he is guilty?

It wasn't too difficult for Jimmy Savile's victims to come forward and tell their stories, or Rolf Harris's victims or Max Clifford's victims or Stuart Hall's victims among others.

I'm sorry but if he was a paedophile like many in this thread claim he was then many more victims would have come forward by now and told their stories.

Why hasn't this happened?

Because it's all lies and false allegations trying to besmirch a dead man.

So based on this he is not innocent.

I think, an opinion from everything I have read so far, is that Jackson was deep down a sweet guy, he loved those boys, had relationships with them that continued over time, he showered them in love, gifts, helped them in their careers. I say a lot of boys like Omer still love MJ deeply and will never betray him.

Jackson couldn't have a normal life outside of music, his father didn't allow it, as a kid he was 100% a performer and that is why he was amazing, a genius performer. His father emotionally and mentally broke MJ and the twisted adult life he led is the result.

Saville, Harris, Clifford aggressively raped and abused women or children one after the other, then dropped them, onto the next. Saville even raped a girl in his BBC dressing room in like 5/10 minutes flat then threw her out like a piece of garbage. A whole different ball game in paedo terms.

McFly85

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No there doesn't have to be a minimum amount of victims. One victim is too many in any case of child abuse. My point is that if he was a paedophile as many on this thread claim he was then why would he only abuse 3 or 4 children. When he had access to thousands of children down through the years. My point being that he would have abused many more children and if so there would have been many more victims that would have come forward and made more allegations.

Why hasn't this happened?

We can only speculate to the amount of children that would have been abused(if any), but his behaviour indicated that generally he had a favourite, a relationship of sorts, for a period of time, which I think would put the number lower than someone like Saville who abused hundreds of people, many in a once off situation. Maybe it was also easier for people to come forward with saville due to the fact that they were abused and had no positive emotional connection with him.

fryup

McFly85 wrote: »

4 along with his observable & admitted behaviour isn’t alarming enough? How many is?

admitted behaviour? as in sleepovers with children? that in itself isn't a crime

if he was guilty of anything he was guilty of naivety in underestimating the cynical scrutiny of certain media

LessOutragePlz

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

So based on this he is not innocent.

I think, an opinion from everything I have read so far, is that Jackson was deep down a sweet guy, he loved those boys, had relationships with them that continued over time, he showered them in love, gifts, helped them in their careers. I say a lot of boys like Omer still love MJ deeply and will never betray him.

Jackson couldn't have a normal life outside of music, his father didn't allow it, as a kid he was 100% a performer and that is why he was amazing, a genius performer. His father emotionally and mentally broke MJ and the twisted adult life he led is the result.

Saville, Harris, Clifford aggressively raped and abused women or children one after the other, then dropped them, onto the next. Saville even raped a girl in his BBC dressing room in like 5/10 minutes flat then threw her out like a piece of garbage. A whole different ball game in paedo terms.

Can you provide any solid evidence at all that he was a paedophile? besides some allegations that haven't proven to be true.

I'll revert back to my earlier post:

What has happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Are we now deciding that:

Well it should only apply in some cases because people have come forward and accused him of being a paedophile and I'm going to believe them and therefore he is guilty.

Do you know how insane that sounds?

sligeach

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So based on this he is guilty?

It wasn't too difficult for Jimmy Savile's victims to come forward and tell their stories, or Rolf Harris's victims or Max Clifford's victims or Stuart Hall's victims among others.

I'm sorry but if he was a paedophile like many in this thread claim he was then many more victims would have come forward by now and told their stories.

Why hasn't this happened?

Because it's all lies and false allegations trying to besmirch a dead man.

You know what the sad thing is? More people might make up stories now. Look at how this has all gone down. You've got 2 liars who've previously testified that nothing ever happened, have lied, changed their story and all the rest. Look at how the Leaving Neverland mockumentary has manipulated people. Then there's the whole MeToo movement. Come forward and you're automatically believed.

Someone could now think to themselves, "well I hung around with Michael and slept in his bed, I don't have the highly dodgy past and lies of Robson and Safechuck, I could be way more believable. I think I'll add myself to this meal ticket." Or they might wait and see if these 2 are successful first.

To be fair these are the only 2 liars that have come forward since 2005 and others have said if they were less scrupulous they could have done the same and that some people have tried to manipulate them into doing so. Harriet Lester being the most recent person to say this.

LessOutragePlz

McFly85 wrote: »

We can only speculate to the amount of children that would have been abused(if any),

That's it in a nutshell and that is all it is only ever going to be pure speculation.

Without any evidence or proof just speculations that he was a paedophile.

PokeHerKing

fryup wrote:

if he was guilty of anything he was guilty of

fryup wrote:

in underestimating the cynical scrutiny of certain media

fryup wrote:

admitted behaviour? as in sleepovers with children? that in itself isn't a crime

The big problem with this kind of thinking is you have to accept that MJ was the exception to the rule.

His behaviour is much more in keeping with a pedophile than not imo. Then throw in a few accusations by alleged victims and you need to start giving him a lot of passes.

Im about 65 % guilty 35 % misunderstood man child.

fryup

PokeHerKing wrote: »

His behaviour is much more in keeping with a pedophile than not imo. .

for what? being affectionate towards children? having sleepovers with children?

you know with me too and jimmy savile it gone the other extreme now....complete paranoia...

...kinda reminds of that Chris Morris brass eye parody years back > Paedogeddon

joe40

fryup wrote: »

PokeHerKing wrote: »

His behaviour is much more in keeping with a pedophile than not imo. .

for what? being affectionate towards children? having sleepovers with children?

you know with me too and jimmy savile it gone the other extreme now....complete paranoia...

...kinda reminds of that Chris Morris brass eye parody years back > Paedogeddon

So you don't see a problem with a grown man sleeping with kids. Been "affectionate" with children.
Is that really your position.

No wonder the abusers in the church, swimming coaches, scouting ireland etc got away with their crimes for so long.

What you call paranoia is called child protection in the real world.

Mr.Wemmick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Can you provide any solid evidence at all that he was a paedophile? besides some allegations that haven't proven to be true.

I'll revert back to my earlier post:

What has happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Are we now deciding that:

Well it should only apply in some cases because people have come forward and accused him of being a paedophile and I'm going to believe them and therefore he is guilty.

Do you know how insane that sounds?

But you're the one who said it.

The documentaries are all opinion. We are not in a court of law. Based on what Jackson said in the Bashir documentary, it was clear he was not a well individual and had very strange relationships with children. Jackson's words are open to interpretation, and your welcome to interpret them any way you wish.

We all read the info, listen to what is said and form an opinion.

It's not difficult.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

for what? being affectionate towards children? having sleepovers with children?

you know with me too and jimmy savile it gone the other extreme now....complete paranoia...

...kinda reminds of that Chris Morris brass eye parody years back > Paedogeddon

So Bob down the road has regular movie nights and sleepovers in his house with young boys. Calls these boys his best friends. You let your 8 year old son go, and he tells you he slept with Bob in his bed, with nobody else in the room. Would you think Bob has a case to answer, or is he just affectionate?

LessOutragePlz

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

But you're the one who said it.

The documentaries are all opinion. We are not in a court of law. Based on what Jackson said in the Bashir documentary, it was clear he was not a well individual and had very strange relationships with children. Jackson's words are open to interpretation, and your welcome to interpret them any way you wish.

We all read the info, listen to what is said and form an opinion.

It's not difficult.

I said it because that is what most people are thinking. He's guilty based on the allegations from two men.

Yeah well apparently most people have formed the opinion that he is a paedophile. Which isn't true at all because there is no evidence to support that.

sligeach

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I was watching the Martin Bashir interview and Jackson insisted he always slept on the floor and the kids were in the bed. Again, how true that is...?

Apparently after the second case (the one in 2003 I think) the family intervened and told him to stop kids sleeping over, it was only going to lead to trouble and to spend more time with his family and apparently this is what he did.

Ya, I believe it was his mother that told him. He never went back to Neverland after the trial. Correction, the 2nd case was in 2005. He pretty much abandoned it, he felt violated after the raids. It wasn’t his home anymore.

fryup

Flying Fox wrote: »

So Bob down the road has regular movie nights and sleepovers in his house with young boys. Calls these boys his best friends. You let your 8 year old son go, and he tells you he slept with Bob in his bed, with nobody else in the room. Would you think Bob has a case to answer, or is he just affectionate?

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

fryup

fryup wrote: »

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

Why is everyone else held to a higher standard than Michael Jackson?

4 people have come forward and they have been attacked and belittled.

Mr.Wemmick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I said it because that is what most people are thinking. He's guilty based on the allegations from two men.

Yeah well apparently most people have formed the opinion that he is a paedophile. Which isn't true at all because there is no evidence to support that.

And going by that argument, the opposite is also true:

many people have formed an opinion he is totally innocent, which can not be proved going by the decades of visual evidence and what MJ has said himself on camera.

The Nal

Flying Fox wrote: »

Why is everyone else held to a higher standard than Michael Jackson?

4 people have come forward and they have been attacked and belittled.

And received death threats.

Which is why more people havent. Getting fiddled and then told youre going to be killed. No thanks.

LessOutragePlz

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And going by that argument, the opposite is also true:

many people have formed an opinion he is totally innocent, which can not be proved going by the decades of visual evidence and what MJ has said himself on camera.

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

valoren

We'd be mindful to understand how manipulative people can and do look to exploit playing the victim. The documentary was one very long attempt at playing victim preying on people's sympathies. The manipulative bent being that they present themselves as victims of child sexual abuse and this makes people tend towards refraining from criticising them because no one wants to be deemed attacking the abused. I believe this is a case of that and they've been pretty successful too as anyone pointing out the litany of holes in their story is deemed to be making excuses for Jackson.

Mr.Wemmick

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

In your opinion.. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here's the King of documentaries Theroux's opinion

LessOutragePlz

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

In your opinion.. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here's the King of documentaries Theroux's opinion

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

KikiLaRue

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

By that logic, if you get away with it it didn’t happen.

If you rape someone, you are a rapist, regardless of whether a court found you guilty.

If he molested those children, he was a paedophile even though he will never stand trial for it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: sligeach, don't post in this thread again.


Buford T. Justice

KikiLaRue

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

You don’t have to choose between the two. It’s perfectly possible he molested some children and not others.

Most paedos choose particularly vulnerable children to groom. As a rich and famous star in his own right, Culkin would have been a very risky choice and MJ would have known that.

LessOutragePlz

KikiLaRue wrote: »

By that logic, if you get away with it it didn’t happen.

If you rape someone, you are a rapist, regardless of whether a court found you guilty.

If he molested those children, he was a paedophile even though he will never stand trial for it.

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

Beechwoodspark

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

KikiLaRue

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

So if someone raped you and they didn’t get caught, you wouldn’t have been raped?

sligeach

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

Look it's the hateful liar again. Found those answers to my questions yet? No, and you'll never find them because you made that rubbish up. Of course you'll say it again. Now try for the first time giving me answers please.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

It goes to show that he did indeed groom large sections of society. Not as actively as he groomed the children, but he carefully created a sympathetic persona so that people would see him as harmless. He also convinced people he was somehow exempt from being held to the same standards as the rest of the population.