Debates with the public

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

MJresearcher -

Many children have claimed there was sexual contact with Michael. Many grown men have come forward and said when they were children that there was sexual contact with Michael.

Michael was criminally charged with having sexual contact with a child and spent tens of millions of dollars to silence other children that claimed he had sexual contact with them.

Michael admitted several times that he enjoyed sharing his bed with children. I wasn't in the room. Some of the children said Michael touched them. Some didn't.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure if the allegations are true. Certainly there wasn't enough to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not 100% convinced Michael was a hebephile. I do think he probably was, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't make me like his music any less. He was a brilliant artist and performer. I don't think there is any doubt he was an odd man. Most brilliant artists are.

But was he mentally ill and sexually attracted to children? I don't know. I think he probably was, but I haven't been convinced either way.



Respect -

I base it on him touring the world for decades with young boys as his companions and many of them claiming Michael wanted the relationships to be sexual.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

MJresearcher -

Many children have claimed there was sexual contact with Michael. Many grown men have come forward and said when they were children that there was sexual contact with Michael.

Michael was criminally charged with having sexual contact with a child and spent tens of millions of dollars to silence other children that claimed he had sexual contact with them.

Michael admitted several times that he enjoyed sharing his bed with children. I wasn't in the room. Some of the children said Michael touched them. Some didn't.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure if the allegations are true. Certainly there wasn't enough to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not 100% convinced Michael was a hebephile. I do think he probably was, but I'm not sure.

It doesn't make me like his music any less. He was a brilliant artist and performer. I don't think there is any doubt he was an odd man. Most brilliant artists are.

But was he mentally ill and sexually attracted to children? I don't know. I think he probably was, but I haven't been convinced either way.



Respect -

I base it on him touring the world for decades with young boys as his companions and many of them claiming Michael wanted the relationships to be sexual.

Uh, perhaps you might want to read up more about the cases on this site: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Captain -

I will gladly check that site out. Was there anything I wrote that you believe is untrue?

 

[HIStory]

OK, let's discuss this out this then.

Many children have claimed there was sexual contact with Michael. Many grown men have come forward and said when they were children that there was sexual contact with Michael.

I base it on him touring the world for decades with young boys as his companions and many of them claiming Michael wanted the relationships to be sexual.

The "many children" who have claimed things are five. A number in itself is just the number when you do not know what's behind it. If you are going to base your judgement on that then please realize that there have been cases where a lot more people claimed sexual abuse by someone and they still turned out to be false allegations, so that doesn't mean anything when you do not know the full story behind a number.

The five accusers are: Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo and now Wade Robson and James Safechuck. You need to see these in their context and how one was inspired by other (with many players connected to each other) and how in all of these allegations the monetary motive was a central one. Michael was vulnerable, rich, perceived to be weird by the general public and he hang out with children. The Chandlers then showed the way in how to make money of that mix.

The Jordan Chandler case

Did you know that it was Jordan's father who pressured him into making allegations? It was never the kid that came up with it on his own. The same father who meanwile demanded money of Michael. I recommend you this website to read up about the Chandler allegations: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-timeline-of-the-1993-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

But if you do not want to read it all, please at least read these:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/how-did-the-allegations-of-the-chandlers-emerge/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

Jason Francia

Jason Francia was pressured by the police into "remembering" things that he never remembered before the police threatened and pressured him into "remembering". Moreover, he was caught up in lies and contradictions in his testimony in 2005. How his allegations formed is detailed in this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/jason-francia/

Gavin Arvizo

The Arvizo allegations are a total mess and full of contradictions. You can read about those allegations here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-2005-allegations/

Michael was not even friends with that kid and his family. He was actually running from them when they tried to cling on him. And then they claimed that MJ started to molest Gavin AFTER the Bashir interview. Not only after the Bashir interview but after the police was already investigating him because of the Bashir interview.

In the latest version of their story the Arvizos’ claim was that Jackson molested Gavin between February 20 and March 12, 2003 [6]. So the Arvizos’ story is that while all this was happening – public outrage because of the Bashir documentary, innuendo and allegations in the media about Jackson’s relationship with children – and specifically Gavin – as a result of the Bashir documentary, high media interest, tabloids trying to “hunt down” the Arvizo family, DCFS investigation, another investigation by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, Jackson’s PR and legal team working overtime on damage control because of the public relations backlash resulting from the Bashir documentary and its innuendo – all WHILE this is happening Jackson starts molesting Gavin Arvizo, even though for three years he has not touched him and obviously not even trusted him and his family. And even though he had not molested Gavin until all these investigations by the DCFS and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department started, but he started to molest him WHILE these investigations were ongoing.THIS is exactly what the Arvizo family claimed, this is exactly their story that you have to believe in order to believe their allegations!

BTW, the Arvizo's timeline changed in a very significant way during the course of the process. The whole case was a mess. There are several other red flags, like the changing and contradictory stories and allegations. There is no way to explain it all in a forum post like this, but if you are interested you can read the website.

And now after Michael's death we have Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who are represented by the same lawyer and who never made these claims, in fact denied the allegations and defended Michael (Robson testified on his side in 2005) before they recently saw a way to cash-in on making such claims in a civil lawsuit. Again, money is the main element here. The cases are ongoing but there are already a whole lot of problems with their allegations which we discuss in this thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...aim-of-sexual-abuse-against-MJ-Estate/page824

Michael was criminally charged with having sexual contact with a child and spent tens of millions of dollars to silence other children that claimed he had sexual contact with them.

Michael was criminally charged AND then aquitted. Please do not leave out that "little detail"!

"Silence children"?

Do you mean the Chandler and Francia settlements? Because there was no other payments. I know the media likes to characterize this as "silencing children" but that characterization is simply false. There was nothing to silence about the Chandlers when the allegations were already out in the public, when authorities were already investigating when the settlement happened. And BTW, the allegations went public exactly because Michael refused to silence the Chandlers when they did not want anything more than being silenced. Again you can read more about that in this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

The fact that Michael Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser in 1994 is often brought up against him as a sign of guilt. The settlement and the events leading to it is discussed in this article. The critics who bring up the settlement do not realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations (indirectly, by capitalizing on the rule that all psychiatrists must report allegations of abuse) was because they did not get the pay-off they desired.

This is all admitted in the book of the accuser's uncle, Ray Chandler. These quotes are also from this book:

On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman (the Chandlers' lawyer), Anthony Pellicano (Michael's PI) had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?” [1; page 138]

and

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”[1; page 128]

At one point Evan Chandler offered Michael to go away for $1 million and that was still refused.

And you can read about the Chandler settlement and what lead to it in detail here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/

A civil settlement is simply about settling a civil lawsuit which is about money, not justice. The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money AND testified in a criminal court. But they never wanted to go to a criminal court, their goal was always just money, preferably a settlement. This is admitted in their own book:

Moreover, in his book All That Glitters the accuser’s uncle Ray Chandler reveals that what the Chandlers really wanted was a “highly profitable settlement” from the very beginning. They filed their civil lawsuit with a settlement in mind. Ray Chandler describes a meeting between the boy’s mother June Chandler, her then-husband David Schwartz and the boy’s biological father Evan Chandler in civil attorney Larry Feldman’s office on September 8, 1993 as follows:

“By the conclusion of the meeting, June and Dave, like Evan before them, had no doubts about switching from Gloria Allred to Larry Feldman. The choice came down to either waging an all-out media campaign to pressure the DA to seek a Grand Jury indictment, or conducting subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a quick, quiet and highly profitable settlement.” [3; page 168]​

(Emphasis added.)

It is very important to emphasize that it was the Chandler family who demanded a settlement from the very beginning and it was not Michael Jackson who offered it! In actuality, since early August, 1993 Evan Chandler demanded money from the star which Jackson refused to comply with and that is what resulted in the Chandlers going public with their allegations. Had Jackson wanted to “hush” the accuser he could have paid them off before they turned to authorities and to the public. Details in our article about the Chandlers Monetary Demands.

People are rarely aware of these details because the media never reported about them.

As for the Francias, they got a settlement in 1994 but once again that does not stop anyone from testifying at a criminal court so that's not "silencing" anyone. In fact, Jason Francia testified in 2005 and he was found not credible.

So not surprisingly, Jason Francia did not make a good impression on the jury at Jackson’s trial. Jury Foreman, Paul Rodriguez told Nancy Grace in an interview after the verdict.

GRACE: Mr. Rodriguez, did you believe the boy that came in that is now a youth minister* that stated Jackson molested him in the past?RODRIGUEZ: Well, we got a little problem with that because he had no idea where some of his money came from, and he didn’t want to talk to his mother. And so those kind of things that we kind of didn’t focus on, but it did keep — we kept that in the back of our minds.GRACE: So would it be safe to say you did not believe him?RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we had a hard time believing him…
[…]GRACE: Yes. What about the one kid that became a youth minister*, who stated plainly Jackson molested his — fondled his genitals?RODRIGUEZ: Again, like you said earlier, you know, about his scenario or his testimony, it was hard to buy the whole story, when he acted like he knew nothing about it. I mean, he acted so much like the mother of the other accuser, you know, he just didn’t seem that credible. He didn’t seem to convince us, like we wanted to be convinced. And he just — he was leaving too many little loopholes in his statements. [5]​

(* The prosecution and the media constantly tried to make Jason Francia look more credible by emphasizing that he used to be a youth minister.)It is very telling that Rodriguez put Francia’s testimony on par with that of “the mother of the other accuser”, Janet Arvizo, which was widely regarded, even by pro-prosecution journalists, as a disastrous testimony for the prosecution.

So as you can see a settlement has nothing to do with how credible an accuser is or how strong his case is. Francia's was weak, but he got a settlement simply because Michael wanted to move on with his life.

However, Jason’s mother, Blanca Francia, taking a page out of the Chandlers’ playbook: hired civil lawyers and at the end of 1994 threatened Jackson with a civil lawsuit. In actuality, Blanca Francia talked about wanting to sue Jackson for money at least as early as March, 1994 – while the criminal investigation was still ongoing (for details see this article – the “Document 2″ segment). With the Chandler case behind him and a plan to release a new album in 1995, Jackson settled with the Francias out of court. As testified to during Jackson’s 2005 trial, two settlements were signed with the Francias – one with Blanca and another one with Jason Francia. Reportedly Jackson paid them $2.4 million.It must be noted that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award, so, like the Chandler settlement, this was not a case of Jackson buying his way out of a criminal indictment. [You can read more about the Chandler settlement here.] Two Grand Juries had already decided in the spring of 1994 not to indict Jackson. However, a civil trial could have resulted in a long, drawn out court process with lots of negative publicity for Jackson, which, regardless of the lack of credibility of the allegations and the outcome, would have affected Jackson’s ability to promote a new album, that he planned to release in 1995. To put the $2.4 million he paid out to the Francias into a perspective: Jackson’s record label, Sony Music spent $30 million on the promotion of Jackson’s double album released in 1995, entitled HIStory. The first video of the album,Scream, cost $7 million and a teaser that was shot for the album in Budapest, Hungary cost $4 million.The language in both the settlements with Blanca and with Jason Francia emphasized that there was no admission of any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. The fact that both Jason and Blanca Francia were called to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial is a clear indication that such settlements of civil lawsuits do not and cannot prohibit anyone testifying at a criminal court. Francia’s allegations were heard in Court during the 2005 proceedings and weighed in when the jury reached its “not guilty” verdicts.

Michael admitted several times that he enjoyed sharing his bed with children.

He said he shared his bed with children, I don't remember him saying he "enjoyed" sharing bed with them. Frank Cascio explained in his book what that "sharing bed" meant:

“In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light.What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?
I’m quite sure that the answer is no.The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.” [3; Kindle Locations 3738-3771]

I understand why the sharing bed may be disturbing to some, but he shared a bed with many people, not just children and you need to see these cases in full context. An adult sharing bed with a child may be sinister or not sinister, from that fact alone you cannot make a judgement. You need to look at the other facts of a case as well. And in this case the other facts point to greed by the accusers and/or by their families, not sexual abuse.

The accusers, while being kids, were never the ones who came up with these allegations. There was always a greedy parent behind them, pushing them to make allegations so that they could demand money. This was the case with Chandler, Francia and Arvizo. It was never a case of a child going to his parents and start complaining about abuse. It was always a case of a parent first having a monetary motive and a plan to sue Michael for money and then to pressure or otherwise convince their child to go along with that plan.

And with the adult accusers - Robson and Safechuck - well, they turned around to start making these allegations while demanding big money from Michael's Estate. They never made these claims in either 1993 or when it was time to testify in the 2005 trial - in fact, Robson was on the stand to defend Michael (and in 1993 he volunteered to defend him on TV). Of course, testifying at a criminal trial will not get you any money. There are a lot more problems with those allegations as well, there are already several lies detected in these new allegations, but like I said those cases are ongoing and we have a seperate thread to discuss them.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

A grown man whose deepest passion is his "love" of children, who admittedly slept with lots of children, who is documented to have toured the world for decades with children as his primary companion, who has had five of those children complain of sexual abuse, who when I watch his public comments on the matter seems like the kind of manipulator that preys on children, who was charged with molesting a child and several jurors have said they believe he was a child molestor, who spent tens of millions of dollars settling various claims of molestation . . . is a man I believe is likely an abuser.

Just my opinion. Not saying he definitely was. Has no impact on my enjoyment of his art.

Yes, he was acquitted. The allegations were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean it's not likely they were true. Several jurors have said they believe they were true. If you look at the situation and believe he was definitely innocent, I think that's great. I have no issue with that. I believe he was probably guilty, but I'm not sure.

I don't feel guilty or shameful for enjoying his art and if somebody tries to shame me, I have no problem standing up for myself.

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

A grown man whose deepest passion is his "love" of children, who admittedly slept with lots of children, who is documented to have toured the world for decades with children as his primary companion, who has had five of those children complain of sexual abuse, who when I watch his public comments on the matter seems like the kind of manipulator that preys on children, who was charged with molesting a child and several jurors have said they believe he was a child molestor, who spent tens of millions of dollars settling various claims of molestation . . . is a man I believe is likely an abuser.

Instead of blank statements like these (none of which is evidence for guilt) let's discuss the allegations and the accusers one by one in a more concrete way. Did you read the material recommended above?

Do you have an open enough mind to discuss these allegations in detail or you are just one of those people who wants to hold on to his preconcieved opinion, no matter what? Because if you are the latter there is nothing to be done, but it's a shame, especially if as a fan you do not want to know the details of these cases before you judge them. But I'd like to hope you actually want to know about a case before you judge it.

So you choose. Which one do you want to discuss? The Arvizos? Chandler? Francia? Let's take them one by one.

Several jurors have said they believe they were true.

I find it curious how you use he "was charged with molesting a child and several jurors have said they believe he was a child molestor" as an indication of his guilt but you ignore that 1) most jurors said they did NOT believe him to be guilty, 2) you always leave out the part from that statement that he was not only charged but also aquitted, 3) the jury actually issued a statement at the end of the trial where they said they were confident in their verdict. They did not claim that they had to make this decision based on some legal technicality or anything. They said they were confident in their verdict.

Jury's statement read by the judge:
We the jury, feeling the weight of the world's eyes upon us, all thoroughly and meticulously studied the testimony, evidence and rules of procedure presented in this court since Janurary 31, 2005. Following the jury instructions, we confidently came to our verdicts. It is our hope that this case is a testament to the belief in our justice system's integrity and the truth. We would like the public to allow us to return to our private lives as anonymously as we came.

The '"several jurors" were two, who were flip-flopping after being offered a book deal to write something negative about Michael (and one of those jourors was friends with a prosecution witness, so she probably should not have even been on the jury). Fact of the matter is however that when it was time to vote they all voted for "not guilty". And a lot more jurours said they did not believe him to be guilty, so why don't you mention that, what makes you focus on a minority of jurors who were flip-flopping after being offered a book deal to trash MJ (but who also voted "not guilty" when it came to that)?

But again, what you think the jurors thought means nothing. Jurors can be mistaken. Jurors can aquit a guilty man or convict an innocent man. That's why it's not very good to base your opinion on something like that when you apparently do not know the actual facts of a case.

If you think those two jurors were right in thinking Michael was guilty then please explain how and why they were right. But not by using fallacious arguments such as sharing bed=guilt, but by using the concrete facts of the case. So let's see: what makes you think Michael was guilty of sexually molesting Gavin Arvizo?

I am going to ask you some questions about that case.

1) How did Michael and Gavin Arvizo meet?
2) What was their level of connection before the Bashir interview?
3) What happened before and after the Bashir interview?
4) What were the Arvizos actual allegations?
5) When did Gavin first make those allegations and under what circumstances?
6) How many times did Gavin claim Michael molested him and when?
7) What did Star Arvizo claim to have witnessed?
8) When and how did Janet Arvizo claim to have found out about the alleged abuse of her sons?
9) Were the Arvizos generally a credible, trustworthy family with no previous record of false statements under oath (including about sexual abuse) before the MJ case?

 

[analogue]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I will never understand people who think Michael's guilty but will still buy and support his music. I know a lot of people say ''You need to separate the music from the man'' but for me, there's a limit to that. If I ever thought that Michael was guilty I would have been done with him and his music a long time ago. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting money into the pocket of someone I believed was a child molester.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

It's not enough evidence for a guilty verdict, but to say none of it is evidence of guilt is simply untrue. Trying to discredit each case individually ignores a larger pattern of a troubling man that showed many signs of an unhealthy obsession with spending his personal time alone with the children of strangers. Who spent millions to facilitate the scenarios that would allow him to do so.

I'm not saying he should have been convicted. But if it's a question of if I think he was attracted to boys, yes, I do think he was. I think he was because he kept them as his closest companions for most of his life, courted them the way you would court a love interest and had them sleep in his bed with him.

Once that bedroom door shuts, none of us will ever know for sure what happened. But five of those boys coming forward to claim inappropriate sexual contact, knowing how rare it is for males to admit abuse and the behavior already being so suspect to begin with, tilts the scales for me. I'm not 100% convinced, but I'm more than 50% convinced. If you want to try to unconvince me, that's cool. It's not a topic that I'm that interested in, but I will gladly read what you have to say.

I use the statements of several jurors (I believe it ended up being 3) because they followed the trial closer than anyone and I did not follow it closely. A vote of not guilty does not mean they thought the allegations were untrue. It means the allegations couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Very hard to prove ANYTHING beyond a reasonable doubt that takes place in a bedroom behind closed doors. Which is why I keep an open mind, but the totality of the situation tilts me in favor of believing it's more likely than not that he was romantically interested in boys.



Analogue -

I buy music that I want to listen to. I want to listen to music I enjoy listening to. If I needed all of my entertainers to be saints, there wouldn't be many entertainers left.

If Michael was a pervert, I just don't see how that would affect in any way whether a song sounds good to me or not.

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

It's not enough evidence for a guilty verdict, but to say none of it is evidence of guilt is simply untrue. Trying to discredit each case individually ignores a larger pattern of a troubling man that showed many signs of an unhealthy obsession with spending his personal time alone with the children of strangers. Who spent millions to facilitate the scenarios that would allow him to do so.

Things like calling Michael's relationship with children "an unhealthy obsession" or saying he "courted them" like a "love interest" is not a fact but your very subjective opinion most likely very much influenced by the manipulative and deceptive way the media presented these things for years and decades. I personally find nothing "troubling" in a man spending time with children. Liking to have children (BTW, on contrary with the media narrative, not only boys but also girls) as a company does not prove an "attraction to boys".

Trying to discredit each case individually ignores a larger pattern

So you want to talk about so called "larger patterns" but how are you going to make any conclusions about what these "larger patterns" meant (or if they were even there at all) if you refuse to look into the very cases by the people who actually made the allegations of sexual abuse? Without those allegations there is nothing. Hanging out with children proves no sexual abuse in itself.

For example, you say Michael "spent millions to facilitate the scenarios that would allow him to do so". Please explain how this happened, for example, in the Arvizo case? Please explain how did he have "an unhealthy obsession" with Gavin Arvizo? Please explain how he "courted him like a love interest"? Or explain the same about Jason Francia. If those elements are not there in the actual allegations then how can you link this so called "larger pattern" to sexual abuse?

Once that bedroom door shuts, none of us will ever know for sure what happened. But five of those boys coming forward to claim inappropriate sexual contact, knowing how rare it is for males to admit abuse and the behavior already being so suspect to begin with, tilts the scales for me.

It's not that rare to make false allegations of child abuse when there is a monetary motive. In all five cases there was/is a huge monetary motive. Interesting that you keep repeating how five boys coming forward is enough for you to make a judgement, but you refuse to look into the details of the individual cases or accusers. The motives and credibility of the accusers or the contradictions and proven lies in their statements are of no interest to you? How does that not matter? Why would you want to ignore all that?

If you want to try to unconvince me, that's cool. It's not a topic that I'm that interested in, but I will gladly read what you have to say.

I have seen in other threads that you are a fan who was a fan 20 years ago as a kid, then left him and now you are starting to come back and listen to his music again. So I am giving you the benefit of doubt. After all you have seen 20 years of negative and often misleading and untrue commentary on MJ and the allegations in the media and that is not easy to shake. But I was a little off-put by your next comment which made me realize that you may not have come to this thread to learn something about the allegations and be open-minded about a different angle than what you have been fed to so far, so I am not sure how much effort I should put into "unconvincing" you when you refuse to have an open-mind anyway. You were offered material to study in previous comments and it would have been nice if instead of repeating the same half-truths and subjective opinions we could have started a dialogue about the actual facts of these cases, but your response rather implies that you think for you surface stuff and superficial knowledge of the cases and some falsehoods is sufficient to judge them. I think that is a shame, especially coming from a fan.


I get it if someone is only interested in his music, but if you are going to make statements like what you made in this thread expect to be called out and asked to back up those statements. These allegations were a source of extreme pain in Michael's life and in a way they contributed to his death. So if someone is going to make such damning statements about him on a MJ board about him expect to be challenged. This is not a light-hearted subject for us.


Many of us have been fans for years and decades and have gone through these cases very meticulously. Believing in his innocence was not an automatism for many of us, because these are serious allegations. Many of us took the time and effort to study every angle of it, including studying court docs, court transcripts and also reading the stance of the "other side" - for example, books, articles, statements by the accusers or their families themselves. In many ways we actually have more resources and know more than even the jurors in 2005. So forgive us if we get a little annoyed if someone comes here with some half-baked opinion and acts as if some out of context media soundbites and superficial stuff is enough to judge Michael.

I use the statements of several jurors (I believe it ended up being 3) because they followed the trial closer than anyone and I did not follow it closely.

2 or 3 jurors does not matter. It still means a majority of them thought he was not guilty yet you choose to focus on the flip-flopping two or three who changed their opinion under questionable circumstances (when a book deal was being offered to them).

Many of us also followed the trial very closely. The court transcripts are publicly available. If you think those jurors who later changed their minds were right in changing their minds then you should be able to support your opinion as to why that change of mind is right. That is why I ask you about the specific details of that case. So please point out to me based on what should Michael Jackson have been found guilty of abusing Gavin Arvizo?

Reasonable doubt is one thing. But it wasn't just that. These allegations changed in a significant manner during the process. The timeline that they eventually came up with is totally ridiculous. The Arvizo boys contradicted both each other and their own earlier statements about what exactly happened, in significant ways. The whole case was just ridiculous. You do not need jurors to tell you that. You can read the actual court and trial transcripts. Please read this segment of that website http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-2005-allegations/ and then come back and let us talk about based on what you think Michael Jackson should have been found guilty.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

Is it true or not true that starting as early as the Bad tour, Michael would tour the world with a young boy as his companion? That he would fly young boys around the world or bring them to his home and they would stay with him and sleep in his bed?

There is no way for you or I to know what went on in that bed once the door shut. If a boy says Michael touched his penis and Michael says he didn't, you're never going to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt in either direction. You believe all of the claims were false. That's your right. I think it's more likely than not that some of the claims were true.

Of course there were girls invited to Neverland as well, but it seems it was always boys that Michael showed the most attention and wanted to get into his bed, not the girls.

If you don't find anything troubling about a grown man traveling the world with young boys as his companions, taking complete strangers on lavish vacations, showering their parents with gifts and ending up with the boys spending the night with him, that's your right. I can't tell you what to be troubled by. If you're not troubled by that, I can totally understand why you'd be less likely to believe the allegations.

Hanging out with children does not prove sexual abuse, but a grown man going to such extreme lengths and expense to make sure he is surrounded by children, with a decades long pattern of going from boy to boy as his preferred pal who would sleep in his bed with him, with his "love" of those children being the foremost passion in his life, it does suggest he may have had an attraction that would be considered inappropriate.

There are lots of famous people with a lot of money. How many of them in your lifetime have been accused of fondling young boys? How many of them spents tens of millions to keep the boys quiet? How many of them had a boy take the stand to testify that he was molested?

If it's not that rare, can you provide some examples of other major celebrities that have had multiple young boys accuse them of molestation?

I came to this thread because people have tried to shame me for being a Michael Jackson fan before and it seemed like an interesting topic. I did stop buying Michael's albums twenty years ago, but I never stopped listening to the albums I already had. HIStory was $30, by 12 years old I was mainly interested in rock music and I just didn't pick up the album are keep following MJ's career. I am going back now and checking out what I missed because I heard a recent song out in public and really liked it.

I listen to whatever I like. The accusations never made me feel guilty about enjoying Michael's music. I have no problem with you asking me questions about why I believe Michael probably did it and I'm happily explaining myself to you.

You've obviously spent a lot more time researching the subject, so I'm gladly reading what you have to say and if it changes my thoughts on the matter, so be it. I have no vested interest in any of this. Neither of us will ever know what happened. We have our opinions and I respect your opinion that the allegations were financially motivated and false.

Majority of jurors did not think Michael was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. From what I know, I don't think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he was caught on video, how could he be? It's two people in a closed room. Of course there is going to be doubt.

Why would I point out to you why Michael should have found guilty when I don't believe he should have been found guilty and have already stated I don't see how anyone could know for sure other than him and the boys?

 

[HIStory]

If you don't find anything troubling about a grown man traveling the world with young boys as his companions, taking complete strangers on lavish vacations, showering their parents with gifts and ending up with the boys spending the night with him, that's your right. I can't tell you what to be troubled by. If you're not troubled by that, I can totally understand why you'd be less likely to believe the allegations.

No, that is not troubling to me because I know that Michael was like that with everyone and not just with boys and their parents like the tabloid media tends to represent it. Chris Tucker said that when he once was in awe of some modern expensive flat TV that Michael had Michael told him "you can have it". There are many many instances of Michael being extremely generous with everyone - not just kids or their parents, but adults as well. It is very sad when people want to turn that generosity into something sinister. Is that because they cannot see themselves being so generous without wanting something in return? I don't know.

William Van Valin, an adult heterosexual married man said he slept with Michael in the same bed. They just watched TV on a big bed and fell asleep. It was the same story as with children. It was never about sex.

I think the troubling thing for me in your stance is that it is not unbiased at all. You put every halfways "circumstancial evidence" (like hanging out with kids) on the scale, but you refuse to put the elements on that scale that tell us that these accusers had a monetary motive, that they were caught up in significant lies, that they changed their stories, that they changed their timelines, that they were pushed into this by greedy parents, that they had timelines that factually did not add up etc. etc.

Yes, none of us was in that room but when you have accusers that change their stories in significant ways that should make you wonder at the very least. That you refuse to even look into that while being quick to judge based on such things like MJ hang out with kids too much for your taste, that to me is not an unbiased stance.

There are lots of famous people with a lot of money. How many of them in your lifetime have been accused of fondling young boys? How many of them spents tens of millions to keep the boys quiet?

Famous and rich people get accused of many things they did not commit. Michael undoubtedly made himself vulnerable for these type of allegations by hanging out with kids. Once the Chandlers made that first allegation that showed the way for others on how to try to extort money out of him. The stigma of an alleged child molester is a big one, it's no brainer that once that was on Michael due to tha Chandlers others who would want to extort money of him would follow that and the Arvizos would accuse him of molesting Gavin and not Janet Arvizo, like they did with the J.C. Penney guards.

BTW, Michael has been a lot more accused of fathering various children out of wedlock by wannabe Billie Jeans than the number of child abuse allegations against him. So we should believe those allegations too based on their sheer number?

Once again I am not sure that after I explained the details of the settlements to you why you still keep insisting that the settlements were "to keep boys quiet"? How was Jason Francia kept quiet when he testified at the 2005 trial? How was Jordan Chandler kept quiet when the prosecution even extended the statutes of limitations for him by two years when he grew up? When they went to him specifically in 2004 to try to convince him to testify against Michael but instead he threatened the prosecutors and said he would take legal action against them if they tried to make him testify. His decision not to testify was his decision alone and had nothing to do with the settlement. This is why I am not convinced about your open-mindedness about these matters. You keep repeating falsehoods even after being corrected about them.

How many of them had a boy take the stand to testify that he was molested?

Again, just because someone takes the stand against someone it does not mean the person is telling the truth. Like I said celebrities are accused and sued very often (most of which does not make it into the news) and various people are taking the stand against them.

If it's not that rare, can you provide some examples of other major celebrities that have had multiple young boys accuse them molestation?

Why limit that to celebrities? I can show you two examples of multiple accusers when people were actually convicted (see? juries thinking a person is guilty may mean nothing) of multiple counts of child molestation and decades later it came out they were not true. These people in the documentary had a lot more accusers than MJ did - inlcuding their own children!

[video=youtube;42Z_vDg81Ig]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Z_vDg81Ig[/video]

And there is also the infamous McMartin case where there were dozens if not hundreds of children claiming abuse and at the allegations were still very questionable to say the least.

Even from Michael's own history I can show you examples that "the boys/men don't lie about being abused" thing is nonsense. This Canadian guy sure lied about being abused by MJ before he crumbled:

[video=youtube;1baXLBHFibk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1baXLBHFibk[/video]

Or how about people like these people?

Daniel Kapon

In 2003, Daniel Kapon was 18 years old when he, accompanied by his mother, contacted the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department claiming he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson when he was a child. The young man was represented by Gloria Allred, an attorney who also represented the Chandlers for a short period of time in 1993. The claim was that Kapon had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. The psychiatrist who helped Kapon “remember” was Dr. Carole Lieberman. Allred and Lieberman had filed earlier complaints against Jackson for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. [3]The police interviewed the boy but they did not find him credible. He described horrendously sadistic acts, kept changing his story and he claimed impossibilities. Most importantly, when the police contacted Kapon’s father, they learned the boy had never even met Michael Jackson.On May 28, 2004 the police closed the investigation stating “after an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought”. [4]After the police closed their investigation, Kapon sold his story to the tabloid publication, News of the World. Reportedly, the tabloid paid him $500,000 for an approximate half hour video tape where he described the alleged abuse in graphic detail [5]. On May 30, 2004 the paper printed the story of Kapon’s allegations, but failed to mention that the police had already investigated his claims and did not find them credible.The article was published two days after the police released the statement stating that the case had been closed but at the end of the article, the journalist claimed that the investigation in Kapon’s case was actually ongoing [6].Kapon also filed a civil complaint against Jackson. In his case, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, he claimed that a number of Jackson’s hit songs had been stolen from him, including songs on Jackson’s Bad album which was released in 1987. In 1987, Kapon was two years old. Kapon also claimed that he fathered the singer’s two eldest children; that his mother appeared in Jackson’s Thriller video and that Jackson was “madly in love” with her; that “his mother married Jackson multiple times, and testified that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyonce Knowles and Diana Ross” [7].Daniel Kapon did not show up at start of the civil trial and the case was thrown out of court in January 2008.

Joseph Bartucci Jr.Another accuser who, as it later turned out never even met Jackson, was a man called Joseph Bartucci Jr. Although he did not go to tabloids and “only” filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, we will briefly discuss him in this article because his case has similarities to Kapon’s in terms of absurdity.In 2004 Bartucci filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson claiming the star kidnapped and molested him in New Orleans between May 19 and May 27, 1984. Bartucci alleged that Jackson cut him, licked the blood off of his arm and proceeded to snort coke off of the laceration – all while raping him. Bartucci was 18 years old at the time of the alleged assault. As an explanation for why he waited until 2004, twenty years later to report this kidnapping, he too cited “repressed memories” that he claimed he only recalled when he heard that Thomas Sneddon was calling for alleged victims to come forward in November, 2003.Jackson was not in New Orleans but in California at the time of the alleged assault, a fact that could be easilly proven by the entertainer’s attorneys, so Judge Eldon Fallon tossed the lawsuit. It also emerged that Bartucci was, as Judge Fallon put it, a“professional litigator”. He had been involved in 18 civil and criminal suits over the previous 17 years and had also formally accused a minister of sexual abuse [8].According to The Smoking Gun website, in 1996 Bartucci was arrested for stalking a woman: “According to court records, Bartucci took a plea to a reduced count of harassment and was fined, sentenced to probation, and hit with a 90-day suspended jail term.” [9]

Or do you believe these allegations as well? Since boys/men do not lie about sexual abuse, right?

Majority of jurors did not think Michael was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. From what I know, I don't think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he was caught on video, how could he be? It's two people in a closed room. Of course there is going to be doubt.

Why would I point out to you why Michael should have found guilty when I don't believe he should have been found guilty and have already stated I don't see how anyone could know for sure other than him and the boys?

I hope you realize that beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be only beaten if there is a video tape of the actual abuse. Plenty of people get convited for child abuse without a video.

I also said, it wasn't simply the reasonable doubt aspect. Gavin Arvizo and his family members were caught in lies and contradictions about important aspects of this case. Their story changed in significant ways. The accuser was literally proven to be a liar. The timeline did not make any sense. So this is not simply a case of "oh we do not have a video of the act so we cannot convict". To represent it as such is simply a false idea about what went on in that courtroom.

 

[Virre]

I´m to lazy to read everything right now, but I just want to point out that those "boys" who traveled with him on tours were cousins and nephews most of the time. And there were girls too, most people who believe the lies doesn´t want to acknowledge that. It´s like they want him to be guilty.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

It's not a question of not being able to see yourself being so generous, it's a question of Michael's behavior fitting the profile of how an abuser grooms his victims. If you believe that Michael didn't want anything from the boys, that is fine. I'm not telling you what to believe.

But you can't say it was never about sex when a bunch of them say it was. I can trust the people that were there or I can trust your assumptions. I'm not refusing to look into anything. I'm reading everything that's being posted.

False claims of paternity are far more common than false claims of molestation made by strange children you've wined and dined to lure into your bedroom.

If the settlements weren't to keep the boys quiet, what were the settlements for? $35 million was paid for what if it wasn't paid to keep them quiet? What were they being paid for then?

And obviously settling claim doesn't automatically mean that it's true, but I'm not going to completely ignore it while also considering other factors.

You said these accusations aren't rare when there's money to be made, but there are a lot of rich and famous poeple. If these things are not rare, why can't you point to other major celebrities that have been accused of this in an attempt to make money?

Nobody ever said people don't lie about abuse. We should be able to have a civil discussion without the cheap strawman tactics. Attacking arguments nobody made is a waste of time. What I said is that it is rare for males to admit abuse. So when a former dancer goes public and says he was sodomized, it's not an accusation I take lightly because I know men tend to stay silent longer about this kind of abuse.

In a he said/she said situation with no physical evidence, outside of a video tape, how are you ever really going to know for sure who was telling the truth? Which is why I'm not convinced of anything. I am allowed to have my opinion of what I think is more likely and you are free to have yours.

 

[Antwort]

I will never understand people who think Michael's guilty but will still buy and support his music. I know a lot of people say ''You need to separate the music from the man'' but for me there's a limit to that. If I ever thought that Michael was guilty I would have been done with him and his music a long time ago. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting money into the pocket of someone I believed was a child molester.

I can't either. I really cannot see how anyone can do that without some really flexible exercises of moral gymnastics, but apparently, as MSL has shown, it can and it does happen.

I buy music that I want to listen to. I want to listen to music I enjoy listening to. If I needed all of my entertainers to be saints, there wouldn't be many entertainers left.

If Michael was a pervert, I just don't see how that would affect in any way whether a song sounds good to me or not.

The entertainment business, according to cliches, but also practice is one tainted by greed, manipulation, addiction and promiscuity, so you wouldn't normally expect entertainers to be "saints", but paedophilia is a whole different matter altogether. It is not only a question of morality, but also of criminal justice. Anyone abusing a child (entertainer or not, rich or poor) is committing one of the most serious and heinous crimes possible. How one can reconcile that with whatever professional achievements anyone may have is beyond my comprehension, but I realize it is not impossible.

Also, in Michael's case the so-called separation between the man and the music is quite difficult to be made, especially with regards to the HIStory album; two thirds of the songs on that album (my focus has always been disc 2) contain his response to those allegations, what I would define as "his most public comments on the matter". I assume you find them as unconvincing as his spoken declarations then. None of those songs sound contrived, fake or insincere. Quite on the contrary, to me they expressed the anger and the turmoil, the shock and the dismay of a man who was wrongfully accused, one who was using his greatest talent to show his disgust at the utter falsities claimed about him, a man who was quite adamant in proclaiming his innocence.

Furthermore, I wonder how you can enjoy the catalogue of someone who has so many romantic songs dedicated to quite adult and rather heterosexual relationships. Departing from the premise that he is indeed guilty, then it means not only that his detractors were right, but most of his art is one huge lie as well. Eminem's unfortunate song in 2004 certainly comes to mind now.

Btw MSL, I hope I don't sound too aggressive, but as respect has also said, you cannot expect to make such statements on a MJ message board and people to sit back and not defend him. I do appreciate however that you have made your opinion clear in quite respectful ways and I wouldn't want you to feel cornered or attacked by anything we say. Although deeply convinced of his innocence, I can also understand how his personal life (characterized for decades by the lack of a constant, female presence) could raise more than one eyebrow.

That was Michael's agenda with both the Private Home Movies and the Bashir doc.

But I just find it really sad that he felt that he had to even do that-because of simple, harmless little stories (whether he planted them or not) about the hyperbaric chamber and the Elephant Man Bones)just to add to his mystique backfired on him in such a big way. With any OTHER star those stories would have been read, people would laugh, and would forget the next day. I did. But this time, people believed it literally, and wanted more and more and more. I don't think Michael realized what a huge phenomenon he had already become by then, and the public was insatiable.

Indeed it is quite sad that his team started out the silly rumors back in the 80s. They certainly backfired. Another thing which has backfired on him in the most dramatic of ways possible has been his association with children.

Those of us who have closely followed events in 1993 and especially in 2005 may be convinced of Michael's innocence, but we must understand that the general public and people like MSL (former fans) who have been exposed only to media headlines do not think the same way we do. I think many people have been alienated from Michael's character and art because for many, many decades they did not see him in a long-lasting relationship with a woman. That has left the door open to sick ideas, especially since he seemed to prefer the company of children, as MSL has stated. As far as the average Jamie on the street is concerned, Michael Jackson has never truly shown any credible and prolonged romantic interest in women. It pains me to recall a dear friend of mine's impression of Break of Dawn who said that he found it "disgusting". As hurtful as it may be for us, that is the sad impression many people have of Michael. They truly didn't consider him either able or interested in satisfying a woman.

There is always that other asexual theory which says that he doesn't have a criminal tendency towards children, but he doesn't have normal sexual needs either. Supposedly, the man was so much more preoccupied with music, nature and other such 'high' things that sensuality simply did not register on his radar. Although few, apparently there are people out there who can survive without orgasms and supposedly Michael Jackson was one of them. It certainly is a better theory than child abuse. Unfortunately, the people who believe this fail to see the blatant sensuality, not only in his songs, but also in his performances. I think his dancing was the safest and most natural way in which he could and would release all of the sexual energy and tension which was well within him.

My personal idea is that Mr. Jackson had a most normal and quite healthy interest in the female body, but the more than peculiar circumstances of his life made it virtually impossible for him to properly and consistently explore that side of existence.

I talk not only of his unparalleled levels of fame, but most all his character driven both by moral values and ambition. This is a man who grew up with a most strict morality and who was exposed since a very young age to promiscuity. Fame seeking, gold-digging "ladies", as well as easily excitable and hysterical women throwin' their panties at him since age 12 could not have had an easy impact on his psyche and his approach to relationships. Not only that, but I believe he was such a consummate and ambitious performer that he did not want to be caught in the usual traps of the entertainment business, such as addiction and promiscuity. And since people didn't see him rocking groupies by their dozens, but rather accompanied by children, they ended up believing he had no interest whatsoever in females.

It is my assumption that Michael surrounded himself with children as a means of protection from the threat and temptation of promiscuity which was soooo easily within his reach. He had, after all, had an interest in toddlers and kids ever since he was a young boy himself. There are pictures of him smiling while holding babies when he was 12/13. Does that mean he was showing criminal tendencies even then? I do think that he has a most innocent interest and affection for children because he truly considered them symbols of purity. I don't think him capable of turning around and destroying that most precious of gifts all children have.

Unfortunately, that which he may have seen as a protection against the temptations of showbiz turned out to be his biggest weakness because people ended up using that against him and some children proved to be, albeit under the careful coordination of their parents, quite capable of betraying his trust and his kindness and lie about him, accusing him of the most terrible thing possible.

I don't suppose people can conceive of Michael Jackson as simply a very lonely, most unfortunate guy when it comes to the romantic side of life. There are those among us, commoners who are never blessed enough to find true love while on this earth. Does that mean they all have criminal tendencies? Why couldn't that be the case with Michael? His circumstances would have made what is an already difficult mission for the rest of us, an almost impossible one for him. How on earth could he find someone who would love him only for him; not the famous guy, not the entertainer, not the rich guy, but just him, Michael, the man with a body, mind and soul, with qualities, frailties and shortcomings? How could he make sure of that, especially when the offer at hand was soooo very broad?

MSL mentioned enjoying Michael's music. Perhaps they should give a really good listen to Someone put your hand out.

I think that is one of his most honest songs ever and there he expresses quite convincingly his longing for a life-long companion......of the female kind, one that apparently he never truly found. Unfortunately, no one held out the hand soon enough or maybe Michael didn't look for it in the right places, because we all know the sad ending to his story. I'm convinced his life and his story would have been entirely different if that had taken place.

 

[HIStory]

False claims of paternity are far more common than false claims of molestation made by strange children you've wined and dined to lure into your bedroom.

When you say things like he "lured children into his bedroom" that does imply a bias, not an open-minded stance. "Lure" in this context is a very loaded term, I hope you realize that. That children were "lured" into his bedroom is a prosecution/tabloid media narrative, not a fact. In actuality - and let's talk about the facts of the actual cases at hand - does this look like "luring" to you?

On that first visit Gavin and Star slept in Jackson’s bedroom. This is the night that is referenced in the 2003 Bashir documentary that caused big public uproar, even though both Gavin and Jackson made it clear that while the kids slept on the bed, Jackson slept on the floor:

“Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.” [1]​

(Emphasis added.)What is not mentioned in the documentary is the fact that not only Jackson did not sleep in the same bed as Gavin and Star, but he also insisted on his personal assistant, Frank Cascio (also called Frank Tyson sometimes) to sleep in the room as well. Jackson’s own children, 3-year-old Prince and 2-year old Paris (Blanket was not yet born), were there as well and slept on the bed with the Arvizo kids, while the two adult men, Jackson and Cascio, slept on the floor.Cascio recalled the situation in his 2011 book, My Friend Michael:

“Then came the night when Gavin and his brother Star pleaded with Michael to allow them to sleep with him. “Can we sleep in your room tonight? Can we sleep in your bed tonight?” the boys begged. “My mother said it’s okay, if it’s okay with you,” Gavin added. Michael, who always had a hard time saying no to kids, replied, “Sure, no problem.” But then he came to me. “She’s pushing her kids onto me,” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange, uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.”​

I went to the kids and said, “Michael has to sleep. I’m sorry, you can’t stay in his room.” Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo – the mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s ****ed up.” I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.” [2]

Or does this look like luring to you?

Q. Okay. Now, you complained to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs that, “After I was done with my cancer stuff,” you never saw Michael again, right?
A. No, not until the Martin Bashir thing.
Q. Okay. And you wanted to see him after you were in remission, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted to visit Neverland after you were in remission, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt in some way that Michael had cut off the friendship, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You felt he had abandoned you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt he had abandoned your family, right?
A. Yes. [5]

and

Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was on the ranch, did you have any contact with him ?
A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean, like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he would say that he ‘s not there, and then he would be there .
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don‘t know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle of my cancer. And, like, I would go up there, and I would see, like, Prince and Paris playing there, and I would think that Michael was there, and they would tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like, I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.
Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident ?
A. Yeah.
Q. Tell the jury about that.
A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was . And then we were walking into the — into the main house . And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes. And then I walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And then we walked into the house and there I saw Michael walking, like, toward me. But I guess he didn’t see me turn the corner. And then he acted as if , “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw me. And then — then he just played it off and , like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know, at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like, he ‘s my –
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a narrative and non responsive.
THE COURT : Sustained .
Q. BY MR . SNEDDON : Okay.
A. And then , like –
Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question. So in any case , you bumped into him ?
A. Yeah. And I was — because of –
Q. That’s okay . How much more contact did you have with him on that time when you bumped into him? How much time did the contact last?
A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a lot.
Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was an occasion where you were there when you kind of bumped into him by accident ?
A. Yeah.
Q. When you actually made contact with him – okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long was the conversation between the two of you?
A. Maybe , like , five minutes. When — that time we bumped into each other, and then we just talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go somewhere. [3]

If the settlements weren't to keep the boys quiet, what were the settlements for? $35 million was paid for what if it wasn't paid to keep them quiet? What were they being paid for then?

You said you read the provided links. The $35 million was actually $15 million (for the Chandlers) and $2.4 million (for the Francias). This article explains the circumstances of the Chandler settlement: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/ , but feel free to ask if you have questions.

I already explained this in a previous post, but let me repeat then if you have not read it. There were two processes going on: a civil process and a criminal process. The civil process is about nothing but money. A civil process cannot put the defendant behind bars. It is strictily about money. It's the criminal process that can put a perpetrator behind bars. You cannot settle a criminal process. You can only settle a civil one. And that's exactly what happened. Michael settled the civil proceedings. Why, the circumstances of that - that is explained in the above article.

A civil settlement cannot and does not prohibit anyone from testifying in a criminal court. There was nothing why the Chandlers could not have taken the settlement money AND testify at the criminal trial. They chose not to. Obviously they got what they wanted with the settlement (money) and they did not want to go to a criminal court. You might blame that on greedy parents but then try to remember that the allegations came from those greedy parents in the first place, not from the kid! It was the same parent who wanted and demanded this settlement who pressured Jordan into making allegations in the first place.

Growing up Jordan could have decided to testify against Michael basically any time he wanted. Like I said before, Sneddon extended the statutes of limitations by two years for him. In 2004 he was contacted by the prosecutors to testify. Instead he threatened them that he would take legal action if they tried to force him. So Jordan's silence had absolutely nothing to do with the settlement. He had all the opportunities in the world to speak up and go to court totally legally, the settlement did not stop him from that. So why does it get characterized by you as silencing him? Can you explain how did it silence him when 1) authorities were already aware of his allegations and were investigating when the settlement happened, 2) the public and the media was already aware of his allegations when the settlement happened, 3) he could have gone to trial against Michael or testify against him in 1994, in 2005 and between?

You should also realize that it was never Michael who offered the settlement, but the Chandlers demanding it from the get go.

The critics who bring up the settlement do not realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations (indirectly, by capitalizing on the rule that all psychiatrists must report allegations of abuse) was because they did not get the pay-off they desired.

This is detailed in this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

And like I said, Jason Francia DID testify in 2005 and his testimony was weighed in when the jury reached its "not guilty" verdicts. So once again, how was he silenced exactly?

You said these accusations aren't rare when there's money to be made, but there are a lot of rich and famous poeple. If these things are not rare, why can't you point to other major celebrities that have been accused of this in an attempt to make money?

Famous people are accused of what they are vulnerable to. Obviously someone who openly hangs out with children and especially after he has already been accused once is vulnerable to such allegations. Other celebrities who hang out with women or men may be more vulnerable to rape allegations by women or men. Or to other type of allegations. But just because they are accused it does not mean it is true. Celebrities do get accused of many things for money that they are not necessarily guilty of.

Nobody ever said people don't lie about abuse. We should be able to have a civil discussion without the cheap strawman tactics. Attacking arguments nobody made is a waste of time. What I said is that it is rare for males to admit abuse.

Talking about "cheap strawman tactics", I never said celebrities often get accused of abusing boys. I said this:

It's not that rare to make false allegations of child abuse when there is a monetary motive.

Where is the "celebrity" in that statement?

I elaborated later that - in terms of celebrities - celebrities get falsely accused of what they are vulnerable to, not necessarily child abuse.

My other point is that it is not rare that men make false child abuse allegations when there is a motive to make false allegations. I showed you that Michael himself was accused at least by three other guys who never even met him. So why should I accept the premise that it's rare for men to make false allegations about abuse when in his case alone we have seen it happen over and over again? Apparently, when you can make a lot of money with such allegations the temptation for some is too big to resist.

I also showed you another case where men/boys (including the accused people's own children!!) did lie about sexual abuse to the extent where they put several people in jail for decades. And in that case money wasn't even involved. If money is involved that's an even bigger motive to lie about such things.

So when a former dancer goes public and says he was sodomized, it's not an accusation I take lightly because I know men tend to stay silent longer about this kind of abuse.

Generally men stay silent about such things when they do not know about other accusers existing, when they think they are alone, when they think they will not be believed by authorities. None of that is true to Wade Robson though. I have never seen anyone claiming similar things that he claims, I have never seen a similar story to his, and I have went through many precedent cases.

It is OK to not to take it lightly, of course. We do not take it lightly either here. Which is why we keep up to date with every momentum in that case, including reading the motions, precedent cases, analyzing law etc. We never took any of the other allegations against MJ lightly either. Which is why we informed ourselves about them, which is why we read and researched etc.

In a he said/she said situation with no physical evidence, outside of a video tape, how are you ever really going to know for sure who was telling the truth? Which is why I'm not convinced of anything. I am allowed to have my opinion of what I think is more likely and you are free to have yours.

In a he said/she said situation you would be well advised to study the actual case, the allegations, the accusers, the testimonies etc. before you make a judgement about such a serious matter as this. You may never know "for sure" but the more information you have the better judgement you can make of a case.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

You know, I can not help but be thoroughly disgusted. I thought this thread was about people shaming you for DEFENDING Michael, not shaming you for liking his music.

Don't we have to deal with this enough in other places (and obviously we do often in real life) than in the very fan board that should be a safe place!!

 

[HIStory]

Also, in Michael's case the so-called separation between the man and the music is quite difficult to be made, especially with regards to the HIStory album – two thirds of the songs on that album (my focus has always been disc 2) contain his response to those allegations, what I would define as "his most public comments on the matter". I assume you find them as unconvincing as his spoken declarations then. None of those songs sound contrived, fake or insincere. Quite on the contrary, to me they expressed the anger and the turmoil, the shock and the dismay of a man who was wrongfully accused, one who was using his greatest talent to show his disgust at the utter falsities claimed about him, a man who was quite adamant in proclaiming his innocence.

Furthermore, I wonder how you can enjoy the catalogue of someone who has so many romantic songs dedicated to quite adult and rather heterosexual relationships. Departing from the premise that he is indeed guilty, then it means not only that his detractors were right, but most of his art is one huge lie as well.

Obviously everyone has a different approach to this, but I agree that to me in his case it's very difficult to seperate the art and the artist considering several of his songs refer directly to those allegations and songs like these would make him utterly hypocritical if the allegations were true:

[video=youtube;kEqttVfJ7pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEqttVfJ7pk[/video]

How can someone claim to believe and care for Jordan Chandler and be supportive of the HIStory album? Please take note that Evan actually sued Michael - partly - for that album: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/evan-chandlers-1996-lawsuit-against-michael-jackson/

You know sometimes we fans get accused of overlooking the allegations "just because he made good music". But that was never true to me and most fans I know. In fact, it's always these fans who tend to research the allegations and base their opinions on that rather than the people who accuse them of blindly supporting him and who tend only to have very superficial knowledge of the cases, if any at all. The irony.

No matter how much I liked his music I could never listen to a song from him if I my conclusion was that he was guilty. How can you listen to a love song by him while you think his "romantic interests" were young boys? I do not get it, but surely everyone is different. To me child abuse is a serious thing which could never be overwritten by "oh, but the music is good, so who cares?"

 

[barbee0715]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

It's the same as when people accuse one of being a lovesick gullible fan.

Michael's music, whether written by him or not, is him because of the way he sang it. He made me (and probably all of us) feel we knew his soul because it's reflected in every note. I didn't just listen to him. I felt him-whether it was joy, pain, love, passion, hate.

I could not separate the art from the man -and never in Michael's case.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

If the settlements weren't to keep the boys quiet, what were the settlements for? $35 million was paid for what if it wasn't paid to keep them quiet? What were they being paid for then?

You might not be aware that the '$35m hush money paid to silence 2 dozen victims' story that appeared in the media a couple of years back was just a lie. Now mj is dead, any lies can be written about him without any legal comeback. That's why you have to go back to sources, double check claims, read round the subject - it's timeconsuming and frustrating, but unfortunately you just cannot take on trust what the media writes about mj. As respect has written there were 2 settlements, one for $15m to chandler and one a few months later of $2m to the child of a maid who claimed he was tickled inapproprately - paid after, not before, allegations were made. That's it, there are no more, this is a matter of court record. The fact that the media is intent on making out there were loads of these settlements is because they need to explain why on earth there have been so few allegations against mj despite mj having such a large number of close child pals, and the fact that allegations against mj were shown to be a)believable by justice auths and by media and b)so fantastically lucrative.

What I said is that it is rare for males to admit abuse. So when a former dancer goes public and says he was sodomized, it's not an accusation I take lightly because I know men tend to stay silent longer about this kind of abuse.

He didn't stay silent, he was incredibly vocal for decades about how he wasn't abused by mj,even agreeing to be chief defence witness at mj's molestation trial, was doing tributes for mj after mj's death. But apparently he didn't realise until 2 yrs ago that his 7 years of sexual abuse and anal rape was actually abuse.

Majority of jurors did not think Michael was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. From what I know, I don't think he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless he was caught on video, how could he be? It's two people in a closed room. Of course there is going to be doubt.

You can have guilty verdicts in sex abuse trials where there is no physical evidence or 'video tapes'. These trials happen all the time and they can end with guilty convictions. The jury make judgments based on the stories they hear, the credibility of the accuser, the credibility of any eye witnesses, other evidence of a sexual interest in chidren eg inappropriate letters written to the child, the use of child porn. All these factors helped mj get those 14 not guilties in a trial that considered every single allegations for the past 10yrs against him, even a not guilty for giving a child a glass of wine, in a conservative county, despite his character being demonised in the media for decades and despite his own claim that he would share his bed and bedroom with children and his 'love' for them.

 

[Antwort]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

It's the same as when people accuse one of being a lovesick gullible fan.

Michael's music, whether written by him or not, is him because of the way he sang it. He made me (and probably all of us) feel we knew his soul because it's reflected in every note. I didn't just listen to him. I felt him-whether it was joy, pain, love, passion, hate.

I could not separate the art from the man -and never in Michael's case.

Same for me, the music and the man are one and the same. As respect also said, I really cannot see how anyone can simultaneously enjoy the HIStory album and believe the allegations, but then again MSL did not offer any insight into their view of the album.

I am afraid though there is no in between - either he was singing the truth and then he is the victim of a most dreadful witch hunt of inhuman and global proportions (ergo, a super hero to have withstood all of that ordeal for them long 16 years) or he is a super villain who managed to lie all his life through songs which did nothing but cover up his utterly hypocritical nature and criminal urges. The man may have been complex, but not even he could be quite as diverse in the traits of personality. Neither genius nor eccentricity are pre-conditions for criminality and dubious behavior. That may have worked in Ancient Greece for philosophers or in the Italian Renaissance for brilliant artists known to have frequented dangerously young boys, but I dare think that Michael's brilliance need not any such improper inspirations.

Credibility and coherence are two major issues for me and Michael's socially-aware songs and humanitarian anthems are the major reasons for which I came to love him so very much. To believe the accusations is tantamount to believing that the same man who could write Heal the world, Little Susie, Earth Song and WYWTOM would go on and rape young boys. How exactly did that go - did he by day write them songs in the giving tree and by night abused boys? Oh wait, I have it on good authority that dawn was a rather creative time because the night was not only magical, but also a quiet and restful time, free from the hustle of the day and folks with constant demands, a time when the creative juices could flow more smoothly and easily. Hey, it might have been the man himself who told me that. Nope, just kiddin' about that one. It's something completely logical.

Returning to the serious nature of the discussion - child abuse is one of the most serious matters to me so I really cannot see how people can embrace Michael's music while accepting the accusations. I am afraid the narrative of the lonely megastar, raised on extremely strict moral rules, disappointed by the nature of relationships he saw since he was a child, fiercely ambitious to create a legacy is of course far too boringly normal and nowhere near as lucrative as the salacious one of the "super freak" who "lures and grooms" little boys. I wonder what would have happened if the media would have been more interested to help Michael find and keep that lady of his life, not just the one in songs. Sadly they were far busier to "wed" him to young boys..........

It may be extremely naive of me to believe in the honesty of Michael's songs and words, but I guess it reflects my overall sense of optimism about humanity in general. Beyond the apparent veil of negativity which seems to cover my life, I still dare believe in the beauty and the light of the world, especially that inside of Michael so I cannot possibly conceive him as the criminal he's been portrayed for so very long. Thankfully, more and more people are starting to feel that way and see him as he was - a most talented and hard working man who genuinely tried to make the world a better place through his art and his life, a man who went through untold torture and, at the end of the day, a most lonely man, one of the loneliest in the world. No one else could possibly relate to the pressures of his fame, but millions of lonely people in the world can relate to that deepest of wounds which is the lack of someone true and faithful to help you fight the day's battles, struggles which is in his case were a bit more challenging than those of the rest of us.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Let me first echo my gratitude to Respect and Girl for having the patience, knowledge, and eloquence to intelligently challenge MSL's statements. As for this:

I have no vested interest in any of this.

I think that's the point here MSL? You have no vested interest in learning about the case(s) but have no problem assuming the worst without any actual knowledge of the case(s) themselves? You base your information off of your notion of Jackson from what you have seen thus far like the vast majority of the rest of the world. Had you met the man himself, and I am to assume you have not, I would be open to your opinion on the matter if you could back up your statements with facts for your theories. But, considering your own statements lead me to assume that you base your information off of what you have been conditioned to believe, primarily by the media, I am hard pressed to think you realize (or care to realize) how influential that has become? Your own clear repetitive biased statements are a testament to that.

As for this:

If Michael was a pervert, I just don't see how that would affect in any way whether a song sounds good to me or not.

I don't even know how to respond to that? How you can rationalize financially supporting someone you claim to have sexual abused children over a span of 3-5 decades is beyond any rational train of thought to me? You might as well buy music by serial rapists and murderers while you're at it? If I am to hear you correctly, in essence your opinion would be that the power of feel good music is so great that it renders all illegal activity irrelevant? As a product of child sexual abuse myself, if my molester happened to turn into the biggest pop star in the world but his music was great, and my co-worker who knew of that sexual abuse history believed it to be true, but went out and not only listened to their music, but financially supported them by purchasing said music, I would never speak to them again.

 

[Lil]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I won't join in on discussing these cases cause there's nothing I could add to everything Respect has already said (thank you for that!) but..

A grown man whose deepest passion is his "love" of children, who admittedly slept with lots of children, who is documented to have toured the world for decades with children as his primary companion

..this is an argument I've seen made over and over again, and I get that on the surface they may seem to be reasons for concern. But Michael wasn't a 'normal' guy, cause he didn't have a normal life, so we can't judge his actions solely based on what you an I perceive as normal. It is not that we do not pick up on signs of 'questionable behavior', we simply put them in perspective.
It's not that hard for me to understand why Michael grew into loving children as much as he did, and it's so important to take his entire life into consideration when forming an opinion on this matter, not just the time periods around these cases. In my opinion his love for children is a direct result of his upbringing and experiences with most of the adults surrounding him. He not only missed out on (and romanticized to an extent) having a childhood - which is what he tried to regain through hanging out with kids - he also couldn't trust anyone and I guess it was very hard for him to relate to most adults as well. In Michael's eyes, children do not lie, they do not judge, they're not after your money, they are innocent and pure (not true unfortunately, but this was his take on it) and I guess to him being around them was like an escape from all the negatives of the life and industry he was kind of 'caught' in.
Maybe you think that's nonsense and the easier explanation of him wanting to spend time with children is because he was a 'pervert', but it makes sense to me.

 

[Dianne]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I share the bed with children that weren't and aren't mine. I'm still waiting for someone to sue me for pedophelia. But I'm an adult woman and my bank account is pretty empty, so I guess I'm waiting in vain.

Seriously though, I get that people want to defend Michael with his different upbringing to most of us to make a point, but to me it's not that difficult.
I'm serious when I say I already did share my bed with children not bloodrelated to me. There's no need to bring in a difficult explanation for why Michael did it.
Take Chandler for example. From my understanding one time happened because they watched The excorcist, Jordan was scared and didn't want to sleep alone. Happenes all the time. Doesn't have to do anything with Michaels upbringing.
Yes, Michael's childhood was difficult and different and it did have a huge effect on a lot of things, but letting children sleep in his bed when they want to doesn't have to be related to that. Unless of course you make a difference between an adult woman doing that and an adult man *shrug*

 

[Lil]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

^my point is more about the way other people seem to think Michael's interaction with children was strange, not just the bed sharing - which isn't strange to me at all btw, and not sexual either - but his love and admiration for them as a whole, and the fact that he spent so much time with them (like the 'he toured around the world with them' argument). I'm just saying, non of it is that strange at all when you know something about him and his life

 

[Dianne]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

^my point is more about the way other people seem to think Michael's interaction with children was strange, not just the bed sharing - which isn't strange to me at all btw, and not sexual either - but his love and admiration for them as a whole, and the fact that he spent so much time with them (like the 'he toured around the world with them' argument). I'm just saying, non of it is that strange at all when you know something about him and his life

Didn't mean to attack you, sorry if it came across that way I just see this argument all the time to why he would share the bed and all and I'm just here shaking my head because I do it, others do it.. I don't know much about that Oprah chick since noone here cares about her but I heard even she does it and no one gives a damn :ermm: Doublestandart much!
So I wasn't so much attacking your post, but more the prominent "argument" that he shared his bed with children, therefore there's something wrong.
Well to those who think so based on that, go on and sue me. I'm waiting. th:

 

[Lil]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

^No no, not feeling attacked at all but I just wanted to clarify and you're right about that double standard, seems to be common practice when it comes to Michael

 

[MJresearcher]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect has covered everything I would have said. MSL, I hope you're true to your word and read the information that's been posted here. The site you've been linked to provides good sources of information which are listed at the bottom of each post. The fans here who have looked into this including myself don't take any of this lightly, we study things very carefully here, that is something that absolutely must be done. You said you were reading the information given to you but then you kept claiming settlements were to keep people quiet when that's not how it works and you then you listed a settlement amount that was wrong. This tells me that you probably hadn't read the information given to you yet but I hope that you do. There are plenty of documents from the court, testimony and claims from the accusers and their families that we can show you.

I understand why people suspect guilt with MJ but they need to know more before getting too stuck on their conclusions. From a perspective of logic and evidence it's not correct to conclude guilt without knowing everything you can about all the cases. Claim is not proof and the burden of proof is on the accusing side because they're making the positive claims. This applies anytime a claim is made about anything no matter what the subject because it's not something that only applies in court.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I share the bed with children that weren't and aren't mine. I'm still waiting for someone to sue me for pedophelia. But I'm an adult woman and my bank account is pretty empty, so I guess I'm waiting in vain.

Seriously though, I get that people want to defend Michael with his different upbringing to most of us to make a point, but to me it's not that difficult.
I'm serious when I say I already did share my bed with children not bloodrelated to me. There's no need to bring in a difficult explanation for why Michael did it.
Take Chandler for example. From my understanding one time happened because they watched The excorcist, Jordan was scared and didn't want to sleep alone. Happenes all the time. Doesn't have to do anything with Michaels upbringing.

I'm the same way-starting with my little brother who was scared to sleep alone and would get in my bed in the middle of the night-my niece and nephews were the same way when I stayed there or vice versa, not to mention the hundreds of kids I babysat with until I was well over 40-I've just recently substituted dog sitting for kid sitting, but believe me, they're all about the same when they go to bed-they want to sleep with you, even if you put them in their own bed and read them a million stories.
No one ever accused me of molestation and is that because I'm a woman? Or not wealthy?

I tried to explain this to this same little brother-who is 48 now-who always says stuff about Michael having kids in his bed-suppose I won the lottery and became a millionaire and refused to give him any of my winnings. Maybe he would decide to accuse me of molestation and sue me in civil court. He has no proof, so say he got my sister in on it by promising her half by corroborating the story? (we shared our bedroom, so she could say she saw it) Well, yeah, I might settle too, even if it were all lies.
He just laughs at me, like it's funny-and says it's not the same. Well, why isn't it? Because I'm a girl? He doesn't realize it's pissing me off.

You said these accusations aren't rare when there's money to be made, but there are a lot of rich and famous poeple. If these things are not rare, why can't you point to other major celebrities that have been accused of this in an attempt to make money?

I can help you with this one-maybe I'm just more aware of these since it happened to Michael-but perfect recent examples are Kevin Clash (Elmo) and Brian Singer (director of X-Men). Sesame Street and PBS have deep pockets and the Singer accusation happened the exact time the newest X-Men was about to premiere-all that pointed to was a fast and quick settlement to avoid embarrassment before the red carpet and entertainment shows the next month.
Kevin Clash ended up leaving his job as Elmo that he had for 30 some odd years, and Brian Singer did no press for the movie-and both of these cases were eventually (after years) thrown out. The accusers' stories simply fell apart.

And then take the Woody Allen case for example-and also as an example of not being able to separate the art from the crime. I'm a passionate Woody Allen fan around the time I was coming of age, and I went to see "Annie Hall" and then "Manhattan." I'm definitely not an New York intellectual, and maybe it was the Gershwin songs in the soundtracks, but something in those movies made me just adore him. I felt like he and his characters were verbalizing all the thoughts in my head. I went to see his newest movie each and every single year on the first night-by myself-because I was just a major fan. Obviously, I was aware of his attraction to young girls (my age at the time) because it was in the plot of his movies-but at the same time, it didn't really bother me-I just observed it.

Then in 92 he and Mia Farrow split because he fell in love with her adopted daughter-all hell broke loose-and yes, this daughter was of age but Mia accused him of molesting their own child who was about 5. Well, it's one thing to have sex with a 19 year old and an altogether different one to have sex with a 5 year old. I would kill any man who harmed any of my children. Kill them.

I didn't just jump up and start defending Woody, however-I followed the case, and followed the investigations, and read all the reports and he was not charged. There was no evidence and their daughter's story also fell apart. This was the result of a very nasty and acrimonious breakup. Had he been charged, I probably would no longer see a single Woody Allen movie. Much like Roman Polanski-he was guilty of this crime and I haven't seen a single one of his movies since "Chinatown." Everybody kept telling me how great "The Pianist" was and won all sorts of Academy Awards-too bad-I won't see it.

(This, I would like to point out, was a totally different reaction to the one I had when it happened to Michael the next year in 93-I grew up with him and fell in love with him slowly and gently as we both grew up together, and I felt I knew him better than I knew myself-so when it happened, after years of the most ridiculous rumours ever to be written, I researched nothing. I just flat out knew it didn't happen.)

Well, since I've already written a book, I have to tell about this most bizarre encounter I had on YouTube of all places last weekend-I was watching the Sylvia Chase interview with Michael and I noticed this comment from someone saying they were a MAJOR FAN asking why only black girls liked Michael back in the old days. Naively, I decided to try to answer this guy-and went through the breakup with Motown, and how Epic were promoting the Jacksons only to black audiences in touring-especially where I live in the South. Then we got into some kind of back and forth over "The Man in the Mirror" movie was trash or a work of art-
I got a little suspicious and read some more comments that he had with some other people and he accused Michael of all sorts of vile behavior quoting from the DSM book of Psychiatric Disorders all the time claiming to be a major fan. It actually got really ugly.
I went back to our conversation and he wrote me that he knew I was at least 25 years older than him, but would I be interested in a relationship with a fellow MJ fan? Can you even believe that? So, I more or less told him off-and that's that. Last time I comment on YouTube, I think-I only started doing it this month-don't think I'll do it again.

 

[MJresearcher]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

The YouTube comments sections tend to be full of trolls and people who think they're armchair experts on things. I don't read comments that much on there unless I want a laugh.

 

[barbee0715]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

The YouTube comments sections tend to be full of trolls and people who think they're armchair experts on things. I don't read comments that much on there unless I want a laugh.

You are right-it's really out of character for me to comment at all-usually I read through the comments and see all sorts of terrible or just flat out untrue things. But for some reason, I took this one pretty innocently as from a young person who really wanted to know something-not someone setting me up to argue.
Oh, well-if I comment, I'll leave it at "thank you for posting" or "great video." Period.