Was Michael Jackson a Child Molester?

I am nearing my mid thirties, and have never had even the most basic physical relations with another person, (yes, that includes kissing) of either gender, let alone sex. And in my opinion, sex is something I will never experience. Does this mean that I'm a child molester? Because according to the logic you've just used, that's exactly what it makes me. And anyone else over a certain age who's still a virgin. Ridiculous and pathetic reasoning.

And the fact he never had sex with a woman is proof of what exactly? I've always strongly suspected that Michael was gay, but gay doesn't automatically equal paedophile you know. Or maybe you are one of these nutjobs who believes exactly that.

He did sleep with children, and while that as I stated before, to most people, would be considered inappropriate, (including to me) it is still not in and of itself abuse, and by itself, it's not a sexual act. So that proves nothing on it's own.

And I'm definitely not a Jacko worshipper, so using that as a means to discredit what I'm saying won't wash.

Name names? Geez, you really are lazy, aren't you? Well, seeing as you're clearly too lazy to do mere seconds of research that would throw up dozens of examples, here are a few cases of false accusations of paedophilia that have happened in the UK in recent years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...used-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-ex-wife-reveals-deeply-disturbing-story.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...neighbour-of-being-paedophile-86908-20696380/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-wrongly-accused-of-being-paedophile-1.137544

In this country, there is an over the top, hysterical fear of paedophilia stirred up by the media. It is also the worst possible thing anyone could be accused of doing. So, if you have an evil mind, (and being a kid certainly doesn't make you exempt from having one) and you really want to make someone's life a hell, falsely accusing them of being a paedophile is a very good way of going about that. And it has happened in countless cases in this country in recent years.

You'll also notice that the falsely accused in the above articles (and indeed, in the vast majority of the similar cases here of people falsely accused of paedophilia) are hardly wealthy celebrities who could pay off fancy lawyers to get them off the charges. In fact, quite the opposite. It's usually just ordinary people, in many cases far from well off, who just happen to be unlucky enough to get on the wrong side of people/kids who are sick and twisted enough to make up such allegations. And in my eyes, accusing someone of such a horrendous thing knowing full well it's a lie, is as disgusting and reprehensible as paedophilia itself.

 

Same thing here... it's a means of controlling people and a quick, cheap way of making someone a target- just starting floating about rumors of pedophilia and people will give it legs. The pressure against applying any degree of reason is powerful when an attempt to characterize something that has not been proven as such is characterized as a heartless refusal to protect children from predators. How dare we value truth over the safety and welfare of those innocent, vulnerable children?!!??!??!!!1!!!one

I believe we all possess the potential to adopt a lynch mob mentality- certainly I do. That is the facet that enables me to strongly believe that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Look at thee mountain of evidence that he cultivated age inappropriate relationships with young boys. "yep- that certainly makes him look like a predator"... and it really does- but it doesn't PROVE anything. It does suggest plenty- or more appropriately it inspires me to suggest to myself plenty- to presume guilt.

Jacko was a weirdo indeed but unless something was slipped through as a rider to some agriculture legislation it is not a crime to be a weirdo- though it probably will instigate surveillance if the weirdo happens to be famous.

The fact is that the nature of Jackson's identity tied his image to his ability to make money. His name was his career and a protracted sex abuse trial would likely have wrecked that regardless of the outcome so that creates a scenario where making a cash settlement in order to avoid a trial and associated media circus would make some measure of sense.... settle things and allow the cultural noisemakers to move on. Give some time for things to quiet down then launch a comeback... which was what he was doing when he died.

IF he was a predator as people seem to insist then surely there would have been other victims coming out of the woodwork to cash in after a couple of legal processes. In one case, claims were thrown into doubt when an alleged victim's physical description of Jackson proved to be false

The truth of motivation in that action was borne out in a conversation the father had:

... something which casts some question on the accuser... about being motivated to hurt Jackson because he felt slighted by Jackson and not because he felt Jackson had molested his son.

The above quote illustrates how the media abuses its power to cultivate a lynch mob mentality against a person. Jacko may have been whacko but there isn't substantial proof that he molested boys- just overwhelming rumor and innuendo- enough to make it monumentally difficult to openly advocate the possibility of his innocence lest such and objective perspective be smeared as supporting predatory child raping monsters... such people don't even deserve a fair trial- do they? String 'em up- protect the children.

I see a species that has not evolved one bit from the ability and willingness to burn someone for witchcraft- as they did in Salem, Massachusetts centuries ago.

I am not nor was I ever a Michael Jackson fan. In fact much of what he recorded I can't stand- nor do I particularly revere who he was but I can't help but think that if he was a molester as so many insist that he was to the point of verbally assaulting any who dare believe differently. I can't help but wonder, if Jacko was such a kiddy fiddler, why were there not more people to lawyer up with their greedy hands out in this oh-so-litigious society? The relative lack of that makes me lean towards presuming his innocence despite a nagging part of me that thinks something DID take place.

By misusing the concept of child molestation we risk cheapening it and depriving its real victims of achieving the full justice that they rightly deserve. A refined lynch mob is no less a lynch mob which cheapens just as much the concept of justice.

For the reasons outlined above, my response to the poll was and still is "not sure".

 

That is of course, very true. As the falsely accused father in one of the above cases I highlighted said, "That’s the trouble. I am free now to shout from the rooftops that I am not a paedophile, but that word doesn’t leave people’s heads once it goes in. No smoke without fire."

Even without any proof, just being labelled that, even falsely, and you're branded for life in some people's eyes.

He was a weirdo, but if being weird were a criminal offense, I would be in prison, and so would many other people who's "crime" is merely to be different in a society and culture that frowns on things that are totally harmless, but which they do not understand. Which then turns something that is harmless, into a threat. And threats need to be eliminated.

The cash settlement thing is something that is very interesting. After the initial allegation was made, some people claimed that they had evidence of Michael molesting children, but instead of taking that information to the police, they sold their stories to the media. Indeed, the father of the first boy who accused Michael of assaulting him, was willing to settle out of court for a cash settlement. I mean come on, what father would be willing to do that if they knew a man had molested their son? They wouldn't care about money, they'd want him locked up.

It seems that everyone who had these stories about Michael, their main motivation was money. Which has to cast serious doubt over their assertions about his alleged child abuse.

I can only agree, and for partly that reason (although of course, not wholly) I feel that to falsely accuse someone of paedophilia, is as sickening an act as the act of paedophilia itself. It not only destroys the lives of the falsely accused, but also can have negative implications in actual paedophilia cases. Because a child will almost always be believed in such circumstances, but as is now known, and has indeed been proved, children certainly can lie about such things. Sometimes through coersion, from a parent or other adult relative, or even just out of spite or even "for a laugh".

I myself, am not sure. In fact, nobody can be. But I definitely err more on the side of him not being guilty. At least not of child molestation.

And I agree with everything else you said in your post.

 

Thanks Stinkfoot for putting up some facts.
Curious how some who complain about and decry the media for publishing falsehoods in the political arena will completely swallow the media hype surrounding something such as this.

I'm no big Michael fan, but I doubt he did the things he was accused of when ALL the evidence is examined, or at least the evidence that has been made public.

When millions of $$$$ are on the table, you can bet your sweet ass people will make false accusations. Don't forget the lawyers who bring a case like this also stand to make a fortune if they win.

 

The cases I highlighted (which are merely a tiny portion of the actual amount of cases) proves that false allegations of that nature can be made, even when money isn't the motivation. Throwing money into the equation, also taking into account that Michael was a "weirdo", and he would be a prime (and very easy) target for people looking to make millions out of such false allegations.

 

Great post, Stinkfoot. I originally voted guilty, and your post gave me cause to read into the trials more on Wikipedia.

For some reason, I was under the impression that many more children came forward; and there was much about the trials that surprised me.

 

You also forgot this:

And the father ended up committing suicide later on due to a supposed illness and depression. After Michael's death, in fact.

Let's not forgot Michael's OWN kids he spent most of his time with, and also the large number of relatives Michael has that never saw anything up. Michael doesn't look like someone who'd be good at all with covering something up and lying. You'd think SOMEONE would have said something by now, besides Chandler.

That's the trouble. Most people haven't looked up the facts.

 

I don't mean to get into another argument, Skip. I just meant to do a quick post. So I don't want this to be as long as last time.

Taking into account all the other facts out there that show Michael wasn't a pedophile, and this was even brought up in stories, the settlement was something he did in order to avoid legal hassles. He didn't understand the way the media worked and didn't think this would draw media attention to him and make him look guilty. I don't blame him, I can be naive about things myself. Especially with being falsely accused of such a scandal, one would want it to be over as soon as possible.

 

Does anyone actually think that it was MJ who was doing the deciding when it came to litigation and settlements and not a team of lawyers and agents who were more worried about paychecks than anything else?

 

Of course he wasn't--how can anyone ask such a thing? He would no more hurt a child than I could swim across the Atlantic Ocean! Leave him alone so he can rest in peace!

 

fuck it... let's blame capitalism.

 

"dunno. what. this. is... please. refrain"

 

lol i always wondered about this too he was always grabbbing his crotch or flicking his zipper,,,like ???? what michael,,, what are you trying to tell us,,,,lol

 

I think its interesting that Michael Jackson possesed elements that usually incur the wrath of society. He was a small, slight man with a lispy voice, he dressed weird and looked even weirder, he was an accused child molester, he named his kid Blanket....by all logic, one would think he would be cast out of society with all the other freaks that don't fit in and deviate from the norm......but instead people freakin' LOVE him. That fascinates me for some reason.

 

No, I don't do any of those things, but you used the fact that he's supposedly still a virgin (or at the very least, that he'd never slept with a woman) as a means of attacking him. If him being a virgin (supposedly) had no bearing on your views, you shouldn't have mentioned it. But you apparently did feel it was relevant to him being a child molester, which is why I made that comparison.

Although this might seem strange on the face of it, the reason for this is actually very simple. It's the culture of celebrity, and how celebrities (and people with abnormally large sums of money) can get away with things that that the average person couldn't. Take Elton John for example. If he were just an average joe, and he lived down my way, there's a very good chance he'd be prime target for a beating. And it's the same thing with Michael Jackson. Being a "freak" is fine, as long as you have a lot of money so you don't have to live amongst the violent underbelly of working class society. But not fitting in and deviating from the "norm" can have terrible consequences if you're just an "ordinary" person. Something that I can attest to from personal experience.

 

Well, our perception is built on the information given. I could very well read something else and decide he's guilty again.

With an element of popular news/talk, often people will believe they know more than they actually do. There was very little in the media supporting Michael Jackson, and most fans talk as if he could do no wrong, instead of pointing out any actual evidence:

I don't say this in an attempt to justify my ignorance or unfair jump to conclusions; merely explain the mindset of those like me (or like I was.)


The truth is, with something like this -- none of us can truly know; we can only go with what we feel is right. What seems right is often based on shitty information, biased information, and/or an unreliable/slanted amount of information.