Was Michael Jackson a Child Molester?

Mj had no childhood because he dad would not allow it i think he was re-living his childhood as a adult

 

I was 12 years old when Thriller came out, it went ballistic, top of the charts for like a year, every where you went you either the album was playing, or the video or posters, you couldnt escape it.

For anyone too young to remember that, MJ mania might seem curious, especially with all the weirdness that came after. But yeah, in the Thriller days he was by far the coolest guy on the planet

But then Bad came out and he looked like Diana Ross everyone was like WTF?, then it was all downhill from there

 

There is no evidence that Michael molested children.Apparently he gave a boy a glass of wine and played with him - innocently - on a bed.A bit irresponsible perhaps - but certainly not abuse.My Mother used to occasionally mix water with wine for me when I was a child,and this is quite common in France.When Police raided Michael's secret room they found a lot of pictures of children but no child porn.They also checked his computer and found a few "18" porn splashes but again no child porn.So michael liked to look at children and hang out with them.What's wrong with that?Children are beautiful and fun to be with.As long as there is no sexual impulse involved I think it's okay for an adult to want to hang out with kids.I mean - what are we gonna do?Hide them away in a box?So no - I think Michael was largely innocent.

 

Agreed. In this day and age, there's such an OTT and irrational fear of paedophilia, that we have now reached a stage where many adults (adult males in particular) have stated that they would be hesitant about offering help to a child in distress that they didn't know, in case people misconstrued their intentions. In the UK, there is a severe lack of males entering professions that involve working with children, because they feel that expressing a desire to work with children will be treated with suspicion by many.

Michael's attitude towards children, for many people, is "weird" and inappropriate. Especially within the backdrop of hysteria around paedophilia in our society today. However, no matter what anyone thinks of his conduct and attitude around children, it still does not make any of the things he is known to have done with children "abuse". Certainly, a lot of people nowadays would consider a man kissing a child that is not a family member as inappropriate, but it is still not abuse. He had pictures of children in his room, once again, something that wound incur the wrath of many in society, (and indeed, a man in a case I highlighted earlier in this thread was falsely accused of paedophilia because he had innocent pictures of HIS OWN children in his bedroom) but seeing as there was no abuse taking place in the pictures (and nor where they pornographic in nature) then in the eyes of the law at least, Michael was doing nothing wrong.

None of the things that Michael is KNOWN to have done with children amounts to actual abuse. But I think because many people find the stuff he is known to have done as "unsavoury", that he is automatically a paedophile. Even though none of those things is proof of that, as there is no evidence that he was even sexually attracted to children, let alone did anything sexual to them. The case of Macauley Culkin I feel above all, is the one that points to the things Michael did being mistaken for abuse (as they are seen as inappropriate), rather than them actually being abuse. Someone who knew Michael who was trying to sell their story to the media that Michael had molested Macauley, was actually shown up to be a liar by Macauley himself. He said that while he did sleep in Michael's bed on more than one ocassion, he was never sexually molested, or touched inappropriately by Michael. Just because many would find merely the fact Michael slept in the same bed as Macauley as disgusting, it still does not consitute sexual abuse, and indeed, is not seen as such in the eyes of the law.

Unless Michael engaged in sexual acts with children (and certainly there is no concrete evidence to suggest he did), then he is innocent of the charges against him. People may find the things he did weird and inappropriate, but that doesn't make him guilty of sexually abusing children.

 

He certainly never showered with them naked, either.

Well, he probably bathed his own kids when they were really little, but that's something all parents do. Can't bathe yourself when you're a toddler, you know.

 

I don't think he was.. The times I've met him.. he def didn't come off as one. I have a close friend whos close to the family.. their son is friends with michael's kids.

 

a long time ago i went to rotten.com when it was still up and running, and they had a copy of the police report and what they found in there for the second accusation. dude, he was a child molester w/out a doubt. if i can find the report ill post a link here

 

Rotten.com? You're either a troll or an idiot, attempting to use that shock site as a credible source of information.

 

I think he might have been but no one ever reported penetration as far as I know so was it really all that bad like if it was me I wouldn't have cared but if it was my kid I'd give him a new reason to get surgery

 

Accusations are not proof of anything unless proved to be true. Those allegations were never proven, and so cannot be used as proof of Michael's guilt.

As for the settlement, Jordan Chandler's dad was actually actively pursuing a cash settlement, almost right from the start of the criminal proceedings. Something that I've heard a lot of parents saying they do not understand. If his case against Michael was as water tight as he claimed, why did he choose money over seeing justice served on his son's abuser? And as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, Michael's team of lawyers and advisors probably had more say in the cash settlement, than Michael himself. Who was probably completely unaware of the bad light that would paint him in.

In any case, allegations without proof, are just that. Allegations, and no more. And it is a known fact, that some children have told lies about being sexually abused for various reasons. But, as I've seen time and time again in cases of false accusations of paedophilia in the UK, child abuse is the one crime where you are presumed guilty until you are proven innocent, rather than the other way around. And sometimes even when you are proven innocent, some will still believe you are guilty.

And in Michael's case, this was just magnified tenfold, as the tabloid (or trash) media, who had already vilified Michael as a "weirdo" long before any child abuse allegations ever emerged, took every opportunity to paint him as guilty, even with no proof, or before the case even went to trial. They wanted Michael to be guilty, as it makes more headlines, and "better" stories.

 

Does his ex wife Lisa Marie Presley count or do we just choose what we wish to read and discredit all other pieces of the puzzle?

According to her their marriage was real and they were sexually involved.

As I stated before, we will never know as we were not involved and all that we have is opinions based upon our own interpretation of the facts that we wish to view as factual.

 

really do not know where to go with this michael jackson thing as it's like a damn religious debate hahahaha... except there's not a clear wrong answer!

 

Possibly that's because he knew what he was doing wasn't abuse? And if SLEEPING with kids was all he did, then that can't be constituted as abuse, no matter what mainstream society's view on that might be. It's not seen as abuse in the eyes of the law, therefore, no matter what you, or anyone else would think about that, he was doing nothing unlawful.

I'm blind because I won't brand someone guilty without concrete proof? He "bought children"? I'd like to see the evidence of this, because in all the things I've seen and heard about of this case, I've never heard of that. Besides, as I stated before, Jordan Chandler's father was actively seeking a cash settlement. This says to me, either he knew fine well that the abuse allegations were made up, or he cared more about money than his own son. And cared about money more than the suffering of any further potential victims that he could have saved by having Michael locked up. So, even if the allegations were true, this makes him no better than Michael.

Here we go again with another blatant strawman. Just as you attempted to use Michael's supposed "virginity", and lack of interest in women as an indicator that he's a paedophile, now you're suggesting it's because "no-one was interested in him sexually". Again, I put it to you, if these things are indicators of a potential child abuser, then you might as well paint me as that, and other people who fall into those categories. Sounds to me like you are clutching at straws.

I can't say for sure that Michael was innocent, indeed nobody can, no matter what they say. But I also cannot say he is guilty without concrete evidence to back up that assertion, of which there is none. Without exception, every person who knew Michael who said he abused children, money seemed to be the motivating factor behind all those allegations. Which whilst by itself doesn't prove Michael to be innocent, it certainly at the very least, must cast doubt on the accuracy and honesty of those allegations. And why did these other allegations only follow AFTER it was known how much Evan Chandler would recieve from Michael's fortune? Might not sound fishy to you, but it does to me.

And the strawmen you are presenting, are certainly not proof of anything. Other than your own narrow minded prejudices.

 

Debbie Rowe also stated on well more than one occasion that she and Michael "made their children the natural way"...that isn't a quote from wikiwhatever - but I remember hearing her say that (MORE than once) on TV when this debacle was going on. When she was point-blank asked if they had sex she replied yes. Again, there is Lisa Marie who said they had a sex life.

I guess I cannot help but wonder what a busy, busy man is doing wondering and worrying others about what MJ MAY have done...but which I wholeheartedly do NOT believe he did. Had he molested my child, there would be NO AMOUNT of money to shut me up nor to stop court proceedings...if indeed anything ever got that far. :devil:

Yet, not only did it seem the cash was the main thing on these parent's minds, some of the mothers/fathers continued to let their children go over to MJ's house, even after they supposedly were "aware something may be going on". Were the parents really the molesters? Let's don't stop there - maybe it was the household help that was also doing it!

There is a LOT of junk happening in the world right now...can't help but wonder why MJ can't be allowed to just rest in peace.

 

does this look like a face that has anything to hide? now drink some wine kiddies :afro:

 

Well, to be fair the same man who sings 'Somebodys Watching Me' and most likely has vitiligo would have a lot of reason for covering himself up.

He would pay a makeup artist 10 grand to conceal his identity long enough to walk the streets of New York without being recognized so he can enjoy the luxuries of privacy. Apparently the song Human Nature is probably about MJ's experiences in NY (Him and a lady he liked glanced at each other while he walked the streets and there was a spark but he knew that because of his fame they would probably never get together).

Looking out across the morning
The city's heart begins to beat.
Reaching out, I touch her shoulder
I'm dreaming of the street.​

Aside from that, I think he was mostly asexual.

Here's a different Michael dealing with his fame. Imagine living like that everyday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aakzz1WhLMY"]Michael J Fox causes a fan frenzy needs DOC to save the day! - YouTube