No doubt that is a red flag. But you couldn’t convict him on it.
I lurk on another board that has a large cadre of die-hard MJ defenders. They insist that MJ’s nature was gentle and innocent. His actions can’t be interpreted the same way we’d interpret a regular person’s, they say, because the harsh circumstances of his upbringing turned him into a permanent man-child.
I don’t know about yall, but the “man-child” idea is not a satisfactory counterargument to the claim that he was pedophile. I would expect a pedo to portray himself as a child trapped in man’s body; it would be a rather convenient way to rationalize his own attraction to children. It also serves to cause other adults to let their guard down.
Secondly, let’s assume that MJ was was the emotional and mental equivalent to a boy. It’s unusual to find a boy who talks on and on about loving other children. I don’t know of any boy children that objectify their peers like that. MJ never talked about kids as if he saw himself as one.
Someone asked this earlier I believe, but what kind of evidence would you expect? A video of him being inappropriate? A journal entry saying “I did that shit”?
These kind of crimes rarely have the equivalent to a murder weapon with the accused fingerprints all over it. So if you’re waiting for that kind of evidence, then you’ll probably be waiting forever.
In the meantime, I suggest not letting your children (if you have any) attend sleepovers by themselves with middle-aged men (or women) who align themselves with Peter Pan. Because if they come home with a story about being molested, having to hear you say “I want to see evidence beyond your allegations” will likely crush them for life.
Yeah, clearly you’re not invested in this at all.
Those things are evidence that he was a molester. They are not proof, but combined with the multiple alleged victims testifying, and his paying several of them off to avoid trials, it’s pretty clear he was up to something very unpleasant with some of them. We probably can’t prove that he molested any particular individual to the standard for conviction, but we can pretty certainly say that he had a very unhealthy attitude to children, and acted in an inappropriate, harmful way to some children.
That’s probably why he wasn’t convicted. He just settled with the accusers, so we can assume there’s only a civil standard of proof, rather than criminal. He was only probably a paedophile rapist.
I could not agree more.
There aren’t enough of these: 
.Do you truly not see the difference in having an opinion on the Jackson issues, and what someone would do as a parent. That in the second case caution is of the utmost importance, as well as believing your children, but in the first I am merely expressing an opinion based on what I read, and on something has no direct connection to my real life?
No, they arent. They are proof he owned books, etc, of that kind.
Ive asked others and got no answer. Perhaps you will tell me what this means.
Here, let me help:
As of your last post, there were 128 entries on this topic.
You have 47 of them, making for a usage rate of 36.719%.
Compare that to, say, the “Order of the Stick” thread. Going strong at 5,600 posts, there is not a single post by me in there.
Question: The biggest poster in the OotS thread is Jophiel, with 517 of the 5,655 posts, or 9.14% of the posts. Who is more invested in their topic: You in this one, or Jophiel in the OotS thread?
No I don’t see the difference, since the type of evidence in front of us is the same in both situations. You have a man that waved all kinds of red flags (went out of his way to befriend kids, invited kids to sleep in his bed, engaged in other behaviors consistent with grooming such as showering them with gifts). You have opportunity (unsupervised contact with the man for hours at a time). And you have two people making accusations.
The only thing that changes when those two people become your kids is your level of trust in them. If you think the accusers shouldn’t be believed because you don’t know them well enough, then ok. Say that then. But you’re insulting our intelligence by acting as though your position comes from a lack of evidence.
Were you or were you not implying that I would likely or even possibly not believe my kids if they came to me with such accusations? Do you not see that it is possible not to believe there is enough evidence to put Jackson in jail, but that I could stiil be a good parent and take every precaution to protect my kids? Because rest assured, I wouldnt need parenting advice from someone on the internet.
Newsflash: Jackson is dead.
I too don’t believe there is enough evidence to put him jail. That would require belief in resurrection.
Michael Jackson was severely messed up in the head and I don’t know why more of the blame isn’t put upon Joe Jackson. From the stories I heard of him working the kids like slaves and then having Michael as a child share hotel rooms with his brothers while they had sex with groupies in beds just feet from him that kid never stood a chance.
Youre obsessed with it, to the point we can’t have a discussion about the documentary that aired last night. You are dominating the conversation, posting the same points over and over (and sometimes multiple times with no other posts in between your posts) and have posted many more times than anyone else in the thread. The topic clearly matters to you, or you wouldn’t be so obsessed.
So Fiddle Peghead, I believe you said you were going to watch Leaving Neverland. If so, what did you think?
And again, what kind of evidence do you need? You haven’t answered that question, just that what’s available isn’t enough.
Part 2 premieres tonight. Should I wait until I see the first one before I watch this?
A somewhat clever way to avoid my question. Do you want to answer it?
I am pretty much the only one here who isn’t convinced Michael Jackson molested anyone. Which is not to say I’m convinced he didn’t. Anyway, the reason I have more posts is because I have to respond to all of the rest of you. Can you not see this? It has nothing to do with dominating anything. And you can have any discussion that you want. Why feel the need to respond to me at all, then? Go ahead, start discussing the movie. No one is stopping you. :rolleyes: Finally, show me where I’ve posted the same thing “over and over” when it wasn’t because I was answering someone’s question, as opposed to literally posting the same thing in response to no one.
?
You don’t have to respond to a single person. Are you being paid to post here or something?
No, I guess I haven’t really said what I would need. DNA, video, etc. Confessional letters or tapes by Jackson. Almost surely this would have been found by now. But let me take this opportunity to say once again, I have not by a long shot reached the conclusion that he is innocent. I defy anyone to show evidence to the contrary. I am merely saying, the evidence that has currently been presented would not be enough for me to vote to convict him in a trial.
Therefore, if one more person comes forward and accuses me of “defending” Jackson… why, I’ll ignore them! That’ll show 'em. 
I did intend to last, night, but got pre-empted by a friend’s shows. I am definitely watching it tonight.