I had forgotton about all of ths. Did any of the jurors comment on why they acquited him?
A little bit. They showed some old interviews with jurors, one said that he thought that Jackson probably molested boys (I guess we are to assume that he didn’t feel the prosecutor established the case); another woman on the jury recounted how the victim’s mother snapped her fingers at the jury and the juror didn’t like that.
Part 2 covers the trial, and the effects of the abuse on Safechuck and Robson in later life. Particularly interesting are the explanations about why they denied the abuse until a few years ago. Robson even testified on behalf of Jackson at the 2005 trial. Everything makes complete sense and rings true, but it’s complicated and not easy to summarize briefly.
There are a couple of clips of jurors being interviewed after the trial.
Basically Jackson’s lawyers went to great lengths to discredit the prosecution witnesses and their motives for testifying (not covered in the doc), and Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkin denied in court that they were abused.
Can you imagine the envy his fellow pedophiles must feel at the mind-boggling array of tools he had at his disposal? From his fame and money to the legendary kidtrap of Neverland, and the army of people to facilitate and cover? A dream.
From some of the stories it sounds like maybe some of his security people should be charged.
It’s pretty clear to me that as things progressed, Jackson pretty much built his life around pedophilia. Everything thing he did, from Neverland, to his music career, to his charity work was one big delivery system for young boys. He even weaponized his fans to deny to this day that he did anything wrong.
*Spit-take! *
I’m ashamed to admit it, but this two-word phrase is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. 
That requires a level of genius and calculation that I absolutely do not believe MJ had.
He called money “cookies” and had to be told how many “cookies he could eat” every day for chrissakes.
But when it came to getting access to little boys’ orifices, he was absolutely cunning. He found families that were fame hungry and would do anything to stay in his orbit, he got the families indebted to him and then he carefully pulled the kid away from his family.
That makes it worse IMO. A person with stunted development and all the money and fame to cater to his every wish, and nobody to set him straight.
Don’t you think this the whole money/cookie could have been a shtick? Just one more way of affecting a preternaturally juvenile persona to fit the image he wanted to be and/or sell?
Like the falsetto voice. Never met a guy in all my 41 years of life who sounded like MJ did. We should ask ourselves what the odds are that a man who acted child-like also just so happened to naturally have a voice that sounded very child-like. It is improbable. I think his voice was a prop too.
Whether or not MJ was intentional and calculating in his behaviors is besides the point. He was very effective at convincing people not see him as a threat, which ensured his unfettered access to children.
Thriller was HUGE, and it was the first thing I listened to. I don’t know the truth, but sometimes I think maybe he just never grew up, since he was working and supporting his family at such a young age.
I might watch it, but either way, truth should always prevail. I’m not a fan of his music, and his life doesn’t change a few songs I do like.
It appears to be four: the one in 1993 whose family accepted a cash settlement, the one in 2003 that went to trial, and then these two.
As you say, after Savile died hundreds of accusers came forward. I agree that one would expect the same (or ‘dozens,’ at least) with Michael Jackson. He’s been gone just short of a full decade, now.
The objection I raised wasn’t about ‘doing identical things.’ It was about the modus operandi of a sex abuser. A change that significant should be explained, and the documentary failed to even address it.
Quite understandably, there is a great deal of rage at child-sex abusers.
However, that doesn’t make it reasonable to completely misread posts one is responding to. In this particular case, I had posted
All available sources I can find online state that Safechuck says his abuse began in 1988, while Robson says his began in 1990.
The fact that a jury looked at all this and didn’t find it credible is worth noting. They may have been presented with evidence that indicated that the testimony wasn’t factual.
By 2003 when this trial occurred, Michael Jackson had become something of a punchline. The days of massive hit records were long behind him; his records sold, but not at the levels of Thriller and Bad. He had financial woes, partly stemming from a dispute with his label. Physically, he was weak. He was not attractive-looking, due to horrible plastic surgery decisions.
It’s implausible that the jury looked at all the evidence presented and said ‘this is very strong evidence but we must ignore it because we can’t risk offending the powerful Michael Jackson.’ He just wasn’t that powerful, any more.
If the evidence had been strong, Jackson would have been convicted.
Personally, I tend to believe that Michael Jackson had a pedophile orientation. It remains unproven that he acted on it by making use of children for sexual gratification. (Some pedophiles act on their desires and some don’t.) Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t: the factor of prospective financial gain for his accusers cannot be ignored. It distorts the picture. If Jackson had been a low-paid factory worker and four boys had come forward to allege abuse, the case for abuse would be stronger. As it is, it’s just the word of the four, and all have sought big pay-days.
If more boys (or former boys) come forward, that would change the likelihood about the question of Jackson making use of the kids in that way.
That conclusion will cause more rage, of course. But I think it’s a fair one.
The answer to all of these questions is what I said in my post before the one in question…I absolutely don’t believe he was that smart and cunning. I don’t think he pre-planned as much as most on this board do and I don’t think he was so dedicated to his cause of finding young boys that he would make the elaborate stories and target just the right families and do that much damn work.
He outsmarted Paul McCartney right out of the Beatles catalog. He wasn’t some sweet innocent naif.
Bingo.
Interesting that Corey Feldman who just recently has accused quite a few of molesting him and Corey Haim when they were young, and is not one to shy away from attention, has maintained that for all of Jackson’s odd behavior that he witnessed, he himself was never touched by Jackson.
He admits he speaks only for himself. Macauly Culkin is similar in his experiences.
Really weird guy, really inappropriate stuff with kids (sleepovers in beds), but never anything sexual.
You’d think one of these two would speak up if they knew something now that Jackson’s dead and they really have nothing to lose by doing so.
So this is another thing I don’t get.
MJ was a musical phenom. Created legendary hits throughout multiple decades. Was a marketing genius as well. Case in point, he knew how to turn his weaknesses (early signs of vitiligo on his hand) into iconic strengths (silver glove). He was insightful enough to know who to work with and who not to worth with. Took a lot of strategic risks early in career that catapulted him into international fame, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again in our lifetimes.
But you don’t think he was that smart and cunning? The man wasn’t an idiot savant, come on.
I disagree. If you can hire expensive lawyers and investigators, you’re more powerful than most people facing such charges. It’s not that jurors were afraid of offending him, but the prosecution was outgunned. Remember OJ?
The fact that he was less powerful than he *had *been is irrelevant.
He may have been impoverished afterward. (OJ again). As Robert Blake put it, ‘innocent until proven broke’.
Sort of related: could someone elaborate on the claims (in this thread) that he left the country until the statute of limitations expired? When was that?
I see what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t take this as evidence of Jackson’s innocence. I mean, you can’t molest everyone you come in contact with. But that being said, yes totally inappropriate behavior, which I wasn’t really all that aware of before watching the first episode of the documentary last night. I knew he had kids around, but not to the extent shown.