Michael Jackson the Pederast? What Do We Actually know?

Ther are a lot of people who will throw out the term pedophile linked to Michael Jackson’s name as if it was a foregone conclusion. However, he clearly was never convicted of such a thing, but he did pay some people off. So I amjust wondering how much of the perception is based on facts and how much of it is based on the repeated meme.

I kno, for example that Michael liked to say he shared a bed with these kids. That is improper but doesn’t rise necessarily to the level of pedophilia. Sharing wine with kids, was that alleged or admitted to. While I have no idea about what really happened, of course, I think it was clear that MJ didn’t have a clear understanding of the proper relationship between kids and adults, but I am not not necessarily convinced that extended to sexual acts. Of course, I am not convinced it doesn’t either.

If the Mod feels like moving this to something like Great Debates I would completely understand.

He was acquitted, but a creepy vibe hung around him to the end of his days IMHO. He was interviewed after his acquittal and said he still saw nothing wrong with sleeping with children who weren’t his. His fans will excuse, explain or handwave as they wish, but I wouldn’t have left my kids alone with him, and I doubt they would either.

What we know for certain you have pretty well covered. He was accused, twice, and paid off both. Therefore we are left with speculation.

IMO, he appeared to be, emotionally, about eight years old. Witness building your own theme park, and keeping a chimpanzee as your best friend. Sex play is by no means uncommon during that age, and I would bet that Jacko got the urge towards young boys because he felt the way they do at that age.

FWIW, I doubt it ever went beyond mutual masturbation, but that’s sexual molestation, legally and morally. I doubt he ever had anything like a mature sexual relationship with anyone.

OK, maybe the chimp. But only when one of them was drunk.


The Maureen Orth Vanity Fair articles looked pretty damning. They painted him as someone who was less in a state of arrested development and more ruthless/cunning than we’d been led to believe. For someone who proclaimed his innocence so loudly, he sure surrounded himself with some very scary people.

Sorry if this doesn’t answer the OP, but the Martin Bashir documentary re-aired recently and one scene really stood out for me. Jackson’s being interviewed about the whole balcony baby debacle and MJ asks, several times, ‘Why would I want to throw a baby over a balcony?’ As if that’s what people were appalled by, his malice rather than his complete, dangerous cluelessness. He does not get it.

Isn’t this a common sentiment from actual ped*s, though? That children are pure and innocent and they understand them, deep down, more than any tainted adult? Perhaps someone who knows more about this subject can weigh in.

I find it funny how so many people jump up to Michael Jackson’s defense saying he was never convicted yet OJ Simpson, who was also never convicted, is universally thought of as a murdered.

His actions did not show him to be the innocent, naive boy-man that some made him out to be.

He showed many of the M.O.s of a classic pedophile, but was seemingly careful enough to choose targets who would make less than convincing accusers in a courtroom…

I wholeheartedly agree that O.J. was never murdered.

:smack: Damnit!

Murderer, I meant OJ is thought of as a murderer.

I was curious, so I searched for these - a link for anyone else who wanted to read them.

I think Macauley Culkin of all people has a pretty good handle on what Jackson meant when he said children slept in his bed with him…

MACAULAY CULKIN, ACTOR: You know, they’ve always slept in the same bedroom with him. I don’t think you understand, Michael Jackson’s bedroom is two stories. And it has like three bathrooms and this and that. So, when I slept in his bedroom, yeah, but you have to understand the whole scenario.

ETA: From a Larry King Live transcript. CNN.com - Transcripts

I don’t think they are the same. IMO there is such a preponderance of evidence in the OJ Simpson case (including his own book) that it’s pretty damn obvious he’s guilty. I don’t have the same level of certainty with MJ. It’s clear he behaved inappropriately with children. I have a hunch he probably went further, but a hunch is not the same as a certainty. I’m not certain and I don’t know if I ever will be.

I’d say that Culkin has a vested interest in saying just that. The Vanity Fare articles are terribly damaging.

Also, why even share the bedroom? He has spare rooms. He has spare houses in Neverland. All right, maybe it was a “sleepover” type thing but if I knew an adult male who told me he liked spending the night with children, but it wasn’t sexual, I’d still worry. And I’d tell any of my friends with kids to stay away from him and not let him alone with them because at the very least, this person is completely socially unbalanced. You don’t admit to wanting to sleep with children.

We do not know for sure. Two payoffs, 2 trials and many rumors are still circumstantial. But some feel that people were after his money with false accusations. If so, then he was rash and stupid. He should have learned faster.
It is just that after awhile ,your defense of him gets worn down. His interview about sleeping with kids an just a natural thing, added more fuel. He was stupid and naive. But i do not know for sure he was a molester. I suspect he may have been.

I was under the impression that Vanity Fair heavily embellishes their “exposes” on celebrities. How credible are they?

I believe Culkin when he says MJ never acted inappropriately with him. I also think it’s a non-indicator. When they first started hanging out, Culkin was just as hugely famous as MJ, and with just as much clout in the industry and credibility with the public. Maybe more. If MJ had tried anything MC didn’t like, it would have been Armageddon. And forget paying him off or intimidating his family. So even if what MC says is true, and it most likely is, it could just be a smoke screen.

And it’s quite interesting that Jackson’s lawyers never tried libel or defamation suit. Tom Cruise has successfully bitch-slapped publications for far less.

Related to the VF main page article: Seriously? He was on the witness stand and claimed not to recognize someone who was his publicist for ten years?

In both cases, it’s probably because we read the court transcripts and considered the evidence that was presented.

Yes, it was positively Machiavellian of him, the way he only abused children who would, in retrospect, appear to have been coached by mercenary scammers.

Also, very clever of him to have the foresight to keep so many those “decoy” children around, to give credible support for his claim of non-erotic (if plain weird) friendships.

“Ah-ha! At some point in the future, it will become clear that this woman used her children as a ready-made shoplifting ring, and fabricated an apparently groundless sexual abuse claim against a major department store in order to score a significant cash settlement. I’ll bet her husband will even testify that she coaches the kids to say whatever needs to be said for her own purposes. I’ll bet I can get away with having a good ol’ wank session with this boy, so long as I’m very careful never to succumb to temptation with any of those other kids, and make damn sure that there’s no incriminatiing evidence that might be turned up by an exhaustive search.”

Some typical characteristics of pedophiles:

Another characteristic I’ve often seen in these kids of profiles is the idealization of children as “innocent,” “pure,” etc.

I think MJ exhibited 8 or 9 of these characteristics and possibly more.

And I still maintain that you don’t pay 22 million clams to someone accusing you of child molestation if you didn’t do it.

If it moonwalks like a duck…