Does anybody else think Michael Jackson is innocent?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

After reading this article taken from GQ magazine, I was convinced that the original allegations of child abuse made against Michael Jackson were, as the article suggests, false. But then the new accusations came along, and I allowed myself to be swept up in the common consensus that Michael Jackson is a dirty pedophile who gets what he deserves.
Recently, though, I was reading about his accuser's testimony in court. One of his claims stood out to me - Michael Jackson had simulated sex with a female mannequin to demonstrate what men and women do. Now, honestly, does that sound like actual pedophile behavior or something that a child would make up? It strikes me as far too close to the rash of mass child molestation charges perpetrated against day-care providers in the 70s/80s (I wasn't around then, so I'm not too sure about the chronology).
Obviously, Michael Jackson is a... unique individual and one whose behavior falls far out of the bounds of what is considered acceptable by society. He had a rough childhood and probably has more than his fair share of mental problems. This doesn't mean that he's guilty, though. Sure, it's easy making fun of him. He does have lots of suspicious activities with young boys. But from what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be any credible evidence that he has molested any of them, despite the large number that he's been in contact with.

― We Hate All Movement (Brian Now!), Saturday, 2 April 2005 08:59 (twenty years ago)

Word.

― Fa Fa fa FA, Fa fa Fa fa FA Fa (poop), Saturday, 2 April 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

I think he's innocent.

― LeCoq (LeCoq), Saturday, 2 April 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

i don't know whether michael jackson is innocent or not, but it does disturb me that virtually everyone i know assumes that he isn't. he's a strange, sad guy, but that doesn't mean he deserves to have his name dragged through the mud 24/7 if there's even a fucking CHANCE that he's not guilty.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Saturday, 2 April 2005 10:03 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but he's guilty. C'mon, folks.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 2 April 2005 10:28 (twenty years ago)

I'd rather see those stupid parents who let their kids go anywhere near Neverland be put in jail.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:17 (twenty years ago)

It seems like there's every chance he could be innocent. Hope he's getting a fair trial.

― brianiac (briania), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)

I agree. I mean, he's a weird freakin' dude. Obviously some strange shit has been going on at his house for years and yes, it looks real bad. There should be some law against a non-relative adult sharing his/her bed with any minor, even if it's innocent.
But nothing illegal has been proven yet.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:25 (twenty years ago)

Why does everyone believe kids? Kids lie like a motherfucker. I lied the most (and most craftily) when I was a kid.

― LeCoq (LeCoq), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

― kate/thank you friendly cloud (papa november), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

xpost

― kate/thank you friendly cloud (papa november), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

As far as kids lying goes, they sure do. Just go watch the movie Capuring the Friedmans for proof of that.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:30 (twenty years ago)

That said, I still THINK he's guilty of something. But if I were on the jury, I'd definitely have enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:31 (twenty years ago)

I have no idea if he's guilty or not, and I don't think any of us are in a position to make a well-informed judgement.

― supercub, Saturday, 2 April 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

Monday the court will begin to hear allegations of prior abuse begining with testimony from a man whom in 1990 MJ attempted to molest. MJ paid his family $2 million to shut up about it. So the current case is, what, the THIRD extortion attempt against MJ (that we know about)?

I don't understand why anyone wants to believe MJ, he's an unsympathetic, selfish narcissist.

― mjfan, Saturday, 2 April 2005 13:28 (twenty years ago)

supercub OTM.

Still, there is a history of these allegations that goes back 15 years.

― 57 7th (calstars), Saturday, 2 April 2005 13:45 (twenty years ago)

I thought he was innocent until a few months ago. Now I don't know.

― a banana (alanbanana), Saturday, 2 April 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)

**Michael Jackson had simulated sex with a female mannequin to demonstrate what men and women do. Now, honestly, does that sound like actual pedophile behavior or something that a child would make up? **

Choice B. "Educational" exposure to pornography, etc is a classic pederast's prelude, using adult authority as seductive tool.

**It strikes me as far too close to the rash of mass child molestation charges perpetrated against day-care providers in the 70s/80s**

In the McMartin School case (So Cal 80s) the children concocted far more outlandish tales involving tortured pets etc at the PROMPTING and LEADING QUESTIONING of overzealous prosecuters. In that case the accused were longtime nursery school teachers w/ previously spotless records. As Kate points out, there's a longstanding pattern of defiance in Michael Jackson's behavior. Even if you're innocent, once you've settled out-of-court for millions on a child molestation charge you need to distance yourself from even the appearance of impropriety.

Even if his current accusers are hustling him for blackmail money, does anyone seriously believe Michael has NEVER had sex w/children?

GUILTY AS CHARGED.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 2 April 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)

"Still, there is a history of these allegations that goes back 15 years."

So what? There have been innocent people in prison.

I don't know, I was there.

― nathalie doing a soft foot shuffle (stevie nixed), Saturday, 2 April 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

xpost to myself
I meant to say "Choice A" above. The mannequin demonstration sounds like a ploy to gain the children's confidence/trust -- "he's teaching us stuff" -- because obviously any discussion of sex between a single middle-aged man and school-aged children is wildly inappropriate and psychologically abusive (potentially)on its own.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 2 April 2005 14:07 (twenty years ago)

I don't know if he's guilty or not, but for some reason I don't really care. Michael's fucked up, yeah, but he's still made a lot of fantastic music and I hope that's not forgotten.

― Jordan (Jordan), Saturday, 2 April 2005 14:33 (twenty years ago)

I wasN'T there of course

― nathalie doing a soft foot shuffle (stevie nixed), Saturday, 2 April 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)

Coleman -- if you're going to assume that the mannequin demonstration actually happened, then you might as well believe everything the kids say.
And to roll out a tired but true axiom of the law, it doesn't matter what you think. It's what you can prove.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 2 April 2005 15:17 (twenty years ago)

Dunno, but it's clear in interviews that Michael Jackson's high as a kite on all kinds of pills, probably painkillers like oxys.

― shookout (shookout), Saturday, 2 April 2005 15:18 (twenty years ago)

I am not in the courtroom, and I don't know everything from either side. But I have the impression he is. He is like a little child, hanging around with kids. This raises suspicion, and when he is (or at least was) extremely wealthy that is also a natural reason to exploit this "suspect" situation to get some money out of him.

Also, what the police found in Neverland doesn't occur to me as particularly suspect. I mean: Ordinary porn mags? What does that have to do with pedophilia anyway?

Michael Jackson is a complete maniac, and not quite right. He is completely and helplessly MAD, just like so many musical geniuses before him, but I don't think he is a child molester.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 2 April 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

I must say I do get tired of people citing how rough his childhood was, as if that's an excuse for his egomaniaical, boorish, insane behavior. Cry me a fucking river. Millions kids suffered far worse in terms of abuse and poverty (real poverty, without the stardom) and didn't go completly mad. I just think he's more of a sefish strung out jerk surrounded with on-the-payroll sycophants than a tragedy. More like Axl Rose than Peter Pan.

Someone should write a group biography of MJ, Liz Taylor, Liza Minelli, and Marlon Brando. They might have all been the same alien being taking different forms.

― shookout (shookout), Saturday, 2 April 2005 15:28 (twenty years ago)

M Jax gives young boys the run of Neverland, and just happens to have an extensive pornography collection. These two proven-in-court FACTS are not by any means mutually exclusive, and if you don't immediately sense a connection between the porn and pedophilia USE YR IMAGINATION. The mutilated mannequin resided next to his bed, per testimony, an area of the ranch that kids had access to certainly. So it doesn't seem such a leap to assume that the dummy was there for their "benefit." My point on the kids'veracity is that they've been through a traumatic situation (whatever actually happened) and can't be uniformly believed or dis-believed on the face of things.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 2 April 2005 15:59 (twenty years ago)

Millions kids suffered far worse in terms of abuse and poverty (real poverty, without the stardom) and didn't go completly mad

I think abuse & poverty + the whole world watching your every move is much more likely to make someone as crazy as Michael.

― Jordan (Jordan), Saturday, 2 April 2005 23:56 (twenty years ago)

I could care less if the guy is guilty or not (guilty), but can his lawyers not claim insanity as a defense? Obviously, they're sticking to innocence, but at some point, doesn't professional logic take over? I think it's bizarre that, because he is MJ, the idea of him not being mentally competent isn't more of a consideration.

Plus, MJ seems to think he's some sort of messiah, charged with making the world a better place for all children. That, the abuse, and his coddling as an eccentric genius for the last twenty years, and you've got a nice little psych experiment.

― L, P (l, p), Sunday, 3 April 2005 02:23 (twenty years ago)

what about "innocent til proven guilty"

― mickey mouse, Sunday, 3 April 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

arguing about Michael Jackson...jesus I must've been bored yesterday, maybe I'll get into a snit about the pope today.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 3 April 2005 11:24 (twenty years ago)

What I never understood: Regardless of the fact he's guilty or not, would you (as a parent) let a *suspected* pedophile near your children?

― nathalie doing a soft foot shuffle (stevie nixed), Sunday, 3 April 2005 11:29 (twenty years ago)

Here's one parent's rationalization, er explanation...(warning: potentially nauseating)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/296006p-253425c.html

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 3 April 2005 11:56 (twenty years ago)

In a moment of unintended self-revelation, he himself once told me, (with his hands cupped over his mouth in a gesture of "I shouldn't") about how a highly popular female entertainer had once 'exposed herself' to him just to see how he would react, a confession that caused him to visibly blush.

Janet, you are a very bad lady.

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 3 April 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

I think he's probably guilty of something, but I don't think there's any way he'll be convicted. After all, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that he's guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. I haven't followed the case that closely, but it doesn't seem like his lawyers will have much trouble poking holes in the testimony of the alleged victim and his wacked-out, apparently money-grubbing family.

In fact, we may learn that the sort of family willing to farm its kids out to Michael Jackson are, by their very nature, not going to be very credible witnesses.

― subgenius (subgenius), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:15 (twenty years ago)

Whether he's merely fucking up his own life or fucking up the lives of others, the dude is not well. I logically can't say I know whether or not he's guilty, but its clear that the man will not get psychiatric help on his own accord and I definitely don't like the idea of him being left unsupervised with minors, which seems to be his raison d'etre. Watching the self-destruction of one of the most talented entertainers of the last fifty years is incredibly tragic. Whether or not he's guilty, I wonder if being found guilty is the only way he'll get the treatment he needs (and even that's no guarantee).

― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:28 (twenty years ago)

I wish it was a guarantee of SOMEONE looking after him (unselfishly) in at least SOME way so much. He's guilty of having a 10 year old's mind in an adult body, w/an adult's sexual drive, for sure. God knows what it'd take to get him past the fooling w/peers/surrepitiously jacking off to porn stage.

― Schwip Schwap (schwip schwap), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:33 (twenty years ago)

**Watching the self-destruction of one of the most talented entertainers of the last fifty years is incredibly tragic.**

This says it all, actually.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:40 (twenty years ago)

if somebody can actually come up with credible reasons why MJ's not getting a fair trail in CALIFORNIA COURT as opposed to the court of public opinion, please point it out. As far as coverage of the trial goes, there's not a damn thing that I've seen that leads me to conclude that a. he's being tried unfairly (which is different from being unfairly charged, and if he's innocent he will get off) or b. he doesn't have the best defense attorneys money can buy.

― hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

One of the 50 reasons I'd spit in Jay Leno's face if I ever got the opportunity.

(x-post, natch)

― miccio (miccio), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:42 (twenty years ago)

if somebody can actually come up with credible reasons why MJ's not getting a fair trail in CALIFORNIA COURT as opposed to the court of public opinion, please point it out.

Would a CALIFORNIA COURT subject a white man to a child abuse trial in front of an all black jury?
Is it possible to find 12 people in California who do not have preconceived ideas about Michael Jackson's morality?

These may not necessarily mean he gets an unfair trial but they may well be considered in an appeal.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 3 April 2005 15:51 (twenty years ago)

Would a CALIFORNIA COURT subject a white man to a child abuse trial in front of an all black jury?

i'll leave the ridiculous generalizations to you, but i'll just say that i'm not familiar with every child molestation case that has passed through that state's court system. the system isn't perfect, obviously, but a. none is and b. when you're a celebrity with the ability to pay for the best attorneys money can buy, you've got a good chance of winning your case (see also: OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, etc., etc.)

Is it possible to find 12 people in California who do not have preconceived ideas about Michael Jackson's morality?

ever hear of voir dire?

― hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

What ridiculous generalizations did I make?

Jackson is already making noises about 'persecuted black luminaries' and the make up of the jury has been mentioned many times. As I said, it doesn't necessarily prevent him getting a fair trial but if he's found guilty it will be considered in an appeal.

voir dire?
Yes. That'll be the exact science of jury selection that doesn't involve prospective jurors telling lawyers want they want to hear.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:25 (twenty years ago)

who ever claimed it was an "exact science?"

― hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

and mj's whining about 'persecuted black luminaries' is pretty rich coming from a guy who has made every effort to erase his identity as a black man.

― hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

and mj's whining about 'persecuted black luminaries' is pretty rich coming from a guy who has made every effort to erase his identity as a black man.
Agreed, particularly as he's attempting to put himself in the company of Mandela and Martin Luther King - doesn't mean he and his lawyers won't make race an issue if they feel it can benefit him.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Sunday, 3 April 2005 17:53 (twenty years ago)

see also: OJ Simpson.

― hstencil (hstencil), Sunday, 3 April 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

someone just get the poor man to a home somewhere...he's nowhere near the planet and needs some damned help.

― b b, Monday, 4 April 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

the poor man

Michael Jackson is many things, but this he isn't.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Monday, 4 April 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt - not because he's the self-proclaimed king of pop, but because the accusers appear to be grifters.

But it's not looking good for MJ.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 4 April 2005 18:59 (twenty years ago)

the poor man

Michael Jackson is many things, but this he isn't.

um, he could be - soon.

― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Monday, 4 April 2005 19:01 (twenty years ago)

Actually, he kind of is already.

― dan. (dan.), Monday, 4 April 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

The 24 yo accuser testified today:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/04/04/state/n134310D70.DTL

So what is the excuse here, mj apologists?

― mjfan, Monday, 4 April 2005 20:48 (twenty years ago)

The housekeeper's son, now married and working as lead mentor in an anti-truancy program, was asked at the outset of his testimony if he could identify Jackson in court.

"He's the light-complected gentleman," the witness said, smiling at Jackson.

ha ha!

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 4 April 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

I think he's guilty. I can't believe multiple preteen boys would lie and say they were molested by a man, not for all the money in the world. And the excuse about how his situation is soooo unique and he really never grew up and is a kid himself and his interest in children is innocent has never made sense to me -- plenty of people had rotten showbiz childhoods and, if anything, they tend to turn into Drew Barrymore and be in rehab at 13 and divorced twice before they're 30, not try to stay 12 forever.

I think he has clear mental problems, and I think it's a shame that he's been in a situation where he's been allowed to indulge them this much.

― Lyra Jane (Lyra Jane), Monday, 4 April 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

Here's one parent's rationalization, er explanation...(warning: potentially nauseating)
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/296006p-253425c.html

If I'm not mistaken, none of Kit Culkin's kids speak to him now, so he has no way of knowing what Macauley or Kieran would say as adults. (Beyond that they won't testify, which doesn't prove much.)

― Lyra Jane (Lyra Jane), Monday, 4 April 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

What he's undeniably guilty of is not releasing a good album in over a decade.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Monday, 4 April 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

Realizing that Michael Jackson has lived anything but a normal life, and has suffered what many would consider an extremely traumatic childhood-- or perhaps just as bad, no childhood at all, I can understand why he might spend so much time with children... perhaps to re-capture a childhood he never experienced himself. Therefore, I err on the side of innocence.

But more importantly, I feel that our society is not psychologically or emotionally equipped to deal with a grown man who loves children in an innocent way. And I believe that speaks volumes about the level of fear, cynicism, and negativity running through our society. Does anyone else find it odd that you can't give a child an innocent hug anymore, unless it's 'your' child?

― Magic Jordan (King Kobra), Monday, 4 April 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

You guys wanna be startin' somethin'? This thread is really bad. The way you make me feel with these comments, you should really take a look at the man in the mirror, and tell him to beat it. Do you remember the time when Billy Jean came out? Well, he'll always be that Michael to me. And it doesn't matter if he's black or white, because I can't stop loving him, (and I won't stop till I get enough).

― Marshall (Bobby Peru), Monday, 4 April 2005 23:40 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, i know this has been said before but it's true that he's either very very evil or very very stupid. If you'd been accused of messing with kids before, wouldn't you try to distance yourself a little more from them....like for instance, not having them sleep in your room while visiting?
Yeah...but if he was truly a paedo, would it be that easy to control his urges? I mean, alot of paedos (if the interviews of NAMBLA members on tv are an accurate representation) have a huge emotional/pyschological/logical disconnect going on where that can't even understand why what they do is wrong.
Maybe Mikey has a hard time grasping that he damages those he molests.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 01:38 (twenty years ago)

I don't understand why anyone wants to believe MJ, he's an unsympathetic, selfish narcissist.
-- mjfan
Daaaaamn. When even an MJ fan says this, it must be bad news...

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 01:48 (twenty years ago)

Marshall, how long did you have to take before you could figure out the best way to say say say that?

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 02:02 (twenty years ago)

I think MJ's excuse is not that he had a bad childhood, but that he didn't molest anyone.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 03:43 (twenty years ago)

Maybe Mikey has a hard time grasping that he damages those he molests.

That's entirely possible, however I'm not saying that he would be inclined to stop it because it was wrong, more because it had come to the worlds attention and the likelihood of him being caught and sent to jail had exponentially increased.

― kate/thank you friendly cloud (papa november), Tuesday, 5 April 2005 03:54 (twenty years ago)

three weeks pass...

Hang him high.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 29 April 2005 00:47 (twenty years ago)

Maybe it's because I've been watching E!'s very pro-Michael coverage of trial, but it doesn't look good for the prosecution. They don't seem competent, and can't control their witnesses.

― Chris H. (chrisherbert), Friday, 29 April 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

In the Louie Theroux documentary, he spoke to someone who'd become friends with MJ back in the J5 days during a tour of britain (both were/are the same age), and got to 'interview' him. He continued to be a phone pal, until one day someone he told something to in confidence about one 'particular' MJ call ended up as a 'tabloid shock story' without the persons knowledge or consent. He seemed quite embarrased about it, and obviously had no further contact with MJ after the 'story' broke.

You can fill in the missing details I'm sure.

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 29 April 2005 08:58 (twenty years ago)

It is getting more and more obvious that the conviction has a serious problem here.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 29 April 2005 10:01 (twenty years ago)

Agreed. As things stand now, there will be a not guilty verdict. The prosecution's case is very weak, relying on contradictory testimony from a bunch of uber-flakey people who have practically all admitted to lying to police or on oath in the past, and who all have strong financial motives. If Jackson's found guilty on this evidence, it will be because of some jury hivemind paedophilia witch hunt mentality, not on what the prosecution has presented.

― Sylvia North, Friday, 29 April 2005 10:30 (twenty years ago)

If the defence managed to get Macaulay Culkin to testify, they'd probably give the conviction an even weaker case, as he will deny some of the more serious accusations earlier on in the case.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, 29 April 2005 11:31 (twenty years ago)

I feel icky

― Nellie (nellskies), Friday, 29 April 2005 11:32 (twenty years ago)

I hope he's old enough!

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 29 April 2005 11:39 (twenty years ago)

Michael Jackson shouldn't be convicted based on the testimony being offered in this case. It's like the prosecution took the lessons from the OJ trial and said, "Okay, so the secret is to not even try to build a case but instead get as many people to scream 'KIDDYFIDDLER!' as possible and hope everyone in the jury is a dumbass."

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 April 2005 12:47 (twenty years ago)

(Can we send him to jail for egregious plastic surgery abuse?)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 April 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

when, exactly, did MJ jump the shark and succumb to utter public weirdness?

i kind of remember that after thriller he started dressing in those really, really tacky bodysuits festooned with arm-bands and little golden loops on the front. he sort of looked like he was top brass in an army that existed only in his imagination.

― mono.mono (mono.mono), Friday, 29 April 2005 12:56 (twenty years ago)

And millions wanted to be in that army!

― BARMS, Friday, 29 April 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)

The first public out-there behavior of Michael's I can recall was his (purported?) attempt to buy the Elephant Man's remains.

― Joseph McCombs (Joseph McCombs), Friday, 29 April 2005 16:08 (twenty years ago)

http://blort.meepzorp.com/fenestration/MJ-rubnplay.jpg

― a banana (alanbanana), Friday, 29 April 2005 17:13 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.