Was Michael Jackson an actual predatory pedophile, or just a really weird, really rich, essentially harmless guy with lots of issues?

Was Michael Jackson a fully-fledged predatory pedophile?

  • Disgusting pedo who should have died in jail

  • I wouldn't have sent my kids to Neverland, but he wasn't proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt

  • I think he was probably just a weird rich guy with a lot of issues about childhood


Results are only viewable after voting.
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
And you can prove that by finding some porn in a single man's house? FFS most of the blokes here would be guilty of that.
No, but the boy in the original case (before anyone had anything to go off) told police that Jackson had porn in certain rooms and showed him magazines etc. I am convinced Robson is lying, and I am not convinced that Jackson actually abused kids, but if I had to lean towards him doing something to boys or not, I'd lean towards him doing it.

Ignore the fact that it's Jackson and a high profile case with lots of money at stake and instead imagine that you heard from a mate about a guy you went to school with who now worked as a children's entertainer. And you found out that he would host kids parties at his house while doing his clown routine or whatever and then have them stay over. And he would have boys of 7 and 8 sleep in his bed with him, and when he was walking around town people saw this guy holding hands with little boys who were not his children.

How would you feel about this man and what his intentions and desires were?
 
Ignore the fact that it's Jackson and a high profile case with lots of money at stake and instead imagine that you heard from a mate about a guy you went to school with who now worked as a children's entertainer. And you found out that he would host kids parties at his house while doing his clown routine or whatever and then have them stay over. And he would have boys of 7 and 8 sleep in his bed with him, and when he was walking around town people saw this guy holding hands with little boys who were not his children.

How would you feel about this man and what his intentions and desires were?
I would feel the fella was a weirdo and would recommend he stop doing what he was doing but I wouldn't say he was guilty of something until he was actually found guilty of something.
Jackson was a bit of a weirdo, no doubt, but being a weirdo doesn't make him a guilty man...
 
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
I would feel the fella was a weirdo and would recommend he stop doing what he was doing but I wouldn't say he was guilty of something until he was actually found guilty of something.
Jackson was a bit of a weirdo, no doubt, but being a weirdo doesn't make him a guilty man...
I'm not so sure that you would be that laid back about. Let's personalise it a bit. You find out that your son or nephew who is 7 and been going on camps with the Cubs has had the cub leader taking him into his tent and sleeping in a double sleeping bag together. You'd go to the cub leader and say "I recommend you stop doing that as it's weird"?

Or you would be fucking furious and pretty sure that the cub leader was motivated by something more sinister?

I agree with you that he's not guilty until proven to be so, but that is also the nature of many sexual crimes...very hard to prove. My point is that having a string of little boys sleep in your bed with you in a huge house with lots of spare rooms is beyond being a bit weird, and is outright creepy and highly suspicious and if a little boy or girl in your family or one of your friends' kids had been doing this with some random man in his 30's or 40's you would not see it in such a relaxed light.
 
Reactions: ASL
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
Ignoring the question doesn't somehow make it irrelevant. Jimmy Savile was never proved guilty in court, do you think he was innocent? Yes or no?
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
The evidence against Savile was never tested in a court. It was against Jacko.
I know. The point is that if your argument is "A was never found guilty in court therefore he is innocent" then it is reasonable to ask the above question. The evidence from these recent claims was never tested in a criminal court either. I think Robson is a liar. I don't think it is logical to base your own personal views entirely on what a court found.

Do you think OJ was innocent?
 
Jimmy Savile was never proved guilty in court, do you think he was innocent? Yes or no?
I don't know.
Is there any physical evidence that he did anything or do we only have accusations?

Do you think OJ was innocent?
OJ was more than likely guilty.
There was physical evidence against OJ, the prosecution bungled their job...
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
I don't know.
Is there any physical evidence that he did anything or do we only have accusations?
Only accusations. A lot of them, from multiple people who did not seek financial gain and then there are the things he said himself in his books that are very sinister. But no physical evidence no.
 
Nov 14, 2015
8,225
7,665
I know. The point is that if your argument is "A was never found guilty in court therefore he is innocent" then it is reasonable to ask the above question. The evidence from these recent claims was never tested in a criminal court either. I think Robson is a liar. I don't think it is logical to base your own personal views entirely on what a court found.

Do you think OJ was innocent?
Yeah I get what you're saying. Being found not guilty does not mean someone's innocent. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion however the jurors deliberating on a verdict are privy to far more information about a case than a lay person who watches the news or casually surfs the net.

The case against an accused is only as good as the prosecution makes it. OJ did it but was lucky he had a good team against a gaggle of inept cops and prosecutors.
 
Reactions: Strike
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
So next to nothing in common with the Jackson case other than there being only accusations but no physical evidence...
Yes, but it was not used as a direct comparison to Jackson, it was used to highlight the logical flaw in just saying "He's not been proved guilty". That applies to lots of clearly guilty people. I am not saying Jackson is guilty or trying to get you to think he is, I am pointing out that a glib "Yeah you agree he's not been proved guilty" reply is completely redundant.

Do you have kids or young relatives?
 
Jun 4, 2012
25,827
15,942
"lots of clearly guilty people," like?

1) OJ.
2)...
So much deflection. I have no idea why you are so emotionally invested in MJ's innocence that you won't even answer a simple question. But you appear to now be insinuating that the only clearly guilty person to ever walk is OJ. :lol: By the same token I presume you think nobody innocent has ever been found guilty.

Off the top of my head for famous cases you can look up that were clearly guilty people who walked...Casey Anthony and Robert Durst's killing of Morris Black. Assuming you can't be bothered reading up on these, I will give you a quick run down on the latter...

Black was shot and dismembered. His arms, legs and torso were found wrapped in different bags and floating in a lake. His neighbour, the multi-millionaire, Robert Durst was arrested on suspicion and then bailed. He then fled the state, and was later caught with Black's driving licence in his car, 2 guns and $37,000 in cash. At trial he admitted that it was him who dismembered the body, but denied murder saying Black attacked him and as he wrestled with his attacker, the gun went off and shot him in the head. The police never found the head so couldn't check this.

Durst was found not guilty. :lol: Fled bail, had the murdered man's possessions and admitted to buying saws to cut him up into pieces and then dump the body parts in a lake, but they couldn't prove he was lying about the shot to the head because the head was never recovered...so innocent. :lol:
 
But you appear to now be insinuating that the only clearly guilty person to ever walk is OJ.
You said "lots." I just asked you to name some of your list with "lots" of names on it. You gave me 2.

Anyway, i'm not invested in anyones innocence. Jackson, Savile, Simpson never did anything for or against me so it doesn't affect me either way.
I just lean toward Jackson being innocent from the information I have seen.
I lean toward Simpson being guilty from the information I have seen.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Reactions: Aussie_Al