Ok... But, O.J. Simpson.Besides he went to court for these type of accusations and was found not guilty. Surely if he had been guilty he would have been convicted or?
Corey Feldman is another one who was friends with MJ when he was young and also said that Michael was always just a very supportive and caring friend. And Corey is someone who has suffered a lot of abuse and has been very vocal about it.For me the most convincing testimony was that of Macaulay Culkin who spent time in Michael Jackson's bedroom and stated under oath that nothing sexual happened and all they did was play like kids.
People would say you're a creep and tell their children to stay away from you.Imagine yourself doing that? Having 7 and 8 year old friends when you are a grown middle aged man
Even if no abuse happened (I don't think I can form an opinion based on hearsay after someone's death) I always thought his sleepovers with young boys were freaking weird. But I certainly would not stop listening to his music over these.Even if you take away the suspected abuse aspect. Even then it's really unhealthy and shows a very damaged mental state. No?
Angela Channing said:If their allegations are true, why are they not suing Michael Jackson's estate for damages? Maybe because they know they can't win a legal case because the last criminal case against him was a spectacular failure.
Two of the most prominently featured former kids not only sued the Jackson estate but have filed an active appeal after their suits were thrown out for being beyond the statutory of limitations. So they're still trying to get money (they'd both testified in 2005 that MJ never molested them).But didn't one of the kids in the documentary, Jimmy file suit with the estate in 2014? Or they are doing it now? I am almost certain that they actually are in the process of suing the estate.
His behaviour was unquestionably weird when compared with most people who had a conventional upbringing but Michael Jackson's upbringing was anything but conventional. I always thought he liked the company of children because he was trying to recreate a childhood that he never had. Sleepovers, children's games and fairground rides were all part of a craving for normal childhood experiences that he was denied.I just don't see how people can think that the fascination with children would be so wholly innocent. Why would a man in his 30s, 40s and 50s want to just spend time with prepubescent kids, specifically boys. On what level were they in common?
He wasn't accused of being weird or eccentric, it just didn't help the case. If an adult spends the days and nights with children that aren't his then it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think that something sordid might have happened once he's actually being accused of said sordid thing.Because his life choices are outside what we would consider to be normal for ourselves, we try to rationalise it by thinking something sordid was behind it
But isn't all that just too perfect an excuse. He couldn't be a child abuser because he didn't have a normal upbringing? And the things he was offering these children were far from the normal childhood experience. Any adult knows that letting kids do what they want, stay up late, eat candy and junk food all the time, play games and have constant amusement isn't right. These are the kinds of things abusers do. They give children all that they want. Spoil them and bribe them.His behaviour was unquestionably weird when compared with most people who had a conventional upbringing but Michael Jackson's upbringing was anything but conventional. I always thought he liked the company of children because he was trying to recreate a childhood that he never had. Sleepovers, children's games and fairground rides were all part of a craving for normal childhood experiences that he was denied.
Because his life choices are outside what we would consider to be normal for ourselves, we try to rationalise it by thinking something sordid was behind it but for him he was just having innocent fun with other children.
Not according to the US criminal justice system that investigated him thoroughly, put forward their strongest prosecution case against him but still found him not guilty.I am not saying he was an abuser, what I am saying is that people's defence of him is equally as flimsy or strong as any evidence against him.