Michael Jackson movie

[Crimson]

For every strange thing MJ did there's the equally strange aspect of parents putting their children in that (potentially) unhealthy situation.

Issues with the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts were an open secret / dark joke for decades, and parents still put their children in those situations. Like a lot of predators, Jackson perfected a benign mask. That Peter Pan persona was effective. There are still people who defend Jackson on the basis that he was "kid in an adult's body" or that he had a wretched childhood. As if basically every serial killer couldn't make that claim.

 

[Angela Channing]

You're ready to burn the monarchy to the ground over allegations directed at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who hasn't been tried let alone convicted. You're clearly not opposed to extra-judicial judgements affecting perception. That's ultimately my point: people apply curiously different standards to Michael Jackson than any other. Why, because they like his music? Because they were duped by his sexless man-child persona?

You are missing my point. If Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was tried in court of law, all the evidence of abuse was presented and he was found not guilty, I would accept the verdict. Michael Jackson was found not to be guilty in a criminal court and I accept that verdict.

I want to abolish the monarchy because it is undemocratic, unfair, bigoted and overly expensive. It's a completely different issue.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Issues with the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts were an open secret / dark joke for decades, and parents still put their children in those situations

Perhaps it's a small step from "parents allowing their children to sleep with Michael Jackson and totally believing there's nothing wrong with it" to "that situation couldn't make it easier for anyone to accuse him".
Not all child abusers are billionaires and I can imagine that some people would struggle to put that aside - regarding your question "what makes MJ's case different from other child abuse trials".
Also, it's not the lack of information, people have been overwhelmed with information from all sides and this has the tendency to blur things.
I'm not saying that this is my opinion but I can understand why the (alleged) flawed perception could exist.

I believe things have happened because the alternative "absolutely nothing happened" just seems too outlandish. I'm sure this idea would exist even without the allegations.
And yet, when people come forward after many years it all seems a bit too on the nose, too self-explanatory, too easy. If there's one thing I hate, it's people explaining a joke.

 

[Crimson]

If Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was tried in court of law, all the evidence of abuse was presented and he was found not guilty, I would accept the verdict. Michael Jackson was found not to be guilty in a criminal court and I accept that verdict.

Michael Jackson was acquitted in one instance of allegations, not a sweeping verdict of innocence. And I think you, of all people, know the rich and famous often have a leg up in these situations. And, no, I don't think you would accept the verdict. I think you'd be griping about a travesty of justice and two-tiered systems.

Queen Elizabeth II protected and covered for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor when he faced accusations of abusing Virginia Guiffre, even paying £12 million to prevent Ms Guiffre from telling her story in court.

And the multiple, multi-million dollar settlements Jackson and his estate made to keep accusers quiet aren't held to the same standard?

 

[Angela Channing]

Michael Jackson was acquitted in one instance of allegations, not a sweeping verdict of innocence. And I think you, of all people, know the rich and famous often have a leg up in these situations. And, no, I don't think you would accept the verdict. I think you'd be griping about a travesty of justice and two-tiered systems.



And the multiple, multi-million dollar settlements Jackson and his estate made to keep accusers quiet aren't held to the same standard?

I may sometimes disagree with verdicts but I always accept them otherwise what's the point of having a criminal justice system? I've never once griped about "a travesty of justice".

Although rich people can pay for better defence lawyers than the average person, the state has greater resources. Whether you agree with the verdict or not, Michael Jackson had a fair trial and the jury reached their conclusion fairly and independently.