I think he was vastly misunderstood and the media spun a whole different narrative based on the whole "sleeping with boys" thing. All of his accusers have shady backgrounds with a clear axe to grind.
--Michael D. Clarke
Why was it just…young BOYS that he did these little sleepovers with? Why not kids in general? (Though that would have been extremely strange as well)
shareThat's basically how I see it. The two accusers, who knows? Both of them had suspect parents. But let's say MJ didn't put a hand on either boy. Even having said that - his behavior was bizarre. Why this compulsion to sleep with boys? I tried to be open minded about it, but I can't understand it - I had no such compulsion when I was a little boy. It doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously the people around him never said a word because they didn't want to get canned. However, I'm surprised his parents didn't say something to him. Or maybe they did, we'll never know. The guy was great, no doubt about that - but he was weird. His weirdness goes beyond any acceptable levels.
shareInstead of just hearing "sleepovers with boys" & allowing your imagination to take it to a perverted place, (with the help of anti-MJ tabloid press) you need to listen to firsthand accounts from people like Macauly Culkin who for years have provided a clear context of the "sleepover" scenario & how thoroughly innocuous it was. Details like how Michael's "bedroom" was a two story flat with multiple bathrooms and MASSIVE beds, where he was known to host guests of entire families, not "just boys". If the mere idea of a man sharing small amounts of his time with and mentoring boys is in & of itself inappropriate to you, then maybe you should start scrutinizing institutions like the Boy Scouts & Big Brother programs. It was never a scenario where he was snuggled up with boys in a bed. Not at all like other well-known figures such as Elvis Pressley who was known to do with underage girls eventually, starting a relationship with one when she was 13-14 years old, eventually marrying her. Tangible evidence that there was always a sexual implication with Elvis' "sleepovers" Evidence that does not exist with MJ, yet Elvis is given a pass. Funny how double standards work.
shareSorry. But first I should say - I'm not in any way convinced Michael Jackson molested anybody. Everyone around him had agendas. Who knows what did or did not happen.
However, I don't think, as a fully grown adult male, you should share any kind of a bed, of any size, with young boys. Even if it's innocent, it looks strange. It looks strange for a nobody - Jackson was a world wide celebrity. After he was accused and paid, you'd think he would cut it out - but he didn't. Seems to me more like he had a compulsion that was bizarre.
It's anyone's prerogative to feel it "strange", no matter the context, for a man sleeping in the vicinity of family friends, guests & (including but not limited to) their kids but that does not denote anything inappropriate beyond one's own personal conjecture. After the first extortion case was dismissed, Michael may not have dramatically altered his life by refusing to associate himself with kids (like any innocent person not wanting to their life to be controlled by tabloid fallacies wouldn't, especially when helping children is one of their passions) but he did in fact impose strict boundaries to protect himself in the following years. Measures that helped the Arvizo grifter family case get laughed out of court. The fact that it even made it to court was a disgrace.
shareYeah, I hear you Threadkiller. We're not far off. But personally, I wouldn't do what he did - and I'm a nobody. After Michael got cooked for 20 mil - if it was me and I was him - I'd have never put myself in the same position again. True, he won the second case - but in fact - he still looked bad.
And yes, in total agreement, I'm not saying he did anything. In fact it's quite possible he did absolutely nothing wrong. But still, he was Michael Jackson. You can't be too careful if you're him.
Wade Robson said nothing happened for years to protect pedo and then said it happened. He either didn't touch Macauly Culkin because he was too famous. Or Macauly Culkin is simply lying, not wanting to get into all that drama. Not to mention it's embarrassing and many victims don't want to be looked as this.
Elvis Pressley got pass because he married his girl and had a child with her. It's not like it was repeated behavior. Even tho it was shitty. If he would constantly invite young girls for sleepovers he would be called out.
No adult man should hang out and sleep over with young boys. No, his excuse that he was "boy inside his soul" does not stand. As boys that age do not behave like that. They hang out together but don't do constant sleep overs. They go play video games and then do other stuff. And then they grow up and do teen staff.
For years Robson's testimony in Michael's defense held up unflinchingly under harsh scrutiny. Why? because he was telling the unfiltered truth. It wasn't until recent years, where he and Safechuck transparently made-up new stories for a payday did their new accounts completely fall apart under the mildest amount of scrutiny. You can choose to live in a "I'll just believe what I want" anti-Michael Jackson hate bubble for as long as you like but the evidence has always been stacked against you & only increasingly so over the years.
P.S. Elvis' behavior WAS repeated. He had already been known to have private, handsy "sleepovers" with adolescent female fans (i.e. groupies) well before he met Precilla. If Jackson had been revealed to be gay & groomed a "totally nonsexual" romantic relationship with an underage Macaulay Culkin & later "married" him after he turned 18, the way Elvis did with Precilla, don't pretend like that would not have been well beyond enough to crucify him legally & in the court of public opinion. Precilla publicly admitted to Elvis spending a lot of time with her in his bedroom for "passionate" kissing & caressing sessions when she was 14 for crying out loud. It's extra disturbing when you realize THAT is obviously the "clean" version.
It's not only about Robson and Safechuk. It's about the fact that he took random young boys and forced them to live with him and was taking them with him on tors the way artists take their girlfriends. Telling them he was their best friend. Then was kicking them out like they were trash once they aged out to become teenagers. To never have contact with them again. You don't do that to a "friends".
And there were other cases he settled out of court, I think.
He WAS pedo. What ever his fans want to close their eyes and pretend he wasn't.
Re: Elvis. Every popstar sleeps with groupies. It was creepy he was seeing her while she was young. But they didn't come at him that much since he wasn't dating 13-years old ones repeatedly, changing them over every 6 months. He married her and had his only child with her and was never seen with another young like Priscilla. And times were different and he was too famous to be cancelled.
Jackson was getting over with it for many years too because he was megastar. And was cancelled in the Internet era when he was out of his prime and people and media stopped been scared to call him out.
🤣
shareIf one of my friends said that he is just "a boy inside his soul" and wanted to sleep in the same bed as with young children, just them alone, I'd give him a bank hand and call the authorities.
shareMichael was not retarded or a childlike mind. He knew that he was a full grown man and that sleeping in the same bed as kids was weird. That is why I still find it hard to believe there was no weird sexual stuff going on. Even with just kids having a sleepover if there is the option of separate beds it is always taken and obviously Neverland had more then one bed.
sharesocial media / new$ : A WITCH! A WITCH! BURN HER! BURN HER!
justice : How do you know she is a witch?
social media / new$ : She looks like one.
justice : Did you dress her up like this?
social media / new$ : Well, we did do the nose. And the hat, but she is a witch! Burn her!!!
I believe he did.
Who takes such an interest in children other than women?
Boy scouts? Big brother programs? Feed the children? Do you believe those all to be secret child molestation operations? Helping children happened to be one of his passions. It's well beyond the point it being a "YOU" problem for anyone who still clings to that fallacy about Michael Jackson. There's literally more evidence available that explicitly supports his innocence than any other person falsely accused.
shareHaven't the Boy Scouts had issues with covering up molestations? I seem to recall hearing that several years ago.
shareHave they? I don't know but what I do know is that the Boy Scouts as an institution has never been scrutinized as some secret child molester front operation on the basis of "Why else would grown men want to spend time with boys?"
share[deleted]
Did he or did he not have children sleep over at his home while he was over 18?
shareChildren sleeping over at your home is not molestation. But sleeping with you in your bed is another story.
shareIf you're an adult
(a) why are children who are not related to you, sleeping at your home; and
(b) why are they sleeping in their bed or playing around with you on your bed?
But hey, you believe what want to believe - I can understand it being difficult to accept unpleasant truths about people you like.
LOL. You can't be serious with that nonsense.
shareIntentional or not, the Martin Bashir interview destroyed MJ for sure. And he dug his own grave in that 60 Minutes interview. Here's a really short clip of the 60min interview with his answers to sharing beds with children and whatnot...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKti-AjG2w4
This is certainly not proof that he did sexual things with children, but I have a few issues with the answers he gave and I quote -
"totally false, before I would hurt a child I would slit my own wrist".
To some extent, I think MJ was dodging the question here. Many pedos think they're not harming a child when they do something sexual to them. So, immediately he goes to, "I am not harming anyone and if I did, I would feel terrible about it" rather than just simply saying, "not true, never happened, the fact is, the accusers are just doing what their parents have instructed them to do etc..etc..."
Next answer -
"I helped many many children"
again, somewhat dodging, not a direct answer.
"Of course, of course, why not"
I would imagine a few people watching this interview felt like punching Jackson when he said this. lol...
But again, certainly not proof that he has slept with children. But yeah, I got issues with this answer for obvious reasons. Then he goes on to say -
"thats how we were raised"
So now his parents told him sharing beds is ok, I thought his father was a real asshole? At least according to what limited knowledge we have of him. So, now his father is a good ole guy that's kind to children. Hmm... just a strange comment in my view.
I do think society's general perception of adult/child relationships should only be between a grown woman and a child, not a man and a child. With this line of thought, men are not seen as nurturers or care-givers of little kids. To me, that is somewhat unfortunate that it's considered taboo for a man to show love for a child. Jackson might have genuinely thought he could care for kids but society doesn't really accept it.
But that is only you trying to see "proof" when there is none, and you admit yourself that it doesn't make a case against him.
None of those quotes was him "dodging a question", he was only stating the truth about his innocence.
And seriously, why can't we leave a man who has been gone for fourteen years alone either way?
I do think criticizing MJ has reached its expiration date but it's the kind of thing that people won't stop talking about for many years and probably because of his status. After all, he was one of the biggest pop stars of all time.
But yeah, definitive proof is not something we'll ever have, I mean, no one took pictures or filmed what happened.
However, we have some evidence through testimony and a few documentaries with his accusers saying he did these things. And honestly, his own behavior sunk him deeper into trouble. Seriously, why build a kiddie park on your own property? Why have sleep-overs with boys? Why have a boy sit on your lap in a public place? Why tour with boys?
That's not to say he definitely did something inappropriate but it's just odd behavior. Who does this?
It doesn't matter what you believe. Facts are facts.
He took random young boys and forced them to live with him and was taking them with him on tors the way artists take their girlfriends. Telling them he was their best friend. Then was kicking them out like they were trash once they aged out to become teenagers. To never have contact with them again. You don't do that to a "friends".
He only liked them while they were of young age. He didn't like them as persons. Because he would then be friends with them once they would be teenagers and adults.
Literally none of that is true. You proclaim that "facts are facts" then immediately precede to go on a tirade consisting 100% of sensationalized tabloid fiction that you pulled out of thin air which shows that you're arguing in bad faith. This is commonplace for obsessed anti-Michael Jackson slanderers because you know the "actual" facts that can actually be verified do no support your preferred narrative.
share
Question for you - would you allow your 5 year old male child to spend a night with Michael Jackson?
Would you take your kid of whatever age (not sure why you arbitrarily decided on 5 years old) to stay over at "anyone's" house, under any circumstances, if they happened to be a close family friend or associate who you trusted? If no, then that's your prerogative & completely irrelevant.
shareWould you take your kid of whatever age (not sure why you arbitrarily decided on 5 years old) to stay over at "anyone's" house, under any circumstances, if they happened to be a close family friend or associate who you trusted?
Yes? Well good for you then. You recognize context.
shareHe was accused of it then paid off his accuser. theres the admission of guilt. you don't pay people off when you're innocent. jackson was rich he had access to the best lawyers, so you fight for your name to be cleared. you don't pay people off so it goes away.
if he was innocent the first time and paid the kid off, why put himself in this situation time and time and time again? because like a man who bangs his secretary, knowing he could lose his home, 50% of his shit and the kids... if it comes out. it was a sexual urge he couldn't control.
it was proven he had shown kids porn and gave them wine. why only boys and not girls? if it was all about his "lost childhood" ??
no grown man holds hands with kids, especially not 14 year old boys.
if the old man called jeff who lives at the end of your street did 1/100th of the things jacko clearly clearly did and even admitted to. would you let your kids stay over? no, you'd be at his house with a pitchfork.
the things america let this man get away with because they liked his music is beyond words. they enabled him.