Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2

News

SO....what are our thoughts on michael jackson????

35 replies

tiredemma · 01/03/2005 07:39

my thoughts are - guilty as hell, i think the man is weird and his excuse of playing with little boys because he didnt have a "childhood" doesnt wash with me.
so why do so many others (oddly enough, his fans) believe him to be completly innocent and wronged by all of this.

the boy who has made these claims against him may very well be trying to get money and it may never of happened, but MJ does have a strange, un-natural fascination with young boys, which if he was a 42 yr old factory worker from wigan, would surely have been investigated and no parent would let thier child within 100 metres of the man.

just curious what you all think, DP thinks its all blown out of proportion...but i think that there is no smoke without fire...

OP posts:

Report

SeaShells · 01/03/2005 07:46

Innocent! I think he is not fit to stand trial anyway, don't think he's right in the head any more, I mean who does what he's done to themselves when they're sane!

I don't think he means any harm by the way he is with the boys, I think he has the brain of a boy and it's just like boys playing together, everyone knows he is mentally immature and besides after all the allegations a few years ago, who'd let their kids go play at his house anyway!

I personally feel he needs a mental hospital, not prison. I love MJ and it's so sad to see him getting worse as the years go by

jampots · 01/03/2005 07:52

I agree he isnt right in the head anymore but IMO its no good making excuses about his childhood - any abuser could do that and what makes him so special? I personally wouldnt allow my child to go play there if not only for the fact that I would prefer him to mix with children of his own age

Toothache · 01/03/2005 07:53

Seashells - I agree with you. He's got the mental age of a 12 year old!

I don't think he sexually abused those boys. But then will we ever really know?

Agree that kids shouldn't have been let up there to stay the night anyway. Very irresponsible of the parents and of MJ to let it happen.... it was a volcano awaiting to erupt. He's so niave that he doesn't realise he's set himself up for a terrible fall.

tiredemma · 01/03/2005 07:53

you are right. who in their right minds would let their kids play at his house.

i find your points on his mental health interesting, ive never heard anyone say that before.
he was extremly talented, especially his early stuff, i just dont understand his fascination with young boys and as i said before, if he wasn't a huge superstar we would no doubt be viewing this extremly differently.

OP posts:

franke · 01/03/2005 07:58

Naive? Or perhaps a classic paedophile - in complete denial about wrong doing and convinced that the victims are somehow culpable. I don't have any indepth knowledge about the psyche of paedos but from what little I have seen this self deception is a common theme.

If MJ is found guilty there will be plenty of soul searching about how we were duped by the pervert for so long.

jampots · 01/03/2005 08:01

if he has a mental age of 12 shouldnt he be living with his parents?

Toothache · 01/03/2005 08:05

Franke - Well it's quite clear you think he's guilty!

If he's found Not Guilty will everyone look to the parents of the children 'encouraged' to tell lies to try to get a massive 'out of court' settlement of a large sum of money? Horrible as it sounds there are parents out there ruthless enough to do that.

Isn't that another possible scenario? I don't know much about the case either, but I must admit that was my 1st thoughts when I heard he'd been arrested.

skerriesmum · 01/03/2005 08:18

I can't remember the exact details, but the family accusing him are not exactly upstanding citizens... the mother lied to the press about her partner abusing the kids. I say he's innocent until they prove otherwise.

franke · 01/03/2005 08:19

Well, I'm not absolutely sure I do think he's guilty Toothache. I'm aware of the problem of parents out to earn money out of this and that's what I thought 10 years ago when the other case nearly went to court.

But I must say when I saw him on the Bashir doc holding hands with the boy and saying he wasn't abnormal (what 12 year olds hold hands anyway?) I was a little taken aback. And I think it's true - if this was a hairy man from Wigan we probably would look at it a bit differently.

Toothache · 01/03/2005 08:21

lol - I hope none of the MN Dads are hairy men from Wigan!!

skerriesmum · 01/03/2005 08:22

The Bashir documentary quoted him out of context apparently (I'm not playing devil's advocate, really!)

nnosam · 01/03/2005 08:24

MJ is as guilty as sin, he needs locking away and the key melting into a pile of doggy doo doo.

Toothache · 01/03/2005 08:24

Skerriesmum - I thought I'd read somewhere that MJ was horrified when he saw how the Doc had been edited.

It is awful if those boys (or boy?) have been subjected to any kind of abuse, but I just can't fathom it!

If you suspect he's molester, why send your kids up there alone to sleep over..... unless you're setting him up, it's just too convenient!!

That's what I think FWIW.

skerriesmum · 01/03/2005 08:26

My sentiment exactly Toothache. Did you see that over the Christmas holidays 200 kids STILL went to stay at Neverland?!

franke · 01/03/2005 08:30

Actually Toothache - you are right, I do think he's probably guilty, but I think he'll probably get off. And the mother being a 'serial litigator' (which is what the defence will argue) doesn't necessarily preclude his guilt.

Yes, I think he was horrified at the doc editing, but nevertheless there he was holding hands with the boy - he's a man in his 40s FGS.

rogan2001 · 01/03/2005 08:38

the rumour is that he has'nt got any money and he has been in debt for a long time, so i don't think it was for money, I think he's just a pervert who has got away with molesting young boys for too long because of who he is and it is about time he paid the price. He is completly bonkers, and i still can't get over the images of him dangling his baby over the balcony and trying to feed it a bottle thru a veil whilst jiggling him about. very disturbing scenes.

Toothache · 01/03/2005 08:40

Franke - That doesn't make him a child molester though. There are men in their 40's who are mentally ill and perhaps he truly has the mental age of a child. To answer why he doesn't live with his paretns... would you live with his parents?? No, he has an army of 'adults' to look after him.

This is a subject that could be 'debated' over and over again. But even when the verdict comes in.... unless he admits guilt we'll never really know the truth. Either way a child has been properly fucked up.... whether its through the abuse from MJ or the abuse of his paretns making him do this. The whole thing is awful for the children.

MummytoSteven · 01/03/2005 08:47

i think it's a bit like Howard Hughes - that in some ways his fabulous wealth has impeded him, in that a more ordinary person would probably have been directed to appropriate help, rather than him carrying on as he wishes.

FairyMum · 01/03/2005 08:49

I think the parents of the children allowed to sleep in MJs bed are the most to blame. Parents should protect their children!

franke · 01/03/2005 08:49

Certainly agree with you there Toothache. It's a sordid tale where the kids are the losers. I wonder who's really looking out for them.

piffle · 01/03/2005 09:20

I think MJ is a human tragedy, I do not think he would intend to harm children but then again I do not think he understands boundaries and barriers, as if consent and spoiling kids with treats and overawing with your super stardom, makes acting beyond normal all ok.
I think it still amounts to an offence though.
Although I doubt he will get convicted, and then what happens to his kids?
What a pretty mess he has caused all round.
Like someone else said below, where and what where the parents thinking?

nutcracker · 01/03/2005 09:39

I can't make my mind up wether he is guilty or innocent.

I would find it hard to believe anything he said though after he said "I didn't do anything to my face" when asked if he had plastic sugerery.

northerner · 01/03/2005 11:48

I can't make up my mind either. He certainly seems to be a bit sick in the head, and he has admitted sleeping with young boys.

AS Eddie Izzard said 'If I was a millionaire paedophile I'd have a fair ground in my back garden too'

pinotgrigio · 01/03/2005 12:16

I was unsure until I read today that the prosecution stated that the police found that MJ had a stash of porn in his bedroom complete with his and his accusers fingerprints all over it.

I'm not entirely sure that the mother here is whiter than white either, but whatever happened if MJ is showing 12 year old boys porn then he's definitely not just a harmless old eccentric who likes playing with children to recreate his lost childhood.

tortoiseshell · 01/03/2005 12:19

Don't know if he is guilty/not guilty - do know that he ought to be regarded as not guilty till the end of the trial. I remember the bashing Matthew Kelly got on here, and he was never even charged. There's no point in having a justice system if the public just convict people with evidence gleaned from the media.

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.