Michael Jackson

Dirty finger or no dirty finger, the man is dead, so we'll never know beyond the shadow of a doubt if he was a pedophile or not.

So, who's ready for the media circus when all the vultures start coming out to peak at the corpse for dollars and cents, should be some serious scumming about.

Well, this is the way i've always seen it. MJ was a repressed 10 year old. He obviously had mental health issues, but he just didnt fit the profile of a paedofile imo. The man never had a childhood, and i believe he was searching for it for the rest of his life. I could be completely wrong - maybe he was a paedofile, but that's never been my belief.

What's a "pedophile's profile" to you?

Good point. Like i said, he could be. I just have a feeling he was innocent, a feeling doesnt need an explanation, but i'm now aware that "repressed childhood" and "mental issues" could definately make that profile.

Holy shit, Stun! You just described everyone in the world!

😛

Originally posted by Impediment
Umm......isn't that a little like saying "I'm gonna put my hand into the piranha tank. If my hand isn't eaten, then I'll do it again. If it [b]IS eaten, then I won't do it again."

So..............where does common sense prevail here? [/B]

No, because piranhas, whether you personally know them or not, are capable and likely to devour your flesh in minutes.

I would have no reason to assume someone is a paedophile.

Bad, bad analogy. Like, shamefully.

-AC

Originally posted by Impediment
I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

Many many mothers did- none of them ever said anything happened until AFTER they realised there was money to be made from it. Where is the evidence for that? The fact the original claimant approached MJ's lawyers for money BEFORE reporting a crime.

The fact that MJ allowed kids to sleep in his home or even his bed proves nothing beyond he was a little odd. I think most people accept that it is possible that MJ did at some point make a mistake by asking an inappropriate question or maybe at a push inappropriate touching. However, that does not make him a paedophile. He was quite disturbed I believe and maybe made mistakes- but nothing harmful or malicious. Let us recall the Home Alone star who was and is still adamant nothing ever happened that was wrong when he was with MJ.

MJ was found innocent after a grueling trial in Law Courts and the Court of Public opinion. The case against him put forward in this thread is not based on any evidence- all you guys seem to have been able to demonstrate is that it was possible for MJ to have inappropriate contact with kids and that he enjoyed being around young people. This is not evidence of anything other than that.

Being a little odd, having kids stay over at his house does not make him a paedophile.

That's essentially what this debate degenerates to, a debate about whether or not his odd actions were acceptable, because there's evidence of nothing else.

They're none of anybody's business besides his and the families, so they don't need to be accepted by anyone.

-AC

Michael's corpse is rotting as we speak.

No point in calling him a pedophile now.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Michael's corpse is rotting as we speak.

No point in calling him a pedophile now.

Well if he was, then there is a point.

But the FACT is there is no evidence to suggest he was. All the evidence amounts to is: "He was a bit odd and liked to spend time with some children." That is not evidence of him being a paedophile in any way shape or form.

I think what he meant was that there's no point continually calling him one, even if he was.

-AC

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well if he was, then there is a point.

But the FACT is there is no evidence to suggest he was. All the evidence amounts to is: "He was a bit odd and liked to spend time with some children." That is not evidence of him being a paedophile in any way shape or form.

I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)

The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)

It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

So in every single case where a man has those relationships with a child he is in fact a sexual predator?

The court disagreed with you by the way...

Originally posted by jaden101
Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

Originally posted by jaden101
Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

Originally posted by jaden101
When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)

So my babysitter as a child was grooming me and my brothers for sex?

Originally posted by jaden101
The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)
It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

Nothing you have presented is viable evidence, it can easily be explained away for what it is- a vague portrait painted around the character in question (MJ) but made opaque enough to share the incidents with indeed, millions of men. Some of whom are predators...

Once again, he was found not guilty- it wasn't some sort of sham trial either, everyone was trawling over it and he was found innocent. Where is your actual evidence?

Where is the records of children complaining IMMEDIATELY after the incident?

Where are the reliable eyewitness accounts from reliable characters?

Where is the forensic evidence?

What really surprises me is you haven't brought up the fact that one child was able to describe MJ's discoloured- white/black genitalia...I guess you really have to research your case against Jackson deeper.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)

The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)

It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

It's logically not enough to prove it, either.

Just shows that it was most likely that he was.

All it objectively shows is that he liked being around kids. None of that inherently implies any sort of sexual relationship or interest, and so it's bunk.

Exactly.

None of this shows he was most likely a man who sexually abused young children, not at all.

-AC

May his soul rest in peach,he is on of the great pp star,his music will be with us forever

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.

None of this shows he was most likely a man who sexually abused young children, not at all.

-AC

I wouldnt go that far.

People'll disagree but, meh, my kids wont ever be round in a 45 year old opiate addict who acts within paedo grooming profile parameters' bed....

So in short:

-MJ showed behavior that is similar to known pedophile profiles

-MJ was accused of being a pedophile

-MJ wasn't convicted of being a pedophile

Conclusion:

-There is no chance MJ was a pedophile

I find this all very, very odd, from the people that have absolutely no doubt (100% certainty) he wasn't. Considering they'd probably do believe OJ killed his wife and her lover.

-OJ showed violent behavior and made threats

-OJ was accused of murder

-OJ wasn't convicted of being a murderer

Conclusion:

- OJ killed and got away with it due to his celebrity status, his money and idiocy from those accusing him.