Michael Jackson documentary

[psychocandy]

Only watched part 1 so far.

Always though Jackson was probably a paedo. However, watching this I'm now probably convinced the other way now that he was not.

Certainly "strange" but thats it. Those two on the programme just came across as a pair of lying scumbags keen to cash in to be honest. Some really dodgy "facts" and of course, they know nothing can be proven one way or the other.

Most interesting that the kids who came into Jacksons life AFTER these pair such as Macauley Caulkin say nothing ever happened. I'm guessing Caulkin isn't short of cash like these pair so doesn't need to make up crap.

Also, interestingly that years ago both denied any wrongdoing from Jackson. Could be argued they were still riding the Jackson gravy train at the time and only afterwards when they were left high and dry did they decide to change their stories to cash in.

[xoggoth]

Hard not to be biased on these things. I tend to think him and Rolphie are innocent 'cos I liked them.

Not watched it. Was there any actual evidence? He was acquitted because the real evidence provided at his trial was dubious.

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police? | The Michael Jackson Allegations

PS If it is true at least not as bad as being molested by Cyril Smith. Can you imagine that? Bleeegh!

[psychocandy]

Hard not to be biased on these things. I tend to think him and Rolphie are innocent 'cos I liked them.

Not watched it. Was there any actual evidence? He was acquitted because the real evidence provided at his trial was dubious.

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police? | The Michael Jackson Allegations

PS If it is true at least not as bad as being molested by Cyril Smith. Can you imagine that? Bleeegh!

No evidence at all. Just a long story about how he befriended both boys and invited to him to his house etc. (which was not disputed).

Then they both go into pretty much identical descriptions of the sex acts he performed on them. Pretty obvious that they'd compared notes and made sure the stories were consistent. How a 7 year old wouldn't even say some of the stuff to his parents is beyond me.

Both sets of parents came over as pretty bad - they seemed happy to ride the gravy train of free holidays, 1st class flights etc.

No proof at all. Too easy to make up the complete story to be honest.

[xoggoth]

Must watch it on catchup. Always wondered why technology has not come up with near perfect lie detectors yet. Would save a lot of time and we could sack a lot of *** lawyers.

[TheGreenBastard]

Why does a non-retarded adult invite children (unaccompanied by parents) to their house?

Regardless of a sexual motivate, it's all a bit weird... But you're right maybe that's my predetermined bias talking.

What does Occam's razor imply?

[b0redom]

Pretty sure weird is how his own upbringing was described though. I saw something at the time of his death where they said he'd been thrust into the limelight at a very young age. Apparently his dad used to allow paying visitors to look at him whilst he was asleep when he was little, then there's the whole plastic surgery thing. Pretty obvious he was not normal.

I've not seen this documentary though.

[psychocandy]

Why does a non-retarded adult invite children (unaccompanied by parents) to their house?

Regardless of a sexual motivate, it's all a bit weird... But you're right maybe that's my predetermined bias talking.

What does Occam's razor imply?

Without doubt hes not right in the head. doesn't make him a paedo though.

[TheGreenBastard]

Without doubt hes not right in the head. doesn't make him a paedo though.

So: he's not right in the head, has a predisposition to "entertain" young boys at his house (unattended), but knows what is and what isn't appropriate, i.e. knows not to molest or force them into any sexual situations.

I'm with William of Ockham on this one.

[minestrone]

Only watched part 1 so far.

Always though Jackson was probably a paedo. However, watching this I'm now probably convinced the other way now that he was not.

Certainly "strange" but thats it. Those two on the programme just came across as a pair of lying scumbags keen to cash in to be honest. Some really dodgy "facts" and of course, they know nothing can be proven one way or the other.

Most interesting that the kids who came into Jacksons life AFTER these pair such as Macauley Caulkin say nothing ever happened. I'm guessing Caulkin isn't short of cash like these pair so doesn't need to make up crap.

Also, interestingly that years ago both denied any wrongdoing from Jackson. Could be argued they were still riding the Jackson gravy train at the time and only afterwards when they were left high and dry did they decide to change their stories to cash in.

I always had him down as probably not, although these friendships with children were, hmmm, unacceptable.

Haven't seen the program but I've noticed a few people mention it was not exactly convincing.

[Old Greg]

Wouldn't have let him babysit my kids.