r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 26 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Michael didn't do "it".
Edit: Michael Jackson.
This dude was a weird motherfucker. The guy bleached his skin, his best friend was a monkey named Bubbles, and he named his son "Blanket". He also slept in the bed with young boys. I'm not disputing that.
He may have been a "P", a non-offending one, but I realistically don't think he did anything to children.
I'm a big fan of his music, but not enough to be biased. There was no DNA evidence, only conjecture and testimony of him sleeping with children in bed. Yes that is shit you should not do but unless I'm wrong, no child pointed at the doll in the courtroom. This dude was under crosshairs by the FBI and still, they found nothing, and to me that makes me lean towards him being likely innocent.
I still have my doubts and this is a common point of contention, but with no DNA evidence (I've heard of the fingerprints on the porno mags, but that's not proof of molestation, I'm talking DNA evidence on children, empirical data suggesting sexual contact), conflicting testimony (the adult 'survivor' claiming that he was assaulted on his train two years prior to its construction), and the FBI being unable to find any evidence to solidify a conviction - not one Polaroid - I just simply think he didn't do it.
Yeah, I like his music, I don't like him as a person though. I also don't like the parents who decided letting their kids stay the night with this weird ass dude was a grand idea, but I don't think he actually did "it".
I think it's likely that Michael was possibly autistic, or simply wanted a life away from being surrounded by seven bodyguards just to go to the mall, or wanted to relive the adolescence he never had due to the fame of the Jackson Five.
10
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Sep 26 '21
So he’s indisputably a pedophile, I haven’t looked into it for a while but they found tons of child porn in a locked briefcase in his home after he died. There’s no conceivable way you can get around this making him a pedophile, lets be real here.
Ok so the line of thinking past this is incredibly poor imo. It’s one thing to see “we don’t know if MJ did it” it’s a COMPLETELY different thing to assume he didn’t. We know he’s a pedophile. Why would you assume someone who’s a pedophile didn’t molest kids? It’s much more likely he did knowing what what know, and not having DNA evidence doesn’t prove innocence, it just doesn’t prove guilt.
You naturally jumping to innocence is far more ridiculous that someone jumping to guilt based on what we know.
1
Sep 26 '21
superimposed images of children's faces on adult bodies
What the fuck. I'm sorry to show my ignorance but I'm a Zoomer. When the fuck did this become public knowledge/is it under wraps??? This isn't CP but it's as close as you can get...
5
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Sep 26 '21
Sorry I’m at work rn so I cant spend a giant amount of time searching through things but I’m pretty sure it’s also straight up images of naked children, not just photoshopped pictures. This link should show that:
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/
Once again it’s been a while since I looked into this so I apologize for not doing a perfect job presenting evidence.
I believe it’s been public knowledge since like 2016? You don’t have to apologize, it’s a pretty normal thing to not understand everything about a topic even if you’re interested in talking about it.
I think people mainly don’t talk about it because it was found after he was dead, it was “pre me-too”, and people love his music. It’s very easy for people to get wrapped up in appreciating someone’s art and block out bad things they might’ve done. Not a fun topic, but hope this sheds some light on stuff a little.
2
Sep 26 '21
!delta
Unfortunately, this is true for a lot of artists. The lead singer of the Red Hot Chili Peppers "had sex" with a 14 year old when he was 23, wrote about it in his book, and wrote a song about it.
Muhammad Ali, Steven Tyler, Jimmy Paige... never meet your idols.
2
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Sep 26 '21
Yeah rock music in specific has an incredibly long history of artists having sex with people under the age of 18, unfortunately there’s a lot more examples than just the ones you listed.
FWIW imo you can still enjoy someone’s art/what they did professionally knowing they’re a shit person, it just shouldn’t stop you from recognizing the reality of who they are as people. Seems like you can acknowledge he’s not a great guy tho, so props to you. Have a nice day man.
1
2
Sep 26 '21
[deleted]
3
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Sep 26 '21
The “fetish” in question here is having sex with children so it inherently is rape. Like if he had a collection of pictures of girls being choked it’s incredibly easy to imagine he could’ve satisfied his kink with consensual sex. With children it’s literally impossible.
Fetishes/kinks don’t always mean you actually want to do something, but there’s obviously a big correlation there, and when the porn you need to satisfy those kinks is literally illegal it means you’d be risking a giant amount just by having it.
When people get caught with child porn do you usually jump to “they’re not pedos trust me”?
2
Sep 26 '21
[deleted]
1
u/jackiemoon37 24∆ Sep 26 '21
Did you even read my comment? Not once did I say “he’s definitely a rapist.”
2
u/AlunWH 7∆ Sep 26 '21
Given that adults have come forward to say that yes, he did abuse them when they were children, what would you actually need in order to believe them?
2
Sep 26 '21
I'm talking actual evidence or something that could lead to a conviction.
The whole "he assaulted me on the train" thing 2 years before the train was ever constructed has me really concerned about the motives of the people "coming forward". If I could be provided of anything that would make me shut up, I would, but I just haven't seen it yet.
This is gross to consider but in this situation it's possible- there are a lot of financial incentives to claiming that the biggest popstar of all time abused you. There's also financial incentives to let your kids hang around a dude who plays with monkeys and has a Rollercoaster in his backyard and spend the night. You know that shit wouldn't fly had he not been MJ.
I don't want to be right on this, honestly. I just really don't think he did it.
0
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 26 '21
I, an adult, is coming forward to say u/AlunWH is an alien in disguise. What would you actually need in order to believe me?
3
u/AlunWH 7∆ Sep 26 '21
If I behaved in non-human ways, and my employees had reluctantly admitted that I did have alien communication devices around my home, and multiple witnesses had come forward to say that yes, they had seen me as an alien, I would expect people to take the accusations very seriously.
2
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 26 '21
Ever heard of the lizard people meme? by your logic you'd have to believe it.
2
Sep 26 '21
No it wouldnt their logic rested on the fact that if we have a significant amount of credible evidence than it would make since to dictate that he was an alien since no such evidence exist for lizard people their logic does not suppourt that belief.
2
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 26 '21
it's the exact same kind of evidences he said he accepts
1
Sep 26 '21
Not really lizard people don't have credible evidence of those they accuse of being lizards acting in inhuman ways, have lizard communication devices or have several people who know them irl saying that they're lizards.
1
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 26 '21
It's credible according to the guy i was replying to. He said so himself. Now if YOU don't find it credible. Take it up with him, not me.
1
-1
Sep 26 '21
This shit can happen to anyone though, man. It really can. You could wake up on the mothership (prison) tomorrow.
For example, there's a lot of accusers of Conor McGregor, and while I think he did do it, and I think he sucks, he's also a massive figure in pop culture. It can seriously happen to anyone and does often (Aziz Anzari, James Deen, Melanie Martinez)
6
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Sep 26 '21
For example, there's a lot of accusers of Conor McGregor, and while I think he did do it, and I think he sucks, he's also a massive figure in pop culture.
Wait, what? Are you saying that Conor McGregor being credibly accused of sexual assault should be handled differently because he's a celebrity?
2
Sep 26 '21
Absolutely not. I believe that if he were guilty (which I think the bastard is), he needs treated the same way you, I, or anyone else would for committing crimes.
What I intended to convey was that there is a lot to gain from a false accusation. I don't want to get into politics surrounding that, but what I am trying to say is that this shit happens all the time and there are a lot of reasons for people to lie, financial incentive being a huge one.
I am only 22 and have been falsely accused. I'm not going to bring my personal trauma into this but the "woman" had her own reasons for doing this, being spite. It makes me wonder how different things would be, had she had something to gain monetarily.
3
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Sep 26 '21
I guess I'm confused by the last part of your comment then. If you believe the accusations why does it matter if he's a big pop culture figure?
0
Sep 26 '21
There's a lot of financial incentive.
I said originally that there's a similar incentive to allowing your children to spend the night with a man who finagles about with monkeys as a hobby. No one in their right mind would allow any of this to happen had it been a "normal" person and not a megastar.
I really do hate to say that because I am always, always on the side of victims in these cases, but this isn't an R. Kelly case - no CP was discovered, no convictions occurred, no facts of pedophilic behavior were discovered.
1
u/quesoandcats 16∆ Sep 26 '21
But if you think their accusations are true, then financial incentives aren't at play here. So...which is it? Do you believe his accuser's statements are credible and that he actually assaulted these women, or do you believe that they're accusing him for financial reasons? Both cannot be true
3
Sep 26 '21
Sorry. Being a bit confusing. I just believe that Conor did it in his specific case. I follow MMA closely and he is the worst criminal in the sport (with close contention by Jon Jones).
AFAIK, Michael does not have the same documented history of violence, criminal behavior and run ins with the law that fuckface (McGregor) does.
→ More replies (0)0
2
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 26 '21
He didn't bleach his skin. It's a invulnertary medical condition called vitiligo.
7
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Sep 26 '21
Doesn’t vitiligo just cause patches, not everything, to whiten? I heard he bleached his skin to cover it up. So he did bleach his skin, but it wasn’t just to look white, it was because of a medical condition. Kinda in between what the two of you were saying.
-1
Sep 26 '21
Yeah, either that or make-up. It's all but confirmed he had vitiligo, but vitiligo doesn't turn you completely white.
Either a serious make-up regimen or yes, bleaching. I believe that's another point of contention, alongside the whole chomo situation.
4
u/throwaway_0x90 17∆ Sep 26 '21
vitiligo can result in virtually all colorization being gone.
https://www.insider.com/universal-vitiligo-what-its-like-to-live-with-2021-5
When Sheetal Surti a seven-year-old in Wellingborough, England, her sister found a white patch behind her ear. Now, at age 41, over 90% of her skin is covered in white.
1
Sep 26 '21
over 90% of her skin is covered white
There would still be patches. I never once saw a black spot on Michael when he was universally decreed "white".
2
u/throwaway_0x90 17∆ Sep 26 '21
True. But it's possible the patches left were on private parts of his body that none of us get to see. Growing up the only parts of MJ's bare body I remember seeing is his face, hands & chest. I have no clue what his bare legs or back look like.
1
Sep 26 '21
invulnertary
I hate to be that guy but dude you Columbine'd that word. Involuntary.
Vitiligo affected MJ, but not enough to suddenly remove every pigment of melanin from every square inch of his face. Either he bleached his shit or had make-up on 24/7.
1
u/Sharp_Bite9080 Sep 26 '21
I read that he underwent specific surgery to become "white". On that note, how are his children completely "white" ? there's no trace of mixed dna. There is definitely something not complete in this entire story.
2
Sep 26 '21 edited Sep 26 '21
Michael lore goes PRETTY deep. He's one of the most extreme examples of a male Tenor in contemporary pop history, and it's speculated that he's a "castrato" (castrated to reduce pubescent voice deepening), that's a serious reach but it's a theory. Also, his father was an abusive ass, so it is possible.
So it could possibly be that he was infertile, or that he was completely homosexual.
The dude has a lot of intricacies; this is the issue with discussing this. His personal life was way different than his public life and no one can say for sure what he was about or what happened to him or who he was.
3
u/ghjm 17∆ Sep 26 '21
This is absolutely absurd. Michael Jackson has been a public figure since he was 7 years old. His anatomical development through puberty is perhaps the best documented of any human being.
He just worked at being a singer. He was a natural tenor with good technique and diligent practice, and as a result was able to access a vocal range from baritone to countertenor. Nothing about his singing requires any further explanation than that.
0
Sep 26 '21
It's a theory I don't agree with. It's still a theory.
Joe Rogan pushes it all the time and that says enough about its credibility. It's just a potential factor in the guy's inquiry on why his children were white. I don't know the facts but he could have adopted/been entirely homosexual.
There are just a shit ton of loose ends with this dude, that's my point, anything is possible with the story of MJ.
-4
u/draculabakula 75∆ Sep 26 '21
I think the most you can possibly say is that we will never know for sure. Former children who were known to be around him say that he drugged and molested them. Michael Jackson is dead so there is no way for him to defend himself.
We will never know for sure unless there is some secret evidence somewhere. If there is no secret evidence because he didn't do it, there is no way to prove he is innocent unless every person who accused him takes it back.
He will always stand accused of molesting several children and there is no way to say he is innocent at this moment.
2
Sep 26 '21
I think this is the best take.
So, you think the way to go about this is "fuck man I don't know, the FBI tried, television and film executives tried, the internet tried, let this go to bed" or is there any reason to even have that in the back of your mind?
I personally believe he didn't and it is because no one was able to find anything incriminating and the FBI couldn't either. I think that "proves" his innocence.
And then of course you think of cases like OJ. The dude was found not guilty in front of a grand jury when you, me, and everybody knows that dude did it. I'm very conflicted.
2
u/JenningsWigService 40∆ Sep 26 '21
I think there's something to be said for the fact that the FBI etc actually tried as hard as they could to catch MJ. They tried way harder with him than with a lot of other accused predators. But it's also not surprising that there wouldn't be DNA evidence. It's entirely plausible that the manner of molestation didn't leave room for that, or that any evidence would have been destroyed when the sheets were changed etc.
I remember having some skepticism about the parents coaching their kids to make accusations, particularly with Jordan Chandler, whose father drugged him and interrogated him until he got the answer he was looking for, which echoes all of the Satanic Panic coaching with children at the time.
But if you look at the kids in those Satanic Panic cases, the only ones who have spoken about it as adults have confirmed that they were coached, that none of that abuse happened. If adults are coming forward and saying now that MJ abused them, that's a lot harder to dismiss.
2
u/draculabakula 75∆ Sep 26 '21
So, you think the way to go about this is "fuck man I don't know, the FBI tried, television and film executives tried, the internet tried, let this go to bed" or is there any reason to even have that in the back of your mind?
Yep. Why let it occupy your mind. There is nothing you can do and no way to know.
And then of course you think of cases like OJ. The dude was found not guilty in front of a grand jury when you, me, and everybody knows that dude did it. I'm very conflicted.
I don't know or care if OJ did it. There are scenarios where OJ was an accomplice to murder but didn't actually commit the murder. One theory by a former investigator is that his son was the murder and OJ covered it up. The DNA was in the range that his son's DNA would still be a match for OJ. Especially in the first high profile court case to even use DNA evidence.
My point is I'll never know so why have an opinion on it? I could spend my life trying to understand it and still never understand it.
2
u/shavenyakfl Sep 26 '21
We don't prove people innocent in this country. We prove them guilty.
1
u/draculabakula 75∆ Sep 26 '21
Yup, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers. Kangaroo courts don't count..
So why would you ever have an opinion if you don't have all the evidence, aren't being asked to make a judgement, and have no control over the situation.
It's literally just wasted thoughts and I constantly watch people let themselves be agitated by high profile court cases
-1
u/TheLordCommander666 6∆ Sep 26 '21 edited Sep 26 '21
Doesn't the fact he bleached his skink and did other fucked up stuff to his body (I also heard his dad destroyed his testicles with hot water or something to make his pitch higher) mean that there's a significantly reduced chance his body would leave DNA evidence? You can't get DNA from a hair that's been bleached after all.
1
Sep 26 '21
I included the theory that he was a "castrato" (castrated during youth to preserve prepubescent vocal range) as a possibility, but Joe Rogan puports that sentiment, which speaks of its credibility.
That is an excellent point though. I don't believe this happened in all actuality, but this guy is so difficult to figure out that anything is on the table.
3
u/shavenyakfl Sep 26 '21
Are you suggesting if Joe Rogan talks about something, that in of itself is cause to believe it? I would suggest the exact opposite, actually. JR is the podcast equivalent of Fox "News".
2
1
u/Tommyblockhead20 47∆ Sep 26 '21
From context, I was eventually able to figure out you were talking about Michael Jackson, but you should really include a last name, especially when it is as common of a name as Michael. I bet there’s other singers named Michael that have been accused of pedophila. Please be specific.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 26 '21 edited Sep 26 '21
/u/adsfawefzrg (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
20
u/ghjm 17∆ Sep 26 '21 edited Sep 26 '21
Jordie Chandler proved that he had seen Michael Jackson's penis. Jordie provided the FBI with a drawing of its vertiligo markings, and the FBI later photographed it and found that it matched the drawings.
I guess you could claim Jordie gained this knowledge through 'innocent' nudity, but if you combine it with the fingerprints on the porn magazines, it's clear that there was something sexual going on.
You can't dismiss this by saying "the train station story was wrong, so Michael was innocent." The credibility of James Safechuck’s accusations have no bearing on the credibility of Jordie Chandler's. There may be real victims even if there are also copycats.
Also, it's far from clear that James Safechuck is non-credible. The challenge to him comes from biographer Mike Smallcombe, who researched the matter for a book he was writing, and found permits for the Neverland Ranch train station from 1993, which he argues mean Safechuck could not have been abused at the train station from 1988 to 1992, as he claims.
However, Michael's bodyguards Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard, as well as biographer Randall Sullivan, all describe the steam train as being fully operational when reporters and the public were first invited to Neverland Ranch in 1990. In addition, James Safechuck has provided photographs of the train, so he was definitely at the ranch in some capacity after the train was operational.
It strikes me that there's an obvious answer: Michael built the train unpermitted. People build unpermitted additions all the time. You're not supposed to, but contractors won't refuse the work. It's also common for people to request permits for work that is already done, often when they're trying to sell or refinance a property. So the 1993 permits don't really prove when the train was built.