- 29,325
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is all explained in 'Leaving Neverland' - have you bothered to watch it?
I would say 'show me your evidence'.
The fact is, however, there is a mountain of evidence (photos, videos, recordings and witness testimony) that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jackson engaged in unusual, long-term relationships with young boys - this is not only undisputed, but verified repeatedly by Jackson himself. But the question is, what precisely was the true nature of those relationships? Only Jackson's lawyers and the individuals involved really know the truth.
One of the major issues here is that Jackson didn't consider himself an adult - and therefore, he likely didn't consider his relationships with children as inappropriate (although he did apparently know all too well that it was against the law). If his 'partners' had been over 18, there would be no issue - there was never any assertion of coercion or violence, and by all accounts these sexual acts were seemingly 'consensual' (albeit that consent cannot legally be given by a minor). But the flipside to this observation is that Jackson seemingly didn't think that there was an issue with having long-term (and, by many accounts, sexual) relationships with whom he considered as 'other children' (the insinuation being that he himself was also a child).
This goes a long way to understanding why some of his former partners have been so reluctant to accuse him of 'abuse' - because, at the time of it happening, it didn't feel like 'abuse' - on the contrary, sexual contact with Jackson was (apparently) perceived as evidence of the strength of their mutual commitment... however this would later be called into question for each individual as it became apparent that Jackson (clearly) had more than one 'special relationship'. It is also very possible (although I would say unlikely) that some of Jackson's closest relationships (e.g. with Macaulay Culkin) were not sexual relationships, meaningly that their personal testimony that Jackson was not a paedophile could very well be 100% truthful as far as they knew... but while Culkin's testimony carried a lot of weight, the same cannot be said for those who reported things very differently.
But while none of us can be certain as to the true extent, if any, of Jackson's sexual activities with young boys, there is hard evidence that Jackson owned copious quantities of homosexual pornographic and erotic literature including nude images of children. As far as I know he was not found guilty of possessing images of child sexual abuse, but the evidence that does exist stands in stark contrast to the assertion that Jackson was not sexually interested in young boys or homosexual.
The powerful and detailed testimony of Robson and Safechuck must be considered in the context of the available evidence and verifiable facts. And as such, their testimony is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that Jackson was a paedophile.
