Did Michael Jackson sexually abuse children?

Question

There's been endless controversy over the late 90s and early-ish 2000s about Michael Jackson and sex allegations with children. This whole article is about it.

This is the original article from BBC in 1993 when the allegations first hit the news:

1993: Michael Jackson accused of child abuse

I have always wondered this since it was so bloated on the news and media for such a long time, and then everything regarding this case just vanished without much explanation, and everything carried on.

Did he ever sexually abuse children? Do any reports/sources/evidence prove it was true/false?

As you know, [he was found not guilty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson) in his trial. It is difficult to see how Skeptics.SE will give a fairer trial than a US Court. What sort of evidence would you expect to see that would convince you that he was innocent? What sort of evidence would you expect to see that would convince you he was guilty, given a jury in a court, with more time and resources than we have, found him innocent? [I am not saying juries are infallible. I am saying second-guessing them seems futile.] — Oddthinking, Dec 18 '13 at 02:04
@Oddthinking: Skeptics.SE is not held to the same rules of evidence admission. Some critical evidence could be ruled unmissable in court due to improper police procedures, for instance, or may have been uncovered after the trial (but insufficient for a retrial), and which would still be valid in drawing a reliable conclusion. But that's just in theory. In practice, in this particular case, I don't think we will do any better... :) — Flimzy, Dec 18 '13 at 10:57
@Flimzy, this needs a meta question. Courts have different standards of evidence, including allowing the accused the chance to respond, and defaulting to not guilty in the absense of evidence - two rules are probably appropriate for defamatory claims liek this one. — Oddthinking, Dec 18 '13 at 11:19
@Oddthinking If the trial evidence and conclusion is the best info out there, that should be an answer. — , Dec 18 '13 at 18:40
Meta: [Are allegations of infamous crimes off-topic?](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2621/are-allegations-of-infamous-crimes-off-topic-for-skeptics) — Paul, Dec 19 '13 at 07:34
@Oddthinking I agree that yours should be an answer to this questions. Trials are, by definition, the closest thing we have as to a description of reality. We certainly can't do any better here, besides flagrant and well documented cases of injustice. — Sklivvz, Dec 19 '13 at 08:16
Four things- (1)No court of law ever found him guilty. Him putting himself in bad situations makes him naive; but does NOT make him guilty. (2)Children that have been around him but are now adults have not accused him like Macaulay Culkin. (3)Never trust the tabloids when it comes to Michael Jackson. The lies they created on him made me lose my faith in the media. (4)Finally, listen to his interviews. He does not seem like someone out to get pleasure from hurting someone else. Rather, appears sometimes like a man-child who probably could relate better to kids. He does not seem cruel. — Phil, Jan 11 '17 at 18:48
FYI, folks, when reading @Phil's comment, read #2 as "not accused him, like Macaulay Culkin (has not)" or "now adults, like Macaulay Culkin, have not accused him." As written, it might look like Phil is stating that Culkin did accuse him, when he is not. — PoloHoleSet, Dec 04 '18 at 20:54
@PoloHoleSet Dude, if something is unclear, rather than guess or say the first thing to come to your mind- ASK QUESTIONS! Also, reading the context helps. I do admit, my comments need proof-reading. What I said is that Culkin is an adult who hung out with Michael Jackson and Culkin never accused Michael Jackson of anything inappropriate. — Phil, Dec 05 '18 at 01:13
@Phil - that's exactly what I'm saying that you intended. I don't have to guess because I'm familiar with the fact that Culkin has stated, on the record, as an adult, that Jackson never acted like a perv, he was just an odd, shy child-like individual. Since I know that, I was able to correctly understand the ambiguity left by the combination of the phrasing and lack of comma. But someone who did not know what Culkin said, and maybe is familiar with all the innuendo and assumptions might take it differently. Not sure why you are upset about me getting it exactly right. — PoloHoleSet, Dec 05 '18 at 15:34

score -1 · Answer 1 · edited Mar 09 '22 at 17:38

To sum it up: We don't know.

The issue of child molesting is not the same as, say, a bank robbery. It is usually a hidden crime where no others are involved. The evidence comes down to the victims' ability and mental surplus to carry out a court case and ends often in a word fight.

It is connected with not only personal shame but also public shame for victims to stand out, so they refrain and suffer.

Because MJ won in 2005 it doesn't say much. On the other hand, he settled in the first case in 1994 for $23 million. That doesn't prove that MJ was doing something wrong, but could be a way of getting peace.

What Macauley Culkin says doesn't really matter either, and MJ being a nice person in public or even towards his own friends and family is also not a trustworthy indicator - criminals rarely carry a badge. The TV shows on HBO aren't proof either.

There could be a multitude of other MJ victims that we don't know of - or there could be none. We'll never really know until someone comes forward with hard evidence.

Welcome Dirch, this at present doesn't fit our evidentiary standards and might have been better posted as a comment. Please take our [tour] and read-up in the [help] for guidance as to our ways. If it had been on-topic to post an answer without supporting evidence, to be "balanced" it would need to point out the pro incentives of publicity and cash and public acclaim for the accusers (and cash-hungry parents), then there's the bandwagon effect. — Jiminy Cricket., Mar 09 '22 at 16:53

Did Michael Jackson sexually abuse children?

1 Answers1