All the charges were proven to be false about MJ after the families said they were simply after money.
Personally, I don't believe that, he paid $25 million to Jordie and his parents, settling over, instead of fighting against, claims of child molestation does not tend to be conducive to a position of innocence. Fair or not, it is a fact that paying a settlement looks like an admission of guilt, a clandestine way of maintaining one's reputation without incurring (further) public or even legal scrutiny, he also paid off at least two other boys and/or families. (And by "paid off", this is a differentiation--arguably a small one--between his giving of gifts to the parents of boys, even if they are million-dollar checks!)
The MJ affair was a bit more complicated than that, and a nice example of a bunch of people not being able to keep their boundaries. MJ did have friendships with children because emotionally he was a child himself. They did share his bed as MJ and his siblings used to do in their cramped appartment when they were still a poor family. I do not think anything sexual was going on, but he should have kept boundaries. The kids' families were just as bad, not questioning the inordinate ammount of personal time their kids were spending with effectively an adult stranger. Only when there was money to be had did they sit up and take notice. As for Jimmy Saville: denial and avoidance are people's most favorite coping strategies. Abusers are not stupid: they pick their victim carefully, selecting those who are quiet, shy and lonely or neglected; the ones who are needy for attention and awestruck by the status and power of the abuser. They don't go for the confident, extrovert kid who will kick up a fuss and tell its attentive parents. They know how to use their position of power, status and trust. They know that people will rather deny or avoid an uncomfortable possibility than pursue it. They know that children have no language to explain sexual abuse and that it's still a man's world (and in his hayday, even more so) where the word of a low-status young woman is not taken as seriously as that of a high-status male celebrity. So if Jimmy Saville was up to no good it is not surprising if his victims only dared to come forward after his death, and after others did.
There will be no justice here. People will allege and admit to anything if they think they can make money out of it.
What, like people who are guilty of a crime will alledge and admit to anything to evade punishment? Gosh, do you think legal processes are designed to take that into account and still get to the bottom of things?
At least when you have due legal process, you get to hear both sides of the story. With this it's just accusations. Edit: Oh and hearsay.
I think I might have hit the nail on the head, The can of worms has been opened. This is creepy watching this, recorded 2000, horses mouth All the latest updates new I'm sure people can get from their usual sources. Bad crack IMO.
My two cents: Drop it - the man is dead and all that can happen is for his reputation to be tarnished. The dead don't care about their reputation. Repercussions may happen to his family, which are likely to be innocent in all this. If the allegations are true, then he was a disgusting creature - not worthy of being called a human being, especially in today's society IMHO. But at the end of the day, whatever is done now, Jimmy will not care about. Instead, I think all the efforts in this case should be focusing more on the current abusers - the ones that are alive and still doing whatever sick, depraved things that they do. Prevention is the greatest thing that can be done for these crimes.
No, it needs to come out. If its true (and surely there is no smoke without this much fire) then it should be bought out for those victims. Imagine how they would feel if it hadn't have come out and all these shrines to Jimmy Saville exist. Its not going to be any real comfort to them, but its something.
One of the most painful aspects about being abused is the sense of shame, isolation and loneliness. The abuser tells you that there is no point protesting; nobody will listen to you. Nobody will believe you. If anything, they will blame you. In the case of Saville's victims, this pretty much turned out to be the case. The truth will set you free. To have the injustice, violation and betrayal acknowledged and validated is an important step towards coming to terms with what happened to them. To continue see their abuser being revered as a virtual saint is a continuation of the injustice done to them, and a continued invalidation of their experience. It is also a powerful message to children currently being abused, that if your abuser is powerful enough (which in the eyes of children adults often are) and popular enough, nobody will believe you. Jimmy Saville is dead, but this is not just about him. It's also about his victims, and about other children being abused by other perpetrators right now.
As Nexxo said, I think its a case of "the truth will set you free". Its some form of closure to the victims and lessons can and should be learnt from this given its true ofc. The bigger problem if true is usually something on this scale has more than one person involved.
I love how people are under the impression that we are ever going to find out the 'truth'. With 50% of the investigation being dead, you'll never get to the bottom of it. Criminal burden of proof is to satisfy a jury of twelve people that 'beyond all reasonable doubt' he was guilty of committing these allegations. That will never happen, unless they start digging around his possessions and find loads of pictures of himself doing inappropriate things to said victim's. The family cleared his belongings long ago so that won't happen. I completely agree that an investigation should take place; Beyond anything else, if someone alleges it Police have a duty to. So we cannot just let it lie. This however does not mean that the victim's will get closure. Out of all of these allegations, someone will eventually admit that they only done it for the money, and that will immediately cast doubt over all the others that could potentially be telling the truth.
Yup, because most ordinary women from all walks of life will accuse just any well-liked and respected figure of sexually abusing them as a child, just so they can make a buck. Retired nurses and police officers will just lie about this to get their 15 minutes of fame. There's critical thinking, then there's cynicism, and then there's paranoia.
There will always be those cynics that say they are doing it for the money, that seems to be an unfortunate side effect of the kiss and tell tabloid culture that has arisen around people in the limelight. From my own perspective I think the weight of testimony leaves little doubt that He was guilty of the acts he has been accused of. There doesn't seem to be any links between those that are saying they were abused and to say they are all just doing it for the cash seems pretty far-fetched. You also have to take into account those that are saying that they knew of or witnessed incidents of abuse, these people have nothing to gain by it and are more likely to be vilified by the public for not coming forward at the time.
why has it taken esther ransom , 30 YEARS to says omething? she knew and didnt say anything? what a hypocrit running a childrens helpline
I think people sticking by the "Get over it" is horrible, like its just something in life that is supposed to happen and that you can just accept. The investigation is clearly not about bringing him to justice anymore, but to find out why it was never brought to light i sense a large amount of turning a blind eye. What i hate seeing is the amount of people that are appearing on the news claiming they witnessed things happening should be ashamed of themselves a woman saying she saw him kiss and grope a sick child in her hospital bed, why the hell did'nt she say anything.
there is also the cover up side where many people involved are still alive. Like I said, you'll likely find more than just one person at the center of this. Goodness knows how far into the BBC or even some charities this goes.
...And let the judgement begin. Esther Rantzen did not witness anything; she heard the rumours that everybody else heard. Like other people, she was loathe to repeat such serious accusations based just on hearsay which nobody really was sure to believe. It is only now she heard recent victim and witness testimonies that she started to piece things together and conclude that these rumours must have been true. She did, actually, but she was ignored. She had no proof. It was the ramblings of a woman still under the influence of anaesthetics (there is such a thing as post-operative confusion. It can come complete with delusions and hallucinations. His barrister would have torn her testimony to shreds in court). Jimmy seemed such a lovely, caring guy --I know a professional who met him as they worked at the same hospital. She is not dumb or gullible. He really appeared to be a nice guy. Abusers work on their public image, as it is part of their cover. The repercussions of accusing him of something this serious could be career-destroying for the accuser. People may know right from wrong but they also have mortgages and families to think about. And if your superiors don't believe you, then where do you go?
