[Jake.]

The “he missed his childhood” excuse people always use it completely bogus to me. My grandad didn’t have a childhood, he was beaten senseless by his father for the majority of his childhood life. Yet, he knew how to function as an adult and didn’t allow kids to share his bed.

If MJ was a regular member of society, living down your road, and had the bleached skin, ever-thinning nose and publicly stated that he saw no issues with hanging around with children on their own/having sleepovers in the same bed (and that’s before even going into the actual child molestation accusations), he’d be absolutely lambasted. The fact is, people don’t want to let go of the legacy he brought with his music.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

To paint Jacko as a child abuser. Obviously. A one-sided viewpoint that leaves a lot of information out and doesn't address anything that goes against what they want the viewer to believe.

Cause it's a documentary about the 2 boys, not Jackson.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

For him to say himself he shared his bed says he is not hiding anything most people wouldn't even mention that,it's not normal to us but in his mind it was, and the boys he apparently swapped the two accusers for have both said he has done nothing sexual to them,so if he wanted sex why would he have swapped them and done nothing ? maybe the accusers were jealous well they were the one admitted it.maybe their cashcow was running out.

When Michael said he shared a bed with kids that was the Bashir documentary and what started this whole thing off....if I remember rightly Michael had to backtrack on that statement saying he meant he offered his bed to children while he slept on the floor....the lying ****.

[thesheriff443]

Louis Theroux has said he believes Mj was a paedophil.

[parmnion]

And lets face it sherif, the BBC wouldn't pull his songs if there wasn't an ounce of truth in these claims.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

He could say he wanked off a flying pig, it's not evidence of anything.

There is simply not always going to be hard evidence in sexual abuse cases, especially those involving children. From the way it’s been described, Michael was extremely calculated in how he carried out the abuse. What other evidence could there possibly be other than the word of people who crossed paths with him? I’m sure he was smarter than to have child pornography laying around or have acts that occurred in his own home be recorded on camera. Although there was this particular instance of a housekeeper who testified against him, which rings very clear alarm bells:

“Once, when she was cleaning Jackson’s bedroom, she said, she saw Jackson and a child she believes was the Australian boy in the shower. The boy’s neon-green Spider-Man underwear was on the floor near Jackson’s white briefs, she said. She said she was familiar with their undergarments from doing their laundry.

On two other occasions, she saw Jackson and the boy in bed together watching television. They were partially under the covers and ‘both were nude from the waist up,’ she said.”

Source: https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/the-a...sons-maid.html

But by all means believe what you want I guess.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

True, but Macaulay in particular was one of the closest to him, so it seems odd that if his interest in children was sexual, that he would not only avoid abuse but have no knowledge of any of this behaviour happening with all of these children he spent so much time with.

Corey Feldman, well his own story is an entire volume of its own. From his own account he was passed around quite a big network of Hollywood pedophiles. Jacko not being included in this group of powerful entertainment industry influencers is, again, interesting.

Macaulay Culkin And Corey Feldman were also already famous Hollywood actors prior to meeting Michael, and perhaps had more consciously involved parents that weren’t as blinded or manipulated by MJ’s starpower. They weren’t plucked from obscurity and groomed like Michael’s accusers and their families. It seems likely that he would theoretically choose his victims based on who he believed he could get away with abusing.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by parmnion

And lets face it sherif, the BBC wouldn't pull his songs if there wasn't an ounce of truth in these claims.

True, but the bbc are looking after their brand /image, they are not doing for any other reason.

I also think it’s not a big deal as you can still listen to mj’s music on other stations and other formats.

[iRyan]

In other news, Corey Feldman has retracted his earlier statements, and no longer defends Michael.

https://youtu.be/a4iDbssmTdY

[Toy Soldier]

What's interesting is that the "everyone just wants money" defense has been used repeatedly - in every single accusation - for now nearly 30 years. It's become the stock line to dismiss anything anyone has to say negatively about MJ... Ever since that very first out of court settlement.

But like the "piece of work" director said in the GMB interview - who gives a supposedly lying-through-his-teeth 13 year old boy $22 million? Even for Jackson, that's not chump change. That's the sort of money you pay to make a problem go away. They did NOT want the Jordan Chandler case to go to court, but people (fans) refuse to even question why that would be.

They ignore that there wasn't "no evidence" in the 2005 case, and that it wasn't simply thrown out easily; the jurors were extremely conflicted but ultimately the physical evidence was lacking. They ignore that Wade Robson was the key witness in throwing doubt on some of that other evidence and that if he had said now what he's saying today, Jackson may well have been convicted. They tell themselves that people who change their stories "must just be liars", with apparently zero understanding of how long it can take an abuse survivor to process what was done to them.

They also insist that the claims have recently been "thrown out of court" despite it being easy to find the information on these recent lawsuits; they have been dismissed on technicalities involving the length of time since MJ's death, and contention over whether or not the management company can be held liable for the acts of the individual. They have NOT been deemed false claims.


But more than anything, you can tell from the incredulous, mocking tone of most of MJ's defenders that they simply don't want to believe it and will find a reason not to regardless.

I understand people saying "there's no hard evidence so I'm not willing to condemn him". But I don't understand people who are adamant that he DIDN'T do it, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof of his innocence either (yes, I know that's not how it works legally, but we're talking opinions here not convictions). The balance of probability is that he engaged in some very suspect activity but yes its based mainly on witness statement. So being on the fence, sure. Anyone "totally sure" of his innocence though can only possibly have their own reasons for not wanting to even consider it.

[parmnion]

I don't think anyone's using mocking tones TS...I think they are just as sure he didn't do it as some are that he did...I wouldn't regard that as mocking tones

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Jake.

The “he missed his childhood” excuse people always use it completely bogus to me. My grandad didn’t have a childhood, he was beaten senseless by his father for the majority of his childhood life. Yet, he knew how to function as an adult and didn’t allow kids to share his bed.

If MJ was a regular member of society, living down your road, and had the bleached skin, even-thinning nose and publicly stated that he saw no issues with hanging around with children on their own/having sleepovers in the same bed (and that’s before even going into the actual child molestation accusations), he’d be absolutely lambasted. The fact is, people don’t want to let go of the legacy he brought with his music.

Wrong Jake he had vitiligo which makes his skin have patches of white, that is a proven fact he did not bleach it he wore make up to even it out

[arista]

[Michael Jackson statue removed from National Football Museum, Manchester
amid sex abuse claims
A new documentary, being aired this week,
features claims by two men who say they were sexually abused by the popstar.

By David Mercer, news reporter

Wednesday 6 March 2019 19:45, UK]


https://news.sky.com/story/michael-j...xTk66lJmQdkxVc

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Wrong Jake he had vitiligo which makes his skin have patches of white, that is a proven fact he did not bleach it he wore make up to even it out

I’m fully aware of what it is, my mum has it. It’s not proven that he didn’t bleach his skin. It’s just proven that he had vitiligo.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by iRyan

In other news, Corey Feldman has retracted his earlier statements, and no longer defends Michael.

https://youtu.be/a4iDbssmTdY

Absolutely nothing in that that points to MJ being an abuser just that he couldn't defend him as he needed to let the 'victims' be heard as well ,He stated very clearly M J never touched him

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Absolutely nothing in that that points to MJ being an abuser just that he couldn't defend him as he needed to let the 'victims' be heard as well ,He stated very clearly M J never touched him

Yes he did.

I wasn't on about Corey when I said about Macauley and another guy.
The other guy was Brett Barnes.
Mentioned at the end of the documentary.

That both Brett and Macauley had insisted nothing sexual took place with Michael, with them.

So we have 2 stating nothing took place and no interview with them.
Only these 2 stating a changed story from themselves, saying it did.

Again I say, the message from last nights first part of this documentary, for me, only showed a jealousy and annoyance that those other 2, Macauley and Brett, had more or less supplanted them in Michaels inner circle.

I thought again about this on waking this morning and I just think they aren't telling the truth.
So my mind remains the same, this is a loaded documentary only looking one way.
I wouldn't want to rely in these 2 guys testimony on this at all.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

So we have 2 stating nothing took place and no interview with them.
Only these 2 stating a changed story from themselves, saying it did.

In this documentary, Joey. Overall there are five who have made abuse claims and three more who have mentioned sexualised behaviour such as watching porn. There are at least three more who refuse to talk about it at all (haven't made claims; but also will not say it didn't happen). Plus at least one staff member who has made claims, and family members of accusers.

To suggest that it's a "one person's word against another 50/50" situation is just not accurate, Joey.

Also even if he didn't abuse Brett and Mcaulay Culkin, that means literally nothing, because the bizarre claim that "paedophiles abuse ALL children they come into contact with" is straight up false.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Absolutely nothing in that that points to MJ being an abuser just that he couldn't defend him as he needed to let the 'victims' be heard as well ,He stated very clearly M J never touched him

I haven't read up much On Corey Feldman , but i get the impression he probably just doesn't want to be involved in this . But i don't understand why people ignore the fact that Macualy aswell who he was very close to defended him. I know a sexual predator doesn't have to abuse every child to be guilty but i still don't think there's concrete proof MJ was a paedophile.

And i 100% think if MJ was alive and kicking today then this documentary probably WOULDN'T exist . It's very suspicious 10 years later this comes out the wood work. It's all just a dirty money making operation to further drag his name through the mud as he can't defend himself.

And i don't even need to watch this documentary to know they'll just fit their own bias agenda that he was an abuser . I hate films like this as it's totally BS and it's hearsay and slander . If it was a fair unbiased portrayal with more facts and other sides of the story then it wouldn't be so bad.

And as predicted there's chunks of information conveniently dropped out . The aim is solely to make MJ look like a creepy disturbed grown man who groomed kids.

it's obvious what the motive was for this pathetic programme .And i think they want a cut of his estate .

[parmnion]

Culkin certainly changed once he started hanging out with Michael...that can't be denied.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Culkin certainly changed once he started hanging out with Michael...that can't be denied.

Plenty of child stars have "changed" whatever that means, see how easy it is to fit your narrative when you think someone is "guity" , i suppose MJ brainwashed Macaluy then ? .

Alot of the time the fame is too much too young and they don't know how to deal with it all.

There's adult stars who still don't know how to deal with fame and the media etc .

[LeatherTrumpet]

He put a huge amount of money and time and effort into embedding that into the public imagination,” Reed says. “Neverland, this sort of playground for children – of course designed to attract children and designed to be a playground for him as a rampant predatory paedophile – was a way for Jackson to hide in plain sight… ‘of course I’m walking along holding a little boy’s hand every minute of the day’ – not a girl’s hand, a boy’s hand – ‘of course I do this, because I’m just a child at heart and I love children; of course I’m going to spend the night with your little boy because we just like to play, it’s a slumber party’.

“It’s rubbish. He was raping those children night after night after night in the next room to their mothers. Spending days and nights in little boys’ homes. It’s the most appalling depravity covered up by this façade of angelic childlike purity – that lie was staring us all in the face for so many years.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2019/...chael-jackson/

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In this documentary, Joey. Overall there are five who have made abuse claims and three more who have mentioned sexualised behaviour such as watching porn. There are at least three more who refuse to talk about it at all (haven't made claims; but also will not say it didn't happen). Plus at least one staff member who has made claims, and family members of accusers.

To suggest that it's a "one person's word against another 50/50" situation is just not accurate, Joey.

Also even if he didn't abuse Brett and Mcaulay Culkin, that means literally nothing, because the bizarre claim that "paedophiles abuse ALL children they come into contact with" is straight up false.

I don't aceept that TS sorry.
All we are getting in this documentary is only these 2 guys accounts.

The need was felt to point out at the end, that both Macauley and Brett Barnes had continually insisted nothing sexual took place.
As the credits rolled st the end.

So in that it is a 50/50 scenario .
Although only hearing from the 2 accusers no one else on the programme of equal stature iassociated with Jackson, who would discount the story as to their experiences.

These 2 have an appeal coming up re the Jackson estate.
Interesting timing then with this documentary from them.
I'm sorry, I don't trust their accounts.

I believe it's likely it could be found to get others to say he abused others too, equally as many could be found discounting such claims.

This documentary is all set around only these 2 guys stories.
No one else.
I mentioned Macauley and Brett Barnes, simply because the programme makers, rather than interview them..
Only mentioned them at the end as the credits rolled.

The thing as to this documentary, is are these 2 accusers to be believed.
You clearly think yes.

I on the other hand say I would not trust their testimony on their allegations at all.
Even on this totally loaded one sided documentary only geared to and around their stories, and no one else's.

[Nicky91]

UH what weirdo does do something like that ''night after night after night''


and also like this wasn't already known to public, MJ did spend time with little children

Youtube video

only difference this was his own child, that is even more disturbing

or this video some yrs back where he was asked about this

Youtube video

did any radio station never play MJ songs anymore back then? NO

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Plenty of child stars have "changed" whatever that means, see how easy it is to fit your narrative when you think someone is "guity" , i suppose MJ brainwashed Macaluy then ? .

Alot of the time the fame is too much too young and they don't know how to deal with it all.

There's adult stars who still don't know how to deal with fame and the media etc .

Nah I doubt he brainwashed him, he probably did introduce him to addiction though and probably abused hom also...maybe culkin himself has a yearning for young boys and maybe that's his reluctance to testify.

[LeatherTrumpet]

There was nothing and i mean nothing in the manner, delivery etc of the 2 men's testimony last night that would lead you to think they were lying

my overwhelming takeaway from what their body language portrayed was that of acute sadness