Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10469280)

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.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10469295)

Why do you keep making scenarios up in your head , this is why things like this 'story' told last night get distorted . people put their own spin on it and sometimes that is a but odd in itself , I can understand you hate the bloke but really c'mon , why all the he 'probably did this and he 'probably' did that, he also PROBABLY didn't , but who cares about that ?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10469244)

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.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10469291)

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

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10469270)

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

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10469300)

Yes there was LT , the lack of emotion for a start , the very detailed description they remembered from years back , the keeping of the 'gifts' and the background information on these two needs to be brought to the forefront , as someone said facts don't lie,humans do, all we got was hearsay from two guys who were pissed off that he moved on,what's the betting there will be several more accustations now , they are bound to be 'sad' where do they go from here.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10469300)

Yes there was LT , the lack of emotion for a start , the very detailed description they remembered from years back , the keeping of the 'gifts' and the background information on these two needs to be brought to the forefront , as someone said facts don't lie,humans do, all we got was hearsay from two guys who were pissed off that he moved on,what's the betting there will be several more accustations now , they are bound to be 'sad' where do they go from here.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10469303)

Pissed off that he moved on from what. Moved on from a friendship? So that he could start a new friendship with someone younger?

Do people often "move on" from friendships to start new ones?

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10469302)

I always felt sorry for him actually, his family (particularly his father iirc) didn't seem like they protected him at all and saw him as a meal ticket more than anything. It is possible (and this is pure speculation on my part of course) that Macauley could have been abused by Michael but "loved him" and felt it was mutual maybe and is protecting him for that reason. I think Maccauley and Michael probably had a very similar kind of a childhood (or lack of)

Originally Posted by Nicky91 (Post 10469307)

that is quite Obvious in MJ's case, agree with you about his father, when Michael was just dead, at his funeral his father was promoting more albums for public to buy/stream and what more music to be released from MJ posthumously

:facepalm: i was like wtf, this is seriously worst timing ever to promote his music, his children were sad and all he thinks about is more sales from his music

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10469291)

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

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10469308)

I was talking about Macauley Culkin and his father there

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10469306)

It's sounds even more sinister if you ask :

Do adult men often "move on" from friendships with young boys to start new ones with younger boys?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10469312)

People's reasoning is that he just "liked being around childlike innocence" because he saw himself as a child, so when the kids grew older he wanted new children to be around "but innocently".

Honestly I still say that REGARDLESS of the abuse claims, I cannot fathom how anyone can defend that action? Taking in a kid, treating them as though they're special and amazing, and then dumping them like a cold bag of sick when they hit 14 to find a replacement? It would be a horrendous thing to do to an adult, let alone a child! Not criminal but indefensible IMO.

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy (Post 10469321)

1) Who silenced La Toya ?

2) Do the same people wanting the dirty get to "RIP" think Saville deserved to RIP too ?

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10469325)

Smooth FM have now banned his songs

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10469322)

Jimmy Saville couldn't sing as good though so ..........

Originally Posted by Nicky91 (Post 10469337)

ban his music now from radio stations, while this has been a topic for so long

yes i can see the logic in that :joker: