[Cherie]

Marlon says the family – and a team of attorneys, who put Robson on the stand to defend Jackson in 2005 – has been through all of this before. The surviving Jackson brothers don't know Safechuck, they say, but Taj did, and he calls Robson’s changed narrative the “ultimate betrayal.”

Family members have their own opinions about why Robson’s story has changed. The choreographer was grateful for an invitation to Jackson’s memorial – he attended with his family, Taj says – and danced “right behind” Janet Jackson for a tribute at MTV's Video Music Awards. He even “wanted to get close to MJ’s kids” in 2009, Taj says.


From left, Wade Robson, director Dan Reed and James Safechuck pose for a portrait to promote the film "Leaving Neverland." The Michael Jackson estate has sent a letter to the U.K.’s Channel 4 warning that the documentary on Robson and Safechuck, who accuse the singer of molesting them as boys, violates the network's programming guidelines.
Taylor Jewell/Invision/AP
But things soured, the family says. They say that when Robson was passed over to direct and choreograph Cirque du Soleil's "One" show spotlighting Michael in Las Vegas, his financial troubles began. That’s when they say Robson began selling off his Jackson memorabilia and pitching a book with allegations against the pop star before suing the family in 2013.

“It’s never been about justice for him," Taj says. "It’s always been about fame and money.”

The accusers' lawyer, Vince Finaldi, scoffs at the suggested timeline: "It's just another example of the Jackson press machine manipulating facts and telling half-truths in order to try and discredit a victim," he says.

Finaldi says Robson was hired to choreograph the "One" show but suffered a nervous breakdown and dropped out.

As described in "Leaving Neverland," "after the birth of his son, he started having visions of his son being abused by Michael Jackson and reflecting on the abuse that he suffered, and realizing how bad that was from a different perspective," Finaldi says. Robson pulled away from the entertainment industry, which he found triggering. "Did he suffer financial stresses because of it? Absolutely. But he's never been fired from a job in his life."

But the documentary, with graphic descriptions of alleged sexual abuse, prompts direct questions:

Was Michael Jackson ever sexually abused as a child? The brothers shake their heads. “Never,” Jackie says.

In “Leaving Neverland,” it’s alleged that the pop star would spend five or six hours at a time on the phone with young children. Doesn’t his family find this odd?

No, they say. “He would talk to me and my brothers for hours and hours,” Taj says. “My uncle didn’t have a (traditional) childhood, so he lived vicariously through children. He’d say to me: 'You’re so lucky you had a birthday party. What was it like?'... He was constantly trying to reclaim his childhood, and I don’t think people understand that, because people didn’t live though Michael Jackson’s life."

Do they acknowledge that their brother’s behavior was, at the very least, eccentric when it came to spending time with children, including nights in his bed?

Marlon Jackson calls it all innocent. “Taj is the same age as all these kids they used to spend nights (with) all the time. A bunch of kids would come over and have pillow fights, (watch) “Three Stooges,” swim, all this stuff. Watching movies, they’re tired, they’d fall asleep.”

“(Marlon’s) children were there,” Jackie says. “My kids were there. Tito’s children were there.”

After accusations of sexual misconduct, did the brothers ever suggest Michael change his behavior with children, whose hands he often held in public?

“We didn’t really have to,” Jackie says. “Because I knew my brother and what his mission was all about, was helping children, helping people around the world.”

The family calls Jackson an easy target, made easier now because under the American legal system, it's not possible to sue, shame or slander a dead man. The brothers point to Michael Jackson’s search to reclaim his childhood, international charity work, and how he’d open up Neverland to nearby hospitals and schools while he was touring.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/t...ey/3005672002/

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Marlon says the family – and a team of attorneys, who put Robson on the stand to defend Jackson in 2005 – has been through all of this before. The surviving Jackson brothers don't know Safechuck, they say, but Taj did, and he calls Robson’s changed narrative the “ultimate betrayal.”

Family members have their own opinions about why Robson’s story has changed. The choreographer was grateful for an invitation to Jackson’s memorial – he attended with his family, Taj says – and danced “right behind” Janet Jackson for a tribute at MTV's Video Music Awards. He even “wanted to get close to MJ’s kids” in 2009, Taj says.


From left, Wade Robson, director Dan Reed and James Safechuck pose for a portrait to promote the film "Leaving Neverland." The Michael Jackson estate has sent a letter to the U.K.’s Channel 4 warning that the documentary on Robson and Safechuck, who accuse the singer of molesting them as boys, violates the network's programming guidelines.
Taylor Jewell/Invision/AP
But things soured, the family says. They say that when Robson was passed over to direct and choreograph Cirque du Soleil's "One" show spotlighting Michael in Las Vegas, his financial troubles began. That’s when they say Robson began selling off his Jackson memorabilia and pitching a book with allegations against the pop star before suing the family in 2013.

“It’s never been about justice for him," Taj says. "It’s always been about fame and money.”

The accusers' lawyer, Vince Finaldi, scoffs at the suggested timeline: "It's just another example of the Jackson press machine manipulating facts and telling half-truths in order to try and discredit a victim," he says.

Finaldi says Robson was hired to choreograph the "One" show but suffered a nervous breakdown and dropped out.

As described in "Leaving Neverland," "after the birth of his son, he started having visions of his son being abused by Michael Jackson and reflecting on the abuse that he suffered, and realizing how bad that was from a different perspective," Finaldi says. Robson pulled away from the entertainment industry, which he found triggering. "Did he suffer financial stresses because of it? Absolutely. But he's never been fired from a job in his life."

But the documentary, with graphic descriptions of alleged sexual abuse, prompts direct questions:

Was Michael Jackson ever sexually abused as a child? The brothers shake their heads. “Never,” Jackie says.

In “Leaving Neverland,” it’s alleged that the pop star would spend five or six hours at a time on the phone with young children. Doesn’t his family find this odd?

No, they say. “He would talk to me and my brothers for hours and hours,” Taj says. “My uncle didn’t have a (traditional) childhood, so he lived vicariously through children. He’d say to me: 'You’re so lucky you had a birthday party. What was it like?'... He was constantly trying to reclaim his childhood, and I don’t think people understand that, because people didn’t live though Michael Jackson’s life."

Do they acknowledge that their brother’s behavior was, at the very least, eccentric when it came to spending time with children, including nights in his bed?

Marlon Jackson calls it all innocent. “Taj is the same age as all these kids they used to spend nights (with) all the time. A bunch of kids would come over and have pillow fights, (watch) “Three Stooges,” swim, all this stuff. Watching movies, they’re tired, they’d fall asleep.”

“(Marlon’s) children were there,” Jackie says. “My kids were there. Tito’s children were there.”

After accusations of sexual misconduct, did the brothers ever suggest Michael change his behavior with children, whose hands he often held in public?

“We didn’t really have to,” Jackie says. “Because I knew my brother and what his mission was all about, was helping children, helping people around the world.”

The family calls Jackson an easy target, made easier now because under the American legal system, it's not possible to sue, shame or slander a dead man. The brothers point to Michael Jackson’s search to reclaim his childhood, international charity work, and how he’d open up Neverland to nearby hospitals and schools while he was touring.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/t...ey/3005672002/

I hope you've not copied and pasted this

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Of course they don't ,wonder why.

Because the last one posted was half an hour long

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

I hope you've not copied and pasted this

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

I hope you've not copied and pasted this

She did link though, spot the difference

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Because the last one posted was half an hour long

Tbf though if we are to get a balanced view and we are willing to sit through 4 hours of accusations, we should at least watch some of the rebuttals, and I will Kazanne when I finish watching this one

[chuff me dizzy]

I haven't watched any videos defending MJ as IMO he's indefensible ,and watching people in the videos making out he was a saint is too much for me, I have my opinion from MJ over many years and nothing can change my opinion of him ,as have his fans and no one should tell anyone else they are wrong for being in whichever camp they are in

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

She did link though, spot the difference

Im joking

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Tbf though if we are to get a balanced view and we are willing to sit through 4 hours of accusations, we should at least watch some of the rebuttals, and I will Kazanne when I finish watching this one

Yes but I don't think he's guilty because of that show, I've thought he was guilty for years because of how he behaves with young boys, stuff that no video can say is lies because it's right there in photos, videos and from MJs own mouth

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes but I don't think he's guilty because of that show, I've thought he was guilty for years because of how he behaves with young boys, stuff that no video can say is lies because it's right there in photos, videos and from MJs own mouth

Me totally ^^^^

[bots]

Any information that comes out now is nothing more than navel gazing unless it's accompanied by hard evidence. Thats why I havent bothered watching the latest documentary. It's been produced by a producer with a specific agenda so it can't be considered investigative journalism. I've thought Jackson was dodgy for many, many years, and my opinion is not going to change.

Also, somewhat amusing, the BBC are saying that they are not banning his music, the original topic of the thread

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Never on her own ,she wasn't asked to be kept for a year either

Exactly.

Even if I watch clips/videos of these boys saying how much they loved him...even when they said they spoke the truth about him not touching them..even if they didn’t testify against him..it means nothing. These were two young boys who had secrets with MJ...MJ adorned them with gifts and they enjoyed his playground..he had a hold over them right up until his death and it’s now it’s their word against a dead man...a famous dead man. Even after they were pushed aside for younger boys they were still in awe of him...because of all the wonderful things he did for them and the love they had for him over powered the abuse.
Maybe telling their story will help them...and if it brings them financial gain then they deserve it...but let’s hope they don’t share it with their mothers who are as guilty of abuse as I believe MJ is.
I just don’t see any normal person can justify his mentality and behaviour and believe that the whole set up of Neverland was completely innocent.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

Precisely...agree whole heartedly.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was right

I watched one of the videos you posted Kaz...but to me it means nothing because of what I said in my post above. I could watch ten of them and still not be convinced of his innocence.
His money, influence and power...his gentle child-like behaviour gave him the opportunity to draw these young boys into his world and abuse them. WHY would he want to have them sleep in his bed? This is a grown man. I’m not afraid of seeing anything dodgy in their behaviour..to me it’s justified if they have suffered abuse.
However I don’t understand how anyone can justify how an adult man has a string of young boys for sleepovers in his bed!!

Ps...you know I love you but I’m on the opposite side of the fence on this one.

[Beso]

The boys simply said nothing in the beginning because they saw no wrong in it themselves...the metoo movement moved the goalposts.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Exactly.

Even if I watch clips/videos of these boys saying how much they loved him...even when they said they spoke the truth about him not touching them..even if they didn’t testify against him..it means nothing. These were two young boys who had secrets with MJ...MJ adorned them with gifts and they enjoyed his playground..he had a hold over them right up until his death and it’s now it’s their word against a dead man...a famous dead man. Even after they were pushed aside for younger boys they were still in awe of him...because of all the wonderful things he did for them and the love they had for him over powered the abuse.
Maybe telling their story will help them...and if it brings them financial gain then they deserve it...but let’s hope they don’t share it with their mothers who are as guilty of abuse as I believe MJ is.
I just don’t see any normal person can justify his mentality and behaviour and believe that the whole set up of Neverland was completely innocent.

Excellent post Rusti xx

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

The boys simply said nothing in the beginning because they saw no wrong in it themselves...the metoo movement moved the goalposts.

And I doubt they would have spoken out when younger due to MJ threatening them with life in prison

[Crimson Dynamo]

I am sure that every Jackson sibling knows that MJ was a paedo but they are happy to deny it as it would effect them and their cushy lives of adoration and wealth

they would rather lie and defend a paedo than risk what they have

what a vile family of vipers

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I am sure that every Jackson sibling knows that MJ was a paedo but they are happy to deny it as it would effect them and their cushy lives of adoration and wealth

they would rather lie and defend a paedo than risk what they have

what a vile family of vipers

Terrible family, always has been ,remember one of them calling Jade Goody and her family " White trash " Ive never believed and never will believe any of the children are naturally his, Paris is the image of Mark Lesters daughter ,he lied on Martin Bashiers documentary about Blanket ,saying 1st time he was in a relationship with his mother, then when asked again said he had never met her, she was a surrogate

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

would you trust Jackson with your 7 year old son to stay at Neverland alone in his room?

yes or no?

I have no children but no I wouldn't.

Their parents did though.

However to qualify a little, alone in a room doesn't itself mean bad.
If you feel and know you can trust an individual..
I wouldn't let them sleep in his room, no.

Then having said that too, abuse happens often by family members or neighbours.
Even at school by teachers.

Vigilance is what's needed with children.
Something these parents weren't bothered about at all.

So they trusted MJ.
All through too, their children showed no indication either of any abuse taking place.
Consistently, firmly denying it.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I have no children but no I wouldn't.

Their parents did though.

However to qualify a little, alone in a room doesn't itself mean bad.
If you feel and know you can trust an individual..
I wouldn't let them sleep in his room, no.

Then having said that too, abuse happens often by family members or neighbours.
Even at school by teachers.

Vigilance is what's needed with children.
Something these parents weren't bothered about at all.

So they trusted MJ.
All through too, their children showed no indication either of any abuse taking place.
Consistently, firmly denying it.

Some kids even into adulthood live in denial ,its their way of coping

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was right

Told you Kazanne.

It makes me wonder what we ever need courts or the law for..
When condemnation and judgement can just come from thinking, rather than substantiated hard evidence.

Then even when the result is, someone gets tried, then fully acquitted.
It's not valid to accept that.
Nor to even listen to the other side, or read it if the other person is dead.

Thank all powers that be though that the law does exist.
It would be a sad society indeed probably otherwise to have people judged on crimes,on likes or dislikes.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

remember one of them calling Jade Goody and her family " White trash "

Did that happen though

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

Did that happen though

Yes it did

[Tony Montana]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

Did that happen though

Yeah it did

Jermaine said it