[Marsh.]

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, 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.

No one's used it as an excuse though? It's only ever been used to provide context to the type of person MJ was. Some people who experience trauma as children don't become functioning adults, whether that leads to abuse of others or self destruction. Not an excuse for their behaviour, an explanation as to their warped minds.

As for "If MJ was a regular member of society" I would say 80% of the things you list, especially his surgery and bleached skin most likely wouldn't have been the case if he'd lived an ordinary life. He can't be viewed as an average person, because he wasn't regardless of if he was a pedophile or not.

[thesheriff443]

Louis Theroux has said he believes Mj was a paedophil.

[Beso]

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

[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.

[Marsh.]

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.

And the BBC know something the rest of the world doesn't?

How ironic.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And the BBC know something the rest of the world doesn't?

How ironic.

Yes to be fair they probably do

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And the BBC know something the rest of the world doesn't?

How ironic.

They know the lay out of Cliffs apartment

[iRyan]

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

https://youtu.be/a4iDbssmTdY

[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.

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[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 .

[user104658]

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unfortunately when it comes to sexual abuse, be that paedophilia or rape in general it's extremely difficult to prove, especially if even a small amount of time has passed before a victim decides to come forward. The accused being found not guilty doesn't actually mean they are innocent, just that there isn't enough proof to convict. It happens in the majority of rape cases aswell

[Beso]

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

[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

[Beso]

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 .

[Beso]

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.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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.

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 ?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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 ?

It's what I believe to be true..

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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.

There's a lot of "probablies " in your assumptions as that's all it is , wild assumptions.

So now you think Culkin is predatory as well?? .

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

There's a lot of "probablies " in your assumptions as that's all it is , wild assumptions.

So now you think Culkin is predatory as well?? .

So you are presuming YOUR ideas ( as thats all they are, YOU have no proof either ) are right, and other peoples ideas are wrong ? How arrogant

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

There's a lot of "probablies " in your assumptions as that's all it is , wild assumptions.

So now you think Culkin is predatory as well?? .

I think there is a good chance he is...I take it from your assumptions you don't?