About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Kazanne · 07-03-2019, 08:36 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-03-2019, 08:38 AM

Quote:

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..

Niamh. · 07-03-2019, 08:41 AM

Quote:

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

Kazanne · 07-03-2019, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Niamh. · 07-03-2019, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parmnion

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

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)

user104658 · 07-03-2019, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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.

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?

Crimson Dynamo · 07-03-2019, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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.

2 children being miffed at not being a favourite is not motivation for 2 adults to make the claims they have made

all children suffer disappointment, we all have but we dont do what they have done. They are taking on the most popular pop music star of the last 40 years, one of the richest people and estates on the planet, for what - because they were upset once as kids?

no

Niamh. · 07-03-2019, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

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?

Nicky91 · 07-03-2019, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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)

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

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

Niamh. · 07-03-2019, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicky91

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

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

I was talking about Macauley Culkin and his father there

user104658 · 07-03-2019, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Like I said near the beginning of the thread - if they're lying then they're both undiscovered talent because their acting (especially James Safechuck) is oscar-worthy. His mental health struggles surrounding this and his anxiety in talking about it is really clear, to anyone who knows what an anxiety disorder looks like, in my opinion.

Wade is a slightly more complicated one because I think it's pretty clear that he never really stopped loving Michael and WAS angry and jealous when Michael "moved on" to other kids, and I suspect to this day he still thinks back on their relationship as a loving one, and possibly even his motivation is more in "getting what he feels he's owed" because Michael "dumped him". But I still believe that their "friendship" involved sexual activity, and that still means he was abused and Jackson was a child abuser, whether he "acts like a victim" or not.

Nicky91 · 07-03-2019, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I was talking about Macauley Culkin and his father there

oh, i don't even know about their father

as for Macauley, yes very sad how he has changed from such a cute child in the home alone movies to now

bots · 07-03-2019, 08:57 AM

Everyone that Jackson surrounded himself with was psychologically broken in some way. Liz Taylor, Lisa Minnelli, the Presley girl ... all very damaged, and it seems the kids he latched on to were all pretty much the same

user104658 · 07-03-2019, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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?

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.

Beso · 07-03-2019, 09:02 AM

Strange that his adult friends all seem to be older females...and the rest are you kids....it was all about power with Michael in my opinion...just look at some of the photos with the kids families, the fathers are almost frozen out of the pictures..

Niamh. · 07-03-2019, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

Yeah definitely.

I mean it's one thing to say you're childlike and like spending time with kids but why the need to share a bed? And why could he only have one "special friend" at a time?

It's odd we're even debating it though, if he was the local postman people would be tearing him a part