One of the most damning things against MJ in this matter is that in all the decades he had young boys there he never ONCE had a girl over for the night.
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
These boys were 7 years old when the abuse started.
Alleged abuse. This is the problem in that no media outlet cares what is true or not. Everything is being reported as fact, and shares it as such. I've seen some of the documentary and I have to say I don't believe them. It seems too contrived.
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
These boys were 7 years old when the abuse started.
Alleged abuse. This is the problem in that no media outlet cares what is true or not. Everything is being reported as fact, and shares it as such. I've seen some of the documentary and I have to say I don't believe them. It seems too contrived.
He admitted sharing his bed with young boys and couldn't see anything wrong with that
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
These boys were 7 years old when the abuse started.
Alleged abuse. This is the problem in that no media outlet cares what is true or not. Everything is being reported as fact, and shares it as such. I've seen some of the documentary and I have to say I don't believe them. It seems too contrived.
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
These boys were 7 years old when the abuse started.
Alleged abuse. This is the problem in that no media outlet cares what is true or not. Everything is being reported as fact, and shares it as such. I've seen some of the documentary and I have to say I don't believe them. It seems too contrived.
You obviously didn’t see the documentary . Nothing I saw was contrived . It’s amazing that people still dismiss what happened . Watch it .
@NapaAddick mentions above, Jackson never invited girls to stay over but one of the alleged victims in the documentary did have his sister with him at some points but that seems to have been the exception that proves the rule. Building on that. Even if you buy into the “he loved children” storyline for a moment it’s still hard to explain why he didn’t have a little gang of boys all sleeping over together. That would still be odd but less so and would even tie in with his Peter Pan persona. He singled out individuals and I’ve no doubt was the abuser he’s being accused of.
If the kids all had a dorm or their own rooms and, maybe, Jackson employed experienced child care professionals, or at least insisted on them each having a chaperone with them
People say that this is nothing like the Savile case, no you're right, it's more obvious imo. Not really into comparing the activities of these individuals, but magine for one minute if Savile was sharing a bed with 7 year old boys ffs. Again, if sharing a bed is all Jackson done, it's still well in the realms of child abuse.
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
These boys were 7 years old when the abuse started.
Alleged abuse. This is the problem in that no media outlet cares what is true or not. Everything is being reported as fact, and shares it as such. I've seen some of the documentary and I have to say I don't believe them. It seems too contrived.
As many people have pointed out numerous times on this thread, Jackson had young boys sleep in his bed with him. Jackson has admitted that and stated there isn’t anything wrong with that. Regardless of any physical abuse taking place, just them being in his bed is abuse.
As a parent why would you let your 13 year old kid sleep in the same room as a 30 something year old man! These parents are just as culpable
Parents sometimes get manipulated into believing abusers who tend be good at deceiving and manipulating - all part of the grooming process. Sadly in this case we can't ignore the possibility that at some level they were consciously or unconsciously selling their children to a wealthy man.
And let's face it, Jackson was most probably the most famous person in the entire world for a good 30 year period. Materialistic people like the parents of these kids are always gonna be manipulated by him.
Was at a black tie bash last night and a Jacko song came on , can’t remember which one i was a few pints of Peroni in and I was surprised to hear it being played . i love his music but last night I felt uneasy listening to it . fella was a wrong un
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
Apologies for the late response, I went away for the weekend. I can't explain 100% because I wasn't there, but I can give you a plausible explaination. Before the trial in 2005 there was a deposition to examine the case before the grand jury in which the (bungling) prosecution handed magazines to Gavin Arvizo during questioning as part of their fact finding, no gloves used, no protective packaging. Could the fingerprints have been there before? We will never know thanks to that cock up. It was part of the 2005 trial and did huge damage to the credibility of the evidence and may have factored into the multiple acquittals (that the jurers still stand by all these years later based on the terrible case the prosecution tried and the severe lack of substantive evidence)
It's also worth noting these boys and their families literally lived at the creepy paedo palace (not going to argue there the place was wierd) for months on end when Jackson wasn't even there - once upon a time I found my dad's stash of porno mags - I'm sure if the old bill came and dusted those down they would find both me and my o!d man's fingerprints on them. Does that mean my dad groomed me?
Let's also look at the maid/bodyguards accusations (directly denied by Macauly Caulkin at the trial and many times since by the way) - "the neverland five" as they are known - all of whom attempted to sue Jackson for wrongful dismissal a few years prior, and not only lost that case, but were ordered to pay damages in a counter suit to Jackson for stealing. Bitter ex employees anyone!? Lol they certainly have an axe to grind anyway, certainly more so than the many dozens of employees who state they saw no such things occur.
Then go to Wade Robinson, in the documentary - a fully fledged Jacko supporter for decades, number one witness for the defence (which is a pretty ballsy choice to put up as first witness for the defence if you are facing 20 years and it turned out he was abused as well?) Only choosing to make these accusations mere months after being shit-canned from a lucrative circe de soliel Michael Jackson show of 2012 that he had been proud and set to star in. Convenient timing again i guess...
Then you have the fact that EVERY accuser has attempted to acquire a cash settlement BEFORE a criminal trial on every single occasion. Thankfully I've never been abused but if I had, I would hope my family would want the perpetrator in prison over and above any other consideration. I'll point to the call made by the late Evan chandler, to the boys step-dad - "I'll destroy him if I don't get what I want" but hey... Maybe he meant justice...? Unlikely since he was sueing for money at the time rather than a criminal case. Call me a cynic...
Then there's the 1993 settlement. The case came up literally in the middle of Jackson's "dangerous" tour. The big comeback gig. (More convenient timing from the accuser) the choice was, fight the case, cancel the tour costing multiple hundreds of millions or settle for 20 mill and Carry on. His lawyers at the time pressed for settle. Sony pressed for settle. What was 20 mill for Jackson in 1993? 2 or three nights work? In hindsight he admitted he should have took it to court. The fact that he settled is what in my opinion set this whole thing in motion - Wade Robinson tried to get a settlement in secret or "under seal" as the court documents put it, and the Jackson estate said no way not again and that's why this documentary exists.(that case was thrown out by the family court judge years ago as well by the way)
Oh and the documentary? riddled with timeline errors, for example, Jimmy Safechuck talking about his and Jackson's "honeymoon" in Disneyland Paris in 1988 - I'm fairly sure Disneyland opened in 1992 - you know, when the bastion of truth safechuck stated in the same documentary they weren't speaking... Oops...
It's trial by media - is there a kernel of truth? Quite possibly, his actions were at best inappropriate and wierd and possibly damaging to these young boys, but I think a lot of the accusations are very fishy when you actually do a bit of research rather than just believing what the tabloids say or taking the word of admitted perjurers.
I implore you to look at the actual court documents which are public record and corroborate my post.
I think it's dangerous to just take on face value accusations without any evidence. It seems to be happening more and more lately
You've obviously spent a bit of time while you've been away over the weekend looking for possible ways to debunk the known facts. The deranged Jackson fan M/O seems that no child will ever be able to accuse him of anything and you'll go all out to find any reason why that person has made it all up and is just after the money. I'm glad Savile didn't have such a fanatical following as I'm certain there could be ways to debunk most of the claims made against him.
Tell me something; do you think it's okay for a man in his 30's / 40's to be sharing a bed with a 7 year old boy, not related, night after night, while having motion censors on in the corridor leading to his room?
Tell me something else; you said in an earlier post that the alarms were in place in the corridor, just outside his bedroom, because Jackson was paranoid someone was gonna get in and steal stuff from him. Do you think that a security conscious multi millionaire would leave his porno box out while he's away, for his visitors to find?
Regarding the 2005 trial and the claims 're finger prints on the porn, I'm not sure of what age range the person is who left the prints, but in 2005 the lad you mentioned was around 17?
You've obviously spent a bit of time while you've been away over the weekend looking for possible ways to debunk the known facts. The deranged Jackson fan M/O seems that no child will ever be able to accuse him of anything and you'll go all out to find any reason why that person has made it all up and is just after the money. I'm glad Savile didn't have such a fanatical following as I'm certain there could be ways to debunk most of the claims made against him.
Tell me something; do you think it's okay for a man in his 30's / 40's to be sharing a bed with a 7 year old boy, not related, night after night, while having motion censors on in the corridor leading to his room?
Tell me something else; you said in an earlier post that the alarms were in place in the corridor, just outside his bedroom, because Jackson was paranoid someone was gonna get in and steal stuff from him. Do you think that a security conscious multi millionaire would leave his porno box out while he's away, for his visitors to find?
Regarding the 2005 trial and the claims 're finger prints on the porn, I'm not sure of what age range the person is who left the prints, but in 2005 the lad you mentioned was around 17?
Why does everyone keep saying “do you think it’s okay for a man to share his bed with kids...”. Why are you not allowed to disbelief some of the accusations? Doesn’t mean you are condoning any of the behaviour.
Manicmania also raises good points to back up his opinion. But they are deranged because they don’t share yours?
Because it isn't an accusation, Jacko did share his bed with 7 year old boys, that is an undisputed fact. That is also child abuse and so indefensible.
Sorry I didn't mean Manicmania was a deranged fan, my fault.
Because it isn't an accusation, Jacko did share his bed with 7 year old boys, that is an undisputed fact. That is also child abuse and so indefensible.
Sorry I didn't mean Manicmania was a deranged fan, my fault.
Is Manicmania a good friend of yours then mate?
But you failed to answer the question. Why are you not allowed to disbelieve some of the accusations without condoning his behaviour? Why are you not allowed to have the opinion that Jackson was a sicko, allowed to get away with way too much but you are not 100% sure how far it went?
I don’t know manicmania but I don’t believe that’s relevant.
Because it isn't an accusation, Jacko did share his bed with 7 year old boys, that is an undisputed fact. That is also child abuse and so indefensible.
Sorry I didn't mean Manicmania was a deranged fan, my fault.
Is Manicmania a good friend of yours then mate?
Feel free to take my post to pieces with any actual facts that are wrong.
To answer your questions, no I don't think it's ok for a man in his forties to share a bed with a seven year old. Read my post again I never even referenced that, It's fucking weird and creepy. I have not even stated my opinion of his guilt or innocence ce, you have inferred that because I have questioned the veracity of the accusers.
2) I said a POSSIBLE explanation for the alarmed corridors was that Jackson owned the rights to the Beatles and Elvis back catalogue and was paranoid that he would be murdered, not that somebody would come and steal them like he had a load of records hidden away, that would be ridiculous please read what I actually said and stop making stuff up.
Because it isn't an accusation, Jacko did share his bed with 7 year old boys, that is an undisputed fact. That is also child abuse and so indefensible.
Sorry I didn't mean Manicmania was a deranged fan, my fault.
Is Manicmania a good friend of yours then mate?
Feel free to take my post to pieces with any actual facts that are wrong.
To answer your questions, no I don't think it's ok for a man in his forties to share a bed with a seven year old. Read my post again I never even referenced that, It's fucking weird and creepy. I have not even stated my opinion of his guilt or innocence ce, you have inferred that because I have questioned the veracity of the accusers.
2) I said a POSSIBLE explanation for the alarmed corridors was that Jackson owned the rights to the Beatles and Elvis back catalogue and was paranoid that he would be murdered, not that somebody would come and steal them like he had a load of records hidden away, that would be ridiculous please read what I actually said and stop making stuff up.
I know, that's why I asked you, but I can now see that you're playing devils advocate and / or just being contrary for the sake of it, which is great, well done.
I genuinely thought that you thought that Jackson had John Lennon's Silk Cut box with the words to Imagine scrawled on the back, kept in a box next to his bed with his porn stash box, and thats the reason he had his corridor alarmed, sorry
Comments
People say that this is nothing like the Savile case, no you're right, it's more obvious imo. Not really into comparing the activities of these individuals, but magine for one minute if Savile was sharing a bed with 7 year old boys ffs. Again, if sharing a bed is all Jackson done, it's still well in the realms of child abuse.
That is undeniable fact.
i love his music but last night I felt uneasy listening to it .
fella was a wrong un
It's also worth noting these boys and their families literally lived at the creepy paedo palace (not going to argue there the place was wierd) for months on end when Jackson wasn't even there - once upon a time I found my dad's stash of porno mags - I'm sure if the old bill came and dusted those down they would find both me and my o!d man's fingerprints on them. Does that mean my dad groomed me?
Let's also look at the maid/bodyguards accusations (directly denied by Macauly Caulkin at the trial and many times since by the way) - "the neverland five" as they are known - all of whom attempted to sue Jackson for wrongful dismissal a few years prior, and not only lost that case, but were ordered to pay damages in a counter suit to Jackson for stealing. Bitter ex employees anyone!? Lol they certainly have an axe to grind anyway, certainly more so than the many dozens of employees who state they saw no such things occur.
Then go to Wade Robinson, in the documentary - a fully fledged Jacko supporter for decades, number one witness for the defence (which is a pretty ballsy choice to put up as first witness for the defence if you are facing 20 years and it turned out he was abused as well?) Only choosing to make these accusations mere months after being shit-canned from a lucrative circe de soliel Michael Jackson show of 2012 that he had been proud and set to star in. Convenient timing again i guess...
Then you have the fact that EVERY accuser has attempted to acquire a cash settlement BEFORE a criminal trial on every single occasion. Thankfully I've never been abused but if I had, I would hope my family would want the perpetrator in prison over and above any other consideration. I'll point to the call made by the late Evan chandler, to the boys step-dad - "I'll destroy him if I don't get what I want" but hey... Maybe he meant justice...? Unlikely since he was sueing for money at the time rather than a criminal case. Call me a cynic...
Then there's the 1993 settlement. The case came up literally in the middle of Jackson's "dangerous" tour. The big comeback gig. (More convenient timing from the accuser) the choice was, fight the case, cancel the tour costing multiple hundreds of millions or settle for 20 mill and Carry on. His lawyers at the time pressed for settle. Sony pressed for settle. What was 20 mill for Jackson in 1993? 2 or three nights work? In hindsight he admitted he should have took it to court. The fact that he settled is what in my opinion set this whole thing in motion - Wade Robinson tried to get a settlement in secret or "under seal" as the court documents put it, and the Jackson estate said no way not again and that's why this documentary exists.(that case was thrown out by the family court judge years ago as well by the way)
Oh and the documentary? riddled with timeline errors, for example, Jimmy Safechuck talking about his and Jackson's "honeymoon" in Disneyland Paris in 1988 - I'm fairly sure Disneyland opened in 1992 - you know, when the bastion of truth safechuck stated in the same documentary they weren't speaking... Oops...
It's trial by media - is there a kernel of truth? Quite possibly, his actions were at best inappropriate and wierd and possibly damaging to these young boys, but I think a lot of the accusations are very fishy when you actually do a bit of research rather than just believing what the tabloids say or taking the word of admitted perjurers.
I implore you to look at the actual court documents which are public record and corroborate my post. I think it's dangerous to just take on face value accusations without any evidence. It seems to be happening more and more lately
Wouldn't have wasted my time responding if I knew I was dealing with monosyllabic sun readers.
Tell me something; do you think it's okay for a man in his 30's / 40's to be sharing a bed with a 7 year old boy, not related, night after night, while having motion censors on in the corridor leading to his room?
Tell me something else; you said in an earlier post that the alarms were in place in the corridor, just outside his bedroom, because Jackson was paranoid someone was gonna get in and steal stuff from him. Do you think that a security conscious multi millionaire would leave his porno box out while he's away, for his visitors to find?
Regarding the 2005 trial and the claims 're finger prints on the porn, I'm not sure of what age range the person is who left the prints, but in 2005 the lad you mentioned was around 17?
Was it bad parenting? Yes.
Should they face charges? Possibly
Does it mean Jackson didn't do anything? No
Manicmania also raises good points to back up his opinion. But they are deranged because they don’t share yours?
Sorry I didn't mean Manicmania was a deranged fan, my fault.
Is Manicmania a good friend of yours then mate?
I don’t know manicmania but I don’t believe that’s relevant.
He's bad, he's bad, you know it
To answer your questions, no I don't think it's ok for a man in his forties to share a bed with a seven year old. Read my post again I never even referenced that, It's fucking weird and creepy. I have not even stated my opinion of his guilt or innocence ce, you have inferred that because I have questioned the veracity of the accusers.
2) I said a POSSIBLE explanation for the alarmed corridors was that Jackson owned the rights to the Beatles and Elvis back catalogue and was paranoid that he would be murdered, not that somebody would come and steal them like he had a load of records hidden away, that would be ridiculous please read what I actually said and stop making stuff up.
I genuinely thought that you thought that Jackson had John Lennon's Silk Cut box with the words to Imagine scrawled on the back, kept in a box next to his bed with his porn stash box, and thats the reason he had his corridor alarmed, sorry