Continue the discussion here.
Leaving Neverland, Part 8
|by Anonymous||reply 601||Last Saturday at 2:19 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/14/2019|
OP worse than Hitler.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/14/2019|
This article is well worth a read.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/14/2019|
It is up, R2. Chillaxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/14/2019|
Hi Paris! We love you!!
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/14/2019|
For those not up to speed, Part 7 was created by JanBot to force people to unblock it to continue the conversation and to revive already debunked MJ defender lies.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/14/2019|
Is OP the same as thread 7? I would rather not participate in that one.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/14/2019|
OP seems legit, R7.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/14/2019|
I was comparing the reactions on ontd vs other forums and it's interesting that ontd is completely pro the victims while the old farts on lipstick alley are running off the younger posters.
I'm wondering if the older MJ fans are the deniers bc of their own baggage. It looks like people under 35 have more common sense or less likely to have been fooled bc they were kids when rumors escalated in the 1990s.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/14/2019|
I do not remember this victim, Terry George, being discussed although I vividly remember the Bashir doc.
SO many kids, it really is just heartbreaking.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/14/2019|
More on Terry George here.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/14/2019|
R9, nah. I know a lot of people older than 35 who always believed he did it.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/14/2019|
Not the OP of Part 7 and did not appreciate being coerced and manipulated by that person. Happy to continue the discussion here.
The spazz/Harry Styles troll uses the same tactic re: starting threads, we have all learned to just block him and carry on in a separate thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/14/2019|
Everyone said there was a new victim every year or when one aged out. There might be a dozen or two dozen victims or possibly even more.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/14/2019|
I also think Paris is the most likely to come forward and describe her life, either in an interview or in a book. Prince has said she's the "emotional" one, more prone to say or do things spontaneously without thinking. I also think she's smart. She knows this isn't the end of it. There will be others. She probably even knows their names. It might even be someone closer. Prince was the closest to his father. He's been taught how to handle publicity by ignoring it. I doubt he'd go there. But she might.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/14/2019|
Thanks, OP/R13. The MJ is innocent troll is very annoying and I didn't want to be forced into posting in their thread. Though, I'm sure they'll find their way here.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/14/2019|
R9, Millennials and younger don't have independent memories of young vibrant 70s/80s Michael. The only versions of Michael they know were the ever-increasingly weird ones that began in the 90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/14/2019|
Interesting, trying to create another thread. Much like James and Wade, you are a deceptive bunch. I see your part 9, and wage you a part 9.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/14/2019|
This doll is super creepy. I thought it was James as a young boy from the face and the size.
It was photographed during an investigation.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/14/2019|
^ JanBot is unhinged again.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/14/2019|
R19 Fake, unrelated news. Yawn. Get back to the allegations.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/14/2019|
He was a freak in any sense of the word. Hell is too good for Jacko.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/14/2019|
R22 The fanfiction from that individual is almost as unbelievable as that of Wade Robson, who has lied and make clear his attempts to use false sexual assault allegations to extort money from the estate of his dead friend and generous benefactor.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/14/2019|
If Paris publicly backs the Wade and James, R15, then she'll be taking her life in her hands. The MJ stans will go berserk if his own daughter turns against him. Even if she DOES now believe he was guilty all along, it's in her best interests to keep quiet. I'm not sure I would be able to cope with the potential harassment and threats if I were in her shoes.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/14/2019|
Jackson being a child seducer is not a welcome image, it will inevitably fade from public consciousness
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/14/2019|
^ I don't know why I added a "the" between "backs" and "Wade". Time for bed.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/14/2019|
R24 Still living in Fanfiction world
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/14/2019|
Paris seems really vulnerable. The fighting in public with her boyfriend in New Orleans was sad. She is a mess and is clearly back to drinking and probably using despite a recent stint in rehab.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/14/2019|
Unfortunately for R21, the photos from the raid were covered in the press.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/14/2019|
Paris will be the next Bobbi Kristina.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/14/2019|
I think Paris will maintain silence. I do wonder who her real father is.
I was watching a video of how much money MJ spent on covering up his perversion. It's crazy.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/14/2019|
I don’t think Paris would ever speak out against her father. She worships him and the Jackson’s are scary mofo’s who would do anything to protect their empire - except actual work.
I think MJ molested Blanket and at some point he will talk.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/14/2019|
Nah, it is Jacko the pedo who is being removed from the public sphere.
A new Britney musical is taking the MJ spot in Chicago. Would be karmic justice if Wade was involved with the choreography. Perhaps it might then move on to NY?
SONY should have known better. Jackson had a terrible rep when he died and there was a lot of baggage to overlook when they put $250M down just last year.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/14/2019|
WTF is that at R19? That's a doll and in that pose? How can anyone doubt that this man was a shameless pedophile?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/14/2019|
How am I living in fanfiction world, R27? Do you really believe for a nanosecond that if Paris spoke out against her father, she wouldn't get threats from his hardcore fans? Honestly?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/14/2019|
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/14/2019|
R35 You are living in a fantasy world for even suggesting Paris is aware of any wrongdoing. Imagining her somehow "breaking her silence" is absurd. No one would come after her because all of your post is built on your own imagination.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/14/2019|
I also wonder if Blanket was sexually abused. That selective mutism is due to something.
Also Janet not defending her brother speaks volumes.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/14/2019|
I knew I remembered seeing young Jimmy in a yellow top and jeans. How bizarre would it be to see a life sized doll of yourself?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/14/2019|
There was an article that someone in Jackson’s family thought he was grooming blanket. I believe it 100 percent.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/14/2019|
R38 You've posted this message 3 or 4 times now in the various threads. Why do you want to create abuse victims so bad when there are none here?
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/14/2019|
R37, I have no idea if Paris believes her father was guilty or not. I was responding to a previous poster who suggested that Paris will be the first to talk. I said that even if she does have doubts about him, she'd be better off staying quiet.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/14/2019|
R40 Fake news. But as a fan of Reed's documentary I am not surprised you might find it credible.
"The New York Post's PageSix column reports a police source claimed to have received a "credible tip" from one of Jackson's relatives."
About as solid as Wade Robson's book proposal.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/14/2019|
They said the selective mutism started after the doc aired.
Blanket could well be more or less a hostage. Paris said he was left to fend for himself, he is just a kid. Look what they did to Katherine. Remember when Janet slapped teen Paris in the face in front of cameras? These are NOT nice people.
Hope the cops do a welfare check on the poor kid.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/14/2019|
R29 I never heard about that before. THAT is super creepy.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||03/14/2019|
You are not a valid commentator R41 your comment from thread 6 reply 307 'You seem awfully upset.I'm guessing you never got justice for the guy who diddled you? Calling me a "sad fucker fan" or any other of your slurs does not affect me in the least, because like the person who hurt you must have reminded you, you are nothing to me or anyone else. Your pathetic insults aimed at everyone who questions these two just further demonstrates your emotional instability.'................... totally discredits you.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||03/14/2019|
How were these poor kids not terrified of him? Between the plastic face and the creepy dungeon he lived in, I would be peterfied of being near him, let alone touching him. Eww. The picture of him holding James hand just makes me sick. His mother should feel such shame allowing her son to be victimized by this piece of vermin.
R38, post that 10x more times. Fuck you R41.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||03/14/2019|
R46 That message was in reply to your comment, calling me a "rancid freak." I stand by it though 100%.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||03/14/2019|
R47 Yawn. He wasn't victimized by anyone but himself. He didn't deserve to participate in the performance after walking off the first time. The false sex abuse allegations are just pudding on the top.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||03/14/2019|
You are a rancid freak, that's documentary.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||03/14/2019|
|by Anonymous||reply 51||03/14/2019|
Funny also how you all have used all your FFs up, yet none of my posts have been deleted.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||03/14/2019|
In the Bashir doc he is truly frightening. He has the veil over Blanket’s face and is rocking him manically while stating that almost tossing him over a balcony was a perfectly rational act.
The guy was a oedophile but also fucking insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||03/14/2019|
R53 We already addressed the Bashir doc. But here it is again:
Yes, but it is generally acknowledged that Bashir purposefully staged and omitted many details from his film to create an imbalanced and biased representation of Jackson. For example, when Michael Jackson stated that he shared his bed with the boy in the film, Bashir removed the section where the boy added that Jackson slept on the floor.
We know all of this only because Jackson had instructed his own videographer to record every interview without cutting (alongside Bashir's camera crew.) As a result, you can see what Bashir omitted and you also see the interactions between interviews. I highly recommend doing so. Bashir's journalistic practices in that documentary still affect his reputation today.
If you are truly interested in that interview, I would suggest watching: Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See (also referred to as "the rebuttal video"), which was seen on Fox in the United States. This was presented by Maury Povich and contains even more material which Bashir omitted (it is numerous.)
|by Anonymous||reply 54||03/14/2019|
I would not be surprised by multiple generations of incest, physical and emotional abuse in the Jackson clan. That, in addition to the $, is why the code of silence is so strong. For all who asked why were the victims all white, it is likely that they were not. There are videos of him and the nephews that are creepy and one special friend was a cousin. So fucking sad. Hope none of his nephew victims will be pressured by the family to defend him. They were not protected nor do I believe that they were gotten help.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||03/14/2019|
Since you all keep discussing the exact same thing you talked about (same people) last night, I will keep posting the exact same replies.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||03/14/2019|
R48 etc etc You also said on thread 6 reply 317.....' I am terribly convinced that Michael Jackson was indeed a pedophile or at the very least obsessed with children in unhealthy ways.' You are right to be. I agree Jackson was a pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||03/14/2019|
Paris is a lez.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||03/14/2019|
R55 Likewise, I would not be surprised if there was incest in your blood line. Still doesn't make your fanfiction speculation credible.
R57 I did not post that, but I responded to it. I suspect that your ignore button (aka stalking) feature is functioning improperly.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||03/14/2019|
More on the nephews and grooming. Good lord!
Look at the young Hadid boy, bet Jacko was drooling.
He used to call a son of Barry Gibb and would talk for hours, his usual M.O. Gibb mentioned it in an interview and his kids have been mentioned as possible victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||03/14/2019|
Hopefully Mj committed suicide by proxy instead of giving into his pedophilic desire of abusinf Blanket.
I did read a source say that he's been mite for a while but if he did become mute after the documentary it could be that he was triggered by the details connecting to how his dad treated him .
I hold out hope that MJ didn't touch his kids but with his past behaviors one can not know since he had poor impulse control regarding his perverse desires
|by Anonymous||reply 61||03/14/2019|
R55, well we know that the father molested his daughters and possibly his sons. Plus, physical abuse. So, it is at least second generation. They're all about the dollar, so I think that's why they keep quiet. I don't think his kids will ever talk either. Consider the brainwashing and manipulation he did to his 'special friends' and multiply that by 1000 for his kids. Plus, the money is a factor there too.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||03/14/2019|
R59 It sounds suspiciously like your overblown, piss-elegant phraseology, in any case you're an idiot. So at R46 you stand by your glee at my potentially being broken by childhood sex abuse? I wasn't by the way, so your powers of deduction are as wayward there as with your pedophila defense but it's the thought that counts, you really are a piece of shit, no wonder you are kissing Jackson's bony, mottled, pedophile arse.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||03/14/2019|
R60 Fucking house of horrors. Raze it to the ground, it's too sick to be rehabilitated. It needs to be bulldozed and the basements filled in with concrete.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||03/14/2019|
It's possible that Paris knows the truth. Might have even been told by Culkin but she won't talk. That's why that bs report about the kids suing sounded ridiculous. I assume the smart Jackson know it's better for them to keep quiet. Yet many are not that smart.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||03/14/2019|
R60 The Sun is a tabloid newspaper published in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Of course, as a supporter of these allegations it suggests that you do not care about credibility or honesty, but since you think it is worth sharing, it would be remiss of me to not educate you (and any others) about the content you are reading.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||03/14/2019|
Lots of context provided here
|by Anonymous||reply 67||03/14/2019|
R65 More talk about Paris and "the truth." The truth is that no abuse ever happened, and that these allegations are easily discredited.
Many children Michael Jackson befriended, including those who looked like James and Wade, have never made any allegations of abuse.
Rather they continue to defend Michael Jackson as someone with whom they had an odd relationship, but in no way illicit. These allegations differ right up to that point, and the accusers are a joke.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||03/14/2019|
Doing the lord's work R68. Good of you to break through the echo chamber on here.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||03/14/2019|
R67 Your "context" comes from the site "mjandboys.wordpress.com." Rather than speculate as that article does about imaginary victims (and others who have repeatedly denied wrongdoing occurred), I will simply listen to the words of those like Macaulay Culkin and Sean Lennon, whose honesty in refuting these disgusting allegations is much clearer.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||03/14/2019|
R66 Your well referenced contempt for CSA survivors not only marks you as a piece of shit but as unfit to be presenting any argument for them being liars, the Sun has more credibility then you.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||03/14/2019|
did paris see daddy messin with her bros?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||03/14/2019|
R71, Muriel recommends blocking trolls.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||03/14/2019|
Yay! Michael Jackson #1 pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||03/14/2019|
Blocking it upsets it more than anything. That's why it changes devices so often. I've also noticed that Jabba's threads are starting to get Greyed out so it's comments above how nothing is happening to it is wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||03/14/2019|
R71 Yawn, again making it about me--instead of the allegations.
I am going to assume this means you realize they are not nearly as bulletproof as you originally claimed.
The accusers are liars (admitted no less) and lack credibility.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||03/14/2019|
Stop focusing on Wade and Jimmy and please explain the actions of sick fuck boy diddler Michael. Worldwide #1 pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||03/14/2019|
I admit my brother abused children. I am so sorry. #1 child molester in the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||03/14/2019|
R77 I focus on either the allegations, victims, or many people who have come out to discredit them (not that they had much credibility anyway.) Michael Jackson's life is well-documented. His false accusers will find themselves subjected to the same now.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||03/14/2019|
It means you're a cunt R76. A massive bore, nobody here is interested in your tired loopholes, we all know Jackson was a pedophile and proven to be so beyond any doubt.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||03/14/2019|
Are you some stupid tool for the estate that is trying to convince people that sick fuck Michael Jackson was innocent? We know he is guilty and we are ashamed. You are a creepy pedophile defender.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||03/14/2019|
R80 Again, discredited, much like your other arguments. Saying he was a pedophile does not make it true. As many children have said, yes, he behaved strangely. No, he did not abuse them.
The 40 year old men claiming he abused them asserted for years (well into adulthood) under oath this was not true. Their past actions and attempt to secure a book detail overshadow the comically rehearsed claims in a documentary.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||03/14/2019|
I renounce my father because he was really not my father yes he was a horrible pedophile. #ashamed
|by Anonymous||reply 83||03/14/2019|
R81 see R82
|by Anonymous||reply 84||03/14/2019|
R83 I think you truly believe you are Paris Jackson, would explain a lot about your current state.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||03/14/2019|
These men are in their 30's so I question your basic understanding of facts. Pedophile lover freak!
|by Anonymous||reply 86||03/14/2019|
R86 Wrong. Safechuck is 40, Robson 38. Both too old to be playing these false assault games. Their reputations are destroyed, and they can no longer call on MJ's name to gain employment again.
Your "Pedophile lover freak" comment suggests you are having a hard time coming to the realizations of their dishonesty in this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||03/14/2019|
I think it's hard for you to admit Michael was a pedophile, or you work for the estate and are just a shill. Defending a blatant pedophile like Michael Jackson, who molested dozens of kids, is really the bottom of the barrel.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||03/14/2019|
R88 More rhetoric, but I have debunked it so who knows. See R82 in re: the pedophile comment.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||03/14/2019|
[quote]I think Paris will maintain silence. I do wonder who her real father is.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||03/14/2019|
Speaking of paid "shill" working for the estate.. Please standby as I transfer this chat to my colleague at SONY. 🙄
|by Anonymous||reply 91||03/14/2019|
You haven't debunked anything. You are just a Jackson shill who no one takes seriously. What is your explanation for Michael sleeping with many boys for months and fucking them? You don't have one.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||03/14/2019|
R70, Sean has not refuted the allegations. He has said nothing illegal happened to him (though we can question that, since Jackson showed teenage Ronson and Lennon pornography, which is criminal in and of itself), but has not ‘refuted’ Robson or Safechuck’s allegations. Lennon clearly considers the way Jackson replaced boys with new ‘friends’ to be disturbing and emotionally traumatizing for the boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||03/14/2019|
R92 I won't justify that nonsense with a response other than "where are all of these children?" Oh right, they are denying anything untoward ever occurred. These two anomalies in particular have myriad credibility issues and ample reasons to lie, as explained in detail in the past 7 or 8 or who knows how many threads.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||03/14/2019|
R93 Saying nothing illegal when someone else has accused MJ of sexual abuse is not much different from refuting the allegations.
Also, now you are making up allegations. MJ did not show Lennon any pornography and he has not stated such.
Robson is of course a self-admitted liar and little he says can be taken at face value.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||03/14/2019|
Mark Ronson has stated that Jackson showed them pornography.
Robson was raped as a 7 year old by Michael Jackson, and you are excoriating him for the marks of his trauma. Why do you have such contempt for victims of child sexual abuse?
|by Anonymous||reply 96||03/14/2019|
“Saying nothing illegal when someone else has accused MJ of sexual abuse is not much different from refuting the allegations.”
This is absurd, also. They are profoundly different things.
Why haven’t Stevie Wonder, Berry Gordy, Diana Ross or Paul McCartney spoken up to defend Jackson? His family and a couple of has-beens or never-weres are the only ones defending him.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||03/14/2019|
You'd think that two grown men would have better things to do/worry about than arguing on an anonymous website at 11:00 at night...
|by Anonymous||reply 98||03/14/2019|
Not if 1 is paid to post, R98.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||03/14/2019|
R96 You again tell a lie. Mark Ronson once told a story that he made Michael Jackson watch porn, and remarked that Jackson was repulsed and did not like it. Does that sound like a pedophile to you? And Robson (different person) was not raped as a 7 year old, he said this as a child and adult many times. That story did not change until he was denied a role and began shopping book proposals.
R99 Lol, touché.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||03/14/2019|
You have been online defending Michael Jackson at least for the past 12 hours MJ defender and you seem to be losing your deflecting power, it's time to take a break. Also, you've not made ONE scrap of difference in the minds of the people who know he's guilty.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||03/14/2019|
Again, Muriel recommends blocking trolls rather than arguing with them.
Esp with people paid to post, you are not going to change their mind and it kind of derails the thread, which is one of their goals. Take your power back and just F&F and block.
Former staff are speaking out against Jacko.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||03/14/2019|
Good Lord, he's still at it. I blocked, but I see all the missing posts numbers. R99, I personally don't think they're being paid because their defense is beyond weak. The only thing they succeed in doing is sounding crazy.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||03/14/2019|
R102 We've addressed the former staffers, many of whom either were fired and claimed to see something many years later--or worse, were paid by a tabloid. The security guard in question told a story of a child sitting in Michael jackson's lap on a golf course, hardly criminal.
Meanwhile other former staffers have jumped to Jackson’s defense, with a former nanny telling ABC News in the US that she “never saw or experienced anything” like the allegations in over 12 years working on the estate.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||03/14/2019|
R104 expects us to believe he has "blocked." Well then, why are you still commenting? #NiceTry #BackToTheAllegations
|by Anonymous||reply 105||03/14/2019|
R100, what adult allows children to watch pornography in their presence? Who is responsible for that situation developing? Who provided it? We know Jackson had a huge amount of pornography around. We know from his victims that he showed them pornography. I guess it’s 12 year old Ronson’s fault rather than 35 year old Jackson’s fault!
|by Anonymous||reply 106||03/14/2019|
SONY uses Sunshine Sachs and this is a very typical crisis PR DARVO campaign for them.
SONY spent $250M on music rights very recently and a Broadway show re: MJ was scheduled.
Nothing surprising about any of it, big $ is at stake. Once, blocked, just do not give them another thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||03/14/2019|
Mark Ronson has also described Jackson showing porn to him and Sean Lennon when they were 10, in his bed, R106.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||03/14/2019|
R106 You misunderstand my point. Sean explains that Michael Jackson was very much uncomfortable with the pornographic scene he tried to show him. He also says Michael Jackson never touched him or behaved inappropriately towards him. You can analyze the situation all day long, but it only supports the conclusion that he did not behave in any way as a pedophile would.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||03/14/2019|
Bubbles Burst is worth a watch and should be posted on every one of these threads.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||03/14/2019|
R108 - Again, with the mjandboys.wordpress.com blog. I am well aware of that site and would suggest you fact-check the information presented in it. Nevertheless, see my response in R109.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||03/14/2019|
R110 Yes, i saw the video and thought Sean's words about his time at Neverland were very nice. He spoke of the joy of not wanting to leave. Of course, he also understood that childhood is fleeting and he would grow up and be gone. A strange, but interesting music video. Also, I am glad that he denied anything untoward occurred in his relationship with Jackson, to prevent people like you from turning him into a false victim.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||03/14/2019|
So...Michael was gay?
I know it's distasteful to mention it since the party involved were young boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||03/14/2019|
And when Sean talked about Jackson throwing boys away when they aged out of his age range, he was reminiscing fondly, right?
Anyways, if I was 30 something and a 10 year old (thanks, R108) was trying to show me pornography, my reaction would not be to...say “ew” or act disgusted. It would be to 1) shut it off, 2) question how and why they had access to pornography at my house, and maybe even 3) seek help for the child, who is clearly acting out sexually. Or, indeed, 4) call the cops because someone is clearly messing with the kid!! It wouldn’t be “tee hee! That’s gross!”
Sean Lennon will likely never come forward if he was molested, since it would expose his mother, like Wade and James’ mothers, to scrutiny of her motives, and Yoko Ono has even fewer excuses for abdicating her parental responsibilities than they did. Sean protects his mom because she’s all he’s got.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||03/14/2019|
He was a pedo, R113, different thing.
So many odd stories, not all involve sex or little boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||03/14/2019|
[quote][R106] You misunderstand my point. Sean explains that Michael Jackson was very much uncomfortable with the pornographic scene he tried to show him. He also says Michael Jackson never touched him or behaved inappropriately towards him. You can analyze the situation all day long, but it only supports the conclusion that he did not behave in any way as a pedophile would.
So why was he showing a 12 year old boy pornographic material in the first place if it made him so "uncomfortable"?
|by Anonymous||reply 116||03/14/2019|
He didn't seem to have an interest in adult men. I don't know what the thought process was. Although, I am curious about who he had full on sex with. It seems like with James and Wade (after a brief attempt) it didn't go there. It had to be with someone, especially given what Wade said and he was older when Michael tried. I thought Frank Cascio was one possibility because he said he lived with Michael for a while and was helping him take care of the kids. It was just a very odd situation with him and he was kept around on/off until 24.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||03/14/2019|
R114 Again, you can not manufacture a victim. It is strange that the only examples you seem to find which purport to show MJ behaving inappropriately with children are all debunked by the actual children involved themselves-who tell nothing but stories of generosity, innocence and naivety on behalf of Jackson.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||03/14/2019|
R117 Michael Jackson never had sex with James or Wade. They manufactured these allegations after a number of years being ardent Jackson supporters and using his name for financial gain even after he died. Somewhere in part 7 another person explained that it does not pass the smell test. Substitute 40 for 32.
"Where is the evidence?? Not just two mercenary men’s calculated recollections. The evidence. And no sexually abused person suddenly remembers at 40, oh yeah I was abused at 7 years old. Doesn’t happen. Sorry. No matter how much it is claimed otherwise."
|by Anonymous||reply 119||03/14/2019|
I think the whole Sean Lennon episode is so tragic. His father was murdered violently. John was bringing Sean as he told in the rolling stone interview while Yoko was handling their business investments.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||03/14/2019|
Drake is dropping a collaboration with MJ from his current tour as he is siding with the victims? Did anyone else hear this piece of news?
|by Anonymous||reply 121||03/14/2019|
R120 is still attempting to make Sean Lennon a victim, despite his denials that any illegal activity occurred. Lennon acknowledged Jackson was strange, but spoke highly of his time at Neverland even after his music video about "bubbles."
R121 This is not confirmed. He may have removed the song from one of his concerts, however, there is no evidence it has anything to do with the allegations and he has not said to suggest this is the case. More grasping at straws.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||03/14/2019|
Starbucks has dropped MJ music from its playlist at all of their stores. On my way in to work I will stop for my coffee and thank the, for standing with these victims. Please everyone support Starbucks
|by Anonymous||reply 123||03/14/2019|
R118, I’m not claiming that he raped Sean Lennon or Mark Ronson, but his actions regarding the pornography were clearly inappropriate. He was not acting in accordance with normal adult behavior. His refusal or inability to provide boundaries and act responsibly in this situation is disturbing.
Lennon’s descriptions of his time with Jackson are much more ambivalent and fraught than you are making them sound. He has pretty clearly described an emotionally damaging dynamic between Jackson and his boy ‘friends’, rather than sunshine and lollipops.
I’m not R120, btw, you are conversing with 2 or 3 different people (or were — I’m done for now).
|by Anonymous||reply 124||03/14/2019|
R123 While unfortunate that they decided to take this move, rather than start a conversation, Starbucks is involved in a number of controversial issues.
Removing Michael Jackson's song from its Spotify playlist will hardly influence Jackson, especially as this move might affect racial tensions with the black community.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||03/14/2019|
The Drake New has been confirmed by Variety, Tmz, page six, Cosmopolitan and Evening Standard. I am sure Drake"s people could have issued a denial by now. I am sure they know the number for Harvey Levin at TMZ. Google is your friend
|by Anonymous||reply 126||03/14/2019|
There is nothing influencing Jackson. He is dead. Thank goodness
|by Anonymous||reply 127||03/14/2019|
I haven't popped into a Starbucks recently but will be tomorrow. It's one place I can count on not having to listen to Billie Jean for the forty thousandth time this week.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||03/14/2019|
glad to see Starbucks and H&M taking these allegations seriously
|by Anonymous||reply 129||03/14/2019|
R124 Many of Jackson's behaviors may seem "inappropriate," which makes it even more telling the children involved in some of them deny any illegal behavior.
As far as Sean Lennon, I read the statement and that was my takeaway. He denies any illegal behavior by Jackson, and his story mimics Robson's, except for the addition of abuse for financial motive.
R126 Merely speculating about a thing does not make your interpretation true. The same holds with these allegations.
R128 i suspect you will hear much more Michael Jackson music on the radio and in your daily life. This is true for both us, likely for the rest of our lives.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||03/14/2019|
Yeah Drake removed the MJ song from his set. It was announced in the past few days. John Legend also supports Wade and James saying there isn't any reason for them to lie about being sexually abused.
Prince fans are angry that MJ fans tried to bring Prince into it bc his ex wife Mayte supports Wade. Supposedly, Prince never liked Jackson and that's why he refused collaborating with him. His fans feel his hooking up with Mayte when she was 17 is different from MJ sexually abusing 7 to 14 year olds.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||03/14/2019|
Ok along with the Drake and Starbucks stories, add designer Louis Vitton and the LALakers removing MJ association from their brands. Wow I had no idea
|by Anonymous||reply 132||03/14/2019|
Allowing children to watch pornography in your presence IS ILLEGAL. Do you read what you type? Please.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||03/14/2019|
[quote]glad to see Starbucks and H&M taking these allegations seriously
Yes, some organizations value their integrity and their reputations. I hope many more businesses will support the victims.
SONY are the real villains in this piece. A corrupt and immoral organization that deserves mass boycott.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||03/14/2019|
R133 Homework time: Can you source that claim from a website other than "mjandboys.wordpress.com?"
|by Anonymous||reply 135||03/14/2019|
The chairman of Louis Vuitton said we value the safety and well being of children. Well I guess they believed Wade and James
|by Anonymous||reply 136||03/14/2019|
Just remember that Victor Guiterrez, the source of many of these allegations, and who provided many stories to Diane Dimond, desperately wanted Jackson to be a boy lover to make it more socially acceptable since he was an admitted pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||03/14/2019|
The Leaving Neverland doc really got great marks 4.5 stars from Hulu, an 85 from Metacritic and 98% from Rotten Tomatoes
|by Anonymous||reply 138||03/14/2019|
R137 Thank you, and not only that, but Michael Jackson sued him successfully and was awarded millions in damages.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||03/14/2019|
Even if you have doubt that anything sexual happened with these children the fact that Jackson pursued such intense relationships with these boys that were so young is beyond comprehension. Why the need to sleep with them, hold hands, carrying them wanting to spend so much alone time with them. There is no reasonable explanation
|by Anonymous||reply 140||03/14/2019|
R140 Even the claim that Robson spent hundreds of nights with Jackson is highly suspect. Most of the time Jackson wasn't even at the ranch.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||03/14/2019|
You have admitted that MJ, an adult, was in the room with Mark Ronson and Sean Lennon, two children, and that pornography was watched. You want me to source that, given that you’ve previously been perfectly content to accept it happened? Or you want me to source the fact that exposing a child to pornography will net a person a charge for neglecting or endangering that child?
|by Anonymous||reply 142||03/14/2019|
The Jackson / Sandusky comparisons could not be more true. Didn't Sandusky also seek out these troubled children and form intense trusting bonds with them. Didn't Sandusky also have them sleep over at his house and in his bed?
|by Anonymous||reply 143||03/14/2019|
Seriously is this MJ defender one of the Jackson nephews or one of the brothers? Save that $250 million MJ musical at all costs!!!!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 144||03/14/2019|
R142 I didn't think you would find it either. Hopefully it tells you something about that website.
R144 More ad hominem.
It seems the lower hanging fruit are all that is left tonight. I am signing off but will be back in 8 hours for another day of this rather boring website.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||03/14/2019|
What the MJ apologist is leaving. Hurry back you fucking waste of space. Going to watch your stash of kiddie porn just like your hero Jackson
|by Anonymous||reply 146||03/14/2019|
[quote]Even if you have doubt that anything sexual happened with these children the fact that Jackson pursued such intense relationships with these boys that were so young is beyond comprehension. Why the need to sleep with them, hold hands, carrying them wanting to spend so much alone time with them. There is no reasonable explanation
Totally agree. Even if he had pedophilic desires that he had managed to suppress, he's still a creeper for keeping them in plain sight. Why temp fate? He still applied seduction techniques on them, still broke up their families for his own twisted purposes.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||03/14/2019|
R9 - MANY of us think that MJ is a weirdo pedo. We are not stupid. I was born in 1980 and always knew as a kid that he was a freak. Frankly, he was the freakiest global phenomenon that I can remember as a kid. I never loved his music (it was OK at best), but in particular I did not care for him as an artist or a celebrity. Many others share my beliefs. Anecdotally, I would say that his greatest sympathisers were those who experienced him as Jackson 5 and then his early disco career. He seemed so sweat and helpless then. He turned into a monster a decade later.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||03/14/2019|
[quote]Anyways, if I was 30 something and a 10 year old (thanks, [R108]) was trying to show me pornography, my reaction would not be to...say “ew” or act disgusted. It would be to 1) shut it off, 2) question how and why they had access to pornography at my house, and maybe even 3) seek help for the child, who is clearly acting out sexually. Or, indeed, 4) call the cops because someone is clearly messing with the kid!! It wouldn’t be “tee hee! That’s gross!"
Although, R114, "tee hee! That's gross!" pretty much sums up Pedo MJ's disturbing responses in the video deposition linked below (and posted here now for the umpteenth time, sorry, but it bears repeating)... anyway, just sayin'. Thanks muchly, OP, for starting Part 8 of this thread (and please everyone ignore "Part 9," LOL)... the MJ/Sony/Jacko family stan/troll here is clearly delusional, but also seemingly insanely-driven (and/or PAID) to attempt to change the narrative in favor of The World's Most Prolific And Successful Pedophile Of All Time. Stay strong, guys...!
|by Anonymous||reply 149||Last Friday at 12:39 AM|
I don’t think the trolls are paid. Just look at Twitter. Why would Sony hire shills when there are millions of sad loonies to do their work for free?
|by Anonymous||reply 150||Last Friday at 1:58 AM|
Wade’s recounting of telling his family about the abuse by the food truck rang very true to me. Particularly there having been a family joke for years that he hadn’t been “sexy” enough for MJ to molest. Wade’s demeanour may be a bit too polished and offputting compared to the wry and vulnerable, but he’d have to be a real psychopath to do that to his family. His brother seems to be absolutely eaten alive with guilt.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||Last Friday at 2:15 AM|
*compared to Safechuck
|by Anonymous||reply 152||Last Friday at 2:16 AM|
R146, why would I bother to search a website to find evidence of a story that you previously have recognized occurred? Google ‘Michael Jackson Mark Ronson’ if you need to refresh your memory...from earlier last night when you had no issues remarking on it.
Again, pretty much any prosecutor in any county in the US could and would come up with a way to charge someone for watching porn in the presence of a minor. And, no, “Mark showed it to ME!” would not be considered a defense.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||Last Friday at 3:50 AM|
r150, The sad Michael Jackson superfan in this thread sounds much like Seany O'Kane of Big Brother UK 10+ years ago. Him or some obsessed pedophile apologist just like him. O'Kane organized the aggressive, bullying campaign currently displayed on some London buses. Transport for London received many complaints about this offensive campaign of victim intimidation; now TFL is shutting down the whole thing.
Seany was also the shouty, chubby Irish protester outside the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. He's been carrying this torch for a very long time.
|by Anonymous||reply 154||Last Friday at 4:29 AM|
daddy touched me. I hate him
|by Anonymous||reply 155||Last Friday at 4:33 AM|
Why part 8? Shouldn't this be part 7?
|by Anonymous||reply 156||Last Friday at 4:39 AM|
I can't believe those two who keep arguing about this situation have NOTHING AT ALL better to do with their time and energy.
|by Anonymous||reply 157||Last Friday at 4:47 AM|
A few can't see part 7 because they've blocked the op. This one is fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 158||Last Friday at 4:47 AM|
R156 Part 7 was originated by a blowhard Jackson fan who hijacked the thread. Some on the forum think he was an official MJ representative from Sony, or their law firm Sunshine Sachs.
He's probably due back in here in a matter of minutes now, and will spend the day attempting defend Jackson's attraction to young boys in a robotic attorney-like fashion.
Link to part 7:
|by Anonymous||reply 159||Last Friday at 5:06 AM|
Sunshine Sachs is actually a PR firm.
The degree of rehabilitation of his image after death, when he was broke and seen as pervy trash, is quite something. A LV campaign and a Broadway show would have been unthinkable at that time.
Glad GA has also married. Many victims of csa isolate. I hope all victims, including those of MJ are able to find healing. I also hope that greater public awareness of grooming helps protect other kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 160||Last Friday at 5:13 AM|
It is hard to imagine this going forward.
Lucky break for the Britney musical.
|by Anonymous||reply 161||Last Friday at 5:15 AM|
Most likely Michael molested Sean Lennon, but I can think of a few reasons he might have escaped that fate. Most obviously, this is a guy who married Elvis's daughter. He might have wanted to attach himself to the Lennons just for the musical prestige as well. He certainly sought out other Beatles connections by performing with Paul McCartney and buying the Beatles' song catalog.
|by Anonymous||reply 162||Last Friday at 5:37 AM|
If Wacko had another boy to fuck at the time he was “special friends” with Sean, he might have escaped his attentions
|by Anonymous||reply 163||Last Friday at 6:19 AM|
The pro pedo diddler is not a paid schill... It's no other than the deranged Janet fan that has constantly spread its crazy on DL for years. You can spot its deranged, illogical way of arguing a mile away. And of course right after it posts it'll be followed by a browser switch where it talks to and agrees with itself.
FFing and blocking are the best course of action. It hates to be ignored.
|by Anonymous||reply 164||Last Friday at 6:24 AM|
Thanks for starting this thread and skipping the Part Seven!
|by Anonymous||reply 165||Last Friday at 6:43 AM|
R164, I don't think so either, despite the other poster who keeps screaming about Sony. There are always loony types that are obsessive; Michael's had them for years. I also think his defense is unconvincing. A pr type would mount a better defense, then again, there really isn't any. There is overwhelming evidence that Michael is guilty, but hardly anything that proves he's innocent. That's why Wade gets attacked so much. That is literally the only thing they can use and even that is unconvincing since Wade explained why he lied for years.
R154, do you know who the fan is who was showed in the documentary? He is a chubby MJ fanatic who seems to have a YouTube channel.
|by Anonymous||reply 166||Last Friday at 7:22 AM|
Here's one of chubby dude's YT vids
|by Anonymous||reply 167||Last Friday at 7:28 AM|
R159 Thanks for the explanation. I agree that it was probably a good idea to make a new thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 168||Last Friday at 7:42 AM|
r166, I only know the name of one chubby MJ superfan who appeared (briefly) in the documentary. It's Seany O'Kane, who later appeared in Big Brother 8 UK, and he appears in the footage of the tragic stans demonstrating outside the courthouse during the 2005 trial.
|by Anonymous||reply 169||Last Friday at 7:42 AM|
R114, that's a good point about Sean possibly staying quiet for his mother's sake. There are already plenty of people out there who hate Yoko.
As an aside, while watching the "Bubbles Burst" video, I was surprised that Sean sings with a Scouse accent, like his father's. He grew up in America, not Liverpool.
|by Anonymous||reply 170||Last Friday at 7:42 AM|
[Quote]That's why Wade gets attacked so much. That is literally the only thing they can use and even that is unconvincing since Wade explained why he lied for years.
THIS. It's why that they never attack James. It's obvious he is telling the truth. You can't fake how broken James is.
|by Anonymous||reply 171||Last Friday at 7:44 AM|
It's not possible to support Michael Jackson without believing in bizarre conspiracy theories. I remember when Wad eRobson first told his story in 2013 the first thing the Jackson estate said was " we believe he was paid by AEG". AEG was in a legal dispute with the Jackson estate at the time. Everything is a conspiracy and nothing is Michael Jackson's fault.
|by Anonymous||reply 172||Last Friday at 7:48 AM|
I remember watching Seany on Big Brother, R169. He was a total prick.
|by Anonymous||reply 173||Last Friday at 7:49 AM|
R173 at about 4:10, chubba chubba makes an appearance chastising those who would collaborate with Triumph the insult comic dog at a time of such awful moment.
|by Anonymous||reply 174||Last Friday at 8:06 AM|
If you cut out Jabba's crap that thread folds to 2/3 of its original size. Jabba's working really really hard to convince actually no one else than himself that the kiddie diddler was not what it seemed.
|by Anonymous||reply 175||Last Friday at 8:24 AM|
I really think Michael Jackson fans have a mental illness. There the sort who would have a collection of stuffed toys on their bed at the age of 45. I mean they really are deranged.
They’re attacking H&M on twitter for pulling their MJ gear. If you’re on twitter, please let H&M know that you support their decision. MJ was a disgusting pedophile who conned the world. I hope his memory is not tarnished but destroyed.
|by Anonymous||reply 176||Last Friday at 8:24 AM|
Jabba most likely doesn't give a fuck one way or another about MJ diddling kids... He's just more concerned at trying to cut off backlash that Lil sis might face for having known. Jabbas probably deathly afraid that #sheknew will trend and that RNR induction and Residency will be snatched away.
|by Anonymous||reply 177||Last Friday at 8:58 AM|
[quote] I really think Michael Jackson fans have a mental illness.
It's not just fans who are defending him. My heart goes out to his MJ's family and those like Culkin, Barnes, and Carter who have been harassed on Twitter and probably real life. I don't like Aaron Carter, especially after his whole coming out publicity stunt, but he was right to call out someone who called him complicit in MJ's crimes, just because he said Michael is innocent. Ironic that those who proclaim to have compassion for abuse victims have no qualms about victimizing others.
|by Anonymous||reply 178||Last Friday at 9:02 AM|
Family is fighting back.
|by Anonymous||reply 179||Last Friday at 9:12 AM|
The family isn't going to sue. They don't want this to be fully aired out bc it would hurt the estate. It's a blowhard move like that lawyer in 2005 who threatened potential witnesses on tv by saying they would destroy anyone who corroborated the abuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 180||Last Friday at 9:21 AM|
Paris said her role is not to defend her dad and that there ismr anything for her to say. The page sux thing is old.
|by Anonymous||reply 181||Last Friday at 9:24 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 182||Last Friday at 9:39 AM|
I always found the video to You Are Not Alone really uncomfortable to watch because Michael tried to present him and Lisa in a way intended to be sexual, wrapped in togas... Lisa was doing the sexy poses with her ass sticking out but Michael just couldn't summon the same vibe. There's no way they were fucking. No way.
|by Anonymous||reply 183||Last Friday at 9:43 AM|
Was there this type of defense going on in the UK with the after-death Jimmy Savile claims?
|by Anonymous||reply 184||Last Friday at 9:46 AM|
r183, god... he was such a freak.
|by Anonymous||reply 185||Last Friday at 9:47 AM|
R184, I think with Savile there was no future cash flow at stake.
|by Anonymous||reply 186||Last Friday at 10:32 AM|
Paris is being shredded by the crazy MJ fans. You would think those idiots wouldn't go after a mentally unstable girl. Obviously she isn't defending him bc she either knows he's a pedo or is worried that h could have been. Hope Culkin tells her the truth at least or maybe he already did?
|by Anonymous||reply 187||Last Friday at 10:39 AM|
R145 here. I am back again, and look forward to discussing these allegations with you all. As I have previously stated, the credibility of these individuals is nonexistent. Their past behavior, testimony, and timeline are not representative of abuse victims, but opportunists whose financial motivations for making these claims are apparent to most people.
These two men, in their late 30s and early 40s, have manufactured a rehearsed and calculated story of abuse after nearly two decades of staunch support for Jackson. They both testified under oath as children, and one again as a 23 year old adult man, that no abuse ever happened. Their testimony tells of generosity and peculiarity, as many other of Jackson's "young friends" have stated. The only diversion from their previous testimony now is these fictitious claims, compiled from tabloid books and a twisted imagination.
Robson sought permission to hold his wedding at Neverland -– in the middle of Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, for which he was acquitted of all charges. Does this sound like the behavior of a sexual abuse survivor? How about using the name of your alleged abuser to secure a job production in "Michael Jackson's ONE," twice? Once denied for that role after abandoning the team the first time, the same accuser in 2012 begin sending emails to himself and his mother, with leading statements like "how long was I with Michael alone before I was back with you guys?" Another email contains debunked tablod claims from a former maid and security guard, both of whom were fired for wrongdoing and ordered to pay in court for their lies. "Wow. None of that is true" replied Wade's mother, before he presumably stopped her from further destroying his case.
After 8 years of perfecting a story and shopping multiple book proposals, a lawsuit (intentionally under seal) was filed well after the known statute of limitations--all in an attempt to obtain a secret settlement from the Jackson estate. When they declined, In 2015, Robson's case was dismissed by a Los Angeles judge for expected statutory violations. His repeated attempts since then to profit from this alleged abuse are well documented since then. "Finding Neverland" might as well be titled "Finding Money,."
The Jackson's response sums it up best: this is yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson…Wade Robson and James Safechuck have both testified under oath that Michael never did anything inappropriate toward them. This so called ‘documentary’ is just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations. It’s baffling why any credible filmmaker would involve himself with this project.”
|by Anonymous||reply 188||Last Friday at 11:01 AM|
R188 is JanBot posting the same thing in multiple threads, and still a fail.
|by Anonymous||reply 189||Last Friday at 11:11 AM|
R189 Ah. Would you prefer I spread unchecked lies as others have done? Perhaps if I misrepresent these allegations as credible, or post speculation from employees fired 3 decades ago you would find that more credible than the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 190||Last Friday at 11:13 AM|
R183 R185 It is a good thing the majority of the public disagree with your opinion. "You Are Not Alone" holds a Guinness World Record as the first song in the 37-year history of the Billboard Hot 100 to debut at number one, and was later certified platinum by the RIAA. Not to mention it earned MJ another of many, many Grammy awards and received American Music Award nominations.
|by Anonymous||reply 191||Last Friday at 11:18 AM|
R187 I was about to say her silence on this issue speaks volumes. Seems like the crazy MJ stans have picked up on that too.
|by Anonymous||reply 192||Last Friday at 11:21 AM|
R188, your defense relies on the same tactic that the Republican cans use to attack Michael Cohen - the state over and over again that he’s an admitted liar, but conveniently omit what he was lying about... in both cases they were lying to protect the criminal in question, AT THE BEQUEST of said criminal.
And you don’t see the ridiculousness of such a lame accusation?
|by Anonymous||reply 193||Last Friday at 11:24 AM|
R184, from what I remember the general public accepted Savile's guilt fairly quickly. Initially, there were comments along the lines of "Why did these women wait until he died to come forward?" but that didn't last very long. There were so many different victims with similar stories, and several celebrities confirmed that rumours had been floating around for decades. It became apparent that Savile's behaviour had always been an open secret in the entertainment industry. One of his nephews defended him at first, but backtracked shortly after. It didn't take long for his family to accept the truth: they actually requested the removal of his gravestone less than two weeks after the documentary aired.
Of course, Savile didn't have a fanbase on anything close to the scale of Michael Jackson's. He was just an eccentric children's TV presenter from the 70s. People were much less resistant to hearing the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 194||Last Friday at 11:24 AM|
Paris Jackson has reasonably stated that it is "not [her] role" to defend these allegations. This makes sense, as the issue should be litigated in court, where the Jackson estate's defamation claims against HBO and the accusers will have considerably more success than their dismissed lawsuit.
"taj is doing a perfect job on his own. and i support him. but that’s not my role."
|by Anonymous||reply 195||Last Friday at 11:24 AM|
This is the line in the sand for me, if someone I'm talking to starts to say, "We don't know if he did it." I don't have time for this kind of delusion and denial. He fucking did it.
|by Anonymous||reply 196||Last Friday at 11:26 AM|
R193 I cannot speak to any other cases, but can safely assert that these individuals have defended Jackson for many years, with one even asking to have a wedding in his home during the 2005 trial (among other things.) Their claims now are not at all believable and clearly motivated by money. See R188.
|by Anonymous||reply 197||Last Friday at 11:27 AM|
R195 irony alert!
|by Anonymous||reply 198||Last Friday at 11:26 AM|
Meant for 187
|by Anonymous||reply 199||Last Friday at 11:28 AM|
Good point, R193 and the same logic goes.. if they are lying liars now... how does referencing what they said years ago hold up as evidence of the truth? They're lying liars, remember?
|by Anonymous||reply 200||Last Friday at 11:29 AM|
R168 says This is the line in the sand for me, if someone I'm talking to starts to say, "We don't know if he did it." I don't have time for this kind of delusion and denial. He fucking did it.
>>>>>You're coming to a conclusion not supported by evidence Where are the other dozens (if not hundreds) of children making claims if that is the case? Why are the only people coming out those with significant financial incentive (and a history of opportunistic behavior) to do so? Also, why are the timelines, actions, and stories of these individuals not consistent? The answer is because the claims are false. We can look no further than the accuser's own words as adults to prove this.
|by Anonymous||reply 201||Last Friday at 11:28 AM|
R196, not R168.
|by Anonymous||reply 202||Last Friday at 11:30 AM|
R200 says "Good point, [R193] and the same logic goes.. if they are lying liars now... how does referencing what they said years ago hold up as evidence of the truth? They're lying liars, remember?"
>>>>> The lying goes to credibility. As an example, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business. Source below.
|by Anonymous||reply 203||Last Friday at 11:34 AM|
Michael Cohen was overhyped. The fact that he could have lied about Russian collusion, trumps affairs, abuse claims but didn’t despite hating trump is what irked liberals to no end. Anyway the situation with Michael is not comparable.
|by Anonymous||reply 204||Last Friday at 11:37 AM|
"In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson"
|by Anonymous||reply 205||Last Friday at 11:39 AM|
Michael Jackson was a documented sick pedophile for over 30 years. I am still horrified at the number of clearly mentally ill people who defend him but there of a number of Holocaust deniers as well. So, there you go.
|by Anonymous||reply 206||Last Friday at 11:42 AM|
Also remember that Jabba is a Drumpf lover. Tells you everything you need to know.
|by Anonymous||reply 207||Last Friday at 11:42 AM|
You could produce a tape of Jackson oral copulating a seven year old & these sick fucks wouldn't believe it. Venn diagram of Trump supporters, SandyHook truthers, and Jackson stans.
|by Anonymous||reply 208||Last Friday at 11:44 AM|
R206 R207 R208 I am amazed by your ability to manufacture fiction and make ad hominem attacks in lieu of discussing the allegations. If it makes you feel better, I will give you the attention you seek and refer you and later readers back to R188.
|by Anonymous||reply 209||Last Friday at 11:50 AM|
R209 If this case was litigated on facts, Robson and Safechuck would be laughed out of court. Those who are calling you irrational are the same ones who are willing to excuse any past behavior by Robson because he said he was abused. Nevermind that he's been proven as a liar and manipulator going back years, and cheated on Brandi Jackson who he had a relationship with for over 7 years. Any rational person would think that Wade was a scumbag, but to those who hate Jackson, it's because MJ taught him how to lie. These are the same people who attack Paris Jackson, Macualay Cullkin, Brett Barnes, Aaron Carter, on social media and then act self righteous when we question the credibility of the accusers. These are the same people who claim to have facts on their side, but link to discredited tabloid stories from over 10 years ago. It's quite frightening.
|by Anonymous||reply 210||Last Friday at 11:59 AM|
R210 Thank you, it's nice to see that I am not the only person here who sees these allegations as clearly fictitious.
|by Anonymous||reply 211||Last Friday at 11:59 AM|
R210 I wasn't even aware of the Brandi Jackson aspect - and wasn't aware the story could get even less credible.
Dan Reed told 2Day FM's Grant, Ed & Ash on Wednesday: 'The fact that he was seeing - like boyfriend and girlfriend - Brandi at age of 12 or 13 doesn't mean that he wasn't seeing [being abused by] Jackson too. So I don't really follow the logic to be honest.'
|by Anonymous||reply 212||Last Friday at 12:15 PM|
I just assume every Jackson defender is also a flat-earther.
|by Anonymous||reply 213||Last Friday at 12:17 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 214||Last Friday at 12:21 PM|
That interrogation video is mind-blowing. Thank you for posting R149.
|by Anonymous||reply 215||Last Friday at 12:24 PM|
R188 you have zero credibility. I've detailed exactly why before. A few times. I'm tired of doing it.
We'd all do well to ignore R188. I suspect he knows deep down that the allegations are true, and just doesn't care. He sees the whole thing as a quid pro quo situation. Jackson got to molest them, and as payment they got to do cool stuff, and got material objects for their families. So they have no right to complain. If he were honest, this is the argument he'd be making.
|by Anonymous||reply 216||Last Friday at 12:26 PM|
I was in my early teens when the MJ/ Basheer interview broke and asked my older brothers and sisters why was everyone upset that MJ wanted to sleep with young boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 217||Last Friday at 12:34 PM|
You can easily disqualify Culkin and Carter, two very fucked up people. Too much drugging
|by Anonymous||reply 218||Last Friday at 12:37 PM|
I just discovered another, great documentary about Michael you can watch for free.
It shows how Michael was abused by his father Joe Jackson. And it has LOTS of quotes from Rob Cohen — another pedophile — who worked with Michael at Motown.
|by Anonymous||reply 219||Last Friday at 12:43 PM|
Like R167, the defenders are grasping. I mean the whole world could be saying he's guilty and they'll find something stupid to seize on. What about Jordan and Gavin? The eyewitnesses? They're all lying? Come on.
|by Anonymous||reply 220||Last Friday at 12:44 PM|
Maybe all of his rabid fans should buy Neverland, at the bargain reduced price of $31 million from $100 million and all move in there. Maybe they can find the hidden kiddie porn or used tampons Jackson stuck up his ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 221||Last Friday at 12:44 PM|
For the people saying Michael was sexually abused himself as a boy by "producers," maybe you should take a closer look at Rob Cohen — the now big-time movie director who first started producing for Michael at Motown.
This year, Rob Cohen's transgender daughter accused Cohen of sexual abuse as a child and teenager, which the mother has confirmed. So maybe Cohen subjected Michael to abuse or other pedophiles? But then again, I think Michael was a teenager when he met Cohen ...
|by Anonymous||reply 222||Last Friday at 12:45 PM|
R183 Fucking hated that song, as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 223||Last Friday at 12:51 PM|
I was just watching Paris Jackson's Instagram stories. It's all dumb jokes and pot references with her druggy boyfriend. The kid has zero substance.
|by Anonymous||reply 224||Last Friday at 12:51 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 225||Last Friday at 12:54 PM|
From Channel 4 UK
#LeavingNeverland episode 1’s consolidated audience of 4.7m / 20.8% share makes it @Channel4’s highest rating documentary since 2017. This is more than triple the slot average and the 16-34 audience share of 38.9% is over four times the slot average.
|by Anonymous||reply 226||Last Friday at 12:56 PM|
Rob Cohen directed the first Fast & Furious - with Paul Walker - and a few Miami Vice episodes
|by Anonymous||reply 227||Last Friday at 12:58 PM|
[R188] you have zero credibility. I've detailed exactly why before. A few times. I'm tired of doing it.
>>>>>>>.This issue is not about my credibility. However, it is very interesting that you want to focus on credibility, as you and others have explained away every massive credibility issue these accusers have. See R188.
We'd all do well to ignore [R188]. I suspect he knows deep down that the allegations are true, and just doesn't care. He sees the whole thing as a quid pro quo situation. Jackson got to molest them, and as payment they got to do cool stuff, and got material objects for their families. So they have no right to complain. If he were honest, this is the argument he'd be making.
>>>>>>>>I have explained in detail why the allegations are obviously false and the people who made them lack any credibility. You simply make more excuses for the victims, perhaps because you find them attractive or simply hate Jackson. The reason many find them lacking in credibility is not because they received material objects, but their actions. Such as claiming to have forgotten the abuse, shopping book proposals, asking to wed at Neverland during the trial, testifying as adults in his favor, dating another girl during the abuse, etc. Although nice try deflecting yet again with the ad hominem.
|by Anonymous||reply 228||Last Friday at 1:03 PM|
Like [R167], the defenders are grasping. I mean the whole world could be saying he's guilty and they'll find something stupid to seize on. What about Jordan and Gavin? The eyewitnesses? They're all lying? Come on.
>>>>>>>>>The "whole world" does not prove guilt. Granted, a trial in 2005 did find Michael Jackson not guilty but rather evidence and credibility do. There is no credible evidence here. Every story James and especially Wade tell to support the abuse they invented in 2011/2012 was very conveniently structured and manufactured. Not only does it contradict their own adult testimony, but is overshadowed by their actions, which do not mimic an abuse victim, but opportunists who see a chance to profit from a tale of fiction.
|by Anonymous||reply 229||Last Friday at 1:13 PM|
R225 They removed several items, but still paid homage to the dead singer. I am sure their royalty check will still clear the bank.
R222 The limits of your imagination are incredible.
|by Anonymous||reply 230||Last Friday at 1:15 PM|
R228 but you claimed that James Safechuck "suddenly" remembered being molested in 2013. Simply untrue. That, along with dozens of other lies and mischaracterizations of the facts to further your agenda, suggest to me you are not a person with anything of value to contribute on this topic.
And your habit of going off on Robeson, and then at the last second lumping James Safechuck in with him as if his story mirrors Robeson's. It's laughable. You're laughable.
You see, you've been exposed. As a fake, phony, fraud. A pretender. So go away, before you embarrass yourself further.
|by Anonymous||reply 231||Last Friday at 1:19 PM|
Nobody likes your insane, pedophile, anti-Semitic, freak "God" R228. Justice delayed for Wade & James but hopefully not justice denied.
|by Anonymous||reply 232||Last Friday at 1:20 PM|
R183, that was the first Michael Jackson video I ever saw. I had heard about him being the coolest pop star alive, and when I actually saw how bizarre he looked I was astonished.
Also, around at that time, there was a playground rumour that one of my classmates had seen Michael Jackson in the girls' bathroom. With hindsight, it would have been much more believable if they'd said they'd seen in the boys' bathroom.
|by Anonymous||reply 233||Last Friday at 1:29 PM|
R231 Safechuck (comically) asks viewers to accept that it was not until he was 35 (in 2014) that he recognized that being sexually abused “hundreds” of times over a four year period, beginning when he was four-years-old, was actually abuse. Of course, he failed to mention serious financial issues and involvement in an inheritance battle in which he was being sued by surviving siblings may have influenced this epiphany.
"Coincidentally," he filed suit with the same lawyer who handled Robson's already dismissed case. This time they takes a different strategy, claiming MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures were both “child sexual abuse operations." Both lawsuits are dismissed, on the grounds that neither company could affect Jackson’s behavior in addition to statutory violations (well after the 10 year, 18th birthday rule intended to protect against false claims.) R232 - Justice did prevail, yet again.
Of course, an entire book could be written the emails, testimony, employment and financial history that contradict Robson's abuse claims--but he has already been discredited widely. I am prepared to discuss Safechuck also, especially since he is the next go-to victim after thoroughly debunking his coplaintiff.
|by Anonymous||reply 234||Last Friday at 1:37 PM|
"claiming to have forgotten the abuse"
Never happened. No one claimed any such thing. For all your self-stroking about demonstrating why the allegations are false, you keep lying. You've convinced no one but your alter egos posting from other devices.
|by Anonymous||reply 235||Last Friday at 1:37 PM|
"Safechuck (comically) asks viewers to accept that it was not until he was 35 (in 2014) that he recognized that being sexually abused “hundreds” of times over a four year period, beginning when he was four-years-old, was actually abuse. ... "Coincidentally," he filed suit with the same lawyer who handled Robson's already dismissed case."
More lies. You keep misrepresenting what Safechuck actually said. And you're doing it deliberately.
|by Anonymous||reply 236||Last Friday at 1:40 PM|
Stop feeding the troll! I'm also ready to block everyone arguing with it, at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 237||Last Friday at 1:44 PM|
R235 I do not have to post from different devices, because i am comfortable stating everything (as my posting history will show) out in the open. If you would like me to clarify a statement, I am happy to do so. Just ask.
My statement was sourced from the link below and shows that at least one version of Safechuck's claim is that he only realized he was abused after seeing Robson's lawsuit, and entering therapy (likely to provide an excuse for his damning sworn testimony and denials of any inappropriate behavior.) However, It is understandable that you may have heard many different stories of why he came forward.
From the article below: --- "California law gives people with claims just a year after a death to bring them to probate court, but Safechuck says it wasn’t until he learned Wade Robson, another man making similar allegations, had filed a lawsuit that he decided to get psychiatric help."
“I have finally come to know and appreciate now, after a little over a year of intensive therapy and psychiatric treatment, that this relationship was a predatory and wholly improper one, and one whereby the decedent (Jackson) used my trust and love of him as a means to victimize and sexually molest me,” Safechuck states.
R237 Sad. 0/10. Anyone who can provide sourced claims that show these accusers are almost certainly lying (or have significant motive to do so) are "trolls."Okay then.
|by Anonymous||reply 238||Last Friday at 1:50 PM|
Maybe MJJ should have written a book addressing the allegations.....he could have called it "If I Did It."
|by Anonymous||reply 239||Last Friday at 1:52 PM|
R238 Keep moving those goalposts, you're now off the field. None of that is the same as the lie you told that he claimed to have forgotten the abuse.
|by Anonymous||reply 240||Last Friday at 1:52 PM|
Further R237, you should understand that blocking only impacts what you see.
I am thankful that many people reading these threads are actually thinking and evaluating the credibility of what they share now. This was not the case in previous threads.
R239 He didn't have to write a book. We can just look at the past words of his accusers, who said under oath he did not.
|by Anonymous||reply 241||Last Friday at 1:52 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 242||Last Friday at 1:56 PM|
The media were complicit in portraying his admission to sleeping with boys as something to be laughed off. A few weeks after the Bashir documentary, Comic Relief aired this parody (I was reminded of it because today is Red Nose Day). At the beginning and end of the video, the issue of Jackson's sleeping arrangements is treated as a joke. Thinking about it, that's pretty strange considering that he had been accused of abusing a boy ten years earlier and had settled with the family for $23m.
|by Anonymous||reply 243||Last Friday at 1:58 PM|
I've now blocked the tedious bore who has been arguing with the blocked pedo defender. I didn't want to...
|by Anonymous||reply 244||Last Friday at 2:01 PM|
Yeah, well, even the sickest motherfuckers need to be ridiculed and made fun of when they're denying crimes and still threatening the public, r243.
Absolutely they should be joked about!
|by Anonymous||reply 245||Last Friday at 2:06 PM|
If Michael Jackson wasn't a pedo, he wouldn't have settled and paid $17 million to the Chandlers in the first place.
|by Anonymous||reply 246||Last Friday at 2:08 PM|
R240 Claiming you were not abused for many years, and only realizing that you did not know that your allegations (obviously sexual abuse) were such until after seeing someone else file a lawsuit is "forgetting." Then visiting a therapist, for the purpose of "realizing" this abuse, might as well be having forgotten the abuse. It's mighty convenient if nothing else. He had to explain it away somehow, after all.
Your reasoning skills when explaining away their years of denial is strong, but you are quick to reject the obvious signs that suggest duplicity is at work here.
Also, if I was JanBot don't you think I would have posted some superficial Madonna reference by now?
R244 Why do you feel the need to keep announcing that you are blocking people? Does it make you feel better? Nevertheless, good for you. I am not here to convince you, but others who see these replies.
|by Anonymous||reply 247||Last Friday at 2:09 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 248||Last Friday at 2:17 PM|
R247, it's not forgetting, just as your lies aren't forgotten. Similarly, many of the adults who came forward as victims of childhood abuse by priests had similar realizations well into adulthood, and the vast majority of them came forward as a result of hearing accounts by others who had sued or otherwise publicly revealed their abuse. This was of course already discussed and your lie debunked in prior threads, but you're so busy congratulating yourself from your multiple devices you don't realize we're all onto you.
|by Anonymous||reply 249||Last Friday at 2:19 PM|
R245 - yes, they should be mocked about, but I think the fact that so much casual innuendo was made about Jackson being a paedophile desensitised people to it, to an extent. There's that moment in the documentary where Wade tells a chat show host that he used to hang out with Michael Jackson as a child, and the host jokes, "Where exactly did he touch you?" Things like that gave out the impression that of course he wasn't REALLY a paedophile, or people wouldn't have been so cavalier about that.
|by Anonymous||reply 250||Last Friday at 2:19 PM|
Michael Jackson has recently submitted a confession. You can stop lying for him now!
|by Anonymous||reply 251||Last Friday at 2:19 PM|
R247 A typical profile of an abuser would indicate escalation of abuse. Chandler never made claims of anal penetration, etc. which means the level of abuse would have been working in reverse and declining if we are to follow LN timeline. That alone should suggest they are lying about the abuse if you believe Chandler's accusations.
Chandler's father Evan was more than $60,000 behind child support payments and had already approached Jackson several times asking for money. Chandler was recorded saying, "If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out...I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again." This phone call took place on July 8; Evan would claim Jordan had confessed the abuse to him on July 16 while under the influence of sodium amytal during a dental procedure. Evan Chandler was sued by Jordan after he nearly killed him with a barbell and mace in August 2005. Jordan obtained a permanent restraining order against his father as a result. Evan would later commit suicide 4 years later.
Although some claim the settlement is evidence of guilt (it did not prevent anyone from pursuing criminal action), others believe Jackson understandably wanted to avoid a prolonged and emotionally grueling civil trial. None of us know which side is right. Those who claim to know the truth, as you seem, are merely stating their own feelings about the case.
|by Anonymous||reply 252||Last Friday at 2:19 PM|
Oh, and this: "only realizing that you did not know that your allegations (obviously sexual abuse) were such until after seeing someone else file a lawsuit is "forgetting." Then visiting a therapist, for the purpose of "realizing" this abuse"
is also a lie as you've completely mischaracterized what both Wade and James said.
|by Anonymous||reply 253||Last Friday at 2:22 PM|
And another one without a fucking clue:
"A typical profile of an abuser would indicate escalation of abuse. Chandler never made claims of anal penetration, etc. which means the level of abuse would have been working in reverse and declining if we are to follow LN timeline. That alone should suggest they are lying about the abuse if you believe Chandler's accusations."
No, that's not accurate and not how it works.
|by Anonymous||reply 254||Last Friday at 2:22 PM|
A lot of the victims of childhood sexual abuse by priests din't come forward because they killed themselves. I seriously think that the sicko Jackson fans wish that Gavin, Jordan, Wade, James had done the same.
Who knows? There may be some that did that we will never know about.
|by Anonymous||reply 255||Last Friday at 2:24 PM|
R249 I am sure these two appreciate you trying to attach credibility from Catholic sex-abuse survivors to their claims. The Church covered up -but collected- years of facts and evidence about these priests. They knew they were pedophiles, had evidence of their abuse (at the time it happened), and did nothing. They moved priests around to different dioceses and were complicit in keeping the victims silent.
The MJ accusers supported Jackson for many years, well into his death, and sought financial and work experience from his family and estate. There is no factual evidence of their abuse (unlike the multitude of records harbored by the Catholic Church). They lied under oath, blamed their own family, and have filed lawsuits solely (dismissed) to seek money.
|by Anonymous||reply 256||Last Friday at 2:25 PM|
R254 Yes, that is how it works. But you say that about every fact that makes the allegations seem untrue. Go back and read what I wrote in R252.
R255 I haven't said that, but your replies suggest to me that you have an active imagination and a false perception of reality. Perhaps you encountered one of his hundreds of millions of fans who rubbed you the wrong way, but no one is wishing death to any of them, regardless of their clearly false allegations.
|by Anonymous||reply 257||Last Friday at 2:30 PM|
R256 you tried that before, and failed then too. You're conflating other evidence with credibility of individual accusers. It is not at all uncommon for a CSA victim to not come forward well into adulthood. It is not uncommon for a CSA victim to not recognize the abuse as abuse until well into adulthood. It is not uncommon for a CSA victim to come forward after hearing accounts from similarly situated victims. You keep using these 3 characteristics as evidence James is lying when in fact his behavior fits squarely within the behavior of other CSA victims. And when you add your brain dead alter ego at R252 pretending that all abusers always escalate and abuse all their victims similarly, you just further demonstrate your idiocy.
The vast majority of Jimmy Salvile's accusers didn't come forward until after he was dead, most were revealing abuse that had happened decades prior, and the abuse his victims experiences ranged wildly from single instance gropings to full on violent sexual assault. To apply the pathetic ignorance you've demonstrated here, they must all be lying.
But of course they aren't. You're just a failure.
|by Anonymous||reply 258||Last Friday at 2:32 PM|
R253 I sourced that claim in R238. If you find it does not match what you heard or read, then it is because they have changed their stories many times.
|by Anonymous||reply 259||Last Friday at 2:33 PM|
James has not changed his story, you just lie.
|by Anonymous||reply 260||Last Friday at 2:38 PM|
Radar Online has run two hit pieces on Paris in 48 hours. The latest is saying that she's not allowed to see Katherine as she's relapsed so badly. It could be true....she seems a mess. But I feel like the Jackson's are feeding this info. That's what they do...I am sure they would love to get her money.
|by Anonymous||reply 261||Last Friday at 2:50 PM|
R258. I will break this down in pieces.
[R256] you tried that before, and failed then too. You're conflating other evidence with credibility of individual accusers. It is not at all uncommon for a CSA victim to not come forward well into adulthood. It is not uncommon for a CSA victim to not recognize the abuse as abuse until well into adulthood. It is not uncommon for a CSA victim to come forward after hearing accounts from similarly situated victims. You keep using these 3 characteristics as evidence James is lying when in fact his behavior fits squarely within the behavior of other CSA victims. And when you add your brain dead alter ego at [R252]
>>>>>>>>>>>I am not conflating evidence with anything. You compared this situation to the Catholic Church abuse scandal and I explained several key differences. For example, there is almost no evidence to support the MJ accuser's claims except for their own testimony, which they now say was previously full of lies.
>>>>>>>>>>Research tells us that CSA victims do all of what you mentioned, but there is no research as it pertains to wealthy pop stars. I am not saying that coming forward as an adult to say you were molested in not normal. I am pointing out that at least one of the two, as an adult, reaffirmed under oath that there was no abuse, and this has serious implications on his credibility and that of his coplantiff.
pretending that all abusers always escalate and abuse all their victims similarly, you just further demonstrate your idiocy.
>>>>>>>>>>>It's just common sense that if a pedophile is abusing children, he will escalate that abuse, especially if we are to believe the documentary's suggestion that Jackson was a serial pedophile with unlimited access to children. I am simply calling out the obvious, that if you believe Chandler was abused, then look at his claims. See R252.
The vast majority of Jimmy Salvile's accusers didn't come forward until after he was dead, most were revealing abuse that had happened decades prior, and the abuse his victims experiences ranged wildly from single instance gropings to full on violent sexual assault. To apply the pathetic ignorance you've demonstrated here, they must all be lying.
>>>>>>>>I am glad you use Jimmy Salvile as an example. Many people of all ages and stories came forward to make allegations against him, much like you would expect with Jackson, right? No. Instead, the people accusing Jackson have testified to no abuse, behaved unlike any reasonable abuse victims would, and tried to profit substantially from their relationship with him, and later allegations against him.
But of course they aren't. You're just a failure.
>>>>>>>>Ad hominem closing. Clearly your speciality in the absence of a credible rebuttal.
|by Anonymous||reply 262||Last Friday at 2:55 PM|
R262 = whole lotta nonsense to try and distract from its lies.
"Instead, the people accusing Jackson have testified to no abuse, behaved unlike any reasonable abuse victims would, and tried to profit substantially from their relationship with him, and later allegations against him."
None of that describes James Safechuck.
You keep lying, you keep failing.
|by Anonymous||reply 263||Last Friday at 3:00 PM|
R260 R263 Unlike Wade Robson, Safechuck better calculated his abuse claims because he is not as blatant an opportunist as his coplantiff. However, this does not mean his carefully crafted claims are credible. Despite testifying under oath that no abuse occurred as a child, he reversed course the same time as financial problems became apparent.
He wants the public to believe that it was not until he was 35 (around 2014) that he recognized being molested “hundreds” of times over a four year period, beginning when he was four-years-old, was actually "abuse" at all. Further, it took seeing Robson's lawsuit to convince him to get therapy and come to this realization.
So he enters therapy for the purpose of "realizing" that (again these many hundreds of) molestations by Jackson were abuse. It was not until this therapist helped him understand this (of course)--that he just happened to come into contact with Robson's attorney--who helped him launch a lawsuit against the production company using a different strategy, which was also dismissed. Not only is his story unbelievable, but ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 264||Last Friday at 3:15 PM|
R263 Again, I find it interesting that you abandon Robson and switch to Safechuck whenever credibility becomes a problem. Does this mean you acknowledge that major credibility issues exist with him especially? They are both in the same TV program, and litigants in the same dismissed lawsuit, so you cannot ignore the association between them. I do not think it is unreasonable to associate their credibility for these reasons.
See my new reply at R264.
|by Anonymous||reply 265||Last Friday at 3:18 PM|
R264 Go watch "Abducted in plain sight"
|by Anonymous||reply 266||Last Friday at 3:20 PM|
Oh look, R264 caught lying so there go the goalposts again!
|by Anonymous||reply 267||Last Friday at 3:20 PM|
R265, you deliberately keep collapsing Wade and James' 2 very different experiences to pretend they both behaved the exact same way so you can use attacks against Wade as an attack on both of them. Luckily most of us are not as stupid as you are, so we notice it.
|by Anonymous||reply 268||Last Friday at 3:23 PM|
Rather than analyzing my replies to find irrelevant info to claim I am lying about, why not just address the reply, or better yet, ask me to to source my claim?
|by Anonymous||reply 269||Last Friday at 3:23 PM|
Fuck you and your bullshit claims R269 Who are you to be dictating how we see this obvious case. ? Your obsession is your problem, we are quite satisfied that Jackson was pedophile and the desperate contortions of a pipsqueak fan are nothing to us.
|by Anonymous||reply 270||Last Friday at 3:32 PM|
R268 Actually posting evidence of what you are saying would make your replies more meaningful.
You keep suggesting that I am using Wade (is he not a victim anymore?) and his major credibility issues to make suggestions about James' claims.
They are coplantiffs in a lawsuit, main participants in the documentary and Oprah interview, and Safechuck was inspired by Robson to come forward. They are intricately linked. If it seems like discussing one leads to a conversation about other, this is hardly an example of "collapsing" the other.
|by Anonymous||reply 271||Last Friday at 3:32 PM|
I am close to blocking the guy arguing with the troll. Please stop. You have made your points, just block him. That is what is recommended by Muriel and you are really derailing the thread, despite your heart being in the right place.
|by Anonymous||reply 272||Last Friday at 3:32 PM|
R270 I'm going to assume your sarcasm at least means you realize this is not an obvious case, which is progress. Because the only thing obvious is that these accusers have major credibility issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 273||Last Friday at 3:33 PM|
R269 Because the only source for "I just don't believe him" is up your own ass.
As to the facts of the Jackson allegations, you keep lying about them. You've lied about there being no evidence Jackson slept in the same bed as children, about what James said about when and how he began to see Jackson's behavior towards him as abuse, that the photo at R19 was fake, and lots of other details in prior threads. Your interpretation of anything is useless because you just lie when it's convenient.
|by Anonymous||reply 274||Last Friday at 3:34 PM|
Per our very own webmaster:
Please use the Flames and freaks, ignore poster and ignore thread features instead of engaging in pointless arguments with trolls. You are not going to change their minds. They do not care what you post. All they care about is the attention they recieve. Don't give it to them.
It is not possible to ban trolls on an anonymous board because they use anonymous proxies and other tools to mask the origin of their posts. We can however limit their ability to deface the site and deny them what they are looking for - your attention.
If you don't want to see a thread click the ignore thread button. If you don't want to see a particular poster's posts click the ignore poster button. If and only if the post is racist or homophobic or otherwise unacceptable click the flames and freaks button.
As a side note, if there are too many F&F the thread can automatically be closed, which is the aim of the trolls. Just block and scroll. People are starting to block you and that is unfortunate.
|by Anonymous||reply 275||Last Friday at 3:34 PM|
R272 Again, discussing the allegations and context around them is not being a troll. You may not like what I am saying, or pointing out--heck, many of you do not agree with me at all, but that hardly makes me a troll. Finally, if there is someone you want to speak with uninterrupted so badly on an anonymous message board, exchange emails with them.
|by Anonymous||reply 276||Last Friday at 3:37 PM|
R275 Sad. The fragility of some people is remarkable. Here's an idea: find another website if you are not smart enough to defend your opinions.
|by Anonymous||reply 277||Last Friday at 3:38 PM|
You mean there are people here who believed that Rob Cohen's son who says she was 2 years old at the time was molested in the bathtub? People will believe anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 278||Last Friday at 3:39 PM|
Will Janet say anything at all before her performance at Glastonbury?
|by Anonymous||reply 279||Last Friday at 3:41 PM|
I believe James was 9, not 4, when he met Jackson but the rest of your post is correct. Wade told Matt Lauer that the repressed memories claim was false, but he in fact did make that claim in an early draft of his book.
|by Anonymous||reply 280||Last Friday at 3:42 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 281||Last Friday at 3:43 PM|
Although Brandi admits that she was 18 when she lost her virginity with Wade, she does say that they had been in a sexual relationship earlier than that, around the same time Wade was being allegedly abused. The fact that she couldn't tell anything was wrong with Wade emotionally or sexually is perhaps the thing that is most hard to believe, quite honestly.
|by Anonymous||reply 282||Last Friday at 3:45 PM|
Of course not, R279.
Her son is fortunate that Uncle Mike is dead.
|by Anonymous||reply 283||Last Friday at 3:46 PM|
Jennifer Fox on coming to terms with her abuse in adulthood:
After 30 years directing documentaries, Jennifer Fox was a specialist in the truth. Yet, she had been lying to herself since her 40-year-old track coach took her virginity when she was 13. An older, powerful adult man and a pubescent girl is textbook child abuse, but for much of Fox’s life, she explains, she waved off their evenings together as “my first relationship”.
The teenage Jennifer swore that Coach Bill (a pseudonym, as he is still alive) thought she was his secret love. He had flattered the lonely kid into considering herself his grownup equal. The word “victim” never crossed her mind. Instead, she was so confident their connection was special – unique, even – that she wrote a school essay about Bill and his accomplice, Mrs G, the horse-riding instructor who introduced them, rhapsodising about the pair as: “two very special people who I’ve come to love dearly ... I’m lucky enough to be able to share in their love.” Her teacher handed the paper back with the note: “Since you’re so well adjusted, it can’t be true.” ...
Fox began to cross-examine her own history while conducting interviews for her 2006 film Flying: Confessions of a Free Woman. Other women’s tragedies sounded uncomfortably close to her young “romance”. “It just blew my mind that I was hearing stories that sounded just like my precious story that I had guarded as my identity, except they were calling it abuse,” says Fox. “It was not that I suddenly remembered more, because I always remembered everything. It was like a light went on on a part of the room that I had kept slightly dim.”
|by Anonymous||reply 284||Last Friday at 3:46 PM|
Anyway enough of the Jackson fool, How do we feel about Jackson outside of his serial monogamous relationships ( can't believe I'm typing that for a grown man and a child ! ) , do you think it was just the ones we know of , or would he have had one night stands? I suppose he was cunning enough to go through the grooming and realized it was necessary for his aim, the long game rather than riskier opportunities. He clearly had a much greater interest in sex than he presented in his image, but then that was part of the grooming too, and we all fell for it, for a while.
|by Anonymous||reply 285||Last Friday at 3:48 PM|
Matt Sandusky initially defended his adoptive father, then turned on him after he heard another victim's testimony:
Matt Sandusky was 33 years old then – 25 years after the abuse began.
He’d stood with the Sandusky family at first in defense of Jerry Sandusky.
But on the first day of testimony, a man identified only as Victim 4 – someone Matt Sandusky knew personally – testified for hours about the abuse he’d endured from the football coach.
That’s when Matt Sandusky broke his silence, telling authorities.
He also opened up to a therapist three times a week and continues therapy four years later, though less frequently.
Matt Sandusky was prepared to testify as a rebuttal witness against Jerry Sandusky, but that wasn’t necessary: the defendant decided not to testify. Some believe Jerry Sandusky passed on the witness stand because of Matt’s own willingness to testify.
|by Anonymous||reply 286||Last Friday at 3:52 PM|
R274 You make some seriously false claims, but i will address them.
As to the facts of the Jackson allegations, you keep lying about them.
>>>>>>>>>>>.Not true, I source my claims upon request.
You've lied about there being no evidence Jackson slept in the same bed as children,
>>>>>>>>>>>Not true, I clarified that the original Martin Bashir interview omitted many details, including when the boy, Gavin, clarified that Jackson slept on the floor and literally gave him the bed. See R54.
about what James said about when and how he began to see Jackson's behavior towards him as abuse,
>>>>>>>>>>>It is well documented that he did not believe Jackson's actions were abuse until he entered therapy. It is also documented that he entered therapy after becoming aware of Robson's lawsuit.
that the photo at [R19] was photographed during an investigation was fake, and lots of other details in prior threads.
>>>>>>>>>>>This is just a half truth. I called the post at R19 "fake, unrelated news" because it was unrelated to the allegations or current discussion.
Your interpretation of anything is useless because you just lie when it's convenient.
>>>>>>>>>>>I do not lie, I post the context around the allegations, as well as my opinions of the credibility of information others post.
|by Anonymous||reply 287||Last Friday at 3:52 PM|
R285 Why are you hoping for more victims if you believe in Jackson's guilt? What does that say about you?
|by Anonymous||reply 288||Last Friday at 3:57 PM|
Also remember, the more people who come forward with false allegations, the less likely genuine victims are going to be believed.
|by Anonymous||reply 289||Last Friday at 3:58 PM|
Contrary to certain liars, who are now lying about their lies, James never said anywhere that it was Wade's lawsuit that made him realize the abuse. He also never claimed to have forgotten anything. What he said was Wade's story made him realize he needed to get help and that all the things he thought were "wrong" about himself was probably connected to the abuse. From Safechuck's complaint:
73. In 2005, DECEDENT contacted Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his behalf in the criminal trial against DECEDENT in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 27 years old at the time. DECEDENT started out the telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, DECEDENT got angry and threatened him. Plaintiff told DECEDENT never to call him again, and that he wanted a normal life. DECEDENT got very angry and continued to threaten Plaintiff, telling him that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get Plaintiff for perjury from the 1993 Chandler investigation. Plaintiff had never experienced DECEDENT being so angry. Plaintiff was also panicked about DECEDENT talking to his mother—fearful that she would find out about his abuse by DECEDENT and be threatened by DECEDENT’s lawyers.
74. A few days after this telephone conversation, DECEDENT called Plaintiffs mother to try to get her to convince Plaintiff to testify on his behalf at the criminal trial. DECEDENT also wanted both of Plaintiffs parents to testify on his behalf. One to two days prior to DECEDENT’s call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the call he had received from DECEDENT and that he had declined to testify at the criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that DECEDENT was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been abused. Plaintiff told his mother not to let DECEDENT know that she had found out. Plaintiff was panicked that DECEDENT would find out that he had told his mother. When DECEDENT called Plaintiffs mother, she pretended that she was not aware of DECEDENT’s earlier threatening call to her son, or about the abuse.
75. DECEDENT’s lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, DECEDENT’s executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said that they saw happen between Plaintiff and DECEDENT. Plaintiff told them that he did not want any further involvement with DECEDENT.
76. After the call with DECEDENT’s lawyers and Ms. Tavasci, DECEDENT called Plaintiff again. This call was towards the end of the criminal trial. DECEDENT told Plaintiff that that he “was sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” The words that DECEDENT used and the tone of his voice appeared to Plaintiff to be rehearsed, as if the call were being tape recorded. Plaintiff feared that this was a possibility, as he knew from the past that DECEDENT often taped telephone calls on a regular basis. Plaintiff wanted to get off the telephone call as quickly as possible, as the very sound of DECEDENT’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into a panic mode. DECEDENT continued to pressure Plaintiff to testify and told him that Gavin Arviso (the victim in the criminal prosecution) was just trying to get money. Plaintiff told DECEDENT not to call or try to talk to him ever again, and then ended the call. 77. On June 25, 2009, DECEDENT died.
78. Upon learning of his death, Plaintiff felt sad because he realized he would never have the opportunity for a normal relationship with DECEDENT, and that his experiences with DECEDENT would never be resolved.
|by Anonymous||reply 290||Last Friday at 4:02 PM|
79. After the birth of his son, in late 2010, Plaintiff began to worry that he himself would have pedophilic urges. Plaintiff started to see how innocent children really were. Plaintiff had married a woman he worked with in 2007. He had never told her about his sexual abuse. During his wife’s pregnancy, Plaintiff had sought help from Dr. [REDACTED], a general practitioner, who prescribed Xanax to help with his anxiety. Plaintiff did not discuss the abuse with Dr. [REDACTED], nor did he equate his anxiety with the abuse. Plaintiff had coped with the abuse for many years by compartmentalizing what had happened during his relationship with DECEDENT.
80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with [REDACTED]. He is going to therapy one a week. Plaintiff tries to appear that he has “it together”, but struggles on a daily basis with his panic, depression and anxiety. He did not realize how “sick” it was that DECEDENT did the things he did to him as a child until he began therapy. Until he had his own children and realized how innocent they were and what “blank slates” they were, he did not appreciate that when you are made to think as a child that something was “your idea” it did not seem as bad as it actually was, as in the case of his abuse by DECEDENT.
|by Anonymous||reply 291||Last Friday at 4:02 PM|
R286 Matt Sandusky was abused repeatedly by his adoptive parent, who is still alive. This is hardly the case with Leaving Neverland, where the men accuse a dead pop star. Yes, Sandusky may have lied also to protect his abuser, but that is about the only similarity they share.
As I have mentioned before, if Michael Jackson was the cunning pedophile alleged in Leaving Neverland, and had access to hundreds of children. Where are the rest of the victims? There are over a dozen people who were credible enough to testify against Sandusky. Michael Jackson's accusers come out alone, coincidentally with a history of numerous financial problems.
Also, Sandusky's victims do not have a history of constantly seeking money, employment, and status using his name and reputation even well after his death. T
|by Anonymous||reply 292||Last Friday at 4:04 PM|
R290 R291 You posted two large sections from Wade and Safechuck's complaint as alleged in their now dismissed lawsuit. I hope that the people who later read this can analyze and compare the lawsuit to their past and future statements. More importantly, I suspect that they will realize that even in the original complaint the timeline is bizarre.
|by Anonymous||reply 293||Last Friday at 4:06 PM|
An absolutely ESSENTIAL read: Former FBI agent Ken Lanning, a top authority on child sexual abuse and author of 'Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis', talks about the traits of the MALE PREFERENTIAL child molester Ken Lanning states there are two types of child molesters: situational child molesters -- someone who is not exclusively attracted to children but rather uses them if they're available, and the preferential child molester -- someone who exclusively fantasizes about children and prefers them sexually over any other kind of partner.
Excerpt from an interview with Ken Lanning in the book 'Be Careful Who You Love':
TRAITS OF A MALE PREFERENTIAL CHILD MOLESTER:
Seduction of first the parent or parents: "Most people are just simply not suspicious enough and cynical enough and sceptical enough. Frequently the parent is a troubled parent struggling to survive in the world. You don't have a husband; your kids are latchkey kids. Who's going to watch them? You're struggling to survive, and along comes an individual who is willing to emotionally and financially and psychologically support you, provide you with help and assistance, be a father figure to your child. So, along comes somebody like this. Not only are most parents not suspicious, but they're thinking they died and went to heaven! Because of the compulsive sexual interest in children, [pedophiles] engage in high-risk kinds of sexual activity with children, frequently beginning to seduce a child right in front of the mother or father."
Well-developed techniques for gaining access to children: "Their homes are frequently described as 'shrines to children' or 'miniature Disneylands,'" Lanning said. "They have a lot of things in their house to attract children. There may be Nintendo games, computer games, toys for kids; actually, when you're in their homes you get more the feeling of [being] in the home of a child or a teenager than the house of an adult. It almost has a kind of childlike quality. And also, they usually have age and gender preferences. So, if you're dealing with a guy who likes boys ten to fourteen, his house is going to be decorated and have material [in it] that is going to be of interest to boys ten to fourteen."
Seduction ritual of the child: "They seduce children essentially the same way men and women have been seducing each other ever since the dawn of mankind. You see somebody who is of sexual interest to you. You find out something about them, whether that is three minutes' or three days' or three weeks' or three months' worth of information. You shower them with attention and affection and kindness. You buy them gifts and presents, you gradually try to lower their inhibitions and manipulate them into sexual activity. That is what the pedophile does: he seduces his victims. He is very skilled at relating to them and identifying with them, and he uses those skills to manipulate them and control them."
|by Anonymous||reply 294||Last Friday at 4:08 PM|
they should level neverland, its haunted with the busted virginity of youngsters.....TURN IT INTO HOME FOR HOMELSS KIDS
|by Anonymous||reply 295||Last Friday at 4:07 PM|
An uncanny ability to identify with and listen to children: "Number one, they have a good ability to identify with children; they know how to relate to children, they know what their likes and dislikes are. And maybe more important, they know how to listen to them. They learn what their interests are. So, they are very good at using these skills to, what I call, seduce children. In some ways, they can be [childlike themselves]. But it would be a mistake to assume that they are going to be immature and babylike. They just have a magical rapport [with kids]. Matter of fact, some people will describe that they are like a Pied Piper around kids; they just really know how to relate to kids so well. They have this ability to identify with children so well. It is almost like a part of them never grew up. Many of these kids have never been treated so well in their entire lives as they have by a preferential molester."
Collects keepsakes from victims and immortalizes the molestation: "They almost in a sense become human evidence machines. The odds are that the perpetrator will have a souvenir or memento that he took from the child...he may have pictures. [They will] collect pornographic and erotic materials related to children, and these are all things that can be valuable, corroborative evidence in the investigation."
Don't think their behavior is wrong: "Many pedophiles refuse to recognize that what they do is even wrong. They say to themselves, 'Society just doesn't understand what I do. I'm not a bad person. I'm just engaging in something which is now politically incorrect and [that will] change down the road'. The consensus of opinion is there is no cure for pedophilia. There may be treatments for it, there may be things you can do to help these individuals control their behavior...but if you're not admitting what you've done, then you can't even begin treatment--that's the problem."
Multiple victims: "A preferential molester is far more likely to have multiple victims, to not simply have molested one kid ten or twenty times or a hundred times, which sometimes happens. But a preferential molester is likely to have molested 5, 10, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 kids. [It] begins in their adolescent years and probably continues until almost the day they die."
Why do victimized children continue to defend the molester, for months and years?
Agent Lanning says that, "That kind of thinking goes back to our idea that only monsters molest. These perpetrators are often seemingly the finest people ever to enter the child's life. Who wouldn't want to be with a popular coach, a great Scout Leader, the loyal postman, the favorite uncle, the neighbourhood priest? The perpetrator's station in life and what he gives the child--who is most often growing up in an emotionally if not financially needy situation--is an irresistible magnet."
|by Anonymous||reply 296||Last Friday at 4:08 PM|
"What society wants to look at," Lanning says, "are the simplistic molestation cases. Dirty, evil horrible offenders who snatch and grab sweet, innocent little kids and make them have sex. [But in most] cases, the child has been seduced. The child has cooperated in their victimization, the child has gone to the offender's home again and again and again....and pretty soon you say, 'Well, is that really a victim? He got brand-new shoes, he got a bike, he got a trip to Disneyland, and he got all these benefits.' [To some] this sounds almost like prostitution. Like it was the fault of the child or the parents."
On Lanning telling police officers they need to look past the obvious:
"I try to tell them to embrace the suspect's seemingly good character because that's what a true pedophile acts like. After all, they wouldn't get very far seducing parents and children if they were mean people. Pedophiles usually work hard, go to church, give money to charity and children in the neighbourhood, and are generally helpful to others in the community."
On Jackson supporters who ask where all the other boys are:
"When you have victims who have been seduced by pedophiles, most of them don't tell. Particularly if it's a boy victim...[there's this] stigma of homosexuality. The myth among males is 'death before homosexuality'....A real man would die before he ever engaged in a homosexual act. I have adults come up to me all the time in my presentations, predominately men, when I describe this dynamic and talk about how they were seduced/molested. When I ask them, 'Who did you ever tell about this?' The most common answer is, 'I never told anybody'."
What about after the molestation, when the child becomes too old?
"On any given day the pedophile is attempting to do four things: he is recruiting, seducing, molesting, and--to put it very bluntly--dumping. In other words, he recruits the kid, he seduces the kid, he molests the kid, and then at some point the kid gets too old so [he] wants to move the kid on...to get to his next victim. The hard part is when you finish with the child and the child begins to sense that the only reason this guy was nice to me and did all these wonderful things for me is because I was a child...And as soon as I lost that childlike appearance and characteristic he is not interested in me anymore. And here is where the threats, the blackmail, the violence, the threat of violence, may come into play, as a part of their effort to now keep this child quiet."
Would publicly charging the boy's family with say, extortion, fit the threat pattern of a typical pedophile? With a conspicuous pause and a small smile, Lanning said simply, "Yes."
|by Anonymous||reply 297||Last Friday at 4:09 PM|
SOUNDS LIKE PEDDY JACKO TO T.....
|by Anonymous||reply 298||Last Friday at 4:10 PM|
It is important to remember that many people who fuck kids look nothing like Jackson. They may be in long marriages where they have sex with adults. Many are opportunistic, others are re-creating trauma they may have experienced as children, but reversing the roles so as to feel a sense of control.
|by Anonymous||reply 299||Last Friday at 4:11 PM|
More lies. James' complaint is all his own, there is no combined Wade/James complaint. And anyone who actually watched Leaving Neverland or any interview with James knows he hasn't changed his story at all.
And of course Jackson had more accusers when he was alive. Including one he gave over $20 million to after he was strip searched and photographed.
|by Anonymous||reply 300||Last Friday at 4:10 PM|
Jeesh, doesn't anybody around here know how to use tl/dr?!
|by Anonymous||reply 301||Last Friday at 4:12 PM|
R294 is posting large sections of an analysis on pedophiles he clearly did not even read.
"You buy them gifts and presents, you gradually try to lower their inhibitions and manipulate them into sexual activity."
The only problem, of course, is that not only did the many children/adults (who must have been victims) say Jackson never attempted anything inappropriate with them, but claim to the contrary that he was repulsed by the very idea of sex or nudity.
|by Anonymous||reply 302||Last Friday at 4:12 PM|
ABDUCTED IN PLAIN SIGHT - pedo there behaved like jackson.. slept with chidren in one bed wrote love letters...
|by Anonymous||reply 303||Last Friday at 4:13 PM|
Why would Safechuck call Jackson at the end of the trial? That makes no sense. Why would Stefanie Safechuck not pursue justice after finding out her son was abused in 2005 while he was on trial? Why would Tony Safechuck, Jimmy's cousin, tweet kind words about Jackson in 2013?
|by Anonymous||reply 304||Last Friday at 4:15 PM|
R285, I've wondered that too. He was always surrounded by boys, and there seem to have been a lot of boys that he shared his bed with. In fact, while the Chandler case was ongoing, Pellicano (in one of his many ill-advised moves), had a press conference in which had two boys claimed that they had slept with MJ in his bed, but that nothing had happened. Given that MJ seems to have been, behind his asexual exterior, a highly sexual person, it's hard to believe that he didn't molest many boys we do not know about.
|by Anonymous||reply 305||Last Friday at 4:17 PM|
R285, the moms said there was a new boy every year. He kept some kids longer and strung them along while he was grooming the new kid.
We know Jordan, Gavin, the two other boys he paid off. It's possible that Brett, Macaulay and Omar are the other 'special friends'. If he were compulsive he would have paid off other families and has them sign an NDA. He might not have gone far with some of the kids. Mostly I think he stung them along till they were 12-14 and had a new kid in his bed at the same time so their was overlap.
If the other kids parents signed an NDA they won't talk. Besides few guys want to deal with the shit the crazy MJ fandom would throw at them should they disclose the abuse.
I think he abused at least 10 boys. Six that we know about. There was that millionaire who talked about being groomed and MJ kissing on him while MJ was supposedly drunk and they were lying in bed together. I'm assuming he did more of that to the kids and picked out certain ones to go further.
|by Anonymous||reply 306||Last Friday at 4:16 PM|
R305 R306 All speculation made more creepy by the fact that you so much want it to be true.
|by Anonymous||reply 307||Last Friday at 4:19 PM|
[quote] Why would Jackson call Safechuck at the end of the trial? That makes no sense. Why would Stefanie Safechuck not pursue justice after finding out her son was abused in 2005 while Jackson was on trial? Why would Tony Safechuck, Jimmy's cousin, tweet kind words about Jackson in 2013?
|by Anonymous||reply 308||Last Friday at 4:21 PM|
"Why would Safechuck call Jackson at the end of the trial? ... Why would Stefanie Safechuck not pursue justice after finding out her son was abused in 2005 while he was on trial?"
Someone can't read. Or is just such a habitual liar they can't stop themselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 309||Last Friday at 4:21 PM|
R300 False. Not only were their statements both used in attempting to survive the motion, but they used the same lawyer to do so.
R301. Exactly, why paste two large bodies of text without clarifying them?
R303 Very active imagination.
R306 I don't know if the speculation ("I think he abused at least 10 boys"), lies ("'If he were compulsive he would have paid off other families and has them sign an NDA"), or extreme desire to create victims ("the other 'special friends") is the most ridiculous.
|by Anonymous||reply 310||Last Friday at 4:22 PM|
R309 I posted a correction. Still waiting for a rebuttal.
|by Anonymous||reply 311||Last Friday at 4:24 PM|
R300 Also, we already established Chandler did not describe Jackson's penis correctly. He did not even get Jackson's lack of circumcision correct. We explained this in detail.
|by Anonymous||reply 312||Last Friday at 4:25 PM|
I also want to know why Stacy Brown and Diane Dimond were presumably in contact with Jimmy before the lawsuit.
|by Anonymous||reply 313||Last Friday at 4:28 PM|
Just going to keep repeating lies then?
|by Anonymous||reply 314||Last Friday at 4:28 PM|
R308 I don't know about that, but a lot of their story simply makes no sense.
After Robson filed a failed $1.5 billion lawsuit, he had to disclose that he had needed to ask his mother over twenty times via email to remind him about specific interactions with Jackson. Her replies, like "Wow. None of that is true" are also baffling.
|by Anonymous||reply 315||Last Friday at 4:30 PM|
R307, no one wants kids to be abused. Jackson is a known pedophile, deal with it.
We are speaking of the cases that we already heard about including 4 payoffs, the reports by staff who mentioned Jackson with his hands down Culkins pants and the specific mention of Brett Barnes as a replacement. I'm being generous by only thinking MJ held himself only to abusing 10 kids. He also messed with their head by dumping them so callously which makes him an abusive asshole in multiple ways.
Look at Sandusky. You think that the 10 who testified were the only ones? He'll no. Pedophiles of male children wind up abusing up to hundreds of children. Big reason bc boys are ashamed of admitting that they were abused. Much less a boy abused by a celebrity with crazy fans.
|by Anonymous||reply 316||Last Friday at 4:31 PM|
R314 You accuse everyone who questions the allegations as just repeating lies. Maybe at least mentioning the post, or better yet a source proving otherwise, would improve your argument.
|by Anonymous||reply 317||Last Friday at 4:33 PM|
JanBot talking to itself again.
|by Anonymous||reply 318||Last Friday at 4:33 PM|
R316 You mean the same staff that was cross examined in 2005? Tom Meserau said the case against Jackson was so weak that he felt he didn't need to put on a defense.
|by Anonymous||reply 319||Last Friday at 4:36 PM|
R316 If I was unaware of the allegations, I might be tempted to accept your statements like "the reports by staff who mentioned Jackson with his hands down Culkins pants" as definitive proof.
Of course, the fact that Culkin has consistently denied that any inappropriate behavior ever occurred proves he is not a victim (but you are intent on making these people victims anyway.) Furthermore, even if he had not: you are well aware that the staff making those allegations were terminated for theft and misconduct. Most of the allegations they make, were not invented until many years later when they first appeared in British tabloids. As if they had any remaining credibility, many of them still owe the Jackson estate money from the defamation lawsuits they lost.
|by Anonymous||reply 320||Last Friday at 4:37 PM|
R316 You are making my point. No. I do not believe those ten people are Sandusky's only victims. They were just 10 of the people with credible claims that the prosecution used as witnesses. In fact, many others with a relationship with Sandusky came out with credible claims of abuse.
Now let's complete the comparison that you are making with Michael Jackson--are troves of credible children and adults coming out like they did when Sandusky was arrested? The answer is no, and the people who did file a lawsuit after being abused by Sandusky did not attempt to obtain a settlement in a sealed lawsuit first. They simply spoke the truth, and they were not alone.
|by Anonymous||reply 321||Last Friday at 4:43 PM|
Everyone criticizes the mothers of these boys, but lost in the details is that Macaulay Culkin's crazy asshole of a father also knew and apparently was fine with his son sharing a bed with Michael. And wasn't bothered or deterred by the bedroom alarm system. From Culkin's 2005 testimony:
Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Did your father ever come into Michael Jackson’s bedroom while you were in bed with Mr. Jackson alone?
A. From what I remember, yeah.
Q. Did that happen more than once?
A. Yeah. From I remember, it’s -- I don’t really remember all these kind of details, but I knew he knew I was staying there. So -- and occasionally, I would be woken up to do something that he felt like doing.
Q. When was the first time your father walked into the room while you were in bed alone with Michael Jackson?
A. I can’t recall.
Q. How old were you the first time your father walked into the room when you were alone with Michael Jackson?
A. I don’t recall. It was during one of the earlier trips.
Q. So you were about nine years old?
A. Probably a little bit older. Like -- I Don’t think I went there -- I think I went there the first time when I was ten. I think I first met Michael when I was nine.
Q. So the first time you would have been alone in bed with him, you were already ten years old?
A. Probably, yes.
Q. All right. Is there -- was there at the time an alarm on his door going into his bedroom?
A. There was like a walkway kind of thing where if somebody was approaching the door, it would kind of like “ding-dong, ding-dong.”
Q. All right. Do you remember hearing any “ding-dongs, ding-dongs” as your father came into the room?
A. When anyone would approach the room, yeah, You’d hear this kind of -- soft kind of alarm, like “ding-dong” kind of thing.
Q. On the occasion that your father came into the room while you were in bed alone with Michael Jackson, did he say anything to you about that?
Q. Did he say anything to Michael Jackson in your presence about your sleeping with him?
A. No. He didn’t really seem to have a problem with it, from what I remember.
|by Anonymous||reply 322||Last Friday at 4:53 PM|
There are no words, R322.
|by Anonymous||reply 323||Last Friday at 4:58 PM|
That is fucking crazy R322.
There is an article in Forbes that discusses the psychological reasons people are in denial about Jacksons pedophilia.
|by Anonymous||reply 324||Last Friday at 5:03 PM|
Culkin doesn't talk to his father at all & his mother very little. I actually think having such a wretched father would have made him much more susceptible to Jackson's abuse. Jackson was a seasoned predator and a Grade A manipulator.
|by Anonymous||reply 325||Last Friday at 5:05 PM|
R322 thinks that posting statements from someone who has insisted in every way possible for many years that he was NOT abused (even acknowledging Jackson's sometimes odd behavior) is somehow proof that...you guessed it, he was abused and is lying about it.
This is why no matter how lacking in credibility Wade and James' claims clearly are, they will always have someone who will do mental gymnastics to justify their opportunistic behavior and deceptive lies.
|by Anonymous||reply 326||Last Friday at 5:10 PM|
R326 you re fucking stupid...
|by Anonymous||reply 327||Last Friday at 5:13 PM|
Culkin at least looks better than the last time I saw him in NYC. I can imagine that these new allegations are stressful given that he's Paris' godfather.
He's doing amazingly well considering what he went through as a kid with his parents and the Jackson situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 328||Last Friday at 5:14 PM|
R327 No, you clearly are.
|by Anonymous||reply 329||Last Friday at 5:23 PM|
[quote] the Just World Hypothesis could explain why Jackson supporters have an almost reflexive reaction against abuse allegations, particularly when they’re credible.
Meaning what...that we would be more likely to believe it if it were obvious lies? Who pays these writers? She clearly has her own bias and is using pseduoscientific jargon to prop up her useless arguments.
|by Anonymous||reply 330||Last Friday at 5:24 PM|
I didn't actually say that R326. I believe Culkin because I don't have any reason not to. As I said, I posted that exchange to point out his father's comfort with a 30+ year old unrelated man sleeping with his 10 year old son.
But since you can't not lie...
|by Anonymous||reply 331||Last Friday at 5:26 PM|
R329 You are. You are so happy that Culkin admits that he ws not molested by Jackson, but you cannot see nothing weird with that he said in court.
|by Anonymous||reply 332||Last Friday at 5:32 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 333||Last Friday at 5:33 PM|
So much of this sounds familiar
|by Anonymous||reply 334||Last Friday at 5:34 PM|
R290 - W&Ws don't seem to be working, so thank you for posting that in full. I have no idea why MJ fans (not just on this site, but elsewhere) keep repeating that James claims to have suddenly remembered he was abused by MJ when he saw Wade on TV in 2013. I don't know where they got this idea from.
|by Anonymous||reply 335||Last Friday at 5:38 PM|
R332 Different poster. I try not to reply with such simple statements without somehow calling out the ad hominem.
|by Anonymous||reply 336||Last Friday at 5:38 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 337||Last Friday at 5:39 PM|
R330, The just world hypothesis is actually something discussed in social psychology. It's a defensive measure people take when they hear about bad things happening to others. The fear of something bad happening to them is anxiety provoking so they tend to blame the victim or believe that someone merited that trauma. They can distance themselves from acknowledging that it could happen to them or that in the real world bad things happen to people that don't deserve it. It's not pseudo science it's been demonstrated in multiple psychology studies. MJ fans can't admit that Jackson is a pedophile bc something like that can't happen with someone they admire. For them only bad people do bad things not someone they idealize. As Paris Jackson wrote today. Chillax.
|by Anonymous||reply 338||Last Friday at 5:42 PM|
Jackson truthers love the following lies: There's no evidence that Jackson was a pedophile (there's volumes), Jordan Chandler recanted - he didn't, The FBI investigated Jackson for 12 solid years (they helped local police with investigations sporadically)
I do think Jackson molested Culkin but I doubt Culkin will ever admit it. I'm glad he's healthier and happier now. He deserves it.
|by Anonymous||reply 339||Last Friday at 5:44 PM|
R335 because they just lie. They won't actually read or hear from original sources, they rely on silly videos and nonsense websites that spread misinformation and then they spread it. And even when you point out the lie, they just wait a little while and start repeating it again.
Several times in this series of threads and others, the habitual liar has tried the "Jackson never actually slept with boys, Bashir just edited his words" lie. It will try again soon.
|by Anonymous||reply 340||Last Friday at 5:49 PM|
[quote]It will try again soon.
It keeps eliciting a response, so why wouldn’t it?
|by Anonymous||reply 341||Last Friday at 5:50 PM|
I don't think this poster is Janbot. Janbot did not argue as intelligently as this poster (NOT the same thing as logically). Janbot also had a distinctive sense of humor and would get shitty and foulmouthed when she went on the attack. This poster is cut from different cloth, they seem cold and indifferent to confrontation, and just keep calmly repeating the same bogus key words over and over.
|by Anonymous||reply 342||Last Friday at 5:55 PM|
[quote] [R335] because they just lie. They won't actually read or hear from original sources, they rely on silly videos and nonsense websites that spread misinformation and then they spread it. And even when you point out the lie, they just wait a little while and start repeating it again.
Yes - I know the phrase "gaslighting" is massively overused, but I do feel that way when debating with some of MJ's defenders. They just repeat already-debunked arguments to the point where I start to question things I've seen and read with my own eyes, just because they sound so adamant.
|by Anonymous||reply 343||Last Friday at 6:04 PM|
Likely part of a SM team, R342. Blocking trolls is always a good strategy. Most on the thread have done so. Now we are blocking those who argue incessantly with the trolls we cannot see, further derailing the thread. You are not changing their minds, you have to know that.
|by Anonymous||reply 344||Last Friday at 6:05 PM|
I suspect the attorneys shared by Robson and Safechuck are behind the "therapy showed me the way" catch-22 they use to explain their bizarre actions and miraculous abuse recollections--some of which just happen to coincide with financial issues and career problems. Robson did not pull this off successfully, because he had been in therapy already several times, but Safechuck seems to be using it well. Their medical records will at some point become a part of the lawsuit (doubt they'll release them on their own), and hopefully we'll get a clearer picture of exactly what's going on.
R339 R340 R343 R344 These are hardly the lies that "Jackson truthers" love so much as you claim.
--- The first claim, that there is no evidence that Jackson is a pedophile, is supported by the fact that the children who were around him say not only was he repulsed by sex, but did not molest them or display sexual interest.
---The second, that Jordan Chandler recanted, has never been posted by me or anyone else here that I am aware of. There are much better ways to address Chandler and his father's claims than this.
---The last claim, that "the FBI investigated Jackson for 12 solid years (they helped local police with investigations sporadically)," is another half truth. The FBI and local law enforcement were all very much aware of Jackson, and investigated the claims against him--as they should have. Their investigations revealed no wrongdoing by Jackson, and were closed after he was acquitted. Wikileaks documents provide a glimpse of the sheer extent of this investigation. FOIA requests prove "Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. [Source: FBI.gov]."
|by Anonymous||reply 345||Last Friday at 6:07 PM|
R338 You should request a refund of your correspondence course fees. As tonight's homework assignment, research the Ben Franklin effect. It might give you some insight as to why why you refuse to admit that any part of these accuser's claims are likely untrue. Then, continue clicking through theories until you realize that unqualified speculation is pointless and the allegations themselves are being rightly torn apart and dissected.
|by Anonymous||reply 346||Last Friday at 6:25 PM|
R338 What about those fans and non fans who assumed Jackson was guilty until they started looking into the allegations more deeply? Clearly, their not being influenced by this hypothesis.
I think a much more interesting article could be written about those people who blast Jackson while at the same time writing these overly elaborate scenarios where he "probably" molests hundreds of children.
|by Anonymous||reply 347||Last Friday at 6:30 PM|
Dave Chappelle weighs in.
|by Anonymous||reply 348||Last Friday at 6:33 PM|
[quote] I have no idea why MJ fans (not just on this site, but elsewhere) keep repeating that James claims to have suddenly remembered he was abused by MJ when he saw Wade on TV in 2013. I don't know where they got this idea from.
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this but either scenario is implausible. Either Jimmy and his family knew in 2005 about the abuse and did nothing, or Safechuck didn't come forward until 2013, which means his mother is lying about knowing about it in 2009. The 2013 tweet by Safechuck's cousin who also met Jackson is strange, especially if Jimmy and his mother knew the whole time.
|by Anonymous||reply 349||Last Friday at 6:39 PM|
For all your high-flown, flowery language R346 you're just another silly fan , still jammed up Jackson's bony , pedophile arse. which is where you can also stick your revulsion for 'ad hominem' attacks. The fact your shitty .nitpicking caveats are hatched in the fevered brain of a biased superfan with a contempt for CSA survivors ( see thread 6 reply 307 ) makes your egregious personality and pathological obsession ripe for being torn apart and dissected. Jackson was so dated already, but you can't stand the faded memory to be stained by who his pedophilia, you're just a cobwebby fan, Miss Havisham in one sparkly glove. Your mission is an abject failure, you have cast zero doubt on the victims and we are entirely satisfied Jackson was a pedophile, your marathon effort is for nothing ... 0/10
|by Anonymous||reply 350||Last Friday at 6:46 PM|
R350 You forgot the obligatory thread closed! Sorry, but not everyone is convinced.
|by Anonymous||reply 351||Last Friday at 6:51 PM|
There is no "confusion," just lies from MJ defenders such as R349, who still apparently refuse to read Safechuck's complaint or listen to what he himself actually said about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 352||Last Friday at 6:57 PM|
It's closed to you R351 everybody here is bored with your dreary Jackson ass kissing , you have made not one convert and you've spent days ranting, what a loser!
|by Anonymous||reply 353||Last Friday at 6:59 PM|
R350 9/10 - but here's why.
You have witnessed that all of the allegations made by James and Wade can and have been questioned, not frivolously, but legitimately. You had to do a lot of research to defend your points (and I respect this.) During this, you also realized that much of your counter-research was necessary because it was not revealed in Leaving Neverland. Regardless of whether you still 100% or 90% believe them both, you are be aware of the sheer amount of background and context that was missing from a legitimate "documentary."
On top of that, It cannot be denied that at least one of the accusers has a history of dubious behavior, such asking to wed at Neverland, sending leading emails to himself/others, etc. Regardless of whether you believe him or not, you are at least aware of why many find him not credible. Finally, you now know of Safechuck's financial issues and the unclear speculation around his therapy and its relation to the lawsuit filed by the same attorney as the other victim.
Finally, I will clarify that I am not R349 or R351, and that there is at least one other person in this thread/conversation who is not anti-MJ.
|by Anonymous||reply 354||Last Friday at 7:02 PM|
Nobody's buying your rotten goods R354 if there is one other, and I suspect both are you as you are so insanely intense in your futile mission to clear your beloved pedophile's name then the message is the same to them , grow the fuck up, your hero fucked kids, your doubts are bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 355||Last Friday at 7:09 PM|
If MJ was Joe Shmo, he'd be a pedo. The fact that's it MJ, our hearts and minds donto want it to be true...I feel like I'm greiving his death all over again.
|by Anonymous||reply 356||Last Friday at 7:13 PM|
R355 Again, rather than defend why you think the allegations are credible, you post personal attacks and insist that no one could possibly believe differently than you, in spite of obvious evidence that many people do. Also, unsure of where you're going with that in R356.
|by Anonymous||reply 357||Last Friday at 7:13 PM|
Even if it was Joe Shmo, his neighbors, family members, etc, would not want to believe it.
|by Anonymous||reply 358||Last Friday at 7:17 PM|
R349, there's no confusion. James told his mother in 2005 that Jackson had abused him. He also begged her not to tell anyone or even let Jackson know that she knew.
|by Anonymous||reply 359||Last Friday at 7:27 PM|
Saw Leaving Neverland. It made me sick and delete all M J music from my library
|by Anonymous||reply 360||Last Friday at 7:42 PM|
I've made it quite plain, R357, but here it is one last time. You're a biased fan desperate to clear your hero's name. We are aware of all the evidence, all the many young boys who passed through his life, you have certainly reminded us of the parts that suit you ,tho' you regularly tamper with the facts . We have come to the conclusion Jackson was a pedophile. The circumstantial evidence alone is convincing, without the many first hand, credible accounts, detailing the same grooming procedures Jackson employed, his pattern of concentrating on one attractive boy after another, gaining the trust of the entire star-struck family then isolating them from the child, who became his bed partner behind locked and alarmed doors, we saw for ourselves his lovey-dovey public displays, with the same obscenely young boys, these things are irrefutable and your attempts to discredit them are ridiculous, you really think you can sew doubt in the face of such overwhelming facts. We find the victims credible . Jackson was a pedophile, the highest profile pedophile ever, rather than seek help, or even prey on children in secret, he used his fame and charisma and parlayed it into a broken child persona that allowed him to live as he wanted, with our permission, in public, as a lover of young boys. There is nothing you can say to change our minds, those who believe as you do have similar motivations or are stupid, there is no middle ground on this , you can continue your hopeless mission, be an irritant and bore the pants off everyone in the process, but you will have no effect whatsoever. Don't bother with the differing opinion stuff or the afraid of your 'facts' nonsense. Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 361||Last Friday at 7:46 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 362||Last Friday at 7:49 PM|
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, behaves like a duck, it's a duck. End of story.
|by Anonymous||reply 363||Last Friday at 7:50 PM|
Anyone who thinks it's OK for an adult to constantly hang around with young boys is insane or a pedo themselves. Maybe both.
|by Anonymous||reply 364||Last Friday at 7:52 PM|
R359 Again, we have no proof of this. Safechuck's claims do not add up. If we believe this narrative, that James told his mother in 2005 of the abuse, why did she not do anything then? Jackson was in the middle of the sex abuse trial and common sense dictates she would notify authorities, or at least document his disclosure in some way. Even if he insisted on not going public, did she contact a therapist? Email or send him resources for victims of abuse? There is no indication that she knew because there is no proof that she made even the slightest attempt to act on this shocking information--unlike Robson who at least attempted to manufacture an email trail before filing his lawsuit.
Also, if James Safechuck did indeed recognize the hundreds of alleged incidents of "abuse" were improper back in 2005 (as an adult), why would he claim in his lawsuit: "I have finally come to know and appreciate now, after a little over a year of intensive therapy and psychiatric treatment, that this relationship was a predatory and wholly improper one, and one whereby the decedent (Jackson) used my trust and love of him as a means to victimize and sexually molest me[?]"
There are no answers, only excuses, and those excuses point to a clear attempt to profit at the expense of the Jackson estate.
|by Anonymous||reply 365||Last Friday at 8:09 PM|
"James' mother didn't act in some completely arbitrary fashion, therefore I don't believe him."
|by Anonymous||reply 366||Last Friday at 8:19 PM|
"These two men, in their late 30s and early 40s, have manufactured a rehearsed and calculated story of abuse after nearly two decades of staunch support for Jackson."
This is speculation on your part. You state this as if it's known fact. It isn't.
"They both testified under oath as children, and one again as a 23 year old adult man, that no abuse ever happened. Their testimony tells of generosity and peculiarity, as many other of Jackson's 'young friends' have stated. The only diversion from their previous testimony now is these fictitious claims, compiled from tabloid books and a twisted imagination."
They were both carefully chosen, groomed, and seduced over time. It was drilled into them that they would be in as much trouble as he was if it was ever found out. And, he seduced them in such a way that they saw nothing wrong with what they were doing with him. In fact, they enjoyed it. They both were, particularly Safechuck, in love with the man. MJ caused them to be in love with him, and the things he could give to them and their families. They were conditioned to lie about their abuse by the man they loved at ages 7 and 10. I don't need to point out that even though they were in love at the time, and may have enjoyed some of the physical contact, it doesn't mean that MJ wasn't systematically DESTROYING their chances of living normal, happy, productive lives. And MJ knew that. He didn't care.
"Robson sought permission to hold his wedding at Neverland -– in the middle of Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, for which he was acquitted of all charges. Does this sound like the behavior of a sexual abuse survivor?"
One who made a name for himself in the industry, and was still under the spell of MJ. I'm sure Wade, at that time, thought he owed his entire career to MJ, and he was not mature enough to come to terms with what MJ had done to him. What MJ had taken from him.
" How about using the name of your alleged abuser to secure a job production in 'Michael Jackson's ONE,' twice? Once denied for that role after abandoning the team the first time, the same accuser in 2012 begin sending emails to himself and his mother, with leading statements like "how long was I with Michael alone before I was back with you guys?" Another email contains debunked tabloid claims from a former maid and security guard, both of whom were fired for wrongdoing and ordered to pay in court for their lies. 'Wow. None of that is true' replied Wade's mother, before he presumably stopped her from further destroying his case."
I don't understand a word of this. What are these emails? What are you saying they say? Can you show them to me? I would bet $1,000 you can't. It's nonsense.
"After 8 years of perfecting a story and shopping multiple book proposals"
Utter bullshit. Where are the book proposals? Who did she shop it to? Who says he did? Are there letters? Show me.
" a lawsuit (intentionally under seal)"
Meaningless. Wade had spilled everything before filing the lawsuit. He was on the Today Show before he filed suit.
"was filed well after the known statute of limitations--all in an attempt to obtain a secret settlement from the Jackson estate. When they declined, In 2015, Robson's case was dismissed by a Los Angeles judge for expected statutory violations. "
There was no hope of a "secret settlement." Wade spilled what happened. That is again speculation on your part, but it's stupid speculation because Wade, loud and clear, went on Today and said he was molested by Michael Jackson. There could be no hope of a settlement after that.
"His repeated attempts since then to profit from this alleged abuse are well documented since then. 'Finding Neverland' might as well be titled 'Finding Money,.'"
Except, he could have made a ton of money by going to some tabloid, or TMZ, and he didn't. He didn't make a cent from Finding Neverland. Again, you're just flat out wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 367||Last Friday at 8:23 PM|
"The Jackson's response sums it up best: this is yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson…Wade Robson and James Safechuck have both testified under oath that Michael never did anything inappropriate toward them. "
This is my favorite part. You spend 4 long, idiotic paragraphs unsuccessfully trying to discredit Wade, and then, suddenly in the very last one you lump James Safechuck in, who's completely believable, and unimpeachable. You are a piece of work, but not a very smart or convincing one.
"This so called ‘documentary’ is just another rehash of dated and discredited allegations. It’s baffling why any credible filmmaker would involve himself with this project.”
Hmmm no, I'd say 85% of the specifics of the story of how Michael Jackson groomed, seduced, and molested them was unknown before HBO had the courage to air Finding Neverland. And both men are 100% believable. This happened.
So, whoever you are, you make stuff up, and you try desperately to score rhetorical points instead of trying to get to the truth of the matter. Again, I suspect you know damn well Jackson molested these two guys, and you don't care. You see it as an even exchange.
I've known James Safechuck for over 10 years, and I can tell you he was basically destroyed by Michael Jackson. This is a FACT. If you continue to try to call him a liar, you are contributing, and continuing what Michael began. You are helping to destroy a person.
|by Anonymous||reply 368||Last Friday at 8:24 PM|
R361 I will address your claims briefly, and spare you the repetition of your ad hominem attacks.
"We are aware of all the evidence, all the many young boys who passed through his life, you have certainly reminded us of the parts that suit you ,tho' you regularly tamper with the facts ."
>>>Are you also aware that those other young "boys" allege nothing illegal or improper ever occurred with Jackson?
"We have come to the conclusion Jackson was a pedophile."
>>>Hundreds of millions of his fans have come to the conclusion he was not.
"The circumstantial evidence alone is convincing, without the many first hand, credible accounts, detailing the same grooming procedures Jackson employed, his pattern of concentrating on one attractive boy after another,"
>>>Not only is the circumstantial "evidence" not credible, but the many "first hand, credible accounts" you are thinking of must be sourced from the many children and adults who denied any abuse ever occurred. Safechuck and Robson now lack credibility, and themselves echoed these same people for many years--there was no sexual abuse.
"gaining the trust of the entire star-struck family then isolating them from the child, who became his bed partner behind locked and alarmed doors, we saw for ourselves his lovey-dovey public displays, with the same obscenely young boys, these things are irrefutable and your attempts to discredit them are ridiculous,"
>>>Again, I cannot discredit the many children who (if Leaving Neverland is to be believed) were questioned and denied any wrongdoing by Jackson. Their stories match Wade and Robson's perfectly, right up until the invention of abuse--when it is clear they are lying.
"you really think you can sew doubt in the face of such overwhelming facts. We find the victims credible ."
>>>I do not have to sew doubt, it already exists in this hotly debated issue. Clearly, many people do not.
"Jackson was a pedophile, the highest profile pedophile ever, rather than seek help, or even prey on children in secret, he used his fame and charisma and parlayed it into a broken child persona that allowed him to live as he wanted, with our permission, in public, as a lover of young boys. "
>>>Again, let's look at what the many children (and now adults) have to say: no abuse occurred.
"There is nothing you can say to change our minds, those who believe as you do have similar motivations or are stupid, there is no middle ground on this ,"
>>>At least one poster here has already expressed serious doubt about these individual's credibility. I will not respond to your ad hominem.
"' you can continue your hopeless mission, be an irritant and bore the pants off everyone in the process, but you will have no effect whatsoever. Don't bother with the differing opinion stuff or the afraid of your 'facts' nonsense. Michael Jackson was a pedophile."
>>>Again, i refer you to the many, many children who must be victims of Michael Jackson (if we are to believe the documentary of course), who say he was not a pedophile and showed no sexual interest in them whatsoever.
|by Anonymous||reply 369||Last Friday at 8:24 PM|
It does appear that the truly loony MJ fans are as sociopathic as their idol. No empathy, lying, not caring about the well being of others. They really embarrass themselves on social media. Wonder what their friends and family must think about them.
|by Anonymous||reply 370||Last Friday at 8:29 PM|
R370 Again, conjecture and speculation. The go-to response for those who lack a more intelligent response.
|by Anonymous||reply 371||Last Friday at 8:37 PM|
R367 I wish to address your message, but need to find a more form to do so. I do not want to mimic the person who is posting large blocks of text from the dismissed lawsuit.
|by Anonymous||reply 372||Last Friday at 8:37 PM|
R183 Jesus christ, I don't think I've ever seen the "You Are Not Alone" music video until now. Was this actually played on MTV? Wow.
Leaving Neverland truly made me realize just how fucking grotesque looking MJ was. In addition to the abuse, I can't get over how freakish he looked. I obviously knew what he transformed himself into before watching Leaving Neverland, but his appearance is 100X more revolting now.
|by Anonymous||reply 373||Last Friday at 8:38 PM|
R366 I wouldn't call doing nothing "arbitrary". I know people already think Stefanie Safechuck is a shitty mother, but that's still hard to believe that she would do nothing after she found out.
|by Anonymous||reply 374||Last Friday at 8:41 PM|
R361 I am working through your reply. Here is the first part of my response. I will split them up to avoid confusing others. My initial comments are indicated by a >>>>>>. My reply to your feedback is notated with +++++++.
>>>>>>>>"These two men, in their late 30s and early 40s, have manufactured a rehearsed and calculated story of abuse after nearly two decades of staunch support for Jackson."
This is speculation on your part. You state this as if it's known fact. It isn't.
+++++++This is speculation, however, the previous testimony and lack of corroboration suggests that it could be true. These allegations are calculated and the plaintiffs are middle-aged men. ________
+++++++They both testified under oath as children, and one again as a 23 year old adult man, that no abuse ever happened. Their testimony tells of generosity and peculiarity, as many other of Jackson's 'young friends' have stated. The only diversion from their previous testimony now is these fictitious claims, compiled from tabloid books and a twisted imagination."
They were both carefully chosen, groomed, and seduced over time. It was drilled into them that they would be in as much trouble as he was if it was ever found out. And, he seduced them in such a way that at the time, they saw nothing wrong with what they were doing with him. In fact, they enjoyed it. They both were, but I think particularly Safechuck, in love with the man. MJ caused them to be in love with him, and the things he could give to them and their families. And they were conditioned to lie about their abuse by the man they loved at ages 7 and 10. I don't need to point out that even though they were in love at the time, and were enjoyed the physical contact, for the most part at the time, doesn't mean that MJ wasn't systematically DESTROYING their chances of living normal, happy, productive lives. And MJ knew that. He didn't care.
>>>>>>>Now you speculate. We have no proof that they were groomed and seduced. Their own sworn testimony however tells they were not. Their actions certainly do not point to abuse either, and their claims to be in love with Michael Jackson, a man they had not spoken with in years, is absurd. One of the two accusers entered into a long-term relationship with another girl, and they both later married other women. Yet, they staunchly supported Jackson.
++++++"Robson sought permission to hold his wedding at Neverland -– in the middle of Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial, for which he was acquitted of all charges. Does this sound like the behavior of a sexual abuse survivor? " One who made a name for himself in the industry, and was still under the spell of MJ. I'm sure Wade, at that time, thought he owed his entire career to MJ, and he was not mature enough to come to terms with what MJ had done to him. What MJ had taken from him.
>>>>>>>>>How was Robson, a 23 year old, “still under the spell of MJ?” He had been in multiple long term relationships since then, and had not spoken to him in some time until he opportunistically sought to benefit from him. This excuse does not hold water.
I am still replying to your other statements.
|by Anonymous||reply 375||Last Friday at 8:54 PM|
Why is this troll here every night to try and refute this documentary to the many people who are posting in this thread believing both men who were stalked, molested and abuse by this piece of filth. Wouldn't it make more sense to go places where the faithful Jackson stans gather and find comfort with those who still love this pedofile. You have been here for days and haven't changed one single mind that Jackson wasn't a first class pervert. Why stay in this small pond where there are bigger fish to convince of Jackson love of sleeping with little boys was pure and innocent. Go to Starbucks, Louis Vuitton, H&M, radio stations, the Prince's trust.
|by Anonymous||reply 376||Last Friday at 8:58 PM|
R373 please warn me when you are posting that fucked up face. He is truly frightening
|by Anonymous||reply 377||Last Friday at 9:00 PM|
Why was Jackson so albino and the rest of his family normal looking
|by Anonymous||reply 378||Last Friday at 9:00 PM|
Sandusky and Jackson. So similar how they groomed and abused these children
|by Anonymous||reply 379||Last Friday at 9:01 PM|
R377 Apologies. I just CANNOT get over his fucking face!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 380||Last Friday at 9:07 PM|
Michael leading the troopers.
|by Anonymous||reply 381||Last Friday at 9:08 PM|
The goalposts have now moved again to what Stephanie Safechuck did or didn't do, even though it has no bearing on James' credibility. Even though none of us know what she actually did. Even though from day 1 she demonstrated poor judgment w/r/t Michael and her child. Even though there realistically wasn't much she could do when her now adult son tells her Michael was a bad man but won't giver her details, and tells her not to pass that info on. Even though James has already told us his relationship with her is strained to this day. But apparently there's some mythic thing she could have or should have done that would magically make James more credible.
At least it's moved on from conflating James and Wade to conflating James and his mother. Can't wait to see who James is paired with next.
|by Anonymous||reply 382||Last Friday at 9:16 PM|
Jackson is where he belongs, in the ground where worms are eating his bleached rotting carcass
|by Anonymous||reply 383||Last Friday at 9:21 PM|
R391. Thanks that is priceless
|by Anonymous||reply 384||Last Friday at 9:20 PM|
Continued response. ++++++ indicates my statement. >>>>>>Indicates my reply to you.
+++++” How about using the name of your alleged abuser to secure a job production in 'Michael Jackson's ONE,' twice? Once denied for that role after abandoning the team the first time, the same accuser in 2012 begin sending emails to himself and his mother, with leading statements like "how long was I with Michael alone before I was back with you guys?" Another email contains debunked tabloid claims from a former maid and security guard, both of whom were fired for wrongdoing and ordered to pay in court for their lies. 'Wow. None of that is true' replied Wade's mother, before he presumably stopped her from further destroying his case."
I don't understand a word of this. What are these emails? What are you saying they say? Can you show them to me? I would bet $1,000 you can't. It's nonsense.
>>>>> It is quite clear, unsure why you cannot follow. Wade's emails re Cirque du soleil are already available, and show his desperate attempts to join the production. Some of these may be still under seal. I am trying to find out if they have been published elsewhere. Wade’s emails to the his mother, the producer of the performance, and himself are are damning. I will post a source to them momentarily.
|by Anonymous||reply 385||Last Friday at 9:23 PM|
R376 I am here to provide context to your posts. Not necessarily for you, but for the people who may later find some of the more lurid claims over the internet and believe this without additional information.
|by Anonymous||reply 386||Last Friday at 9:26 PM|
R367 R385 I was able to find a copy of Wade Robson's emails online as you requested.
|by Anonymous||reply 387||Last Friday at 9:29 PM|
I think as someone said upthread even if you can't believe these two men and there abuse allegations there is so much more wrong with Jackson. He meets these kids, strangers and immediately wants to sleep with them. What other well known male did this. Sleeping with random children you just meet. He had plenty of nieces and nephews if he was so desperate to engage in slumber parties. The bleaching and carving up his face. That is not normal either. Why did no one in his family or circle of close confidantes reach out and help him. This ,man was sick
|by Anonymous||reply 388||Last Friday at 9:30 PM|
I am enjoying the growing parade of companies and people distancing themselves from Jackson
|by Anonymous||reply 389||Last Friday at 9:31 PM|
R388 There may be much "wrong with Jackson," however, we know that he was not a sexual abuser from the many children who were in his care and denied any such activity occurred.
|by Anonymous||reply 390||Last Friday at 9:32 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 391||Last Friday at 9:33 PM|
Did he seriously bleach his dick and use tampons?
|by Anonymous||reply 392||Last Friday at 9:40 PM|
R387 The link to his emails in R387 also contains references to the book proposal as well. He behavior and the evidence show that he clearly attempted to profit from these allegations. Also, Robson's TODAY interview was after he filed the sealed lawsuit and the Jackson family refused to settle, not before. I am calling in that $1,000 bet.
|by Anonymous||reply 393||Last Friday at 9:40 PM|
Re: "Our Secret Project"
|by Anonymous||reply 394||Last Friday at 9:41 PM|
R391 was this the start of his plastic surgery blitz. He looks incredibly feminine in that pic
|by Anonymous||reply 395||Last Friday at 9:42 PM|
Sandusky = Jackson true child molesters
|by Anonymous||reply 396||Last Friday at 9:43 PM|
R388, he did this even after he had his own kids. I don't think anyone could get through to him. He wasn't close to his family and he didn't listen to anyone. The the thing that I can't understand is even if one doesn't believe James and Wade, what about the other boys? What about witnesses that saw inappropriate behavior? They can't all be lying and Michael is the only one telling the truth. His behavior with these boys was odd and seeing what he did to his face is proof enough to me. The man was quite disturbed indeed.
|by Anonymous||reply 397||Last Friday at 9:45 PM|
R395 I think he looked good up until 93/94, he looked the worst in the early 2000s and slightly better in the years before he died
|by Anonymous||reply 398||Last Friday at 9:45 PM|
R397 Repeats a tired argument.
"What about the other boys?" They deny any abuse.
"What about witnesses?" Who, the Neverland 5? They were fired for theft and wrongdoing. Their lies so obvious that Jackson won a defamation claim against them.
"They can't all be lying" They aren't. The majority of children around Jackson either have said nothing or asserted he did not abuse them. Again manufacturing victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 399||Last Friday at 9:49 PM|
I think the Basheer interview really was a turning point. I remember everyone discussing why a grown man admitted on television he liked sleeping with children It was fucking creepy the whole damn interview and didn't he dangle blanket out the damn hotel window
|by Anonymous||reply 400||Last Friday at 9:50 PM|
R400 See R54:
We already addressed the Bashir doc. But here it is again:
Yes, but it is generally acknowledged that Bashir purposefully staged and omitted many details from his film to create an imbalanced and biased representation of Jackson. For example, when Michael Jackson stated that he shared his bed with the boy in the film, Bashir removed the section where the boy added that Jackson slept on the floor.
We know all of this only because Jackson had instructed his own videographer to record every interview without cutting (alongside Bashir's camera crew.) As a result, you can see what Bashir omitted and you also see the interactions between interviews. I highly recommend doing so. Bashir's journalistic practices in that documentary still affect his reputation today.
If you are truly interested in that interview, I would suggest watching: Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See (also referred to as "the rebuttal video"), which was seen on Fox in the United States. This was presented by Maury Povich and contains even more material which Bashir omitted (it is numerous.)
|by Anonymous||reply 401||Last Friday at 9:51 PM|
Blanket looks like one messed up little dude. Would not surprise me if MJ molested him
|by Anonymous||reply 402||Last Friday at 9:52 PM|
Who reported that Jackson constantly was shitting himself? Neverland employees?
|by Anonymous||reply 403||Last Friday at 9:53 PM|
The Bashir doc also showed Michael shrouding Balmlet in a full veil and shaking him quite forcefully while trying to give him a bottle
|by Anonymous||reply 404||Last Friday at 9:54 PM|
That is Blanket sorry
|by Anonymous||reply 405||Last Friday at 9:55 PM|
I hope that Paris and Blanket have a good support system. They seem as messed up as their father
|by Anonymous||reply 406||Last Friday at 9:57 PM|
The Bashir interview really exposed him, at least to the general public. You could really tell he was lying. I think he even claimed that all he did as far as plastic surgery was a nose job. If I remember correctly, he also also claimed the kids were conceived naturally. We all know that's a giant lie, I think Debbie Rowe even said they never had sex. Not that we needed that confirmation.
|by Anonymous||reply 407||Last Friday at 9:58 PM|
"Michael Jackson’s Niece, Who Dated Leaving Neverland Star Wade Robson, Explains Why She’s Sure He’s Lying"
|by Anonymous||reply 408||Last Friday at 9:57 PM|
I don't think at that point Jackson had a working dick
|by Anonymous||reply 409||Last Friday at 9:58 PM|
Wow Jackson 's niece is calling Wade a liar. Stop the presses this is breaking news!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 410||Last Friday at 9:59 PM|
So Michael Jackson's niece sat down for an interview with John Ziegler, the guy who insists Jerry Sandusky never touched any children? He was arrested for causing a scene at an event where Matt Sandusky (Jerry's adopted son and one of his accusers) was speaking.
He's also a right-wing nutcase, but that's a whole other issue.
|by Anonymous||reply 411||Last Friday at 10:11 PM|
R411 R410 A master of personal, ad hominem attacks that in no way affect the actual content of the post.
Wade dated Brandi Jackson for 7 years, including during the time he now claims he was abused. Of course, in Dan Reed's mind, this means nothing about the credibility of these people:
'The fact that he was seeing - like boyfriend and girlfriend - Brandi at age of 12 or 13 doesn't mean that he wasn't seeing [being abused by] Jackson too. So I don't really follow the logic to be honest.'
-Dan Reed speaking to 2Day FM's Grant, Ed & Ash on last Wednesday
|by Anonymous||reply 412||Last Friday at 10:28 PM|
[quote]Again, I cannot discredit the many children who (if Leaving Neverland is to be believed) were questioned and denied any wrongdoing by Jackson. Their stories match Wade and Robson's perfectly, right up until the invention of abuse--when it is clear they are lying.
You seem to believe that because a vast number of children said Michael did not abuse them, then those who said he crossed the line and DID abuse them must be lying.
“Your honor, I can prove the defender did not murder these two young men because I have signed statements from 19,000 other young men who clearly state the defendant did NOT murder them.”
So Michael took some kids to his room and didn’t make it to the fondling stage ... happens all the time with adults as well for numerous reasons. The chemistry is not there, someone sends clear messages they’re not interested, someone is oblivious to the fact that it’s a sexual situation, boundaries are actually respected, etc.
But when the child actually gives the predator some encouragement or a green light (like I did to my pets ed teacher/abuser because I was a 10-year old homosexual child who admired him, confused it with love, he knew it, all leading to a scenario that made me believe for over 20 years that I came on to him), then things reach the next level.
It is entirely possible that Jackson didn’t touch Culkin, Lennon, or Feldman (though their damaged lives plant a seed of doubt in my mind), just the same way it could be possible they don’t want to speak of any abuse for fear of derailing their careers, or damaging their masculinity. Straight men have a much harder time confirming abuse by other men. We will never know unless one of them comes forward with an admission, and then rabid fans and spin lawyers will acusse said person of being an admitted liar who lacks credibility, just like they’ve done with the likes of Robson, Safechuck - and Michael Cohen in politics - without addressing the obvious fact that the only lying they did was to protect the crimes the accused committed, at the request (or in a pedophiles case, threat) of the abuser.
And, yeah, if MJ loved all children, where were all the young girls and homely boys? Back at Central Casting on the reject pile?
Finally, any disgust MJ may have expressed towards sexual acts in porbography were directed at ADULT porn, which he clearly shunned in favor of sex with children, and ultimately served as part of the grooming process. “Yuck, those grown hairy people are disgusting, but small smooth children like you are exquisitely beautiful...”
|by Anonymous||reply 413||Last Friday at 10:52 PM|
Why does the pedo apologist think Jackson would ever have slept on the floor? The bedrooms were vast and he would have had another bed in there. He had chronic insomnia and would never have subjected himself to 'the floor'.
He was there in the bed, spooning 7 year olds and making them suck his dick.
Absolutely repugnant. His legacy is ruined forever.
|by Anonymous||reply 414||Last Saturday at 12:39 AM|
R413 I understand your point - that because almost all of the boys have not alleged abuse this does not mean the few who have are not victims. However, even with this in mind, it is implausible to think that If Michael Jackson were a serial pedophile, that nearly all of boys before and after Robson/Safechuck would not make claims, or go out of their way to deny any abuse.
Someone else mentioned Sandusky, who had many people come out and verify his predatory behavior. Another mentioned Jimmy Savile, whose abuse was described by police as being on an unprecedented scale with hundreds of witnesses coming out against him. My point in mentioning these men is provide context to how serial abusers of children (including famous ones) did not have any issue with having the many victims make claims, without resorting to lawsuits or other suspect behavior first.
R414 Bashir's documentary was addressed in R54, this is where most people reference the claim he slept with children. I can also point you to the number of children stayed with Jackson, and say he never touched them or acted inappropriately. This includes Wade and James, whose stories changed in adulthood to satisfy their financial motivations. Also, his "legacy" is unlikely to be affected, especially since we've done this before in 2005 with little effect. I suspect the renewed attention will bring the Jackson's estate more money, as his music streams have increased since the documentary aired.
|by Anonymous||reply 415||Last Saturday at 12:46 AM|
London transport finally removed those awful Innocent posters. So that's less free advertisements for the pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 416||Last Saturday at 12:57 AM|
Australian and NZ clothing chain Cotton On follows H&M's lead and removes all MJ merchandise.
|by Anonymous||reply 417||Last Saturday at 12:59 AM|
R416 British fans of MJ are his most ardent supporters. They crowdfunded the money needed to advertise on buses and the underground around London. The posters bared the tag-line: “Facts don’t lie. People do.” I think this speaks louder than a few companies responses, like Starbucks (branded a racist coffee chain) stopping his music and Louis Vuitton (who the average consumer cannot afford) removing a few "inspired" pieces. Ironically, this is causing consumers to play his music more, and seek out merchandise from companies who do carry his products. I am interested to see what the thousands of GoFundMe supporters do next.
|by Anonymous||reply 418||Last Saturday at 1:05 AM|
So that John Ziegler right-wing freak is a Jerry Sandusky suppporter as well. What a truly disgusting person. I’m come to the believe that Jackson fans are suffering from arrested development or latent pedophilia. The mental illness is obvious and goes without saying.
|by Anonymous||reply 419||Last Saturday at 1:10 AM|
R418 The Gofundme crowd can't do anything now. The documentary has already been aired and watched by tens of millions of people, so seeing protesting signs plastered over public transport to coincide with the documentary release just reinforces in peoples minds that there has been an agenda to distort the sick truth about Jackson.
|by Anonymous||reply 420||Last Saturday at 1:14 AM|
R414 The MJ stan is repeating that lie because Michael himself used to lie and say that he slept on the floor. I don't remember if there are other times when he's on record lying about this but he definitely says it in the Bashir interview:
|by Anonymous||reply 421||Last Saturday at 1:33 AM|
Paris just called Oprah a snake on Twitter. Jackson should have saved some of the pedo payoff money to send her to school, she’s an absolute idiot. Spoiled, shiftless, narcissist and dumb as fuck.
Your daddy was a pedophile girl.
|by Anonymous||reply 422||Last Saturday at 1:55 AM|
She's a waste of space, but still I'd take her over the Kardashians.
|by Anonymous||reply 423||Last Saturday at 2:25 AM|
I’ve noticed that his defenders are quick to attribute biased and sensationalistic journalism for how Jackson is being perceived but they NEVER have an explanation as to why he was CONSTANTLY in the presence of a rotating group of young boys around the same age with similar looks. Never Black children or girls. In retrospect, Michael Jackson CLEARLY had a type. Admittedly, I’m not a wordsmith. I really like just getting to the point. No double talk, word salads etc. because that way you can’t bullshit your way out of a direct question.
I would love if an MJ defender would drop all of the money grabbing theories, the fandom, the contrived “War on Black men” and lost childhood bullshit and try being objective.
This man hits the mark on most of the board certified lists of characteristics of a pedophile. If you remove his occupation from this situation, he would’ve been in prison or he would've hanged himself a long time ago.
Can any MJ defenders put into context why HIS BEHAVIOR is any different than a clinical pedophile?
|by Anonymous||reply 424||Last Saturday at 2:30 AM|
He probably didn't molest Sean Lennon. MJ was calculating and shrewd. He would not have risked touching the child of someone even more famous than he was. I don't think he would have risked it.
|by Anonymous||reply 425||Last Saturday at 3:41 AM|
Louis Vuitton is quietly shelving pieces from their just launched MJ collection.
|by Anonymous||reply 426||Last Saturday at 3:59 AM|
R421 Ugh, he looks like a fucking alien in that video.
|by Anonymous||reply 427||Last Saturday at 4:15 AM|
please read this
I have watched #LeavingNeverland and am really concerned to see so many preconceptions and myths being raised by those on Twitter. Here are a few tweets about the issues raised:
|by Anonymous||reply 428||Last Saturday at 4:28 AM|
Michael Jackson told his child-rape accuser, Jimmy Safechuck, his 'marriage' to Lisa Marie Presley (& other fake relationships) was a #Bearding stunt, just for show
|by Anonymous||reply 429||Last Saturday at 4:28 AM|
People don’t care about this story anymore. We’ve all moved on to rich white people who bribe their kids’ way into ivy league colleges.
|by Anonymous||reply 430||Last Saturday at 4:34 AM|
I don't want to sound creepy, but Jimmy was a beautiful boy. I can see why a pedophile like MJ would go for someone like him.
|by Anonymous||reply 431||Last Saturday at 4:38 AM|
^You do sound creepy.
|by Anonymous||reply 432||Last Saturday at 4:44 AM|
The mad fan is a truly tragic creature, imagine spending hours on end, every night ,devoted to this? As someone said earlier, why this site? It's small fry and it's not like he has changed anyone's mind, or will, maybe it's more of an honour/sacrifice for fans to go where they are least welcome, like some crazed missionary . They have stunk up the thread and any discussion of Jackson and his motivations, obviously all their talking points are ludicrous but repeated loudly and often have meant, what could have been DL gold, with the many insightful takes on this whole situation has just been a tiresome effort, skipping past loony and his tldr shit. Perhaps that is considered success by the troll, having derailed it , what a pathetic existence . MJ will be remembered as king pedophile, didn't even try to hide it, he pissed in our soup, and we drank it. It's fascinating how he got away with it for so long, all those blaming parents and others are forgetting the public's real blame in condoning obviously pedophile relationships , we were all groomed, something I'd like DL' s take on ( while the nutcase on oxygen ) as I don't think pedophile larceny has been carried out on such a grand scale in history. Jackson was all about breaking records and titles, he was def world's most ostentatious pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 433||Last Saturday at 4:45 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 434||Last Saturday at 4:53 AM|
All Jackson's underage ( and then some ) boyfriends were good looking R431, he wasn't going to waste years grooming a dog.
|by Anonymous||reply 435||Last Saturday at 4:57 AM|
R429 Jimmy pings in literally all the pics and videos I see of him. I can't believe he's straight and fathered three kids. Even though my gaydar is mostly right (like 90 % of the time), I guess this is the one time it's wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 436||Last Saturday at 5:06 AM|
Don't pedophiles often prey on the vulnerable kids? Those coming from broken homes etc? But do they also prey on vulnerable, confused kids? As in, confused about their sexuality. Because that would make a lot of sense. If pedophiles preyed on gaylings because they could see that the kids nwould accept their advances.
|by Anonymous||reply 437||Last Saturday at 5:08 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 438||Last Saturday at 5:09 AM|
Michael was probably abused too but that's not why he was an abuser. Look at all the women who are abused and don't go on to abuse, especially sexually. Women are raped and don't go on to rape.
|by Anonymous||reply 439||Last Saturday at 5:11 AM|
It ain’t wrong, R436.
|by Anonymous||reply 440||Last Saturday at 5:16 AM|
Heal the World
|by Anonymous||reply 441||Last Saturday at 5:35 AM|
R441 the one time Jackson was seen with a girl child!
|by Anonymous||reply 442||Last Saturday at 5:42 AM|
New interview with Dan Reed
|by Anonymous||reply 443||Last Saturday at 6:20 AM|
It always made me uncomfortable as a kid. It feels like we were forced to be complicit in his fetishes b/c it was SO in your face in public, even at award shows.
|by Anonymous||reply 444||Last Saturday at 6:48 AM|
This man became a monster before our eyes from his terrific Off The Wall album where he looked so normal to the last years of his life where he was gruesome and obviously a full on pervert what the hell happened
|by Anonymous||reply 445||Last Saturday at 6:53 AM|
R443 Dan Reed looks like a pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 446||Last Saturday at 6:54 AM|
R445 Agreed. I remember how hot I thought he was in the early 80s.... like wow. Look at those big hands....
|by Anonymous||reply 447||Last Saturday at 6:56 AM|
All the better to molest small boys with R447
|by Anonymous||reply 448||Last Saturday at 7:01 AM|
R433 Is it any weirder than the half dozen or so who keep repeating unproven allegations about Jackson and invent details about sexual abuse? I mean that doesn't get tedious or disturbing at all. We deserve thousands of posts of nothing but just that.
|by Anonymous||reply 449||Last Saturday at 8:04 AM|
your conspiracy theories and other fan shit about 'unproven' allegations are very boring to sane people R449 We are totally satisfied as to Jackson's guilt, we are all well beyond your 'but...but.....but.......but..... ' and the non-stop attempts to wipe filthy Jackson clean are a joke. This is an interesting article on the madness of Jackson 'truthers'
|by Anonymous||reply 450||Last Saturday at 8:11 AM|
So FBI never searched the house or had invastigation , because psycho fans claim that FBI announced on their site(years ago) that they had investigation . So whats the truth?
|by Anonymous||reply 451||Last Saturday at 8:14 AM|
R451 The fans are nuts. Who in their right mind can't see that Jackson's entire life was devoted to getting young boys naked in his bed? The evidence is overwhelming and the attempts to discredit it a joke. We've heard the witnesses, we find them credible. We know about the payoffs ( tens of millions ), nobody pays off child abuse accusers who isn't guilty. We know of the long term grooming of whole families to gain unsupervised access to their young son, and we have the evidence of our own eyes watching him parade his boy lovers for years. There is no further discussion needed, Jackson was a pedophile, the fan's are just trying to muddy the waters with nonsense to save their fallen hero. You are wasting your time fans.
|by Anonymous||reply 452||Last Saturday at 8:32 AM|
[quote]Women are raped and don't go on to rape.
Yes they do, and it’s called heterosexuality.
|by Anonymous||reply 453||Last Saturday at 8:33 AM|
R452, prattling in about something that had already been forgotten in the media. Everyone else had moved on to the Varsity Blues scandal, dear. Do try and keep up. I mean, we’ve got lunatics killing people in mosques and airplane crashes to think about here, not two grifters who waited ten years to participate in a one-sided documentary about how a man who has been long dead may or may not have touched them inappropriately.
|by Anonymous||reply 454||Last Saturday at 8:44 AM|
We can multi task R454 Jackson was a pedophile, no may or may not about it, he loved young boys , you can't divert the negative attention he is getting and deserves ...very poor try.
|by Anonymous||reply 455||Last Saturday at 9:06 AM|
Michael's legacy is over! This documentary will be long gone, yet he will always have pedophile stamped on him. That's going to be his legacy.
The stans will just have to deal with it and cry their salty tears in their MJ pillow cases.
|by Anonymous||reply 456||Last Saturday at 9:19 AM|
I'll give the revolting dead pedophile this, he was an incredible manipulator - the childlike voice, the "I didn't have a childhood", extensive whitening procedure and plastic surgery that made him look like a freakish white woman. He also had all the money in the world to create a pedophile's dream to lure children : an amusement park, toys, a candy store, a chef on staff.
Also : weird mannequins, pornography, numerous jars of vaseline, and a vile freak with an affinity for 7-11 year old boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 457||Last Saturday at 9:30 AM|
I’m so glad the estate is facing consequences for what Michael jackson did. Fuck Those geeedy bastards!
|by Anonymous||reply 458||Last Saturday at 9:36 AM|
This will blow over. Jackson is too much a part of people's lives for them to cancel him.
|by Anonymous||reply 459||Last Saturday at 9:40 AM|
Not this time R459. The only people supporting him are D list rappers and his druggie daughter
|by Anonymous||reply 460||Last Saturday at 9:43 AM|
Robin Williams on Michael Jackson
|by Anonymous||reply 461||Last Saturday at 9:52 AM|
If Michael Jackson was ever going to be over, it would have happened already. Decades of accusations without any proof and his legacy is still strong around the world. No shady, incredible faux-documentary with an agenda is going to change that fact.
|by Anonymous||reply 462||Last Saturday at 9:55 AM|
The Jackson Family Fights Back
|by Anonymous||reply 463||Last Saturday at 9:58 AM|
I miss Mad-TV.
|by Anonymous||reply 464||Last Saturday at 10:03 AM|
Fascinating interview with MJ...
|by Anonymous||reply 465||Last Saturday at 10:10 AM|
R462, it's not over, but it won't be about his music anymore. He'll be known as the biggest fall from grace celebrity ever. The documentary legitimized what many people suspected and thought for years. He's branded a child molester now and that's never going to go away no matter how much his stans scream otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 466||Last Saturday at 10:20 AM|
R443 Dan Reed doesn't sound like an objective journalist. He makes the same absurd rationalizations we have heard time and again. The more facts that come out, the less believable the accusers become. The fact that he didn't find Brandi Jackson's story relevant is laughable. At least he doesn't try to attack her credibility. I'll give him that one.
|by Anonymous||reply 467||Last Saturday at 10:26 AM|
Macaulay fending off Jacko's unwanted advances...
|by Anonymous||reply 468||Last Saturday at 10:30 AM|
R467 It's even more interesting that he discounts Brandi's story given that he continues to claim that Robson was in love with Jackson.
|by Anonymous||reply 469||Last Saturday at 10:31 AM|
Wade Robson didn’t start dating Brandi until he was 12 and that was around the tail end of the sex with Jackson. It’s not relevant and she’s completely and totally biased. “He dated me at age 12 so he could never have been molested” isn’t a reasonable claim except to the most deluded of Michael Jackson fans.
|by Anonymous||reply 470||Last Saturday at 10:35 AM|
Like anyone would take the Brandi accusations seriously. They were little children, not a great love. She still hasn't produced one picture of them together. Dan Reed never said Wade was in love with Michael. Wade said it himself and ask yourself something, is that normal? No child would ever think they were in love with an adult if they weren't being abused and manipulated in some way.
|by Anonymous||reply 471||Last Saturday at 10:40 AM|
R470 Wade claims he was abused at 14. Brandi admits they had a sexual relationship during that time.
[quote] Dan Reed never said Wade was in love with Michael. Wade said it himself and ask yourself something, is that normal?
They both said it, and no it's not normal, especially given what we know of Wade's relationships. That's just one of the reasons why he's not credible. And honestly, Brandi is not a stupid woman. The fact that Wade could have somehow hid this from her, or any woman he was dating for that matter, is hard for any logical person to believe.
|by Anonymous||reply 472||Last Saturday at 10:44 AM|
meh @ all the debating in this thread. Surely we can all agree about James Safechuck's hotness. NOW, that is. Too bad MJ probably ruined homosexuality for him : (
|by Anonymous||reply 473||Last Saturday at 10:44 AM|
Enough with the pathetic excuses! Even if Wade had sexual relationships with a thousand girls when he was 12 it has no bearing on him being molested by Jackson. Jackson was a pedophile. You fools can bash Wade and his credibility into the ground, remove him from the equation, Jackson is still a massive pedophile, he rubbed it in our faces for years and we took it, people are angry about that. Fuck you and your half baked if's and buts. Jackson was a pedophile and you guys don't have enough in your lives if this fact rocks your world's foundation, it's disturbing to see the frantic spinning you feel impelled to do.
|by Anonymous||reply 474||Last Saturday at 10:55 AM|
[quote] She still hasn't produced one picture of them together.
Wade or Dan have not denied it. Why would she lie? I'm sure there are enough people who could corroborate that she dated Wade.
|by Anonymous||reply 475||Last Saturday at 10:55 AM|
R475 See R474
|by Anonymous||reply 476||Last Saturday at 10:56 AM|
Wade was the cuter child of the two. He looked like a doll baby, almost girlish in a way. Too bad he’s such a douche these days.
|by Anonymous||reply 477||Last Saturday at 11:05 AM|
R475, I can think of a million reasons. Dan Reed laughed it off because it was proposterous. They were kids and the mom used to drop him off to play at her house with the cousins. It wasn't some great romance Brandi is making it out to be. Even if it was, doesn't mean he wasn't molested.
|by Anonymous||reply 478||Last Saturday at 11:06 AM|
R477 He's still doing better than the semi-plastic, semi-rotting corpse of drug addled pedophile MJ. Shamone!
|by Anonymous||reply 479||Last Saturday at 11:09 AM|
Brandi's relationship with Wade, if true, has zero to do with his allegations. Do people seriously think abuse victims can't have other relationships? Wade didn't tell his mother, other family members, any of his other girlfriends, and didn't tell his fiance then wife until after they had a child together, but Michael's niece thinks that as a teenager either she's such a genius she'd somehow just know if he was being abused or that Wade would have told her of all people?
Plus assuming she's telling the truth, they started dating at the earliest when Michael's sexual abuse of Wade tapered off and he moved onto a younger boy. She says they dated 7+ years and that he cheated on her with Britney which broke up her engagement to Justin. So their relationship was until at least 2002 (if not later), which means it started no earlier than 1995ish when Wade was 13ish (if not later). Per Wade's allegations, he wasn't seeing Michael much at all by then. The last sexual encounter was the underwear incident when Wade was 14.
Brandi's story is irrelevant and that she chose to share it with Jerry Sandusky sympathizer John Ziegler and have him promote it is telling.
|by Anonymous||reply 480||Last Saturday at 11:10 AM|
Uh oh. Someone's upset that their precious narrative is falling apart. :( Sorry R474
|by Anonymous||reply 481||Last Saturday at 11:10 AM|
It's the world's narrative R481 only sick nerds like you who worship at the MJ shrine believe otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 482||Last Saturday at 11:11 AM|
R480 Wade claimed that as a result of the abuse with MJ, he had a hard time having relationships with women and that the abuse made him question his sexuality. I think hearing from someone who had a relationship with him at the time and after the alleged abuse is highly relevant to that allegation.
|by Anonymous||reply 483||Last Saturday at 11:12 AM|
^Yeah, such a hard time that he spent years slutting around with Britney Spears and Mayte.
|by Anonymous||reply 484||Last Saturday at 11:14 AM|
R482 Just heard Billie Jean and Don't Stop Till You Get Enough on the ride to work today here in Seattle, so, not so sure about that.
|by Anonymous||reply 485||Last Saturday at 11:14 AM|
I REFUSE to personally ban MJ’s music.
|by Anonymous||reply 486||Last Saturday at 11:16 AM|
Having a hard time with relationships is not the same as not having relationships.
And other women who've been and are in relationships with him support him.
Brandi is Michael's niece and chose a pedo apologist as her vehicle. She has an agenda.
|by Anonymous||reply 487||Last Saturday at 11:17 AM|
R485 Big deal, who cares if his music is played, it's just now people can say ' nice tune, shame he was such a sick pedophile'
|by Anonymous||reply 488||Last Saturday at 11:17 AM|
[quote] Do people seriously think abuse victims can't have other relationships?
Not at all, but to be in another sexual relationship, or engaged to be married, while still claiming to be in love with your abuser is suspect. Keep in mind that Wade didn't have much contact with MJ prior to the 2005 trial.
|by Anonymous||reply 489||Last Saturday at 11:19 AM|
R486 That's your choice, but at least admit that 'so good' music was created by a pedophile. I don't give a shit if anyone plays it but I resent them lying to present him as innocent just because it spoils their enjoyment.
|by Anonymous||reply 490||Last Saturday at 11:22 AM|
Reed thinks his audience is stupid. See R121 - Brandi and Wade being in a serious, sexual relationship while he was supposedly in love with Jackson and getting molested all these hundreds of times is so suspect.
Reed’s explanation: he was clearly dating both! 😳
|by Anonymous||reply 491||Last Saturday at 11:22 AM|
I don't have to know anything about John Ziegler to know that Brandi Jackson makes a compelling case all on her own. She's certainly more credible than Wade.
|by Anonymous||reply 492||Last Saturday at 11:21 AM|
R212, not R121
|by Anonymous||reply 493||Last Saturday at 11:22 AM|
In the documentary, Wade says that he, Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler all had a sleepover at Neverland. At one point, MJ took Jordan off to the bathroom and locked the door. Wade knew what was happening, because he used to be the boy in Jordan's position.
If Wade is lying, isn't he taking a huge risk by telling that part of the story so publicly? Why involve Macaulay? If it's not true, then there's absolutely nothing to stop Macauley from telling the press, "That's nonsense, I remember that sleepover, Michael never took Jordan off to a separate room..."
|by Anonymous||reply 494||Last Saturday at 11:24 AM|
You are fucking sick to keep repeating that Wade was in love with Michael. He was never in love with Michael, that was planted in his head by that child molester.
|by Anonymous||reply 495||Last Saturday at 11:23 AM|
R494 None of what Wade said in the documentary can be taken at face value.
|by Anonymous||reply 496||Last Saturday at 11:25 AM|
A child loving the person who abused them is not the same as being "in love" in such a way that it would be a barrier to other relationships. But you go on with your nonsense.
Brandi and Wade were in a serious sexual relationship when they were 13? You sure?
Brandi chose a pedo apologist to tell her story. That's all we need to know.
|by Anonymous||reply 497||Last Saturday at 11:24 AM|
Right R495 ? They are trying to say Wade is a cad because he was cheating on Michael with Brandi! A ten year old player, cuckolding his 30 year old molester...these fuckwits are nuts!
|by Anonymous||reply 498||Last Saturday at 11:26 AM|
R494 Mac is being harassed online because of claims like that that were featured in the documentary. Just like the Jackson family, he has a right to tell his story how he wants to.
|by Anonymous||reply 499||Last Saturday at 11:26 AM|
If one mind was changed by Leaving Neverland than congratulations to Jimmy and Wade They have done a great public service telling their story and warning parents that these types of perverts under the guise of wanting to befriend their young boys exist and the plots they use to get into their pants. It looks like many minds have woken up to what a sick monster this man was
|by Anonymous||reply 500||Last Saturday at 11:33 AM|
R498 More likely he wasn’t molested and is lying. Which would explain why he could date Brandi for 7 years without any problems. Wade is a credibility nightmare
Also, don’t try to twist the doc. Dan Reed said that Wade loved Michael Jackson. If so, then why did he date Brandi for 7 years including during the abuse? Admit it - it’s weird as hell
|by Anonymous||reply 501||Last Saturday at 11:35 AM|
R491, it’s Brandi’s narrative that just doesn’t hold up. She claims that they were in a serious relationship for seven years—supposedly during the exact same time Wade was being molested—but also claims that Wade cheated on her with Britney Spears, which could have happened no earlier than 2002. So her “relationship” with Wade, to the extent she had one, could not go back to when most of the abuse occurred. She’s contradicting herself. Yet it must be Wade and Reed who are wrong . . .
|by Anonymous||reply 502||Last Saturday at 11:36 AM|
Nobody cares about this yesterday’s news drivel anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 503||Last Saturday at 11:36 AM|
"I mean, it's only possible to love one person at a time and in only one particular way. It's just science people!"
|by Anonymous||reply 504||Last Saturday at 11:38 AM|
You keep trying R503, but the fact that you have to keep repeating that means it's not true.
|by Anonymous||reply 505||Last Saturday at 11:39 AM|
R501, don't try to cover now, you kept saying he was 'in love' with Michael. Loving someone and being in love are two different things. However, for Wade, both were from manipulations by the man who molested him. I don't believe he dated Brandi 7 years. 9 year olds don't have relationships.
R503, then why are you still here?
|by Anonymous||reply 506||Last Saturday at 11:40 AM|
Given how fucked up the entire Jackson family is, I wouldn't trust any of them to tell us what a real relationship looks like.
|by Anonymous||reply 507||Last Saturday at 11:42 AM|
This was posted on the other thread, I was supposed to reply but forgot. Isn't it weird how they write "allegedly"? It's obviously Jimmy on that tape. And what else would they be doing in a jewelry store BUT buying (or at least looking) at jewelry? Come on! It's obvious this is further proof that what Jimmy said about their "wedding" was true.
|by Anonymous||reply 508||Last Saturday at 11:42 AM|
This thread is so boring, I want to hear what DL has to say about Jackson and his pedo methods, not hear pathetic attempts from stans to demolish credible witnesses. I really don't want to engage with people with a teenage mentality, especially those so twisted by fan worship they can excuse pedophilia. Don't engage with these Jackson zombies, they are twinky freaks or are middle aged with twinky freak mindset, but you would run a mile from them in reality.
|by Anonymous||reply 509||Last Saturday at 11:45 AM|
The shillers /companies paying for them need to stop because they could get caught up in a class action and this will make it worse.
|by Anonymous||reply 510||Last Saturday at 11:45 AM|
R509 There are only two or three brainwashed stans here. Block them. You'll be doing us all a favor.
|by Anonymous||reply 511||Last Saturday at 11:47 AM|
If they were being paid at least they'd have a commercial excuse for their behavior R510, sadly I think many are simply devoted fans who drank the Jesus Juice for so long they have no morality where Jackson is concerned. I have blocked them R510 but they have hogged the conversation to the exclusion of anything other than WADE= BAD MJ =SWOON .
|by Anonymous||reply 512||Last Saturday at 11:51 AM|
Again, Reed admitted Wade dated Brandi during the “alleged” abuse. You don’t have to try and knock her as a liar.
|by Anonymous||reply 513||Last Saturday at 11:57 AM|
According to Dan Reed:
[quote] As far as James Safechuck goes, isn’t he quite well off as a software developer? He’s not exactly wanting financially, so to speak.
[quote] Yeah. They live very comfortably. He and his wife both work at the same company and they have a comfortable life. If they had more money, I don’t know what they’d do with it. And Wade, I think he made a lot of money when he was an extremely successful choreographer. He does modestly now, but doesn’t want for anything and doesn’t seem like a guy whose lifestyle is in any way restricted.
Is anyone buying this? Why Dan Reed continues to deny that there is any financial incentive whatsoever, when even many LN supporters can't even defend it, is really baffling.
|by Anonymous||reply 514||Last Saturday at 12:01 PM|
Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile Jackson was a disgusting pedophile
|by Anonymous||reply 515||Last Saturday at 12:06 PM|
More from Dan Reed
[quote] I wanted to bring up some of the main points that the truthers keep coming out with, because I keep seeing the same points. There’s a scene in Leaving Neverland where James’s mother says she was so happy Jackson died because she knew he wouldn’t hurt another child. But James claimed he didn’t tell anyone about the abuse—or even realize he was abused—until 2013, when Robson came forward.
[quote] Well no, the reason they’re saying this is because they’re basically riffing off of [Jackson lawyer] Howard Weitzman’s tip sheet. Weitzman wrote his 10-page rebuttal of the documentary without having seen the documentary, so a lot of the things he includes as supposed claims that we make in the documentary are actually very selectively drawn out of context from the amended legal complaint. So we’re talking apples and oranges here. In the documentary, James says that in 2005, he didn’t want to testify and told his mom that he didn’t want to testify because, he said, “Michael is not a good man.” So he tells his mom and doesn’t expand, but to Stephanie it’s very clear what he means: James was abused. But they do not have any further discussion and he begs her not to tell anyone else. It stayed between the two of them until 2013. So that’s why she stands up and does a little jig when he dies, because she realizes she doesn’t have to put a steak knife through this guy’s heart.
Again, we're supposed to believe his mother knew that James was abused since 2005 and didn't seek justice even when Jackson was alive and on trial. She instead chose to keep quiet.
|by Anonymous||reply 516||Last Saturday at 12:06 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 517||Last Saturday at 12:06 PM|
[quote] This thread is so boring, I want to hear what DL has to say about Jackson and his pedo methods, not hear pathetic attempts from stans to demolish credible witnesses.
Try Leaving Neverland threads 1-5. Lots of material there for you to indulge in your pedo fantasies.
|by Anonymous||reply 518||Last Saturday at 12:10 PM|
R516, Still can't read I see.
How do you "seek justice" on behalf of another adult who 1) doesn't give you any details, and 2) specifically asks you not to tell anyone?
"Hi, police? I'm calling to seek justice. Well, I believe Michael Jackson is a bad man. I think he hurt a child. No, he's not a child now, this would have been about 15 years ago. Oh, well I don't have exact details, but I'm sure of it. Um, I'm not supposed to tell you who. Yeah, he doesn't want Michael to know that I know. Wait, don't hang up!"
|by Anonymous||reply 519||Last Saturday at 12:11 PM|
The comedy sketches posted on upthread show that Jackson was established in people’s minds as a child molestor well before his death. People laughed and didn’t want to think about what actually happened to the victims. That’s what the documentary changed. But the evidence that Jackson was a pedophile was always there.
|by Anonymous||reply 520||Last Saturday at 12:14 PM|
[quote][R509] There are only two or three brainwashed stans here. Block them. You'll be doing us all a favor.
Blocking is a sign of weakness.
|by Anonymous||reply 521||Last Saturday at 12:18 PM|
R514 Not only that, but he hasn’t mentioned that Safechuck is being sued by his siblings for millions as part of an inheritance battle. See the doc in R203. Reed loves telling half truthes
|by Anonymous||reply 522||Last Saturday at 12:21 PM|
^ More already debunked lies. That's his father. James and his father are in totally different businesses.
|by Anonymous||reply 523||Last Saturday at 12:23 PM|
R523 We all know it's James' family who stand to lose everything. His family tried to cut out their partners while leaving them with the tax burden. Add to that that James and Wade are already in debt to the estate.
|by Anonymous||reply 524||Last Saturday at 12:27 PM|
R519 it’s already clear why the mom knowing in 2005 is likely untrue in R365.
It’s obvious he’s trying to use his mother to challenge the idea that he invented the abuse (he admitted to not deciding to file the lawsuit until he saw Wade sue). But none of that adds up—he’s got to be lying about telling her. I mean if you need an alibi—your parents and spouse have got to back you up—says something that they’re doing such a bad job.
|by Anonymous||reply 525||Last Saturday at 12:29 PM|
If you suspect two victims because you think they stand to gain money from the Jackson estate, can you explain why you don't suspect the grifter Jackson clan, who stand to lose money, you fucking asshole defenders of a child molester?
|by Anonymous||reply 526||Last Saturday at 12:30 PM|
^ Defender keeps lying, then when caught lying, just moves the goalpost and repeats conclusions derived from its own ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 527||Last Saturday at 12:32 PM|
Of course he does, R499 - but if Wade is lying, why make up a story that could easily be debunked by Macaulay?
|by Anonymous||reply 528||Last Saturday at 12:31 PM|
R523 The lawsuit clearly says “James Safechuck” is the defendant and was filed in 2013. His dad hung himself after having mental problems in 2002. How are you going to call someone a liar by posting lies yourself?
|by Anonymous||reply 529||Last Saturday at 12:34 PM|
Culkin was molested and will take it to the grave
|by Anonymous||reply 530||Last Saturday at 12:35 PM|
James’ dad did not kill himself, you lying fuck. Wade’s did (as did Jordie’s). Try to keep the men who were victims of Michael Jackson’s pedophilia straight.
|by Anonymous||reply 531||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
R527 the only person lying is you. Just because you say “more lies” and “moving the goalpost” does make you believable. You love saying that, when the irony is—you’re the one making stuff up. See R529
|by Anonymous||reply 532||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
R529 Wade's father committed suicide. Safechuck's dad is strangely absent from the documentary.
|by Anonymous||reply 533||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
R529/R532, more lies. Wade Robson's (and Jordy Chandler's) father committed suicide. Not Safechuck.
You keep going on about Wade, James and the other accusers credibility, but you keep posting and repeating lies.
|by Anonymous||reply 534||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
R533 Wonder is Wade’s dad’s mental issues were genetic. Would explain a lot
|by Anonymous||reply 535||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
Here are the details regarding the Safechuck family lawsuit. Make of it what you will.
|by Anonymous||reply 536||Last Saturday at 12:37 PM|
It would explain that a vulnerable kid is obvious and the low hanging fruit a child rapist selects.
|by Anonymous||reply 537||Last Saturday at 12:40 PM|
Odd how the people who accuse MJ’s parents keep killing themselves because of mental issues. Sounds like a conspiracy
|by Anonymous||reply 538||Last Saturday at 12:40 PM|
R533, Stephanie Safechuck talked briefly about how she and James' father were split up but still living together (Michael apparently used that as a way to further drive a wedge between James and his parents). It's heavily implied but not outright stated that the family is pretty fractured.
|by Anonymous||reply 539||Last Saturday at 12:40 PM|
R539 Stephanie Safechuck is clearly a lying. There’s no way she knew about the abuse in 2005—clearly covering for James.
|by Anonymous||reply 540||Last Saturday at 12:41 PM|
R536, those aren't "details." It's speculation and nonsense from a defender who knows nothing. These people don't even know which James Safechuck is being sued.
R540 thinks if he says it enough, it magically becomes true! Very Peter Pan--no wonder you're such an MJ fan.
|by Anonymous||reply 541||Last Saturday at 12:41 PM|
I mean momma Safechuck didn’t tell a friend, send a text, do something that backs that up? If she could prove that in 2005 she knew it would clear up a LOT of doubts that he’s making it up now. That would be real evidence.
|by Anonymous||reply 542||Last Saturday at 12:42 PM|
Momma Safechuck needs to be powering on her old Motorola and try to find some evidence
|by Anonymous||reply 543||Last Saturday at 12:44 PM|
Just ask yourself what would your parent do if they found out someone they regarded as a close family friend molested you or your sister?
|by Anonymous||reply 544||Last Saturday at 12:44 PM|
No it wouldn't R542. You'd disregard and lie about it along with every other piece of evidence you disregard and lie about.
Beside, you don't know what she did or didn't do in 2005. The case hasn't gone through discovery or trial.
|by Anonymous||reply 545||Last Saturday at 12:44 PM|
It looks like TMZ has falsely reported that Paris Jackson has attempted suicide. What more proof do you need that these media organizations are in the business of wanting to destroy lives?
|by Anonymous||reply 546||Last Saturday at 12:45 PM|
R544 IDK about you, but my mom would be calling and texting the hell/annoying the hell out of me, esp. in 2005. If one of my family members (esp my son) told me as an adult he was raped I’d find that fucker. Even if I didn’t, There’d be a long trail showing me and my kid talking about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 547||Last Saturday at 12:47 PM|
R544, plenty of people who were molested as children had parents who did absolutely nothing at any point. As you’ve been told multiple times, predatory pedophiles learn how to target the most vulnerable children.
|by Anonymous||reply 548||Last Saturday at 12:47 PM|
R544 what would your parent do if you asked them not to tell anyone, and you refused to give them any details, and you're estranged from them? Are your parents so disrespectful of your wishes and so disinterested in repairing their relationship with you that they'd ignore your directive about something so incredibly sensitive, personal, and painful? Is that why you're so ridiculous, because you can't trust your own parents?
R546, as part of the false report, TMZ claimed she attempted suicide because of Wade and James. Looks like they are trying to whip up more outrage against Jackson's accusers.
|by Anonymous||reply 549||Last Saturday at 12:48 PM|
R545 well hopefully James lawsuit discovery if he gets it put back in will he better than Wade. His emails and shit were damaging.
|by Anonymous||reply 550||Last Saturday at 12:48 PM|
Please block the insane Jackson defenders and move on . They are probably pedos themselves. Fucking nutters.
|by Anonymous||reply 551||Last Saturday at 12:50 PM|
Jacko items removed from a museum in IN
|by Anonymous||reply 552||Last Saturday at 12:51 PM|
[quote] what would your parent do if you asked them not to tell anyone, and you refused to give them any details, and you're estranged from them?
Personally, I feel that guilt would make her even more likely to act for what's right. But sorry for giving an admittedly horrible mother some credit.
|by Anonymous||reply 553||Last Saturday at 12:52 PM|
[quote]Please block the insane Jackson defenders and move on . They are probably pedos themselves. Fucking nutters.
Blocking is a sign of weakness. What’s the matter? Can’t take the heat?
|by Anonymous||reply 554||Last Saturday at 12:52 PM|
R551 is a real freaky dude. If you’re too insensitive for DL then LOG OFF. You sound like a damn fool.
|by Anonymous||reply 555||Last Saturday at 12:53 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 556||Last Saturday at 12:54 PM|
^ You still can't say what exactly she should have done that you'd know about right now. Go to the police/DA? She literally has no information and her son was scared and didn't want Michael to know he told her anything. Go to the press? That would put focus on her son he wasn't prepared for against his express wishes. You have no way of knowing what she may have done in her personal life.
You just keep lying and when caught try to deflect to something irrelevant.
|by Anonymous||reply 557||Last Saturday at 12:55 PM|
So despite Safechuck coming to this realization in 2005, in which he shared his story with his mother and most likely other family members, he did not seek psychiatric help until he decided to file his lawsuit.
|by Anonymous||reply 558||Last Saturday at 12:58 PM|
R557 I never said she had to go to the DA. I said if he told her in 2005 then she should have SOMETHING backing that up.
Yep R558 his timeline was to see a dude file a lawsuit, then go to a doctor and cry abuse, then file his own lawsuit with the same lawyer.
That’s why I’m saying the momma can prove he was really abused if she really knew. She needs to dig up her blackberry. ESPECIALLY since in 2005 he would have no reason to lie like he does now. He could’ve got the money and his cake too.
|by Anonymous||reply 559||Last Saturday at 1:00 PM|
^Lies. He had already seen a doctor for his anxiety and related issues and had been prescribed psychiatric meds.
Can't/won't read, can't stop lying, will keep deflecting.
|by Anonymous||reply 560||Last Saturday at 1:00 PM|
I wonder if they can find phone records that far back or get old texts. Maybe they can get the phone company to release them some type of way using the courts?
|by Anonymous||reply 561||Last Saturday at 1:02 PM|
[quote] He had already seen a doctor for his anxiety and related issues and had been prescribed psychiatric meds.
If true, that makes his story even more unbelievable.
|by Anonymous||reply 562||Last Saturday at 1:02 PM|
R562 EXACTLY!!!!!!! A therapist is even better of a witness than momma. She has notes if he told her that he was abused. If he went through therapy and didn’t say anything until round 2 (for the lawsuit) that smells strange
|by Anonymous||reply 563||Last Saturday at 1:05 PM|
Shiiiiid. I was thinking James was the one with the bulletproof story. Wade’s rehearsed ass is so fake I can smell it from a MILE away.
|by Anonymous||reply 564||Last Saturday at 1:08 PM|
Michael did it.
|by Anonymous||reply 565||Last Saturday at 1:09 PM|
R564 Their stories are crumbling slowly but surely. These things take time. Jussie Smollet was still believed even after people first started poking holes at his story.
|by Anonymous||reply 566||Last Saturday at 1:09 PM|
He did it.
|by Anonymous||reply 567||Last Saturday at 1:11 PM|
“Lies run sprints, but the truth runs marathons.”
― Michael Jackson
|by Anonymous||reply 568||Last Saturday at 1:11 PM|
Jussie made it up , but CPD fucking lies 24/7 every day
|by Anonymous||reply 569||Last Saturday at 1:14 PM|
I think sometime later this year, we’ll be looking back at this Leaving Neverland stuff wondering how we were all taken in by it.
|by Anonymous||reply 570||Last Saturday at 1:14 PM|
So many people wishing Paris is dead in her thread. I wonder if these are the same people who are compassionate toward CSA victims.
|by Anonymous||reply 571||Last Saturday at 1:16 PM|
Of course he did it. I don't think there is any doubt now, despite what defenders here are saying. Sure you have some naive fools, but by in large, people believe he is guilty. As for James's mother, wtf cares? My opinion of both her and Wade's mom is that they knew on some level what was going on at the time and allowed it to happen. Michael knew how to pick the mindless sheep. This all goes beyond the documentary, there is so many other victims that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
|by Anonymous||reply 572||Last Saturday at 1:18 PM|
if momma Safechuck could pull an “I’m sorry or get better soon type of card” she sent him back in the day even that would show she knew. They can do forensics and stuff on ink and stamps.
|by Anonymous||reply 573||Last Saturday at 1:19 PM|
^ JanBot talking to itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 574||Last Saturday at 1:19 PM|
R572 Jackson has interacted with hundreds, if not thousands of children, and has been under investigation for years. Even after death, he's been under intense public scrutiny, yet we've heard nothing.
|by Anonymous||reply 575||Last Saturday at 1:20 PM|
I only mention momma because it LOOKS like he decided to start pushing this right before he sued AND they used the momma to say he did tell somebody back in the day. So how tf is momma not important here?
R574 you sound like a damn fool
|by Anonymous||reply 576||Last Saturday at 1:23 PM|
Michael is innocent. I think James feels some guilt about all this. Wade, not so much.
|by Anonymous||reply 577||Last Saturday at 1:33 PM|
R575, and what about Jordan and Gavin? Just because he got off doesn't mean he isn't guilty. Nothing was disproved with Jordan. Not to mention all the hush money he paid to some of these boys and their families. The FBI could have gotten him and the chose not to, twice. Celebrity privledge at its finest.
R576, it doesn't really matter. It's a very minuscule piece of the story. What's the difference if she knew before or after 2005. I don't care about her credibility, only James'. He is totally believable.
|by Anonymous||reply 578||Last Saturday at 1:38 PM|
I don’t think any of them white boys give a damn about lying. I bet it hurts like a MF tho that bubbles is getting more money from Joe’s evil ass than they could
|by Anonymous||reply 579||Last Saturday at 1:39 PM|
R578 the FBI lock up rich people every day and we all know they tried to lock Michael’s ass up too. He might look like he got a little white privilege but they treated him like a n**** back in the 90s.
|by Anonymous||reply 580||Last Saturday at 1:42 PM|
I made a new thread in case this one fills up.
|by Anonymous||reply 581||Last Saturday at 1:44 PM|
R580, you obviously didn't read the link. The FBI declined to bring charges against him twice, despite local LE pushing for it. He was treated like a gd ALWAYS. No other man, black, white, purple or green would have gotten away with would he did. He was a pedophile, plain and simple. His status is what kept him at out of prison.
|by Anonymous||reply 582||Last Saturday at 1:50 PM|
R582 I read that opinion piece, it doesn’t say the FBI found shit to lock him up with BUT it does say they investigated his ass and didn’t find anything.. All the writer did was kiss the documentary’s ass and cover itself by adding “alleged” before repeating some unproven shit that the FBI wrote off as unreliable
|by Anonymous||reply 583||Last Saturday at 1:56 PM|
Since you say the FBI let him go (AKA didn’t find shit) Next you’ll say the CIA covered up for his ass by not sending a drone through neverland
|by Anonymous||reply 584||Last Saturday at 2:05 PM|
R578 Fascinating to see all these people who claim that Jackson was an obvious pedophile peddle such conspiracy theories.
|by Anonymous||reply 585||Last Saturday at 2:05 PM|
Learn to read R583. I said that local law enforcement wanted to charge him with transporting a child across state lines and the FBI DECLINED. Also should be noted what the two social workers witnessed. The FBI also DECLINED to pursue the case of the two Mexican boys he molested. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Spin all you want, there is so much evidence it's comical to believe he didn't do it.
|by Anonymous||reply 586||Last Saturday at 2:09 PM|
[quote] What's the difference if she knew before or after 2005. I don't care about her credibility, only James'. He is totally believable.
I don't know how anyone can think he's "totally" believable given his unsuccessful attempts to sue the Jackson estate, and then not being able to keep his story straight on Oprah.
|by Anonymous||reply 587||Last Saturday at 2:10 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 588||Last Saturday at 2:11 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 589||Last Saturday at 2:12 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 590||Last Saturday at 2:12 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 591||Last Saturday at 2:12 PM|
Latoya screaming at the beginning
|by Anonymous||reply 592||Last Saturday at 2:13 PM|
An ode to Robson and Safechuck
|by Anonymous||reply 593||Last Saturday at 2:13 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 594||Last Saturday at 2:13 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 595||Last Saturday at 2:14 PM|
Another genius demo
|by Anonymous||reply 596||Last Saturday at 2:15 PM|
R593 = Sad troll
|by Anonymous||reply 597||Last Saturday at 2:15 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 598||Last Saturday at 2:16 PM|
A message to Wade and James
|by Anonymous||reply 599||Last Saturday at 2:16 PM|
EXCELLENT unreleased MJ track. His vocals soar in this one
|by Anonymous||reply 600||Last Saturday at 2:17 PM|
Just try and sit still when listening to this unreleased gem...
|by Anonymous||reply 601||Last Saturday at 2:19 PM|