FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Michael jackson
Michael jackson
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Unfortunately I think MJ was guilty of the accusations levelled at him. I don’t think that he was a serial child fiddler though, I think that his childhood was taken away from him and as a result he never reached emotional maturity. He was five when he joined his brothers and was abused by a driven father. He never grew up and when he was an “adult” he was experimenting with friends as many pre-pubescent children do. He had sleeepovers with his friends which to him seemed perfectly normal. The only problem is that his friends were pre-pubescent and he wasn’t. He was a child trapped in an adult’s body because he was never given the opportunity to grow up and reach emotional maturity. It seems to me that if you’re famous from a young age then you do seem to end up with issues. You have no real appreciation of the real world and live in a bubble. The likes of Robbie Williams, George Michael, Whitney Houston and even Mick Jagger have or had real issues. I don’t believe MJ was a serial paedophile a la Jimmy Saville, he was a misunderstood individual who happened to be supremely talented. I’m not a a fan of his so this post isn’t a hero worship thing, I will watch the documentary with an open mind. The cynic in me thinks it’s people seeing an opportunity because the accused can’t defend himself from beyond the grave." I very much agree with your last comment. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's all sensationalist bollocks. Have you seen the interview with hus accuser. He is so lying. People who havr suffered such abuse are traumatised by it and talking about it is extremely difficult and yet this liar can sit there and discuss it so matter of factly that he might as well be talking about making hus breakfast. Interesting how he's changed his story so many times - and unsuccessfully tried sueing MJ's estate before" Not talking about this case, but in general. I can sit and have a conversation and talk matter of factly about my ex. The bully physically beat me at times, emotionally abused me day in day out. Does that make me a liar because I've healed for the most part and can talk about it without breaking down? It is possible to move on, I am not the same person I was then. P | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"New Michael Jackson documentary Will you be watching it I am so curious with everything that went on Or did it? I have always been a big fan but until I have watched this......I’m curious if it’s all true or if it’s just a money making thing What’s your thoughts?." I'm always conflicted by this. When he was alive, he was no stranger to legal action for all sorts of things against him. Was he persecuted? Music was wonderful, a supreme artist....but I do wonder.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
Who knows what is true and what isn't - will never know. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's all sensationalist bollocks. Have you seen the interview with hus accuser. He is so lying. People who havr suffered such abuse are traumatised by it and talking about it is extremely difficult and yet this liar can sit there and discuss it so matter of factly that he might as well be talking about making hus breakfast. Interesting how he's changed his story so many times - and unsuccessfully tried sueing MJ's estate before" I’ve been abused in many, many ways and I can discuss it like it’s fact. Doesn’t mean I’m not suffering or struggling. It’s easier to distance myself from what happened. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's all sensationalist bollocks. Have you seen the interview with hus accuser. He is so lying. People who havr suffered such abuse are traumatised by it and talking about it is extremely difficult and yet this liar can sit there and discuss it so matter of factly that he might as well be talking about making hus breakfast. Interesting how he's changed his story so many times - and unsuccessfully tried sueing MJ's estate before" That's a huge generalisation. People deal with trauma in different ways. Some never talk about it. Some do. There's no "right" way. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I wonder too. Its not natural for a grown man wanting to share his bed with young boys." Completely agree, where were the boys parents when all this was going on!  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I just can’t understand why it all has to be brought out now It was 10 years ago Let him bloody rest in peace It’s much to obvious it’s all about making money It’s in the past now" If you've been abused in any way ( and I'm including mental, physical,sexual, emotional abuse) it's never "in the past". You can be doing ok and then something triggers a memory. Or you might not be doing ok at all, and one little thing is what pushes you into a meltdown or a breakdown or worse. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The film maker was asked why he only interviews the two guys for the film and no one else. He said that the other interviews would interfere with the story he wanted to tell and that the other interviews aren't the story he wants to tell. It's a totally biased story that's been woven in the two guys favour. There's so much that doesn't add up. Wade testifying for MJ during the trial. Wade asking MJ's estate for tickets to his funeral and parking passes. Wade begging MJ's estate to direct the Cirque du Soleil MJ show but they didn't pick him and he was upset about it. Wade suing MJ's estate for over a billion dollars. Wade wanting to write a book about MJ but no publisher wanted it. To me it sounds like it's all about money." Can you put yourself in the shoes of a young kid, being groomed by someone you idolize, someone who you admire,a world wide superstar. To a naive, gullible kid it must be so flattering, so exciting, so overwhelming. Your parents and guardians who should know better and who should be there to protect you are giving it all the green light too, or turning a blind eye to any inappropriate behaviour. You want to please this person. You want to make them happy. You want them to love you. A young kid is easy prey for a skilled predator. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The film maker was asked why he only interviews the two guys for the film and no one else. He said that the other interviews would interfere with the story he wanted to tell and that the other interviews aren't the story he wants to tell. It's a totally biased story that's been woven in the two guys favour. There's so much that doesn't add up. Wade testifying for MJ during the trial. Wade asking MJ's estate for tickets to his funeral and parking passes. Wade begging MJ's estate to direct the Cirque du Soleil MJ show but they didn't pick him and he was upset about it. Wade suing MJ's estate for over a billion dollars. Wade wanting to write a book about MJ but no publisher wanted it. To me it sounds like it's all about money." Absolutely agree with you  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I just can’t understand why it all has to be brought out now It was 10 years ago Let him bloody rest in peace It’s much to obvious it’s all about making money It’s in the past now If you've been abused in any way ( and I'm including mental, physical,sexual, emotional abuse) it's never "in the past". You can be doing ok and then something triggers a memory. Or you might not be doing ok at all, and one little thing is what pushes you into a meltdown or a breakdown or worse. " Well said Mrscxxx | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Has half the thread disappeared? I know I left more than one comment on here" Ignore me, I managed to confuse myself. I was posting on the other thread | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"what channel was it on? " It's tonight and tomorrow on Channel 4 at 9pm. We watched the USA transmission a few days ago and found the testimonies compelling. We believed Wade & Jimmy 100% In our opinion, Jackson's legacy will be completely destroyed. Obviously he was an international talent but there are strong similarities to the Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris cases. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"His music has been banned from main stream media I think that’s ridiculous tbh but that’s just my opinion the man is dead and can’t defend himself Mrscxxx " Watch the documentary and you understand why some of them have taken that action. I'm sure more will follow. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I'm watching it now Not sure what to make of it" I think you are seeing an abused man recalling how a paedophile messed up his childhood or that's what I am seeing.  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Poor guy looks like Jackson really has screwed up his life." Unbelievable Fell for him | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
those poor children, he totally manipulated them. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"what channel was it on? It's tonight and tomorrow on Channel 4 at 9pm. We watched the USA transmission a few days ago and found the testimonies compelling. We believed Wade & Jimmy 100% In our opinion, Jackson's legacy will be completely destroyed. Obviously he was an international talent but there are strong similarities to the Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris cases. Thanks should be able to get it on All4 " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The film maker was asked why he only interviews the two guys for the film and no one else. He said that the other interviews would interfere with the story he wanted to tell and that the other interviews aren't the story he wants to tell. It's a totally biased story that's been woven in the two guys favour. There's so much that doesn't add up. Wade testifying for MJ during the trial. Wade asking MJ's estate for tickets to his funeral and parking passes. Wade begging MJ's estate to direct the Cirque du Soleil MJ show but they didn't pick him and he was upset about it. Wade suing MJ's estate for over a billion dollars. Wade wanting to write a book about MJ but no publisher wanted it. To me it sounds like it's all about money. Absolutely agree with you "the two accusers civil case had already been thrown out and is on appeal but expected to lose again they have recieved NO payment from HBO for participating in the documentry how are the in it for the Money ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I’ve not watched it yet but I am going to cos I’m curious I always use to like MJ while growing up but he did turn strange in many ways with his voice and his looks but part of me feels sorry for the fact his childhood was taken away but to be able to have access to all these young kids is odd Having them in music videos is understandable but over night stays in the same bed.....not normal" As I said early, it looked like he totally manipulated those boys. However looking at other comments on here, is it biased filmmaking, both Macaulay Culkin & another lad Brett have stood by their story that MJ never engaged in sexual activity with them. There is definitely way more than 2 sides to this story..! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's all sensationalist bollocks. Have you seen the interview with hus accuser. He is so lying. People who havr suffered such abuse are traumatised by it and talking about it is extremely difficult and yet this liar can sit there and discuss it so matter of factly that he might as well be talking about making hus breakfast. Interesting how he's changed his story so many times - and unsuccessfully tried sueing MJ's estate before" Disagree. I am a victim of domestic violence, yet can discuss it calmly, rationally and with no outward show of emotion. Don't presume someone's integrity based on their ability to articulate their experiences without breaking down. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is interesting that these two men are accused of trying to fabricate historical sexual abuse for monetary gain when the only lawsuit so far is from The Estate of Michael Jackson against HBO for breaking a non-disparagement clause from 1992. This could open a bigger can of worms for the estate and it wouldn't be too surprising to see a journalist looking into his old contracts. The severance agreement with Pepsi, for example. It's no secret that severance was agreed, with non-disparagement agreements, at the same time as Michael Jackson was instructing lawyers because of an accusation of child abuse. Pepsico and Jackson amended the contract by agreement, changing the end date from mid 1994 (and removing an option to extend) to the last day of the Dangerous (I think) world tour. The tour was cancelled immediately. Jackson settled out of court just over a year later, with non-disclosure of course, but widely accepted to be just under $20 million after costs. However, he was found not guilty on 14 counts of *cannot write the word here due to admin* and child abuse at The People vs Michael Jackson trial. A very well executed defence if anyone is interested - a master class in discrediting your witness on many occasions. I've gone off on a tangent, talking about contracts and legal matters... What is odd is to defend Jackson's behaviour by stating that he had his childhood taken away or cut short etc when he's doing exactly that to the young boys he's sharing a bed with decades later. Wearing the celebrity cloak of invincibility means people describing his actions as 'not normal'. If your next door neighbour was a 30/40 year old man and he had sleep overs with boys from the local primary school where they slept in the same bed it would be more than 'not normal'. Add to that the boy's parents drop him off in the evening and pick him up in the morning. That's having your childhood taken away. " There's a hard-core fan on another thread on here who was trying to argue that Jackson taking kids to his bed was part of his "culture" I've yet to see any of the fans supporting Jackson on threads before the documentary crawl out from under their rocks to continue their support for that nasty heap of kiddy-fiddling shit. Remember, the word "fan" is short for "fanatic" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is interesting that these two men are accused of trying to fabricate historical sexual abuse for monetary gain when the only lawsuit so far is from The Estate of Michael Jackson against HBO for breaking a non-disparagement clause from 1992. This could open a bigger can of worms for the estate and it wouldn't be too surprising to see a journalist looking into his old contracts. The severance agreement with Pepsi, for example. It's no secret that severance was agreed, with non-disparagement agreements, at the same time as Michael Jackson was instructing lawyers because of an accusation of child abuse. Pepsico and Jackson amended the contract by agreement, changing the end date from mid 1994 (and removing an option to extend) to the last day of the Dangerous (I think) world tour. The tour was cancelled immediately. Jackson settled out of court just over a year later, with non-disclosure of course, but widely accepted to be just under $20 million after costs. However, he was found not guilty on 14 counts of *cannot write the word here due to admin* and child abuse at The People vs Michael Jackson trial. A very well executed defence if anyone is interested - a master class in discrediting your witness on many occasions. I've gone off on a tangent, talking about contracts and legal matters... What is odd is to defend Jackson's behaviour by stating that he had his childhood taken away or cut short etc when he's doing exactly that to the young boys he's sharing a bed with decades later. Wearing the celebrity cloak of invincibility means people describing his actions as 'not normal'. If your next door neighbour was a 30/40 year old man and he had sleep overs with boys from the local primary school where they slept in the same bed it would be more than 'not normal'. Add to that the boy's parents drop him off in the evening and pick him up in the morning. That's having your childhood taken away. There's a hard-core fan on another thread on here who was trying to argue that Jackson taking kids to his bed was part of his "culture" I've yet to see any of the fans supporting Jackson on threads before the documentary crawl out from under their rocks to continue their support for that nasty heap of kiddy-fiddling shit. Remember, the word "fan" is short for "fanatic" "Iv been saying this for years, a paedo is a paedo,I don't give a fuck if he was a good singer P. S. I thought he was fucking shit anyway | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The film maker was asked why he only interviews the two guys for the film and no one else. He said that the other interviews would interfere with the story he wanted to tell and that the other interviews aren't the story he wants to tell. It's a totally biased story that's been woven in the two guys favour. There's so much that doesn't add up. Wade testifying for MJ during the trial. Wade asking MJ's estate for tickets to his funeral and parking passes. Wade begging MJ's estate to direct the Cirque du Soleil MJ show but they didn't pick him and he was upset about it. Wade suing MJ's estate for over a billion dollars. Wade wanting to write a book about MJ but no publisher wanted it. To me it sounds like it's all about money. Absolutely agree with you the two accusers civil case had already been thrown out and is on appeal but expected to lose again they have recieved NO payment from HBO for participating in the documentry how are the in it for the Money ?"No doubt they will gain money from this and other interviews. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are certain questions that need answering but the main player in this story is dead . Why did the two lie under oath originally and deny all abuse ? Yes they and their extremely naive families received hush payments . But why come out now for a documentary? How much are they being paid for this ? If guilty then surely Jackson’s massive workforce of hangers on are also culpable and hiding the facts ? Why have they never spoken out ? Personally I feel this was a very misguided but manipulative individual who used his wealth and fame to dazzle everyone in his path . " There are quite a lot of statements stating suspicions of Jackson's wrong-doings from house-staff, drivers etc, But why haven't they spoken out? I would guess that the bank of Jackson was still wide open when the shit started hitting the fan. Hopefully this video will prompt more to come forward. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"There are certain questions that need answering but the main player in this story is dead . Why did the two lie under oath originally and deny all abuse ? Yes they and their extremely naive families received hush payments . But why come out now for a documentary? How much are they being paid for this ? If guilty then surely Jackson’s massive workforce of hangers on are also culpable and hiding the facts ? Why have they never spoken out ? Personally I feel this was a very misguided but manipulative individual who used his wealth and fame to dazzle everyone in his path . There are quite a lot of statements stating suspicions of Jackson's wrong-doings from house-staff, drivers etc, But why haven't they spoken out? I would guess that the bank of Jackson was still wide open when the shit started hitting the fan. Hopefully this video will prompt more to come forward." Totally agree | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I see the Jackson menagerie have filed a $100 million against the programme makers. I don't know a lot about US law - does this mean that the Jackson's will have to prove that the programme is a lie? That'll be interesting. If they fail, and I sincerely hope they do, all profits he's ever made should be confiscated and given to victims' of child abuse charities." The lawsuit is for breaking a contract agreement from 1992 as I alluded to in an earlier post. Basically, HBO agreed when airing one of his concert films to not ever say anything bad about Jackson in the future as part of the contractual arrangement for the broadcast. The Estate of Michael Jackson did not try and stop the broadcasting of the documentary or to hinder it's publicity. They waited and issued a lawsuit to the tune of $100 million. Quite where the value comes from is a mystery, defamation of character etc on the 1992-93 Jackson is not relevant to the Jackson of today. It'll be interesting if it goes to court, I would assume HBO will cite the contract would terminate at his death and/or not being liable for loss of earnings etc as he cannot produce new material and you can't prove loss of earnings on a back catalogue. HBO have stood by the film knowing the lawsuit was likely. They have aired the broadcast but does anyone know if this documentary was commissioned by HBO or they bought the right to broadcast? Huge difference. If it goes to court (very unlikely) then I know who my money would be on. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I see the Jackson menagerie have filed a $100 million against the programme makers. I don't know a lot about US law - does this mean that the Jackson's will have to prove that the programme is a lie? That'll be interesting. If they fail, and I sincerely hope they do, all profits he's ever made should be confiscated and given to victims' of child abuse charities. The lawsuit is for breaking a contract agreement from 1992 as I alluded to in an earlier post. Basically, HBO agreed when airing one of his concert films to not ever say anything bad about Jackson in the future as part of the contractual arrangement for the broadcast. The Estate of Michael Jackson did not try and stop the broadcasting of the documentary or to hinder it's publicity. They waited and issued a lawsuit to the tune of $100 million. Quite where the value comes from is a mystery, defamation of character etc on the 1992-93 Jackson is not relevant to the Jackson of today. It'll be interesting if it goes to court, I would assume HBO will cite the contract would terminate at his death and/or not being liable for loss of earnings etc as he cannot produce new material and you can't prove loss of earnings on a back catalogue. HBO have stood by the film knowing the lawsuit was likely. They have aired the broadcast but does anyone know if this documentary was commissioned by HBO or they bought the right to broadcast? Huge difference. If it goes to court (very unlikely) then I know who my money would be on. " Who would your money be on? No matter the rationale behind the lawsuit, hopefully the publicity may encourage more people to come forward. I think the parents should also be subjected to further scrutiny, but it seems likely that they too were groomed just as insidiously as Jackson groomed the children. Fame and limitless money can be powerful intoxicants. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"New Michael Jackson documentary Will you be watching it I am so curious with everything that went on Or did it? I have always been a big fan but until I have watched this......I’m curious if it’s all true or if it’s just a money making thing What’s your thoughts?." I watched the director 'explaining' why he made the documentary...wouldnt trust him further than I could spit...and I dont spit(disgusting habit). He admitted there is no new 'evidence' or information other than the interviews with the 2 boys/men who once said under oath that he didnt touch them but are now saying he did, which makes them liars either way. He also said they were entitled to 'justice' from the MJ estate(Read into that what you will). Add to that the fact that they are both trying to sue the MJ estate for millions and it says to me this is all about money. I dont know if MJ did anything he was being accused of but as he was probably one of the most heavilly investigated individuals at that time by the FBI the Police and the Media and then tried and found not guilty in a court of law says to me that if he had done anything it would have been discovered at that time. Was he odd...most definitely but then most people who arent swingers would consider us odd as well, so being odd isnt yet (thank god) a crime. P.S. Being on here I possibly shouldnt have used the spit comment  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"New Michael Jackson documentary Will you be watching it I am so curious with everything that went on Or did it? I have always been a big fan but until I have watched this......I’m curious if it’s all true or if it’s just a money making thing What’s your thoughts?. I watched the director 'explaining' why he made the documentary...wouldnt trust him further than I could spit...and I dont spit(disgusting habit). He admitted there is no new 'evidence' or information other than the interviews with the 2 boys/men who once said under oath that he didnt touch them but are now saying he did, which makes them liars either way. He also said they were entitled to 'justice' from the MJ estate(Read into that what you will). Add to that the fact that they are both trying to sue the MJ estate for millions and it says to me this is all about money. I dont know if MJ did anything he was being accused of but as he was probably one of the most heavilly investigated individuals at that time by the FBI the Police and the Media and then tried and found not guilty in a court of law says to me that if he had done anything it would have been discovered at that time. Was he odd...most definitely but then most people who arent swingers would consider us odd as well, so being odd isnt yet (thank god) a crime. P.S. Being on here I possibly shouldnt have used the spit comment "He took children that weren't related to him to his bed. That's more than just "odd". | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"New Michael Jackson documentary Will you be watching it I am so curious with everything that went on Or did it? I have always been a big fan but until I have watched this......I’m curious if it’s all true or if it’s just a money making thing What’s your thoughts?. I watched the director 'explaining' why he made the documentary...wouldnt trust him further than I could spit...and I dont spit(disgusting habit). He admitted there is no new 'evidence' or information other than the interviews with the 2 boys/men who once said under oath that he didnt touch them but are now saying he did, which makes them liars either way. He also said they were entitled to 'justice' from the MJ estate(Read into that what you will). Add to that the fact that they are both trying to sue the MJ estate for millions and it says to me this is all about money. I dont know if MJ did anything he was being accused of but as he was probably one of the most heavilly investigated individuals at that time by the FBI the Police and the Media and then tried and found not guilty in a court of law says to me that if he had done anything it would have been discovered at that time. Was he odd...most definitely but then most people who arent swingers would consider us odd as well, so being odd isnt yet (thank god) a crime. P.S. Being on here I possibly shouldnt have used the spit comment
He took children that weren't related to him to his bed. That's more than just "odd". "Was it girls too or only boys? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"New Michael Jackson documentary Will you be watching it I am so curious with everything that went on Or did it? I have always been a big fan but until I have watched this......I’m curious if it’s all true or if it’s just a money making thing What’s your thoughts?. I watched the director 'explaining' why he made the documentary...wouldnt trust him further than I could spit...and I dont spit(disgusting habit). He admitted there is no new 'evidence' or information other than the interviews with the 2 boys/men who once said under oath that he didnt touch them but are now saying he did, which makes them liars either way. He also said they were entitled to 'justice' from the MJ estate(Read into that what you will). Add to that the fact that they are both trying to sue the MJ estate for millions and it says to me this is all about money. I dont know if MJ did anything he was being accused of but as he was probably one of the most heavilly investigated individuals at that time by the FBI the Police and the Media and then tried and found not guilty in a court of law says to me that if he had done anything it would have been discovered at that time. Was he odd...most definitely but then most people who arent swingers would consider us odd as well, so being odd isnt yet (thank god) a crime. P.S. Being on here I possibly shouldnt have used the spit comment
He took children that weren't related to him to his bed. That's more than just "odd". "We take men women in multiples to bed as well. I'm not defending him...as I said I dont know...simply said he has already been investigated and cleared in a court of law and that I dont trust the director or the 2 people in the new documentary and felt it was about money | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" He took children that weren't related to him to his bed. That's more than just "odd".
We take men women in multiples to bed as well."Are you casually skimming over the chasm of difference between consenting adults and 7 year old children?? This just isn't comparable! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The truth is we don't know if he is guilty or innocent. People saw the documentary last night and most are assuming he is guilty. You are all sheep. " I never liked the weirdo anyway Baaaaaaaaaaaa | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The 2 men in program where not payed a penny it was odd he always had young children with him and let them sleep in his room. I feel it was so wrong the parents too should not have let them. I think he had a lot to hide but he not here to answer but it’s all very fishy and not normal. I watched it last night and believed them and thay where not payed a penny. I still love his music and his Amazing dancing but is private life was most odd." They're suing the Jackson estate. Anything that piles the pressure on publicity wise is useful to them as it makes it more likely the estate will settle. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The truth is we don't know if he is guilty or innocent. People saw the documentary last night and most are assuming he is guilty. You are all sheep. " I didn’t watch it but always thought it was s strange set up and as I said earlier it just shows that money and fame can get you whatever you want in this world  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"nothing we already didn’t know about jacko I thought it was a badly made documentary no actual facts so complete bollocks and tbh the parents of the alleged victims should take a long hard look at themselves but I suppose they enjoyed the celeb lifestyle " There were actually quite a lot of facts. For example, the fact that Jackson took children who weren't related to him to his bed. Yes, the parents of his victims should take a long hard look at themselves - they enabled the attacks on their own vulnerable children, but none of this was the children's fault and nothing should detract from that. As for the original trial, well, how great is America's justice system? How great is ours, or anybodies? It was 2 kids fighting against a multi-millionaire with immense public popularity. If you want to know how abused children can be "erratic" with their testimonies, just ask the NSPCC or Childline. If this is all true, these people are still suffering the effects of abuse when they were children and probably suffering the symptoms of severe PTSD. With all the recent major "star" cases firmly in the public eye, I feel that the trial would have gone quite differently if it were tried today. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"nothing we already didn’t know about jacko I thought it was a badly made documentary no actual facts so complete bollocks and tbh the parents of the alleged victims should take a long hard look at themselves but I suppose they enjoyed the celeb lifestyle There were actually quite a lot of facts. For example, the fact that Jackson took children who weren't related to him to his bed. Yes, the parents of his victims should take a long hard look at themselves - they enabled the attacks on their own vulnerable children, but none of this was the children's fault and nothing should detract from that. As for the original trial, well, how great is America's justice system? How great is ours, or anybodies? It was 2 kids fighting against a multi-millionaire with immense public popularity. If you want to know how abused children can be "erratic" with their testimonies, just ask the NSPCC or Childline. If this is all true, these people are still suffering the effects of abuse when they were children and probably suffering the symptoms of severe PTSD. With all the recent major "star" cases firmly in the public eye, I feel that the trial would have gone quite differently if it were tried today." like I said nothing we didn’t know about his weird life and as for the documentary not very well made just repeating what’s already known | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" He took children that weren't related to him to his bed. That's more than just "odd".
We take men women in multiples to bed as well.
Are you casually skimming over the chasm of difference between consenting adults and 7 year old children?? This just isn't comparable! "Or appropriate | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward." and what are they hoping to get from dna testing? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. and what are they hoping to get from dna testing?" The article says "The King of Pop’s DNA sample could prove he was a “serial mol*ster who abused prep*bescent, disabled and terminally ill children over three decades". Very similar to Savile. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward." why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna" I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea." im not but I’d imagine dna would be kept hopefully some one will tell us as we know fab is full of experts lol | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea." I think DNA is kept on file, they've caught serial killers 30+ years on after their deaths, imprisonment etc by their DNA. The FBI still have possible DNA for the Zodiac Killer after all this time | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward." 11 more opportunists who can smell money | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea.im not but I’d imagine dna would be kept hopefully some one will tell us as we know fab is full of experts lol "Again, I don't know but do DNA samples "degrade" after time? Could a fresh sample be needed because any defence could claim the original sample had been tampered with? Who knows. Further investigation won't hurt Jackson, he's dead, but it could help how ever many children he abused to come to terms with it and bring peace to their lives. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea. I think DNA is kept on file, they've caught serial killers 30+ years on after their deaths, imprisonment etc by their DNA. The FBI still have possible DNA for the Zodiac Killer after all this time " No it used to be like that but they have to destroy it after 6 months. Why do you think everytime people get arrested they take dna? They can keep it for 5 years pending conviction. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea. I think DNA is kept on file, they've caught serial killers 30+ years on after their deaths, imprisonment etc by their DNA. The FBI still have possible DNA for the Zodiac Killer after all this time " None of these people were tried and found not guilty though, then had their DNA sampled used in a re-trial, or second trial. The 2 kids in the documentary weren't the only 2 "allegedly" abused. Similar to Savile, more became evident the deeper the investigations went. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. why do they need to exhume him ?as he’s been arrested I’m sure they’d have his dna I don't really know, the article doesn't say - yet. Does DNA evidence get destroyed after a not guilty verdict in US courts? I have no idea. I think DNA is kept on file, they've caught serial killers 30+ years on after their deaths, imprisonment etc by their DNA. The FBI still have possible DNA for the Zodiac Killer after all this time No it used to be like that but they have to destroy it after 6 months. Why do you think everytime people get arrested they take dna? They can keep it for 5 years pending conviction. " In this Country anyway don't know about the US of A sorry... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money" Possibly, but they shouldn't be dismissed purely on that assumption. They will be subjected to intense scrutiny, I'm sure. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward." The daily express haha, come on, as if a single word printed in that has any research or proof behind it. Lies to the masses. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The Daily Express is reporting that "Michael Jackson’s body could be ‘EXHUMED’ for DNA tests as more accusers come forward" https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1097019/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-body-exhumed Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. The daily express haha, come on, as if a single word printed in that has any research or proof behind it. Lies to the masses. " Ok, trashing the source is just cheap. There are other sources - go look, if you care. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money" This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"See I just think you got to view him as 2 different people. A performer and whatever the other person turns out to be. I don't know if they can convict a dead person, this will just ruin his private life name. I like his music and won't stop listening and enjoying it. Too many good memories are associated with his music. " I won't be able to listen to the music anymore (I preferred The Jackson 5 to his solo stuff). I like my music to distract me, lift my mood and take me to a happy place. That'll be difficult for me now when the guy singing was also r@ping wee boys in his spare time. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"See I just think you got to view him as 2 different people. A performer and whatever the other person turns out to be. I don't know if they can convict a dead person, this will just ruin his private life name. I like his music and won't stop listening and enjoying it. Too many good memories are associated with his music. " This is ridiculous. He wasn't two people, he was one child mole5ter with a good job. Why does it matter if it "ruins his private life name"? He's a dead sexual predator and his victims are still alive, having their lives ruined by memories every day. There may be many good memories for you with his music, but don't forget - every time you listen to one you could muse on the fact that he was probably committing one of his vile acts against a child in between recording sessions of that song. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. " Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully." They were children. Do you know how a child can be psychologically altered by grooming? Think of brainwashing - it's a similar process, and on many occasions, when the grooming stops the child can revert slowly to a state of reality. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a child to make rational decisions in such a bizarre circumstance? How frightened that child is because their abuser has convinced them that they would both go to jail for life if they were caught? How long do you think it takes a child's brain to recover from this level of mental and physical abuse back to full rationality? If you want to know the answers to these questions, the NSPCC or Childline can help you. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully." I think the media has reported this to be fair but it certainly casts an element of doubt over what is an entirely compelling set of evidence. More will be alleged I am sure and whatever else it's a terrible story as this happens to some poor kids all the time. The whole thing is very sad. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Am I the only one who thought the accusers appeared to be acting? " It was a good act if they were, not impossible. I understand why they didn't say when he was alive, but it would have been better if they had...If they could. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. I think the media has reported this to be fair but it certainly casts an element of doubt over what is an entirely compelling set of evidence. More will be alleged I am sure and whatever else it's a terrible story as this happens to some poor kids all the time. The whole thing is very sad." They had to sue because they couldn't press charges for the same crime because the US law has double-jeopardy in place - nobody can be tried twice for the same crime if found not guilty the first time. A civil suit was the only way to bring the case back before the law. The judge dismissed it because they had missed the 12-month statutory deadline after Jackson’s death. Was it a cynical attempt to get money, or an attempt to finally get justice? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. They were children. Do you know how a child can be psychologically altered by grooming? Think of brainwashing - it's a similar process, and on many occasions, when the grooming stops the child can revert slowly to a state of reality. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a child to make rational decisions in such a bizarre circumstance? How frightened that child is because their abuser has convinced them that they would both go to jail for life if they were caught? How long do you think it takes a child's brain to recover from this level of mental and physical abuse back to full rationality? If you want to know the answers to these questions, the NSPCC or Childline can help you." My children suffered emotional abuse from their mother and my daughter is currently in foster care as a result dye to parental alienation. False allegations were made against me by her mother, so yes, I am well aware thank you. I am also well aware of the thoroughness of criminal investigations. The court relies on evidence. These documentaries and newspaper stories do not | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Am I the only one who thought the accusers appeared to be acting? " Again, you need to be able to understand the minds of abused victims. They needed to tell their story concisely and clearly but at the same time keep their very strong emotions under control. If you watch any testimony of an abused person, this is exactly how they present themselves. They're embarrassed, they're frightened, they're bringing back horrendous memories which they'd rather suppress and make "go away". But they can't, so they "disassociate" themselves and act it like it's a part. It's a coping method. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. They were children. Do you know how a child can be psychologically altered by grooming? Think of brainwashing - it's a similar process, and on many occasions, when the grooming stops the child can revert slowly to a state of reality. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a child to make rational decisions in such a bizarre circumstance? How frightened that child is because their abuser has convinced them that they would both go to jail for life if they were caught? How long do you think it takes a child's brain to recover from this level of mental and physical abuse back to full rationality? If you want to know the answers to these questions, the NSPCC or Childline can help you. My children suffered emotional abuse from their mother and my daughter is currently in foster care as a result dye to parental alienation. False allegations were made against me by her mother, so yes, I am well aware thank you. I am also well aware of the thoroughness of criminal investigations. The court relies on evidence. These documentaries and newspaper stories do not" You're aware of the thoroughness of criminal investigations carried out in the US in cases between children and multi-millionaire megastars? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. They were children. Do you know how a child can be psychologically altered by grooming? Think of brainwashing - it's a similar process, and on many occasions, when the grooming stops the child can revert slowly to a state of reality. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a child to make rational decisions in such a bizarre circumstance? How frightened that child is because their abuser has convinced them that they would both go to jail for life if they were caught? How long do you think it takes a child's brain to recover from this level of mental and physical abuse back to full rationality? If you want to know the answers to these questions, the NSPCC or Childline can help you. My children suffered emotional abuse from their mother and my daughter is currently in foster care as a result dye to parental alienation. False allegations were made against me by her mother, so yes, I am well aware thank you. I am also well aware of the thoroughness of criminal investigations. The court relies on evidence. These documentaries and newspaper stories do not" And what if new evidence comes out after the trial's conclusion - should it be ignored? After Savile's death, investigation continued and a whole heap of shit was uncovered. Some of his victims only got justice because of the thoroughness of investigations after he died. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's all sensationalist bollocks. Have you seen the interview with hus accuser. He is so lying. People who havr suffered such abuse are traumatised by it and talking about it is extremely difficult and yet this liar can sit there and discuss it so matter of factly that he might as well be talking about making hus breakfast. Interesting how he's changed his story so many times - and unsuccessfully tried sueing MJ's estate before" Totally agree from someone who was a long term victim.. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Apparently, 11 more accusers have come forward. 11 more opportunists who can smell money This attitude is one of the main reasons victims are afraid to come forward to accuse a wealthy person. Wealthy predators also use this as intimidation against their victims, to keep them from reporting their crimes. Even Jackson told one of his victims that if their sexuality activities were known about by others, they would both go to jail. Grooming is a deeply psychological attack and understanding of the victims' mental states is forever progressing. Perhaps, but what the media storm around this documentary has conveniently not mentioned is that the accusers (in the documentary) testified under oath at his criminal trial that he had not done anything with them. They are therefore lying or have just perjured themselves. They have also previously attempted to sue his estate - though unsuccessfully. They were children. Do you know how a child can be psychologically altered by grooming? Think of brainwashing - it's a similar process, and on many occasions, when the grooming stops the child can revert slowly to a state of reality. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for a child to make rational decisions in such a bizarre circumstance? How frightened that child is because their abuser has convinced them that they would both go to jail for life if they were caught? How long do you think it takes a child's brain to recover from this level of mental and physical abuse back to full rationality? If you want to know the answers to these questions, the NSPCC or Childline can help you." I am now only just coping and processing my childhood and I m 54, I m finding after researching others that often abuse does not materialise within the victim until forty onwards, is this because there is a chemical change within the brain as we age that prevents us from keeping trauma hidden in tge far reaches of the brain.. I have ptsd and DID due to my experience.. DID if you dont know is what many call split personality and is found mainly within abuse victims upto six year old, rarely beyond that age... The brain is quite a conundrum and hopefully will stay that way | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I watched both episodes and if I’m honest I went through a whole range of emotions. I always liked Michael Jackson’s music - can’t say I was a fan or not a fan just liked it Taking away his fame and talent and viewing it as if he was just ‘anyone’ I was left feeling he was a monster. We have to remember that he was a grown man wanting to sleep in bed with children. Wanting to. And because he was MJ these parents allowed it. If he was the kinda strange 30 something neighbour wanting your kids to have sleepovers with him would anyone let your kids go ? I don’t think even need to ask that ... Those boys loved him , yes as an artist too but they fell in love with him because that’s what he wanted them to do. Because he groomed them. The thing that hurt them more than anything was the rejection when the next ‘best friend boy’ was brought in. That is exactly the same as having your heartbroken by a lover / partner. All those sexual acts - although they knew were not really ok they felt ‘right’ because they were special and loved and made to feel they were wanted. Things that happen in childhood whether it’s a breakup of parents , poverty , illness , abuse all have an effect on adult life and can take many years for us to realise the implications these things have in forming ‘normal’ relationships etc Jimmy Savilles victims came out after death and were believed , MJ’s came out when he was alive and after death yet some still can’t believe it because his talent was so great .... I know what I think " Personally I think the Parents should go to jail for negligence!! Also the guys accusing him for perjury. You can't lie in court... no excuses. Can't lie to convict or protect a person also you cantlie to protect yourself or convict yourself. It is a sad moment in history and Michael Jackson was a very very strange person agreed!! He may be guilty of these horrific crimes. Won't stop me listening to his music though. If for some reason Alexander Graham Bell turned out to be a predator would you stop using phones? Sounds silly I know but would you? I'll just be a fan of Quincy Jones and the other producers... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I watched both episodes and if I’m honest I went through a whole range of emotions. I always liked Michael Jackson’s music - can’t say I was a fan or not a fan just liked it Taking away his fame and talent and viewing it as if he was just ‘anyone’ I was left feeling he was a monster. We have to remember that he was a grown man wanting to sleep in bed with children. Wanting to. And because he was MJ these parents allowed it. If he was the kinda strange 30 something neighbour wanting your kids to have sleepovers with him would anyone let your kids go ? I don’t think even need to ask that ... Those boys loved him , yes as an artist too but they fell in love with him because that’s what he wanted them to do. Because he groomed them. The thing that hurt them more than anything was the rejection when the next ‘best friend boy’ was brought in. That is exactly the same as having your heartbroken by a lover / partner. All those sexual acts - although they knew were not really ok they felt ‘right’ because they were special and loved and made to feel they were wanted. Things that happen in childhood whether it’s a breakup of parents , poverty , illness , abuse all have an effect on adult life and can take many years for us to realise the implications these things have in forming ‘normal’ relationships etc Jimmy Savilles victims came out after death and were believed , MJ’s came out when he was alive and after death yet some still can’t believe it because his talent was so great .... I know what I think Personally I think the Parents should go to jail for negligence!! Also the guys accusing him for perjury. You can't lie in court... no excuses. Can't lie to convict or protect a person also you cantlie to protect yourself or convict yourself. It is a sad moment in history and Michael Jackson was a very very strange person agreed!! He may be guilty of these horrific crimes. Won't stop me listening to his music though. If for some reason Alexander Graham Bell turned out to be a predator would you stop using phones? Sounds silly I know but would you? I'll just be a fan of Quincy Jones and the other producers... " I agree with you to a certain extent - the parents should be investigated further, but psychological grooming doesn't just affect children, it's probable that they were groomed too. The dynamics of grooming are still being intensely studied - a great deal has been learned, just in the last few years. Yes, Wade Robson committed perjury and could be punished by US law because of that. But do you think he doesn't know that? His lawyers would have briefed him fully before doing the documentary, and still he spoke out. Does that tell you something about the strength of his desire for justice? Re your Alexander Graham Bell comment, a telephone can save lives and it has contributed so much to the advancement of humanity through communication. It can't really be compared to a few pop songs played on the radio. it's difficult for me to get across the true insidious nature of grooming, but I'll try to show an example. Do you have kids? If you do, you will know how protective you are of them. What if you were summoned to court to give evidence against somebody who you know to be a violent killer, but you're the only one with enough evidence. The accused has told you that if you testify against him, your children will be killed. You are 100% certain that he will, and every alternative scenario you can think of will end in the deaths of your children. You know for certain that he will kill them no matter what protection you think they may have. You have no other choice. Do you testify truthfully in court and condemn your children, or do you lie to save your children's lives? These child victims were groomed to such an extent that they believed horrendous things would happen to them and their families, and they only had the mental reasoning capacity of a child. Victims have a very difficult route to recovery and should be helped, not ridiculed or accused of only doing it for the money. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. " Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy." And? There's also been plenty of allegations of celebrity paedophilia that have turned out not to be true. See Leon Brittan, Ted heath, Harvey Proctor etc | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy. And? There's also been plenty of allegations of celebrity paedophilia that have turned out not to be true. See Leon Brittan, Ted heath, Harvey Proctor etc " The "and" is that the pattern accusation of trying to get money has been established as a recognised ploy by predators and is always considered by prosecutors and defence. Anybody who has been abused as a child knows how insidious their abusers can be. We shouldn't lose sight of the overwhelming possibility that these victims are telling the truth, just because Jackson was a rich and famous pop singer. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"To restore some balance, you should really watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3MwHY_nJ3UXB9CZF7JO_0ckBdvoJBKQBibl5j2Yu8fbjPb51-AQifwpOs" Or this:- https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/latoya-jackson-on-michael-jackson-interview-paedophile-leaving-neverland-allegations/ | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It is interesting that these two men are accused of trying to fabricate historical sexual abuse for monetary gain when the only lawsuit so far is from The Estate of Michael Jackson against HBO for breaking a non-disparagement clause from 1992. This could open a bigger can of worms for the estate and it wouldn't be too surprising to see a journalist looking into his old contracts. The severance agreement with Pepsi, for example. It's no secret that severance was agreed, with non-disparagement agreements, at the same time as Michael Jackson was instructing lawyers because of an accusation of child abuse. Pepsico and Jackson amended the contract by agreement, changing the end date from mid 1994 (and removing an option to extend) to the last day of the Dangerous (I think) world tour. The tour was cancelled immediately. Jackson settled out of court just over a year later, with non-disclosure of course, but widely accepted to be just under $20 million after costs. However, he was found not guilty on 14 counts of *cannot write the word here due to admin* and child abuse at The People vs Michael Jackson trial. A very well executed defence if anyone is interested - a master class in discrediting your witness on many occasions. I've gone off on a tangent, talking about contracts and legal matters... What is odd is to defend Jackson's behaviour by stating that he had his childhood taken away or cut short etc when he's doing exactly that to the young boys he's sharing a bed with decades later. Wearing the celebrity cloak of invincibility means people describing his actions as 'not normal'. If your next door neighbour was a 30/40 year old man and he had sleep overs with boys from the local primary school where they slept in the same bed it would be more than 'not normal'. Add to that the boy's parents drop him off in the evening and pick him up in the morning. That's having your childhood taken away. There's a hard-core fan on another thread on here who was trying to argue that Jackson taking kids to his bed was part of his "culture" I've yet to see any of the fans supporting Jackson on threads before the documentary crawl out from under their rocks to continue their support for that nasty heap of kiddy-fiddling shit. Remember, the word "fan" is short for "fanatic" "That's quite a malicious mischaracterisation of our conversation, my stance, and my use of "A culture" (not HIS culture) which you were unable to respond to directly. So I find it a bit cowardly to 'get at' me indirectly on a separate thread my friend. You seem hell bent on black and white camp demarcations and it seems you have a deficiency in accepting the multivaried observations of others on this subject as though you are firmly in the camp of pro-abused and others are in the camp of abusers if they make any reference to due process or law. I stated on more than one instance that my stance is movable based on confirmed or new evidence as it relates to the law. Did I not say that? And was that not said BEFORE this new documentary that you obviously have watched since then? So shouldn't logic follow that opinions will change based on evidence? So why are you childishly attacking others for opinions as the story develops? Mob justice and media courts just aren't my thing. You're entitled to be convinced before that process is complete but you're not entitled to demonise others for allowing that to run its course. Culture:Is there not a culture of celebrity worship and strange behavior or relationship between stars and their fan-atics? YES! Did I suggest that I excuse, subscribe or agree with it? NO! It's an observation, for those mature enough to unpack the situation without getting personal. Do people/fans not sit their kids on "Santa's" (a total stranger's) lap during Christmas and have their kids tell this stranger from the North Pole what goodies they would like him to leave behind when he breaks into their family home through the chimney while everyone is asleep? Do they not expect Santa to pay along? Is he not a famous fantasy "star" given special privileges or special relationship even though he's not family? YES! Is this not an excepted practice amongst folk who practise it? Yes! Do others who are not a part of that "culture" disapprove of sitting their little boys and girls on a stranger's lap and teaching them that strangers who are famous are allowed to bring them goodies at night while mom and dad are sleeping? YES! So you're picking and choosing your poisons and groomings. That's all I'm saying. Can you respond to that if you agree with the practice and can you enlighten me if I'm misguided to distrust its "innocence" like you distrust other idol/star worshipping cultures? The thing we disagree with is ABUSE itself. Demonising cultures and strange practices doesn't help to make the clear distinctions and will backfire in the long run. I'm sure this will go right over your head and you'll jump and scream "die hard fanatic and abuser defender" again. Sigh! I haven't seen the new documentary so perhaps my conviction will shift after I've had the time to watch it. Accused and accuser deserves their day and their justice. Let's not pretend that both have been proven to be the actual victim in many cases. I don't support abusers I support the process of justice. Its the only way to effectively punish the bastards and make it stick! You'll appreciate that if you've ever been falsely accused of anything. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy. And? There's also been plenty of allegations of celebrity paedophilia that have turned out not to be true. See Leon Brittan, Ted heath, Harvey Proctor etc The "and" is that the pattern accusation of trying to get money has been established as a recognised ploy by predators and is always considered by prosecutors and defence. Anybody who has been abused as a child knows how insidious their abusers can be. We shouldn't lose sight of the overwhelming possibility that these victims are telling the truth, just because Jackson was a rich and famous pop singer." And my point is untrue allegations have been made against rich and famous people. Hence the fact that we have an allegation of paedophilia against a rich and famous person does not mean its true. I don't know if the allegations against Jackson are true. There's evidence both ways. I do object to people being convicted in the court of public opinion. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy. And? There's also been plenty of allegations of celebrity paedophilia that have turned out not to be true. See Leon Brittan, Ted heath, Harvey Proctor etc The "and" is that the pattern accusation of trying to get money has been established as a recognised ploy by predators and is always considered by prosecutors and defence. Anybody who has been abused as a child knows how insidious their abusers can be. We shouldn't lose sight of the overwhelming possibility that these victims are telling the truth, just because Jackson was a rich and famous pop singer. And my point is untrue allegations have been made against rich and famous people. Hence the fact that we have an allegation of paedophilia against a rich and famous person does not mean its true. I don't know if the allegations against Jackson are true. There's evidence both ways. I do object to people being convicted in the court of public opinion. " As far as I'm aware, nobody has, or has the power to convict him. But people can give opinions, and that's their right. I believe there are sufficient red flags in this case to continue rigorous investigation of him in the same way Jimi Savile was investigated after death. If there are victims who are too frightened to come forward, the intimidation has worked. According to some news sources, 11 further "potential victims" have already come forward. Yes, they may be doing it just for the money but they will have been advised of the scrutiny they will be subjected to, and the inevitable accusations of "only in it for the money". They, and the two guys in the documentary are very brave people. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I find the rush to judgment astonishing. Jackson was indeed a deeply weird individual but he was found not guilty in a court of law after an intensive police investigation. Now here we have two men who previously swore on oath he didn't abuse them and with a clear financial interest in saying that he's did, now accusing him when he is safely dead and thus can't sue them. Of course, their changing their story and waiting so long to reveal it may be symptomatic of the effects of abuse, but that they may be lying chancers is also possible. One should at the very least keep an open mind. Many of Jimi Savile's victims were accused of telling their story just for the money. And Bill Cosby's, and Rolf Harris'. There are more wealthy, but not as famous pedos that have accused their victim's of the same thing. It's a standard deflection ploy. And? There's also been plenty of allegations of celebrity paedophilia that have turned out not to be true. See Leon Brittan, Ted heath, Harvey Proctor etc The "and" is that the pattern accusation of trying to get money has been established as a recognised ploy by predators and is always considered by prosecutors and defence. Anybody who has been abused as a child knows how insidious their abusers can be. We shouldn't lose sight of the overwhelming possibility that these victims are telling the truth, just because Jackson was a rich and famous pop singer. And my point is untrue allegations have been made against rich and famous people. Hence the fact that we have an allegation of paedophilia against a rich and famous person does not mean its true. I don't know if the allegations against Jackson are true. There's evidence both ways. I do object to people being convicted in the court of public opinion. As far as I'm aware, nobody has, or has the power to convict him. But people can give opinions, and that's their right. I believe there are sufficient red flags in this case to continue rigorous investigation of him in the same way Jimi Savile was investigated after death. If there are victims who are too frightened to come forward, the intimidation has worked. According to some news sources, 11 further "potential victims" have already come forward. Yes, they may be doing it just for the money but they will have been advised of the scrutiny they will be subjected to, and the inevitable accusations of "only in it for the money". They, and the two guys in the documentary are very brave people." "Continue rigorous investigation" Now that, no one can disagree with. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Okay Fabsters, so what is the general verdict after watching both programmes. Let's vote.. Was the king of pop guilty or not guilty? " Well as my position is that I don't know either way, that means I can't be sure he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, on the criminal standard of proof it would be not guilty. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I just can’t understand why it all has to be brought out now It was 10 years ago Let him bloody rest in peace It’s much to obvious it’s all about making money It’s in the past now" Because it is a real delima for people. Go public and be known as being one of the kids he abused or try get some money and have your life taken care of. For some people either outcome is justice. For the people jacko invited to his home they were even more likely to look for money as justice. The parents were hand picked greedy people. They grew up in greedy households. Lets not forget most of these kids know their parents took a bit of money and sent them into Jackos bedroom. I mean jacko spent millions to lure them into his comlex, he built an amusment park etc. The people not interested in money would probably never have made it inside the gate. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
