Michael Jackson

[ShowMeYourFeline]

It’s often the case in trials and indeed in the court of public opinion, there are “good” victims and “bad” victims. It happens a lot in rape cases (hence why it’s effectively been decriminalised in the U.K. at least), also in everything from child abuse to murder. Look what happened to Joanne Lees in the Peter Falconio murder trial. Or the recent-ish rape case in Ireland where the victim’s knickers were passed around and her sex life openly raked through. Happens every day.

Reading this, for example, does not put Wade Robson in the best light. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html

However. Your character and actions don’t need to be above reproach for the things you claim to have happened to be the truth.

Perhaps neither of the men are textbook “good” victims.. with Wade possibly less so out of the two. Nevertheless I believe both of them. There’s little doubt in my mind that MJ was pedophile and used his money, fame and power to get his way.

I agree. Bad people can be victimised. It doesn’t make it less of a crime.

Also, so what if they’re after money? Who wouldn’t take up the opportunity to earn millions? If I was telling the truth about a terrible crime, I would still try to milk it for every last penny. I would feel like I deserved compensation, and it would be a reward for sharing sordid and painful details.

 

[Web30]

I make one comment recommending people watch Square one to get a better view of the 93 allegations and I get banned

 

[andromeda17]

My issue is that when you start pulling at the threads of ‘things may have been forgotten/confused’ of Leaving Neverland more starts to unravel.

For example, the case of the neverland train station mentioned above. James swore under oath he was abused up until 1992 and after that we was ‘dropped and then replaced by a younger boy once he’d hit puberty’ and that was apparently Michael’s pattern. He says in LN he was abused ‘hundreds’ of times, specifically in the Neverland train station. But the station was not built until 1994, this is a proven fact that can be verified through planning permission documents and video footage from helicopters etc.

Dan reed the director of LN said when asked about this discrepancy on a talk show that ‘the place of abuse is not being disputed but the dates of the abuse are’. However, if we then shift to this timeline where he was abused in the station in 1994 onwards, that means the abuse not only happened 2 years later than previously said in his sworn declaration (so he’s perjured himself) but also James would now be aged 16/17 not a young pre-pubescent when the abuse allegedly happened.

This invalidates their narrative of ‘Michal abused them until they hit puberty and then replaced them with a younger boy’. There are also photos of James with Michael from the set of the teaser for the History album in 1995/96, where James in holding a pink umbrella over Michael. This is years after the alleged abuse yet he is still hanging around with Michael which again questions the narrative getting ’dropped’ after he hit puberty. He’s actually taller than Michael in the photo so definitely is post puberty and in 1995 he would be 17/18 years old.

Wades story likewise has similar issues. In his sworn deposition in 2016 (so after he went public with his accusations) both he and his mom claim on their first trip to neverland the family left the ranch for a couple of days to visit the Grand Canyon before going back to neverland for a few more days then going back to Australia. But in LN, he claims his whole family went to the Canyon without him and left him at neverland on his own and it was then he was first abused. So why has the story changed?

Also, the fact LN doesn’t mention Wade dated Michaels niece for years (during the years of his alleged abuse too) is crazy. The reason it wasn’t mentioned is clearly because it ruins the story of ‘Michael kept them away from girls’ but in reality he was dating the daughter of Jackie Jackson for years.

 

[Tangerine Dream]

They left out all the scandal so it's not a real life biography. It's telling Paris won't go to any of the premieres.

They were never going to include it so it was always going to be a money spinner project.

I don't know about watching it, I find myself not really listening to/watching his stuff just now because it doesn't feel right. The trailer looked good but that's easy to do. Wonder Woman 1984 looked great and that's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Maybe when enough time has passed and his estate aren't still so powerful someone could tell the real story of MJ on film, much as it would be hard to watch.

 

[annanuttall]

I don't think the Peter Pan theory holds any weight either when MJ clearly at least understood adult matters and sexuality and used them in his music and videos. Besides, if he was mentally a child then his fans were supporting the exploitation of him. Can't have it both ways - if he was so mentally impaired then why was he touring, doing business etc.

It's more likely that he had trauma from being groomed and SAd himself as a child in the industry and perpetuated the cycle as is often the case.

That all said, I still don't know how I feel specifically about Wade Robson. His story doesn't ring true to me.

There are stories where the 'Peter Pan' image was just a smoke screen - basically behind the scenes he wasn't like that at all.

 

[Justjonie]

Just putting my tuppence in. I watched the documentary the first night and read up on it afterwards. I watched the second half last night. The first night I was convinced they were telling the truth. Then I read up that they had raised a multi-million dollar lawsuit against MJ's estate in 2016 or 2017 and weren't successful. That is now up on appeal apparently and all of sudden, they come out with their stories. Their stories are very graphic but I wonder if they have done it that way to bring the shock factor and make people believe them. Their stories are almost identical too, which contrary to what most believe, can actually be a sign of lying as most people will have their own individual experiences rather than just a blanket approach that matches all other victims experiences (from what I've heard and read on FBI true crime articles/podcasts etc).

So I'm still in two minds. I find it very strange how it was always little boys MJ befriended but his life was very very messed up. If he did molest kids, how come no hard evidence was ever round in Neverland? Yes he paid off Jordy Chandler but with the Gavin Arvizo case, the FBI turned over Neverland and didn't find concrete evidence. I also find it strange that Wade testified in his favour at the 2005 trial, at this stage he was an adult and fully aware of what had happened to him (if it did happen) so why didn't he speak out then? It wasn't as if it was just his small voice against MJ's, if anything he would have been corroborating his experiences with those of Gavin Arvizo and adding clout to his testimony and more likely to have been believed. I just don't know and I guess we'll never know 100%.

 

[White rose]

I’m afraid, I hear more impartiality from the people who are willing to question Michael Jackson’s legacy, than I do from his fans (fan being short for fanatic), who will fervently defend him. The fact of the matter is no one knows, other than his accusers, and certainly not ‘100%’.

Many of the people on this thread have already disclosed that they were fans of Michael Jackson, or there is a part of them that is still able to appreciate his artistry, but still question his very dubious behaviour.
Much like any contentious issue, if people are not prepared to question the status quo, and face the possibility that their own belief system MAY be shattered, then I would question why, and certainly wouldn’t entertain their POV.

Yes there is plenty of die hard fans that would still defend him even if they had evidence, I am not one of them. I wasn’t and I’m still not a die hard fan, do I like some of his music? Yes but that’s as far as it goes. If Michael was guilty it doesn’t “ destroy “ me like it would all his fans, but again no evidence of abuse. The claims of these abused kids don’t add up, times past behaviours ect ect.

These so called “ victims “ are out there spreading lies ones 22 mil richer. While his kids are defending him, I’ve seen people state Paris believes her dad is guilty because she doesn’t speak up in social media about it, it’s all made up lies. Paris has stated she says nothing as it fuels the fire.

Michael could do no right, he give millions away, was accused of bleaching his skin, the list is endless. The bloke has been dead 17 year and the papers are still chucking up shit.. what’s the latest one? He was watching a nazi film so it means he had evil in him. It’s completely mental. I’m shocked that even after death they are still
Trying to make money off his name.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Both brothers WERE at the premiere.

Michael Jackson’s sons, siblings attend movie premiere — while three important family members notably skip

The brothers each honored their late father with outfits that paid homage to the King of Pop.

pagesix.com

My mistake it was his sisters Janet and LaToya missing with Paris.

Hardly a family vote of confidence.

 

[Dotty Merton]

I've never seen this before. Latoya always knew.

 

[AladdinSane]

Hang on, does she really mean cloning? As opposed to ivf or surrogacy etc. And why does she say they. Not he. Who are this nefarious cloning crowd?

I literally took this as a tongue in cheek comment as a lot of people say she looks like her mum

 

[Abominatrix]

Oh the NABL
Oh the NAMBLA book he claimed was sent by a fan.I think that was all that was found, right? I never heard of anymore. I studied that 2005 trial hard back in the day. The 2005 trial really struggled with any physical evidence to convict, especially in regards to any indecent images on laptops/ computers. I think Sneddon was quite disappointed in the lack of evidence despite searching for hours. I still think that the Gavin Arvizo trial didn't hold much weight, but Sneddon was so desperate to convict, that he ran with it.

No, actually, not just the NAMBLA book. Please forgive me for not being fully versed on the defense of this pedophile, here's what the Google AI had to say. I'm sure you can look up the same and follow the citations.

 

[Piff paff puff]

I would so love to know what the deal is with those kids. It seems very unlikely that they are genetically his.

He was quite happy for them to not have a mum which is just so selfish and sad.

And prince's angelic blonde hair when he was little was suss.

The hair was very badly dyed. I'm surprised it didn't burn his scalp. And there is no way those children are genetically his which probably means he was unable to produce children.

 

[Web30]

New tweet seen today... The train station that he and jimmy "had sex in" wasnt built till 2 years after that was meant to happen. More and more lies being exposed.

Take a look at Leaving Neverland Facts (@NeverlandFacts): https://twitter.com/NeverlandFacts?s=09

 

[Nosey_Lady]

I can't help but believe the allergations. They have nothing to gain by saying this now surely.

 

[KINGAA]

These photo's...

http://archive.today/f9A4P

I’m always fascinated by his skin - like you can see in that one image he did still have spots of his normal skin colour on his arms and face. I’ve always wondered if his vitiligo was also bleached skin to make him appear white as well. Such a strange man isn’t he.

 

[Pretty Hate Machine]

It was this here.

 

[Web30]

Paris has made it clear she thinks it's nothing more than a cash grab from people who were already wasting his money who don't care if some if not a lot of it is fiction.

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https...iticises-sugar-coated-biopic-about-her-father

Pop Bitch is also talking about him today with some known stories that used to go around about him.say

View attachment 3972734
View attachment 3972735

Aaron Carter always had good things to say about him didnt he? Or am I thinking of someone else.

 

[AnneinHever]

Hang on, does she really mean cloning? As opposed to ivf or surrogacy etc. And why does she say they. Not he. Who are this nefarious cloning crowd?

I think it was probably a joke, first because she looks a lot like her mother, and second because of all the stories surrounding her father. So I don’t think there’s anything there. I do believe the SA allegations against MJ though.

 

[Tangerine Dream]

I'm nervous about the Beatles one, especially as it has been described by Mendes as a "bingeable" cinema experience.

 

[Web30]

Oh MJ was a raging nonce, just like Epstein, who had the finances, and power to buy people off. The actual shiver I get when you watch the Bahir interview and see him gleefully admitting to sharing a bed with a boy of 12 with cancer and talking in depth about it. Ugh. Those books of naked children the FBI found that he called “art”. Sick bastard. When you see about the court, the jurors jamming to his music etc as it’s played it court. It’s a farce

but the parents should’ve been accountable as well. Fuck pay outs, they should’ve been in trouble. At what point are you trafficking your own child by letting them sleep in a 40 year old man’s bed? Especially after previous allegations.

He said he slept on the floor, that part always gets missed out / glossed over