'We had a wedding ceremony in his bedroom': Michael Jackson accuser reveals he 'married the singer when he was ten!

May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
The thing about the MJ accusations is the lack of consistency about the claims.

With priests, Weinstein, or even Bill Cosby, predators demonstrated a consistent and systematic approach to abuse.

With MJ you’ve got plenty of children who say nothing happened and the testimony of those that make claims are questionable due to inconsistencies (like outright recantations).

Feldman has made accusations against several men but despite that has not indicated the slightest accusation toward MJ, which would be easy to do at this point.

This situation reminds me of Lawrence Oates who sacrificed his life in futile during an Antarctic expedition. He left a heroic legacy until some woman claimed, well after his death, that he fathered a child with a 11 year old girl (her daughter).

No proof. Just unsubstantiated claims against a man who was dead for near a century till the accusation was made public.

Now Wikipedia has it cited under his ‘mentions in media’ section. All it takes is an accusation and suddenly everything you did or were is filed under ‘monsterous’.
Don't forget that MJ paid families off to make this stuff go away. And MJ did show a consistent and systematic approach to abuse. Those priests didn't abuse "every" child they had. Only some of them.


I think we can all agree that Michael Jackson did not act "normal."

Michael Jackson sleeping in same bed with children does seem weird because that's typically what child molesters do. If Michael Jackson was alive today, I would definitely not allow my children to sleep in the same bed as him.

Since no one where knows exactly what happened, so it wouldn't be right to say with confidence that he did not molest any children.

Personally, I believe he did not molest any children. I'm confident that he didn't, but not 100%. confident because I was not there.

I look at Michael Jackson's past allegations and all of alleged victim's family wanted money. Michael Jackson settled with the 1993 accuser, but in 2005, the evidence from 1993 was used in that trail and Michael Jackson was found not guilty. So, right now, we see a pattern. All of the alleged victims and accusers wanted money and all of them proved to be liars.

Now what about Wade Robson?

Since I don't have any evidence that prove he was molested, then I have to see if this man is credible. When he gave an interview in the 90's and his testimony in 2005, he was confident and no one found any inconsistencies in his story.

But as soon as he changed his story, we're now finding a lot of inconsistencies and lies.

That is a problem for me. Yes, victims of child abuse often suffer from things and it's hard for them to remember what happened to them int the past. But for some reason, he lied about not knowing anything about the MJ estate prior to 2013?

That's just one lie of many, but the real problem is that all of this started when he didn't get his job at the lead choreographer on the Michael Jackson: ONE Cirque du Soleil show.

People say that alleged sexual assault is a pattern of a repeat sexual abuser, but what I'm saying is a pattern of so called "victims" trying to get money from Michael Jackson. They said over and over again that it's not about money, so why get a book deal when you're in financial trouble?

This is not proof that Wade was not molested, but i'm personally have a very, very difficult time taking him seriously.
That's what all celebrity say because they know people like yourself will always believe that it's just about the money. R. Kelly is literally saying the same things about his victims now on the news. They always want you to believe it's about the money.
 
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
Don't forget that MJ paid families off to make this stuff go away. And MJ did show a consistent and systematic approach to abuse. Those priests didn't abuse "every" child they had. Only some of them.




That's what all celebrity say because they know people like yourself will always believe that it's just about the money. R. Kelly is literally saying the same things about his victims now on the news. They always want you to believe it's about the money.
Money is often the reason why celebrities are accused of accusations, but I look up the facts before I come to my conclusion.


Every single accuser has been tied to money.

Jordan Chandler

Jordan Chandler's father scheduled an impromptu dental exam to get him to accuse Michael Jackson of sexual assault.

It's that Jordan Chandler apparently never made any accusations against Jackson until his father, a registered dentist, gave him sodium amytal during a tooth extraction. Only then did Jackson's purported sexual abuse emerge; Jordan Chandler's reports became more elaborate and embellished during a later session with a psychiatrist.
In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
Evan Chandler wanted money from Michael and he was secretly recorded.



The Prosecutors tired to get Jordan Chandler to show up at the 2005 trail, but he wouldn't. Tom Mesereau says he had witnesses that state Jordan Chandler told them the molestation never happened and that he doesn't talk to his parents again for what they made him say during the allegations.

Gavin Arvizo

This was the trail from 2005 in which Wade Robson testified in.

The Arivzo's tried to get money from:

Jay Leno
Chris Tucker
George Lopez

His mother admitted under oath that she lied about what happened to her at JCPenny and tried to sell he story to the tabloids.

When the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, testified for the prosecution, she told the jury she "wasn't the kind of person" to sell her story — but apparently she was indeed.
Mary Holzer
testified that Arvizo told her that the pictures in which she appeared battered and bruised from head to toe, and which she and her husband submitted as evidence in the J.C Penney case, were faked.

Arvizo told her she got the bruises not from the J.C. Penney security guards, but from her own husband.
There's many inconsistencies in their stories and it was clear what their true motives were.


Other Witnesses & Accusers

Tom Mesereau here discuss several of Michael Jackson accusers.


- 1993 evidence was used in the 2005 trail against Michael Jackson.
- 3 Security Guards claim to have seen Michael Jackson molest children, one of them was Macaulay Culkin.
- Those 3 guards have sued Michael Jackson for wrongful termination.
- Jackson cross-complaint saying they stole property from him.
- Jackson won and there were judicial finding of fraud against them. They have gone to the tabloids to sell stories.
- 5th alleged victim stated during the first therapy sessions that he and his parents wanted money and his mother went to the tabloids and sold her story.


I've stated my opinions on Wade Robson and it's hard for me to not come to the same conclusion after his attempt to sell his book asking for millions from the Jackson's estate.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
Money is often the reason why celebrities are accused of accusations, but I look up the facts before I come to my conclusion.


Every single accuser has been tied to money.

Jordan Chandler

Jordan Chandler's father scheduled an impromptu dental exam to get him to accuse Michael Jackson of sexual assault.





Evan Chandler wanted money from Michael and he was secretly recorded.



The Prosecutors tired to get Jordan Chandler to show up at the 2005 trail, but he wouldn't. Tom Mesereau says he had witnesses that state Jordan Chandler told them the molestation never happened and that he doesn't talk to his parents again for what they made him say during the allegations.

Gavin Arvizo

This was the trail from 2005 in which Wade Robson testified in.

The Arivzo's tried to get money from:

Jay Leno
Chris Tucker
George Lopez

His mother admitted under oath that she lied about what happened to her at JCPenny and tried to sell he story to the tabloids.





There's many inconsistencies in their stories and it was clear what their true motives were.


Other Witnesses & Accusers

Tom Mesereau here discuss several of Michael Jackson accusers.


- 1993 evidence was used in the 2005 trail against Michael Jackson.
- 3 Security Guards claim to have seen Michael Jackson molest children, one of them was Macaulay Culkin.
- Those 3 guards have sued Michael Jackson for wrongful termination.
- Jackson cross-complaint saying they stole property from him.
- Jackson won and there were judicial finding of fraud against them. They have gone to the tabloids to sell stories.
- 5th alleged victim stated during the first therapy sessions that he and his parents wanted money and his mother went to the tabloids and sold her story.


I've stated my opinions on Wade Robson and it's hard for me to not come to the same conclusion after his attempt to sell his book asking for millions from the Jackson's estate.
Two things can be true, that's fair. And with all that you just laid out......you also feel comfortable believing MJ was just innocently playing with kids 11 and under at his house and in his room alone? You feel comfortable believing that MJ just innocently walked around different cities and countries holding hands with 8 year olds while on tour? You feel comfortable believing that MJ gave those kids alcohol, but called it Jesus Juice?
 
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
Two things can be true, that's fair. And with all that you just laid out......you also feel comfortable believing MJ was just innocently playing with kids 11 and under at his house and in his room alone? You feel comfortable believing that MJ just innocently walked around different cities and countries holding hands with 8 year olds while on tour? You feel comfortable believing that MJ gave those kids alcohol, but called it Jesus Juice?
I look at Michael Jackson's behavior and I know he doesn't act like an adult. This may seem weird, but I wouldn't say this automatically makes someone a child molester. Personally, I wouldn't trust this behavior, but again, I do not believe this means someone is a child molester.

The thing about the alcohol is that Michael Jackson was accused of giving kids alcohol and they claimed it was Jesus Juice. Jackson was charged with giving kids alcohol, but he was found not guilty. They also made the claim that he had child porn, but that so called "porn" were books that had a few images of naked children, and those books you can find in book stores.

I look at Michael's demeanor and he acts like a young kid.

I don't remember where, but someone brought this up a few days ago.


One of the first things MJ talked about with Will Smith was comic books.

When Michael Jackson did that interview years ago, he asked the journalist if he wanted to climb up a tree with him. We all might think this stuff is weird, but maybe this is how he was without actually being pedophile.

I have an open mind. If there's evidence that he molested these kids, then yes, I would have no problem changing my opinion. As of right now, it's hard for me to believe these accusers after all these lies.
 
Likes: Osukaa
Nov 5, 2016
7,245
7,331
300
I don't care where (just far)
I mean he was for sure weird. That’s not up for debate in my eyes. Something wasn’t right. I don’t know what it was, where it came from, but he was an odd dude.

That doesn’t automatically make someone a pedophile.

A really odd dude who likes to sleep in bed with kids? Ok. Not necessarily a pedo just yet, but damn dude.

I mean...damn.

That’s not a good look, brother. Sorry.
 

Chandler55

Neo Member
May 27, 2007
19
5
760
its crazy to me that MJ asked both of these accusers to testify for him in both the 1993 and 2005 trials. Couldnt he have gotten one of the kids he didn't molest? MJ must have the biggest balls in the world to risk having either of these guys crack under the pressure of a cross examination. theres no reward for that high of a risk

doesn't add up imo
 
Likes: zombrex
Jul 13, 2013
4,879
95
375
www.twitch.tv
It’s just like the 2005 trial where all solid fact and evidence just pointed to Michael being innocent. That trial was disgraceful for the media’s condemning of him before it even took place. Michael never got a fair trial for the public eye, they instantly made him guilty.

It’s like people forget Santa Barbara police spent 3 years trying to get evidence on Michael and had him under constant surveillance, yet nothing was found at all that could even try to convince the jury he did anything wrong.

Now people take accusers who have a history of trying to get money from Michael at face value? If they are about “getting their story out” why did they sue a dead man’s estate for 100s of millions of dollars? Why are they making a film to “warn people” about someone who is no longer alive. None of what they are doing adds up.

If you watched this documentary as yohr only source on the matter and believe it, I encourage you to look at solid evidence including court records and testimony before making any decision.
 
Last edited:

Shodan09

Neo Member
Jan 24, 2018
41
25
120
Wow weird reception. This isn't just some accusations out of the blue looking for a paycheck. This is about a grown man who lavished kids and their parents with expensive gifts in order to sleep alone with them. A person who didn't show any signs of sexual interests with adults. Someone who obviously craved affection from children. You give any pedophile a hundred million dollars and autonomy, a Neverland-ish mansion would be a very likely result. It's more of a stretch to say he wasn't doing something wrong with those kids than he was.
Can you draw any direct link between the gifts and sleeping with the children? I was under the impression he gave these families gifts because they treated him like a human being and not a god.

He was married twice and says he and his wife had sex, and that his first two children were conceived natutally. Do you have any evidence to show he wasn't sexually interested in adults?

Did he crave affection from children, or enjoy giving them affection in the way he never had?

Both accusations were represented as legal complaints against the Jackson estate before ever being featured in this documentary.
 

Shodan09

Neo Member
Jan 24, 2018
41
25
120
I mean it seems like everything lines up for him to be a pedo, but there has yet to be any evidence produced that he was. After all these years and all these accusers nothing. Reading whats being written here these two guys stories sound even fisher then originally thought.

Micheal clearly had issues, and he had lots of money too. But I don't know if I can say 100% for sure that he molested children. I will watch the doc but it does feel sleazy that they come out with this now that the man is dead and can't defend himself.

Was any of the stuff about this guy changing his story mulitple times mentioned in the documentary or do they treat this as some sort of new revelation?
It's mentioned that Wade testified for Jackson in the 2005 trial. I'd have to watch again to confirm as I was unsure of the timeline initially, but I believe in real life Wade was first to testify and was the prime character witness, asking to be involved from the beginning according to Jackson's lawyer.

In the doc they make out like Macaulay culkin went first and Wade needed a lot of persuasion and begging before finally agreeing.
 
Nov 3, 2013
158
179
320
Sticking up for a weirdo that at the very least shared beds multiple times with little boys (as young as fucking 7) and at worse licked their fucking assholes and tried to sodomise them because he was alright at signing and dancing? That's a good look.
 
Likes: mckmas8808
Jun 25, 2015
2,839
1,049
300
Finland
They also made the claim that he had child porn, but that so called "porn" were books that had a few images of naked children, and those books you can find in book stores.
Yeah, exactly this.
Michael had quite a big collection of actual porn (see here: https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/tag/porn-belonging-to-michael-jackson/ ). All was some regular hetero and lesbian stuff, the weirdest one possibly being a magazine called Plumpers (seems like he was into THICC ladies too - hey, can't blame him!). Also, lol at Michaels "Dr. Black" username :D

But what comes to the supposedly illegal stuff, first of all, even in the court documents the prosecutors clearly stated that none of the material is illegal.
If anyone wants to take a look, here's a good summary of what kind of stuff those books had: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-2/
Like, that doesn't really count even as some "I bought these nudist books because of the art and not because they show naked kids" bullshit, but they are actual art books. They tried to say as if a book called "The Boy: A Photographic Essay" would show he was into young boys, but hell, that's a book with pictures taken when shooting the Lord of the Flies movie.

You can all google the other books and see if they have any damning material in them.

And here you can read the actual documents by the prosecutors:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view
You can see over and over again how they say the material is not illegal and then "based on my training, this type of material can be used as part of grooming process...." which just shows they were just using every piece of nude and semi-nude images to try to claim Michael had those so that he could show them to kids to help him abuse them. Like, if that's not grasping at straws I don't know what is.
And again, you all can google most if not all of the books and see if they contain material that's even close to as bad as they claim them to be.
 
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
Need a summary. Both videos are in the 30 minute range
They pause the video a lot while they're going over the interview, but they're picking up that he could very well be lying.

He's often using present-tense terms to describe what happened in the past. He picks up on a lot of this in the video and explains why it's so important.

He says, "Some experts said when we start making up stories, we forget to put them in the past tense. We're talking about them as of they're happening in the present or in the future tense. So, the word "doing" there, for me, could be a slight indicator - potentially the story that he's so called remembering isn't coming from memory."

Here are a few examples of him canalizing his body langue.

- When when wade says "anger" his eyebrows flush up. He said this is interesting because eyebrows tend to dip down a bit together and not up. He feels as though the way he's describing his emotions are not shown in his facial expressions.

- He sees a lot of shrugs in his body language. He says, "shrugging.. no confidence. "I don't really know." That's what those messages and correlates to me and conveys the message that "I don't really have confidence in what I just said" and we're seeing a lot of those behaviors. These are called emblematic slips. Signs that subconscious.. he really isn't in tune with what's going on. There's no synchrony between words and gestures."

These are few things but they're seeing this a lot while analyzing the interview.
 
Likes: haxan7
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
Yeah, exactly this.
Michael had quite a big collection of actual porn (see here: https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/tag/porn-belonging-to-michael-jackson/ ). All was some regular hetero and lesbian stuff, the weirdest one possibly being a magazine called Plumpers (seems like he was into THICC ladies too - hey, can't blame him!). Also, lol at Michaels "Dr. Black" username :D

But what comes to the supposedly illegal stuff, first of all, even in the court documents the prosecutors clearly stated that none of the material is illegal.
If anyone wants to take a look, here's a good summary of what kind of stuff those books had: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-2/
Like, that doesn't really count even as some "I bought these nudist books because of the art and not because they show naked kids" bullshit, but they are actual art books. They tried to say as if a book called "The Boy: A Photographic Essay" would show he was into young boys, but hell, that's a book with pictures taken when shooting the Lord of the Flies movie.

You can all google the other books and see if they have any damning material in them.

And here you can read the actual documents by the prosecutors:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view
You can see over and over again how they say the material is not illegal and then "based on my training, this type of material can be used as part of grooming process...." which just shows they were just using every piece of nude and semi-nude images to try to claim Michael had those so that he could show them to kids to help him abuse them. Like, if that's not grasping at straws I don't know what is.
And again, you all can google most if not all of the books and see if they contain material that's even close to as bad as they claim them to be.
Yeah, they were desperate to find anything on Michael Jackson and they couldn't. What's bad is that they do label this as child porn and many people today still believe he had actual child porn at his house.




Darius spent time at Michael's house and the only thing he can find weird is all the bullshit he went through. The media still think it's odd that he paid a $25 million settlement without realizing that the evidence from 93 was used against him in 05 the Chandler family were proven to be liars.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
I look at Michael Jackson's behavior and I know he doesn't act like an adult. This may seem weird, but I wouldn't say this automatically makes someone a child molester. Personally, I wouldn't trust this behavior, but again, I do not believe this means someone is a child molester.

The thing about the alcohol is that Michael Jackson was accused of giving kids alcohol and they claimed it was Jesus Juice. Jackson was charged with giving kids alcohol, but he was found not guilty. They also made the claim that he had child porn, but that so called "porn" were books that had a few images of naked children, and those books you can find in book stores.

I look at Michael's demeanor and he acts like a young kid.

I don't remember where, but someone brought this up a few days ago.


One of the first things MJ talked about with Will Smith was comic books.

When Michael Jackson did that interview years ago, he asked the journalist if he wanted to climb up a tree with him. We all might think this stuff is weird, but maybe this is how he was without actually being pedophile.

I have an open mind. If there's evidence that he molested these kids, then yes, I would have no problem changing my opinion. As of right now, it's hard for me to believe these accusers after all these lies.
There's a HUGE difference between reading comic books and climbing trees and sleeping in a room with young boys by yourself. Like huge!


Can you draw any direct link between the gifts and sleeping with the children? I was under the impression he gave these families gifts because they treated him like a human being and not a god.

He was married twice and says he and his wife had sex, and that his first two children were conceived natutally. Do you have any evidence to show he wasn't sexually interested in adults?

Did he crave affection from children, or enjoy giving them affection in the way he never had?

Both accusations were represented as legal complaints against the Jackson estate before ever being featured in this documentary.
His wife Debbie said she never had sex with MJ. And do you honestly believe MJ's kids have 1% of his DNA?

For reference for anyone that doesn't know what his MJ's kids look like...........



These are the two kids that @Shodan09 is saying he believes MJ had naturally with his ex-wife Debbie. Michael has even said these are his natural kids.


MJ's ex-wife looks like this.

 
Likes: Hayfield

Shodan09

Neo Member
Jan 24, 2018
41
25
120
There's a HUGE difference between reading comic books and climbing trees and sleeping in a room with young boys by yourself. Like huge!




His wife Debbie said she never had sex with MJ. And do you honestly believe MJ's kids have 1% of his DNA?

For reference for anyone that doesn't know what his MJ's kids look like...........



These are the two kids that @Shodan09 is saying he believes MJ had naturally with his ex-wife Debbie. Michael has even said these are his natural kids.


MJ's ex-wife looks like this.


Sorry, can you point me to the bit where I said I believe him? Did I not just report what Jackson said?

Edit: pass on a source for Debbie denying they had sex too please, I'd be interested to read more as it's not something I've heard before.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
2,440
2,689
255
so have there been any other accusers? havent been keeping up w this in a day or so. the Simpsons pulled an episode? so what? they saw the movie too or is there actual evidence now? is this what we're doing here, trial by media?

Fox is being bought by Disney and they fired James Gunn for just joking about it 10 years ago, so that could just be a PR move to distance themselves from potential backlash, warranted or not. they probably already have people breathing down their necks from the Apu thing and can't really afford to not make that move.

still waiting on other accusers to turn up like with Cosby & Weinstein. if this guy was a predator working for decades with a giant empire procuring for sick purposes, then it must have been going on a lot. right now seems like the safest time for any victims to come out. is it still just the two people pimping this movie?

again, in a society we have ways to deal with finding out if a person is innocent or guilty. we have courts for that. the media is not a court.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
Sorry, can you point me to the bit where I said I believe him? Did I not just report what Jackson said?

Edit: pass on a source for Debbie denying they had sex too please, I'd be interested to read more as it's not something I've heard before.
My bad I misunderstood your post then.

For the Debbie stuff, it's been out there a while. For now this is all I can find.

Rowe's confession in the first public interview she has conducted his Jackson's death at the age of 50 last Friday was astonishingly candid. Rowe, who met Jackson when she was a receptionist at a Beverly Hills dermatology clinic where he regularly went for skin treatments, said that when she married Jackson, he was lonely but wanted children and she offered to have his babies. Rowe claims Jackson wanted little to do with her after she had her second child - said she was "impregnated" like one of the thoroughbred mares she now keeps on her property, adding: "I was just the vessel. It wasn't Michael's sperm.

Rowe said she was dumped by Jackson after the birth of Paris Michael Katherine because she was unbale to have any more children. "I got paid for it, and I've moved on. I know I will never see my children again." Fifty-year-old Rowe, who was divorced from Jackson after three years, also said they never had sex during the marriage. She had agreed to have the children after Jackson told her his former wife Lisa Marie Presley would not.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/d...dd9dd3c72?sv=a0f18777c9eaa1b9385a913c3c417419

so have there been any other accusers? havent been keeping up w this in a day or so. the Simpsons pulled an episode? so what? they saw the movie too or is there actual evidence now? is this what we're doing here, trial by media?

Fox is being bought by Disney and they fired James Gunn for just joking about it 10 years ago, so that could just be a PR move to distance themselves from potential backlash, warranted or not. they probably already have people breathing down their necks from the Apu thing and can't really afford to not make that move.

still waiting on other accusers to turn up like with Cosby & Weinstein. if this guy was a predator working for decades with a giant empire procuring for sick purposes, then it must have been going on a lot. right now seems like the safest time for any victims to come out. is it still just the two people pimping this movie?

again, in a society we have ways to deal with finding out if a person is innocent or guilty. we have courts for that. the media is not a court.

You know good and well the courts also get it wrong from time to time. Do you REALLY believe O.J. Simpson didn't kill Nicole Simpson and her boyfriend?
 
Last edited:
Likes: Shodan09
Sep 4, 2018
2,440
2,689
255
the OJ thing was totally different. he essentially got off because LA cops were so racist they created a massive atmosphere of distrust. the defense manipulated a very charged racial situation in LA, they had the jurors selected from a certain part of town that was not from OJ's more affluent surroundings, the whole thing was on the tail of the Rodney King riots. on top of that they had Mark Furman and lots of bad cops making dumb mistakes, tampering with evidence, doing things out of procedure, etc. if they had gone by the book he probably would have been convicted, which he WAS, later in a civil court.

by comparison there was a similar media circus around MJ, tons of agents, they swarmed his house like he was Charles Manson, and found nothing. he went through multiple trials. nothing.

sure, let's have another trial. put him through the process. if he is found guilty i will accept that. if there is convincing evidence, it will get it's day in public. a big reason many thought OJ was guilty was the preponderance of evidence, played out in slow motion, over months and months. we heard from both sides. not just from a movie interviewing 2 people with the entire goal of presenting a single point of view.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
the OJ thing was totally different. he essentially got off because LA cops were so racist they created a massive atmosphere of distrust. the defense manipulated a very charged racial situation in LA, they had the jurors selected from a certain part of town that was not from OJ's more affluent surroundings. on top of that they had Mark Furman and lots of bad cops making dumb mistakes, tampering with evidence, doing things out of procedure, etc. if they had gone by the book he probably would have been convicted, which he WAS, later in a civil court.
Exactly! And it's not like MJ didn't pay that $25 million settlement for no reason. And what about R. Kelly. The court also found him "Not Guilty" of the crime was having sex with girls under the age of 18.
 
Last edited:
Sep 4, 2018
2,440
2,689
255
there is a video tape of R Kelly with a minor - is there a videotape of MJ with a minor engaging in sexual acts? is it in this movie? unless it is, this is a false equivalency. besides, R Kelly is in jail right now! so not really the best example of someone beating the system.

people pay settlements all the time to get things out of the news. this is a scandal that has haunted his career for decades, affecting a billion dollar industry, why wouldn't he want to pay off people that just want money? no evidence of anything tbh.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
There's a HUGE difference between reading comic books and climbing trees and sleeping in a room with young boys by yourself. Like huge!
I'm talking about his behavior in general. It's possible that he wanted to do those things because that's what some young kids do. I'm not saying it's ok, and I would never let a young kid sleep in the same bed as Michael, but to say this automatically means someone is pedophile, then that's wrong.

We know he slept in the same bed with other children and he never touched them.
 
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
there is a video tape of R Kelly with a minor - is there a videotape of MJ with a minor engaging in sexual acts? is it in this movie? false equivalency.

people pay settlements all the time to get things out of the news. this is a scandal that has haunted his career for decades, affecting a billion dollar industry, why wouldn't he want to pay off people that just want money? no evidence of anything tbh.
He payed $25 Million to pay off Jordan Chandler. He only came up with those accusations when his father and step father drugged him during a impromptu dental exam. It was stated that Jordan Chandler didn't speak to his parents after the settlement because of what they put him through. The evidence from those case was used against him in 2005 and he was found not guilty.

Sites will claim that Jordan Chandler made a drawing matching Michael Jackson's penis but that's false. In the drawing it says Micheal Jackson is circumcised but he's actually uncircumcised.

R Kelly was found not guilty because the "alleged victim" in the video tape claimed that wasn't her.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty because of his celebrity, Mark Fuhrman and just down right shady police work. They tried to make OJ appear more guilty than he actually was by the misusing of blood evidence. They didn't need to do that.


The important thing in the civil trail was his shoes.




This photo was discovered after the trail. He claimed before that he would never wear these ugly Bruno Magli shoes. These are the same shoes used in the crime scene and he lost his civil trail primarily because of this. He probably would've gone to jail without this picture, but this was huge in his civil trail.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
there is a video tape of R Kelly with a minor - is there a videotape of MJ with a minor engaging in sexual acts? is it in this movie? unless it is, this is a false equivalency. besides, R Kelly is in jail right now! so not really the best example of someone beating the system.

people pay settlements all the time to get things out of the news. this is a scandal that has haunted his career for decades, affecting a billion dollar industry, why wouldn't he want to pay off people that just want money? no evidence of anything tbh.
The R. Kelly example is literally the BEST example.

He beat his case back in 2008 even though the VHS tape was literally shown in court.

You can read about it here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2008/06/long_live_the_little_man_defense.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/arts/music/14kell.html


He's in jail now for not paying child support. HUGE difference.

I'm talking about his behavior in general. It's possible that he wanted to do those things because that's what some young kids do. I'm not saying it's ok, and I would never let a young kid sleep in the same bed as Michael, but to say this automatically means someone is pedophile, then that's wrong.

We know he slept in the same bed with other children and he never touched them.
You're right, sleeping with little boys doesn't automatically make you a pedophile and a rapist. But does make you suspicious. All it takes for me is to hear multiple kids say that he took advantage of them and I'll at that point believe them. Like how did the little boy know exactly where MJ's porn stash was hiding at?

The important thing in the civil trail was his shoes.




This photo was discovered after the trail. He claimed before that he would never wear these ugly Bruno Magli shoes. These are the same shoes used in the crime scene and he lost his civil trail primarily because of this. He probably would've gone to jail without this picture, but this was huge in his civil trail.
This is a great point! Sometimes the smoking gun doesn't get identified until it's too late. In OJ's case it was too late for the criminal trial, but not the civil trial.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Hayfield

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
856
700
455
The R. Kelly example is literally the BEST example.

He beat his case back in 2008 even though the VHS tape was literally shown in court.

You can read about it here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2008/06/long_live_the_little_man_defense.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/arts/music/14kell.html


He's in jail now for not paying child support. HUGE difference.



You're right, sleeping with little boys doesn't automatically make you a pedophile and a rapist. But does make you suspicious. All it takes for me is to hear multiple kids say that he took advantage of them and I'll at that point believe them. Like how did the little boy know exactly where MJ's porn stash was hiding at?



This is a great point! Sometimes the smoking gun doesn't get identified until it's too late. In OJ's case it was too late for the criminal trial, but not the civil trial.
I knew were my dads porn stash was at. He never fucked me.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
I knew were my dads porn stash was at. He never fucked me.
Well.......I'm assuming you lived with him or was around that area alot. These kids knowing where MJ's porn stash was at is just that extra layer of evidence. If MJ was such a 10 year old kid in his mind, why would he even have a porn stash? It becomes clear that he was "asexual" and as "childlike" as we all thought.
 

Noboru Wataya

Bored at work, horned up to the gills
Jul 8, 2016
856
700
455
Well.......I'm assuming you lived with him or was around that area alot. These kids knowing where MJ's porn stash was at is just that extra layer of evidence. If MJ was such a 10 year old kid in his mind, why would he even have a porn stash? It becomes clear that he was "asexual" and as "childlike" as we all thought.
Not really, I stayed with my dad 1 weekend a month growing up. He kept his porn under a sofa seat in his office. I was around 9ish when I found em and showed my mates. I liked em, it’s not a slight against a mans credibility to have porn in his home.

I think jacko was a pedo. Just think the porn angle isn’t a valid one.
 
Jan 21, 2018
533
441
230
Republic of Catalonia
I mean it seems like everything lines up for him to be a pedo, but there has yet to be any evidence produced that he was.
I look at Michael Jackson's behavior and I know he doesn't act like an adult. This may seem weird, but I wouldn't say this automatically makes someone a child molester. Personally, I wouldn't trust this behavior, but again, I do not believe this means someone is a child molester.

The thing about the alcohol is that Michael Jackson was accused of giving kids alcohol and they claimed it was Jesus Juice. Jackson was charged with giving kids alcohol, but he was found not guilty. They also made the claim that he had child porn, but that so called "porn" were books that had a few images of naked children, and those books you can find in book stores.

I look at Michael's demeanor and he acts like a young kid.

I don't remember where, but someone brought this up a few days ago.


One of the first things MJ talked about with Will Smith was comic books.

When Michael Jackson did that interview years ago, he asked the journalist if he wanted to climb up a tree with him. We all might think this stuff is weird, but maybe this is how he was without actually being pedophile.

I have an open mind. If there's evidence that he molested these kids, then yes, I would have no problem changing my opinion. As of right now, it's hard for me to believe these accusers after all these lies.
So, let's recapitulate the facts:

-Broken childhood

-Admits he likes to sleep with children

-Has tons of books/photos about "teens" and children with naked children on them (I literally don't know anybody who has books with naked children on them in their house, maybe he was pursuing a career in Pediatrics and he was making a pretty exhaustive "scientific" research)

-He paid millions to settle a case

-He has been linked and denounced by various children for abusing or making sexual advances towards them
 
Likes: mckmas8808

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,829
3,048
410
So, let's recapitulate the facts:

-Broken childhood
nothing to do with it

-Admits he likes to sleep with children
wrong but so far nothing sexual

-Has tons of books/photos about "teens" and children with naked children on them (I literally don't know anybody who has books with naked children on them in their house, maybe he was pursuing a career in Pediatrics and he was making a pretty exhaustive "scientific" research)
Post in this thread dispelling this myth.

-He paid millions to settle a case
which was later used in another trial and he was found not guilty

-He has been linked and denounced by various children for abusing or making sexual advances towards them
Yet none have proven it and he was clear in trials and the cops never found anything on him after extensive investigations.

I don't want to be the guy defending MJ because even if he did not molest these children I said before his behaviour as not appropriate and he emotionally used all these children. He gave them (and their parents) dream lives and then disgarded them when a new boy came about.

But I am also not just going to blindly believe a one sided documentary. Especially since Wade spent 20 years defending Micheal and then all of a sudden after not getting a job and shopping around his book deal he sues MJ and makes this documentary. Wade doesn't really have much credability with me.

Jimmy has much more credability and his story is more believable to me so this is where I come out double minded on it. But there is still no actual evidence. There have been cases before where people brought up fake repressed memory's of abuse. And MJ was hounded by different families for his money. People do crazy things for money.

and like I said someone going on TV and crying isn't enough evidence. We just saw Jussi do that on GMA and swear up and down he was attacked and call anyone who didn't believe him racist. Just because someone makes an accusation on TV doesn't mean its 100% real.

Clearly its going to be hard to come up with evidence from 30 years ago and MJ is dead so all we have is the word of these 2 guys. Jimmy comes off a lot more belivable to me than Wade. If there was no Jimmy I would say its 100% BS, but Jimmy does give the accusations credibility at least to me.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
Do you know how much crazy idea if we realize this 'Leaving Neverland' movie was a lie?
It will show how scary the media is!
Couldn't we say the same thing about the 9-11 terrorist attack on NYC and Washington DC though? Imagine if America really did attack itself in order to have a reason to go to war with foreign countries just to make trillions of dollars for weapon manufacturers.

That would show how scary media is too.
 
Jan 21, 2018
533
441
230
Republic of Catalonia
nothing to do with it
Has everything to do with it, as it explains MJ crazy obsession with children.

wrong but so far nothing sexual
Do you know even Michael Jackson admited to that?

I mean, it's as factually true as you can get. He himself said that he liked to sleep with children.

And yes, of course it's not "sexual". Totally normal for an adult to sleep with children that are also not related to him.

He also gave them "hot milk" and "tucked them in". Everything normal, not sexual at all.

Post in this thread dispelling this myth.
You are dispelling a police evidence report?

I would love to see how you can do that.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

which was later used in another trial and he was found not guilty
So was OJ Simpson.

But he never paid 22 millions.
 
Nov 23, 2017
851
664
190
So, let's recapitulate the facts:

-Broken childhood

-Admits he likes to sleep with children

-Has tons of books/photos about "teens" and children with naked children on them (I literally don't know anybody who has books with naked children on them in their house, maybe he was pursuing a career in Pediatrics and he was making a pretty exhaustive "scientific" research)

-He paid millions to settle a case

-He has been linked and denounced by various children for abusing or making sexual advances towards them


This book right here is filled with images of naked people, and it contains some images of naked children. This part of the "child porn" they found in Jackson's house.



This was considered a book to have groomed children.


I said many times that sleeping in the same bed as children does raise some red flags. I consider it odd and behavior that is typical among child abusers, but I don't believe that means someone is in fact abusing children.

What also raises red flags are lies.

If the 1993 accuser was in fact molested, I doubt the father would even attempt to drug his old child to make up false accusations against Michael Jackson.

Wade Robson?

Wade did not just telling one or two lies, he has told over 10 regarding his story.

That makes it hard for me to believe someone's story. Wade was on trail during his civil suit and they attacked his credibility and knew he had a motive for suing the MJ estate. It doesn't prove that they didn't get molested, but it proves that they have lied about their story.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,829
3,048
410
Has everything to do with it, as it explains MJ crazy obsession with children.
But that doesn't make you a child molester. Lots of people have broken childhoods and turn to drugs or other crimes. Having a bad childhood doesn't = child molester.


Do you know even Michael Jackson admited to that?

I mean, it's as factually true as you can get. He himself said that he liked to sleep with children.

And yes, of course it's not "sexual". Totally normal for an adult to sleep with children that are also not related to him.

He also gave them "hot milk" and "tucked them in". Everything normal, not sexual at all.
I said that its inappropriate for him to sleep in the same bed as children, but again its not evidence that he molested them. I am not excusing that behavior as I said in the rest of my post I think he emotinoally abused these children and used them. But we are jumping to molestation.


You are dispelling a police evidence report?

I would love to see how you can do that.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/
Yeah, exactly this.
Michael had quite a big collection of actual porn (see here: https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/tag/porn-belonging-to-michael-jackson/ ). All was some regular hetero and lesbian stuff, the weirdest one possibly being a magazine called Plumpers (seems like he was into THICC ladies too - hey, can't blame him!). Also, lol at Michaels "Dr. Black" username :D

But what comes to the supposedly illegal stuff, first of all, even in the court documents the prosecutors clearly stated that none of the material is illegal.
If anyone wants to take a look, here's a good summary of what kind of stuff those books had: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-2/
Like, that doesn't really count even as some "I bought these nudist books because of the art and not because they show naked kids" bullshit, but they are actual art books. They tried to say as if a book called "The Boy: A Photographic Essay" would show he was into young boys, but hell, that's a book with pictures taken when shooting the Lord of the Flies movie.

You can all google the other books and see if they have any damning material in them.

And here you can read the actual documents by the prosecutors:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-stfayCXLjudXY1b0d2c2JoSUU/view
You can see over and over again how they say the material is not illegal and then "based on my training, this type of material can be used as part of grooming process...." which just shows they were just using every piece of nude and semi-nude images to try to claim Michael had those so that he could show them to kids to help him abuse them. Like, if that's not grasping at straws I don't know what is.
And again, you all can google most if not all of the books and see if they contain material that's even close to as bad as they claim them to be.

So was OJ Simpson.

But he never paid 22 millions.
Well OJ is still considered innocent LOL. But OJ was found not guilty on a technicality because the LAPD was caught having a racist on their force. MJ went through a trial and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. What new EVIDENCE was brought forward from this doc?

Also thanks for cutting out the rest of my post where I say Jimmy is way more credible and I am leaning towards beliving his story. I just don't find Wade credible at all in this situation. I also said that MJ did emotionally abuse and use these kids so I am not excusing any of his strange behaviour even if he didn't molest any of these kids.

I understand its hard to have evidence after 30 years, but I also just don't believe a one sided documentary starring a guy sueing MJ for 100's of millions who shopped a tell all book around and all this is after he didn't get a job for MJ's Cirque de Soleil.

If we just believed everyone who cried on TV well then 2 random white dudes would be in jail thanks to Jussi Smollett.

Like I said I don't want to be the guy defending MJ because I am double minded about it and I lean towards believing Jimmy in all of this. Just not ready to roast a dead guy over a sensationalist one sided documentary.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
He did and it's been known for ages, which is why all this stupid virtue signalling and attempts to erase his legacy are fucking dumb. Everyone was fine with it for decades, only to turn around and pretend to care now.
Stop thinking everyone around today, were around back in 1993 or 2003. And the internet and cable news was a different beast 25 years ago. The people that care about it now either cared about it then or have learned more since those days.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
3,829
3,048
410
But again, explains MJ crazy obsession with children.



Well, at least you recognize it's true.
I can't explain his obsession I am not him. Being obsessed with children also doesn't make you a molester. His behavior was very strange and I do not approve of how he emotionally abused these children.

Again it comes down to me just not falling into the trap of believing every word that is said on TV.

Jimmy has way more credibility with me than Wade. I will say odds are he probably did molest someone but for now the only evidence we have is this documentary.
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
I can't explain his obsession I am not him. Being obsessed with children also doesn't make you a molester. His behavior was very strange and I do not approve of how he emotionally abused these children.

Again it comes down to me just not falling into the trap of believing every word that is said on TV.

Jimmy has way more credibility with me than Wade. I will say odds are he probably did molest someone but for now the only evidence we have is this documentary.
And this is the least most should be able to understand or say. All the circumstantial evidence points to the odds are not in MJ's favor. I mean come on people! MJ couldn't stop having kids sleep with him after the $25 million 1993 case and the 2003 verdict.

If he REALLY never touched kids and didn't need their sexual love, he'd stopped that kid stuff decades ago. At the minimum, he should have stopped that behavior after knowing what the law and the public were saying about him. MJ was sick guys. Probably due to his terrible upbringing.
 
Nov 19, 2012
162
6
390
Egypt
Couldn't we say the same thing about the 9-11 terrorist attack on NYC and Washington DC though? Imagine if America really did attack itself in order to have a reason to go to war with foreign countries just to make trillions of dollars for weapon manufacturers.

That would show how scary media is too.
this is out of context

Do you have a story about people was saying something with these emotions and drama and details and then, found out all of those things are made-up?! I mean this really needs great work from them to do that, It's hard to Imagine how much the effort and time need to make a lie like that with that details and with this way saying: MJ he was good of kind guy but he has his dark world and stuff like that. that could make you have mixed feeling about it.... I mean they are too good to show this case like that. That it does make sense.

I don't trust media and no one should be, still, it's really hard to say it's a lie or agree by just watching it. It's not that easy to say this with that level what they showed. and at the same time, HBO got sued as I see, so it's not could be crazy that all they did was a lie, they will need to pay about $100 Milion
 
May 24, 2005
39,765
2,644
1,320
this is out of context

Do you have a story about people was saying something with these emotions and drama and details and then, found out all of those things are made-up?! I mean this really needs great work from them to do that, It's hard to Imagine how much the effort and time need to make a lie like that with that details and with this way saying: MJ he was good of kind guy but he has his dark world and stuff like that. that could make you have mixed feeling about it.... I mean they are too good to show this case like that. That it does make sense.

I don't trust media and no one should be, still, it's really hard to say it's a lie or agree by just watching it. It's not that easy to say this with that level what they showed. and at the same time, HBO got sued as I see, so it's not could be crazy that all they did was a lie, they will need to pay about $100 Milion
But lots of people aren't just using this documentary to come to the conclusion that MJ was a pedo. I was born in the early 80s and MJ was one of my musical heros in the 80s and early 90s. But the 1993 case made me think he was a little weird, but I loved MJ so much that there's no way I would believe 1% of it. I thought MJ just loved kids because he saw the innocence in them.

It wasn't until the 2003 case when I was a college graduate, that I realized that alot of the stuff that I witnessed of Mike and read about him either made him the weirdest non-pedo of all-time, or just a straight pedophile. This doc is just icing on the cake.
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,440
2,689
255
he is a weirdo. that much is for sure. but i think you can sleep next to someone and have a platonic relationship. i have slept next to friends many many times without having sex with them. i have slept next to women, i have slept next to straight men, i have slept next to gay men, i have slept next to queer people. all friends and people with mutual respect & trusted and nobody was abused. it's not impossible to behave yourself.

ditto with writing or saying that you love somebody. some people just say that. some people are very affectionate. some people are not so. some people are incredibly flirty but actually conservative in their sex life. some people are asexual. there is a huge spectrum, is there not? why can't MJ be the furthest asexual alien on that imaginary line?

tbh i feel like this most recent stuff is mostly an opportunity for people who would condemn him even for the non-sexual stuff he has done, simply because it is so out of the norm for society, and it gives the worst impression. it's more about re-assessing what we already know in the new 1984 HR Hellscape of 2019.

mostly i am sad the de-platforming of Michael Jackson is happening. all over an HBO documentary with no new evidence? since things are starting to disappear i watched the Captain EO short film last night. this is a pretty crazy artifact of the 80s for anyone who hasn't seen it, written by George Lucas and directed by Francis Ford Coppola for the Mouse. basically Disney collaborating with Lucasfilm to make a longform MJ-in-Star Wars music video, with a cyberpunk Angelica Huston as a cool borg-style space monster:

watch it while you can.

 
Last edited:
Likes: haxan7