Michael Jackson spent 35 million to cover up his pedophillia

musicismylife78 · July 2013

Loulou wrote:

That Wade guy was probably very reluctant to come forward because of the backlash from his million supporters.

No he wasnt. He was one of the star witnesses for the defense in 2005. Flat out said in affidavit and on stand nothing happenened when he was a kid and visited Neverland.

Its only in 2013 that he suddenly has changed his mind.

Not sure he's the most trust worthy of people.

He's demanding millions of dollars and suing the Jackson estate just like the Arvizos and Chandlers did

musicismylife78 · July 2013

Bronx Bombers wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

only one of those books contained explicit imagery .

From the 93 search.

Book: Boys Will Be Boys, containing photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. This book was personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: In Search Of Young Beauty, containing photographs of children, both boys and girls; some nude.

Book: The Boy, A Photographic Essay, containing black and white photos of boys, some nude.

Photograph: A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.

Photograph: A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partly pulled down.

From 2003 search.

Dressed Up Playacys and Fantasies of Childhood: 1978 photo book. Contains three photos of teenage boys naked.

Robert Maxwell Photographs: old photos, some nude, some of young children (nude and dressed).

Taormina Wilhelm Von Gloeden: Nude photos of teenage boys from the late 1800.

The Golden Age Of Neglect: Photos of teenagers, some nude.

Room To Play: Photos of children that are altered, morphed head on older bodies, kids made to look sexualized. Some are nude photos of kids.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ct ... aseemd.pdf

Sure, thats the tabloid, ET version. Lots of art has nudity in it. The main and basically only book presented at 2005 trial was The Boy. Which as I said, was proven to have been a gift from a friend to MJ. It was an art book. The state made a big deal about it. Read the court transcripts. Its like presenting a list of items found in a suspects house and then saying "hey John, he did it, we found all this stuff". The trial transcripts show, and Wade Robeson and several other witnesses and friends backed the claim up, that the book wasn't explicit, that it was a gift, that MJ was a fan of art etc...

Your bullet list, or the "states" supposed finds, make no difference between art books and explicit books. Hell, take those massive 50 pound books you can find at the library, that list all the major art projects of the latest century. Theres some bizaare stuff in those too.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

JBii wrote:

I wonder what all you guys would do if a band member from your favorite band was accused of something like this. Then we see why Jackson's fans support him and don't believe it. I know something freaked the hell out of Lisa Marie Presley and she wrote a great song about it. I always thought of Michael as being childlike even to the end.
But I agree he was never found guilty of crap, his kids are here to take all this shit though
so for them alone I'd say lay off. He's gone. What is the purpose? And those who have kids know kids break easy when it comes to talking shit about their parents... your mama crap.
Great point too about the parents who took money, parents want justice for an abused child unless they were only after money to begin with.

No I dont believe it, because I actually followed and researched the case. We all can make surface judgements based on Wacko Jacko and the media's portrayal of MJ. Or you can actually dig deep and research what happened. That entails finding out the public and basic history of the 2005 accusers family, that is just a simple Google search away. As is the truth serum confession by the 1993 accuser, as well as his dad's bizaare and sordid history.
The skin bleaching "he made himself white" claim is a perfect textbook example. Hounded for decades that he turned his back on his black heritidge and changed his skin to be white. He maintained for years he had vitiligo, which turned his skin white. After his death, it came out, he indeed had vitiligo.

Theres myth and facts. Hanging children out windows, having sleepovers with children. Those may not be looked at as acceptable, but theres a difference between that, and what he was accused of. Hanging a child out a window doesnt have squat to do with whether he molested children.

Its basic research 101. Before making a judgement you see both sides then come up with a conclusion. You can only do that once you see both sides.

Id wager 95 percent of this board and 95 percent of the public at large hasnt read about the basic infor about the accusers families.

MJ maintained he was the victim of a witchhunt from day 1, and that the PARENTS were out to extort money. I see nothing to suggest he wasnt totally correct.

I dont know why anyone would say otherwise-Lopez and Leno and Tucker all said the 2nd family tried to extort money from them. Why would anyone support that mother or believe an iota of what comes out of her mouth?

Thirty Bills Unpaid · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

Sure, thats the tabloid, ET version. Lots of art has nudity in it. The main and basically only book presented at 2005 trial was The Boy. Which as I said, was proven to have been a gift from a friend to MJ. It was an art book. The state made a big deal about it. Read the court transcripts. Its like presenting a list of items found in a suspects house and then saying "hey John, he did it, we found all this stuff". The trial transcripts show, and Wade Robeson and several other witnesses and friends backed the claim up, that the book wasn't explicit, that it was a gift, that MJ was a fan of art etc...

Your bullet list, or the "states" supposed finds, make no difference between art books and explicit books. Hell, take those massive 50 pound books you can find at the library, that list all the major art projects of the latest century. Theres some bizaare stuff in those too.

You seem to want to dismiss everything that is presented to you as nothing more than 'small potatoes'. Take his Thriller poster off your wall and look at the situation for what it is.

You call books with naked children in it 'art'... I call them child pornography. People came forward against this freak and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that point to a situation pretty difficult to deny. You can call all his accusers liars and frauds and you can also excuse his choice of tableside reading featuring naked boys as 'art' if you wish... but the people with an ounce of common sense don't wish to stick their heads in the sand and say that Michael Jackson was portrayed poorly in the press.

This weirdo loved prepubescent boys. So much that he tried to transform himself into one with the most obscene amount of cosmetic surgery one could ever hope to bear witness to. His money got him out of hot water. I would bet anything that attorneys advised their clients to take the money given that going to trial would not guarantee a conviction- especially with the amount of money they were stacked up against. He bought his 'innocence'.

And, to boot, his music is far from genius. It's pop music with dancing that appeals to the most simple tastes... in my opinion.

Cliffy6745 · July 2013

Anyone who idolizes and defends a grown man who slept in the same bed as kids should clearly have their head examined. Period, end of story.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · July 2013

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who idolizes and defends a grown man who slept in the same bed as kids should clearly have their head examined. Period, end of story.

End of thread.

Loulou · July 2013

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who idolizes and defends a grown man who slept in the same bed as kids should clearly have their head examined. Period, end of story.

That's right. Wtf was he doing sleeping in the same bed as someone else's child? how the hell is that normal?

musicismylife78 wrote:

Loulou wrote:

That Wade guy was probably very reluctant to come forward because of the backlash from his million supporters.

No he wasnt. He was one of the star witnesses for the defense in 2005. Flat out said in affidavit and on stand nothing happenened when he was a kid and visited Neverland.

Its only in 2013 that he suddenly has changed his mind.

Not sure he's the most trust worthy of people.

He's demanding millions of dollars and suing the Jackson estate just like the Arvizos and Chandlers did

I'm not saying that he's definitely telling the truth because I don't know either MJ or Wade. Just saying that if it were true, he may have only changed his mind now because he was scared of the backlash.
Wade actually says that once he had a child, it actually brought to light for him that what went on between them both was wrong. Just because he's seeking compensation doesn't automatically mean he's full of shit. If we thought like that, lots of genuine victims of abuse would never see (some form) of justice served.

Jason P · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

only one of those books contained explicit imagery. Wade Robeson the guy who has now changed his mind, who in 2005 said MJ never did anything, now says he was abused. But anyways in 2005 Robeson said the main book presented at trial was not explicit, nor was it illicit.

Janet Arvizo consulted with a lawyer in Jan 2000, about suing MJ for molesting her son. This was months before MJ had met either the mom or the son.

How can you attack tiger woods without lack of pure court / jury concluded evidence and then defend micheal Jackson so passionately?

Woods allegedly had a troop of legal women he had relations with. Jackson allegedly had a troop of underage boys he had relations with.

You condemn Woods yet give Jackson a pass.

If true ... Which is worse?

:corn:

Cliffy6745 · July 2013

Jason P wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

only one of those books contained explicit imagery. Wade Robeson the guy who has now changed his mind, who in 2005 said MJ never did anything, now says he was abused. But anyways in 2005 Robeson said the main book presented at trial was not explicit, nor was it illicit.

Janet Arvizo consulted with a lawyer in Jan 2000, about suing MJ for molesting her son. This was months before MJ had met either the mom or the son.

How can you attack tiger woods without lack of pure court / jury concluded evidence and then defend micheal Jackson so passionately?

Woods allegedly had a troop of legal women he had relations with. Jackson allegedly had a troop of underage boys he had relations with.

You condemn Woods yet give Jackson a pass.

If true ... Which is worse?

:corn:

I wanted to bring up this exact point so many times reading all his nonsense

Cliffy6745 · July 2013

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Anyone who idolizes and defends a grown man who slept in the same bed as kids should clearly have their head examined. Period, end of story.

End of thread.

Like how is this even a discussion?

Hugh Freaking Dillon · July 2013

I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.

there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.

it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

Sure, thats the tabloid, ET version. Lots of art has nudity in it. The main and basically only book presented at 2005 trial was The Boy. Which as I said, was proven to have been a gift from a friend to MJ. It was an art book. The state made a big deal about it. Read the court transcripts. Its like presenting a list of items found in a suspects house and then saying "hey John, he did it, we found all this stuff". The trial transcripts show, and Wade Robeson and several other witnesses and friends backed the claim up, that the book wasn't explicit, that it was a gift, that MJ was a fan of art etc...

Your bullet list, or the "states" supposed finds, make no difference between art books and explicit books. Hell, take those massive 50 pound books you can find at the library, that list all the major art projects of the latest century. Theres some bizaare stuff in those too.

You seem to want to dismiss everything that is presented to you as nothing more than 'small potatoes'. Take his Thriller poster off your wall and look at the situation for what it is.

You call books with naked children in it 'art'... I call them child pornography. People came forward against this freak and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that point to a situation pretty difficult to deny. You can call all his accusers liars and frauds and you can also excuse his choice of tableside reading featuring naked boys as 'art' if you wish... but the people with an ounce of common sense don't wish to stick their heads in the sand and say that Michael Jackson was portrayed poorly in the press.

This weirdo loved prepubescent boys. So much that he tried to transform himself into one with the most obscene amount of cosmetic surgery one could ever hope to bear witness to. His money got him out of hot water. I would bet anything that attorneys advised their clients to take the money given that going to trial would not guarantee a conviction- especially with the amount of money they were stacked up against. He bought his 'innocence'.

And, to boot, his music is far from genius. It's pop music with dancing that appeals to the most simple tastes... in my opinion.

Might want to look at the thread again friend. The only side presented by everyone, almost to a man, was that MJ was a molester and a billion other things. I seem to be the only person presented another side of the story. And there is always two sides my friend. Ive yet to see a single person acknowledge anything about the Arvizo's or the Chandlers.

Im not going to sit by and watch people who dont know what they are talking about slander someone. I would have been the first guy in line to demand MJ's head if the evidence was there. The fact is, its just not. Two problematic confessions by two problematic families with less than stellar histories. That doesnt cut it for me. But ive always been someone who roots for fair justice.

I agree. You should turn off Nancy Grace and deal with the real MJ. Not the one we got crammed down our throats for decades as some wierdo oddball. He was a human being. Much of that junk we got peddled was a load of crap.

I am a person of integrity. And thus I demand others be as well. The fact that anyone would sit here with a straight face and say "The NE is a legitmate news source" tells you all you need to know about why we went to Iraq, and why some of the public still believes Saddam was involved in 9/11.

People want soundbytes. 30 second wrapups in Parade, or newsbytes. They dont have the patience to read two paragraphs into a story to decide the source is a tabloid rag.

Im not going to believe MJ abused kids because the evidence isnt there. Books, magazines do not a molester make.

Im waiting for chadwick and everyone else to invite us to their house to show us their internet history and their own magazines.

You can believe the Nancy Grace 30 second "he's a weirdo he did it" line. Or you can do a 30 second google search and find out the real story.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that the Arvizos and the Chandlers were exploitative people who used a friendship with MJ to tarnish his image and become big news? Why is that so hard to imagine?

Its not so hard to imagine because we know it to be demonstrably true, the Arvizos acted the SAME DAMN way with Leno, Tucker and Lopez. You really think they found MJ and went "OH DEAR LORD, I had a change of heart, he's worth hundreds of millions but we will treat him as a human being"?

You are naive.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.

Loulou · July 2013

It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I am not an MJ fan in the least. I don't like pop music. but my take on it is that he did nothing lewd against any child. I feel like he was a child in and of himself, and he just enjoyed their company because his childhood was "stolen" by fame. he envied the innocence that he never got to experience.

there has never been a shred of evidence that wasn't circumstantial against him. just because he was weird doesn't mean he committed any criminal act.

it's a fucking witch hunt because he was different and rich.

THIS^. As I said, had there been some sort of smoking gun linking MJ to the two accusers you dont think that would have been front page news for all eternity? The books and magazines found didnt convict or get him found guilty, because the jury actually saw through the prosecutions lies. The books and magazines were big news because...they werent big news. It means nothing to have those books in your house. I own Fight Club. I happen to agree with Palaniuk's politics, but Im sure there are plenty who just like him for his writing, or like the movie because it has Brad in it, or whatever. The prosecutions laughable premise was that only a pedophile would own those books. And it was proven thats just not the case. You cant judge someone by the art they consume. Or the books on their bookshelves. Thats like puritanical garbage there my friends.

anyone who has read any cursory info on MJ knows about his childhood as you point out. I think, much like we see currently with Beiber and Demi Lovato and Amanda Bynes, fame early can seriously mess you up. I dont think MJ ever got over it, and spent the rest of his life trying to reclaim a childhood that was stolen from him.

As I said, sleepovers with minors, and all that, that may be frowned upon, but it doesnt prove anything in terms of saying "yeah he did it". And its actually a huge leap.

Its sickening how someone like MJ can be branded something and no amount of evidence to the contrary can move people to reaccess. But when you post factual information about the parents of the accusers, few if anyone even responds.

People are blinded by their ignorance.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

I also think its a bit of ego as well. People want to believe that all those decades of jokes, and innuendo, and ridicule and name calling that the press and everyone else did of MJ, was some how justified.

The idea that he may actually have been completely innocent, and that he died as a result of the pain and ridicule and harassment he recieved I think people don't want to hear it or believe it. I think its obvious the drug use was a result of all this.

I think theres ample evidence that this was actually the case.

People have an image in their mind, and most people dont like being told they are wrong.

If MJ was innocent his last 20 years would be seen as essentially the media and public hounding him to death. And I think thats exactly what happened

musicismylife78 · July 2013

Loulou wrote:

It is very possible that he didn't actually touch anyone and that people are accusing him because he's eccentric and stinking rich but isn't it also possible that these are the same reasons that people are excusing his actions? I mean I hear a lot of 'he's a freak and has the money to cover it up so he must have done it' but I'm also hearing a lot of 'he was just a weirdo and child-like, they just wanted his money, he didn't do it'. I guess my point is, just because some have accused him in the past and either been unreliable or taken the hush money, does not mean we should shut the book on any future accusations.

Makes sense. But if the evidence isnt there, it isnt there, and then you either need to uncover this missing evidence linking him to it, or you drop the case and say "not guilty". Both cases that were brought to trial seem to scream exploitation and extortion of MJ by the families of the accusers. Could he have abused others but not those boys? Highly unlikely.

I think its clear both cases were extortion. And that shows a pattern. On both parties. I think MJ was desperate for friendship and to be a kid and let anyone in his life, even those who took advantage of him. His doctor is prime example. But I think it also shows that people took advantadge of him because he was rich.

Any time someone talks about extortion or makes up stories, that usually for me, sends a red flag that this person is a liar and not trustworthy. But in the media world, that just fuels the ratings.

hedonist · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.

Makes no difference whether or not I agree with you on anything in this thread...but can the mindset of "if you think this, you're some form of a fucking idiot" stuff? This is the third or fourth time you've painted people with the same brush you don't want used on Michael Joe.

It negates much else of value, at least from here.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

hedonist wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

and as far as music goes, anyone who says MJ;'s musical legacy isnt gargantuan is just plain ignorant. Period.

Makes no difference whether or not I agree with you on anything in this thread...but can the mindset of "if you think this, you're some form of a fucking idiot" stuff? This is the third or fourth time you've painted people with the same brush you don't want used on Michael Joe.

It negates much else of value, at least from here.

I dont know. I respect peoples right to disagree, but this thread really hasnt been about examining the sides of the issue. Its been for the most part a lets dump on MJ thread. The OP blatantly posted an article written by a supermarket tabloid, and I think expected people to go along with it and not come back with facts about things. Im not willing to do that. Refusing to acknowledge proven facts like proven extortion, lies and the like also negates any point the OP or anyone else was trying to make. It goes both ways, hedonist. The "MJ haters" arent acting civilized. Calling him names, slurring him. Thats not really kosher, nor is it polite, or even justified.

And in general, i would in real life, act the same way if I met someone who said "The Beatles arent that good" or "Nirvana werent revolutionary' or "I hate Pink Floyd"

Theres some things I think that you can sort of agree as being important and essential whether or not you like them.

Same with MJ and his music. people that are saying his music sucks or he wasnt important honestly dont have a grasp on music history or MJ's music.

There also is a correlation between the tabloid media/tmz and all that, and the sort of lies people believe. It masks larger issues. When we are focusing on Beibers meltdown, we arent focusing on issues that really matter.

Thats just the facts hedonist.

Its one thing to say you dont like the music, you are free to dislike OTW and Thriller and Bad and Dangerous, but to write him off by saying "his music sucks, he isnt important", is the height of everything I dislike about people who listen to "only music they like" and nothing else. People take things like that seriously. And make it seem like it matters.

Personally I dont care what MJ did to his skin, or whether he had the elephant man's bones, or whether he slept in a hyperbaric chamber. He was an incredible dancer, an incredible musician, and a brilliant artist.

But hey, Im just a fan of music so...

musicismylife78 · July 2013

personally id like to debate the issue. But, you know hedonist, if people are posting articles written by a tabloid thats really not a legitimate thing to do. Its silly and irresponsible and that should be plain as day. You want to debate the issue? Well then, Post articles by reputable sources.

Michael Jackson spent 35 million to cover up his pedophillia

Comments

Categories