[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by XFactorFanatic1

Preach! I have said this since day one.

Your use rname says a great deal about your intelligence.

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

Your use rname says a great deal about your intelligence.

Your spelling says a great deal about yours.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

How do you define a proper pedophile?

Unless they meant that Michael never had sex with, or sexually groped pre-teen kids.

[Mrs BBV]

Originally Posted by whatever54

you're right and given the media interest in JS, I would imagine they'd be equally rubbing their hands with glee at exposing MJ. The fact they have not reported anything, makes me wonder (possibly naively but I don't think so) if there really is nothing to report.

I'm naive too. I really think victims would be crawling out of the woodwork if there was much to tell.

[unique]

Originally Posted by XFactorFanatic1

Michael was nothing on Jimmy. Michael was king and proven innocent. His 'victims' came forward and said they were lying. Sadly it was too late, this would be the beginning of the death of Michael Jackson.

he wasn't a king, and he wasn't proven innocent

[i4u]

If the Michael Jackson PR machine even after his death made out there was 'nothing wrong', 'he was in excellent condition' despite the Kenny Ortega emails, then think of what could have got upto while he was alive.

Re, Chandler...Pellicano fed the fans, media and public a constant stream of lies.

For example, at the out set Pellicano said he had been working alongside the police on the case because of extortion, hence the tapes.

When the LA Times investigated, the police revealed no one from the MJ camp had been in contact with them. It was 2-3 days after the LA Times ran the police denial the MJ team lodged a complaint.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by emzi27

I have done a huge amount of research on it over the past few years....

A few things that convinced me MJ was innocent was the recording of Evan Chandler (who later commited suicide) saying he was going to destroy Michael Jackson's career and win big.

In your research did you read the Police transcript (124ish pages) of the phone calls and compare them with the edited version supplied by Pellicano, notice anything different?

In the Mary Fischer GQ article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed' she put unrelated quotes together to form manufactored sentences. Why would she do that?

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by MandyXZ

Your spelling says a great deal about yours.

My spelling tells you that I am KatManDooo? :-)

It's fair to say that people who enjoy the X Factor are generally intellectual lightweights, and that's the kind of person that Michael Jackson attracted, Those are the people who continually defend his lifestyle choices and who are also the very ones who have taken no time whatsoever to dig deeper and find out what kind of a man he was. He was a paedophile, There is no doubt of that.

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by zx50

Unless they meant that Michael never had sex with, or sexually groped pre-teen kids.

In that case they need to have a real look at the definition of a paedophile for that isn't it.

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

He was a paedophile, There is no doubt of that.

Do you have proof? Did you know him personally? Did you witness what went on in his bedroom? Did you have a camera... recording his bedroom activities?
If not, you cannot say MJ was a paedophile and state it as fact.

[Big Boy Barry]

Totally different situations.

The MJ cases struck me as a naive and misguided guy who was vulnerable to the inevitable false allegations.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by MandyXZ

Do you have proof? Did you know him personally? Did you witness what went on in his bedroom? Did you have a camera... recording his bedroom activities?
If not, you cannot say MJ was a paedophile and state it as fact.

Prior to 1993 was it known he slept with boys as young as 7 who were on their own with him?

Was 2003 the first time he publicly admitted sleeping with young boys, but even then he was only 'sharing' ie giving up his bed for young boys.

But come the trial Wade Robson, his sister and mum, witnesses for the defence all said Wade slept in the same bed as Michael.

Joy admits that Michael would sometimes call late at night and ask her to bring Wade to Neverland. Once, they arrived at Neverland at 1:30 a.m., whereupon Wade went directly to bed with Michael.

I don't buy the idea Michael was naive, as from his public statements and denials he was acutely aware what to say and not to say.

[katmobile]

Originally Posted by unique

there are many forms of abuse, and he abused his position with children in order to sleep with them. he was very open and honest about doing so in a tv interview. normal middle aged men don't do that with other peoples kids for innocent reasons. you wouldn't let your 40 year old next door single male neighbour sleep with your own 14 year old kid would you? even if he told you he wasn't a pedo?

MJ wasn't a normal person though was he? - no I wouldn't let my daughter sleep in the same bed as him any concerned parent just wouldn't risk it but even by childhood star multi-millionaire in the entertainment industry standards MJ was odd and he did seem to very childlike himself in a lot of ways. I'm not sure if he was a paedophile or not but I remain convinced that money had more to do the prosecutions than concern for the children's welfare.

[katmobile]

Originally Posted by i4u

Prior to 1993 was it known he slept with boys as young as 7 who were on their own with him?

Was 2003 the first time he publicly admitted sleeping with young boys, but even then he was only 'sharing' ie giving up his bed for young boys.

But come the trial Wade Robson, his sister and mum, witnesses for the defence all said Wade slept in the same bed as Michael.


I don't buy the idea Michael was naive, as from his public statements and denials he was acutely aware what to say and not to say.

He was in some ways - why would someone who has been accused of child abuse openly admit he slept with children in the same bed - in fact the whole Bashir program reveals his naviety - the purchase of expensive tat, the dangling of his son over a balcony, the way he seemed to trust Bashir, that seems extra-ordinarily naive. He was very astute in some ways with his presentation of himself on stage and his business dealings so much so that he alienated himself from Paul McCartney over buying the Beatles songwriting copywright and letting advertising companies use them but in other he was hopelessy naive.

If MJ was an abuser then he didn't see himself that way I think JS just didn't give a monkeys for anyone but himself - in that almost certainly they were different. MJ also had some geunine friends like Elizabeth Taylor I don't think JS did.

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by MandyXZ

Do you have proof? Did you know him personally? Did you witness what went on in his bedroom? Did you have a camera... recording his bedroom activities?
If not, you cannot say MJ was a paedophile and state it as fact.

Sorry for being presumtious about his guilt. I should have said that I believe that the weight of evidence presented clearly suggests that he was a paedophile.

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by i4u

.

I don't buy the idea Michael was naive, as from his public statements and denials he was acutely aware what to say and not to say.

I think he was an excellent manipulator who succeeded in deceiving many.

[dee123]

Originally Posted by twingle

I totally agree with you and no of course I wouldn't allow my kid to be in that situation. I do think due to his background he wasn't *normal* in the *normal* sense . IMO I think he was very sad and lonely which goes to show money doesn't buy happiness

Agree. What was he? 5? 6? years old when his parents stopped seeing a son & started seeing dollar signs?

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by i4u

Prior to 1993 was it known he slept with boys as young as 7 who were on their own with him?

Was 2003 the first time he publicly admitted sleeping with young boys, but even then he was only 'sharing' ie giving up his bed for young boys.

But come the trial Wade Robson, his sister and mum, witnesses for the defence all said Wade slept in the same bed as Michael.



I don't buy the idea Michael was naive, as from his public statements and denials he was acutely aware what to say and not to say.

Yes, he slept with young boys but this does not mean he was a paedophile. He may or may not have been one, I've no idea and no one else does (except for the boys who slept with him)

The poster I quoted said he was a paedophile,(stating this as fact) and this is what I was questioning. How does she know? My guess is... she doesn't, therefore she is only making assumptions.

Assumptions and facts have different meanings. if a person views assumptions and facts in the same light, then they come across as confused, lacking understanding and intelligence.

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by MandyXZ

Do you have proof? Did you know him personally? Did you witness what went on in his bedroom? Did you have a camera... recording his bedroom activities?
If not, you cannot say MJ was a paedophile and state it as fact.

I have never been to death valley but I know its warm. never been to Burma but I know its a warzone. You dont have to have seen something first hand to know its true, thats why lots of people believe in god, and evolution.

JS was a peado and it was pretty clear to anyone with half a brain. Go watch his travel show and watch how he interacts with women. (I cannot stand him) but Keith Lemon is overlay sexual with women and its cringe worthy and funny. But when JS did it years back, you could see it was much more predatory.

As for MJ, he was not so much an outright anything, he was mostly very strange. He did do strange things with kids (the licking hair thing was very strange) but I dont think it ever went too far (as in rape or something like JS). But MJ was always a wierdo, and not just from his rather bizarre upbringing and family unit, but also the immense fame he had for a VERY long time.

Millions of his fans would happily kill if asked by him, and that level of fanaticism has to warp a persons perception of reality.

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by Tal'shiar

You dont have to have seen something first hand to know its true, .

....but on the other hand, there are some things in life that you do need to have seen first hand to know it's true - the Michael Jackson case has proven that.

Anyway, here's an interesting article I found.....

http://druhepkins.hubpages.com/hub/W...on-Is-Innocent

I'm not a MJ fan but still found it interesting.

[Rogue277]

A little known fact was that some items of evidence were found in Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch in a 1993 raid. These items seem to have been overlooked by the media, probably because the file below was not released publicly until 4th of October 2006, well after the end of the trial.

The items of interest are

'Boys Will Be Boys' - a book featuring nude photos of boys;
'The Boy, A Photographic Essay' - another book featuring nude photos of boys;
A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence, fully nude; and
A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella, wearing bikini bottoms partially pulled down.


Even at face value, taken individually, these items cannot be considered in any way innocent, or even "art". Any one of these items in the hands of a man who regularly slept alone with boys of a particular age would ring alarm bells for any adult - unless you are a Michael Jackson fan that is.

An important note needs to be made here: Many people are under the mistaken belief that these items were several of millions that fans sent to Jackson and they somehow just "appeared" in his bedroom, and that he had never looked at them. Another point some try to make is that Jackson had tens of thousands of books and these items were just "jumbled" in amongst them.

Both suppositions are false.

Read more: http://www.mjfacts.info/1993-items.php#ixzz2ALZFzpHB

Link to documents: http://www.mjfacts.info/resources/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

[sparkle22]

I admit it dosen't look good however why did these parents let their child sleep in the same bed as him?.
Because they knew he would give them gifts and fund a lifestyle they could only dream of.
They took advantage in my opinion I still believe michael was gay and this was his way of expressing his same sex feelings.
As pointed out no-one said anything when elvis had a 14 yr old girlfriend we will never know the truth about michael.

[tediouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by sparkle22

I admit it dosen't look good however why did these parents let their child sleep in the same bed as him?.
Because they knew he would give them gifts and fund a lifestyle they could only dream of.
They took advantage in my opinion I still believe michael was gay and this was his way of expressing his same sex feelings.
As pointed out no-one said anything when elvis had a 14 yr old girlfriend we will never know the truth about michael.

Parents as 'starry eyed' as their children.

Imagine if you were gifted anything you want, your children whisked off to be molested while unwittingly you're drinking champagne and eating smoked salmon thinking you and your kids are having a great time.

That's how Michael Jackson got away with it.

[flashgordon1952]

The situation is not the same jacksons was allwed to get away with what he was doing because he had expensive lawyers bleeding him dry with all the law suits there was against him and they bought peoples silence with money !
Saville got away with it(alledged) by being protected by the BBC machine and by the others around him who was doing the same..
Jackson should have been commited many years back from the time he was living with that monkey and the weird antics of living in a bubble ! He was one true "nutcase" .
Saville on the other hand it appeares did not like women over a certain age ,yet none of his alledged victims ever complained until 12 months after his death .
Jackson had a history of mental illness from the time his father was alledged to be beating him when he was young. we know this from what his brothers have said about there father

[tediouslyrandom]

Originally Posted by flashgordon1952

The situation is not the same jacksons was allwed to get away with what he was doing because he had expensive lawyers bleeding him dry with all the law suits there was against him and they bought peoples silence with money !
Saville got away with it(alledged) by being protected by the BBC machine and by the others around him who was doing the same..
Jackson should have been commited many years back from the time he was living with that monkey and the weird antics of living in a bubble ! He was one true "nutcase" .
Saville on the other hand it appeares did not like women over a certain age ,yet none of his alledged victims ever complained until 12 months after his death .
Jackson had a history of mental illness from the time his father was alledged to be beating him when he was young. we know this from what his brothers have said about there father

Years of mental and physical abuse takes it's toll on a young child, I imagine Michael is one of many children to have been brought up by dominating, over-zealous and self-centred parents.

Not all of them end up being paedophiles, ****ed up in the head, yes, but not paedophiles.

Michael had the money to seek psychotherapy, instead he bought a fairground and lived his 'inner child'.

Do I think Michael touched children inappropriately? Yes, but I think he thought of himself as a child.