[i4u]

Originally Posted by skp20040

I do believe he was, silly in the way he behaved as it could so easily have been misinterpreted as it often was and he left himself wide open, but I do think ( I could be wrong of course ) he was just a child who never grew up and felt safer with younger people bearing in mind how so many adults had treated him. There are as many differences as there are similarities.

Yet child like Michael employed the services of criminal Anthony Pelliconi in 1993 and 'porn' director Marc Schaffael in 2004 to aide his defence regarding molestation allegations.

Strangely throughout 1993 Pelliconi was the person negotiating with the Joy Robson regarding the recod deal for her son, which Pelliconi finally agreed in late December 1993.

Marc Schaffael whilst taking care of the Avirzo's family was engaged to produce a charity record on behalf of Michael, the deal being they would make millions for themselves licensing the recording.

(Source: Defence witnesses, the 2005 trial)

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by Rogue277

I tried Topix but I didn't like it. I haven't come across any forums either, but there is another blog I found interesting.


http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you. I'll try it.

[rumandlime]

I find some of the robust defenders of michael jackson not only deluded but pretty sick.
thank god people are actually waking up to these sick pedos like savile and wacko.....unfortunately for saviles and jacksons victims their word alone wasnt good enough for the authorities...perhaps in the future people will listen far more carefully to the victims story.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by rumandlime

I find some of the robust defenders of michael jackson not only deluded but pretty sick.
thank god people are actually waking up to these sick pedos like savile and wacko.....unfortunately for saviles and jacksons victims their word alone wasnt good enough for the authorities...perhaps in the future people will listen far more carefully to the victims story.

Yet we have not had an avalanche of complaints againgst MJ since his death as we have Saville. So before you decide which posters are sick becasue they can see the glaring differences in this take a look at the whole picture.

[jzee]

Originally Posted by skp20040

Yet we have not had an avalanche of complaints againgst MJ since his death as we have Saville. So before you decide which posters are sick becasue they can see the glaring differences in this take a look at the whole picture.

I've already addressed that. He had two trials against him which both failed, so it all came out in his lifetime.

[i4u]

I'm sure I've heard this said before about someone else.....

Jimmy Savile's former personal assistant has likened the predatory paedophile to 'Peter Pan', saying he was 'forever surrounding himself with youngsters'.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by i4u

I'm sure I've heard this said before about someone else.....

His former PA is obviously barking , how anyone can compare a paedophile to Peter Pan is beyond me Now if she said a far more wicked perverted version of The Child Catcher she may be on the right tracks.

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

Written by a fan and full of emotive half truths and untruths. That article is opinion based, not fact based and it gives only a one sided and distorted image of Michael Jackson.

Same applies to others, including your posts.....all opinion based.

No evidence was found to prove Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Not one single person was able to prove that he molested children, That is FACT.

If you can find proof, (what everyone else failed to do) I will be very impressed.

[jzee]

Originally Posted by skp20040

His former PA is obviously barking , how anyone can compare a paedophile to Peter Pan is beyond me Now if she said a far more wicked perverted version of The Child Catcher she may be on the right tracks.

Maybe she meant the Pied Piper?

[whatever54]

Originally Posted by skp20040

Yet we have not had an avalanche of complaints againgst MJ since his death as we have Saville. So before you decide which posters are sick becasue they can see the glaring differences in this take a look at the whole picture.

yes getting back to original point IMO Saville and Jackson are very different.
Saville was apparently a national treasure, no one could accuse him, he had power and links and all the rest but when he died eventually all these people came forward and exposed him.

Jackson was always suspected and even went to court about it and won/found not guilty. He dies and not one person has come forward to accuse him of anything what does that tell people. Jimmy has been dead nearly a year and all these accusations, Michael over 3 years and none. Maybe it's the CIA, conspiracy thing but you would think one of his victims would flee to the UK sell there story to The Sun or Guardian even (keep it Murdoch balanced) & then seek diplomatic immunity here or whatever legal jargon it is

[FunkyJawa]

You'd think somebody that actually worked on the Jackson case would come forward with their story on it, but so far not even that, let alone any 'victims'.

Unless somebody comes with hard proof (not just heresay) i'm giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt. He was strange but that aint no crime.

I don't get why people so seemingly WANT him to have been like Savile. That bothers me.

[chavet]

Originally Posted by whatever54

yes getting back to original point IMO Saville and Jackson are very different.
Saville was apparently a national treasure, no one could accuse him, he had power and links and all the rest but when he died eventually all these people came forward and exposed him.

Jackson was always suspected and even went to court about it and won/found not guilty. He dies and not one person has come forward to accuse him of anything what does that tell people. Jimmy has been dead nearly a year and all these accusations, Michael over 3 years and none. Maybe it's the CIA, conspiracy thing but you would think one of his victims would flee to the UK sell there story to The Sun or Guardian even (keep it Murdoch balanced) & then seek diplomatic immunity here or whatever legal jargon it is

People used that exact same argument to point out why Jimmy couldn't possibly have done anything that was suggested. Did anyone learn anything from the fact that hundreds/thousands of people were aware of Savile's predilection and nothing ever came out? Why would they flee to the UK, a place in which a story has been suppressed for, say, fifty years? Or have I forgotten all the many Murdoch stories printed about Savile before now?

[verlboy90]

Originally Posted by Delboy219

Kids are annoying for the most part, and all he was interested in was hanging about with them. It's very weird behaviour, and that's why most people (including myself, a hardcore Jacko fan as a kid) lean towards the fact that the reports were plausible.

Outstanding logic: enjoys the company of kids = paedophile...

Do you have any idea how thick that makes you sound? You've got internet access but bugger me if you aren't stuck in the dark ages...

[whatever54]

Originally Posted by chavet;61942242[B

]People used that exact same argument to point out why Jimmy couldn't possibly have done anything that was suggested[/b]. Did anyone learn anything from the fact that hundreds/thousands of people were aware of Savile's predilection and nothing ever came out? Why would they flee to the UK, a place in which a story has been suppressed for, say, fifty years? Or have I forgotten all the many Murdoch stories printed about Savile before now?

yes when he was alive, there's not so many saying it now. Sorry it was late and I didn't make my point that well. Judging by the recent media frenzy over Jim I would have thought they would have loved to print some dirt and allegations on Jackson. In my opinion MJ would be an even bigger story than JIm, in the U.S too. MJ is far more high profile than JS (although JS would no doubt contest that)
I said about coming to the UK as an example as there was talk further up the thread that if any one dared to accuse MJ they would be shot by a crazed fan or something like that. I don't know but seemed slightly extreme to me Why do you think no one has come forward with allegations about MJ in the 3 years since his death?
The JS story seems to demonstrate you can say what the heck you like about some one when they've died. The US has the National Enquirer and they'll print almost anything.

[katmobile]

Originally Posted by Delboy219

Kids are annoying for the most part, and all he was interested in was hanging about with them. It's very weird behaviour, and that's why most people (including myself, a hardcore Jacko fan as a kid) lean towards the fact that the reports were plausible.

Eh no! MJ I think was always trying to re-create his own childhood - it neither proves or disproves he was a molester. He may have been deeply naive and just retained the mentality of someone much younger or he may have contadictory impulses that led he to molest and remain deluded about it - as said before that makes him different than JS he may not have seen the harm he was causing whereas I don't think JS came a damn. MJ was a very strange and damaged individual who behaved in ways that were not normal making it hard to judge plus the money that attracted both people looking to exploit him gain it and having the resources to afford the best people to prove them wrong further muddies the waters.

For the record - some people love children quite innocently and happily spawn entire tribes of them and yes they are annoying on occasion but they are also delightful on occasion - there are times when they make you feel like tearing your hair out and times when they make happier than anything in the world.

[chavet]

Originally Posted by whatever54

yes when he was alive, there's not so many saying it now. Sorry it was late and I didn't make my point that well. Judging by the recent media frenzy over Jim I would have thought they would have loved to print some dirt and allegations on Jackson. In my opinion MJ would be an even bigger story than JIm, in the U.S too. MJ is far more high profile than JS (although JS would no doubt contest that)
I said about coming to the UK as an example as there was talk further up the thread that if any one dared to accuse MJ they would be shot by a crazed fan or something like that. I don't know but seemed slightly extreme to me Why do you think no one has come forward with allegations about MJ in the 3 years since his death?
The JS story seems to demonstrate you can say what the heck you like about some one when they've died. The US has the National Enquirer and they'll print almost anything.

I think one of the possible reasons can be seen in what's happening now - people don't want to be the one to raise their head above the parapet, but seem to be more willing to do so if others have done it first, and have been believed by people that can do something about it, and that's never happened with Michael Jackson. Terry George's reaction to MJ masturbating while on the phone to him, when Terry was a young boy, gives some insight into how people really react, rather than how we might expect them to. Meanwhile, there are still stories that newspapers and broadcasters continue to suppress, which does raise questions about why Savile's been chosen, and if it is just because he is dead.

I'd disagree about the Enquirer, though - I think they are very careful about what they print, and very aware of any action that could be taken against them when considering verification (i.e. would they be blamed?).

[zx50]

Originally Posted by chavet

I think one of the possible reasons can be seen in what's happening now - people don't want to be the one to raise their head above the parapet, but seem to be more willing to do so if others have done it first, and have been believed by people that can do something about it, and that's never happened with Michael Jackson. Terry George's reaction to MJ masturbating while on the phone to him, when Terry was a young boy, gives some insight into how people really react, rather than how we might expect them to. Meanwhile, there are still stories that newspapers and broadcasters continue to suppress, which does raise questions about why Savile's been chosen, and if it is just because he is dead.

I'd disagree about the Enquirer, though - I think they are very careful about what they print, and very aware of any action that could be taken against them when considering verification (i.e. would they be blamed?).

Yeah, you could very well be right. They might not want to risk being labelled a liar. If one victim comes forward, this will open the gates for the other victims.

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by MandyXZ

Same applies to others, including your posts.....all opinion based.

No evidence was found to prove Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Not one single person was able to prove that he molested children, That is FACT.

If you can find proof, (what everyone else failed to do) I will be very impressed.

http://www.mjfacts.info/

Here you gos. These aren't opinions ~they're carefully researched facts. Michael Jackson fans are too emotionally invested and can't see things clearly, but outsiders can and that's why Michael Jackson was known as the world's most famous paedophile. I think Jimmy Savile may have just overtaken him but it depends how far his fame extended.

[MandyXZ]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

http://www.mjfacts.info/

Here you gos. These aren't opinions ~they're carefully researched facts. Michael Jackson fans are too emotionally invested and can't see things clearly, but outsiders can and that's why Michael Jackson was known as the world's most famous paedophile. I think Jimmy Savile may have just overtaken him but it depends how far his fame extended.

Interesting reading but still no proof that he was a paedophile.

Sure, it gives clues... but I don't want clues, I want 100% fact. I'm never going to get it though, and nobody will.
It even said on that site.....

yet nobody, and I mean nobody, will ever know 100% if Jackson is innocent of child molestation unless they were there in the room with him and his boys.

We can go round in circles on this but at the end of the day, no one will ever know the real truth.

[Mike2011]

Originally Posted by KatManDooo

http://www.mjfacts.info/

Here you gos. These aren't opinions ~they're carefully researched facts. Michael Jackson fans are too emotionally invested and can't see things clearly, but outsiders can and that's why Michael Jackson was known as the world's most famous paedophile. I think Jimmy Savile may have just overtaken him but it depends how far his fame extended.

Strange how you joined only to post in this thread

Maybe you should go back to your *Topix*

[stairway]

Originally Posted by Aidan11

How many people have come out and said they or their children were abused by MJ after he died though?

None AFAIK. Which suggests Jacko was just having friends over for a sleepover (very weird but not illegal) whereas JS was into something more sinister.

Or were paid off by the family

[KatManDooo]

Originally Posted by Mike2011

Strange how you joined only to post in this thread

Maybe you should go back to your *Topix*

I've posted on lots of other sites too, mainly in response to newspaper articles. I haven't posted anywhere else on Digital Spy because I'm more interested in this subject than in who's banging who and who looks most lush on the red carpet.

It's a terrible thing that's happened and I want to know how a man can have got away with it for so long, especially as more and more people come forward to say that they always knew. This is institutionalised pedophilia and it's scary. This is what I think happened with Michael Jackson. A Google search of both names led me here where I thought it might be a way of digging into what makes people deny what they know.

I don't know why you're more interested in where I post than in the subject itself unless you're a Michael Jackson fan and you're trying to stop people discussing his pedophilia.

[rumandlime]

PROOF ...you want proof before you stop giving mr jackson the 'benefit of doubt'..
well sorry but if you knew anything about child molestation cases you would know that 'proof' is almost impossible to conjure.
look at the facts,look at the background and look at everything objectively as possible...THEN the best you will do is form an opinion one way or the other.
for my money both 'savile' and 'jackson' are disgusting pedo's of the highest order..i certainly need no PROOF or convicted trial form that opinion.

[rumandlime]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/th...savile-1443465



interesting article on the very subject of these two vile men

[revolver44]

It's the old double standards of fame & wealth that sicken me. I'm not saying Wacko was a paedo, it's never been proven so I have no right to call him one. But if another man of his age who let's say worked in a supermarket or as a binman was having 7 year old kids in the neighbourhood to sleep over his house in his bed with him, would the locals be ok with it, just calling him "a silly manchild who never grew up"?? Would they balls!