In hindsight it would be very suspicious but children stay with relatives or their friends all the time and It is usually just a normal part of family life.
Relatives. Or their friends.
Michael wasn't an uncle to these kids, and the friendship had a hidden meaning.
In hindsight it would be very suspicious but children stay with relatives or their friends all the time and It is usually just a normal part of family life.
When children stay over with friends, it's usually their friends who invite them to stay and their friends are other children, not 45 year old men.
In hindsight it would be very suspicious but children stay with relatives or their friends all the time and It is usually just a normal part of family life.
A child may stay, but sleep in the same bed as an adult 'friend' ?
A child may stay, but sleep in the same bed as an adult 'friend' ?
Even if intentions were good I cant think of any reason to have a non related adult and child in the same bed routinely.
It doesn't necessarily mean something bad happened but it is peculiar to put yourself under suspicion that way.
i cant fathom why fans somehow can justify a middle aged man having sleepovers with unrelated kids... its not acceptable behaviour, even IF there was no sexual motivation.
i cant fathom why fans somehow can justify a middle aged man having sleepovers with unrelated kids... its not acceptable behaviour, even IF there was no sexual motivation.
Because the sleeping arrangements are nothing to do with abuse. It can and does happen anywhere. IF he was safe around children it wouldn't matter where he slept.
It is also unclear which child he slept in the bed with, which child was in the bed while he was on the floor. (floor? a whole fairground yet no camp bed? Are we sure he said floor? ) and what the circumstances were.
I can think of reasons that it might be safer to be in the same ROOM as several together, or if (assuming innocence) he had taken over the role of parent and co-sleeping was normal in his and the child's culture.
However, it seems that there is evidence that he barely knew at least one of them? which would be beyond odd. (but not necessarily incriminating)
Only Michael Jackson knew if he was safe around children or not. The mothers of the children could not possibly know, so I find it bizarre and possibly sinister that they would allow this.
Even if intentions were good I cant think of any reason to have a non related adult and child in the same bed routinely.
It doesn't necessarily mean something bad happened but it is peculiar to put yourself under suspicion that way.
I'd say Michael Jackson had a pattern of behaviour, of whisking off the child for 2-3 hours away from the parents to plant seeds in the child's mind about sleeping over for the night, possibly creating images of the fun things they'd do overnight.
I can't see a 7 year old coming up with the idea of a sleepover out of the blue.
To me Michael Jackson was very manipulative, in the 2003/4 documentary when defending his sleeping with Gavin he mentions Paris & Prince can stay with Barrie Gibb anytime, he doesn't say if they have or if they've shared his bed. Michael then goes on to say his children sleep with other people all the time, he doesn't say indicate the age of those other people.
Why haven't Barrie Gibb and all those other people come forward to show it's perfectly normal and not a problem?
I'd say Michael Jackson had a pattern of behaviour, of whisking off the child for 2-3 hours away from the parents to plant seeds in the child's mind about sleeping over for the night, possibly creating images of the fun things they'd do overnight.
I can't see a 7 year old coming up with the idea of a sleepover out of the blue.
To me Michael Jackson was very manipulative, in the 2003/4 documentary when defending his sleeping with Gavin he mentions Paris & Prince can stay with Barrie Gibb anytime, he doesn't say if they have or if they've shared his bed. Michael then goes on to say his children sleep with other people all the time, he doesn't say indicate the age of those other people.
Why haven't Barrie Gibb and all those other people come forward to show it's perfectly normal and not a problem?
I dont suppose it would be a problem if he was as close to the Gibbs as he said, and he was certain they would be safe, but I am pretty sure nothing like that ever happened.
There is no indication as far as I can see that he was close to the families of some of the children, is there? So his example of the Gibbs family is irrelevant.
Even if it was completely innocent and done with the best intentions I would have thought that after the Jordy Chandler scandal he would want to shield the children from any innuendo and assumptions arising from the sleeping arrangements.
Putting them in this situation was very wrong, and not in the child's best interests.
Even so, I dont think sharing a bed.( no matter how stark raving bonkers it is) is evidence of abuse by itself.
Other factors make it suspicious, such as the mothers appearing to "loan out" their children to a stranger, and most of all his admission (I think, I cant remember the details) that children "accidentally" found his pornography?
In my experience, if an adult leaves pornography so children can find it it is usually deliberate.
I was under the impression that the 'Jesus Juice' thing had been proved?
I've just been googling it and apparently, MJ used to call white wine 'Jesus Juice' and red wine 'Jesus Blood'. I get the 'Jesus Blood' thing, since red wine is...well...red. But 'Jesus Juice'?:eek:
I was under the impression that the 'Jesus Juice' thing had been proved?
I've just been googling it and apparently, MJ used to call white wine 'Jesus Juice' and red wine 'Jesus Blood'. I get the 'Jesus Blood' thing, since red wine is...well...red. But 'Jesus Juice'?:eek:
I was under the impression that the 'Jesus Juice' thing had been proved?
I've just been googling it and apparently, MJ used to call white wine 'Jesus Juice' and red wine 'Jesus Blood'. I get the 'Jesus Blood' thing, since red wine is...well...red. But 'Jesus Juice'?:eek:
It was given as evidence in court by the prosecution but was not proven.
There has been a separate claim since that Michael Jackson gave a child alcohol (and even cocaine)
I dont suppose it would be a problem if he was as close to the Gibbs as he said, and he was certain they would be safe, but I am pretty sure nothing like that ever happened.
There is no indication as far as I can see that he was close to the families of some of the children, is there? So his example of the Gibbs family is irrelevant.
Even if it was completely innocent and done with the best intentions I would have thought that after the Jordy Chandler scandal he would want to shield the children from any innuendo and assumptions arising from the sleeping arrangements.
Putting them in this situation was very wrong, and not in the child's best interests.
Even so, I dont think sharing a bed.( no matter how stark raving bonkers it is) is evidence of abuse by itself.
Other factors make it suspicious, such as the mothers appearing to "loan out" their children to a stranger, and most of all his admission (I think, I cant remember the details) that children "accidentally" found his pornography?
In my experience, if an adult leaves pornography so children can find it it is usually deliberate.
I have also read somewhere that pornography is used as part of the grooming process for paedophiles.
Because the sleeping arrangements are nothing to do with abuse. It can and does happen anywhere. IF he was safe around children it wouldn't matter where he slept.
.
as my initial post appears to have been removed, ill try again to address this point...
let me get this straight, you are suggesting here that 'it' (middle ages men having sleepovers with unrelated kids) "can and does happen everywhere" ?... because thats bonkers! never ever in my 56 years have i heard of that happening.
regardless of whether it was a sexualy motivated act, or the act of a pathetic damaged individual 'trying to recapture his lost childhood', its not acceptable behaviour, either way! hes either a paedo or a loony (and it matters not why hes a loony, a loony is a loony), not the sort of person youd want your kids to be around.
then chuck into the mix the alcohol, the pornography, previous accusations of abuse, its just not acceptable.
as my initial post appears to have been removed, ill try again to address this point...
let me get this straight, you are suggesting here that 'it' (middle ages men having sleepovers with unrelated kids) "can and does happen everywhere" ?... because thats bonkers! never ever in my 56 years have i heard of that happening.
regardless of whether it was a sexualy motivated act, or the act of a pathetic damaged individual 'trying to recapture his lost childhood', its not acceptable behaviour, either way! hes either a paedo or a loony (and it matters not why hes a loony, a loony is a loony), not the sort of person youd want your kids to be around.
then chuck into the mix the alcohol, the pornography, previous accusations of abuse, its just not acceptable.
I have never said that it is acceptable with strange children. . (other than things like camping trips etc where you would expect everyone in a teepee with scout leaders perhaps? ) I have said on many occasions that I cant think why anybody, and particularly someone in his situation would do this.
I said "it" can happen anywhere.
"It" being child abuse. Even in what appears to be the safest situations.
My point is that the children were in danger regardless of the sleeping arrangements, because they were not with a well known and trusted friend and family member.
sharing a child's bed doesn't by itself indicate abuse, but I think Michael Jackson allowing the children to be subjected to speculation and tittle tattle by sharing a room with them after the Chandler incident was (at best) extremely selfish and uncaring.
You might expect La Toya to say Wade's a liar, but on 'The Talk' show the closest she gets is ....'it's just sad' and she's 'very surprised'.
She looked furious.
If we assume for a moment that Wade Robson is telling the truth, It is a horrific thing for the family to find out after his death, and devastating for his children.
Victims have the right to tell or not, and should not be made to feel responsible for others but it is such a shame when one victim speaks up and more lives are ruined.
I suppose all we can do is keep encouraging victims to seek help quickly and make the process as smooth as possible?
I have never said that it is acceptable with strange children. . (other than things like camping trips etc where you would expect everyone in a teepee with scout leaders perhaps? ) I have said on many occasions that I cant think why anybody, and particularly someone in his situation would do this.
I said "it" can happen anywhere.
"It" being child abuse. Even in what appears to be the safest situations.
My point is that the children were in danger regardless of the sleeping arrangements, because they were not with a well known and trusted friend and family member.
sharing a child's bed doesn't by itself indicate abuse, but I think Michael Jackson allowing the children to be subjected to speculation and tittle tattle by sharing a room with them after the Chandler incident was (at best) extremely selfish and uncaring.
oh ok, sorry then, i misinterpreted what you were saying.
She looked furious.
If we assume for a moment that Wade Robson is telling the truth, It is a horrific thing for the family to find out after his death, and devastating for his children.
Victims have the right to tell or not, and should not be made to feel responsible for others but it is such a shame when one victim speaks up and more lives are ruined.
I suppose all we can do is keep encouraging victims to seek help quickly and make the process as smooth as possible?
There were certain people that work at that company (AEG) that knew that Michael Jackson was not well and they didn’t care because it’s business, and at the end of the day whether he performed ,or he didn’t, they would still make money. I’ve had conversation’s with certain people at that company, who have said exactly that to me.
And reportedly said she'd be willing to testify on behalf of the Jacksons...
la toya was abused very badly by her husband which is partly why she had so much plastic surgery.
she never wanted to marry him I don't know the details but it wouldn't surprise me if joe had forced her into it.
she did a good interview a few years back on frank skinner where she said she never meant what she said about Michael and that husband threatened to kill her if she didn't say anything.
la toya was abused very badly by her husband which is partly why she had so much plastic surgery.
she never wanted to marry him I don't know the details but it wouldn't surprise me if joe had forced her into it.
she did a good interview a few years back on frank skinner where she said she never meant what she said about Michael and that husband threatened to kill her if she didn't say anything.
Why did her husband want her to claim that her brother was a child abuser? What was in it for him?
wow, i didnt know jacko refused to take a polygraph, that only deepens suspicions.
This is a good example of how something with zero credibility such as a tabloid article is used as a convenient tool to cast doubt upon Michael Jackson and his character. It's pretty desperate stuff i4u.
Where did MJ ever 'reject the idea' of a lie detector test? Feel free to quote where that happened.
Is there any indication MJ even knew about the article? No. Is there any suggestion the tabloid contacted him to put said offer of a test to him? No. Is there any proof the test or $1m ever existed? No. It's total garbage.
But then it's a US tabloid article. They're often garbage. It's the same tabloid magazine that recently photoshopped a picture of Kate Middleton and claimed she's expecting twins. But sadly people seem to dig these things up and post them in 2013 as a slur to suggest MJ was running from the truth and refusing to prove his innocence and folk appear to think it's enough reason to deepen their suspicions. Surely you have higher standards of evidence than that?
Oh and as a side note, the same tabloid ran a MJ tribute article after his death.
This is a good example of how something with zero credibility such as a tabloid article is used as a convenient tool to cast doubt upon Michael Jackson and his character. It's pretty desperate stuff i4u.
Where did MJ ever 'reject the idea' of a lie detector test? Feel free to quote where that happened.
Is there any indication MJ even knew about the article? No. Is there any suggestion the tabloid contacted him to put said offer of a test to him? No. Is there any proof the test or $1m ever existed? No. It's total garbage.
But then it's a US tabloid article. They're often garbage. It's the same tabloid magazine that recently photoshopped a picture of Kate Middleton and claimed she's expecting twins. But sadly people seem to dig these things up and post them in 2013 as a slur to suggest MJ was running from the truth and refusing to prove his innocence and folk appear to think it's enough reason to deepen their suspicions. Surely you have higher standards of evidence than that?
Oh and as a side note, the same tabloid ran a MJ tribute article after his death.
but if it is untrue, fabrication, would jackos lawyers sue?...
or is there another conveiniant excuse made by jacko fans to justify his dodgy behaviour?
Comments
Relatives. Or their friends.
Michael wasn't an uncle to these kids, and the friendship had a hidden meaning.
When children stay over with friends, it's usually their friends who invite them to stay and their friends are other children, not 45 year old men.
A child may stay, but sleep in the same bed as an adult 'friend' ?
Even if intentions were good I cant think of any reason to have a non related adult and child in the same bed routinely.
It doesn't necessarily mean something bad happened but it is peculiar to put yourself under suspicion that way.
Because the sleeping arrangements are nothing to do with abuse. It can and does happen anywhere. IF he was safe around children it wouldn't matter where he slept.
It is also unclear which child he slept in the bed with, which child was in the bed while he was on the floor. (floor? a whole fairground yet no camp bed?
I can think of reasons that it might be safer to be in the same ROOM as several together, or if (assuming innocence) he had taken over the role of parent and co-sleeping was normal in his and the child's culture.
However, it seems that there is evidence that he barely knew at least one of them? which would be beyond odd. (but not necessarily incriminating)
Only Michael Jackson knew if he was safe around children or not. The mothers of the children could not possibly know, so I find it bizarre and possibly sinister that they would allow this.
I'd say Michael Jackson had a pattern of behaviour, of whisking off the child for 2-3 hours away from the parents to plant seeds in the child's mind about sleeping over for the night, possibly creating images of the fun things they'd do overnight.
I can't see a 7 year old coming up with the idea of a sleepover out of the blue.
To me Michael Jackson was very manipulative, in the 2003/4 documentary when defending his sleeping with Gavin he mentions Paris & Prince can stay with Barrie Gibb anytime, he doesn't say if they have or if they've shared his bed. Michael then goes on to say his children sleep with other people all the time, he doesn't say indicate the age of those other people.
Why haven't Barrie Gibb and all those other people come forward to show it's perfectly normal and not a problem?
There is no indication as far as I can see that he was close to the families of some of the children, is there? So his example of the Gibbs family is irrelevant.
Even if it was completely innocent and done with the best intentions I would have thought that after the Jordy Chandler scandal he would want to shield the children from any innuendo and assumptions arising from the sleeping arrangements.
Putting them in this situation was very wrong, and not in the child's best interests.
Even so, I dont think sharing a bed.( no matter how stark raving bonkers it is) is evidence of abuse by itself.
Other factors make it suspicious, such as the mothers appearing to "loan out" their children to a stranger, and most of all his admission (I think, I cant remember the details) that children "accidentally" found his pornography?
In my experience, if an adult leaves pornography so children can find it it is usually deliberate.
I've just been googling it and apparently, MJ used to call white wine 'Jesus Juice' and red wine 'Jesus Blood'. I get the 'Jesus Blood' thing, since red wine is...well...red. But 'Jesus Juice'?:eek:
Well, cum, right?
It was given as evidence in court by the prosecution but was not proven.
There has been a separate claim since that Michael Jackson gave a child alcohol (and even cocaine)
I have also read somewhere that pornography is used as part of the grooming process for paedophiles.
MJ referred to cum as "duck butter".
as my initial post appears to have been removed, ill try again to address this point...
let me get this straight, you are suggesting here that 'it' (middle ages men having sleepovers with unrelated kids) "can and does happen everywhere" ?... because thats bonkers! never ever in my 56 years have i heard of that happening.
regardless of whether it was a sexualy motivated act, or the act of a pathetic damaged individual 'trying to recapture his lost childhood', its not acceptable behaviour, either way! hes either a paedo or a loony (and it matters not why hes a loony, a loony is a loony), not the sort of person youd want your kids to be around.
then chuck into the mix the alcohol, the pornography, previous accusations of abuse, its just not acceptable.
I have never said that it is acceptable with strange children. . (other than things like camping trips etc where you would expect everyone in a teepee with scout leaders perhaps? ) I have said on many occasions that I cant think why anybody, and particularly someone in his situation would do this.
I said "it" can happen anywhere.
"It" being child abuse. Even in what appears to be the safest situations.
My point is that the children were in danger regardless of the sleeping arrangements, because they were not with a well known and trusted friend and family member.
sharing a child's bed doesn't by itself indicate abuse, but I think Michael Jackson allowing the children to be subjected to speculation and tittle tattle by sharing a room with them after the Chandler incident was (at best) extremely selfish and uncaring.
Well she accused Michael of being a child abuser back in the nineties, didn't she?
She looked furious.
If we assume for a moment that Wade Robson is telling the truth, It is a horrific thing for the family to find out after his death, and devastating for his children.
Victims have the right to tell or not, and should not be made to feel responsible for others but it is such a shame when one victim speaks up and more lives are ruined.
I suppose all we can do is keep encouraging victims to seek help quickly and make the process as smooth as possible?
And then claimed it was because her husband forced her to say it.
oh ok, sorry then, i misinterpreted what you were saying.
Coincidence, La Toya was sitting next to Sharon Osborne who has said...
And reportedly said she'd be willing to testify on behalf of the Jacksons...
she never wanted to marry him I don't know the details but it wouldn't surprise me if joe had forced her into it.
she did a good interview a few years back on frank skinner where she said she never meant what she said about Michael and that husband threatened to kill her if she didn't say anything.
Why did her husband want her to claim that her brother was a child abuser? What was in it for him?
This is a good example of how something with zero credibility such as a tabloid article is used as a convenient tool to cast doubt upon Michael Jackson and his character. It's pretty desperate stuff i4u.
Where did MJ ever 'reject the idea' of a lie detector test? Feel free to quote where that happened.
Is there any indication MJ even knew about the article? No. Is there any suggestion the tabloid contacted him to put said offer of a test to him? No. Is there any proof the test or $1m ever existed? No. It's total garbage.
But then it's a US tabloid article. They're often garbage. It's the same tabloid magazine that recently photoshopped a picture of Kate Middleton and claimed she's expecting twins. But sadly people seem to dig these things up and post them in 2013 as a slur to suggest MJ was running from the truth and refusing to prove his innocence and folk appear to think it's enough reason to deepen their suspicions. Surely you have higher standards of evidence than that?
Oh and as a side note, the same tabloid ran a MJ tribute article after his death.
but if it is untrue, fabrication, would jackos lawyers sue?...
or is there another conveiniant excuse made by jacko fans to justify his dodgy behaviour?