The report, 'Giving Victims a Voice', details the work of Operation Yewtree based on the accounts of the hundreds of victims who have come forward since Jimmy Savile was exposed as a sex offender in October 2012.
Okay we all know how you feel about MJ but what about his "phantom victims" how do you feel about them?
On the subject of "phantom victims" are you trying to argue that if one claim is proved false then it follows that every claim is false?
If we look at Bill Clinton; he was alleged to have had sex with several women. A prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams claimed that he was her son's father. This was proved false by DNA testing. However it doesn't follow that because her claim was false he therefore never had sex with Gennifer Flowers either.
There may have been false claims about Jackson but it doesn't prove that George, Safechuck, Robson, Chandler or Francia were/are lying.
Or do you not think the children would have been emotionally affected? even if you don't regard the fact he slept with children having an emotional affect on them, what about the media attention & court which most certainly would have.
All of the above shouldn't have happened in the first place, if he cared about these kids as he so claimed, then he should have thought about the consequences and not let that happen, but he was a manipulative egotistical male who only thought about himself.
But you keep sticking up for this vile individual who loved to sleep with kids.
If an accuser is making up false claims and telling a bunch of lies in court then that wouldn't be the fault of the accused.
On the subject of "phantom victims" are you trying to argue that if one claim is proved false then it follows that every claim is false?
If we look at Bill Clinton; he was alleged to have had sex with several women. A prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams claimed that he was her son's father. This was proved false by DNA testing. However it doesn't follow that because her claim was false he therefore never had sex with Gennifer Flowers either.
There may have been false claims about Jackson but it doesn't prove that George, Safechuck, Robson, Chandler or Francia were/are lying.
Both Robson and Safechuck have lied. Read up about them.
Personally I think "accusers" is more appropriate.
Both Robson and Safechuck have lied. Read up about them.[/QUOTE]
If that is what you believe that the children made false claims and lied in court and that is not the fault of the accused, then please answer this very simple question.
How would these children be in that position in the first place if the accused had not done what he had done, by allowing these children into his bed for sleepovers?
You see it all stems back to the accused, so yes it is his fault.
But on the plus side, at least now children are little safer without him around...may not be very nice thing to say, but he was obviously not a very nice person to begin with, so perhaps justice was served after all.
ahahaha that is the stupidest thing and down right disturbing thing i think i have ever seen written in defence of Mj .
Really!? You do know that quite a lot of abusers are that way because they themselves were abused don't you? It doesn't make their behaviour one iota 'better' because it doesn't make it any easier for their victims to bear but it does mean that they are different to the likes of Jimmy Saville who appears to have been a particularly cold hearted and unpleasant individual. It also means that such people do deserve a bit of sympathy as well and perhaps some help in dealing with their illness. Whatever he did or didn't do MJ was clearly a very messed up individual and he alleges his own father abused him which is something we have no reason not to believe - it seems to make sense of his surgical addictions motivated for his desire not resemble his father as he grew older.
I am not defending MJ - I simply do not know if he was an abuser or not - it has never been proved but then the onus with an criminal activity is to prove it beyond reasonable doubt so it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong simply that that certainity was lacking. I simply wish to point out that there is a lot of muddied water here (probably on both sides) and that whatever did or didn't happen to the children MJ was not probably not 'evil' and certainly not as despicable a character as Saville was.
Really!? You do know that quite a lot of abusers are that way because they themselves were abused don't you? It doesn't make their behaviour one iota 'better' because it doesn't make it any easier for their victims to bear but it does mean that they are different to the likes of Jimmy Saville who appears to have been a particularly cold hearted and unpleasant individual. It also means that such people do deserve a bit of sympathy as well and perhaps some help in dealing with their illness. Whatever he did or didn't do MJ was clearly a very messed up individual and he alleges his own father abused him which is something we have no reason not to believe - it seems to make sense of his surgical addictions motivated for his desire not resemble his father as he grew older.
I am not defending MJ - I simply do not know if he was an abuser or not - it has never been proved but then the onus with an criminal activity is to prove it beyond reasonable doubt so it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong simply that that certainity was lacking. I simply wish to point out that there is a lot of muddied water here (probably on both sides) and that whatever did or didn't happen to the children MJ was not probably not 'evil' and certainly not as despicable a character as Saville was.
Aww boo hoo hoo , you want me to feel sorry for him now ?
you think that because he was apparently a "nice" paedophile as opposed to a "cold hearted one" i somehow owe him my pity ?
you have got to be kidding me .
there are hundreds of thousands of people who "didn't have a childhood" and they don't prefer to share their beds with young BOYS .
your argument is delusional and that is me putting it politely .
If that is what you believe that the children made false claims and lied in court and that is not the fault of the accused, then please answer this very simple question.
How would these children be in that position in the first place if the accused had not done what he had done, by allowing these children into his bed for sleepovers?
You see it all stems back to the accused, so yes it is his fault.
But on the plus side, at least now children are little safer without him around...may not be very nice thing to say, but he was obviously not a very nice person to begin with, so perhaps justice was served after all.
I disagree, if accusers are lying in court, they have only put themselves in that position.
[QUOTE=MandyXZ;73581113]I disagree, if accusers are lying in court, they have only put themselves in that position.
Indeed they did lie. The big question is were they lying then or are they lying now about lying then?
We'll never know.[/QUOTE]
Well if they are lying, then they learned that from the accused, who let's face it also lied. But so what if they did, a pervert like this man needed to be exposed, so good on them, because MJ deserved exactly what he got.
So again I will ask you the question, why where these kids able to be in this position?
It couldn't be because...hmmm lets think, MJ slept with children could it?, you know if MJ had not done that, these accusations etc would not have happened.
You can make excuses, blame the kids etc...but at the end of the day there is only one person to blame in all of this...MJ himself, and you know it.
Well if they are lying, then they learned that from the accused, who let's face it also lied. But so what if they did, a pervert like this man needed to be exposed, so good on them, because MJ deserved exactly what he got.
So again I will ask you the question, why where these kids able to be in this position?
It couldn't be because...hmmm lets think, MJ slept with children could it?, you know if MJ had not done that, these accusations etc would not have happened.
You can make excuses, blame the kids etc...but at the end of the day there is only one person to blame in all of this...MJ himself, and you know it.
spot on .
but you are debating with Mj fans , and you know you can never win , these are the people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a grown unrelated man sleeping with young boys . that in itself should tell you all you need to know about them .
spot on . but you are debating with Mj fans , and you know you can never win , these are the people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a grown unrelated man sleeping with young boys . that in itself should tell you all you need to know about them .
Well I suppose fan is short for fanatic, which is quite appropriate in the case of some MJ fans, though I haven't heard any MJ fan not defend him, so it might be all.
Well I suppose fan is short for fanatic, which is quite appropriate in the case of some MJ fans, though I haven't heard any MJ fan not defend him, so it might be all.
I was an MJ fan. The first CD I bought was Bad. However after the Jordie Chandler allegations/pay-off happened I felt that I couldn't in good conscience buy his music anymore. I'm sad that so many people happily enabled a probable child molester.
...of course now he's dead I've caught up on the albums I missed.
spot on .
but you are debating with Mj fans , and you know you can never win , these are the people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a grown unrelated man sleeping with young boys . that in itself should tell you all you need to know about them .
What about a grown related man? The majority of cases of child sex abuse are within the family.
Btw, I'm not a MJ fan.
@ dearmrman, we are going round in circles, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I have always believed that Michael was innocent. It's just my opinion though on the matter and I don't think there is anything clear that shows he was guilty or anything clear to say he was innocent either way. I've been obsessed with this whole case for years and have read every book, article, interview etc on the matter. I still find it hard to come to a definitve conclusion as to whether he was guilty or innocent, but like I said, I would lean towards him being innocent.
The book that his two bodyguards have written is the only decent book in my opinion. I struggled to read the one by Jermaine Jackson as it just stank of him trying to cash in and make money. The bodyguards state at the beginning of their book that they do not make any money from the book and never have, and that they have been offered the chance to tell their story countless times by tv companies, media etc and been offered huge cash sums but have always declined. Apart from two tv interviews years ago, they have never told theit story or been paid any money for anything. I suspect people will reply to this post and say "How do you know they're telling the truth and haven't been paid for the book?". Well, how do we know they have been paid?! From everything I've ever read and looked into, I think this sounds quite truthful and genuine. They come from the angle of getting to know him very well over the years...starting off as just workers being left out in the cold, but eventually they gained his trust and got to know the children very well. They became his friends. They acknowledge his faults though and state that he was very disturbed due to the fact that he had become a target for people trying to extort money from him and that he lost trust in pretty much his entire family. In my opinion it comes across as an honest account by two people who spent a lot of time with him over years (especially towards the end). They acknowledge that he became disturbed, but that in their opinion he was not a child abuser.
I have always believed that Michael was innocent. It's just my opinion though on the matter and I don't think there is anything clear that shows he was guilty or anything clear to say he was innocent either way. I've been obsessed with this whole case for years and have read every book, article, interview etc on the matter. I still find it hard to come to a definitve conclusion as to whether he was guilty or innocent, but like I said, I would lean towards him being innocent.
Both Wade Robson aged 7 and Jordie Chandler lied to their mothers about the sleeping arrangements with Michael Jackson, if it was so innocent why lie to their mothers?
Imagine if each individual in Jackson's entire entourage adopted his idea and were seen in the company of other peoples children taking them to hotel rooms without the parents being present sleeping with those children.
I'm sure there are many 12-13 year old girls who'd love to spend time with Harry of One Direction, he adopts Michael idea about 'sharing a bed'. Sets up his home to appeal to the 12-13 age group and when they visit they plead with their mums to spend the night with Harry in his bedroom. Of course they should it's perfectly innocent even if they end up in the same bed as Harry.
agreed . but this is about Mj and i am staying on topic . and it is crystal clear from your past posts that you are a Mj fan .
Must be good to have psychic powers, wish I had 'em.
I'm not a fan of William Roacher either but after reading the inconsistent testimonies the witnesses provided, I came to the same conclusion the jury did.
Both Wade Robson aged 7 and Jordie Chandler lied to their mothers about the sleeping arrangements with Michael Jackson, if it was so innocent why lie to their mothers?
Imagine if each individual in Jackson's entire entourage adopted his idea and were seen in the company of other peoples children taking them to hotel rooms without the parents being present sleeping with those children.
I'm sure there are many 12-13 year old girls who'd love to spend time with Harry of One Direction, he adopts Michael idea about 'sharing a bed'. Sets up his home to appeal to the 12-13 age group and when they visit they plead with their mums to spend the night with Harry in his bedroom. Of course they should it's perfectly innocent even if they end up in the same bed as Harry.
I understand what you're saying, but we dont' know the circumstances surrounding why they lied..they were young kids and they might have been frightened about the uproar that it would cause by them saying they slept in the same bed as MJ. Even though nothing sexual may have happened. As has already been said in this thread, if MJ slept in the same bed as children then obviously he was very stupid, but there's a huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as a child to sexually abusing them. Your argument for him being guilty holds just as much sted as someone who believes he's innocent saying "Well Jordy Chandler's father killed himself...what does that tell you?" There is as good an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent. It's a very complicated case. I don't understand how people can go on and on and act so shocked that someone might be of the opinion that Michael is innocent. There is just as much weight behind an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent, so really all it's coming down to is our opinion on the matter and what we are inclined to believe. I lean towards him being innocent, but it's not a clear cut matter and there's no obvious truth where any of us can say "Oh he was obviously guilty" or "Oh he was obviously innocent".
Must be good to have psychic powers, wish I had 'em.
I'm not a fan of William Roacher either but after reading the inconsistent testimonies the witnesses provided, I came to the same conclusion the jury did.
Same applies to the Michael Jackson case.
i don't need to be psychic to know you are , i only need to read your previous posts.
I understand what you're saying, but we dont' know the circumstances surrounding why they lied..they were young kids and they might have been frightened about the uproar that it would cause by them saying they slept in the same bed as MJ. Even though nothing sexual may have happened. As has already been said in this thread, if MJ slept in the same bed as children then obviously he was very stupid, but there's a huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as a child to sexually abusing them. Your argument for him being guilty holds just as much sted as someone who believes he's innocent saying "Well Jordy Chandler's father killed himself...what does that tell you?" There is as good an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent. It's a very complicated case. I don't understand how people can go on and on and act so shocked that someone might be of the opinion that Michael is innocent. There is just as much weight behind an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent, so really all it's coming down to is our opinion on the matter and what we are inclined to believe. I lean towards him being innocent, but it's not a clear cut matter and there's no obvious truth where any of us can say "Oh he was obviously guilty" or "Oh he was obviously innocent".
no stupid would be the last word i would use to describe it . more along the lines of - creepy,dirty,sickening,vile , you know those kind of words .
i cant even believe i am having a conversation about how it is not right to sleep with children even (if) and its a big if , nothing sexual happened .
i don't need to be psychic to know you are , i only need to read your previous posts.
no stupid would be the last word i would use to describe it . more along the lines of - creepy,dirty,sickening,vile , you know those kind of words .
i cant even believe i am having a conversation about how it is not right to sleep with children even (if) and its a big if , nothing sexual happened .
What are you even on about? Where in my post did I say that it wasn't wrong? There is an absolutely huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as someone to sexually abusing them though
I understand what you're saying, but we dont' know the circumstances surrounding why they lied..they were young kids and they might have been frightened about the uproar that it would cause by them saying they slept in the same bed as MJ. Even though nothing sexual may have happened. As has already been said in this thread, if MJ slept in the same bed as children then obviously he was very stupid, but there's a huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as a child to sexually abusing them. Your argument for him being guilty holds just as much sted as someone who believes he's innocent saying "Well Jordy Chandler's father killed himself...what does that tell you?" There is as good an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent. It's a very complicated case. I don't understand how people can go on and on and act so shocked that someone might be of the opinion that Michael is innocent. There is just as much weight behind an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent, so really all it's coming down to is our opinion on the matter and what we are inclined to believe. I lean towards him being innocent, but it's not a clear cut matter and there's no obvious truth where any of us can say "Oh he was obviously guilty" or "Oh he was obviously innocent".
If I remember correctly Michael Jackson was standing next to one of the children as they lied to their mother. In the Bashir documentary Jackson wanted to made it clear he slept on the floor, that he gave up his bed to his special friends they slept in his bedroom not his bed.
It was not till the 2005 trial that it was clear he had slept alone with children as young as 7. Jackson had publicly stated he liked children because their innocence and purity, he saw the face of God in the face of children. Yet he corrupted those children into lying to their mother's.
The bedroom at Neverland had two beds so why the need to give up his bed or sleep on the floor next to the bed?
Why should the children have felt frightened to tell their parents they slept in the same bed as Jackson, when it is claimed they asked to sleep with him? Let's accept your argument, what if in a loving way Jackson had sexually molested those children. On the one hand the children's icon would be saying it's normal and shows they love him while the children would know something is not quite right but as you say too frightened to tell their parents.
The Rolf Harris case has shown a child can unwittingly be exploited by an adult in becoming involved in a sexual relationship which that child at the time may not understand is abuse and keep it concealed from friends & family for 20-30 years.
Jackson said he would never do anything to damage a child, paedophile's don't regard having sex with children as young as 4 as damaging.
How many children does it take to say they were abused by Jackson before they are believed?
What are you even on about? Where in my post did I say that it wasn't wrong? There is an absolutely huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as someone to sexually abusing them though
your defending his behaviour so i naturally assume you think it is perfectly fine . and both are quite frankly revolting .
I find it incredible that 'a lost childhood' is given as an excuse for him wanting to sleep with children. Because children don't often share beds - even when they're quite young, they feel uncomfortable with it unless they are related to the other child. e.g they are sharing with a brother or cousin. But in the main, children simply don't do this. They like snuggling up to their mums when they're little, but that's it.
I know a lot of people who had 'lost childhoods' and none of them feel the need to do anything like that. People who feel they had unhappy childhoods usually simply want the opposite of what they had - e.g. if they lived in overcrowded houses, they want solitude. Most people who feel they lost out on the chance to be children find that it's a big family of their own that they want - not the children of others.
I really don't think behaviour like that can ever be defended. Sleeping with kids who aren't your own is deeply wrong. I'm not surprised, though, that their mothers were talked into it - Lewis Carroll talked the mothers of little girls into letting them pose naked for him, and many mothers have been talked into worse, having been blinded by money and celebrity.
Comments
No....
They are victims who have made allegations.
On the subject of "phantom victims" are you trying to argue that if one claim is proved false then it follows that every claim is false?
If we look at Bill Clinton; he was alleged to have had sex with several women. A prostitute Bobbie Ann Williams claimed that he was her son's father. This was proved false by DNA testing. However it doesn't follow that because her claim was false he therefore never had sex with Gennifer Flowers either.
There may have been false claims about Jackson but it doesn't prove that George, Safechuck, Robson, Chandler or Francia were/are lying.
If an accuser is making up false claims and telling a bunch of lies in court then that wouldn't be the fault of the accused.
http://www.theopinionsite.org/police-invitations-to-victims-encouraging-false-allegations/
Personally I think "accusers" is more appropriate.
Both Robson and Safechuck have lied. Read up about them.
They lied when they said they weren't abused by Jackson, so glad you agree.
http://www.theopinionsite.org/police-invitations-to-victims-encouraging-false-allegations/
Personally I think "accusers" is more appropriate.
Both Robson and Safechuck have lied. Read up about them.[/QUOTE]
If that is what you believe that the children made false claims and lied in court and that is not the fault of the accused, then please answer this very simple question.
How would these children be in that position in the first place if the accused had not done what he had done, by allowing these children into his bed for sleepovers?
You see it all stems back to the accused, so yes it is his fault.
But on the plus side, at least now children are little safer without him around...may not be very nice thing to say, but he was obviously not a very nice person to begin with, so perhaps justice was served after all.
Really!? You do know that quite a lot of abusers are that way because they themselves were abused don't you? It doesn't make their behaviour one iota 'better' because it doesn't make it any easier for their victims to bear but it does mean that they are different to the likes of Jimmy Saville who appears to have been a particularly cold hearted and unpleasant individual. It also means that such people do deserve a bit of sympathy as well and perhaps some help in dealing with their illness. Whatever he did or didn't do MJ was clearly a very messed up individual and he alleges his own father abused him which is something we have no reason not to believe - it seems to make sense of his surgical addictions motivated for his desire not resemble his father as he grew older.
I am not defending MJ - I simply do not know if he was an abuser or not - it has never been proved but then the onus with an criminal activity is to prove it beyond reasonable doubt so it doesn't mean he didn't do anything wrong simply that that certainity was lacking. I simply wish to point out that there is a lot of muddied water here (probably on both sides) and that whatever did or didn't happen to the children MJ was not probably not 'evil' and certainly not as despicable a character as Saville was.
Aww boo hoo hoo , you want me to feel sorry for him now ?
you think that because he was apparently a "nice" paedophile as opposed to a "cold hearted one" i somehow owe him my pity ?
you have got to be kidding me .
there are hundreds of thousands of people who "didn't have a childhood" and they don't prefer to share their beds with young BOYS .
your argument is delusional and that is me putting it politely .
Sorry, I take that back actually. Not sure where on earth I got that from, but after having a look around I must have imagined it.
I disagree, if accusers are lying in court, they have only put themselves in that position.
Indeed they did lie. The big question is were they lying then or are they lying now about lying then?
We'll never know.
Indeed they did lie. The big question is were they lying then or are they lying now about lying then?
We'll never know.[/QUOTE]
Well if they are lying, then they learned that from the accused, who let's face it also lied. But so what if they did, a pervert like this man needed to be exposed, so good on them, because MJ deserved exactly what he got.
So again I will ask you the question, why where these kids able to be in this position?
It couldn't be because...hmmm lets think, MJ slept with children could it?, you know if MJ had not done that, these accusations etc would not have happened.
You can make excuses, blame the kids etc...but at the end of the day there is only one person to blame in all of this...MJ himself, and you know it.
spot on .
but you are debating with Mj fans , and you know you can never win , these are the people who see absolutely nothing wrong with a grown unrelated man sleeping with young boys . that in itself should tell you all you need to know about them .
Well I suppose fan is short for fanatic, which is quite appropriate in the case of some MJ fans, though I haven't heard any MJ fan not defend him, so it might be all.
I was an MJ fan. The first CD I bought was Bad. However after the Jordie Chandler allegations/pay-off happened I felt that I couldn't in good conscience buy his music anymore. I'm sad that so many people happily enabled a probable child molester.
...of course now he's dead I've caught up on the albums I missed.
What about a grown related man? The majority of cases of child sex abuse are within the family.
Btw, I'm not a MJ fan.
@ dearmrman, we are going round in circles, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
agreed . but this is about Mj and i am staying on topic .
and it is crystal clear from your past posts that you are a Mj fan .
The book that his two bodyguards have written is the only decent book in my opinion. I struggled to read the one by Jermaine Jackson as it just stank of him trying to cash in and make money. The bodyguards state at the beginning of their book that they do not make any money from the book and never have, and that they have been offered the chance to tell their story countless times by tv companies, media etc and been offered huge cash sums but have always declined. Apart from two tv interviews years ago, they have never told theit story or been paid any money for anything. I suspect people will reply to this post and say "How do you know they're telling the truth and haven't been paid for the book?". Well, how do we know they have been paid?! From everything I've ever read and looked into, I think this sounds quite truthful and genuine. They come from the angle of getting to know him very well over the years...starting off as just workers being left out in the cold, but eventually they gained his trust and got to know the children very well. They became his friends. They acknowledge his faults though and state that he was very disturbed due to the fact that he had become a target for people trying to extort money from him and that he lost trust in pretty much his entire family. In my opinion it comes across as an honest account by two people who spent a lot of time with him over years (especially towards the end). They acknowledge that he became disturbed, but that in their opinion he was not a child abuser.
Both Wade Robson aged 7 and Jordie Chandler lied to their mothers about the sleeping arrangements with Michael Jackson, if it was so innocent why lie to their mothers?
Imagine if each individual in Jackson's entire entourage adopted his idea and were seen in the company of other peoples children taking them to hotel rooms without the parents being present sleeping with those children.
I'm sure there are many 12-13 year old girls who'd love to spend time with Harry of One Direction, he adopts Michael idea about 'sharing a bed'. Sets up his home to appeal to the 12-13 age group and when they visit they plead with their mums to spend the night with Harry in his bedroom. Of course they should it's perfectly innocent even if they end up in the same bed as Harry.
Must be good to have psychic powers, wish I had 'em.
I'm not a fan of William Roacher either but after reading the inconsistent testimonies the witnesses provided, I came to the same conclusion the jury did.
Same applies to the Michael Jackson case.
I understand what you're saying, but we dont' know the circumstances surrounding why they lied..they were young kids and they might have been frightened about the uproar that it would cause by them saying they slept in the same bed as MJ. Even though nothing sexual may have happened. As has already been said in this thread, if MJ slept in the same bed as children then obviously he was very stupid, but there's a huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as a child to sexually abusing them. Your argument for him being guilty holds just as much sted as someone who believes he's innocent saying "Well Jordy Chandler's father killed himself...what does that tell you?" There is as good an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent. It's a very complicated case. I don't understand how people can go on and on and act so shocked that someone might be of the opinion that Michael is innocent. There is just as much weight behind an argument for him being guilty as there is for him being innocent, so really all it's coming down to is our opinion on the matter and what we are inclined to believe. I lean towards him being innocent, but it's not a clear cut matter and there's no obvious truth where any of us can say "Oh he was obviously guilty" or "Oh he was obviously innocent".
i don't need to be psychic to know you are , i only need to read your previous posts.
no stupid would be the last word i would use to describe it . more along the lines of - creepy,dirty,sickening,vile , you know those kind of words .
i cant even believe i am having a conversation about how it is not right to sleep with children even (if) and its a big if , nothing sexual happened .
What are you even on about? Where in my post did I say that it wasn't wrong? There is an absolutely huge step up from sleeping in the same bed as someone to sexually abusing them though
Don't make assumptions about somebody you don't know and have never met.
You just make yourself look silly.
If I remember correctly Michael Jackson was standing next to one of the children as they lied to their mother. In the Bashir documentary Jackson wanted to made it clear he slept on the floor, that he gave up his bed to his special friends they slept in his bedroom not his bed.
It was not till the 2005 trial that it was clear he had slept alone with children as young as 7. Jackson had publicly stated he liked children because their innocence and purity, he saw the face of God in the face of children. Yet he corrupted those children into lying to their mother's.
The bedroom at Neverland had two beds so why the need to give up his bed or sleep on the floor next to the bed?
Watch the put down by 44 year old Jackson when Gavin says he is a 4 year old.
Why should the children have felt frightened to tell their parents they slept in the same bed as Jackson, when it is claimed they asked to sleep with him? Let's accept your argument, what if in a loving way Jackson had sexually molested those children. On the one hand the children's icon would be saying it's normal and shows they love him while the children would know something is not quite right but as you say too frightened to tell their parents.
The Rolf Harris case has shown a child can unwittingly be exploited by an adult in becoming involved in a sexual relationship which that child at the time may not understand is abuse and keep it concealed from friends & family for 20-30 years.
Jackson said he would never do anything to damage a child, paedophile's don't regard having sex with children as young as 4 as damaging.
How many children does it take to say they were abused by Jackson before they are believed?
your defending his behaviour so i naturally assume you think it is perfectly fine . and both are quite frankly revolting .
could be worse i suppose , could be defending the behaviour of aa man that sleeps with unrelated young boys on a public forum
I know a lot of people who had 'lost childhoods' and none of them feel the need to do anything like that. People who feel they had unhappy childhoods usually simply want the opposite of what they had - e.g. if they lived in overcrowded houses, they want solitude. Most people who feel they lost out on the chance to be children find that it's a big family of their own that they want - not the children of others.
I really don't think behaviour like that can ever be defended. Sleeping with kids who aren't your own is deeply wrong. I'm not surprised, though, that their mothers were talked into it - Lewis Carroll talked the mothers of little girls into letting them pose naked for him, and many mothers have been talked into worse, having been blinded by money and celebrity.