Claim by Wade Robson that Michael Jackson DID abuse him declared "Outrageous"

12357

Comments

  • James RalstonJames Ralston Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    Stube wrote: »
    It's been four years since MJ died. That's why.

    So somebody must have recently died before charges are brought ?
  • L-unaL-una Posts: 228
    Forum Member
    A bit like those who are accusing Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall.

    Same principle.

    Not even remotely similar.Those who have claimed to have been molested by Hall or Savile have not suddenly decided that they were abused after all after previously vehemently denying it.
  • johartukjohartuk Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tomclarky wrote: »
    The 'excuses' made have nothing to do with it being Michael Jackson. It's because there is a lot of evidence to say that they are the case. And sadly for you, evidence is the thing that matters.

    Michael Jackson admitted to sleeping with children. According to him, that definitely happened. There is no excuse for him to have been sharing a bed with any child, yet excuses are made - excuses that wouldn't be made if he was the strange middle-aged bloke who lived down the street!
  • johartukjohartuk Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Stube wrote: »
    It's been four years since MJ died. That's why.

    Given the way Jordy Chandler was treated in the media and Gavin Arviso was pulled apart in court and in the media, do you think that would encourage anyone else to come forward?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    johartuk wrote: »
    Michael Jackson admitted to sleeping with children. According to him, that definitely happened. There is no excuse for him to have been sharing a bed with any child, yet excuses are made - excuses that wouldn't be made if he was the strange middle-aged bloke who lived down the street!

    Depends on the context of sharing a bed. A middle-aged man, Michael Jackson or not, that sleeps naked in a bed with a child that isn't his is clearly inapprotiate. The way Macauley Culkin describes them 'sharing a bed' was nothing more that them both led on top of the bed watching a movie and happening to fall asleep, fully clothed. I wouldn't call that inappropriate. Either way it is not criminal behaviour so it's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he molested any children.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    johartuk wrote: »
    Given the way Jordy Chandler was treated in the media and Gavin Arviso was pulled apart in court and in the media

    Are you kidding? Both in the Chandler and the Arvizo cases, the media coverage was extremely anti-Jackson.

    This article explains very well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html
  • StubeStube Posts: 16,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So somebody must have recently died before charges are brought ?

    Of course not. But anyone who tries to deny that the sudden change of heart to take the case to court is extremely suspicious is out of their mind.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,811
    Forum Member
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Are you kidding? Both in the Chandler and the Arvizo cases, the media coverage was extremely anti-Jackson.

    This article explains very well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

    And the writer of that piece is not biased in anyway?

    Charles is a massive fan of Michael Jackson going on how the media wouldn't leave Michael alone, so what did Charles do? He led The Sun to where Michael was due to arrive by private plan, thus invading his privacy.

    Charles was the guy who reported Jordy Chandler had said he lied :rolleyes: that an American reporter was going to interview Chandler :rolleyes: how did he know this ? Had spoken to or communicated with the reporter ? Had he'd seen something the reporter had written? No, someone had Charles an email saying it was on the reporters Facebook.

    When Facebook was checked nothing was found and when the reporter was contacted you can guess what the answer was.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,811
    Forum Member
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Depends on the context of sharing a bed. A middle-aged man, Michael Jackson or not, that sleeps naked in a bed with a child that isn't his is clearly inapprotiate. The way Macauley Culkin describes them 'sharing a bed' was nothing more that them both led on top of the bed watching a movie and happening to fall asleep, fully clothed. I wouldn't call that inappropriate. Either way it is not criminal behaviour so it's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he molested any children.

    Molestation in America is far wider than 'Sexual Assault' in the UK...if it was perfectly innocent why did Michael describe it as 'giving up' his bed, why make out there were lots of kids in the bed, why lie about sleeping on the floor?

    Wade Robson's sister testified her Michael aged in his 30's slept alone with her 7 year old brother Wade. Wade's mother testified when a few years older she took her son late at night to comfort Michael, where she left them alone and she returned to a hotel.

    Regularly spending the night alone with boys of a certain age is not about recapturing ones youth. Michael distressed Wade's mother by taking her 7 year old son away for a day or so without letting her know.

    And don't forget Michael was addicted to Demerol a prescription drug, and he a 7 year old running around his bedroom.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    And the writer of that piece is not biased in anyway?

    I'm not even sure you've read the article. He quotes the media in their own words multiple times, so there's nothing biased about it.
    Charles is a massive fan of Michael Jackson going on how the media wouldn't leave Michael alone, so what did Charles do? He led The Sun to where Michael was due to arrive by private plan, thus invading his privacy.

    He was asked by Michael's own PR team to leak that information in order to build up hype about the upcoming tour announcement. Nice try.
    x

    You can keep bringing up Wade Robson out of desperation but you're not getting anywhere. He's testified under oath that nothing ever happened and now suddenly only changes his mind when AEG, his employer coincidentally, need to smear the Jackson name as much as possible. As has been said multiple times, Wade Robson is a liar whichever way you look at it and therefore can't be trusted as a credible witness.

    I'm gonna leave you to shout your nonsense at a wall as you seem to be going round in circles.
  • johartukjohartuk Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Are you kidding? Both in the Chandler and the Arvizo cases, the media coverage was extremely anti-Jackson.

    This article explains very well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

    And both boys were basically branded liars. Hardly likely to encourage anyone else to come forward.
  • tiggerpoohtiggerpooh Posts: 4,182
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why are people trying to dirty his name, after he's died? It makes me angry. :mad: Haven't the Jackson family been through enough already, what with his death, the funeral, and the Conrad Murray case?

    Why can't people just leave him alone, and let him rest in peace? As I said above, it makes me angry because the person in question cannot defend themselves, as they're not around anymore.

    They need to grow up and move forward, instead of trying to dig up the past, with allegations and so on.

    Just let it drop, and think of all the nice, happy things that MJ did in his life. For the most part, he was happy, with Neverland, his music, solo, plus group stuff with his brothers, and the kids he was a father to. He also loved putting on live shows, so that lots of his fans could attend.

    He seemed to care about the world too, what with the videos to Man In The Mirror and Earth Song, plus the song Heal The World. Also he was a major part of the 1985 song We Are The World, by USA For Africa featuring Lionel Ritchie and others.

    Yes, Michael Jackson loved kids, but he wouldn't want to hurt them in any way, by molesting them. No, I don't believe he molested any kids during his life. And the new allegations made by Wade Robson are outrageous! Totally outrageous! :mad:
  • denial_orstupiddenial_orstupid Posts: 665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Depends on the context of sharing a bed. A middle-aged man, Michael Jackson or not, that sleeps naked in a bed with a child that isn't his is clearly inapprotiate. The way Macauley Culkin describes them 'sharing a bed' was nothing more that them both led on top of the bed watching a movie and happening to fall asleep, fully clothed. I wouldn't call that inappropriate. Either way it is not criminal behaviour so it's pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he molested any children.


    you are kidding me right ? i mean this is just a attempt to incite some strong reactions ?
    anyone of the planet earth would clearly think sharing your bed with a young pre pubescent boy that is not related to you in the slightest is WRONG.
    i cannot understand why you seem to think it is fine . abuse or not sharing your bed with children is wrong - there is no circumstance you could give me that would make me think even for a second "ohh yeah i can see that would be ok " there is no situation where it should be accepted yet you not only accept it but expect others to agree with you .

    my point is not if he did or did not abuse these young little boys .
    my point is he should not be engaging in this kind of behavior in the first place .
    and don't blame him being eccentric pfft
    always some kind of excuse for what it quite clearly completely wrong behavior .
    i wouldn't let me 13 year old nephew share my bed much less some other parents child .
    its beyond my comprehension how anyone can think it is acceptable .
    at least it wont happen anymore so i take some comfort from that .
  • honeythewitchhoneythewitch Posts: 37,237
    Forum Member
    you are kidding me right ? i mean this is just a attempt to incite some strong reactions ?
    anyone of the planet earth would clearly think sharing your bed with a young pre pubescent boy that is not related to you in the slightest is WRONG.
    i cannot understand why you seem to think it is fine . abuse or not sharing your bed with children is wrong - there is no circumstance you could give me that would make me think even for a second "ohh yeah i can see that would be ok " there is no situation where it should be accepted yet you not only accept it but expect others to agree with you .

    my point is not if he did or did not abuse these young little boys .
    my point is he should not be engaging in this kind of behavior in the first place .
    and don't blame him being eccentric pfft
    always some kind of excuse for what it quite clearly completely wrong behavior .
    i wouldn't let me 13 year old nephew share my bed much less some other parents child .
    its beyond my comprehension how anyone can think it is acceptable .
    at least it wont happen anymore so i take some comfort from that .
    I dont think he ever actually said that he was "in" the bed with children.
    The bedroom was actually a suite of several rooms and the bed ginormous, so probably no more weird than the thousands of scout leaders who have shared a sleeping space (floor of a tent) with their charges.
    Are you saying it would be unsafe for you to share a tent with your nephew? Or for him to get into your bed to sleep if there was some reason he couldn't use his own? (like wetting the bed or dog vomiting on it or something)
    I think in these circumstances it would be perfectly normal.
    It does seem unusual (and unwise) for Michael Jackson to sleep in the same room as the children he was looking after, but it was proven in court that he did not abuse them.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,811
    Forum Member
    I dont think he ever actually said that he was "in" the bed with children.
    The bedroom was actually a suite of several rooms and the bed ginormous, so probably no more weird than the thousands of scout leaders who have shared a sleeping space (floor of a tent) with their charges.
    Are you saying it would be unsafe for you to share a tent with your nephew? Or for him to get into your bed to sleep if there was some reason he couldn't use his own? (like wetting the bed or dog vomiting on it or something)
    I think in these circumstances it would be perfectly normal.
    It does seem unusual (and unwise) for Michael Jackson to sleep in the same room as the children he was looking after, but it was proven in court that he did not abuse them.

    Within Michael's bedroom at Neverland there was apparently a mezzanine floor/gallery with another bed. Wade & Chantel Robson described the layout in their evidence.

    Michael lied when he said he didn't sleep in the same bed as the children, that he only slept on the floor. Or that there were always loads of kids in his bedroom, that was not true.

    In evidence given for the defence at the 2005 child molestation trial it was stated Michael Jackson slept in the same bed alone with a 7 year child. That's a fact.

    The mother of the child says a number of times she left her son overnight alone with Michael Jackson at an apartment, while she stayed at a hotel.

    Here was a man whose house was littered with things attractive to children, pictures of children covered the walls, statutes and dolls of children all over the property, there were drawings and paintings of Michael being the pied piper leading children out of a village...to who knows where.

    Michael singlingly out certain children was known about in the 1980's the last known incident was 2003, 20 years. That's a bloody long childhood he was recapturing.

    He was a 35 year old man, addicted to prescription drugs, who yearned for baby and carried a doll around, who supposedly 'reliving his childhood' by sleeping with young children.

    For molesting one particular child he was found not guilty, none of any of the other allegations went to court.

    None of the allegations against against Jimmy Savile have been to court, the CPS have said there was sufficent evidence just from the 4 allegations made to Surrey police to have convicted him as a sex offender.
  • johartukjohartuk Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I dont think he ever actually said that he was "in" the bed with children.
    The bedroom was actually a suite of several rooms and the bed ginormous, so probably no more weird than the thousands of scout leaders who have shared a sleeping space (floor of a tent) with their charges.
    Are you saying it would be unsafe for you to share a tent with your nephew? Or for him to get into your bed to sleep if there was some reason he couldn't use his own? (like wetting the bed or dog vomiting on it or something)
    I think in these circumstances it would be perfectly normal.
    It does seem unusual (and unwise) for Michael Jackson to sleep in the same room as the children he was looking after, but it was proven in court that he did not abuse them.

    I was trying to find the clip from the Martin Bashir documentary where MJ admits to sharing his bed with children, and I found this:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APO3GjbYIJA

    If true, that's clearly inappropriate behavior. On what planet is that considered acceptable?:rolleyes:

    This is the clip I was looking for (from the Bashir documentary):-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPbeFDS-y0

    Interesting to see his response to the question about why he paid Jordy Chandler off. I'd have thought that proving his innocence would have been of vital importance to him, but obviously not.
  • honeythewitchhoneythewitch Posts: 37,237
    Forum Member
    i4u wrote: »
    Within Michael's bedroom at Neverland there was apparently a mezzanine floor/gallery with another bed. Wade & Chantel Robson described the layout in their evidence.

    Michael lied when he said he didn't sleep in the same bed as the children, that he only slept on the floor. Or that there were always loads of kids in his bedroom, that was not true.

    In evidence given for the defence at the 2005 child molestation trial it was stated Michael Jackson slept in the same bed alone with a 7 year child. That's a fact.

    The mother of the child says a number of times she left her son overnight alone with Michael Jackson at an apartment, while she stayed at a hotel.

    Here was a man whose house was littered with things attractive to children, pictures of children covered the walls, statutes and dolls of children all over the property, there were drawings and paintings of Michael being the pied piper leading children out of a village...to who knows where.

    Michael singlingly out certain children was known about in the 1980's the last known incident was 2003, 20 years. That's a bloody long childhood he was recapturing.

    He was a 35 year old man, addicted to prescription drugs, who yearned for baby and carried a doll around, who supposedly 'reliving his childhood' by sleeping with young children.

    For molesting one particular child he was found not guilty, none of any of the other allegations went to court.

    None of the allegations against against Jimmy Savile have been to court, the CPS have said there was sufficent evidence just from the 4 allegations made to Surrey police to have convicted him as a sex offender.
    None of these things mean that someone is a paedophile no matter how peculiar it seems.
    The mother's evidence was discounted in court.If Michael Jackson lied about where he slept it was wrong, stupid ,and unnecessary because sleeping arrangements do not cause abuse or prevent it.

    The crown prosecution service have over-stepped the mark in my opinion with this statement.
    They can not possibly know that there is enough evidence to convict ( and there can be no defence from a dead man) only that there is enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
    The burden of proof is of course much lower than with other crimes.
  • denial_orstupiddenial_orstupid Posts: 665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I dont think he ever actually said that he was "in" the bed with children.
    The bedroom was actually a suite of several rooms and the bed ginormous, so probably no more weird than the thousands of scout leaders who have shared a sleeping space (floor of a tent) with their charges.
    Are you saying it would be unsafe for you to share a tent with your nephew? Or for him to get into your bed to sleep if there was some reason he couldn't use his own? (like wetting the bed or dog vomiting on it or something)
    I think in these circumstances it would be perfectly normal.
    It does seem unusual (and unwise) for Michael Jackson to sleep in the same room as the children he was looking after, but it was proven in court that he did not abuse them.

    he might not have said it but the children involved are clear about one thing and that is Michael did sleep in the same bed - albeit with him apparently sleeping on top of the sheets while the children are under the sheets .
    i don't even know why i am replying to this topic . your trying to make it seem normal behavior for a grown man - when it clearly is not .
    and no i would not allow my nephew to sleep in my bed i would change the sheets on his and then he could go back to sleep .
    and being found not guilty does not mean it didn't happen . i will keep saying that until the day i die .
    his unnatural appetite for young boys is disturbing and what intrigues me even more is it seems to be only young boys he liked to have over .
    it seems like he was attracted to young boys and not "loved children" as he liked to project , the millions he gave to children's charities and what not could possibly have just been the guilt he felt .
    once again this is just what most people think and not what was proven in court (am only saying that to cover myself )
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tiggerpooh wrote: »
    Why are people trying to dirty his name, after he's died? It makes me angry. :mad: Haven't the Jackson family been through enough already, what with his death, the funeral, and the Conrad Murray case?

    Why can't people just leave him alone, and let him rest in peace? As I said above, it makes me angry because the person in question cannot defend themselves, as they're not around anymore.

    They need to grow up and move forward, instead of trying to dig up the past, with allegations and so on.

    Just let it drop, and think of all the nice, happy things that MJ did in his life. For the most part, he was happy, with Neverland, his music, solo, plus group stuff with his brothers, and the kids he was a father to. He also loved putting on live shows, so that lots of his fans could attend.

    He seemed to care about the world too, what with the videos to Man In The Mirror and Earth Song, plus the song Heal The World. Also he was a major part of the 1985 song We Are The World, by USA For Africa featuring Lionel Ritchie and others.

    Yes, Michael Jackson loved kids, but he wouldn't want to hurt them in any way, by molesting them. No, I don't believe he molested any kids during his life. And the new allegations made by Wade Robson are outrageous! Totally outrageous! :mad:

    Good grief :eek:
    Number one- the Jackson family are the people who started this case by suing the promoters meaning that all this stuff would be discussed again.
    Number two - Michael cannot defend himself that's true but neither can Jimmy Saville, it doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty. As for 'RIP' he is dead so is now unaffected by anything anyone says or prints about him.
    Number three - he did produce some good music in his time and had talent but that doesn't mean that he was without flaws. Maybe he cared about the world/maybe it was all a cynical marketing ploy.
    Number four - it seems very likely that he did molest young boys and he certainly shouldn't have been sharing a bed with them.
  • dekafdekaf Posts: 8,398
    Forum Member
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XOXiRQS6SE

    :eek: According to this MJ's not dead after all!
  • StubeStube Posts: 16,804
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    johartuk wrote: »
    This is the clip I was looking for (from the Bashir documentary):-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPbeFDS-y0

    Interesting to see his response to the question about why he paid Jordy Chandler off. I'd have thought that proving his innocence would have been of vital importance to him, but obviously not.

    If anything, watching that video clip makes me more inclined to believe that MJ is innocent. MJ was an individual who never suited the world. Being deprived of any kind of childhood, he had an innocence that many mistook for being "creepy" etc. It's so sad that such a genuinely lovely guy has had his legacy/life ruined by liars.
  • belive940belive940 Posts: 32,463
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whether he is alive or dead, black or white, straight or gay, etc etc etc, People are never going to let him rest in peace, I think he has been persecuted enough, in life and now in death.
    I cant even be bothered to argue any points because its the same over and over again. Its not even an interesting debate anymore, for god's sake, let it go.
  • rioniarionia Posts: 1,657
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    Good grief :eek:
    Number one- the Jackson family are the people who started this case by suing the promoters meaning that all this stuff would be discussed again.
    Number two - Michael cannot defend himself that's true but neither can Jimmy Saville, it doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty. As for 'RIP' he is dead so is now unaffected by anything anyone says or prints about him.
    Number three - he did produce some good music in his time and had talent but that doesn't mean that he was without flaws. Maybe he cared about the world/maybe it was all a cynical marketing ploy.
    Number four - it seems very likely that he did molest young boys and he certainly shouldn't have been sharing a bed with them.


    I thought there was a trial? :confused:
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,811
    Forum Member
    None of these things mean that someone is a paedophile no matter how peculiar it seems.
    The mother's evidence was discounted in court.If Michael Jackson lied about where he slept it was wrong, stupid ,and unnecessary because sleeping arrangements do not cause abuse or prevent it.

    The crown prosecution service have over-stepped the mark in my opinion with this statement.
    They can not possibly know that there is enough evidence to convict ( and there can be no defence from a dead man) only that there is enough evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
    The burden of proof is of course much lower than with other crimes.

    The mother I was referring to was Wade Robson's, who told of taking her young son in the early hours of the morning to Michael when he returned from a short spell in rehab. She left her son with Michael and returned to her hotel.

    In court she admitted she did not know her son had slept in the same bed as Michael, for some reason her children had told her a different story.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,811
    Forum Member
    Stube wrote: »
    If anything, watching that video clip makes me more inclined to believe that MJ is innocent. MJ was an individual who never suited the world. Being deprived of any kind of childhood, he had an innocence that many mistook for being "creepy" etc. It's so sad that such a genuinely lovely guy has had his legacy/life ruined by liars.

    Watching that clip made me more concerned.

    Paedophiles will present themselves as not doing anything harmful or wrong. A man in his mid 30's sharing a bed with young children is not about a missed childhood.

    He brushes aside any comcerns people may have by saying they are igronant, it's a beautiful thing, it's very right, more people should do it. He's was not innocent as he was immediately aware of the sexual implications.

    He suggested doing it with close family or someone you know well, in the case of Wade Robson after a few hours. :rolleyes:

    Making out it's perfectly normal Michael tosses in the name Barrie Gibb and said Paris & Prince slept with many other people. But listen to his words closely, it will be interesting if his children ever say they slept the night with various adult celebs alone.

    His answer about he and those children in his bed did is him in the roll of an adult not a child...playing background music, reading a bedtime story, providing hot milk and cookies and tucking the child into bed. Those are the actions of an adult not a child.
Sign In or Register to comment.