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

12467

Comments

  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,801
    Forum Member
    I'm not suggesting they were vulnerable. I'm suggesting that all of them have some sort of dodgy background/history which would make their allegations extremely questionable.


    Whereas Michael's father was violent towards him and mum just looked on.

    A father who appears to have cheated on his wife numberous times.

    A father who on the death of his beloved son saw it as an opportunity to promote his record company.

    A family where as a young boy Michael had to put up with being in the same room whilst his brothers had sex with one night stands. Having a sister who publicly accussed him of being a child abuser.

    A brother and sister who 'kidnapped' their mother.

    Michael who engaged the services of criminal Anthony Pellicano who threatened people, who had police officers on his payroll who was sentenced to 15 years in jail on over 70 charges.

    Michael who engaged, "professional swindler and pornographer" Marc Shaffael to produce a charity record make a rebuttal video.

    Michael who had more finacial scraps than Kerry Katonna.

    Michael who possibly made more appearnces in court rooms than in concert. Michael who contradicted himself in court and was declared a liar by a judge.

    Michael who said he had such a craving for a child that he walked around carrying a doll.

    Michael who went on global TV and chose to lie about the mother of his son Blanket.

    Michael who in his 30's was addicted to Demerol.

    Michael who's home was littered with statues and pictures of young children, who in his 30's regularly slept alone with children, some as young as 7.

    Michael who declared the greatest gift one could give was to share your bed with another, except in his case it excluded grown men & women.

    No way did Michael have a dodgy background or history.
  • louise1966louise1966 Posts: 4,012
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The guy's dead, for God's sake, it's his family which will suffer from any adverse claims made now. I do think, however, it is rather pertinent that a guy who was once a witness for the defence, so to speak, has now changed his mind and is suing the estate of Michael Jackson because others are making claims for financial recompense. Surely he's not looking for a big payday?!!:rolleyes:
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,801
    Forum Member
    louise1966 wrote: »
    The guy's dead, for God's sake, it's his family which will suffer from any adverse claims made now. I do think, however, it is rather pertinent that a guy who was once a witness for the defence, so to speak, has now changed his mind and is suing the estate of Michael Jackson because others are making claims for financial recompense. Surely he's not looking for a big payday?!!:rolleyes:

    And if Wade has had a complete meltdown because of abuse by Michael and unable to work he should be compensated. So he should suffer twice, first from abuse and secondly from loss of earnings?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,801
    Forum Member
    louise1966 wrote: »
    The guy's dead, for God's sake, it's his family which will suffer from any adverse claims made now. I do think, however, it is rather pertinent that a guy who was once a witness for the defence, so to speak, has now changed his mind and is suing the estate of Michael Jackson because others are making claims for financial recompense. Surely he's not looking for a big payday?!!:rolleyes:

    Tries again...


    And if Wade has had a complete meltdown because of abuse by Michael and unable to work he should not be compensated?

    He should suffer twice, first from abuse and secondly from loss of earnings?
  • glaschelleglaschelle Posts: 536
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I thought the rumours about Wade had circulated for years? To be honest, I wasn't surprised when I read that he said he was abused.

    The plain fact of the matter is that Michael Jackson was the man who had everything - except for a real friend (or family). Michael, is and always was, the Jackson family cash cow. If that mob had anything about them, after the Jody case, they would have made sure Michael was never left alone with another wee boy.

    But! Then again, the fact that even after the Jody case, Michael still wanted to socialise with wee boys speaks volumes!!!
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    IIRC after a police raid on Neverland(?), they discovered an empty set of shelves which had previously stored video tapes. Where those missing tapes ever found and what was on them which meant they had to be hidden?
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am of the opinion that some abuse did take place. Its hard to have sympathy for this guy though and he deserves to be prosecuted for perjury now not rewarded.
  • honeythewitchhoneythewitch Posts: 37,237
    Forum Member
    haphash wrote: »
    I am of the opinion that some abuse did take place. Its hard to have sympathy for this guy though and he deserves to be prosecuted for perjury now not rewarded.

    He is claiming to have only recently recovered memory of it and in the very remote possibility that it is true he can hardly be blamed for blanking it out.

    False memory syndrome is another (remote) possibility. Not every false claim is deliberately malicious.
  • honeythewitchhoneythewitch Posts: 37,237
    Forum Member
    nomad2king wrote: »
    IIRC after a police raid on Neverland(?), they discovered an empty set of shelves which had previously stored video tapes. Where those missing tapes ever found and what was on them which meant they had to be hidden?

    Why would it be sinister? I dont think the police gave any warning did they?
    He probably just tidied up.
  • davidmcndavidmcn Posts: 12,086
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    nomad2king wrote: »
    IIRC after a police raid on Neverland(?), they discovered an empty set of shelves which had previously stored video tapes.

    I've got an empty set of shelves which had previously stored video tapes. So what?
  • honeythewitchhoneythewitch Posts: 37,237
    Forum Member
    davidmcn wrote: »
    I've got an empty set of shelves which had previously stored video tapes. So what?

    Better turn yourself in before they come for you! :D
  • denial_orstupiddenial_orstupid Posts: 665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    it always amazes me how anyone , can find a grown man hanging out with pre pubescent boys normal in any stretch of the imagination .
    then there is a grown man having sleepovers with again pre pubescent boys .
    then there is a grown man taking pre pubescent boys on tour .

    i mean am i the only one with my eyes open here .

    how can that be right ? ?

    i cannot prove if he was a pedophile or not but i can tell you he had a unhealthy relationship with young boys which makes me physically sick just thinking about it .

    dont tell me he was a child star and had no childhood of his own .

    there a many many hundreds of child stars who don't hang out with young boys .

    my opinion - a seriously sick junkie individual with the money to make things dissapear .
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    it always amazes me how anyone , can find a grown man hanging out with pre pubescent boys normal in any stretch of the imagination .
    then there is a grown man having sleepovers with again pre pubescent boys .
    then there is a grown man taking pre pubescent boys on tour .

    i mean am i the only one with my eyes open here .

    how can that be right ? ?

    i cannot prove if he was a pedophile or not but i can tell you he had a unhealthy relationship with young boys which makes me physically sick just thinking about it .

    dont tell me he was a child star and had no childhood of his own .

    there a many many hundreds of child stars who don't hang out with young boys .

    my opinion - a seriously sick junkie individual with the money to make things dissapear .

    I have always had pretty much the same opinion. As to what took place I guess we'll never really know but I don't believe this Michael had no childhood rubbish either. I'm disgusted by the parents of these kids that let him get away with it.
  • denial_orstupiddenial_orstupid Posts: 665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I have always had pretty much the same opinion. As to what took place I guess we'll never really know but I don't believe this Michael had no childhood rubbish either. I'm disgusted by the parents of these kids that let him get away with it.

    i am sure Mr tom clarky will be along in a while to explain that it is fine because nothing ever happened .
    how he knows this i have no idea . and even if Mr clarky is correct it is still a disgusting behavior and no amount of "it is all just innocence " will ever change that .
    grown men do not sleep with children - END of discussion .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    i am sure Mr tom clarky will be along in a while to explain that it is fine because nothing ever happened .
    how he knows this i have no idea . and even if Mr clarky is correct it is still a disgusting behavior and no amount of "it is all just innocence " will ever change that .
    grown men do not sleep with children - END of discussion .

    Aww you sound wound up. You shouldn't let someone's life who you clearly care nothing for bother you so much.

    It's really not that difficult to judge the merit of these allegations. It takes time to study evidence and read court transcripts but it's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain and unbiased outlook that they were lies.
  • dekafdekaf Posts: 8,398
    Forum Member
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Aww you sound wound up. You shouldn't let someone's life who you clearly care nothing for bother you so much.

    It's really not that difficult to judge the merit of these allegations. It takes time to study evidence and read court transcripts but it's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain and unbiased outlook that they were lies.

    I thought MJ admitted it though?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    dekaf wrote: »
    I thought MJ admitted it though?

    He admitted 'sharing his bed', of which the context could vary hugely, but he obviously didn't admit any wrong doing.
  • dekafdekaf Posts: 8,398
    Forum Member
    tomclarky wrote: »
    He admitted 'sharing his bed', of which the context could vary hugely, but he obviously didn't admit any wrong doing.

    Yes. That's what I thought. In any context, very peculiar, don't you think?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    dekaf wrote: »
    Yes. That's what I thought. In any context, very peculiar, don't you think?

    Peculiar, weird, odd, that's up to you to decide. That isn't the issue though. What matters is whether it was harmful? If you believe it was just strange but entirely innocent then it's none of our business how eccentric someone wants to be.
  • johartukjohartuk Posts: 11,320
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    tomclarky wrote: »
    Peculiar, weird, odd, that's up to you to decide. That isn't the issue though. What matters is whether it was harmful? If you believe it was just strange but entirely innocent then it's none of our business how eccentric someone wants to be.

    It's wrong, whatever way you look at it. Though because it was Michael Jackson doing it, there are all sorts of excuses made. There is also this mindset that anyone who claims they were abused must be a) lying and b) doing it to extort money from MJ/his estate.

    MJ did share his bed with children and admitted to that. He did allow children to see him naked. There are no excuses for that behavior - it was wrong!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 80
    Forum Member
    johartuk wrote: »
    It's wrong, whatever way you look at it. Though because it was Michael Jackson doing it, there are all sorts of excuses made. There is also this mindset that anyone who claims they were abused must be a) lying and b) doing it to extort money from MJ/his estate.

    MJ did share his bed with children and admitted to that. He did allow children to see him naked. There are no excuses for that behavior - it was wrong!

    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.
  • James RalstonJames Ralston Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    zx50 wrote: »
    If he is lying, his lies will be exposed eventually. It is a bit strange that for over 20 years he denied being molested by Jackson, and yet now all of a sudden he's making these claims.

    A bit like those who are accusing Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall.

    Same principle.
  • StubeStube Posts: 16,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sorry but this whole claim just reeks of bullshit.
  • James RalstonJames Ralston Posts: 242
    Forum Member
    Stube wrote: »
    Sorry but this whole claim just reeks of bullshit.

    Why ?

    And I'm sure we all thought that when Jimmy Saville was first brought to our attention.
  • StubeStube Posts: 16,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why ?

    And I'm sure we all thought that when Jimmy Saville was first brought to our attention.

    It's been four years since MJ died. That's why.
Sign In or Register to comment.