Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Michael Jackson and JImmy Savile...


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-04-2013, 10:42
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
Bit of a contradiction there. On one hand you say they see it as perfectly normal and on the other you say they are devious.
Because they know what they are doing is illegal.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-04-2013, 11:00
johartuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,385
It was $15M and was negotiated and paid by his insurance company. Court documents explicitly stated that it didn't prevent the Chandler's from testiying in any possible criminal trial.

Thanks for playing.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked why was this money (whatever the actual amount, it was multi-millions) paid to Jordy Chandler? That doesn't come across as the action of an innocent man. It comes across as the action of a wealthy man who thinks that if he throws enough money at a problem, it will go away.

I also think that attacking the parents rather misses the point. Many victims of abuse by someone outside their family are targeted precicely because they're vulnerable (perhaps looking for someone to fill the void of friend and adult role model that parents too busy fighting with each other, getting drunk/stoned or generally neglecting their responsibilities, have vacated) and/or come from dysfunctional backgrounds.
johartuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 11:40
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
That doesn't answer my question. I asked why was this money (whatever the actual amount, it was multi-millions) paid to Jordy Chandler? That doesn't come across as the action of an innocent man. It comes across as the action of a wealthy man who thinks that if he throws enough money at a problem, it will go away.

I also think that attacking the parents rather misses the point. Many victims of abuse by someone outside their family are targeted precicely because they're vulnerable (perhaps looking for someone to fill the void of friend and adult role model that parents too busy fighting with each other, getting drunk/stoned or generally neglecting their responsibilities, have vacated) and/or come from dysfunctional backgrounds.
I've already answered this in detail on page 7. Testifying in a civil trial when a criminal trial for the same allegations may still come to fruition was a violation of Jackson's constitutional right not to self incriminate.

The actions of the boy's father are very relevant. Instead of calling the police he called a lawyer and filed a lawsuit. He said he didn't care about his son's welfare and that he 'would win big time' if he went through with it.

Police investigated for months and found no evidence to even merit arresting him let alone charging him with a crime.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 18:26
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Because they know what they are doing is illegal.
Which only adds credence to the fact that Michael Jackson was naive rather than guilty. He openly admitted to sharing his bed with children that weren't his own and said there was nothing wrong with it. A devious and manipulative child abuser would never admit to that kind of thing even if they said it wasn't in a sexual way. Anyone who isn't Michael Jackson knows that it just sounds very suspicious to say that you share your bed with a child.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-04-2013, 23:16
sparkle22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,050
many people haven't read details of the trial and are not informed I know I wasn't until recently.
and wasn't sure one way or the other I now believe he probably was innocent.
sparkle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 09:28
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
Which only adds credence to the fact that Michael Jackson was naive rather than guilty. He openly admitted to sharing his bed with children that weren't his own and said there was nothing wrong with it. A devious and manipulative child abuser would never admit to that kind of thing even if they said it wasn't in a sexual way. Anyone who isn't Michael Jackson knows that it just sounds very suspicious to say that you share your bed with a child.
Alternativately it adds creedence to how devious he was?

Wasn't Jimmy Savile said to be 'hiding in plain view', it was claimed by a reporter...

Mr Langley describes how Savile had told him in a "nudge, nudge wink wink sort of way" that he had just had sex with "12 or 13 year-old girls" after the reporter spotted the girls leaving the DJ's caravan.
If I remember correctly it wasn't till 2004 Michael announced sharing, or rather giving up ones bed to another is the most loving thing one can do.

From memory, it was not till the 2005 trial with evidence from defence witnesses the Robson family that it was confirmed a young child had slept alone in the same bed as Michael, without the mother's knowledge.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 09:45
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
Thanks for the lesson (& thread bump) i4u. I had no idea what one was. I'm so glad you've cleared that up for us.

Out of interest, why have no children (now adults) come forward since his death to accuse him of anything inappropriate?
Some people seem to think all paedophiles leapt out of the shadows grab a child and sexually abuse them and run off, that clearly isn't the case.

As to your question...the same reason people didn't come forward after Jimmy Savile's death? Newsnight had to go and seek out people and only one was prepared to be on camera.

It was the subsequent publicity and that they would be 'believed' that induced 3-4 others to come forward for the ITV programme.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 10:46
katmobile
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,631
I'm sorry but why was an adult sharing a bed with a child that wasn't his own anyway? If creepy Joe from down the road was inviting children to share his bed would people be so quick to believe it was all innocent?
Creepy Joe probably wouldn't be as well known to have had an abnormal childhood which left him lonely and a tad desperate to live in a Disneyland version of childhood - many people obsessed with childhood had unhappy childhoods - Disney himself was the same and would probably have sympathised with MJ. MJ seems have had a bit of a complex about never growing up - the documentary "Bad at 20" has someone saying he pitched his speaking voice upwards deliberately and it would certainly explain all the plastic surgery he had over the years - the surgical addiction would led to his early death. A lot of his friends were either former child stars like Elizabeth Taylor or actual ones at the time like Macauley Caulkin probably he felt such people could better understand him than people who had 'normal' upbringings.

His obsession with staying a child or teenager is neither proof or disproof that he was a pedaphile but it does muddy the waters making it harder to work out if he was. Saville was obviously a hard hearted exploiter of the young with MJ the picture is less clear.
katmobile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 10:46
L-una
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 179
Some people seem to think all paedophiles leapt out of the shadows grab a child and sexually abuse them and run off, that clearly isn't the case.

As to your question...the same reason people didn't come forward after Jimmy Savile's death? Newsnight had to go and seek out people and only one was prepared to be on camera.

It was the subsequent publicity and that they would be 'believed' that induced 3-4 others to come forward for the ITV programme.

Those who had already (over the years) complained about Savile had been more or less trampled and cowed but once they realised (as you said) that they would finally get their say they came forward including Karin Ward who named him in her book as JS.But with Savile we are talking about 100's of people who never got to be heard,people who had made complaints about him some who kept quiet due to embarassment etc.

The huge difference is that Jackson was tried ,Savile never was.

If you are suggesting that MJ was a prolific paedophile like Savile and you are suggesting just that.Then where are all the alleged victims ? Where are the 100's and 100's of people who didn't feel comfortable making complaints while he was alive or who didn't think they would be believed?

It took less than 1 year for Savile to be unmasked and let's be honest it wasn't a huge shock to anyone who was around in the 70's.

So come on it's been nearly 4 years since Jackson died ..... where are they all?
L-una is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 10:48
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Alternativately it adds creedence to how devious he was?
No because a guilty child molester wouldn't be so naive to say such a thing.

From memory, it was not till the 2005 trial with evidence from defence witnesses the Robson family that it was confirmed a young child had slept alone in the same bed as Michael, without the mother's knowledge.
You keep peddling this as if it's compelling testimony. Wade Robson denied anything ever happened, so it's completely irrelevant.

I still can't believe there are people so moronically ignorant as to put Saville and Michael Jackson in the same box.

The huge difference is that Jackson was tried ,Savile never was.
Exactly. And lets not forget in his 2005 trial, the prosecution was even allowed to bring in evidence of 'prior bad acts' even if charges were never bought at the time. So if there were indeed previous victims, now was their chance to show up, testify and get justice. 3 of the boys denied that they were ever abused. The fourth, Jordy, refused to testify and the fifth, Jason Francia, had already admitted lying to the police.

So yes, where are all these victims? They were given a chance to give their story in 2005, but there were none to be seen.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 11:04
katmobile
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,631
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/th...savile-1443465



interesting article on the very subject of these two vile men
It's incredibly simplistic though - the waters are very muddied about Mandy Smith - her and Wyman actually wed - however wrong his affections towards her were - he probably cared for her and she probably hero worshipped him a bit. Her mother pandered to Wyman and she does appear to have been damaged but Wyman doesn't appear to have been the predator that Saville was.

I'll be shot down for saying this but there are teenagers and there are teenagers - some teenagers do I have no doubt get into sex at an early age of their own free will and there is the hero worship element of young women throwing themselves at glamourous older figures - groupees have always been with us and some girls do look older than they are and act older. Peel doesn't come out of it smelling of roses but he probably wasn't that old himself at the time and I think amongst the celeb culture of the 60s there was probably a lot of promiscuity - it was the age of 'free love' after all. He later married, had children and lived a normal domestic life. He didn't prey on youngsters his entire life so a different kettle of fish to Saville.
katmobile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 14:17
johartuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,385
I've already answered this in detail on page 7. Testifying in a civil trial when a criminal trial for the same allegations may still come to fruition was a violation of Jackson's constitutional right not to self incriminate.

The actions of the boy's father are very relevant. Instead of calling the police he called a lawyer and filed a lawsuit. He said he didn't care about his son's welfare and that he 'would win big time' if he went through with it.

Police investigated for months and found no evidence to even merit arresting him let alone charging him with a crime.
So MJ paid Jordy Chandler $15million because he didn't want to testify in a civil trial? Why, then, didn't he just testify at the civil trial? According to you, there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, so surely it would have been better to defend himself than pay out an enormous sum of money to someone he didn't molest!

As I said before, Jordy Chandler's father being a dodgy piece of work doesn't automatically mean that Jordy was lying. Many victims of abuse have parents who leave a lot to be desired as people.
johartuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 16:09
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
So MJ paid Jordy Chandler $15million because he didn't want to testify in a civil trial? Why, then, didn't he just testify at the civil trial? According to you, there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, so surely it would have been better to defend himself than pay out an enormous sum of money to someone he didn't molest!
Because if he testified in the civil trial he would've exposed his entire defence stategy and allowed prosecutors to form criminal charges around anything he said. It undermined his right to a fair trial. There was actually a change in California law to stop it ever happening again.

I'm not saying he would've definitely lost if he had not settled the lawsuit, but it was putting him at a big disadvantage. He specifically settled the lawsuit so he could fight to clear his name fairly in any possible criminal trial. Not to 'pay the boy off'. Like i say, cops found zero corroborating evidence after months of investigations and dropped the case... Because he was quite obviously innocent after all.

As I said before, Jordy Chandler's father being a dodgy piece of work doesn't automatically mean that Jordy was lying. Many victims of abuse have parents who leave a lot to be desired as people.
The initial claims came from the father anyway. Jordy denied that anything ever happened right up until his manipulative and controlling father coerced him into it.

How do i know the father coerced him into it you might think? Well, Jordy gained legal emancipation from his parents aged 16 and never spoke to them again. Also, Tom Meserau has said that he knew of people who knew Jordy personally and they said that Jordy told them that nothing ever happened.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-04-2013, 19:13
rumandlime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 125
I think you have got to be careful with all these accusations and just try and remember the wonderful work he put out in the 1980s........'top of the pops' 'jim lfixit' etc
rumandlime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 06:02
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
Those who had already (over the years) complained about Savile had been more or less trampled and cowed but once they realised (as you said) that they would finally get their say they came forward including Karin Ward who named him in her book as JS.But with Savile we are talking about 100's of people who never got to be heard,people who had made complaints about him some who kept quiet due to embarassment etc.

The huge difference is that Jackson was tried ,Savile never was.

If you are suggesting that MJ was a prolific paedophile like Savile and you are suggesting just that.Then where are all the alleged victims ? Where are the 100's and 100's of people who didn't feel comfortable making complaints while he was alive or who didn't think they would be believed?

It took less than 1 year for Savile to be unmasked and let's be honest it wasn't a huge shock to anyone who was around in the 70's.

So come on it's been nearly 4 years since Jackson died ..... where are they all?
The 100's only came forward after the ITV programme on Jimmy Savile was aired, before then Karin Ward and others had never contacted the media or police.

It was a proactive investigation by a Newsnight reporter that led to the subsequent ITV programme, not the accusers going to the programme makers.

Without the ITV programme there would not have been 100's of complaints, how many complaints were made to the police between Savile's death and October 1st 2012?

Michael Jackson was on trial inconnection with the molestation of just one child, rather than a number of children, he was found not guilty of that molestation.

In 2009 Surrey police investigated Jimmy Savile following 3 or 4 allegations, the CPS decided there was insufficent evidence for a prosecution. In 2012 the CPS looked again at that file and came to the conclusion there was sufficent evidence for a likely conviction.

I can't recall any of the women who made allegations about Jimmy Savile prior to his death being prepared to take the matter through the courts or sign sworn affidavit.

Michael Jackson had an extensive PR machine and legal teams working on his behalf, which extended to Bell Yard in the UK.

Michael employed enforcers such as criminal audio expert and racketeering Anthony Pellicano (PI to the stars) in 1993, who in 2008 was sentenced to 15 years in the slammer.

Then there was Marc Schaffel, who despite having been banished from Neverland for making gay porn videos returned to make the 'rebuttal' video.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 06:52
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
You keep peddling this as if it's compelling testimony. Wade Robson denied anything ever happened, so it's completely irrelevant.

I still can't believe there are people so moronically ignorant as to put Saville and Michael Jackson in the same box.
It's evidence from defence witnesses that goes against assertions made by Michael Jackson that he sought the consent of mothers first.

By the way didn't 33 year old Michael Jackson take off with 7 year old Wade for 24 hours and not inform Joy Robson, leaving her to fret as to her son's whereabouts?

I have the impression Joy Robson was determined her son be touched by Michael's magic, wasn't Wade and Joy under contract to Michael, thus relying on Michael for financial support...wasn't part of Joy's evidence she had been given sums of money in 1993 by criminal racketeer Anthony Pellicano?

When I read Ms Robson's testimony at the 2005 trial I was struck how her & her son's relationship developed with Michael Jackson was similar to that of Ms Chandler's.

If the two women had sat down together they may well have said what idiots they had been.

You have a tendency to tear into people who's trial evidence may be regarded as negative towards Michael Jackson, but ignore Joy Robson's total blanking of questions regarding her 1993 police statement.

OK after 11 years one would expect someone not to remember saying certain things but even when shown the relevant parts of the statement she could not remember saying such things.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 09:16
L-una
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 179
The 100's only came forward after the ITV programme on Jimmy Savile was aired, before then Karin Ward and others had never contacted the media or police.

It was a proactive investigation by a Newsnight reporter that led to the subsequent ITV programme, not the accusers going to the programme makers.

Without the ITV programme there would not have been 100's of complaints, how many complaints were made to the police between Savile's death and October 1st 2012?

Michael Jackson was on trial inconnection with the molestation of just one child, rather than a number of children, he was found not guilty of that molestation.

In 2009 Surrey police investigated Jimmy Savile following 3 or 4 allegations, the CPS decided there was insufficent evidence for a prosecution. In 2012 the CPS looked again at that file and came to the conclusion there was sufficent evidence for a likely conviction.

I can't recall any of the women who made allegations about Jimmy Savile prior to his death being prepared to take the matter through the courts or sign sworn affidavit.

Michael Jackson had an extensive PR machine and legal teams working on his behalf, which extended to Bell Yard in the UK.

Michael employed enforcers such as criminal audio expert and racketeering Anthony Pellicano (PI to the stars) in 1993, who in 2008 was sentenced to 15 years in the slammer.

Then there was Marc Schaffel, who despite having been banished from Neverland for making gay porn videos returned to make the 'rebuttal' video.
Karin Ward and others at her school certainly complained at the time and were basically told not to be silly.His niece complained to her grandmother about Savile and was told 'That's just how Jim is'.

I think you're right that the complaints made against Savile were a direct result of the programme but that's a good thing surely? 100's of people given a voice after years and years of being silent.You said it - they thought they would finally be believed.

With regards to Savile and you must correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard tell of even one person who has now retracted their story,I haven't heard of even one who has admitted to lying and I haven't heard of anyone trying to make money from his estate although I wouldn't blame anyone who did.

As I'm in the UK I'm not aware of US tv but honestly there must have been lots of TV shows and expose about Jackson since his death.So if all it takes is a TV show to make people come forward then where are they all?
Considering the Jackson family are virtually never out of the news still 4 years after his death and there has been constant rehashing of the original cases.Surely had he been a multiple abuser on the scale of Savile one or two would have come forward?

Also why, when he was originally tried, didn't more 'victims' come forward? Especially if they thought there was the likelihood of a huge payout!

Paedophiles ,as far as I know,don't abuse children just once or twice and then stop.It's a lifelong sickness and they are something like 99% likely to reoffend.Complaints about Savile go back decades.They will and do abuse their own children or the children of relatives just as Savile did.So how come Michael left his own children alone? It's a tough question I know.


So you are saying that Michael Jackson 'made' the claims go away? It always seemed to me that there was a very aggressive campaign to find him guilty of wrongdoing including the attempted hatchet job by Martin Bashir.
L-una is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 10:46
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
Was Wade Robson abused? No. If Joy Robson is your only line of attack in this discussion then you really are scraping the barrel.

Michael Jackson was on trial inconnection with the molestation of just one child, rather than a number of children, he was found not guilty of that molestation.
Yes but as i've already stated, the prosecution were allowed to bring in 'prior bad acts' evidence, meaning they could essentially use the testimony of any other abused children to help convict him for the charge against Gavin. Any previous acts of molestation would've been allowed to be heard at the trial, but of course they couldn't find any reliable cases.
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 13:04
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
In 1993/1994 Michael Jackson was managed by Sandy Gallin who finally broke his silence in an interviewer with the L. A. Times which appeared on Sunday 16 January 1994.

This was 2 days before Michael Jackson was due to make a deposition on 18 January 1994, for the civil trial set to begin on 21 March 1994.

Or so the media thought but a week later.....

On 24 January 1994 Johnny Cochrane publicly announced a settlement had been reached.

So by pure coincidence immediately before Michael was due to make a deposition and just days away from the settlement for a whopping $15m was to be made public, Sandy Gallin chose to break his silence.

There was Sandy denying the molestation, the fight would continue and Michael would prove he was a victim of extortion, yeah shelling out a enormous $15m for something he didn't do was all the proof required.

It was Sandy Gallin who despite it going to cost a lot of money
decided in the preceeding November to cancel the remaining "Dangerous" tour dates.

So I don't see what an insurance company gained shelling out a massive $15m.

Sandy must have felt a chump to discover a deal had been struck in December, or maybe he knew? Jackson's litigation attorney, Howard L. Weitzman, said Gallin had contributed to "every major decision".

How do I know about a deal the month before, because on the morning of December 30 1993 Howard Weitzman phoned the Chandler's attorney Larry Feldman to tell him of the deal.

As I've indicated I wouldn't have trusted Michael Jackson, in court he was a proven liar.

He claimed he did not sleep alone with children, claimed he asked the mothers first, both of which were shown to be untrue by defence witnesses at the 2005 trial.

Michael Jackson employed the services of Anthony Pellicano who was found guilty of issuing death threats against a journalist and having explosives, who was later found guilty of 76 charges among which were conspiracy, wire tapping and racketeering.

Pellicano delibrately lied to the public and MJ fans as to the real reason police attended Neverland in 1993, who falsely claimed he had been working with the police regarding blackmail.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 13:26
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
More on Sandy Gallin from the 1994 interview, he'd been on Prozac for years because of his temper, had collagen as often as needed and 'exstensive' plastic surgery.

A month after the interview Gallin co-chaired a charidee event with none other than Dr Arnold Klein.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-04-2013, 14:01
tomclarky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
As I've indicated I wouldn't have trusted Michael Jackson, in court he was a proven liar.
And you think the Chandlers or the Arvizos weren't?
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2013, 08:07
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
....With regards to Savile and you must correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't heard tell of even one person who has now retracted their story,I haven't heard of even one who has admitted to lying and I haven't heard of anyone trying to make money from his estate although I wouldn't blame anyone who did.

As I'm in the UK I'm not aware of US tv but honestly there must have been lots of TV shows and expose about Jackson since his death.So if all it takes is a TV show to make people come forward then where are they all?
Considering the Jackson family are virtually never out of the news still 4 years after his death and there has been constant rehashing of the original cases.Surely had he been a multiple abuser on the scale of Savile one or two would have come forward?

Also why, when he was originally tried, didn't more 'victims' come forward? Especially if they thought there was the likelihood of a huge payout!

Paedophiles ,as far as I know,don't abuse children just once or twice and then stop.It's a lifelong sickness and they are something like 99% likely to reoffend.Complaints about Savile go back decades.They will and do abuse their own children or the children of relatives just as Savile did.So how come Michael left his own children alone? It's a tough question I know.


So you are saying that Michael Jackson 'made' the claims go away? It always seemed to me that there was a very aggressive campaign to find him guilty of wrongdoing including the attempted hatchet job by Martin Bashir.
In the current the climate I don't think we would hear if someone retracted their story regarding Savile, it's not as though he is around or has representives to pour scorn on any claims.

I believe one of the stories reported by The Mail never occured and the various official reports seem to confirm what I believe. A number of the stories in papers seem to have been supplied by lawyers possibly seeking verification or touting for buisiness, and I don't think we'll hear if any of those claims are dropped.

When Savile was alive women went to the media or police but were not prepared to persue the matter. In 2009 one woman despite agreeing certain things had happened was extremely angry the police were contacted by a witness.

Some women have said they were intimitated by Savile, they possibly felt they'd be the ones in the dock under scrutiny.

I'm no expert but I don't think all paedophiles are the same. People wouldn't assume all hetrosexual males are like 'shagger of the year' Russell Brand.

Possibly Saville was an opportunist whereas Michael Jackson openly cultivated relationships ?

Chandler was identifiable having been part of the Michael Jackson entourage and lets be honest from the outset not only did the family have to put up with Pellicano's lies but a 13 year old was publicly villified by the global army of Michael Jackson fans and it has not stopped since1993.

In the 2005 trial when Michael Jackson was found not guilty, again the child was identifiable to the public and tsuama of Michael Jackson fans.

In both cases no matter the outcome the children faced a public onslaught from Michael's PR machine and fans. Seeing that would a parent wish the same for their child and would any victim dare step into the firing line?

If the annoymous women in the UK weren't prepared to step forward think how it would be if they were easily identifiable?

Jimmy Savile said he passed on 'blackmail' threats to a friendly police officer, who made them go away. Michael had a highly paid team round him to sort such things out.

After his death Michael Jackson has a legacy that can still generate millions of dollars for his estate who continue to protect his image with a vengence.

Whereas Jimmy Savile only seems to have had what was in the bank and no large income to protect, I can't see an air brushed documentary about him dong well in cinemas or circus soliel creating a show based on his career.

Jimmy Savile said young people were attracted to him as a way to have contact with their favourite pop stars.

Michael Jackson couldn't be a bigger pop star, he cultivated an interest specifically in children. Neverland was designed to be attractive to children he didn't have to go out to them they came to him in coachloads or were handed to him by parents to take to bed with him.
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2013, 22:57
sparkle22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,050
it's well known jordie and his family were liars I don't believe them or the avizos I know mj lied about things.
such as having plastic surgery but I don't believe he abused kids listen to the song childhood from the history album.
sparkle22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 03:08
i4u
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,634
Was Wade Robson abused? No. If Joy Robson is your only line of attack in this discussion then you really are scraping the barrel.
Well Wade says he was abused....

'Michael Jackson Was a Monster' And Sexual Abuser

Henry Gradstein goes on ... "He [Wade] lived with the brain washing by a sexual predator until the burden of it all crushed him."

Gradstein says Michael would tell Wade, "If anyone ever finds out about what we did we will go to jail for the rest of our lives" and “our lives will be ruined forever.”
i4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2013, 11:50
katmobile
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,631
it's well known jordie and his family were liars I don't believe them or the avizos I know mj lied about things.
such as having plastic surgery but I don't believe he abused kids listen to the song childhood from the history album.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility but I'm starting to think that MJ was probably not a peadophile.
katmobile is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28.