Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Crux

Michael Jackson: Surviving Neverland documentary - harrowing new details

Recommended Posts

I don't even think he was into men: he was into boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nikki said:

I've looked at some other places and lipstick alley, the gaga fans, and teen pop forums generally believe MJ is innocent, a victim.. M fans seem very critical and rational.

it's always the same.. MJ is a victim.. they didn't want a black man to be powerful..

that doesn't take away from the fact that he admitted he slept with other people's children and if this was ANYONE else (well, with the exception of gaga and Beyonce probably) they'd be dragged 

I don't know whether victim would be the correct word, but I don't think he has been given a fair ride in the media in regards to this. And I personally believe that a lot of people's opinions are largely influenced by the media's version of things, which is quite inaccurate. 

He admitted to sleeping in the same room & allowing them to sleep in his bed, not to "sleeping with" them in a sexual way (as Wade Robson made sure to clarify when he took the stand as a defence witness). None the less, yes that is strange & unacceptable behaviour for any adult. 

1 minute ago, windsor67 said:

Won’t waste my time 🙂

Can't find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I find very sad though is the way people are just dismissing everything accusers say about MJ.  Online, his fans are all viciously attacking everyone that has spoken out about MJ and are painting him as this forever victim.  To them, the fact he has children in his bed is a sign of how great his love for children were etc.  NOT talking about people on this forum as nobody here has said they think having under-age boys in his bed is OK.  Different story elsewhere though with MJ fans online completely defending him about it.  That behaviour is being used by MJ fans as being nothing wrong and a sign of his Peter Pan childhood etc.  

RE Jimmy Saville,  I see so many similarities.  Jimmy was never charged with sexual abuse while he was alive,  There were complaints made and investigations but as so many child abuse cases,  no concrete evidence or proof - as what people now demand.  Basically all the children and women sexually abused in hospitals etc by Saville were not listened to or taken seriously when he was alive. People are now demanding concrete proof about MJ and therefore saying he is innocent.   Which brings back the whole subject of proof.  Not all sexual abusers have evidence of their crimes hidden away.  Look at all of the Priests etc. that have abused children. They did not keep evidence of their crimes. It was the victims talking about it - many were never believed earlier.    I think that is something that people are not looking at.  Children have said that MJ abused them.  Just as victims of Jimmy Saville and victims of religious institutions said they were abused.  Children can and have on numerous occasions and many cases, defended their abuser originally.   Why everyone bringing up that the victims must be now lying because they defended him earlier is a dangerous thing to base finding a sexual abuser innocent.  Just think about why an adult man would surround himself with young children.  I think the answer there is more than obvious. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, windsor67 said:

You and two others

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jazzy Jan Jimmy Saville was not investigated during his lifetime though. The first major investigation took place in 2012, after decades of him committing his crimes unhindered and being able to cover up the evidence. That is a huge difference to the Jackson case that saw two massive investigations during his lifetime and surveillance by the FBI for 10 years (can not repeat this often enough), no matter which perspective to look at.

I agree with you it's not the right thing to disqualify allegations right away, just because the accuser's stories are not adding up fully or because they said contradicting statements in the past. However, you will surely agree it is also a dangerous thing to automatically declare a person guilty just on grounds of these allegations. That's why you do need to check the veracity of the claims, search for possible evidence, and look at where those allegations are coming from. If we didn't follow this approach and just start declaring persons guilty based only on what their accusers claim, needless to say it would land A LOT of innocent people in prison. 

And in the Jackson case that's exactly what many people, including a huge bulk of the media, are and were doing. Newspapers and TV reports already started declaring Jackson guilty the moment those allegations came out, and you can see the same type of "reasoning" in this thread. Posting documents or reports that counteract the claims is immediately branded as "paedo apologism", "excusing child abuse" etc. 

It is vital to look at the details of this case, especially because there was a very powerful, wealthy man involved. Power and fame can be an incentive to do things you would normally not get away with, but it can also be an incentive for others to make false claims, with all the possible money they could extort from that person and the profit they could make with these allegations. I'm not saying this must be the case with those two new accusers against Jackson, but it's a very real possibility and that must also be taken into account.

I'm sure this will trigger a new wave of angry posts against me, but that is what a balanced point of view looks like, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nonoka. I did not word my last post properly. What I was inferring too that was Jimmy Saville did have complaints made against him to the police while alive. No action was taken.  I think that if he was taken to trial while alive, he could easily have been found not guilty as people demand more than victim's testimonies etc, no matter how many said the same thing. Also with brilliant defence lawyers who can make victims sound as horrible as possible to discredit them completely. Sad but true.

What I meant by MJ being similar. Both famous, both very wealthy, both surrounded themselves with children, both behaved eccentrically and oddly  and both praised as loving children and doing things for charity etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alain Delon said:

I don't even think he was into men: he was into boys.

This. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im seeing a dutch and Belgian journalist talk about it and they seem very sure he did do those things.. they're airing the documentary on tv in march in Belgium, and probably many other countries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jacket said:

Gay porn - he's meant to be into males, right?

He was not gay, he was a pedophile 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 12:51 AM, Kim said:

A pity this drugged up junkie BEAST wasn't still alive to live through the social media age. Would have been FUN.

Urgh his fans would have made the little monsters look like Winnie the Pooh. He would have revelled in the martyrdom like he always did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Alain Delon said:

I don't even think he was into men: he was into boys.

 

1 hour ago, windsor67 said:

He was not gay, he was a pedophile 

Exactly. That's really not the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, runa said:

 

Exactly. That's really not the same thing. 

always get this from my intolerant family members 🙄

it disgusts me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MJ is a certified peadophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nikki said:

im seeing a dutch and Belgian journalist talk about it and they seem very sure he did do those things.. they're airing the documentary on tv in march in Belgium, and probably many other countries

And American journalists already had him guilty and locked up before his '05 trial had even began. That's the whole point, people believe the media narrative and blatantly ignore facts (which btw 3-4 of us have been providing link and vids to over and over). Whether people choose to ignore the facts because they've firmly made up their minds based on inaccuracies and half-truth's is completely up to them. 

 

6 hours ago, windsor67 said:

He was not gay, he was a pedophile 

It's so much easier to scream "pedophile" and accuse others of being "pedophile apologists" than to actually research info isn't it? lol

Well windsor, this "pedo apologist" certainly doesn't think Saville and R. Kelly are innocent (and he was also found not guilty in court) because there are legit facts, consistencies...and videos etc that tell a very different tale. So, you can fuck off with your little "pedo apologist" labels directed at forum members. I find that highly offensive. 

Every accusation deserves to be taken seriously and investigated. In the case of MJ that was done THOROUGHLY more than once and it was found by court of law to be a bunch of bullshit (for lack of a better phrase). Deal with it. 

Just because you've never liked MJ to begin with doesn't mean every little negative media narrative created about him is true. I know you wish it were, but it's not. Again, deal with it. 

I'm not some MJ stan, I call myself a lifelong fan because he's the first musical act I actually remember liking, have always enjoyed his music but I'm a casual fan at most I'd say. I don't own every little piece of music he's created, I've never even listened to Invincible album in it's entirety. I also immediately believed the media narrative and ran with the "well, if there's smoke there's fire" assumption at first, especially after '03 happened. Then I actually started to research it and in this case everything is absolutely not what it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't a paedo at all, and i think as Madonna fans you should always have in mind that the media is not going to talk respectfully about either of those, or almost any other artist until they pass. He was the target of this because he was vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys, I wasn't trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I was just curious as to why did they find all this adult hetero porn if his thing is young boys. I mean there is a lot of adult gay porn produced and marketed around 'twinks' and 'barely legal', etc. which i thought would be more in line with his tastes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I think some of the court papers said that Mj had explicit straight porn magazines and DVDs along with all male erotic magazines and books.Think he seem to have a sizable collection of material that would be considered gay or homoerotic. Who knows maybe he was into women as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kurt420 Very well worded! 

7 hours ago, horn said:

MJ is a certified peadophile.

I really appreciate your posts normally, but repeating the same sentence over and over again isn't going to hide the fact that you're clearly clueless about the details of this case. I can absolutely understand suspicion, but if you're selling Jackson's paedophilia as 'certified', then yes, please do show the certification. Where is it? It's not in any of the 10,000+ things they seized from his property nor is it in any of the 100 pages of FBI reports. Apparently you seem to know something those guys missed. So, where is the certification?

Yes, allegations should always be taken seriously (which they absolutely were in Jackson's case, if you just take one minute to read about the scope of his investigation). But they do not and will never = confirmation of the crime, especially if you have nothing to back them up with. 

If you personally equate those two things, good for you. I'm glad this is not how the system works, or we would have to build a lot of new prisons VERY soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will always be a pedophile for people now, because he had inapropriate behaviour with children, even if all he did was to sleep in the same room.

It is all the more disturbing for people that he was weird, really weird.... But I still think he was 12 in his head, at least he acted like that.

 

 

Look at 3'00 when he discovered his christmas gift, the super soaker

It's quite pathetic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, windsor67 said:

You wanna know what's disgusting? That you keep on spamming this thread with tabloid report after tabloid report, not checking their veracity even on the most superficial level, but at the same time lashing out at others calling them "paedo-apologists" for providing fact-based arguments. This video has been on YouTube since over 10 years ffs, go watch it, there are entirely different things going on compared to what the report alleges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jacket said:

OK guys, I wasn't trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. I was just curious as to why did they find all this adult hetero porn if his thing is young boys. I mean there is a lot of adult gay porn produced and marketed around 'twinks' and 'barely legal', etc. which i thought would be more in line with his tastes...

It was mentioned earlier that he was probably using straight porn to groom the kids.

 

1 hour ago, windsor67 said:

The DailyFail is trash, but you should still take 10 min to watch the video. He acts... weird to say the least. And condescending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alain Delon said:

It was mentioned earlier that he was probably using straight porn to groom the kids.

You can't be serious :rotfl:He was "probably" doing this??? Where do you guys keep getting this information from? Are we just making things up at this point because it plays into the whole "He's a pedophile" stick or are there, you know, actual credible sources for this? Oh wait, I already know the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a priest keeps bringing alter boys into his office and closing the door, do you say something or wait for the evidence in a trial? Jackson wanted a free for all for with these kids with no questions asked. If it's a sexual need or he's a bottomless pit of mental illness relating to his childhood, either way, these kids were wronged as far as I see it. If it were my kid, or hopefully your kid, there would be no waiting for proof or evidence. No you CANNOT be with my child alone, because why the fuck does a grown man want that for? Michael refused to take any adult responsibility or have any control over the situation and so he brought it all on to himself and there is no reason to feel any pity for him or dismiss the actions that would be considered a clear path to abuse if it were anyone else doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Nonoka said:

You can't be serious :rotfl:He was "probably" doing this??? Where do you guys keep getting this information from? Are we just making things up at this point because it plays into the whole "He's a pedophile" stick or are there, you know, actual credible sources for this? Oh wait, I already know the answer.

What would you consider a credible source for this? An adult supervisor who sat and watched? We are left to draw our own conclusions. If it acts like a duck, etc is the camp I'm in. The porn was either for this, or MJ was into adult pornography, which would imply he wasn't the asexual man/child that makes sleepover with kids OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was the in bed with child, he was asexual. But when he watched porno on tv and in books, he was not. :rotfl:

damn, some people, :rotfl:

You can defend the indefensible as much as you but in the end it will always be WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nonoka said:

@Kurt420 Very well worded! 

I really appreciate your posts normally, but repeating the same sentence over and over again isn't going to hide the fact that you're clearly clueless about the details of this case.

Repeating the same apologetic sentence over and over again isn't going to hide the fact that you're clearly denying about the truth of this case. 

MJ is still a fucking peadophile and that's something you will never be able to change my opinion (and others who think the same) no matter how many essay you'd posted in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nonoka said:

You wanna know what's disgusting? That you keep on spamming this thread with tabloid report after tabloid report, not checking their veracity even on the most superficial level, but at the same time lashing out at others calling them "paedo-apologists" for providing fact-based arguments. This video has been on YouTube since over 10 years ffs, go watch it, there are entirely different things going on compared to what the report alleges.

Pot pans kettle.

People who's trying to convince others that wacko is a victim is way more disgusting and pathetic.

Wacko Jacko is a fucking peadophile and that will never change.... no matter how many times you try to dismiss anyone in the thread (didn't you realize you're the most apologetic member in this thread?) who thinks wacko is a peadophile. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×