Michael Jackson Dies

Jasophoria

The Force is Strong With This One
I only see Accusing videos and no defending videos here.

Michael Jackson has been investicated by the FBI for 10 years or more, and found nothing.

There is no proof found ever that he is guilty.

That someone is weird doesn't mean he is guilty.

Bla bla bla of people also doesn't mean someone is guilty.

You people just believe some words of 2 dudes?

I am not saying he is innocent, but also not saying he is guilty, we just cant be sure.
But i think you should at least check both sides of the story first.
Michael Jackson is death and can't defend himself, so then i think the right to do that goes to his family.

 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I am not saying he is innocent, but also not saying he is guilty, we just cant be sure.
But i think you should at least check both sides of the story first.
I think you'll find that most everyone here is pretty open to changing their minds about things if there's sufficient enough information and evidence to show otherwise. I personally watched a few videos and some articles that tried to refute the allegations and most of them seemed to nitpick one or two items or pull the race card, or how this is all about money, which to me seemed like the simplest and easiest way to shut down an actual discussion. And it could be true, maybe they really are just after the money and made up the story, or it really did happen but their motives aren't as noble as they made it out to be in the documentary. But including the video you posted which does raise some additional questions, it also grasps at straws in other areas.

But thanks for posting it.
 

Jasophoria

The Force is Strong With This One
You can't prove someone's innocence, you can only prove someone's guilt, that's why it's also "innocent untill proven quilty"
Like I said, people's bla bla bla is not evidence, for someones innocence either.
And you can't have physical evidence that proves someone's innocence.
Physical proof is always proof that someone is guilty.
And there is no physical proof whatsoever.
 

Jasophoria

The Force is Strong With This One
I forgot something.
The only (evidence) you can have to prove someone's innocence is words, and like i sad, that doesn't count in a court of law.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Well, the forum isn't a court of law and Michael Jackson isn't on trial here. We're posting what we've found so far and sharing our thoughts on the documentary and additional videos and articles posted about it in order to get a better understanding of what was really going on. At this point, there is no physical proof, like you said, other than the accounts of the people that were there, but discounting that as 'bla bla bla' doesn't really help.
 

gdpetti

Jedi Council Member
Remember that Bernie Madoff was investigated about 3 times and they never found anything.... until his pyramid scheme collapsed and his 'investors' got upset... rich investors have a wee bit more pull when this happens.

On the 'bright side', Michael seems not to have gotten the 'dead mans' routine like some others thru the years... on that note, here's an interesting bit on our dear old Paul McCarthy who's busy like Celine Dion doing the One Eyed Salute to Monarch Programming these days too: The Meaning of Paul McCartney’s “Who Cares”: It’s About MK ULTRA
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
That someone is weird doesn't mean he is guilty.
FWIW, he was more than 'weird'. For example, it's not normal to have material of pictures of naked teens/boys in one's house. That's not being 'weird', that's being pathological.

A List of Every Item Discovered by Police In Michael Jackson’s Residence

A few examples of what was found:

part from the article said:
Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

[...]

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):

Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down
From this article:

A source involved in the investigation said they discovered Jackson had possessed ‘disgusting and downright shocking images of child torture, adult and child nudity, female bondage and sado-masochism’, adding that the singer had ‘truly perverse sexual appetites’.
 
Last edited:

Dakota

Jedi Council Member
Physical proof is always proof that someone is guilty.
And there is no physical proof whatsoever.
FWIW, he was more than 'weird'. For example, it's not normal to have material of pictures of naked teens/boys in one's house. That's not being 'weird', that's being pathological.
A List of Every Item Discovered by Police In Michael Jackson’s Residence
How much proofs one need?

I'm really trying to be open related MJ and pedophilia even I have watched both documentary Leaving Neverland. I think that there is reasonable arguments for both sides but when I watch something like this video (below) I do not doubt it at all that MJ is pedophile. And if he's not what with a laughing and giggling when he is been interviewed about accusations that he is pedophile? Couple of times he even yawns.
Video is from year of 1996 and at sixth minute he's been asked did he ever been accused of sexual molestation of Brett Barnes and his reaction was very disturbing. Even video doesn't show physical evidence I wonder how can someone explain those reactions than that he is pedophile?

 

Jasophoria

The Force is Strong With This One
The link of the list of evidence i can open, but i can't scroll down, so i can't see it.
And when did this list show up?
I also already heard debunk stories about that list.
Also, if there was evidence, then why was he innocent of all 13 or 14 charges against him, in court?

Dakota
What do you want to make clear with that video?
 

Oxajil

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The link of the list of evidence i can open, but i can't scroll down, so i can't see it.
And when did this list show up?
These are police reports. As other media outlets report, Radar Online obtained these documents and published them online in 2016. They are from the raid in November 2003.

Also, if there was evidence, then why was he innocent of all 13 or 14 charges against him, in court?
You should watch Jim Clemente's videos on some of the older cases.

Jasophoria said:
What do you want to make clear with that video?
I think Dakota was pretty clear. I also had the same impression as Dakota. Some viewers seem to get a different impression (YT comments), but considering everything so far about MJ, I'm thinking his reactions in the video were creepy. But, it may be subjective.
 

Mariama

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
How much proofs one need?

I'm really trying to be open related MJ and pedophilia even I have watched both documentary Leaving Neverland. I think that there is reasonable arguments for both sides but when I watch something like this video (below) I do not doubt it at all that MJ is pedophile. And if he's not what with a laughing and giggling when he is been interviewed about accusations that he is pedophile? Couple of times he even yawns.
Video is from year of 1996 and at sixth minute he's been asked did he ever been accused of sexual molestation of Brett Barnes and his reaction was very disturbing. Even video doesn't show physical evidence I wonder how can someone explain those reactions than that he is pedophile?
I could be wrong, but it looks like duper's delight to me.

If I were accused of a crime as serious as this one I wouldn't laugh, giggle or whatever. I would be very focused on the questions and take the person asking the questions very seriously, knowing my life was in the balance. I think MJ and his team were trying to distract and confuse the interrogator, some of the tactics used by defendants to control interviews, according to dr. Samenow in The Myth of the 'Out of Character' Crime (see chapter 16):

The six tactics are:
* Diversion
* Feeding others what he thinks they want to hear or what they ought to know
* Attempting to confuse others
* Minimization
*Putting others on the defensive
* Building oneself up while putting others down.
 

Ruth

The Living Force
MJ was most likely a victim of abuse too. Hollywood and the entertainment industry seems to be infested with this sort of thing. Unfortunately children are the most vulnerable targets.
 

Niall

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This article lists counter-claims (against the families' claims in the Leaving Neverland documentary). Do they hold up?

Why is U.S. Media Silent on the Implosion of Leaving Neverland, While the U.K. Press is Pouncing?

JOHN ZIEGLER APR 4, 2019 10:40 AM

One month ago, HBO aired an explosive “documentary” called Leaving Neverland, which told horrific stories of child sexual abuse by two accusers of pop icon Michael Jackson. In the aftermath of its premiere, which was almost universally embraced by the mainstream media, I wrote three different stories, including one which included interviews with important subjects the movie ignored, casting doubt on whether the film really should be taken as mostly, or even partly, factual.

Since then, the production has been found to have numerous substantive problems, and its narrative is now filled with significant holes. But strangely, while the tabloid press in the United Kingdom has been all over the movie’s implosion, there has been a complete blackout of these developments in the news media here in the United States.

The revelation which has gotten the most attention (it has been featured in at least three of the major U.K. tabloids), deals with the story of accuser James Safechuck, who was originally presumed to be the more credible of the two alleged victims. It centers on Safechcuk’s detailed claim in the movie that he was forced to have sex with Jackson, near the start of his abuse, in the second floor of the train station at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.

In the film and in his lawsuit deposition, Safechuck says that his abuse by Jackson ended in 1992, when he was about 14 years old. A huge part of the movie’s narrative is that Jackson lost sexual interest in these boys when they reached the age of 14, supposedly because that is when puberty hit (though the average white American boy currently begins puberty at around ten years old).

However, there is now a huge problem with Safechuck’s allegation. Construction on the train station building, which was not commenced until late 1993, wasn’t completed until mid-1994, and after that time, Jackson, who had just gotten married to Lisa Marie Presley, was rarely even at Neverland for the next several years.

This suggests that Safechuck, based on his own testimony, and the film’s most prominent premise, made up the story about being abused in the train house. This would be problematic for anyone who has no corroboration for their dramatic claims, and who finally came forward to sue 21 years after their abuse, but given the remarkably wide latitude which abuse claims are given, especially in the #MeToo era, it would hardly be devastating on its own.

But that radically changed when the movie’s director Dan Reed, who has been effectively acting as the PR director for the massive lawsuit these accusers have against Jackson’s estate, inexplicably poured gasoline on a brushfire. Instead of simply saying Safechuck was mistaken (which would have only been seen as rather strange), Reed decided that Safechuck had indeed been abused in the train house, but his star victim had just gotten the year very wrong.

Except that explanation simply doesn’t work, and it causes enormous portions of Reed’s film to go down in flames. Even if we concede that Safechuck was just mistaken about the train house episode occurring at the start of the abuse (which he says began in 1988), at earliest Safechuck is at least a mature 16-years-old by the time it was built.

So, according to the movie’s own director, Safechuck lied under oath, lied in the film, and his abuse at 16-years-old, at which time he was clearly well past puberty and even larger than Jackson, blows apart the project’s entire theory of how and why Jackson supposedly only preferred the company of very young boys. But as much as this episode brings suspicion to the credibility of the research and testimony behind Leaving Neverland, it is really only a piece of a much large puzzle.

Here are just some of the other recent revelations which, in a rational world, would have the American news media thoroughly revisiting the claims at the center of this movie:
So, why is it that none of this has gained any media traction here in the United States, even though it has in the United Kingdom? There appear to be at least three explanations.

One, attention spans here are shorter and Leaving Neverland, especially in the Donald Trump era, is already considered “old news.” Second, the strategic use of Oprah Winfrey to sanctify these accusers as legitimate carries far great weight in the American media, where she is still revered and feared. Thirdly, the impact of the #MeToo movement having radically altered the rules for how we evaluate such stories is much more pronounced here.

Of course, none of this remotely justifies the American media taking a dive on this story. And, just because they have, it doesn’t mean that Leaving Neverland is at all based in truth.
 

CNS

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I just watched the Leaving Neverland Docs and have read the counter-claims as well. Ugh! We may never quite know beyond any reasonable doubt whether Jackson was guilty of some of these heinous crimes against children.

However, I keep coming back to several facts on the ground, so to speak. There is irrefutable evidence that these boys were very involved with Michael’s life and vice versa. There is more than enough video, pictorial, and paper evidence to support the stories that suggest that Michael had plenty of “unadulterated” access to these kids when they were in very vulnerable positions. Some of Michael’s behavior was very predatory in its nature. He did seemingly groom these boys—and their families; i.e. letters, faxes, no stop phone calls, visits to houses, calling them ‘special’ and giving them nicknames, and spending lavish amounts of money on trips and gifts. There were many times where he included the parents early on, but later in their relationships, he appeared to be systematically separating them from their parents (whether that is verifiable, we don’t really know, but this would be an important revelation).

There is ample testimonial evidence to suggest that Jackson did sleep with these children in his bed without other adults present.

And this is the rub: Anyone that defends Michael’s actions of sleeping with young boys says, “well, you just have to know him. He wouldn’t hurt a child.” Hmm…Okay. Well here’s where it gets real sticky. So, you take a grown-ass man who, say, accidently falls asleep with someone else’s child in his bed because, oh, they were just worn out after playing so hard that day and evening. Fine, once would be a mistake. After that, it becomes premeditated. And the more these “sleepovers” accumulate, the more speculation into dastardly-deeds rears its head. Then, Michael is publicly accused of molestation in 1993. But the boys sleeping in his bed behavior does not stop. Even when he is asked in interviews, he continues to say that he feels that it’s not inappropriate. Now, Michael was arguably the most famous person there ever was and ever will be. He had fans and haters on every continent. Celebrities all talk about having to be careful, not only with their image, but with their behavior as well. People that encounter them could easily become sue-happy to try to get a small piece of their pie. Celebrities have claimed that they have been falsely accused of various things for many years, and it was well known that this could happen in the 1980’s and 90’s. I am pretty sure that Michael would have been aware of this as well. So, after not protecting himself for several years by sleeping in beds with boys, following the case in ’93, one would surmise that even the slightest bit of rational judgement would stop him from continuing that behavior if he was innocent of the alleged crimes. The fact that he did not stop the behavior is compelling to me. Either he was guilty as homemade sin, or he was an idiot, or he felt that his celebrity status made him somehow above the law. Whatever it was, it was still aberrant behavior that no one can argue. That is not appropriate in any case, any time, or anywhere.

To address some of Zeigler’s questions as to why the boys testified on Michael’s behalf, I think that if it did actually take place the way the boys are saying, then it was the years of trauma that made them defend their perpetrator (much like an abused spouse defending their aggressor) to the bloody end. And when he discusses Safechuck’s mother celebrating Michael’s death—when she wasn’t supposed to have known about her son’s abuse—Ziegler is wrong. Safechuck alluded to Michael’s behavior back in 2003 when speaking to his mother about why he would not testify for Michael. So, she would have known about Jackson’s perversions for about six years prior to his death. I too found her response a little odd, but hey, I do not know what it’s like to be a parent of a victim in these cases, and I don’t know how I would react hearing such news if I was. That is just two of the errors in assumption Ziegler makes in his article.

Guilty or not, Michael Jackson was a weird human being. He was possibly a victim of abuse himself, but there are plenty of victims that go on to lead semi-normal lives and don’t pass the trauma they incurred to others. Jackson put himself in harm’s way with his strange and questionable behavior. It is only logical then that accusations like these, real or fake, would arise consequently.
 
Top Bottom