Michael Jackson Dies

Coincidentally, I bumped into the above quote in another thread where the issue of "guilty until proven otherwise" was brought up too. One of the posts describes a case of another sexual predator who got away with multiple cases of rape - and the public even protected him! It seems to be happening in MJ's case too and I get the impression his fans almost take it personally. As if accepting the evidence of his guilt said something about them. And they would never ever support a pedopile!

Yes, both victims claimed there had been no abuse before. But they are victims. Ever heard an alcoholic who claims they don't have a drinking problem? Or even more fitting, an abused wife who claims the husband who beats her black and blue truly does love her - because he says so? It often takes years before she realises that this isn't love. That she is a victim.

People aren't exactly good at understanding or seeing through their own or other people's intentions. And it is his intentions that Jackson lied about. Similarly to abusive husbands who tell their victims they do it because they love them, Jackson told his victims that the abuse was how they showed their love for each other (paraphrased from Leaving Neverland). And like a battered wife, Safechuck and Robson finally admitted they are victims. They can now start healing.

I think it is interesting that Louis Theroux who made a documentary about Jimmy Saville in 2000 has come out and said the same things, Ant, about Michael Jackson apologists, OSIT: Louis Theroux on his infamous Jimmy Savile documentary

[ ...] [H]e added the documentary was an unwitting 'education in grooming' after the sex offender 'brazenly' referred to the allegations while still pulling the wool over the nation's eyes.

Mr Theroux also said it was his experiences with Savile that led him to confront Michael Jackson apologists earlier this year following the accusations of sexual abuse against the singer in documentary Leaving Neverland. [...]

'[At the time] there wasn't enough to go on to make it [Savile's child abuse] a relevant topic of inquiry.'

In the programme, Savile even told Mr Theroux he made up rumours that he 'hated children' to 'put salacious tabloid people off the hunt', adding that it 'worked a dream'. [...]

Regarding the criticism of Jackson apologists, he added 'In a strange sense I suppose I felt I had a little bit of a responsibility, having had - without seeking it out - an education in how grooming works and how abuse often takes place.

'One of the most upsetting things for me is when you go through Twitter and you see the abuse directed at Dan Reed - the director of Leaving Neverland - and the strange obtuseness of how many people - I assume through ignorance and in a sort of way self-grooming - their inability to see that the process of recognising yourself as a victim takes time.'

Mr Theroux added: 'People say, "You're inconsistent" or "Wade Robson wanted to film a Michael Jackson tribute show two years before he came out and said he'd been abused - that doesn't make any sense".

'If you actually understood how mixed up we are as people and how our circuits get scrambled, that makes complete sense.
 
According to a Daily Mail article Marlon Brando "told LA prosecutors in 1994 he thought Michael Jackson 'may have had something to do with kids'":

Brando was a frequent guest at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County where his son Miko was employed as a security guard.

And according to the host of the Luminary podcast Telephone Stories: The Trials of Michael Jackson, the legendary actor confronted the singer about child abuse allegations during one of those visits.

Brando made the revelation during an interview with LA prosecutors following the 1993 allegations that Jackson had molested 13-year-old Jordan Chandler.

Brandon Ogborn, one of the podcast's creator-producers, got hold of a transcript of the interview that was dated March 14, 1994, the Chicago Tribune reported Thursday, and it contents are featured in the docu-series finale set to drop on Sunday.

'I had asked him if he was a virgin and he just sort of laughed and giggled,' Brando said in the interview.

He explained that the Thriller hitmaker didn't like the use of swear words and was too embarrassed to talk about his sex life.

He told the prosecutors that Jackson lived 'in a completely different world' and 'didn't hold real emotions', the Chicago Tribune reported.

Brando confided that Jackson told him he hated his father and that he didn't know anybody his own age and didn't like anybody his own age.

Brando concluded: 'With this mode of behavior that’s been going on, I think it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that he may have had something to do with kids.'

'My impression was that he didn’t want to answer because he was frightened to answer me.'
 
Saw this documentary on Netflix a few months ago called "Square One MJ Documentary" I searched back then to see if anyone had posted about it and again just now but I couldn't find anything on the forum. I typed "Square One" into search and everywhere but no results. So if you guys don't mind me asking, has anyone else here watched it yet, and if so, what do you think about it? This documentary makes a pretty good case that he wasn't a pedophile, and it is seemingly done by people who are just his fans and have no monetary gain but to simply clear his name, or so it seems.


I've always wondered that there was something fishy about the allegations and this documentary seems to corroborate this feeling, well again, or so it seems that is.

Edit: typos
 
Last edited:
The revelations coming out of the lawsuit against Sean Combs AKA Puff Daddy AKA P. Diddy are shedding new light on the allegations that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. It's starting to look like the whole thing was bogus, and part of a conspiracy against him by, ahem, those who control the entertainment industry.

I apologize to those who tried in vain to remind us - @neema comes to mind - that the claims of child sex abuse in the Leaving Neverland documentary - while convincing at the time - never actually held up in a court of law. I should have suspected that the now-adult 'victims' of Jackson could easily have confabulated memories of abuse, given how manipulative and/or gullible people can be, and how uniformly the media pilloried the pop star as a pedophile, for a good 15 years, against all the evidence. I mean, most everyone 'knew' that Jackson was a pedophile, right?

Candace Owens has done a podcast on the new lawsuit and what it means for the Jackson case, and she builds on the dots already connected by the maverick Ian Carroll:


Long story short, behind the scenes Jackson was engaged in legal battles to retain control of his music rights and other property, against a host of unscrupulous characters bent on destroying him and plundering his wealth. In public, Jackson was speaking out, or signalling that he was about to speak out, and that same host was determined to silence his powerful voice.
 
It's starting to look like the whole thing was bogus, and part of a conspiracy against him by, ahem, those who control the entertainment industry.
Everyone knows MJ was a bit messed up, mostly because of his upbringing and being a child star in Hollywood. But to think that you could have sleepovers with only children and yourself and people would think that was OK, is extremely naive. I'm not saying he definitely was a pedo, but either there was no one around him willing to tell him what a bad idea that was, or he was unwilling to listen to anyone who'd suggest against the sleepovers. Either way, he made it easier for the "unscrupulous characters" to go after him if in fact he never touched anyone.

Edit: Also - I've read most of the Puff Daddy lawsuit. The claims in it seem to read similar to the Epstein operation. A powerful man, a female number 2 who made sure the number 1 always had what he wanted, a blackmail operation, media and authority complicity, and rich and famous people getting away with (literally and figuratively) murder along with sex trafficking of underage women.
 
Last edited:
The revelations coming out of the lawsuit against Sean Combs AKA Puff Daddy AKA P. Diddy are shedding new light on the allegations that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. It's starting to look like the whole thing was bogus, and part of a conspiracy against him by, ahem, those who control the entertainment industry.

I apologize to those who tried in vain to remind us - @neema comes to mind - that the claims of child sex abuse in the Leaving Neverland documentary - while convincing at the time - never actually held up in a court of law. I should have suspected that the now-adult 'victims' of Jackson could easily have confabulated memories of abuse, given how manipulative and/or gullible people can be, and how uniformly the media pilloried the pop star as a pedophile, for a good 15 years, against all the evidence. I mean, most everyone 'knew' that Jackson was a pedophile, right?

Candace Owens has done a podcast on the new lawsuit and what it means for the Jackson case, and she builds on the dots already connected by the maverick Ian Carroll:


Long story short, behind the scenes Jackson was engaged in legal battles to retain control of his music rights and other property, against a host of unscrupulous characters bent on destroying him and plundering his wealth. In public, Jackson was speaking out, or signalling that he was about to speak out, and that same host was determined to silence his powerful voice.
Perhaps, however, for me, a person who holds a baby by the armpits and hangs it outside a window located at a great height...

That's not a human being.
 
Everyone knows MJ was a bit messed up, mostly because of his upbringing and being a child star in Hollywood. But to think that you could have sleepovers with only children and yourself and people would think that was OK, is extremely naive. I'm not saying he definitely was a pedo, but either there was no one around him willing to tell him what a bad idea that was, or he was unwilling to listen to anyone who'd suggest against the sleepovers. Either way, he made it easier for the "unscrupulous characters" to go after him if in fact he never touched anyone.

Edit: Also - I've read most of the Puff Daddy lawsuit. The claims in it seem to read similar to the Epstein operation. A powerful man, a female number 2 who made sure the number 1 always had what he wanted, a blackmail operation, media and authority complicity, and rich and famous people getting away with (literally and figuratively) murder along with sex trafficking of underage women.

I remain pretty convinced that MJ was a Pedo and a quite manipulative one. Until proven otherwise, far too many details speak for it IMO. Especially what the FBI profiler had to say.
 
In the case of MJ, I think the most probable scenario is children pushed to him to blackmail him. Now, hard to say what was is real behaviour then. At least the situation was not sane at all.

The only way pushing children at him to have an excuse to blackmail him could work would be if he took the bait. And to take the bait would mean he was in fact a pedophile. Think about it: if someone sent you little children to blackmail you, would you fall for it? Would you hang around them and let them sleep in your house? No, because it's not a normal thing to do. Which is why pushing young girls at Epstein's clients worked so well - they liked young girls and so fell into the trap.

I guess two things could be true at once about Michael Jackson:

1. That he was being taken advantage of and/or attempts were made to discredit or silence him for whatever reason, and children (at least some of them) were somehow planted around him to entrap him.
2. Those who acted against his best interests chose to entrap him using little children because they knew he had unhealthy interest in them and they chose to exploit that weakness.

I never really bought into the excuse that he behaved so weird because of his upbringing, or that he wanted to be around little children (mostly boys, suspiciously selective I'd say) because he never had a proper childhood himself. Maybe I'd buy into it if it wasn't for the fact that he had brothers and sisters who were raised in the same environment and none turned out like Michael did.

Not to mention that for the majority of recorded history happy and carefree childhood has been a privilege of the rich, and only became available to larger masses of people recently, and mosty in the west. Historically, children of peasants or the poor in general worked from an early age too, and child labour still takes place in many parts of the world. And yet no link between lack of normal childhood and adult behaviour patters similar to Michael's has ever been reported. So I don't think his childhood is to blame here, although I don't dismiss it could have been a factor.

I also think there was something very off about his sexuality. Take the fact that all his children come from surrogates. He was loved and adored by millions of women worldwide, and could pick and choose, and yet he couldn't produce children in a natural way? Why?

Unless he was completely asexual his sexual urges must have manifested themselves somehow, and I'm suspicious of how healthy that manifestation was. Lisa Presley was his only fairly normal romantic partner, but I'd say it's not impossible that she agreed to be his beard - or was used by him as one. And if that's the case, what was there to hide? I don't think it was homosexuality, we'd be hearing reports of grown men hanging around him, not little boys.

There are reports of him calling the media liars and saying that our history books are manipulated, so I guess it's likely he was close to the epicentre of evil than most. But then again, show business is one heck of a nasty swamp, so that's not exactly surprising. I can certainly believe that there could have been attempts to silence him by ruining his reputation and credibility - but Leaving Neverland came out long after his death, what exactly could have been the motive then?

Here's an example of a video like that from 14 years ago, so long before any deep fake technology was available:


I apologize to those who tried in vain to remind us - @neema comes to mind - that the claims of child sex abuse in the Leaving Neverland documentary - while convincing at the time - never actually held up in a court of law. I should have suspected that the now-adult 'victims' of Jackson could easily have confabulated memories of abuse, given how manipulative and/or gullible people can be, and how uniformly the media pilloried the pop star as a pedophile, for a good 15 years, against all the evidence. I mean, most everyone 'knew' that Jackson was a pedophile, right?

Accusations against R. Kelly didn't hold up in a court of law for over two decades either. He was put on trial multiple times for alleged sex crimes and despite effectively running a sex cult and video evidence being available he was repeatedly found not guilty - until he was eventually jailed in 2022.

As for Candace Owens and her material, note that she also defended Andrew Tate as yet another innocent victim of the Matrix, so her pattern recognition and character assessment skills certainly do need a bit more calibration. She may be right about P. Diddy, but she may have thrown Michael Jackson into the same category incorrectly due to some similarities between these two cases that prompted her to build a link between them in her mind.

Also, like Michael Jackson, Tate has not been convicted despite 4-5 years of ongoing investigation against him. And somehow I really doubt the latter is completely innocent.

And what would be the motive behind confabulating memories of abuse years after Jackson's death? The two men from Leaving Neverland gained lots of negative publicity, that's not exactly the kind of fame anyone wants and they must have known there was going to be backlash when they agreed to do the interview. Their parents and spouses testified in that document too, that's one heck of a conspiracy against a man that was long gone, couldn't be used by anyone, and didn't need silencing anymore.

Then there's Macauley Culkin who continues to claim he was never abused by Jackson, and yet his life has been full of the very issues adults who were victims of sexual abuse as children are statistically very likely to suffer from. Sure, this may have been a result of exposure to show business early on, but somehow I have doubts.

So yeah, the jury is still out on this one as far as I'm concerned, but I'm 80% sure he was guilty.
 
Can you share the source/video here?

It was discussed quite a while ago in the following thread. What former FBI agent Jim Clemente said about MJ was pretty damming and clear IMO, taken together with all the other weird things we know about MJ. Unfortunately, the video isn’t available anymore. I try to see if I can find it again somewhere later. Two of several comments in the thread:

Re: Michael Jackson Dies

Here is what former FBI agent Jim Clemente has to say about Jackson and the "child abuse case" against him [15:13 - 25:08]:


Notice that he was involved in the case and probably would have testified in court, if he would not have developed/fought cancer at that time.

I've to admit that I have not studied the allegations against Jackson. The only thing I know, is some of the media coverage of it all.
I also have to admit that I believed in his innocence, but only because of a big lack of hard data about it all and a somewhat emotional reaction to his death, fueled by the media.

Now I'm asking myself: What if it is true?
And I kind of feel bad, for such an uncritical stance/view of Jackson's case in hindsight, because of a lack of actual hard data on my side... Because, what if it is true?

So I'm in no way capable to come to a conclusion, but Clementes statements surely are making me think more critical in that respect...

Has anyone here researched the case of Jackson in depth and if so, what is your conclusion?

Re: Re: Michael Jackson Dies



I don't think you can grow up the way he did, live the life he lived, and not be pretty sick. Liz Taylor (long may she wave!) said he was the "most normal" person she knew. Well, who did she know? And what about her own life choices?

Yes, MJ projected this image of a beautiful, gentle soul, but a lot of his music was just SICK. No other word for it. I actually watched my very first MJ music video the other day and had to turn it off after just a few minutes because it really was disgusting.

So no, I'm not surprised that he was a predatory pervert. Maybe he was a psychopath of the feminine variety that we've been looking at the last week or so? They can sure take people in!
 
Last edited:
It should also be remembered that children that were heavily abused at an early age can later often not remember any of the abuse consciously because the trauma was just too severe. The mind/being of the child had to shut off in order to survive while being confronted by such brutality: by either deleting the conscious memories of it and/or splitting into other personalities. It seems to be a protection mechanism that the body/mind uses in such circumstances. Often such children seem to remember only good or normal stuff about the abuser and can defend the person because they really believe that “nothing bad happened“! In that way they can become one of the strongest defenders of their own abuser, strangely enough! Also, such people often seem to carry the trauma unconsciously with them their whole life, creating hell on earth for themselves and/or near ones, by things like: being suicidal, self destructive, heavily plagued/filled by dark thoughts and feelings, being overly aggressive in mundane situations and many other things. While often not being consciously aware of the traumatic cause of it in the past. For such former children of heavy abuse the whole rest of their life often turns into living hell. If they are lucky they might be able to work themselves out of that hell, painfully and slowly over many decades.

Also, if I remember correctly, Clemente was heavily abused as a child himself (sexual abuse I think), so he knows about what he is talking about.
 
Last edited:
I apologize to those who tried in vain to remind us - @neema comes to mind - that the claims of child sex abuse in the Leaving Neverland documentary - while convincing at the time - never actually held up in a court of law. I should have suspected that the now-adult 'victims' of Jackson could easily have confabulated memories of abuse, given how manipulative and/or gullible people can be, and how uniformly the media pilloried the pop star as a pedophile, for a good 15 years, against all the evidence. I mean, most everyone 'knew' that Jackson was a pedophile, right?
Accusations against R. Kelly didn't hold up in a court of law for over two decades either. He was put on trial multiple times for alleged sex crimes and despite effectively running a sex cult and video evidence being available he was repeatedly found not guilty - until he was eventually jailed in 2022.

I’ll also add to the above that Julian Asange continues to be locked up in prison because accusations against him did hold up in a court of law. So I wouldn’t use the decisions of the legal system as a fool-proof evidence of someone’s guilt or innocence.
 
Back
Top Bottom