The llama's turned into a chimp

[QUOTE] [b]Thistleboy1980 wrote:[/b]

Brilliant post Matt! Wish the MJ bashing would stop.

Yes, he was a disturbed individual - no wonder. Yes, some of the crazy shit he did was fun to parody.

BUT, I really don't think he was abusing children (or animals, you sick fuck Solan ;) :p) [/QUOTE]

LOL :P

There you have it - proof! If only they'd used this in court...

One thing people who are so determined to bash Michael Jackson fail to note...

Given Michael Jackson was, lets face it, the most famous and known person in the world, and you'd be hard pushed to find someone who hadn't heard of the allegations/accusations made against him - why were parents still letting their children stay at his house as late as the early-mid 2000s...? Speaks volumes.

That fact alone, for me, shines a lot of light on things. You've got a guy, who has everything and nothing, with a childlike mind - just wants to be friends with people who don't want something from him. And you've got parents who recognise this, and see a man with a big heart and a lot of money and no sense.

What MJ bashers fail to see is, in these discussions, people aren't saying "HE'S INNOCENT", they're simply saying "but what's been said doesn't quite make sense, does it?".

Yawn.

[QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]

^he was raised a Jehovah's witness.

He looked up to HIS MOTHER like a saint.

He was full of empathy and shy

He watched his dad and brother's screw groupies sometimes in the same room.

He worked at strip joints late nights before getting up to go to school the next day.

He was repeatedly abused by his dad along with his siblings

And it's been suggested that he was "lent out to studio execs etc" some nights to do God knows what.


If he had his millions and built a sanctuary then so be it. He earned it.

That's what Neverland WAS .

As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas.


Now to the extent that things happened according to allegations who really knows.

The allegations much like legislation had it's own set of "riders"
The first being the Chandler kids nearly estranged father who wanted Michael (rich famous family friend now) to back his production company for films (upwards of 15-20 million)
when Michael refused, he put his kid under sodium amythal (hereafter known to be suspect with "planted memories")

So those allegations are not without reasonable doubt.

The second allegations were by a con artist and were absurd.

Until you get the Chandler Kid to tell his own story both are marred by inconsistencies.


As for raping animals... That's crazy. [/QUOTE]
THANK YOU.

I'd really like to believe that MJ was a guy who never abused children - that he was just this ultra mega-star whose upbringing, fame and fortune lead him to behave in very strange ways. But, somehow, it just all seems a bit too weird and suspicious, as Matt said.

I just can't understand why a grown man would have strangers' kids sleeping in his bed. I mean, can you imagine sleeping in MJ's bed as a kid? The guy looked creepy as hell, with his low voice and plastic nose. I sure as hell wouldn't want to sleep in his bed, and I'm 27. Grown men shouldn't sleep with kids who aren't their own - it's fucked up, I'm sorry.

As I said, I wish to believe MJ didn't do anything inappropriate, but I just can't.

Thing is, as stupid as semantics are in this sort of scenario, he wasn't necessarily in the bed with them. Whilst it is odd to have children round for a sleepover as a grown man - no matter your upbringing or conditioning etc - it's not illegal.

And again, as per my previous point, who does it say more about - him for doing it, or the parents for allowing it? Especially allowing it when you know the guy has previous, be that manufactured by someone's greed or by actual guilt.

[QUOTE] [b]GreatKingSam wrote:[/b]

Thing is, as stupid as semantics are in this sort of scenario, he wasn't necessarily in the bed with them. Whilst it is odd to have children round for a sleepover as a grown man - no matter your upbringing or conditioning etc - it's not illegal.

And again, as per my previous point, who does it say more about - him for doing it, or the parents for allowing it? Especially allowing it when you know the guy has previous, be that manufactured by someone's greed or by actual guilt.[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree re the parents being irresponsible or just stupidly naive.

Would you not say that sheds a little bit of light on this scenario... a naive, rich, famous, lonely guy who had an upbringing that conditioned him a certain way, being taken advantage of...?

Drop any petty hatred or whatever, and look at the facts. No one is denying that having kids round for a sleepover isn't weird, but add the "reasoning" to it, and the motives of others, and it paints an extremely different picture to "he's a rapist".

[QUOTE] [b]GreatKingSam wrote:[/b]

Would you not say that sheds a little bit of light on this scenario... a naive, rich, famous, lonely guy who had an upbringing that conditioned him a certain way, being taken advantage of...?

Drop any petty hatred or whatever, and look at the facts. No one is denying that having kids round for a sleepover isn't weird, but add the "reasoning" to it, and the motives of others, and it paints an extremely different picture to "he's a rapist".[/QUOTE]

That's what I'd like to think. But, somehow, it almost sounds too good to be true that he was just a lonely and strange guy - a creature of his circumstances.

Recently (2013) Wade Robson (that dancer guy from MTV who coached Britney Spears) said that MJ sexually abused him for a number of years. Is this guy also a liar (well, in a sense he is most definitely a liar, because during the 2005 trial, he said that Michael never abused him)? What's the motive behind him saying this?

There are so many other allegations, including from people who worked with him, like maids.

There's a theme with all the allegations though - they're all from people who want something, no-mark "celebs" or greedy parents. Like someone said on the previous page, what's never spoken about (and pretty much outright dismissed as irrelevant in terms of support for MJ) are things like Jordy Chandler's dad... Michael befriends the family, pays for holidays, shopping trips, brings them to awards etc... yet the second the dad wants him to pay for an extension on the house, or fund his screenplay (Robin Hood: Men In Tights) and Michael says no... oh look, court case.

And, for every book written with so-called evidence, there are books written that suggest nothing happened. So, where is the line drawn?

I just like to look at what's in front of us. What we know of the man (his upbringing, his naivety etc.), and what we know of the court cases and accusations (questionable motives from the accusers). It's fascinating that people only want to focus on the salacious side of the man, the things that "prove" his guilt, never at the obvious stuff that also points to the fact of a man getting taken advantage of... such as the Arvizo family. That little court case where he was found not guilty on all counts, and the mother was pretty much left ridiculed due to her ever changing tales.

Chandler scenario aside, that final case is what ruined the guy. A case that was built on a greedy person's lies, and the desire of a burned district attorney. So sad.

[QUOTE] [b]Ale Solan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Riku M wrote:[/b]

Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad.[/QUOTE]


Here you have some common sense, cocksucker.


[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]

No matter which way you put it, Michael Jackson was a rather disturbed personality. Yes, he had a very very unique life with circumstances (abuse from his father, being so famous at such a young age, having to dedicate himself to singing and dancing, not having had a childhood, etc) which can in a way explain his behaviour. But it is impossible to defend completely his behaviour concerning children. While we can say with confidence that some people took the opportunity to use child abuse as a way of getting money from Michael Jackson, I don't think we can dismiss every single (and there are many) claim of improper conduct on his part towards children.

One child, for instance, described Michael's penis - and he described it correctly (apparently MJ had some indentifying marks/skin colour on his penis) - how else would this child have known what to describe except by having seen it? Added to this there are countless - literally - of stories, told by a variety of people, some of which stood to gain nothing, of Michael behaving in an abnormal way around children.[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

I think you just proved my point....

This video is absolute proof he was guilty.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The tears in my eyes from laughing so hard will probably drown me!!!!

[QUOTE] [b]Riku M wrote:[/b][QUOTE] [b]matt z wrote:[/b]
As the recordings took place in Encino, it wasn't yet the animal sanctuary he had in Neverland. Boa, chimp, llamas.
[/QUOTE]
Nice to read some common sense every once in a while. The hate against Michael and the amount of shit throwing on this site is really sad.[/QUOTE]
well chimps do throw shit