Michael Jackson's Kids

walshb

foxinsox wrote: »

I wish people would stop using the phrase half-caste please...

It is not a polite term and tends to be used by people in Ireland of a much older generation (60 - 90yrs). I know no offence is probably meant but it was mentioned way back in the thread and seems to have been just ignored.


Michael Jackson's children all could defnitely be his biological children ..

If any of you study genetics or even vaguely research it you would know that there are infinite combinations and possibilities, and colour of skin can be a dormant gene and can reappear many generations later.

How about statistics as opposed to genetics? Is it believable that all
3 are his, when to my eyes, all three appear white?

Statistically this is a real hard one to ask folks to believe.
Like I said, of all the couples I have seen where one parent
is white and the other is black, the offspring were mixed.

Now, that's a 100 percent definite from my statistics.

So, genetically the chance may be there, albeit a very very very small
chance, but three of the children are white?:cool:

Terri26

believe it or not even mixed race is considered anti pc! the pc term is not dual heritage! lol - got in trouble once in an interview for referring to myself as mixed race. i consider half caste offensive but would bever me that bothered by it!

fryup

walshb wrote: »

They are as white as white

well so was he:cool:

btw did any of you notice the eldest lad chewing gum throughout the ceremony last night as if he didn't give a toss..bit strange

stovelid

togster wrote: »

Yeah but your not him.

The date on my post would clearly suggest so, alright.

partyatmygaff

Most of the family were chewing gum, I think it could be because they had to talk to each person who did a tribute for their breath or something.

As for those saying they're white and not his kids, they definitley are not pure white, they have the same skin tone as LaToya and they do look like him and debbie and Prince II looks like a carbon-copy of michael. Nearly sure they are his biological kids, but hey if you wanna believe the Sun or whatever rag you read go ahead, its you being affected not me.
Like look here, http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/07/0708_barbara_flip_camera_small.jpg
Theres very obvious resemblances to michael in Prince, but still you believe as you wish.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/07/0707_katherine_jackson_88883359.jpg Paris' skin tone looks nothing like pure white when she's beside her aunt and grandmother.

Those who thought it was staged, I really don't think it was, they said Janet wanted to say a few words and then suddenly Paris was the one who wanted to say something, I doubt anyone especially an 11 year old could act out a scene talking about her own Dad especially while just being directly infront of her Dad's casket, Marlon crying at the end after it all probably did nothing for her nerves.

Some of you hear just want to believe what you want to believe, It is as if you don't understand how terrible it would be to lose your Dad at a young age.

As for them being there without masks, I don't think it made much difference now there was a photo of them without masks a while back anyway.

Oh yeah for the record, that sleeping in the same bed thing never happened, maybe you got that from distorted journalism or otherwise I don't know, the interview where this was heard was when that guy gavin arvizio said he asked Michael if he could sleep over in his bedroom that night on the floor, michael refused at first and only agreed if gavin took the bed and he took the floor. Seriously get your facts straight before saying something and don't let your blind hate get in the way walshb it only makes you look inconsiderate and inhumane.

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

How about statistics as opposed to genetics? Is it believable that all
3 are his, when to my eyes, all three appear white?

Statistically this is a real hard one to ask folks to believe.
Like I said, of all the couples I have seen where one parent
is white and the other is black, the offspring were mixed.

Now, that's a 100 percent definite from my statistics.

So, genetically the chance may be there, albeit a very very very small
chance, but three of the children are white?:cool:

You are just a negative mofo in everything you post. The kids aren't his, a 12 year old child was faking it at her fathers funeral :rolleyes:.

Fair enough criticize his family for their behavior at the funeral - but getting on the childrens back for chewing gum - ffs, I've seen kids do all kinds of inappropriate **** at funerals.

The two eldest children were conceived with the nurse, it Jacko possesed the dominate gene its very possible - this youngest child came from a surrogate and doner to the best of my knowledge.

His kids look pretty normal to me, so Ill give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his parenting skills, unlike you walsh my glass is always half full.

moneyman

walshb wrote: »

How about statistics as opposed to genetics? Is it believable that all
3 are his, when to my eyes, all three appear white?

Statistically this is a real hard one to ask folks to believe.
Like I said, of all the couples I have seen where one parent
is white and the other is black, the offspring were mixed.

Now, that's a 100 percent definite from my statistics.

So, genetically the chance may be there, albeit a very very very small
chance, but three of the children are white?:cool:

I am really not trying to be an a-hole, but how do they look white? They're certainly not black, but I think it's blatantly clear that they're not fully white. Whether they're Jacksons biological kids or not I don't know (and don't care), but they definitely are not 100% white. I mean, even if you can't see the darkness to their skin, just look at their features. All three have button noses, distinct features of black people. Going by your statistical measures of people you've met in real life, how many in a family of whites have all had button noses? It's unlikely. Usually there is a variation, especially in white people. Their lips, particularly the boys, are also pretty full. Not as full as a fully black persons, but certainly more than the average white person.

moneyman

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Most of the family were chewing gum, I think it could be because they had to talk to each person who did a tribute for their breath or something.

As for those saying they're white and not his kids, they definitley are not pure white, they have the same skin tone as LaToya and they do look like him and debbie and Prince II looks like a carbon-copy of michael. Nearly sure they are his biological kids, but hey if you wanna believe the Sun or whatever rag you read go ahead, its you being affected not me.
Those who thought it was staged, I really don't think it was, they said Janet wanted to say a few words and then suddenly Paris was the one who wanted to say something, I doubt anyone especially an 11 year old could act out a scene talking about her own Dad especially while just being directly infront of her Dad's casket, Marlon crying at the end after it all probably did nothing for her nerves.

Some of you hear just want to believe what you want to believe, It is as if you don't understand how terrible it would be to lose your Dad at a young age.

As for them being there without masks, I don't think it made much difference now there was a photo of them without masks a while back anyway.

Oh yeah for the record, that sleeping in the same bed thing never happened, maybe you got that from distorted journalism or otherwise I don't know, the interview where this was heard was when that guy gavin arvizio said he asked Michael if he could sleep over in his bedroom that night on the floor, michael refused at first and only agreed if gavin took the bed and he took the floor. Seriously get your facts straight before saying something.

Spot on. One of the few informed posts in this thread.

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

You are just a negative mofo in everything you post. The kids aren't his, a 12 year old child was faking it at her fathers funeral :rolleyes:.

Fair enough criticize his family for their behavior at the funeral - but getting on the childrens back for chewing gum - ffs, I've seen kids do all kinds of inappropriate **** at funerals.

The two eldest children were conceived with the nurse, it Jacko possesed the dominate gene its very possible - this youngest child came from a surrogate and doner to the best of my knowledge.

His kids look pretty normal to me, so Ill give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his parenting skills, unlike you walsh my glass is always half full.

Did I say the kid faked it?It just came across as weird and not all that
genuine. I may well have been genuine, but the feel I got
was not a sincere feel. It's freaking Jackson's memorial for chrissake.
Nohing is impossible here. He was that mad, and those around him
were not all that sane either

TKO, you are at a funeral for your dad, the most famous man on earth, at least try to look a little apprporiate. The gum chewing was crass and kids
or not, there were adults who at least could have advised them, but again, those adults are every bit as whacked as MJ.

They are just a crazy bunch.

I am quite certain that I am not the only one who feels that
the kids are not his, biologically. I would say those who believe they
are, are in the minority and are a little naive

BTW, what's mofo?

Black, white, yellow, sallow. We can debate forever, simply put, they do
not at all resemble a child produced by a caucasion and a black person.

At least not from what I have ever seen from this mixing!

walshb

fryup wrote: »

well so was he:cool:

btw did any of you notice the eldest lad chewing gum throughout the ceremony last night as if he didn't give a toss..bit strange

I noticed that too, he didn't seem to have a care in the world.
The whole affair was whacked. The shades, the gum, the speeches. Weird weird weird

partyatmygaff

Whats wrong about sunglasses? They aren't there to look cool, standing infront of 1 billion or more people, thats 1/6 or more of the world watching you. Wouldn't it be easier if you know the people can't see their eyes or if they're crying etc. Its called privacy and believe it or not, entertainers want privacy too. Nothing strange about that in my opinion if you put yourself in their position.
Prince II just looked confused and a bit unsettled and sad, Prince probably as 12 year old guys generally do wanted to not cry infront of more than a billion people or look weak so to speak, at the end when his sister cried he definitley looked saddened.

He was an entertainer who thrived on the stage and had done so 2 days before his death on the same stage, surely having a memorial with song and music was not out of place.
I don't see whats "whacked" about any of it, all I see is a guy with a vendetta against Michael Jackson and his family, blindly attacking them and anything to do with them without reason.

JohnK

walshb wrote: »

I noticed that too, he didn't seem to have a care in the world.

It did seem a bit strange all right but at the same time given the American love of pills they could very well have been pumped full of tranquilisers before it started.

partyatmygaff

JohnK wrote: »

It did seem a bit strange all right but at the same time given the American love of pills they could very well have been pumped full of tranquilisers before it started.

:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus

WesternNight wrote: »

+1

I don't believe for a second that he ever harmed a child.

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child he wasn't related to seems compeltely inappropriate because you assume he was a fully developed, sexual man. This wasn't the case here.

The man was aesexual. He was a child in a man's body. And we simply can't comprehend that. So therefore there must be something inappropriate going on.

How easy would it be for a kid to go home and mention anything about being in the same bed with Michael Jackson and the parents to freak out because they've been conditioned to believe that if that happens it's automatically abuse? And my god, imagine the dollar signs.

As someone said recently, they may as well have just asked him for money - as he's probably have given it to them.

I wish I had your naivety.

The amount of people I know who were abused as a child is truly shocking.Usually by some-one the child's parents trusted and left them with.
Grown men are so much more powerful than little children and should never ever be left in a bedroom situation with them. Why the hell would you ever let your child sleep in a room with a man. No parent would allow that - in which case Jacko was hiding what was going on from those children's parents.

Lone Stone

They had a Caucasian Plasty like there dad

midlandsmissus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Most of the family were chewing gum, I think it could be because they had to talk to each person who did a tribute for their breath or something.

As for those saying they're white and not his kids, they definitley are not pure white, they have the same skin tone as LaToya and they do look like him and debbie and Prince II looks like a carbon-copy of michael. Nearly sure they are his biological kids, but hey if you wanna believe the Sun or whatever rag you read go ahead, its you being affected not me.
Like look here, http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/07/0708_barbara_flip_camera_small.jpg
Theres very obvious resemblances to michael in Prince, but still you believe as you wish.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tmz.com/media/2009/07/0707_katherine_jackson_88883359.jpg Paris' skin tone looks nothing like pure white when she's beside her aunt and grandmother.

Those who thought it was staged, I really don't think it was, they said Janet wanted to say a few words and then suddenly Paris was the one who wanted to say something, I doubt anyone especially an 11 year old could act out a scene talking about her own Dad especially while just being directly infront of her Dad's casket, Marlon crying at the end after it all probably did nothing for her nerves.

Some of you hear just want to believe what you want to believe, It is as if you don't understand how terrible it would be to lose your Dad at a young age.

As for them being there without masks, I don't think it made much difference now there was a photo of them without masks a while back anyway.

Oh yeah for the record, that sleeping in the same bed thing never happened, maybe you got that from distorted journalism or otherwise I don't know, the interview where this was heard was when that guy gavin arvizio said he asked Michael if he could sleep over in his bedroom that night on the floor, michael refused at first and only agreed if gavin took the bed and he took the floor. Seriously get your facts straight before saying something and don't let your blind hate get in the way walshb it only makes you look inconsiderate and inhumane.

Amazing that he chose the floor over one of his numerous spare rooms.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I wish I had your naivety.

The amount of people I know who were abused as a child is truly shocking.Usually by some-one the child's parents trusted and left them with.
Grown men are so much more powerful than little children and should never ever be left in a bedroom situation with them. Why the hell would you ever let your child sleep in a room with a man. No parent would allow that - in which case Jacko was hiding what was going on from those children's parents.

Really, when he gave you all this insider information did he teach you how to dance aswell?

Both accusations are full of leaks and one was proved to be a complete fabrication from the beginning by a voice recording of the kid and his dad on the phone.

You know no more than what the tabloids wrote about him wanted you to know, just because a few scumbag journalists regurgitate the same lies again and again it does not mean they are true, you never get the true picture unless you research it and the background of all those involved and then you can reach true and solid personal convctions.
You obviously are unaware the one in question asked to stay in the bedroom, not the other way around and was refused at first but was only allowed to stay if he took the bed and michael took the floor as I said earlier.

Seriously, read into it deeper than "Wacko Jacko"-style tabloid reports.

moneyman

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I wish I had your naivety.

The amount of people I know who were abused as a child is truly shocking.Usually by some-one the child's parents trusted and left them with.
Grown men are so much more powerful than little children and should never ever be left in a bedroom situation with them. Why the hell would you ever let your child sleep in a room with a man. No parent would allow that - in which case Jacko was hiding what was going on from those children's parents.

Oh, irony. You've got to love it.

I guess you're right - MJ definitely molested those kids. Despite the first accusation being very suspicious. And despite the second one being a complete joke.

And you're wrong about parents letting their child sleep with a man. I'm not saying it's right that it happens, but you're wrong. Hundreds (probably thousands) of kids stayed over at Jacksons Neverland ranch. Alot of them terminally-ill.

Look, I'm not saying Jackson was not a little strange. But how could he be with the life he had? Fame that no youngster could possibly handle, and a very abusive father to boot. No one has ever lived a life like him. You can't look at his strangeness and instantly dub him a child molester - both allegations were extremely suspicious.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Amazing that he chose the floor over one of his numerous spare rooms.

Seeing as the kid in question asked to stay with him, he would of wanted to stay in the same room as him aswell. Amazing how hate and closed-mindedness can whittle down arguments to nothing.

Sir Molle

mateo

walshb, you are SO ignorant!! You seem to think that every black "non half-caste" person is purely black. As I stated earlier there was clearly some racial mixing in the Jackson family. Even before Michael's vitiligo he was fairly light skinned, as are LaToya and Janet. Joe and Katherine also both show evidence of some racial mixing. Not everything is as simplistic as you seem to think.

midlandsmissus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Really, when he gave you all this insider information did he teach you how to dance aswell?

Both accusations are full of leaks and one was proved to be a complete fabrication from the beginning by a voice recording of the kid and his dad on the phone.

You know no more than what the tabloids wrote about him wanted you to know, just because a few scumbag journalists regurgitate the same lies again and again it does not mean they are true, you never get the true picture unless you research it and the background of all those involved and then you can reach true and solid personal convctions.
You obviously are unaware the one in question asked to stay in the bedroom, not the other way around and was refused at first but was only allowed to stay if he took the bed and michael took the floor as I said earlier.

Seriously, read into it deeper than "Wacko Jacko"-style tabloid reports.

Let me ask where you got your information from?Were you talking to the man himself, because if not - any information you have read is through the media aswell.
If the child wants to stay in your room, you don't stay in the room with them! How hard is it to go into the spare room. Even if he didn't do anything,how stupid is he? To do that after already having child abuse allegations levelled at him?

You think he's innocent and I think he's guilty and we're not going to change each others minds.

Sir Molle

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Let me ask where you got your information from?Were you talking to the man himself, because if not - any information you have read is through the media aswell.
If the child wants to stay in your room, you don't stay in the room with them! How hard is it to go into the spare room. Even if he didn't do anything,how stupid is he? To do that after already having child abuse allegations levelled at him?

You think he's innocent and I think he's guilty and we're not going to change each others minds.

YEAH LETS FORGET ALL THE FACTS ABOUT THE PPL ACUSING HIM BECOZ HE SED HE SLEPT IN TEH BED WITH THE KIDS AND THAT IS FUKKED UP MAN

ALSO HIS FACE HE WAS A FREKA SO HE MUST B GUILY!!!11

moneyman

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Let me ask where you got your information from?Were you talking to the man himself, because if not - any information you have read is through the media aswell.
If the child wants to stay in your room, you don't stay in the room with them! How hard is it to go into the spare room. Even if he didn't do anything,how stupid is he? To do that after already having child abuse allegations levelled at him?

You think he's innocent and I think he's guilty and we're not going to change each others minds.

The thing is, though, that the vast majority of the evidence suggests that Jackson was innocent of any crimes. He was clearly naive, but that doesn't make him guilty of anything. You've believed everything that the mainstream media has put out, predominantly from sensationalist tabloids. The people who believe he's innocent have obviously gone to the trouble of researching the topic thoroughly, otherwise we too would believe he was a child molestor. There is far more to things than the press will give you. "Child Molestor" will sell alot more papers than "Jackson Innocent".

You chose to believe what you were spoon fed which is fair enough. But you really can't dispute any of the hard evidence that goes against what you believe. There is no real evidence that he did anything wrong.

Terry

Sir Molle wrote: »

YEAH LETS FORGET ALL THE FACTS ABOUT THE PPL ACUSING HIM BECOZ HE SED HE SLEPT IN TEH BED WITH THE KIDS AND THAT IS FUKKED UP MAN

ALSO HIS FACE HE WAS A FREKA SO HE MUST B GUILY!!!11

Hi.
You are not on Bebo now.
Please do not use all caps as it upsets other users. It is also quite annoying to read.

I would also suggest that you not use text speak.
you have a full keyboard at your disposal.
You also have a generous 10,000 character limit, so text speak is not really needed.

Thanks.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Let me ask where you got your information from?Were you talking to the man himself, because if not - any information you have read is through the media aswell.
If the child wants to stay in your room, you don't stay in the room with them! How hard is it to go into the spare room. Even if he didn't do anything,how stupid is he? To do that after already having child abuse allegations levelled at him?

You think he's innocent and I think he's guilty and we're not going to change each others minds.

Interviews with him speaking in it, hardly shoddy journalism....

Your talking about something speculated and lied about in newspapers, I'm using his own words which he said in an interview. Theres a big difference.

I'm not gonna change my mind but I do believe you will if you just look into it a bit deeper than the trash at the surface.

Sir Molle

moneyman wrote: »

The thing is, though, that the vast majority of the evidence suggests that Jackson was innocent of any crimes. He was clearly naive, but that doesn't make him guilty of anything. You've believed everything that the mainstream media has put out, predominantly from sensationalist tabloids. The people who believe he's innocent have obviously gone to the trouble of researching the topic thoroughly, otherwise we too would believe he was a child molestor. There is far more to things than the press will give you. "Child Molestor" will sell alot more papers than "Jackson Innocent".

You chose to believe what you were spoon fed which is fair enough. But you really can't dispute any of the hard evidence that goes against what you believe. There is no real evidence that he did anything wrong.

yeh but he had all them surgeries and got hair simplanted in his chin because he wanted a beard and he bought the elephant mans bones so he is obviously weird so obviously he is a child molester as well cause he sed he slept in the same room as a kid...

Sir Molle

Terry wrote: »

Hi.
You are not on Bebo now.
Please do not use all caps as it upsets other users. It is also quite annoying to read.

I would also suggest that you not use text speak.
you have a full keyboard at your disposal.
You also have a generous 10,000 character limit, so text speak is not really needed.

Thanks.

Hi Terry, I was being sarcastic.

partyatmygaff

Sir Molle wrote: »

yeh but he had all them surgeries and got hair simplanted in his chin because he wanted a beard and he bought the elephant mans bones so he is obviously weird so obviously he is a child molester as well cause he sed he slept in the same room as a kid...

Your being sarcastic right, the rest of your posts have been pretty normal.

Edit: Just read your last post, great show of how some spoon-fed rag readers will believe anything if its printed in a shoddy newspaper.

shenanigans1982

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Interviews with him speaking in it, hardly shoddy journalism....

Hardly a reliable source of information either.....somebody facing serious charges is hardly going to admit their guilt no matter what they are charged with.

midlandsmissus

moneyman wrote: »

The thing is, though, that the vast majority of the evidence suggests that Jackson was innocent of any crimes. He was clearly naive, but that doesn't make him guilty of anything. You've believed everything that the mainstream media has put out, predominantly from sensationalist tabloids. The people who believe he's innocent have obviously gone to the trouble of researching the topic thoroughly, otherwise we too would believe he was a child molestor. There is far more to things than the press will give you. "Child Molestor" will sell alot more papers than "Jackson Innocent".

You chose to believe what you were spoon fed which is fair enough. But you really can't dispute any of the hard evidence that goes against what you believe. There is no real evidence that he did anything wrong.

Ha that's laughable. "Predominantly from sensational tabloids!" I don't even read tabloids!
You think too little of people. Everybody knows tabloids are sensationalist and full of s*it. I don't read them.
I have looked up alot of facts on the internet and I think he is as guilty as sin. What do you think then about Jason Francia?Was he lying aswell? If people are doing this to make money out of celebrities how come it's happened to Jackson three times,and it hasn't happened to any other major celebrities?
You think they're all lying?

partyatmygaff

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

Hardly a reliable source of information either.....somebody facing serious charges is hardly going to admit their guilt no matter what they are charged with.

Oh my good god, laughing at that now, you do know the interview i'm talking about was in 2003 a whole 2 years before the trial.

joe123

Sir Molle wrote: »

yeh but he had all them surgeries and got hair simplanted in his chin because he wanted a beard and he bought the elephant mans bones so he is obviously weird so obviously he is a child molester as well cause he sed he slept in the same room as a kid...

Type properly...or spell properly. Put sentences together that are readable.

Its hard to know if the kids are his but id like to believe they are. I do think that the sons do have a look about him.

At the end of the day who gives a **** if they are his biological kids or not. He raised them so hes their dad. People really are ignorant at times.

As that Reverend said in his speech to his MJs three children "Kids your dad wasnt strange, what he has to put up with was".

Walshb some of your posts ive seen before and I usually think there pretty muck so I wont bother mentioning any of your posts.

moneyman

Sir Molle wrote: »

yeh but he had all them surgeries and got hair simplanted in his chin because he wanted a beard and he bought the elephant mans bones so he is obviously weird so obviously he is a child molester as well cause he sed he slept in the same room as a kid...

He had two surgeries on his nose. That's it. He had vitiligo which caused the melanin in his skin to basically leave. This condition can clearly be seen in some pictures of him performing. The chin thing is ridiculous. I'm sure a fully grown man could have grown his own beard. And he never bought that elephant mans bones - that is yet another crazy story completely made up by the media. Watch his interview with Oprah on youtube. They actually go through all the laughable rumours made up by the media about him. You obviously fell for some of the crazy stories, which proves the influence the media has over people.

Sleeping in the same room as a kid is naive, but it doesn't mean he molested them. He was bet and abused as a kid, he said many times he never wanted children to feel as he did when he was a kid and that's why he loves them so much.

Sir Molle

Jesus, I was being sarcastic...

hoorayforbacon

I don't care at all for MJ.

I think he was a Pedo.

But regardless of genetics, they're his children, he raised them and he had the greatest influence of anyone in their lives. I definitely agree that they should stay in the Jackson family and away from their supposed mother who sold them off.

moneyman

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ha that's laughable. "Predominantly from sensational tabloids!" I don't even read tabloids!
You think too little of people. Everybody knows tabloids are sensationalist and full of s*it. I don't read them.
I have looked up alot of facts on the internet and I think he is as guilty as sin. What do you think then about Jason Francia?Was he lying aswell? If people are doing this to make money out of celebrities how come it's happened to Jackson three times,and it hasn't happened to any other major celebrities?
You think they're all lying?

His eccentric behaviour, huge fame, childlike personality, and the fact that he had so many kids visit his Neverland would make him an easy target. And the fact that the first "Victim" settled for millions and millions of dollars would make an accusation even more appealing. Or are you too naive to see that? Do you just feel that he is this horrible monster (who donated millions to countless charities, gave treasured memories to terminally ill children etc.) because he is so strange and hard to understand?

Yes, I do think they're all lying. Why do their statements carry any more weight than the countless statements from people who said MJ would never ever harm children? This from people who stayed at his ranch as kids.

Face it, accusing MJ of molestation charges was always going to be easy money.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Ha that's laughable. "Predominantly from sensational tabloids!" I don't even read tabloids!
You think too little of people. Everybody knows tabloids are sensationalist and full of s*it. I don't read them.
I have looked up alot of facts on the internet and I think he is as guilty as sin. What do you think then about Jason Francia?Was he lying aswell? If people are doing this to make money out of celebrities how come it's happened to Jackson three times,and it hasn't happened to any other major celebrities?
You think they're all lying?

When 2 are quite obvious lies It would be likely the one in the middle of it all is likewise.
The reason it was him was because he was one of the very few who lived 46/50 years of his life as famous, he never could do anything a normal child could have, it was work, performing under strict discipline day in day out and constantly being at work as a young child means a lost childhood. He tried to reclaim it when he was older and could try and do it, one saw this as an oppurtunity to make a few million back in 91 when the tabloids had just about began transforming the image of him into a freak and wacko jacko, his skin disease did not help either so they saw their lie would be easily believed by the public who were growing easily persuaded by the tabloids and media and then the others just attempted to follow suit as some people believe being accused twice means guilty but fortunately it does not.

joe123

midlandsmissus wrote: »

If people are doing this to make money out of celebrities how come it's happened to Jackson three times,and it hasn't happened to any other major celebrities?
You think they're all lying?

Because Michael Jackson was naieve enough to let kids come into his home. Everyone knows he was really naieve and basically was like a kid himself at times.

His former bodyguard was interviewed a bit after his death and he said that he often let his kids hang round with Michael. Now do you honestly think a father that was so close to Michael would let his kids go off with him if he had even a slight feeling he was doing things to them? I dont.

I honestly think he was innocent. And that last trial that entire family were shown up to be pure conmen trying to get money out of people before. That kid even admitted to his teacher that Michael Jackson didnt touch him.

Jesus Juice

WOW!

They're not the in-bred freaks I always thought they were behind the masks!!

Sir Molle

People always talk about Michael being strange, eccentric and unique as if it were a bad thing. That was one of the main reasons I found him so fascinating.

midlandsmissus

moneyman wrote: »

His eccentric behaviour, huge fame, childlike personality, and the fact that he had so many kids visit his Neverland would make him an easy target. And the fact that the first "Victim" settled for millions and millions of dollars would make an accusation even more appealing. Or are you too naive to see that? Do you just feel that he is this horrible monster (who donated millions to countless charities, gave treasured memories to terminally ill children etc.) because he is so strange and hard to understand?

Yes, I do think they're all lying. Why do their statements carry any more weight than the countless statements from people who said MJ would never ever harm children? This from people who stayed at his ranch as kids.

Face it, accusing MJ of molestation charges was always going to be easy money.

Just watched an interview with Corey Haim where he said Michael was his best friend when he was a kid, but that 'he lost interest with me as I got older, as he did with alot of kids'.

He hung out with them when they were young then ditched them when they got older and he lost interest.That's classic paedophile behaviour.

Sir Molle

Kind of how he lost interest in MacCaulie Culkin, right?

moneyman

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just watched an interview with Corey Haim where he said Michael was his best friend when he was a kid, but that 'he lost interest with me as I got older, as he did with alot of kids'.

He hung out with them when they were young then ditched them when they got older and he lost interest.That's classic paedophile behaviour.

That's it sorted so. He was a paedo. Thanks for that, midlandmissus.

midlandsmissus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When 2 are quite obvious lies It would be likely the one in the middle of it all is likewise.
The reason it was him was because he was one of the very few who lived 46/50 years of his life as famous, he never could do anything a normal child could have, it was work, performing under strict discipline day in day out and constantly being at work as a young child means a lost childhood. He tried to reclaim it when he was older and could try and do it, one saw this as an oppurtunity to make a few million back in 91 when the tabloids had just about began transforming the image of him into a freak and wacko jacko, his skin disease did not help either so they saw their lie would be easily believed by the public who were growing easily persuaded by the tabloids and media and then the others just attempted to follow suit as some people believe being accused twice means guilty but fortunately it does not.

Check your stats - he was accused three times not twice- Jason Francia was the third accuser of which he paid out 2000,000 to.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Just watched an interview with Corey Haim where he said Michael was his best friend when he was a kid, but that 'he lost interest with me as I got older, as he did with alot of kids'.

He hung out with them when they were young then ditched them when they got older and he lost interest.That's classic paedophile behaviour.

Ah yes the classics, why of course how can we forget you studied behaviour and psychology didn't you? He was someone who still wants to be a child and to have the childhood he didn't have. Usually children befriend children, theres also the fact many of these children were poor or terminally ill etc, maybe he wanted them to have a happy childhood to make up for his own, you know there is such a thing called human kindness, please don't forget about it.

midlandsmissus

moneyman wrote: »

That's it sorted so. He was a paedo. Thanks for that, midlandmissus.

So you think that behaviour is normal then,okay so.

midlandsmissus

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ah yes the classics, why of course how can we forget you studied behaviour and psychology didn't you? He was someone who still wants to be a child and to have the childhood he didn't have. Usually children befriend children, theres also the fact many of these children were poor or terminally ill etc, maybe he wanted them to have a happy childhood to make up for his own, you know there is such a thing called human kindness, please don't forget about it.

Elizabeth Taylor worked all her childhood, you don't catch her hanging out with ten year olds. Sorry but I don't buy it.

Sir Molle

midlandsmissus wrote: »

So you think that behaviour is normal then,okay so.

At what point did anyone say that Michael Jackson was normal in this thread? Whether they were defending him or not?

Michael Jackson sleeping in the same room as kids having a sleep over may have been inappropriate and I don't see anyone here defending that. It was however not criminal, or immoral.

partyatmygaff

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Check your stats - he was accused three times not twice- Jason Francia was the third accuser of which he paid out 2000,000 to.

Oh my god, three times a charm eh? Straight up conviction there I think.

Take this, I plot with 3 other families to for some reason send 1 child from each family at different times to your home, I then get each to accuse you of molestation.

Straight to jail for you then because its 3 different people.



Your responses are slowly becoming ridiculous.