Micky Jackson in trouble again

Beechwoodspark

sligeach wrote: »

Look it's the hateful liar again. Found those answers to my questions yet? No, and you'll never find them because you made that rubbish up.

In a way to me it is akin to a modern personality cult. The emphasis being on cult.

Not really about the music etc.

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

So if Bob, the local nonce, touches up your kid in bed alone and you go to court but have no evidence, this will be your default position....."well you see son, he never touched you up, as the court said he wasn't guilty, therefore you're a liar"

Mam of 4

It dumbfounds me how people expect someone to have proof of being abused . What are you meant to do , ask your abuser can you take notes or a picture for future use in case you decide to go to the authorities about it ?

This is crazy to me tbh , too emotive anyway , think I'll stop following the thread .

LessOutragePlz

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if someone raped you and they didn’t get caught, you wouldn’t have been raped?

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This is what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

fryup

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

well, I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic lies by Robson & Safechuck in this hatchet job documentary

Dontfadeaway

KikiLaRue wrote: »

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

You don’t have to choose between the two. It’s perfectly possible he molested some children and not others.

Most paedos choose particularly vulnerable children to groom. As a rich and famous star in his own right, Culkin would have been a very risky choice and MJ would have known that.

Culkin said he was in his bed. Even doing that is risky, he is still sticking to his story that nothing happened and they just played games which was the same story of Robson and Safechuck before they changed their minds.

Beechwoodspark

In a way to me it is akin to a modern personality cult. The emphasis being on cult.

Not really about the music etc.

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This has what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

There is substantial witness testimony and clear patterns of behaviour over decades. People are making judgements based on the man's actions, not one documentary.

Beechwoodspark

fryup wrote: »

well, I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic lies by Robson & Safechuck in this hatchet job documentary

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

KikiLaRue

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This has what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Quite a large body of circumstantial evidence has been outlined in this thread:
- the payout to Jordan Chandler, his first accuser in 1993
- the maid who said she saw him in the shower with a child but changed her story after a $2 million “severance package”.
- his own sister Latoya said he was a paedo and took it back after her family cut her out

There’s loads more. Feel free to read through the thread.

If you still believe he is not a child molester that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to hold, but the fact that he didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

This isn’t coming from nowhere.

Sephiroth_dude

sligeach wrote: »

Look it's the hateful liar again. Found those answers to my questions yet? No, and you'll never find them because you made that rubbish up. Of course you'll say it again. Now try for the first time giving me answers please.

MOD

You were told already not too post in this thread, post again and you'll get a forum ban.

LessOutragePlz

Flying Fox wrote: »

There is substantial witness testimony and clear patterns of behaviour over decades. People are making judgements based on the man's actions, not one documentary.

Why hasn't this substantial witness testimony lead to him being convicted of a crime?

So now we judge people based on their actions instead of the evidence?

All this "witness testimony" and his past actions are just being using to throw allegations of paedophilia at him. Without a single bit of evidence or proof just wild speculations that cannot be proven to be true.

The Golden Miller

Flying Fox wrote: »

There is substantial witness testimony and clear patterns of behaviour over decades. People are making judgements based on the man's actions, not one documentary.

The Jackson fanatics willfully ignore this, even though it's been explained ad nauseum. Generally Jackson fanatics know the guy is guilty too, they just have a hard time explaining away the mounting circumstantial evidence, so default to narrowing the parameter's down to only discussing a court's "not guilty" verdict. Of course, until something similar would happen to their own son......

KikiLaRue

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Why hasn't this substantial witness testimony lead to him being convicted of a crime?

So now we judge people based on their actions instead of the evidence?

All this "witness testimony" and his past actions are just being using to throw allegations of paedophilia at him. Without a single bit of evidence or proof just wild speculations that cannot be proven to be true.

It’s not wild speculation. It’s a long history of allegations backed up a wide variety of witness testimony, and very strange behaviour by MJ himself.

fryup

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

and what are the totality of allegations from the late 70s??

...4

...2 of which have been dispelled, and 2 currently spouted by two proven liars

LessOutragePlz

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not wild speculation. It’s a long history of allegations backed up a wide variety of witness testimony, and very strange behaviour by MJ himself.

But is it speculation since the allegations are speculating that abuse happened.

Speculation by definition is: The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

This is exactly what has been happening in this thread alleging and speculating that abuse has happened.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

and what are the totality of allegations from the late 70s??

...4

...2 of which have been dispelled, and 2 currently spouted by two proven liars

Chandler's was not dispelled by any means. A substantial pay out was made once it became apparent that he could accurately describe marks on Jackson's penis. That screams guilt in my eyes.

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But is it speculation since the allegations are speculating that abuse happened.

Speculation by definition is: The forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

This is exactly what has been happening in this thread alleging and speculating that abuse has happened.

So if your own son said the same happened to him? Just speculation? Would you tell your son to go and apologise to Bob the nonce and spend another night with him after the court says Bob's not guilty due to a lack of evidence?

dark crystal

fryup wrote: »

and what are the totality of allegations from the late 70s??

...4

...2 of which have been dispelled, and 2 currently spouted by two proven liars

Do you personally think it's appropriate for a grown man to sleep with young boys in an unsupervised setting?

tylercheribini

Whatever about two incredibly acted lies, the wives,mothers and siblings would also have to be in on the conspiracy,with not one ever slipping up and giving equally convincing performances too.I had my doubts about the accusers motives down through the years but by the end of part two of Leaving Neverland I was convinced these two victims and their families were telling the truth.

fryup

Flying Fox wrote: »

Chandler's was not dispelled by any means. A substantial pay out was made once it became apparent that he could accurately describe marks on Jackson's penis. That screams guilt in my eyes.

a substanial payout was made cause MJ at the time just wanted to get on with his life....he subsequently regretted not fighting it

The Golden Miller

fryup wrote: »

a substanial payout was made cause MJ at the time just wanted to get on with his life....he subsequently regretted not fighting it

Because that's what he said, right?

fryup

fryup wrote: »

a substanial payout was made cause MJ at the time just wanted to get on with his life....he subsequently regretted not fighting it

Sure, course he did.

People will buy anything.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

and what are the totality of allegations from the late 70s??

...4

...2 of which have been dispelled, and 2 currently spouted by two proven liars

dark crystal wrote: »

Do you personally think it's appropriate for a grown man to sleep with young boys in an unsupervised setting?

no i don't

But my honest gut feeling about MJ is that he was a harmless, immature, naive fantasist ...i don't think he was capable of harming anyone - man, woman or child.

thats my opinion on MJ

*His management should have been more forceful and told him not to do it

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So if your own son said the same happened to him? Just speculation? Would you tell your son to go and apologise to Bob the nonce and spend another night with him after the court says Bob's not guilty due to a lack of evidence?

I'd believe my son because i don't think he's a liar. Therefore, I would know it is not speculation.

Whereas there is no evidence to support the claims that MJ was a paedophile in this case.

ToBeFrank123

McFly85 wrote: »

How many have come out with allegations? 3? 4? Is that not enough? Why does there have to be many more victims before he can be considered an abuser?

Is your argument really that there needs to be a minimum amount of victims?

5 have come forward. 4 have huge credibility issues as has been gone over several times on this thread. 1 was paid off by the insurance company.

Credibility of witnesses is key. Would you trust the word of a compulsive liar for example? I certainly wouldn't. Not if its a his word v his word situation.

The proper place for all this is a courtroom trial where evidence and witnesses can be interrogated and cross examined.

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'd believe my son because i don't think he's a liar. Therefore, I would know it is not speculation.

Whereas there is no evidence to support the claims that MJ was a paedophile in this case.

But you don't know whether your son's a liar, other than your own speculation to choose not to see him as a liar. Kinda similar to how you berate others for choosing to believe those speaking out about Jackson, no? And further more, what evidence would there be to suggest Bob the nonse is a paedophile? He only like's sleeping with kids because his childhood was robbed and the court found him not guilty? So he's not guilty then surely? Seems like you'd change your tune if this "speculation" was to come closer to home. Hypocrite one might say

KikiLaRue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

5 have come forward. 4 have huge credibility issues as has been gone over several times on this thread. 1 was paid off by the insurance company.

Credibility of witnesses is key. Would you trust the word of a compulsive liar for example? I certainly wouldn't. Not if its a his word v his word situation.

The proper place for all this is a courtroom trial where evidence and witnesses can be interrogated and cross examined.

So there was one credible allegation and he paid them off.

Guess what if you molest one child you’re a child molester.

Boggles

Mam of 4 wrote: »

It dumbfounds me how people expect someone to have proof of being abused .

Jackson is dead, he can neither be held accountable or have his day in court.

It doesn't matter either way, the allegations contained in the lawsuit are against people who are still alive who are alleged to have operated a sophisticated pedophile ring, the most sophisticated the world has ever seen apparently.

That can be tested in court, if only someone would make a criminal complaint.

But as of yet after nearly 6 years, nothing.

Wonder why that is?

:rolleyes:

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

But you don't know whether your son's a liar, other than your own speculation to choose not to see him as a liar. Kinda similar to how you berate others for choosing to believe those speaking out about Jackson, no? And further more, what evidence would there be to suggest Bob the nonse is a paedophile? He only like's sleeping with kids because his childhood was robbed and the court found him not guilty? So he's not guilty then surely? Seems like you'd change your tune if this "speculation" was to come closer to home. Hypocrite one might say

I would know whether my son is a liar or not because I’ve raised him to tell the truth and be honest. So there would be no speculation involved in this instance since my son is telling the truth about the abuse.

I haven’t berated anyone for choosing to believe those speaking out against Jackson. I have simply asked for evidence to substantiate the claims that he is a paedophile which hasn’t been provided. Fairly ironic considering you’re the one berating me for not believing their allegations :rolleyes:

Sleeping in the same bed as kids doesn't make a person a paedophile, I’ve known plenty of parents that have slept in the same bed as their kids on occasion does that make them paedos?

He is innocent though since he hasn’t been convicted of a crime not matter how loud people in this thread shout or how many toys they throw out of their prams. The man will always be innocent simple as that and nothing can or will change that.

I'm out, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Boggles

The Golden Miller wrote: »

But you don't know whether your son's a liar,

Wades own mother definitely thinks he is a liar, she said that he could win an Oscar for lying.

Then again what would you expect from the self titled "master of deception".

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I would know whether my son is a liar or not because I’ve raised him to tell the truth and be honest. So there would be no speculation involved in this instance since my son is telling the truth about the abuse.

I haven’t berated anyone for choosing to believe those speaking out against Jackson. I have simply asked for evidence to substantiate the claims that he is a paedophile which hasn’t been provided. Fairly ironic considering you’re the one berating me for not believing their allegations :rolleyes:

Sleeping in the same bed as kids doesn't make a person a paedophile, I’ve known plenty of parents that have slept in the same bed as their kids on occasion does that make them paedos?

He is innocent though since he hasn’t been convicted of a crime not matter how loud people in this thread shout or how many toys they throw out of their prams. The man will always be innocent simple as that and nothing can or will change that.

So your son would not be lying because you say so? That's the height of your logic here. Now seeing as you can't be objective with the speculation your son would come out with, the irony is lost on you. You only want to deal in cold hard facts and court rulings? Then your son's word means fcuk all I'm afraid to say. Either court rulings state someone is not guilty beyond doubt, or it doesn't. Being objective you can't pick and choose when it suits. Therefore, if the victims here are liars, then you must also view your son as a liar if Bob the nonce is judged "not guilty". Otherwise your a hypocrite

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

You need credibility to be believed and not have some ulterior motive.

To me Robson comes across as an obsessive MJ fan who couldn't cope with the fact MJ and later the estate turned their backs on him. And if MJ was such a compulsive paedophile why would he turn his back on them but not abuse other kids he befriended subsequently.

Some people are intent on attributing malevolent motives to everything MJ did. He or his companies should be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

suicide_circus

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So your son would not be lying because you say so? That's the height of your logic here. Now seeing as you can't be objective with the speculation your son would come out with, the irony is lost on you. You only want to deal in cold hard facts and court rulings? Then your son's word means fcuk all I'm afraid to say. Either court rulings state someone is not guilty beyond doubt, or it doesn't. Being objective you can't pick and choose when it suits. Therefore, if the victims here are liars, then you must also view your son as a liar if Bob the nonce is judged "not guilty". Otherwise your a hypocrite

No I'm assuming that the abuse has actually happened in this scenario and therefore he is telling the truth. Therefore, it is not speculation it is the truth which makes the allegations of abuse subsequently facts because it actually happened.

Where as in the case against MJ it is all speculation and no truth because there is no evidence to support the allegations.

dark crystal

fryup wrote: »

no i don't

But my honest gut feeling about MJ is that he was a harmless, immature, naive fantasist ...i don't think he was capable of harming anyone - man, woman or child.

thats my opinion on MJ

*His management should have been more forceful and told him not to do it

I agree his management were extremely negligent, as were the parents of these children. This does not negate the fact that a grown man, as removed from reality as this particular one appeared to be, would have to be stupid to the point of of extreme ignorance not to be aware how sleeping with young children may be viewed. He did it anyway. Why?


I watched a documentary recently on Netflix titled 'Abducted in Plain Sight', which told the story of how a paedophile 'seduced' his victim's family to gain their trust to the point they served their child up to him on a plate and allowed him to spend the night in their child's bed and to take their child away on prolonged trips together. They, too, thought he was harmeless; a nice guy. Predators can be really good at that stuff. Textbook grooming.


We all know MJ had an awful upbringing. He was denied affection and valued only as a commodity. His father was frequently abusive, both physically and mentally. This had a life-long effect on the guy and gave him a craving for an affection he never had as a child. I believe he got that affection from other young boys, boys he may have seen as a version of himself as a child. He was obsessed with children, especially boys.
I believe these displays of affection began to manifest themselves as harmless at first, then as the friendships grew closer and he gained the wider family's trust, became sexual in nature. I honestly think many paedophiles believe the sexual 'affection' they perpetrate is enjoyed and reciprocated by the victim. Many victims believe the actions of the paedophile are a display of love and affection too because that's what they're told by the perpertrator; that no one else understands our special love, they wouldn't understand etc.


Sorry to have harped on so long, but this is what I believe. I believe you have to understand the dynamic of a damaged person towards their victim, not just see a celebrity for their outward appearance, but what drives them inwardly, stemming from an extremely damaged childhood, which manifested itself in adulthood as an extremely damaged human being.


I found this article on sexual abuse victims very interesting: https://theconversation.com/michael-jackson-as-an-expert-in-child-sexual-abuse-heres-what-i-thought-when-i-watched-leaving-neverland-113160

ToBeFrank123

KikiLaRue wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

5 have come forward. 4 have huge credibility issues as has been gone over several times on this thread. 1 was paid off by the insurance company.

Credibility of witnesses is key. Would you trust the word of a compulsive liar for example? I certainly wouldn't. Not if its a his word v his word situation.

The proper place for all this is a courtroom trial where evidence and witnesses can be interrogated and cross examined.

So there was one credible allegation and he paid them off.

Guess what if you molest one child you’re a child molester.

Jackson and lawyers wanted to fight it. The insurance company didn't. The courtroom was the right place to fight it.

joe40

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if someone raped you and they didn’t get caught, you wouldn’t have been raped?

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This is what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

"Without a single piece of evidence" well thats not true.
Just watch the last 20 mins of the Bashir documentary it is pretty compelling evidence.
This is not just out of the blue testimony if that was the case I would agree with you.
But you know as well as I do no one is reaching opinions just based on this one documentary. It is cumulative effect of well documented evidence in the public domain along with these latest allegations.
You can still reach your own opinion thats fine. Others may differ.
For me personally the latest doc is largely irrelevant all the previous evidence is damaging enough.

Galwayguy35

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I would know whether my son is a liar or not because I’ve raised him to tell the truth and be honest. So there would be no speculation involved in this instance since my son is telling the truth about the abuse.

I haven’t berated anyone for choosing to believe those speaking out against Jackson. I have simply asked for evidence to substantiate the claims that he is a paedophile which hasn’t been provided. Fairly ironic considering you’re the one berating me for not believing their allegations :rolleyes:

Sleeping in the same bed as kids doesn't make a person a paedophile, I’ve known plenty of parents that have slept in the same bed as their kids on occasion does that make them paedos?

He is innocent though since he hasn’t been convicted of a crime not matter how loud people in this thread shout or how many toys they throw out of their prams. The man will always be innocent simple as that and nothing can or will change that.

His own sister suspected he was a paedophile which IMO wasn't a great sign of his innocence.

ToBeFrank123

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

Mr.Wemmick

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

I am trying to count up how many priests didn't either.. but I keep losing count.

I mean, how did they manage to get the extensive Murphy Report written up and seen as an authority and comprehensive analysis when most of the priests were dead and buried with so few prosecutions? :rolleyes:

suicide_circus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

maybe because MJ is still venerated as a musical massiah? maybe he didnt molest quite as many as JS?

dark crystal

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

How many accusations are enough?


Not all paedophiles operate in the same way. Some are perpertrators of chance; they'll stick their hand down an unwilling child's pants or up a skirt.

Some play the long game and groom their victims, abusing them over a longer period of time.


Comparing one paedophile's actions to another is pointless. The number of victims doesn't mean anything.

PokeHerKing

sligeach wrote:

You know what the sad thing is? More people might make up stories now. Look at how this has all gone down. You've got 2 liars who've previously testified that nothing ever happened, have lied, changed their story and all the rest. Look at how the Leaving Neverland mockumentary has manipulated people. Then there's the whole MeToo movement. Come forward and you're automatically believed.

So essentially no matter what potentially comes out in the future they're lying and MJs innocent?

You give the lynch mobs ammo to dismiss any doubt as just fanatical fanboys.

ceadaoin.

Jesus, this thread is getting more depressing. No wonder groomers and child abusers get away with it. Jacksons behaviour goes against every single rule for child safeguarding. I hope some of his defenders on here would have more cop on if something similar was happening to a child in their lives.

Have a look at Abducted in Plain Sight on Netflix to see how grooming works and how extreme it can be. I see many similarities with Michael Jackson . Those parents allowed a man to share a bed with their daughter, also because according to him it would help him with his "childhood issues". It didn't turn out well. An adult desperate to share a bed with a child who is unrelated to them never usually does. He had the girl convinced of the most outlandish stuff to justify his abuse. She also thought she loved him.

fryup wrote: »

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

Whether you believe he abused them it or not, it's Jackson's own behaviour that left him open to such accusations. Plenty of other rich and famous people have acted bizarrely in life and had lots of money to be had and yet never been accused. It's just poor Michael Jackson who is targeted in this way. No ones going after prince are they?

McFly85

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

You could! And if Mother Teresa openly spoke about sleeping unsupervised in the same room with children, lived in a theme park, cultivated a personality of someone who is a child rather than cares for them, all of those facts about the accused would probably give people reason to believe it could have happened.

ToddyDoody

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Jesus, this thread is getting more depressing. No wonder groomers and child abusers get away with it. Jacksons behaviour goes against every single rule for child safeguarding. I hope some of his defenders on here would have more cop on if something similar was happening to a child in their lives.

I was looking at him live in concert over a few drinks some weeks back and it just occurred to me that there was a pain in parts of his singing that snacked a bit, to me, of a repressed unlawful sexual desire.

Paedophilia (we'll assume he was for the convenience of my argument) seems to be a compulsive disorder. Society needs to be protected and paedophiles need genuine help. I don't think there's any prescribed means of treating the condition as far as I know?

It wasnt me123

I haven't read all of this thread but I am very much on the side of MJ being a paedo - but then I believed that from the first public outcry about him in the 1990's. I haven't listened to his music in years and would turn the dial if it come on the radio.

That said, how do we know there are only 4 people who have come forward and received payouts? There could be hundreds, they've been so well paid off and are getting on with their lives that they don't want to be labelled as a "victim".

I believe MJ is a nonce anyways, but I bet there has been more than that 1 payoff. If there is no evidence you don't offer $20 million for a lie.

micks_address

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

You need credibility to be believed and not have some ulterior motive.

To me Robson comes across as an obsessive MJ fan who couldn't cope with the fact MJ and later the estate turned their backs on him. And if MJ was such a compulsive paedophile why would he turn his back on them but not abuse other kids he befriended subsequently.

Some people are intent on attributing malevolent motives to everything MJ did. He or his companies should be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/mother-teresa-adoption-selling-babies-4132482-Jul2018/?amp=1