Micky Jackson in trouble again

joeguevara

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

Laois_Man

Has everyone seen the documentary refuting the Leaving Neverland production?

AllForIt

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

hetuzozaho

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

For me this thread highlighted the documentary. And the documentary highlights agreed facts (that I presumed were nonsense) about him sleeping with children.

So I learnt a lot of facts about Michael Jackson due to this thread and the documentary.

So for me it BOGGLES the mind that people don't believe that those facts brought up in the doc are horrific.

joeguevara

AllForIt wrote: »

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

hetuzozaho

joeguevara wrote: »

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

And I've seen no vicious rows either.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread.

joeguevara

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

And I've seen no vicious rows either.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread.

I never said the term was used but there definitely has been accusations of it. And you don’t think there has been rows? There has been great debate but it does descend into entrenched opinions and needless arguing.

AllForIt

joeguevara wrote: »

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

Yes, I was just making some general comments.

The argument about 'paedo sympathizers' is laughable. We never lived in such a time that pedophilia is such a hot topic, such that online vigilante padeo hunters exist and supported by a significant number of the public. Where facebook users identify suspected paedos and rally ppl round to apprehend them more likely wrongly. And in all of this climate there are ppl who are suggesting that there are ppl on this forum defending pedophilia. Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

And equally, not a lawyer-wannabee on a "social & fun" chat thread.

I can’t speak for anyone else here but I am a legal layperson. I have no problem saying that.

ceadaoin.

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, I was just making some general comments.

The argument about 'paedo sympathizers' is laughable. We never lived in such a time that pedophilia is such a hot topic, such that online vigilante padeo hunters exist and supported by a significant number of the public. Where facebook users identify suspected paedos and rally ppl round to apprehend them more likely wrongly. And in all of this climate there are ppl who are suggesting that there are ppl on this forum defending pedophilia. Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This was posted on the other thread. Is this not literally defending and minimising paedophilia? "It didnt happen but even if it did, it's not that bad because it was love, ok!" These are the lengths that people are willing to go to defend Michael Jackson. I mean, why? I don't get it

I don't see Jackson as a child abuser like Saville, I don't believe Wade and James's stories of horrid abuse, but I would be open to imagining Jackson could have possibly been gay, that he had loving relationships with people who by law were under age, but that it was love, not some twisted abuse like Saville's or Church abuse.
If what they say is truth, which I doubt, then it was a story of love not abuse, but by law illegal. But to suggest Jackson was like Saville, a guy who would visit hospitals to abuse everyone and anyone he came in contact with is just wrong. Jackson was a good guy with a great heart, If like Rene Angelil he fell for someone and had a relationship with them while they were underage then it would not make him a monster. Wade and James talk of love a lot, if true, maybe it was just love like Rene felt for Celine. This is me trying to make sense of it, not believing it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

I believe that’s exactly the case in the US but I’m open to correction. But think about what defamation is. It’s about reputation. Reputation doesn’t matter to a skeleton, does it? And it’s not a by-proxy thing. His family might be hurt by the accusations but the accusations in and of themselves don’t damage their reputations unless they knowingly helped him in some way, in which case, fück them, quite frankly. I think it’s an absurd notion to say that if someone is dead, they should never be accused of anything again.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AllForIt wrote: »

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

Oh please. There’s determination and a desire to convince both ways. To be honest, I know I’m not going convince his defenders here and that’s okay. I’m just happy to put my points across. People can take them or leave them when they read this thread. At least they are there. And anyone confident in their position shouldn’t be bothered by the presence of opposing posts.

If you want to see grasping, step onto Twitter. And it’s mostly one-way.

Oh and the Beatles trounce MJ, easily. One step ahead of their contemporaries, completely ahead of their time in some of the music they produced, music that stands the test of time and is varied, with wide-reaching and thought-provoking subjects. This band produced ‘A Day In The Life’, ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’. The last one wouldn’t have been out of place 30 years later. Three vastly different, interesting songs. And I would be amazed if they didn’t have more fans than MJ. He’s the 8 to their 10, if even.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe that’s exactly the case in the US but I’m open to correction. But think about what defamation is. It’s about reputation. Reputation doesn’t matter to a skeleton, does it? And it’s not a by-proxy thing. His family might be hurt by the accusations but the accusations in and of themselves don’t damage their reputations unless they knowingly helped him in some way, in which case, fück them, quite frankly. I think it’s an absurd notion to say that if someone is dead, they should never be accused of anything again.

It’s hurting his innocent kids

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s hurting his innocent kids

I’ve no doubt but is it hurting their reputations? I certainly don’t think less of them personally. I actually feel a lot of compassion for them.

I’m sure many people posthumously convicted of crimes had children. That not a reason to not make accusations. It’s a weak argument. Of course it will affect his children. That’s inescapable.

carlowplayer

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

ceadaoin.

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

But there are more than two accusers? I think there are 5 credible ones now, 2 of whom recieved settlements. These are just the latest. Feldman says he wasn't abused but he also says he was shown inappropriate material by Jackson.

If you actually watch the documentary, they explain why they defended him. It's not that uncommon for abuse victims to do this. In fact it's a known thing.


Also, as has been mentioned dozens of times in this thread, just because a paedophile doesn't abuse every child they meet, doesn't mean they didn't abuse any. The signs are there for all to see, to this day the detectives involved, who interviewed the previous accusers (the ones who got as far as court cases or the potential for one) and saw all the evidence believe him to be guilty. Does that mean nothing?

hetuzozaho

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him

Disgraceful isn't it? Two more children who were not treated right.

Both had drug issues later in life too I believe.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

joeguevara wrote: »

I never said the term was used but there definitely has been accusations of it.

I was definitely called that exact term and so were others AFAIK.

But I find it is best just to ignore that sort of person.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But there are more than two accusers? I think there are 5 credible ones now,

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

There is 7 or 8 that have come forward. There’s also several adults at the time who claim to have seen abuse occurred/ were suspicious abuse occurred.

But that’s par for the course when a person is rich isn’t it, false sexual abuse accusations are constant!

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

There is 7 or 8 that have come forward.

I have only heard of 5, who are the other 2 or 3?

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

There’s also several adults at the time who claim to have seen abuse occurred/ were suspicious abuse occurred.

You mean the ones who buckled under cross examination and more or less admitted they made it up?

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

I was definitely called that exact term and so were others AFAIK.

But I find it is best just to ignore that sort of person.

Agree fully. My primary interest in this "documentary" is establishing the truth and who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Oddly enough Jackson isn't around to defend himself so we don't know if his response to it would be truth or lies.

So that leaves the word of Safechuck and Robson.

Robson told 4 different versions of how the abuse started in his book drafts. His mother has twice directly contradicted how it started. Robson says it was when his family was at the Grand Canyon. His mother says he was with them there. Robson said he was abused 100s of times at Neverland. His mother swore they visited Neverland approximately 14 times of which Jackson was present 4 times.

Safechuck swore the abuse finished when he was 14. Reed says it was 16 or 17. Not good for their narrative! Safechuck gave a graphic account of abuse in a train station that hadn't even been built!

Safechuck said he refused to testify in 2005 for Jackson even though it was impossible for him to testify and also that he didn't admit to being abused until 2013.

So we have a documentary based on the testimony of career perjurers. A great basis alright.

One of the disturbing things about Safechuck and Robson defenders is that they laugh off sworn testimony and perjury as if its some kind of joke and doesn't matter. It shows a complete lack of regard for telling the truth under oath.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

My primary interest in this "documentary" is establishing the truth and who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Yes and there are a lot of agreed facts in the documentary.

But I think all we know for sure is he slept alone with young boys.
And outside of the bedroom seemed to have odd relationships with young boys.

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes and there are a lot of agreed facts in the documentary.

But I think all we know for sure is he slept alone with young boys.
And outside of the bedroom seemed to have odd relationships with young boys.

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

Oh really. So was he still abusing Safechuck when he was 16 or 17?

If so, this blows a hole in your assertion it appeared to dwindle when they got older.

Can you not see what fools Reed, Safechuck and Robson have made of people and how Reed in particular is laughing all the way to the bank on the back of people's gullibility.

As Robson's mother said, Wade could win an Oscar for lying. And this documentary could win an Oscar in the fiction category!

I will summarise. Jackson was a weirdo. We know he shared his bed with children. Big mistake. Do we know he was anally raping them? The only account we have for that comes from a couple of career perjurers who have tried to shakedown the Jackson estate at every turn and failed.

Robson claimed in 2013 he never even knew the Jackson estate existed, this despite trying to sue the same estate in 2011. You couldn't make it up the lies these guys come out, actually you could.

Farawayhome

Remember Jackson had a secret hideout in Ireland. In Westmeath wasn't it? Did he bring any kids with him there? Were local kids kept away from him?

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson was a weirdo. We know he shared his bed with children. Big mistake.

I agree wholeheartedly. And not a way to treat children. Shameful from all involved.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Oh really. So was he still abusing Safechuck when he was 16 or 17?

I have no idea if he ever sexually abused Safechuck.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

That was Reeds mantra, in every interview he kept repeating he molested "little boys" and "little children".

He has since had to revise that, to "'almost grown men'.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

That was Reeds mantra, in every interview he kept repeating he molested "little boys" and "little children".

I was just basing it off Youtube videos with footage and photos of him with his buddies. But maybe I just haven't seen the ones of him as enamoured with them when they are older.

So I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick there. Apologies.

hetuzozaho

Farawayhome wrote: »

Remember Jackson had a secret hideout in Ireland. In Westmeath wasn't it? Did he bring any kids with him there? Were local kids kept away from him?

Never heard of that.

I did read that allegedly when on the Bad tour in Cork, Sam Smyth and Eamon Dunphy were in the Jury's hotel where Safechuck was staying with Michael Jackson and they wrote 'Little Jimmy' a letter.

Something to do with Safechuck having his own room with a do not disturb sign and the windows blocked out and them just finding the relationship a bit concerning.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Well not just me, law enforcement, social services, psychologists etc all found them credible too. I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have? Did they ever sue Jackson or look for any money? Did they ever sell their story or try to make money with books etc in the years since the accusations? I didn't think they did any of that stuff but maybe they did.

joeguevara

I have no opinion either way but one thing always intrigued me. Macaulay Cullen has always insisted he never experienced sex abuse or witnessed it. Surely he would have been a target.

Also it is strange he wasn’t interviewed if it was a true investigative doc. Especially after it was raised that he was MJs favourite at one time.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have?

Are you serious?

I think you need to do a bit reading about Janet, she was quite the grifter.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Are you serious?

I think you need to do a bit reading about Janet, she was quite the grifter.

But regarding the allegations, did they sue Jackson or attempt to make money by selling their story or writing a book, stuff like that, in the years since? Did they financially benefit from accusing Jackson of abuse? I'm sure you can answer that question right?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But regarding the allegations, did they sue Jackson or attempt to make money

Yeah, this has been done to death.

But again.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, that's why they engaged with the same civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers.

Also the law was changed since then.

But it's all on thread and out there if you want to read up on it, fill your boots.

It's pretty evident the family were a bunch of criminals, but if you think they were credible, then that's up to.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, this has been done to death.

But again.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, that's why they engaged with the same civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers.

Also the law was changed since then.

But it's all on thread and out there if you want to read up on it, fill your boots.

It's pretty evident the family were a bunch of criminals, but if you think they were credible, then that's up to.

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they? And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Maybe they were a bunch of criminals (Jackson sure knew how to pick these kinds of families. Weird) but the fact is they didn't and haven't sought money on the back of the allegations. So it kind of casts doubt on the "they were all in it for the money" line

Investigators involved in the case, psychiatrists specialising in child abuse, and child protection agents who interviewed him all found Gavin arvizo to be a credible witness. But what do they know I guess.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

I have only heard of 5, who are the other 2 or 3?



You mean the ones who buckled under cross examination and more or less admitted they made it up?

Really? Shows you have just being reading biased blogs. All the information is out there for you to find out.

And no that’s not who I mean, again it’s all out there for you to read.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they?

They did, that was the reason for the criminal trial, the law had changed in California and they had to have a criminal trial before a civil one because of the circumstances and allegations.

But even her civil lawyer thought she was "whackjob" only in it money. Of course there would have been no money trial on the back of the clusterfook that was the criminal, probably would have been arrested for wasting the courts time,

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Who would have paid them? They were outed as crooks in the trial with a history of grifting.

She ended up in prison for fraud AFAIK.

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Really? Shows you have just being reading biased blogs. All the information is out there for you to find out.

And no that’s not who I mean, again it’s all out there for you to read.

Which unbiased blogs have you been reading?

You made the claim, back it up.

I have honestly only ever heard of 5.

hetuzozaho

Is there an agreed number of children he slept with unsupervised, like just him and one child in a bedroom? Roughly even?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

Remember early ‘90s Culkin? Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point. It’s no surprise if Jackson didn’t molest him. I believe Culkin when he says Jackson didn’t molest him. It makes sense. Don’t target the more worldly-wise kid who won’t be as malleable as he’ll be much less star-struck.

Feldman’s career was on the wane at that point but he would still have had a savviness that the “nobody” kids didn’t have. I believe him too. Feldman has been vocal about being abused. So I like to think he would have spoken out if anything happened. The stuff he did admit to is pretty fücked though. :eek:

Child abusers don’t abuse every kid. In a way, the famous kids even provide a perfect cover and could even serve as bait. I know as a kid in the early ‘90s, I’d have loved to meet Macaulay, obsessed as I was with Home Alone.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Remember early ‘90s Culkin? Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point. It’s no surprise if Jackson didn’t molest him.

Hang on didn't his father beat the complete shít out of him constantly and he ended up suing his parents when was still a minor and basically divorced them?

Savvy?

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point.

Yes apparently his father worked in the acting business himself. I don't think the same awe for Jackson would have been there with the Culkins. A very different setup to the other two discussed in the documentary.

Shemale

joeguevara wrote: »

I have no opinion either way but one thing always intrigued me. Macaulay Cullen has always insisted he never experienced sex abuse or witnessed it. Surely he would have been a target.

Creepiest thing I read on this thread

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Dang. Michael shouldn’t the settled first one, so. Sounds like he would have won, eh?

joeguevara

Shemale wrote: »

Creepiest thing I read on this thread

I meant that he has come out and said he was never abused or witnessed any. Which is the biggest (imo) indicator that it’s false. But if MJ was an abuser, yes, his so called favourite for want of a better word would have been a target. I think posters accusing others of being paedophile sympathizers to be way creepier.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well not just me, law enforcement, social services, psychologists etc all found them credible too. I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have? Did they ever sue Jackson or look for any money? Did they ever sell their story or try to make money with books etc in the years since the accusations? I didn't think they did any of that stuff but maybe they did.

When people trot it out, do they not realise that the children of parents who are on the make or who are dazzled by the fame or who are deficient in various ways are the perfect children to target? Every time accusers’ grasping parents are brought up, that’s all I can think. Other child abuses cases show that perpetrators target children with less vigilant parents or parents who are somehow malleable. ‘Abducted In Plain Sight’ is a good example of this, if on the very extreme end of the scale.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Dang. Michael shouldn’t the settled first one, so. Sounds like he would have won, eh?

I'd imagine without doubt given the evidence against his father.

But he would have lost a 100m on not fulfilling the contractual obligations of finishing his tour.

But we have been through all this haven't we?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on didn't his father beat the complete shít out of him constantly and he ended up suing his parents when was still a minor and basically divorced them?

Savvy?

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes apparently his father worked in the acting business himself. I don't think the same awe for Jackson would have been there with the Culkins. A very different setup to the other two discussed in the documentary.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

You said his parents were savvy, they weren't they were complete kunts.

Given Culkins profile and background, seriously abusive father, mother he had to emancipate himself from.

He was absolute cat nip for a serial predatory pedophile.