Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always wonder about the parents of these boys. They were paid off too. They pimped out their boys to a celebrity. When will they be held accountable?
He's been making these claims for two years. I should know, I've been posting about it on a Michael Jackson forum since 2012.
I don't believe Michael was a pedophile, but I do believe it is possible he was gay. Doesn't make a difference to me, I still like his music. All his sins were washed away when he died, anyway, so there's just the good music that is left. '
People that get all bent out of shape about listening to Michael, probably listen to Elvis (who was also a pedophile, as well as a very unbalanced person), James Brown (who was a wife beater), or Jim Morrison (who was a drug addict.)
Victims of abuse shouldn't be compensated? Are Jimmy Savile's victims lying too? The victims who sued the Catholic Church, claiming abuse that occurred decades earlier?
Jackson fans lose all logic when they defend this man. It's unbelievable.
I'm not a Jackson fan. This "victim" testified in court that there was no abuse. Now he changes his story. Why? Because MJ can''t defend himself? Something smells funny. Smells like money.
MJ lived a very peculiar
Life. Every single story involving young boys was extremely strange.
Ask yourself what man in your world would spend as much time with children and young boys as he did.
The parents of these children should also be under suspicion.
What normal parent allows their young children to be put in these situations.
fame, money, unconventional, unsupervised, bribery, sex, wealth,
Pedophilia, unstable mental health...
All this comes to mind when referring to MJ.
My only pause about this is...Wade Robson could have come forward when MJ was alive. His allegations could have helped the other victims. Yet, he didn't care. Now that MJ is dead, he's just going for the money play against the estate.
Whatever injury he experienced (still allegations), I do believe this is a money play and not about righting past wrongs.
He's made these claims for a few years now. Since right after MJ died, IIRC. The only thing that makes it newsworthy now is that he's gone into more graphic detail.
He filed this lawsuit in 2012. Before that, he had nothing but praise for MJ. There's footage of him recorded earlier in 2012 where he's talking about how he's going to produce the next MJ Cirque du Soleil show (that job went to Jamie King actually).
This is what Wade Robson testified under oath as an adult in 2005: Wade Robson: Sworn Testimony (May 5, 2005). Notice that he doesn't just deny that MJ ever abused him, he denies very specific acts as well, such as kissing, touching, cuddling, lying next to each other in bed, showering together, etc. That means he either knowingly lied then, under penalty of perjury and letting his molestor walk free, or he is lying now when MJ is no longer here to defend himself and there's a $1 billion price tag attached. Which seems more likely?
Despite his highly questionable practice holding one-on-one sleepovers with underage boys, I foolishly gave Jackson the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't a pedophile/sex abuser. Then I discovered these items were found in Neverland during the 1993 raid:
'Boys Will Be Boys' - a book featuring nude photos of boys
'The Boy, A Photographic Essay' - another book featuring nude photos of boys
A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence, fully nude
The dude is guilty and I'm not buying the extortion defense anymore. If it looks like a child predator and talks like a child predator, it's a child predator.
There are no nude photos of boys in those books. These are perfectly legal art photography books that anyone can order on Amazon and were found among literally thousands upon thousands of books in MJ's library. You have to keep in mind that the prosecution tried to spin all kinds of innocent material as pornographic. When they're talking about images of "half nude children", they're talking about a bunch of kids playing on the beach. When they're talking about "homosexual porn", they're talking about porn that involves two women. The jury dismissed it for a reason. This was found during the 2003 raid btw, not 1993.
And that nude picture of Jonathan Spence was just a tabloid rumour, it was never found during the raid let alone produced in court. The possession of child pornographic material is a criminal offense so if the prosecution had really found something of this nature, you can be sure MJ would have tried and convicted for it.
If anything, the LACK of any incriminating evidence against MJ despite the SBPD and FBI going through all his private possessions with a fine tooth comb on numerous occasions speaks well of his innocence.
MJ lived a very peculiar
Life. Every single story involving young boys was extremely strange.
Ask yourself what man in your world would spend as much time with children and young boys as he did.
The parents of these children should also be under suspicion.
What normal parent allows their young children to be put in these situations.
fame, money, unconventional, unsupervised, bribery, sex, wealth,
Pedophilia, unstable mental health...
All this comes to mind when referring to MJ.
Google Brian Singer.
It only seems that way because the media only focus on his friendship with young boys. In reality, Michael befriended entire families and was no more interested in boys than girls. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of children he befriended, only a handful ever accused him of any wrongdoing. And plenty of them remained friends with him long into adulthood.
I wish people would take the time to research Michael Jackson and the allegations a bit. You don't have to like him, just learn about his life with an open mind and you will understand why he made some of the choices he made. When you read his autobiography, when you watch his interviews, when you listen to his music, when you hear the opinions of people who really knew him, you will find that Michael was nowhere near as "bizarre" and unrelatable as the media made him out to be. He was just always extremely shy and vulnerable and soft-spoken, even when he was a child, and I think that is why he was so drawn to children, because they're not as intimidating as adults. He had a lot of adult friends as well (Elizabeth Taylor is a notable example) but they tended to be quite a bit older than him, I think for the same reason. He grew up extremely isolated, not just because of his early fame but also his upbringing as a Jehova's Witness, and that is why he did not always understand the social conventions that the rest of us are used to. He didn't feel there was anything wrong with allowing a child to sleep in his bedroom if the child wanted to (and he was never secretive about it) because he just didn't associate this with sex and he didn't understand why anyone else would. But he never invited a child to stay in his bed - even Wade Robson admits this - and that's an important distinction to make. It was always the child's initiative and Michael just said: "if it's OK with your parents, it's OK with me".
If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to PM you a link where you can read MJ's biography and numerous other books and magazines about him for free. Any televised interview he ever did is on YT. Google the Glenda tapes if you're interested in private phone conversations MJ had with an adult female friend. You can find tons of information and court transcripts of the 1993 and 2005 allegations here. Really, the resources are there if you care enough to learn about this incredible man
I'm not a Jackson fan. This "victim" testified in court that there was no abuse. Now he changes his story. Why? Because MJ can''t defend himself? Something smells funny. Smells like money.
It is common for molestation victims to deny abuse and/or defend their abuser before admitting the truth. It's classic Stockholm Syndrome behavior.
Jerry Sandusky's adopted son Matt defended his father throughout the pretrial hearings, swore to police and investigators he was never molested. Three days into the trial he broke down and admitted Jerry molested him.
There are no nude photos of boys in those books. These are perfectly legal art photography books that anyone can order on Amazon and were found among literally thousands upon thousands of books in MJ's library. You have to keep in mind that the prosecution tried to spin all kinds of innocent material as pornographic. When they're talking about images of "half nude children", they're talking about a bunch of kids playing on the beach. When they're talking about "homosexual porn", they're talking about porn that involves two women. The jury dismissed it for a reason. This was found during the 2003 raid btw, not 1993.
And that nude picture of Jonathan Spence was just a tabloid rumour, it was never found during the raid let alone produced in court. The possession of child pornographic material is a criminal offense so if the prosecution had really found something of this nature, you can be sure MJ would have tried and convicted for it.
If anything, the LACK of any incriminating evidence against MJ despite the SBPD and FBI going through all his private possessions with a fine tooth comb on numerous occasions speaks well of his innocence.
The photo of a naked Jonathan Spence is listed in a court document filed with the California Superior Court as evidence seized in the 1993 raid. Unless the DA was attempting to submit an imaginary photo as evidence, it's safe to say it is far more than a tabloid rumor:
Here's a description of one of the books found in 1993: 'Boys Will Be Boys'
This book, found locked in a filing cabinet in Micheal Jackson's bedroom, is a compilation of photos of boys, shown having fun and in about 90% of pics are naked. Contrary to popular thought, many pedophiles are more attracted to this type of work than child porn. It's useful that it's legal to own, too. The book is edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson.
Georges St. Martin is the pseudonym of Martin Swithinbank. You may not have heard of Martin Swithinbank, because he has also been a major contributor to the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) Bulletin. He was deported to England after completing a 7 1/2-to-15-year sentence for sodomizing young boys on Long Island. He was released Dec. 19, 1992, after spending more than 10 years in prison.
Ronald C. Nelson is the pseudonym of Ronald Drew, a New York teacher who was arrested and indicted for selling obscene photographs depicting children involved in various forms of deviant sexual conduct and intercourse (see here).
These pieces of evidence (along with Jordan's accurate description of Jackson's genitals) sealed the deal for me on Jackson's guilt. You can't spin books with nude children, edited by convicted sex offenders, as innocent and harmless. Not when the man possessing them had an obvious obsession with underage boys and was accused of sexual molestation three times in his lifetime, and twice more posthumously. Jonathan Spence was one of Jackson's many "special friends" from the 80's, why did Jackson own a nude photo of him?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
