Michael Jackson child rape doco.

[Jokerman]

I am perfectly fine to say that I believe that you regularly engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation whilst watching My Little Pony. Do I have any proof? Nah, but I "believe" it.

And it's also happens to be a lucky guess.

 

[Tha_Wood]

OK, so your "belief" is better than a judge and jury who found him innocent, plus the FBI and several child safety organisations who investigated him for over 10 years and found nothing?

We don't deal with "beliefs" in our society - we deal with facts, evidence, proof.

Otherwise I am perfectly fine to say that I believe that you regularly engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation whilst watching My Little Pony. Do I have any proof? Nah, but I "believe" it.

You really should read what I wrote again.

By the way, in this joke of a film, they infer that another boy - Brett Barnes, who I mentioned above, "replaced" them. They're implying he was molested. One problem - it's not true, and now Barnes is suing the fuck out of HBO.

I'm not saying he should be exhumed, charged and convicted of it I'm just saying i think he probably did it. I believe OJ did it too despite a jury finding him not guilty. And to say we don't deal with beliefs in our society is completely disingenuous and to put it bluntly a load of shit.

Your comparison of me believing that MJ probably molested children and you believing that I choke and stroke while watching my little pony is comparing apples and oranges, however I know your an intelligent guy so you already knew that.

 

[Rukas]

 

[Jokerman]

As usual, Rogan’s an idiot. Jackson was not chemically castrated. It’s absurd and it’s been debunked many times. Everyone in the Jackson family has a high voice. Michael’s octave range was equivalent to Freddie Mercury’s. Rogan didn’t even correctly explain what chemical castration might do to someone. You don’t stop producing testosterone, etc. But I won’t go into it.

Jackson definitely had psychological problems stemming from his childhood and father and most likely the fame. Did he molest kids? We just don’t know. Arguments can be made for or against. But not wanting to believe it because one loves his music and talent means as little as believing it because who else but a pedophile would act like that? Objectively, we just can’t know. One’s gut reaction about hearing something like this for the first time about someone would be, of course that guy’s a pedo. But Michael’s was a unique situation and case that calls for more consideration and thought. Unfortunately, most people’s thinking end with their guts.

To even begin to see an alternative explanation for his behavior, one needs at least some understanding of the psychological problems that are associated with so-called “Peter Pan Syndrome.” Unresolved childhood trauma. Suppression and dissociation to varying degrees. Preference for fantasy as a defense mechanism over reality. Neverland. Pedophiles don’t usually have Peter Pan syndrome. They might pretend to play with toys just to lure kids, but Michael played with them when no kid was around. He just doesn’t fit the profile unless all you’re looking at is the surface. Professional psychologists who have experience with these people don’t want to weigh in and get attacked by the gut thinkers. But if you delve deep enough into the psychology involved, an alternative explanation to his behavior becomes apparent. Of course, both things can be true. He had these problems and he molested. But I’ve seen nothing that convinces me he did and a lot of kind words from most people who knew him.

 

[Casey]

Robson and Safechuck apparently just failed a lie detector test. Which they would. Because they are lying. More and more lies by the day.

The latest to come out is that there's a scene in the film where Robson describes going to dinner at Neverland during the trial and seeing that Michael was a broken man. He claims this is the moment that he decided to testify to support Michael.

One problem. Taj Jackson amongst others were there. This dinner happened AFTER Wade had ALREADY testified.

Safechuck's mother, in the film, describes "dancing" when she heard that Michael had died.

Michael died in 2009. Safechuck in his OWN testimony says he didn't even remember that he'd been "abused" until 2013.

These guys can't keep their stories straight.

 

[dilla]

I believe Canada and new Zealand have now stopped playing MJ songs on the radio.


Also, you guys seen the R Kelly freakout on that CBS special?
The ensuing memes are fucking priceless. I'll find a link from Insta.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

The Training Day dub had me in stitches

 

[Jokerman]

I stopped listening to Bill Cosby's music

 

[tHuG $TyLe]

Robson and Safechuck apparently just failed a lie detector test. Which they would. Because they are lying. More and more lies by the day.

The latest to come out is that there's a scene in the film where Robson describes going to dinner at Neverland during the trial and seeing that Michael was a broken man. He claims this is the moment that he decided to testify to support Michael.

One problem. Taj Jackson amongst others were there. This dinner happened AFTER Wade had ALREADY testified.

Safechuck's mother, in the film, describes "dancing" when she heard that Michael had died.

Michael died in 2009. Safechuck in his OWN testimony says he didn't even remember that he'd been "abused" until 2013.

These guys can't keep their stories straight.

Any source on that lie detector? Would like to link it if possible.

 

[Jokerman]

Did you hear what Barbra Streisand said about Michael?

"His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” You can say ‘molested,' but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there,” she said of Robson and Safechuck. “They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”


So...yes, Jackson did it but the kids loved it and they seem none the worse for it.

Of course, she later apologized when everyone attacked her for the accusers' sake, not for Michael's.

Barb, can you please crawl back under the rock you crawled out of?

 

[dilla]

Did you hear what Barbra Streisand said about Michael?

"His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” You can say ‘molested,' but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there,” she said of Robson and Safechuck. “They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”


So...yes, Jackson did it but the kids loved it and they seem none the worse for it.

Of course, she later apologized when everyone attacked her for the accusers' sake, not for Michael's.

Barb, can you please crawl back under the rock you crawled out of?

I'm not famous, so I can say this and only this forum can judge me.


We need a genocide. And it should begin with Hollywood. And end there, too. Well, it needs to hit religious figured too. The ones hiding the sexual abuse for decades. Centuries?

Both places are untouchable to criticism but only byfake, made up rules society places on each other.

Wipe out both industries and the perpetrators in them. Start fresh and make it so no one can hide behind a group of powerful people to do dirty, disgraceful shit again.

 

[Preach]

OK, so your "belief" is better than a judge and jury who found him innocent, plus the FBI and several child safety organisations who investigated him for over 10 years and found nothing?

We do't deal with "beliefs" in our society - we deal with facts, evidence, proof.

I happen to be on your side on this particular matter. MJ isn't just a regular case of an adult having a sleepover. He was a manchild in the literal sense. MJ doesn't fit the pedo bill. His childhood and the robbery of it is a huge factor. His Peter Pan syndrome. He didn't want to fuck boys, he wished he was a boy again. The way I see it, anyway.

So yeah, but with that said, that part in your post that I quoted is just so wrong and naive. The court system isn't perfect. The idea of making the person singularly responsible for their actions by law is a philosophical idea, not an empirical theory. It is the most successful attempt at maintaining societal order over time thus far in human history, and nothing more. What about people that are judged to be clinically insane? What's the empirical connection between a generic, biological condition and the exemption of responsibility? (There is none. It's a matter of humane treatment trumping the sense of justice in our collective agreement, at a current lack of other tools to deal with the problem in a way that adheres to, our collective agreement - it's philosophical)

Just because someone is found innocent by the justice system does not in fact mean that they did not do the thing they were on trial for. There are so many examples of justice not taking place in a court of law throughout history. You are trusting blindly in a system made by humans, who at their very core have the capacity for corruption. It makes no sense. The justice system isn't a belief system, it's a system designed to maintain order in the most pragmatic and humane way possible. I can only understand the idea of "believing in the system" as something that sprung out of a very Christian culture. It is not for you to believe in, it is for you to understand the purpose of. Every law is created for a purpose. Understanding and honoring the purpose of a law is what the law is guiding you to do, not to follow it blindly in the belief that that it is what is good and right. That is indeed how you teach it to children, but there comes a time when questions start arising. They deserve a proper answer, and that answer isn't "the justice system is always right". Every law at its very core is created (by people) to protect something, not to mandate you to do things for the sake of them being rightous.

Stating that MJ got off in court actually doesn't prove his innocence. Being there in the room that night on the wall like a fly and watching the whole situation unfold would prove to you what happened if anything. He also settled out of court. Donald Trump did too. You think he never fucked that stripper? That's a shady thing to do and even though I can understand a situation where an innocent person does it anyway, it's still a factor that can't just be shrugged off with a simple explanation like "well yeah BECAUSE HE HAD A TOUR AND HAD TO GET READY" or whatever. Settling out of court and saying you did so to avoid a media circus in an attempt to kill the ongoing media circus is almost too convenient if I try to be difficult about it. He paid money for things to go away. I don't know what to think about that. That's not to say I think it implies anything, neccesarily. I just honestly don't know what to think about it. There are, in my opinion, better ways to defend him. Eg. the part about his past, and the part about witnesses changing stories, and other things like that. What is the statistical, typical pedophile? Just reading a textbook description would exonerate Michael, imo. But the truth is, "we" will never actually know if something happened or what. We're all just looking at him, comparing him to our idea of what a pedo is, and that's most people's basis for their judgment of him and this case. None of us really know shit about shit.

But yeah, I don't believe he did it.

Did you hear what Barbra Streisand said about Michael?

"His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has,” You can say ‘molested,' but those children, as you heard say, they were thrilled to be there,” she said of Robson and Safechuck. “They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”


So...yes, Jackson did it but the kids loved it and they seem none the worse for it.

Of course, she later apologized when everyone attacked her for the accusers' sake, not for Michael's.

Barb, can you please crawl back under the rock you crawled out of?

My first thought when I read your post was I can picture how a person that was a victim of molestation in childhood but got through it okay somehow could entertain that thought, but she must have been heroined out of her mind when she thought posting it was a good idea and okay'ed that with herself.

 

[Tha_Wood]

I happen to be on your side on this particular matter. MJ isn't just a regular case of an adult having a sleepover. He was a manchild in the literal sense. MJ doesn't fit the pedo bill. His childhood and the robbery of it is a huge factor. His Peter Pan syndrome. He didn't want to fuck boys, he wished he was a boy again. The way I see it, anyway.

So yeah, but with that said, that part in your post that I quoted is just so wrong and naive. The court system isn't perfect. The idea of making the person singularly responsible for their actions by law is a philosophical idea, not an empirical theory. It is the most successful attempt at maintaining societal order over time thus far in human history, and nothing more. What about people that are judged to be clinically insane? What's the empirical connection between a generic, biological condition and the exemption of responsibility? (There is none. It's a matter of humane treatment trumping the sense of justice in our collective agreement, at a current lack of other tools to deal with the problem in a way that adheres to, our collective agreement - it's philosophical)

Just because someone is found innocent by the justice system does not in fact mean that they did not do the thing they were on trial for. There are so many examples of justice not taking place in a court of law throughout history. You are trusting blindly in a system made by humans, who at their very core have the capacity for corruption. It makes no sense. The justice system isn't a belief system, it's a system designed to maintain order in the most pragmatic and humane way possible. I can only understand the idea of "believing in the system" as something that sprung out of a very Christian culture. It is not for you to believe in, it is for you to understand the purpose of. Every law is created for a purpose. Understanding and honoring the purpose of a law is what the law is guiding you to do, not to follow it blindly in the belief that that it is what is good and right. That is indeed how you teach it to children, but there comes a time when questions start arising. They deserve a proper answer, and that answer isn't "the justice system is always right". Every law at its very core is created (by people) to protect something, not to mandate you to do things for the sake of them being rightous.

Stating that MJ got off in court actually doesn't prove his innocence. Being there in the room that night on the wall like a fly and watching the whole situation unfold would prove to you what happened if anything. He also settled out of court. Donald Trump did too. You think he never fucked that stripper? That's a shady thing to do and even though I can understand a situation where an innocent person does it anyway, it's still a factor that can't just be shrugged off with a simple explanation like "well yeah BECAUSE HE HAD A TOUR AND HAD TO GET READY" or whatever. Settling out of court and saying you did so to avoid a media circus in an attempt to kill the ongoing media circus is almost too convenient if I try to be difficult about it. He paid money for things to go away. I don't know what to think about that. That's not to say I think it implies anything, neccesarily. I just honestly don't know what to think about it. There are, in my opinion, better ways to defend him. Eg. the part about his past, and the part about witnesses changing stories, and other things like that. What is the statistical, typical pedophile? Just reading a textbook description would exonerate Michael, imo. But the truth is, "we" will never actually know if something happened or what. We're all just looking at him, comparing him to our idea of what a pedo is, and that's most people's basis for their judgment of him and this case. None of us really know shit about shit.

But yeah, I don't believe he did it.


My first thought when I read your post was I can picture how a person that was a victim of molestation in childhood but got through it okay somehow could entertain that thought, but she must have been heroined out of her mind when she thought posting it was a good idea and okay'ed that with herself.

Really thoughtful post. I don't have the capacity to respond to that in a way that will do it justice right now but I will later.

What I'd like to know is if you had children would you let them have a sleepover with MJ? I can understand why people believe he didn't do it, there is thought and logic to back that up. What I don't understand is anyone that says they would let their child have a sleepover with Michael. I've seen people online say it and I have to believe that anyone that says they would has some kind of retardation or they are a liar and are just that desperate to prove a point. Forget the rape accusations there is no circumstance where allowing your child to have a sleepover with an adult is ok. Ever. Now add in the rape accusations against him. If you are a parent and would ever put your child in a situation like that where there is a possibility they could be harmed you need your children taken away from you for their safety. If you would do that and you don't yet have children you need to be sterilized. If you would allow that you are either a fucking moron or that much of a desperate MJ stan that you would be willing to risk your child being molested just to have an interaction with him.

 

[Preach]

Nah, I totally agree with you. I totally wouldn't let my would-be child have a sleepover with anyone that wasn't close family and that I had extensive history with. As in, having been around the person in many situations over a great deal of time and would trust them with my life.

 

[Tha_Wood]

Nah, I totally agree with you. I totally wouldn't let my would-be child have a sleepover with anyone that wasn't close family and that I had extensive history with. As in, having been around the person in many situations over a great deal of time and would trust them with my life.

To be honest I didn't think you would let your would be child have a sleepover with MJ. I've got a feeling @Casey would though.

 

[Casey]

Yeah, I would, if they wanted to, and if my family was close with the Jackson family.

Why? Because people hear the words "bedroom" and "sleepover" and they turn it into something it's not.

I mean, for a start, MJ's bedroom was a two storey duplex bigger than most people's apartments. Think about a large hotel suite. But bigger. Across two floors. With it's own cinema system. They'd watch movies in there, with popcorn, candy, have pillow fights, and more often than not there'd actually be a ton of people there. Wade's own sister was often there on the few times that Wade slept in there (already proven to be far less times than he claims now for the purposes of his multi-million dollar lawsuit), and so was Michael's niece Brandi, who dated Wade for nearly a decade (another fact Wade conveniently forget to mention in this film).

It's not some guy from down the street sleeping in a normal size bed in a box room in the hood or suburbia.

But, I get that people can't relate. How can you relate to something so far from most people's experience? Either you have the empathetic intuition to understand it or you don't.

Preach, I get what you're saying, and what I wrote was reductive and lacked nuance.

But the facts are this.

If you believe Wade and James (despite the wealth of evidence that they are lying) then it follows that you also believe the following:

The FBI failed, repeatedly, in a 10 year investigation that also included multiple child protective authorities, the DA's office and team for the entire county and police department.

The judge and jury also failed, on every single count, in the 2005 trial where Michael was found Not Guilty on all charges.

Two grand juries in 1993, presented with a huge amount of investigative documents and seized property, also failed, when THEY chose to not indict Michael. You cannot pay off criminal charges, by the way, and the civil suit that was settled to Jordan Chandler specifically was not on any charge of molestation, it was a civil suit for negligence. It also did not preclude criminal charges - the grand juries decided there was not evidence to indict.

I don't believe the law is infallible. Not remotely. But I also don't believe that all of these people and groups got this wrong. Especially not with a corrupt DA who even attempted to plant false evidence, was caught doing it, and was known to consider bringing MJ down as his life's goal regardless of whether he was guilty or not.

What's funny is that I wholeheartedly believe, and there is more than enough proof of this, that the American justice system, if anything, unfairly targets black men, and especially wealthy black men. So you can bet that if there were _a single shred_ of credible evidence, they would have used it to take him down.

It's funny to me how many of the same people who would normally agree that the justice system is stacked against black men will do incredible mental gymnastics to condemn Michael Jackson despite a complete lack of evidence.

 

[Jokerman]

It's true. Michael Jackson's bed was the size of a football field. So "sleeping in the same bed as Mike" meant you never even saw him. Those who weren't close to him got to "sleep in the same bed," all alone. No wonder they're mad now.