Jump to content
Donald Trump

2019 not shaping up to be a good year for Michael Jackson

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

Sucking a dick and taking a cock in the ass were definitely top two on my “things I wouldn’t do list.”


Skeeter, you're one of the more reasonable posters here. The way it is presented, MJ would have likely fucked every boy that he spent a length of time with, right? Which would obviously mean he had a sexual attraction to young boys.

Why was there not a single inappropriate photo of him with a young boy found when the cops searched his house and computers in 2005?

I mean, all those boys and not ONE single photo of a kid naked, in the tub, or Michael naked with a kid, or Michael kissing a kid or something?
 

A guy is going to hold a mock wedding with a boy and no photos are taken of the event (remember, if Michael is doing this, he thinks it's normal)

I'm not even talking about graphic shit like photos of a boy sucking his Vitiligo stricken cock. Just, even something that's clearly crossing a boundary like a kiss, a nude shot, having the kid pose seductively.

Why no kiddie porn on his computers or on tapes or DVDs?

Why are you damning him on literally the word of two men, one of whom admitted to lying under oath twice over the course of a decade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not every kid diddler keeps trophies. And as far as the cops searching MJ's house in 2005, that was way after he had first drawn heat for alleged pedophilia. Any evidence within the house would have been destroyed long before 2005, unless he was begging for prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, downwithhope said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not every kid diddler keeps trophies. And as far as the cops searching MJ's house in 2005, that was way after he had first drawn heat for alleged pedophilia. Any evidence within the house would have been destroyed long before 2005, unless he was begging for prison.


Wouldn't you say it's likely though that a kiddie diddler who was literally doped up to his eyeballs on sedatives that are used for surgery wouldn't have the mental wherewithal to destroy EVERY SINGLE TROPHY? I mean, let's say him diddling kids only began after he got burned during the Pepsi commercial - the record suggests he did not use drugs prior to this, so let's use this point as a possible starting point since the introduction of heavy pain killers may have impaired his judgement - that's still almost 20 years worth of potential kiddie diddlying, and if he took it as seriously as to actually feel he was in love with these boys, why not document it? Do you not find the absence of even ONE photograph, or one even small snippet of film a little suspect?

 

As to the point that he had "drawn heat" for pedophilia...Note that there was 12 year gap between the 1993 Chandler allegations and the Gavin allegations in 2005. Certainly after a period of 12 years a pedophile would become, for lack of a better word, reckless again, more confident in their ability to avoid detection. Let's compare pedophilia to other mental compulsions like addiction or even serial murder: If you study both of those afflictions, which are similar to pedophilia in that they are mental deficiencies which involve impulse control, you'll find that the offender is habitual and that the offender usually, after a time when the heat is "off" (for Jackson this would be between 1994 and 2005, a period of over a decade), they get 'sloppy' so to speak (whether overconfident, or whatever)

 

This is a guy who could barely function in other aspects of his life, who was essentially comatose almost 24/7. Are you telling me he had the sense of mind to destroy every single photo, video, etc?

And if not him, then if it were his handlers - no one made backups for a rainy day when they might want to sell out? Jackson was a man surrounded by hundreds of people, he was an institution. You're telling me every single member of his entourage, even bodyguards, all of them covered for him and even continue still and withhold evidence?

I mean, before we literally purge a man's entire existence career from history and damn anyone who dares to listen to him, which is what is happening, should we not go on more evidence than mere hearsay?

When did it become that accusations are equivalent to guilt?

I thought that the idea of justice provided for proof to be found beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence. Eye witness testimony is considered flimsy evidence; even the testimony of victims is considered flimsy (there are studies done by the FBI and other agencies which back this up) and unreliable.

I mean, we're not talking about just saying "oh, he was fucked up, fuck it", we're talking about erasing the guy from history entirely. We should go on more than accusations to do that. This is not the age of the Roman Empire and  damnatio memoriae.

Edited by Miser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the article but it came out when they release records a few years ago. This might have been later but I remember they tapped his phone. Maybe I got some of the details wrong going by memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Miser said:

we're talking about erasing the guy from history entirely

No one here is talking about that because we're not faggots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, magisme said:

No one here is talking about that because we're not faggots.

 

Society at large is, essentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Miser said:

 

Society at large is, essentially. 

You should have made that clear, then.

 

You said "I mean, before we literally purge a man's entire existence career from history and damn anyone who dares to listen to him, which is what is happening, should we not go on more evidence than mere hearsay?"

 

You are the only one here who has suggested this "purging" of the man's "entire existence career" by a collective "we". Reasonable points have been made to counter your arguments yet you keep going back to the sensationalism. It's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, downwithhope said:

You should have made that clear, then.

 

You said "I mean, before we literally purge a man's entire existence career from history and damn anyone who dares to listen to him, which is what is happening, should we not go on more evidence than mere hearsay?"

 

You are the only one here who has suggested this "purging" of the man's "entire existence career" by a collective "we". Reasonable points have been made to counter your arguments yet you keep going back to the sensationalism. It's ridiculous.


They're not reasonable points though. They are literally points based on the testimony of two men without any real proof. An accusation is not guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Miser said:


Skeeter, you're one of the more reasonable posters here. The way it is presented, MJ would have likely fucked every boy that he spent a length of time with, right? Which would obviously mean he had a sexual attraction to young boys.

Why was there not a single inappropriate photo of him with a young boy found when the cops searched his house and computers in 2005?

I mean, all those boys and not ONE single photo of a kid naked, in the tub, or Michael naked with a kid, or Michael kissing a kid or something?
 

A guy is going to hold a mock wedding with a boy and no photos are taken of the event (remember, if Michael is doing this, he thinks it's normal)

I'm not even talking about graphic shit like photos of a boy sucking his Vitiligo stricken cock. Just, even something that's clearly crossing a boundary like a kiss, a nude shot, having the kid pose seductively.

Why no kiddie porn on his computers or on tapes or DVDs?

Why are you damning him on literally the word of two men, one of whom admitted to lying under oath twice over the course of a decade?

Well...a few things to consider. 

 

He did pay a family 23 million dollars to drop their sons charges against him. The child was able to fully describe what michael’s cock looked like. 23 million dollars to drop their case. 

 

Do innocent people pay out that kind of money instead of fighting the charges?

 

I’ve coached kids in sports for 30 years. Been on numerous trips with groups of kids. Spent weeks at a time with boys on trips, all of us sleeping in gyms or churches together. I’ve coached maybe 500 kids....and not one of them could describe my cock to police. 

 

Back in the early 90s Michael’s own sister said that he was GUILTY and that he had secretly paid off several other families. 

 

But to answer your questions. 

 

We have to remember that in the 80s and early 90s cell phones and computers/internet weren’t what they are today.

 

Just as a real life example. My first wife and I married in 1993. We took a bunch of nude/sex pictures...not on a phone, no sexting, it was  all on a camera with film. She wouldn’t take the film to our local photo store so we had to mail the film out to a different state to have it developed. Conversely, When I got married again in 2010, I went through my yahoo email and deleted all the nudes I had of old GFs. I had pictures from 14 different women. 80s and 90s were physical cameras and film that had to be developed. 2000s - cell phone nudes. 

 

Point being - in the 80s and early 90s you couldn’t just whip out your cell phone and take a bunch of pictures. And you couldn’t take out your camera and take a bunch of pictures and then plug that into your laptop. You had to send that film off to be developed. 

 

So the “why weren’t there pictures” argument has merit. But pictures were an entirely different beast in 1988 compared to 2018. So it isn’t that unusual for him to not have had pictures back in that time period. 

 

As for porn. Again, same thing. There was no child porn for him to be looking at on the internet in 1990. In 92 or 93 a friend came over and hooked up my first internet for me. We spent two hours messing around on it and saw maybe 10 total pictures. You couldn’t log in and then download thousands of porn pictures like people do today. Child pornography online probably wasn’t even available until the late 90s. 

 

TL/DR - in the 80s and early 90s you didn’t have cell phone cameras and you didn’t have high speed internet with millions of porn sites and laptops. 

 

And if he was paying kids millions of dollars.....did he really need some grainy Polaroid pictures when he could get the real life thing whenever he wanted?

 

Also....if he did have some Polaroid pictures or underground child porn VHS tapes, he could have easily hid them. I live on five acres of land and I could easily hide a small box that would take police a year to find. Imagine the hiding places MJ had. He had so much money he could have had one of his people keep his porn at his house. Paid the guy a million dollars to keep it. 

 

Soooooo....no pictures of child porn (his own or ones he bought)....not really an issue for me at all considering the time frame. 

 

But yes. 

*I do believe some families tried to frame him for money. 

*And yes, I believe some families knew about Michael being a pedo, and let their kids go with him just because of a potential payoff. 

 

But at the end of the day. He was a man in his 30s who was sleeping nude in the same bed as young boys. He was accused of molestation by several different boys - some of which he paid tens of millions of dollars to drop their cases. And his own sister said he as guilty. 

 

Oh....and the guys from the doc making money from this doesn’t bother me at all in terms of belief or not. If MJ had molested me as a child and I spent a lifetime dealing with the after effects....and today a doc maker offered me $100,000 to share my story? Why wouldn’t I take the money. I see nothing wrong with a victim getting paid.  100 grand can buy a house in some states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, downwithhope said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not every kid diddler keeps trophies. And as far as the cops searching MJ's house in 2005, that was way after he had first drawn heat for alleged pedophilia. Any evidence within the house would have been destroyed long before 2005, unless he was begging for prison.

This. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

Well...a few things to consider. 

 

He did pay a family 23 million dollars to drop their sons charges against him. The child was able to fully describe what michael’s cock looked like. 23 million dollars to drop their case. 

http://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

 

I encourage you to read that. It's regarding the issue you mention.

 

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

 

Depends. A relative of mine spent a year on trial and several nights in county jail due to what ultimately turned out to be a false allegation of sexual assault when the girl admitted to having made the whole thing up. He was charged with four misdemeanor sexual offenses and acquitted on all charges. If I were in the position where I was accused of a heinous crime, and the prospect was either pay these people - who obviously wanted money - off, or spend years of my life (which is what would've happened in the Chandler case) on trial, I'd have chosen the former. Chandler's father is on tape stating he wanted to bilk Jackson for money.

If your child was raped, would you in good conscience take money from the rapists hands' anyway? Would you accept in good conscience a cash settlement or would you fight to the death to make sure the guy was behind bars? If I had a child and I believed they were raped or molested, I would not attack the molester in a civil suit, I would go after them within the fullest extent of the law and I wouldn't stop until they were behind bars. I'd not take money from hands that sullied my child.

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

    

Back in the early 90s Michael’s own sister said that he was GUILTY and that he had secretly paid off several other families. 

 

Doesn't his sister have her own history of mental illness (including her own addiction to plastic surgery and skin bleaching), and why did she not come forward and reveal the names of the 'several other families'?

 

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

But to answer your questions. 

 

We have to remember that in the 80s and early 90s cell phones and computers/internet weren’t what they are today.

 

Just as a real life example. My first wife and I married in 1993. We took a bunch of nude/sex pictures...not on a phone, no sexting, it was  all on a camera with film. She wouldn’t take the film to our local photo store so we had to mail the film out to a different state to have it developed. Conversely, When I got married again in 2010, I went through my yahoo email and deleted all the nudes I had of old GFs. I had pictures from 14 different women. 80s and 90s were physical cameras and film that had to be developed. 2000s - cell phone nudes. 

 

Point being - in the 80s and early 90s you couldn’t just whip out your cell phone and take a bunch of pictures. And you couldn’t take out your camera and take a bunch of pictures and then plug that into your laptop. You had to send that film off to be developed. 

 

No but there were such things in the 90s as point-and-shoot cameras that were readily available even to middle income people. And in the 80s and 90s you had video cameras (just again, on the middle income level) in the form of cassette tapes (Video8, Hi8 and such) that didn't need to be developed. That could be shot and stored in the privacy of one's one home without any outside developer or even without a projector.

And you had Polaroids, which required no outside developer as well.
 

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

 

As for porn. Again, same thing. There was no child porn for him to be looking at on the internet in 1990. In 92 or 93 a friend came over and hooked up my first internet for me. We spent two hours messing around on it and saw maybe 10 total pictures. You couldn’t log in and then download thousands of porn pictures like people do today. Child pornography online probably wasn’t even available until the late 90s. 

 

There was a black market for child porn (as there was for all kinds of porn) in the 80s and 90s in the form of VHS tapes. You really think MJ would not have had access to this? And what about say, between the years 2000 and 2005, when internet child porn was at its peak? 

 

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

 

And if he was paying kids millions of dollars.....did he really need some grainy Polaroid pictures when he could get the real life thing whenever he wanted?

 

Compulsive people like pedophiles, rapists, and such like trophies though as they allow the perpetrator to relive the specific acts with the specific victims over again. 

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

Also....if he did have some Polaroid pictures or underground child porn VHS tapes, he could have easily hid them. I live on five acres of land and I could easily hide a small box that would take police a year to find. Imagine the hiding places MJ had. He had so much money he could have had one of his people keep his porn at his house. Paid the guy a million dollars to keep it. 

 

You're giving a lot of credit to a guy who was hopped up on stuff that would sedate a horse probably at least half the day. I mean, it's not like he was abusing Valium. The guy was abusing, habitually, medication doctors use to put someone into an artificial coma. I doubt his mental capacity to have that much guile and cunning, especially later in life. He was pretty much in a state of being in and out of drug addiction from the mid 80s onward after he got burnt and it only got worse as time went on.

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

 

Soooooo....no pictures of child porn (his own or ones he bought)....not really an issue for me at all considering the time frame. 

 

But yes. 

*I do believe some families tried to frame him for money. 

*And yes, I believe some families knew about Michael being a pedo, and let their kids go with him just because of a potential payoff. 

 

But at the end of the day. He was a man in his 30s who was sleeping nude in the same bed as young boys. He was accused of molestation by several different boys - some of which he paid tens of millions of dollars to drop their cases. And his own sister said he as guilty. 

 

Family accusations are not proof. Also, didn't he pay off the one boy - Chandler - in 1993? Not several?

3 minutes ago, Skeeter said:

 

Oh....and the guys from the doc making money from this doesn’t bother me at all in terms of belief or not. If MJ had molested me as a child and I spent a lifetime dealing with the after effects....and today a doc maker offered me $100,000 to share my story? Why wouldn’t I take the money. I see nothing wrong with a victim getting paid.  100 grand can buy a house in some states. 

 

On the other hand, wouldn't you take the money to make up a pretty believable story about an easy target as well?

 

Again, I'm not saying he was the picture of normality nor am I defending his odd relationships with kids. He, by his own words, did a lot to create the image of him that makes these stories believable.

I guess in absence of concrete proof it comes down to what one chooses to believe.

I'm not even that big of a fan of Michael Jackson and I don't believe he was guilty. Now, on the other hand, I'm a big fan of Axl Rose and I believe he raped and beat Erin Everly and possibly other women as well. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skeeter said:

Sucking a dick and taking a cock in the ass were definitely top two on my “things I wouldn’t do list.”

 

You obviously underrate big screen TV's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miser said:

Now, on the other hand, I'm a big fan of Axl Rose and I believe he raped and beat Erin Everly and possibly other women as well. 
 

I'm finding myself having to separate the art from the artist more and more these days. Rock stars had so much more mystique to me in the 80's. Now we're too exposed to them, and too much money is there to be made for others with tell-all stories to sell. I'll always be a fan of Axl, but he's a piece of shit. You're right, he anally raped and beat Erin, and I think it's pretty well known he at least beat other women as well.

 

I think it's still possible to enjoy music from human failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, downwithhope said:

I'm finding myself having to separate the art from the artist more and more these days. Rock stars had so much more mystique to me in the 80's. Now we're too exposed to them, and too much money is there to be made for others with tell-all stories to sell. I'll always be a fan of Axl, but he's a piece of shit. You're right, he anally raped and beat Erin, and I think it's pretty well known he at least beat other women as well.

 

I think it's still possible to enjoy music from human failures.


That's kinda my point. I wish more people would separate art from the artist. They're taking MJ's music off the airwaves and it kinda sucks cause no matter what he was or wasn't he made great music. Same goes for Axl, David Bowie, and all the others who did weird or illegal things. Axl possibly being a literal rapist doesn't make November Rain or Locomotive or Welcome to the Jungle any less great. MJ being possibly a kiddie diddler doesn't make any of his dozens of songs any less amazing. Unless he was getting a blowie from a kid as he was recording the song, it isn't tarnished for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miser really seems to want dirty pictures of kids to surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miser said:


That's kinda my point. I wish more people would separate art from the artist. They're taking MJ's music off the airwaves and it kinda sucks cause no matter what he was or wasn't he made great music. Same goes for Axl, David Bowie, and all the others who did weird or illegal things. Axl possibly being a literal rapist doesn't make November Rain or Locomotive or Welcome to the Jungle any less great. MJ being possibly a kiddie diddler doesn't make any of his dozens of songs any less amazing. Unless he was getting a blowie from a kid as he was recording the song, it isn't tarnished for me.

I understand. I think it's shit to censor any art, especially as a reaction to a documentary (pretty much). Good music, or music which someone likes, will always have its place. Regardless what is revealed about Michael Jackson, I'll always enjoy his music. Roman Polanski is a piece of turd but I think he's made some great movies. John Lennon treated his first wife Julia and his first son Julian like shit, but he wrote some great songs. Harvey Weinstein is an unwiped asshole but he funded some of my favorite movies. Fuck these pricks but I'll still enjoy the art if it pleases me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Miser said:

http://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

 

I encourage you to read that. It's regarding the issue you mention.

 

 

Depends. A relative of mine spent a year on trial and several nights in county jail due to what ultimately turned out to be a false allegation of sexual assault when the girl admitted to having made the whole thing up. He was charged with four misdemeanor sexual offenses and acquitted on all charges. If I were in the position where I was accused of a heinous crime, and the prospect was either pay these people - who obviously wanted money - off, or spend years of my life (which is what would've happened in the Chandler case) on trial, I'd have chosen the former. Chandler's father is on tape stating he wanted to bilk Jackson for money.

If your child was raped, would you in good conscience take money from the rapists hands' anyway? Would you accept in good conscience a cash settlement or would you fight to the death to make sure the guy was behind bars? If I had a child and I believed they were raped or molested, I would not attack the molester in a civil suit, I would go after them within the fullest extent of the law and I wouldn't stop until they were behind bars. I'd not take money from hands that sullied my child.

 

Doesn't his sister have her own history of mental illness (including her own addiction to plastic surgery and skin bleaching), and why did she not come forward and reveal the names of the 'several other families'?

 

 

No but there were such things in the 90s as point-and-shoot cameras that were readily available even to middle income people. And in the 80s and 90s you had video cameras (just again, on the middle income level) in the form of cassette tapes (Video8, Hi8 and such) that didn't need to be developed. That could be shot and stored in the privacy of one's one home without any outside developer or even without a projector.

And you had Polaroids, which required no outside developer as well.
 

 

There was a black market for child porn (as there was for all kinds of porn) in the 80s and 90s in the form of VHS tapes. You really think MJ would not have had access to this? And what about say, between the years 2000 and 2005, when internet child porn was at its peak? 

 

 

Compulsive people like pedophiles, rapists, and such like trophies though as they allow the perpetrator to relive the specific acts with the specific victims over again. 

 

You're giving a lot of credit to a guy who was hopped up on stuff that would sedate a horse probably at least half the day. I mean, it's not like he was abusing Valium. The guy was abusing, habitually, medication doctors use to put someone into an artificial coma. I doubt his mental capacity to have that much guile and cunning, especially later in life. He was pretty much in a state of being in and out of drug addiction from the mid 80s onward after he got burnt and it only got worse as time went on.

 

Family accusations are not proof. Also, didn't he pay off the one boy - Chandler - in 1993? Not several?

 

On the other hand, wouldn't you take the money to make up a pretty believable story about an easy target as well?

 

Again, I'm not saying he was the picture of normality nor am I defending his odd relationships with kids. He, by his own words, did a lot to create the image of him that makes these stories believable.

I guess in absence of concrete proof it comes down to what one chooses to believe.

I'm not even that big of a fan of Michael Jackson and I don't believe he was guilty. Now, on the other hand, I'm a big fan of Axl Rose and I believe he raped and beat Erin Everly and possibly other women as well. 
 

You don’t believe the two guys because there is no physical evidence. And because they are making money. 

But you believe Erin and Stephanie. Who have no physical proof. And who both took money from Axl to drop their charges. 

 

Why change the goal posts? 

 

Again. For all the reasons I listed regarding the late 80s and 90s - which I personally experienced, but you basically told me I was wrong. 

 

Another fault in your argument is when you start adding what YOU would personally do in a situation and judge the other person because they didn’t react the way you did. Not everybody reacts the same way to things. 

 

Lots of people are in different places in their life. Some would rather take the money (Erin, Stephanie, the kids Michael paid off).  Some are stronger and would rather the criminal went to jail. Some would choose to beat the criminal to death. Just because you would do one thing doesn’t mean others are wrong if they choose another path. 

 

It’s the Vince Neil situation. Dude got drunk, drove his car and got in a wreck that killed his friend and severely injured an innocent lady. Judge gave Neil a monetary fine rather than sending him to jail. Why? Because sending him to jail wouldn’t help the injured lady, who suffered life long injuries. The judge felt it was better for Neil to take care of the lady financially rather than him going to jail and the lady not getting a penny. 

 

******

 

Lastly though. I wonder why you ask the question when you seem 100% set in your opinion. I don’t think anything anybody says is going to sway your opinion. 

 

MJ slept in the same bed as young boys that he was not related to. As a 30-year old man he had young boys stay the night at his house. 

 

He paid tens of millions of dollars to at least one family to drop their case. I read that it was 23 million dollars. MJ could afford the best lawyers in the world - yet he chose to write a check for 23 million dollars instead. 

 

And you don’t give MJ’s sister’s words any credibility because she has dealt with mental healthy issues???? You have said that YOU have dealt with mental health issues. Does that mean we shouldn’t believe anything you say about your family or your upbringing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, downwithhope said:

I understand. I think it's shit to censor any art, especially as a reaction to a documentary (pretty much). Good music, or music which someone likes, will always have its place. Regardless what is revealed about Michael Jackson, I'll always enjoy his music. Roman Polanski is a piece of turd but I think he's made some great movies. John Lennon treated his first wife Julia and his first son Julian like shit, but he wrote some great songs. Harvey Weinstein is an unwiped asshole but he funded some of my favorite movies. Fuck these pricks but I'll still enjoy the art if it pleases me.

Also some of them haven’t been proven guilty and if they were they supposedly would have paid their debt to society at some point. 

 

Still a radio station has the right not to play anything. Even if they think it’s just in poor taste to have MJ playing all day. 

 

Another thing is some of these people were only partly involved in the art. Do you punish QT and all the actors, workers on a movie because Harvey stumped up sone money fron his company? 

 

The other thing is the line. So many artists mentioned here have something they were involved in. Wasn’t Bill Wyman married a underage girl? So do the Stones songs go too? 

 

The Estate should be releasing Childhood as a single asap. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for evidence, in the movie, one of the accusers says that MJ videotaped their session, then immediately deleted it.  He did NOT want to get caught.

 

The other case was the other guy, the one and only time MJ tried to fuck him in the butt, and he called the kid frantically and told him to throw out his underwear cause there were blood droplets on it.

 

The movie addresses how careful MJ was.  I'm not saying it's true or false; but if Miser had bothered to actually watch it, he might not have had to write walls of texts about "evidence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents probably knew it but they were living a dream life and allowed it to happen. I think that's the worst part of the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...