Latest on MJJC

Asking ourselves tough questions.

WildStyle said:
I think we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about Michael Jackson and his relationships with children over the years. For decades we have dismissed these relationships as Michael not having a childhood and being childlike. And I believe there is truth to that and he was childlike in many ways and did enjoy the company of children on a fun level.

Let's also be honest about one thing... if it were anybody else but Michael Jackson, we would find these relationships deeply disturbing. The sleeping in the same bed so many nights in a row, the going on tour together and staying in hotel rooms together. Like it or not... this IS the sort of behaviour that a regular adult would display with a lover of the same age. We dismiss this by saying "there was only one person that lived a life like Michael Jackson. You can't compare him to regular people." This is true. But at the end of the day... he was still HUMAN. He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.

I'm not saying he was guilty. I'm saying we need to honestly ask ourselves these questions. For the first time in my life, I am seriously asking myself these questions and not dismissing them just because Michael had a different life to the rest of us. There is only so much of his life that we know, as much as all of us would like to think that we knew him so well. We knew parts of him. We didn't know all of him.

Yes, I know all of the facts from 93, 2003 and the Robson/Safechuck lawsuit. It is possible to be the victim of extortion and also be guilty of committing a crime. It is possible to be the victim of lies while there still being some truth to what is being said. One doesn't necessarily counteract the other unequivocally. It is also possible to truly care about the plight of children and the world and also have a sickness that you can't control.

I am still giving Michael the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying I now believe he was a pedophile. Spence defended him, Mac defends him, Brett defends him, the Cascio's defend him, Omer defends him. But Wade and James also defended him. And then they filed a lawsuit for hundreds of millions of dollars. Money is always going to be a big red flag with these accusers. But in asking myself honestly these tough questions for the first time... there are also red flags in Michael's behaviour. People here know my history. Michael has felt like a family member to me my whole life. I've loved him since I was 2 years old. I've defended him through every allegation. His death was maybe the saddest thing I have ever had to deal with in my life up to this point. I do not write this lightly. And I hope you all don't condemn me for this post... though I know most of you will. I hope the fight continues and Michael's name is cleared.
Click to expand...
Completely true and valid. While we will never know for sure,I can say these accusers seems liars. But we never know. Michael could have been innocent ,but who really knows?Michael's behaviour can seem at times kinda frightening,but also a lot of the stories can be (and actually are) debunked as ,at least suspicious,if not completely lies. I believe Leaving Neverland relies on emotional MANIPULATION,but who knows?I can say Im 80% for Michael being innocent,but 20% suspicious and i try to be open minded. Thats why its the best to separate the art from the person,but still never ignore the allegations (even if they always seem like cash grabbing lies)
 
ScreenOrigami said:
I believe that most of us have at some point in our lives fallen flat on our face because we trusted someone too much. Doesn’t mean we’re all naive. Shit just happens sometimes.
Click to expand...
But still,that doesnt make Michael guilty. That freak Victor Gutierrez looks like the guy behind it all. To be open minded its the best,but I can say there isn't any shread of evidence at all that would suggest that Michael did this or that. I guess we never know?He still seems innocent to me(and most likely that also could have been the case)
 
PurpleThriller said:
Completely true and valid. While we will never know for sure,I can say these accusers seems liars. But we never know. Michael could have been innocent ,but who really knows?Michael's behaviour can seem at times kinda frightening,but also a lot of the stories can be (and actually are) debunked as ,at least suspicious,if not completely lies. I believe Leaving Neverland relies on emotional MANIPULATION,but who knows?I can say Im 80% for Michael being innocent,but 20% suspicious and i try to be open minded. Thats why its the best to separate the art from the person,but still never ignore the allegations (even if they always seem like cash grabbing lies)
Click to expand...
The 2003 allegations is enough to prove that Michael is innocent period. Because if we are going to believe that Michael might have been guilty of molesting him, then it means that Michael had the power to control his urges from molesting Gavin for almost three years. And within those years that includes one and only sleepover in fall 2000 where it was confirmed by Gavin that not only he and Michael were present but also his brother Star and Michaels friend Frank Cascio as well in the bedroom. Michael and Frank slept on the floor and Gavin and Star on the bed.

But then he suddenly had the urges of molesting Gavin after the Bashir doc aired which portrayed him as a molester and the whole media and world was watching, criticize and accuses him for molesting him. With the DA, SBPD and DFCS drawing attention to him and start their investigation. While Michael hires Mark Geragos and his PI Bradley Miller to investigate the whole Arvizo family and tries to avoid them as much as possible after that. With Ed Bradley at the same time that tries to get an interview with Michael at that time.

He shows adult magazines to Gavin that didn't even exist until 5-6 months after the Arvizo family left the ranch when he is about to molest him and he molest him during certain dates where he even wasn't at the ranch at all, with alibis and receipts confirming that.

Surely if he was that perpetrator and if his innocence is still an open subject to debate about, then wouldn't Michael at least have the brains to molest Gavin at an earlier date and quite a discrete date? The sleepover happened in Fall 2000, Bashir filmed the interview with Gavin in Summer 2002 and the doc aired in February 2003. But no, Michael chose to do that AFTER the doc aired with media, public and authorities scrutinizing him at the same time. How bizarre and nonsense isn't that? I just can't understand how certain people can buy that scenario from the first beginning.

I remember when I heard about the allegations for the first time, I thought first concerned another kid that accused him for those things that happened during summer or fall 2003. But no it happened to be same Gavin and that would've occured just AFTER the doc aired. Already there I knew it was a scam and the whole Arvizo family were lying altogether just to get a boatload of money from him. With charges concocted by Sneddon just to get a revenge on him.

Michael was too naive and kind to grifters like Chandler and Arvizo and they saw his love for children and his open mind of sleepovers as a weak point in him. Just to launch allegations against him and to make money from him through the civil lawsuits and have all the support from the media. That was the problem Michael had in my opinion and should have stopped all the sleepovers by 1994 already.
 
john13th said:
The 2003 allegations is enough to prove that Michael is innocent period. Because if we are going to believe that Michael might have been guilty of molesting him, then it means that Michael had the power to control his urges from molesting Gavin for almost three years. And within those years that includes one and only sleepover in fall 2000 where it was confirmed by Gavin that not only he and Michael were present but also his brother Star and Michaels friend Frank Cascio as well in the bedroom. Michael and Frank slept on the floor and Gavin and Star on the bed.

But then he suddenly had the urges of molesting Gavin after the Bashir doc aired which portrayed him as a molester and the whole media and world was watching, criticize and accuses him for molesting him. With the DA, SBPD and DFCS drawing attention to him and start their investigation. While Michael hires Mark Geragos and his PI Bradley Miller to investigate the whole Arvizo family and tries to avoid them as much as possible after that. With Ed Bradley at the same time that tries to get an interview with Michael at that time.

He shows adult magazines to Gavin that didn't even exist until 5-6 months after the Arvizo family left the ranch when he is about to molest him and he molest him during certain dates where he even wasn't at the ranch at all, with alibis and receipts confirming that.

Surely if he was that perpetrator and if his innocence is still an open subject to debate about, then wouldn't Michael at least have the brains to molest Gavin at an earlier date and quite a discrete date? The sleepover happened in Fall 2000, Bashir filmed the interview with Gavin in Summer 2002 and the doc aired in February 2003. But no, Michael chose to do that AFTER the doc aired with media, public and authorities scrutinizing him at the same time. How bizarre and nonsense isn't that? I just can't understand how certain people can buy that scenario from the first beginning.

I remember when I heard about the allegations for the first time, I thought first concerned another kid that accused him for those things that happened during summer or fall 2003. But no it happened to be same Gavin and that would've occured just AFTER the doc aired. Already there I knew it was a scam and the whole Arvizo family were lying altogether just to get a boatload of money from him. With charges concocted by Sneddon just to get a revenge on him.

Michael was too naive and kind to grifters like Chandler and Arvizo and they saw his love for children and his open mind of sleepovers as a weak point in him. Just to launch allegations against him and to make money from him through the civil lawsuits and have all the support from the media. That was the problem Michael had in my opinion and should have stopped all the sleepovers by 1994 already.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
john13th said:
The 2003 allegations is enough to prove that Michael is innocent period. Because if we are going to believe that Michael might have been guilty of molesting him, then it means that Michael had the power to control his urges from molesting Gavin for almost three years. And within those years that includes one and only sleepover in fall 2000 where it was confirmed by Gavin that not only he and Michael were present but also his brother Star and Michaels friend Frank Cascio as well in the bedroom. Michael and Frank slept on the floor and Gavin and Star on the bed.

But then he suddenly had the urges of molesting Gavin after the Bashir doc aired which portrayed him as a molester and the whole media and world was watching, criticize and accuses him for molesting him. With the DA, SBPD and DFCS drawing attention to him and start their investigation. While Michael hires Mark Geragos and his PI Bradley Miller to investigate the whole Arvizo family and tries to avoid them as much as possible after that. With Ed Bradley at the same time that tries to get an interview with Michael at that time.

He shows adult magazines to Gavin that didn't even exist until 5-6 months after the Arvizo family left the ranch when he is about to molest him and he molest him during certain dates where he even wasn't at the ranch at all, with alibis and receipts confirming that.

Surely if he was that perpetrator and if his innocence is still an open subject to debate about, then wouldn't Michael at least have the brains to molest Gavin at an earlier date and quite a discrete date? The sleepover happened in Fall 2000, Bashir filmed the interview with Gavin in Summer 2002 and the doc aired in February 2003. But no, Michael chose to do that AFTER the doc aired with media, public and authorities scrutinizing him at the same time. How bizarre and nonsense isn't that? I just can't understand how certain people can buy that scenario from the first beginning.

I remember when I heard about the allegations for the first time, I thought first concerned another kid that accused him for those things that happened during summer or fall 2003. But no it happened to be same Gavin and that would've occured just AFTER the doc aired. Already there I knew it was a scam and the whole Arvizo family were lying altogether just to get a boatload of money from him. With charges concocted by Sneddon just to get a revenge on him.

Michael was too naive and kind to grifters like Chandler and Arvizo and they saw his love for children and his open mind of sleepovers as a weak point in him. Just to launch allegations against him and to make money from him through the civil lawsuits and have all the support from the media. That was the problem Michael had in my opinion and should have stopped all the sleepovers by 1994 already.
Click to expand...
For me, Barnes’ repeated denials in and of itself makes me think he couldn’t be. They slept in the same bed over a year, no way a pedophile could do that and not give in. And that’s obviously just one piece of a plethora of evidence.
 
Common sense should also tell people that a real pedophile would never have the siblings, and parents in the same room as the so-called accuser. That lowlife scum Tom Sneddon originally filed charges against Michael claiming that he had “abused” Gavin AND his brother Starr. That scum later actually changed the charges to Gavin being “abused” while Starr WATCHED. That’s how ridiculous and pathetic these charges were. Even a 5th grader would know this was BS. Is there any doubt why a jury didn’t believe this crap? This is the reason why this conservative jury acquited an INNOCENT man of 14 bogus charges. Every single person involved in this conspiracy, including the lying and biased media, should have been criminally charged. ANYONE who has even an ounce of doubt in Michael’s innocence is pathetic and lacks any common sense.
 
somewhereinthedark said:
Common sense should also tell people that a real pedophile would never have the siblings, and parents in the same room as the so-called accuser. That lowlife scum Tom Sneddon originally filed charges against Michael claiming that he had “abused” Gavin AND his brother Starr. That scum later actually changed the charges to Gavin being “abused” while Starr WATCHED. That’s how ridiculous and pathetic these charges were. Even a 5th grader would know this was BS. Is there any doubt why a jury didn’t believe this crap? This is the reason why this conservative jury acquited an INNOCENT man of 14 bogus charges. Every single person involved in this conspiracy, including the lying and biased media, should have been criminally charged. ANYONE who has even an ounce of doubt in Michael’s innocence is pathetic and lacks any common sense.
Click to expand...
Yup! And THIS is what Reed wants to focus on for LN2. GOOD. Bring it on.
 
Whoa, what the hell? It's probably because I was only in the LN thread back in 2019 because I see this thread for the first time now. I have to say I'm shocked to read this thread, I guess for some LN indeed made an impact in having even hardcore fans start to have doubts.

If anything it had reinforced my belief in his innocence completely, even more so when those debunked videos started coming out which showed a crystal clear picture of Wade and James' motives. Arvizo was just a circus, nobody in their right mind would take that seriously. And Chandler we all know about too, the extortion attempt etc.

We also know per Lisa Marie Presley that they had a normal, healthy and sexual relationship and they were very much in love. We also know Mike cared deeply about people even as a youngster. There's pictures of him as a boy in a hospital visiting children. It has always been his mission to help them out, wherever possible. Listen to his lyrics, listen to his words that he actually said in interviews.

Had he actually hurt a child, actual normal, credible, believable families would have come forward instead of these families ALL with an agenda and huge skeletons in their closet. But that never happened. Was it naive, unwise to have children that weren't his sleep in his bedroom? Yes, even if parents or another adult was in the room. Especially saying it on TV just isn't wise. Do I believe a adult man could be totally harmless with perfectly normal intentions with children in his bedroom that aren't his? Absolutely, and that man was Michael. Just look at the videos were we see him goofing around with Mac and other kids at Neverland at the swimming pool, the train, he was just a big kid himself.

After the trial I had zero doubts, then when these two losers came around I still had zero doubts about his innocence. Again, I'm very surprised to even see this thread here.
 
Lord Szechenyi said:
That's odd, it didn't ask me too verify with anything.

You can always google Gary Plauche if you can't see the video
Click to expand...
It probably has to do with my country, some other videos have done this before.

Anyway, Googled him. I totally understand now, and I agree too. I wish many, many more people would see it like that. You'd accept money from the monster you claim has destroyed your son's life? No.....it's either what Gary did or a strong desire to want that person locked up.
 
I am shocked anyone let alone Michael Jackson fans could ever question his innocence. Everyone of these so called victims has been proven to be a liar, an extortionist and a horrible human being along with the assclowns who support and promote them like Dan Reed, Orca, TMZ, Radar on line, Diane Diamond etc.

Michael never did anything appropriate, if anything attack the parents who would allow Michael to be a better parent to their children than they could be bothered doing. They valued money more than their own children for crissake. What kind of monster would be that way. Those parents left their kids with Michael as it suited them financially and emotionally and knowing how rich he was, knew he was a soft target if Michael got bored with their children or decided that they needed to spend more time with their parents. It was the 80s and 90s the golden era of fake child and satanic abuse claims (Michelle Remembers, the McMartin Playschool case, Centrepoint) and later now with the Metoo and Operation Yewtree era (This hysteria kind of fuelled Leaving Neverland).

If anything Michael was guilty of, was being too trusting and naive, having greedy and evil people walk all over him, not just the accusers but the leeches like Botech, Rowe, Klein, Murray, The Moonies, Mark Schaffel, Bashir and many others. Assclowns seemed to beat a path to his door.

Still anyone who can not accept the 2005 verdict should not be here. We are here to respect Michael Jackson and his memory and not question him or his motives.
 
No one in the media asked this question...

Do you really think Michael Jackson would molest Gavin Arvizo at Neverland while Michael Jackson's own children were in the same house?

More proof of his innocence.
 
Of course, but 90% of the people digesting the media, especially the tabloids are brain dead morons, who digest everything these assclowns say. They think "Oh Michael Jackson, that freak with the plastic surgery and all those kids around him, who sung some song about zombies in the early 80s" and believe the worst.

They are just ignorant and not worth our time, we all know the truth and that is enough.
 
No one in the media asked this question either...

Do you really think Michael Jackson would molest a child and not care what his long-time make-up and hairdresser Karen Faye would think of him if word got out? Would Michael Jackson lie to Karen Faye? She's been to Neverland. What about Diana Ross and Brooke Shields, plus all the people he worked with at Motown, plus USA for Africa?
 
Another theory I've heard is that Michael Jackson was a child molester because he was shy. In other words, Michael Jackson didn't have the guts to tell a woman his own age how he wanted to be treated sexually, so therefore, he let out all his sexual fantasies on little boys. Michael Jackson needed a domineering woman, and his mother did not approve of Diana Ross, who was 12 years older than him.
 
The Brett Barnes podcast should put an end to any doubts anyone had. MJ was very clearly not a pedophile. All the shitbirds who lied and continue to profit as fake CSA victims will face judgment some day and not like what follows.
 
I'm simply just going to said this I don't have to ask myself any questions when it comes to Michael Jackson to me he was the world's greatest entertainer and there will never be another Michael Jackson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top