• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

DragonLady said:
Thank-you. This speaks a lot to my way of thinking about it. MJ never had a real childhood. He dreamed of it, craved it, needed it -but never got it. Later, he had this idea he could create a fantasy world for other kids who he thought were being denied normalcy so they wouldn't go through what he did, and also I suspect he saw it as a way to experience it vicariously.

Many of the people who choose to be foster parents do so for the same reasons. They have this deep desire to provide for someone else's children whatever they didn't have for themselves. A normal life -toys, clothes, school, etc.

But, some of them -and I include MJ in this group- missed out on so much they don't really know what they missed. They read books, and hear stories and watch television 'til they form all kinds of fantastical opinions.

They form an image in their minds of the pattern on the cloth, but without any real knowledge or understanding of the fibers. They allow or do inappropriate things because they do not have the whole picture.

The fabric they create is lovely on the surface, but the weave is crooked -and in some cases the warp is showing all over the place.

I don't think Jackson intended any wrongdoing at all. I think he had a fantasy image that no one dared tell him wasn't really a good idea, and I think he was genuinely shocked that anyone, anywhere found fault with his efforts.

I also think he was so insulated for so much of his life he really didn't understand the sharks in the water, and how vulnerable he was making himself to their predations by trying to share his fortunes and help those he thought he could do so many good things for.
Click to expand...
How many "good" things is the question
 
devnull said:
What about the kid who accurately described Jackson's junk, including details that could only be known by "lifting", who was then paid off.

Did that actually happen?

Or that bloke in the UK who freely admits Jackson masturbated while on the phone with him, but is actually fine with it because Jackson was his "friend"?
Click to expand...
Media fabrication or hyberbole. What actually happened is that the individual described a spot as being on Jackson's junk - which ended up being true (within a large general area thereupon); Jackson having vitiligo as a result of Lupus, once again. But the individual described Jackson's junk as circumcised - where it was uncircumcised. Inconclusive at most damning. Jackson was examined naked during the trial and still acquitted.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
Media fabrication or hyberbole. What actually happened is that the individual described a spot as being on Jackson's junk - which ended up being true (within a large general area thereupon); Jackson having vitiligo as a result of Lupus, once again. But the individual described Jackson's junk as circumcised - where it was uncircumcised. Inconclusive at most damning. Jackson was examined naked during the trial and still acquitted.
Click to expand...
So your saying the kid was a liar
 
It's harder to distinguish a circumcised penis from an uncircumcised one when it is erect.
 
devnull said:
What about the kid who accurately described Jackson's junk, including details that could only be known by "lifting", who was then paid off.

Did that actually happen?
Click to expand...


I posted a response to this upstream, but later it was bugging me. I couldn't remember the details, and Marplot's comment convinced me to go look for more information.

It's harder to distinguish a circumcised penis from an uncircumcised one when it is erect.
Click to expand...

I think this article covers it pretty well:

Some pro-prosecution journalists tried to excuse Jordan’s failure to accurately describe Jackson’s penis by suggesting that perhaps Jordan did not notice the difference between a fully erect uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one. However, the allegations of Jordan Chandler describe not only one occasion of alleged molestation, but a very intense series of sexual contacts, including seeing each other naked many times (including in the bath) and many masturbation sessions in front of each other. Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler claims in his book, All That Glitters, that his nephew saw Jackson’s genitalia many times, “from every possible angle”:


“The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.” [9; page 210]

If this was true, then Jordan certainly would have been able to tell that Jackson was uncircumcised, but he got the description wrong.
Click to expand...


http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

I'll try to find out some more about the phone sex allegations, too.
 
I find it hard to understand how a littl kid can be so accurate about a mark but being too freaked out to notice foreskin is that hard to get
 
cullennz said:
I find it hard to understand how a littl kid can be so accurate about a mark but being too freaked out to notice foreskin is that hard to get
Click to expand...

From that same link:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“

“◊◊◊◊, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”

“Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

“That’s very good.”

“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]
Click to expand...
 
According to that page (the tl;dr version) they tried to have it both ways:

If any of the numerous marks he described was there, the boy's description was correct.
If any of the marks he described were not there, the boy's description was still correct.

But considering the boy was supposed to have been in intimate contact with MJ on several different occasions, he was absolutely wrong about the circumcision.
 
cullennz said:
I find it hard to understand how a littl kid can be so accurate about a mark but being too freaked out to notice foreskin is that hard to get
Click to expand...

That, as I recall, is also in question.

*shrug* I have no real dog in this hunt, since I'm fine with enjoying artwork despite the failures of the artist in most cases (R. Kelly is the exception, since his music sounds like it's for underaged girls anyway), but while Jackson was very clearly an unhealthy guy, the molestation claims weren't just "not quite proven", they fell apart completely on examination.
 
Tony Stark said:
From what I could tell this is stuff that investigators claimed was evidence that he was grooming kids for molestation but not actual child porn. Images of naked kids are not necessarily child porn. If it was child porn, they would have claimed that's what it was, charged him with that, and secured a conviction.
Click to expand...

There are a number of photographic artists whose work contains young models and yet is still legally available.
 
cullennz said:
I don't what I consider a pedo any dignity
Click to expand...

And does anybody care what you consider? You've already admitted you've decided he was guilty while not only not looking at the evidence but actively refusing to. That it is the opposite of skepticism. You have decided he's guilty therefore any unproven and disproven allegation of guilt you believe is true, and any evidence against doesn't count. I'm surprised anyone bothers to read anything you post now.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And does anybody care what you consider? You've already admitted you've decided he was guilty while not only not looking at the evidence but actively refusing to. That it is the opposite of skepticism. You have decided he's guilty therefore any unproven and disproven allegation of guilt you believe is true, and any evidence against doesn't count. I'm surprised anyone bothers to read anything you post now.
Click to expand...

I don't know if he was guilty, but you have to admit there are a lot of red flags when it comes to MJ and little boys. I assume you wouldn't let your kid sleep over at the Neverland Ranch.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And does anybody care what you consider? You've already admitted you've decided he was guilty while not only not looking at the evidence but actively refusing to. That it is the opposite of skepticism. You have decided he's guilty therefore any unproven and disproven allegation of guilt you believe is true, and any evidence against doesn't count. I'm surprised anyone bothers to read anything you post now.
Click to expand...
You refuse to discuss the evidence
 
TragicMonkey said:
And does anybody care what you consider? You've already admitted you've decided he was guilty while not only not looking at the evidence but actively refusing to. That it is the opposite of skepticism. You have decided he's guilty therefore any unproven and disproven allegation of guilt you believe is true, and any evidence against doesn't count. I'm surprised anyone bothers to read anything you post now.
Click to expand...

I haven't decided Jackson is Guilty - I've just decided he's a Pedophile. Seriously, if I was a Juror in the latest trial I would not have found him "Guilty"....but I'll be Damned if I let my kid get anywhere near the pervert bastard.
 
TragicMonkey said:
On the contrary. You don't have any evidence, all you have is allegations. Which were disproven in court. With evidence. Which you won't read.
Click to expand...
Just explain the pay-offs and the little kid describing his knob mark and you might convince me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom