• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

Here is a perfect example of no one saying "MJ, no, no, no...you don't sleep in the crib with the baby. You sleep in your bed; she sleeps in hers. Now you climb out of there so she can rest, and you either go to your room or go play. But you stay out of her crib."

Those simple words may have changed history.

And given enough time to set up your personal comfort bubble, you can end up naked in a dark room watching Ice Station Zebra every day for years.

Which is how I expect the human race to end. Everyone in their own little virtual cell, pants-wetting insane, but it doesn't matter to anyone any more.

I recall one comment I can't source: Michael Jackson didn't have a friend in the world.
 
I just realised I have quite a collection of books on psychedelics and comic books by Serpieri (don't Google at work) and art books by Giger. I have the Koran, The art of war by Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, a book by Mao Zedong, collected letters from Lenin, Soviet propaganda art prints. I own antique edged weapons, African masks, a rifle from the Crimean war etc etc.

I've got a lot of WWII history, so my personal library has enough swastikas for a Nuremberg Rally. Really, why does every book about the Third Reich stick a swastika on the spine?

Amusingly, it seems that Alexi Leonov confused an astronaut's copy of Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich with Mein Kampf.
 
That the profile you have in your head isn't correct.
Around 2002 I was contacted by the police about something they were told that was going on in the early 80's when I was a young boy, by someone else who had mentioned my name.

I agreed to give statements as long as my name didn't appear in any public court case or in the media as I have children and family and I didn't want them to know.
I was given anonymity, my wife knows though.
After about two years of investigation, including being driven around the country pointing out houses and making video testament, it went to court.
I had to appear as a witness, so I saw them again.

End result, a group of men went to prison for between 3-14 years, convicted of the rape/sexual assault of young boys aged between 11 and 15.

The profile I have in my head is correct regarding the people I met who preyed on young boys, from my experience.

Jackson fits into that profile.
 
To find out for sure if Jacko indeed was a practicing pedophile, I contacted John Edward to do a reading for me. The first thing he said was "I am getting an 'M' or a 'J' and a 'P'.

Case closed.
 
Is pedophile just the catchall term now? The age of the accusers would make him a hebephile.
 
In light of everything that happened, this certainly does seem suspicious. But ONLY because of what happened -to MJ and to others (both guilty and not). But are we going to say that everyone who builds an amusement park or school for kids automatically comes under an umbrella of suspicion? Really?

But here's the thing: you explain the entire situation in your very first sentence. It's not about any one single thing being a "giveaway" or "tell". It's the totality of the situation. Perhaps Michael Jackson having two (according to Wikipedia at least, which I checked earlier today - I had previously been aware of only one having been found) art books featuring nude young boys, is not of itself particularly suggestive; but add another detail - like a person who actively seeks out young boys to have personal and atypically close relationships with - and suddenly a little more consideration is warranted. Add more details, something concerning begins to emerge.

The hilited part has never stood up to serious scrutiny. Face it: the prosecution and the news media kayo'd themselves trying to prove these claims. They were NOT able to do so.

The media did a lot to sensationalize and twist events so they looked more damning than they really were. For instance: they reported constantly on his relationships with boys, but omitted his relationships with girls. They even cut girls out of photos they published to give the impression that MJ only liked boys. It just wasn't true.

http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-female-kid-friends/

Let's get a few things straight here. What was shown to have been untrue - or more correctly, lacking credibility - were the specific claims of the state's two primary witnesses in the 2005 trial. Other details such as the claims of other persons that weren't at stake in that particular trial, were not. Further, descriptions of Jackson's activities - the fact that he did specially favor young boys for close relationships, or the fact that he would have some of those boys alone for sleepovers in his bedroom, or that his relationships with his more special friends involved a lot of closeness and physical contact for example - they were not "disproven" at the trial; indeed they weren't even contested. Some of the "sensationalized" claims were even corroborated - several of the witnesses reported that whenever they were with Jackson in his bedroom, there was a special alarm system that would give Jackson advance warning if anyone was coming down the hall toward the bedroom. There's only one practical function for such a system; a function Jackson's defense unwittingly acknowledged when they used it to undermine the credibility of one of the accusers (who claimed to have snuck down the hall at one point and opened the door of Jackson's bedroom to witness an oblivious Jackson molesting his brother, a circumstance the defense correctly pointed out that the alarm would have prevented).

The fact that there exists a photograph of Jackson carrying the toddler sister of Jordan Chandler does not somehow "prove" Jackson was precisely as interested and time-invested in girls as he was in boys generally, or that he had just as close a relationship with Jordan's sister as he had with Jordan specifically. Jackson's charity work did not discriminate between boys and girls, and between that and his backyard kiddy park, Jackson certainly had any number of photo ops with girls as well as boys. But nobody has asserted or even suggested that Jackson ever asked for Chandler's sister to be allowed to spend the night alone with Jackson in his bedroom, the way he asked for Jordan. Not only have all of the actual accusers, and supporters of the accusers, who alleged to have been abused by Jackson been every one of them young boys, but even the "character witnesses" that Jackson's own defense team brought in to testify that Jackson did nothing in appropriate with them while they were alone with Jackson in his bedroom were all boys, and all within the same select "age of interest" during the period of their sleepover sessions. (It might be worth mentioning that coincidentally, one of those character witnesses who had originally defended him during the trial turned against Jackson a couple of years ago and now asserts that he too was molested over a period of several years.)

Why was Jordan Chandler's sister "cut out" of that one photo? Well, why was the old bushy-eyebrow white man standing on the other side of Chandler cut out of the photo as well? Maybe because neither of them had anything to do with the abuse allegations; and in the case of minors especially, some reporters have a modicum of understanding that people have a right to privacy that includes not being dragged into a matter with which they weren't involved by virtue of happening to have appeared in a random photograph with someone who was involved.
 
Last edited:
Is pedophile just the catchall term now?

"Now", no. Colloquially "pedophile" has been the catchall term for decades. For what it's worth, at least some of Jackson's alleged victims would (if true) definitely put him within "technical" pedophile range.
 
But here's the thing: you explain the entire situation in your very first sentence. It's not about any one single thing being a "giveaway" or "tell". It's the totality of the situation. Perhaps Michael Jackson having two (according to Wikipedia at least, which I checked earlier today - I had previously been aware of only one having been found) art books featuring nude young boys, is not of itself particularly suggestive; but add another detail - like a person who actively seeks out young boys to have personal and atypically close relationships with - and suddenly a little more consideration is warranted. Add more details, something concerning begins to emerge.

I agree concerning things emerged. However, none of them stood up in court. I guarantee: if Jackson could have been accused of clipping his toenails the wrong way, the state of California would've tried.

that coincidentally, one of those character witnesses who had originally defended him during the trial turned against Jackson a couple of years ago and now asserts that he too was molested over a period of several years.)

Are you referring to Safechuck? It's my understanding the statute of limitations is up, so he can make these claims -and ask for cold cash- without having to worry about the kind of cross examination he would face in a criminal trial?


Safechuck says MJ wanted a full-blown relationship with him ... to the point he performed a secret wedding ceremony with the boy with wedding ring and a marriage certificate.

Does anyone know where those artifacts are now?


The statement by James Safechuck about Michael Jackson is as follows.


“I have finally come to know and appreciate now, after a little over a year of intensive therapy and psychiatric treatment, that this relationship was a predatory and wholly improper one, and one whereby the decedent [Jackson] used my trust and love of him as a means to victimize and sexually molest me.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1943206/mi...accuser-get-a-2015-trial/#ztwYgecldXAZQGcd.99

Really? Just now? He wasn't talked to at great length about these things before he testified on MJ's defense?

Safechuck states that he came forward after learning of Robson’s accusation, and Robson himself claims that it was after the birth of his son that he realized that what had allegedly happened to him was wrong.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1944509/mi...ion-accusations-timeline/#hfjIV5QC2WQYX7OK.99

Yeah...and babies cost money.....

Unlike bytewizard, I have no guru to tell me for certain what happened, any more than anyone else. All we know for sure is: MJ was acquitted, but there's still money in the coffin, and people willing to dig for it.

We shall see, I suppose, if any of these new claims ever see a courtroom.
 
There's another aspect of this topic I've always found troubling. But I don't know how to word it to make sense. I'm gonna try, but forgive me if it doesn't come out quite right....

You see, here is where the block of butter gets cut:

Some of the "sensationalized" claims were even corroborated - several of the witnesses reported that whenever they were with Jackson in his bedroom, there was a special alarm system that would give Jackson advance warning if anyone was coming down the hall toward the bedroom. There's only one practical function for such a system; a function Jackson's defense unwittingly acknowledged when they used it to undermine the credibility of one of the accusers (who claimed to have snuck down the hall at one point and opened the door of Jackson's bedroom to witness an oblivious Jackson molesting his brother, a circumstance the defense correctly pointed out that the alarm would have prevented).

For me, installing such an alarm system would be ludicrous. It would be expensive, and cumbersome. It would require shopping for a system that would suit my needs, work in my house, and fit within my budget (ha ha ha). It would require workmen to come to the house, require furniture to be moved and holes to be cut and I-don't-know-what-else. Probably a service contract, too, for ongoing maintenance and upgrades and repairs.

In short: it would require time, effort, money and professional help.

But for someone like MJ, all it required was to be unexpectedly awoken one morning. Just once. Someone pops open the door, sees him lying in bed and say "Oh, excuse me, sir...you're late!" He says "Damn! I need an alarm to let me know you're coming down the hall" and that is all it takes. A nod, a "yes, right away" and at the end of the workday, there's an alarm.

If I had his money! I'd have alarms and bells and whistles and blinky lights for everything imaginable. I'd have a machine that made me coffee and a doughnut five minutes before I woke up. I'd have a fridge that wouldn't need to be opened -it would give me a scrolling menu of all the contents, and suggested recipes! I'd have an escalator going downstairs and an elevator going up. I'd have an automatronic violinist playing me to sleep, and a gizmatic rooster with real feathers! to wake me up in the morning.

And I'd need people to help me make the damn things work.

Jackson could not have done the things he's accused of doing without HELP. No amount of money, or fancy alarm systems or super secret beacons or whatever would've prevented the employees and other guests to have seen what was happening. His behavior was constantly being monitored by dozens of people. Hell, every time the man changed his clothes, someone wrote an article for the Enquirer.

Yet, none of those people -the employees, the other guests, the technicians that kept his house and amusement park running, the people who fed his pets, the people who watered the roses- none of them were (as far as I know) ever charged with the crime of turning their heads while he committed felonies against children.

But there is no way he could have done it without help. All of these accusers are talking about the money, the cash, the gifts. The cars and computers, trips, clothes, toys -and the personal attention from the star himself- are fodder for a constant stream of babble about what life in his home was like, but no one mentions the cooks or the maids or the other people who must have seen all this was happening.

Where are they? Why aren't they coming forth with these kinds of allegations? Why aren't they being charged with aiding MJ's crimes? Why aren't the tabloids splashing 'round headlines with their criminal pasts family skeletons and long exposes for what they saw MJ doing with these children?
 
I agree concerning things emerged. However, none of them stood up in court. I guarantee: if Jackson could have been accused of clipping his toenails the wrong way, the state of California would've tried.

No. None of the things I have explained here that add up to convince me Jackson was a pedophile, were in any wise discredited in court. For the second time, the only thing that was discredited in court was the two primary witnesses claims of molestation. Those other extenuating facts still stand. That they were not enough to support a verdict that Jackson specifically molested that particular boy in the manner that boy and his mother claimed, does not somehow mean they are therefore disproven or discredited by association. I have not included that family's discredited claims in my personal assessment of Jackson.

Are you referring to Safechuck? It's my understanding the statute of limitations is up, so he can make these claims -and ask for cold cash- without having to worry about the kind of cross examination he would face in a criminal trial?

I was referring to Wade Robson, actually. In any case, Michael Jackson is dead, so limitations statute considerations are rather moot.
 
In any case, Michael Jackson is dead, so limitations statute considerations are rather moot.

Right. But he can still ask for money from the estate.

Further, the state could still prosecute any of MJ's staff or anyone else who had knowledge this was happening.
 
No. None of the things I have explained here that add up to convince me Jackson was a pedophile, were in any wise discredited in court. For the second time, the only thing that was discredited in court was the two primary witnesses claims of molestation. Those other extenuating facts still stand. That they were not enough to support a verdict that Jackson specifically molested that particular boy in the manner that boy and his mother claimed, does not somehow mean they are therefore disproven or discredited by association. I have not included that family's discredited claims in my personal assessment of Jackson.

I was referring to Wade Robson, actually. In any case, Michael Jackson is dead, so limitations statute considerations are rather moot.

There are just too many insinuations, allegations and bait-and-switches that happen unknowingly in such threads. Could I suggest that you present the strongest piece of evidence that you think suggests Michael Jackson was a child molester? We can then look at that piece.

If your claim is that that it is not one strong piece of evidence but multiple smaller pieces, we can even look at all of them.

This is of course only if we are looking for discussion. If the intent is just to announce Michael Jackson's 'guilt', we can carry on :)
 
Let's think, for a moment, about who else would know if MJ did just most of what has been claimed.

First, the kids were in his bedroom. There's pretty much no dispute about that. They were there. The bedroom was a two story room, with a sleeping area upstairs, and a community gathering room downstairs. So MJ could, conceivable, look over the balcony(?) into the area downstairs, to see if everyone there was sleeping. Okay...so, he would have go get out of bed, and return to it, without the children making a ruckus. For very small children, I can see that...but older ones? They wouldn't wake up? "Hey, whatcha doin'?" "Can we watch TV?" "Can we go to the mall?" "Can we have French toast?"

Anyone who woke up just because someone was moving would be awake instantly -and listening.

Next, you have the physical evidence of the claims made. If MJ was masturbating all over the sheets, the maid -and/or whoever did the laundry- would probably know this. Granted, it's their job to wash the damn sheets, not ask questions. But if they were in that house, they would probably know there might be children in that bed. So I would imagine any stain at all would be noticed, and remembered. The same with bedwetting, which I think would be one of the first signs of abuse. "Sir, someone has wet this bed. Twice. As this is a classical sign of child sexual abuse I will be leaving early, and I'm taking these sheets with me."

I've said people didn't want to say "No" to him, and I believe it to be the truth -to an extent. I believe if anyone had genuine cause to believe these things were going on, and had means to stop it, they would've been quite vociferous in their condemnation -especially those making minimal wages. Another job is just too easy to find to risk a lifetime of prison shielding a celebrity boss.

The alarm system...I don't know how those work. But speculating (from watching TV), I'd guess it's a motion sensor in the hall. Which could be bypassed by anyone who knows where it is. Just one employee with a few doubts, a quibble over a paycheck, and even rudimentary burglary skills could probably get past it.

If the alarm was a bell that rang or a buzzer, other people would hear it, too. So anyone else in the room would be alerted if someone came down the hall.

Finally, if it was installed for safety measures, I'm sure there was a system or protocol if the alarm was not shut off in reasonable time period. That is, if it went on beeping for ten minutes, someone would go check on him. Which means someone, somewhere would know that room was beeping in the first place. And likely knew who, exactly, was in that room. So that person would also have to either have to HELP him, or be constantly fooled into ignoring it if MJ was 'busy' and didn't go turn off the damned alarm.

You see, the whole thing is like the island in Jurassic Park: the more people and systems that are involved, the more likely all kinds of things would be going wrong, and the less likely he would be able to hide it.

Finally, there are the signs of child abuse in the child, himself.

The pain, if there was any kind of penetrative sex. Are we going to say he just shut up and didn't say a word -even when other people were right downstairs? No; in fact no one even claimed that happened. Has anyone asked why not? If MJ was brazen enough to masturbate a child in bed with another child present, why would he stop there?

Wouldn't the classic signs (bedwetting, nightmares, cruelty toward animals, etc) that all is not right would be noticed by those people at that ranch who were around children all day long, everyday?

Or were they all -every one of the employees- in on it? If so, why weren't they charged, too?
 
There's another aspect of this topic I've always found troubling. But I don't know how to word it to make sense. I'm gonna try, but forgive me if it doesn't come out quite right....

You see, here is where the block of butter gets cut:

For me, installing such an alarm system would be ludicrous. It would be expensive, and cumbersome. It would require shopping for a system that would suit my needs, work in my house, and fit within my budget (ha ha ha). It would require workmen to come to the house, require furniture to be moved and holes to be cut and I-don't-know-what-else. Probably a service contract, too, for ongoing maintenance and upgrades and repairs.

In short: it would require time, effort, money and professional help.

But for someone like MJ, all it required was to be unexpectedly awoken one morning. Just once. Someone pops open the door, sees him lying in bed and say "Oh, excuse me, sir...you're late!" He says "Damn! I need an alarm to let me know you're coming down the hall" and that is all it takes. A nod, a "yes, right away" and at the end of the workday, there's an alarm.

Absolutely true; no doubt about it. But, once again, we're talking about just another little weight on the scale. Taken alone, absent any context, it's no work at all to imagine a way that the alarm - OR the sleepovers, OR the books with naked kid pictures in them, OR whatever other individual thing - could easily be completely innocuous. But in Michael Jackson's case, the "little things" keep coming, and one has to keep making up more hypothetical stories to explain how Jackson just kept managing to do these completely innocuous things that happened make him look kind of like a pedophile. Everybody has a limit to how many of these kinds of hypothetical stories they're willing to make up to excuse someone for something. Your limit is greater than mine.


Jackson could not have done the things he's accused of doing without HELP. No amount of money, or fancy alarm systems or super secret beacons or whatever would've prevented the employees and other guests to have seen what was happening. His behavior was constantly being monitored by dozens of people. Hell, every time the man changed his clothes, someone wrote an article for the Enquirer.

Yet, none of those people -the employees, the other guests, the technicians that kept his house and amusement park running, the people who fed his pets, the people who watered the roses- none of them were (as far as I know) ever charged with the crime of turning their heads while he committed felonies against children.

Well, about that - I simply disagree; nobody has contended that Jackson molested his alleged victims in the amusement park courtyard, or on the patio, or sitting out in the living room, or anywhere else that it could be said that scores of associates and visitors and employees must have witnessed any molestation if it had ever really happened. Let's be real here. In the case of any other wealthy celebrity that has ever gone down for child molestation - sticking with cases that were actually convicted or confessed to - when have large numbers of third-parties ever been able to testify they witnessed the abuse or had special knowledge it was taking place? Never, not even once. It's the abuser, the victim, and often one or two accidental witnesses that managed to see something despite the abuser's best efforts to conceal the incidents.

That said, a handful of former employees of the ranch, and one child of a former employee, did testify for the prosecution, alleging they witnessed or were victims of indiscretions by Jackson. The defense insisted they were all simply disgruntled gold-diggers, and certain of them were definitely impeachable enough - but nevertheless, there were staff with things to say about the matter.

Right. But he can still ask for money from the estate.

It is normal for victims and alleged victims to file civil suits against their perpetrators, especially wealthy ones. This goes for cases in which the abuse is positively ascertained or confessed to as well as cases where it hasn't been, so the fact that someone is filing a lawsuit in a sexual abuse case is not that meaningful. Since Michael Jackson is dead, the only legal option available to anyone who wants to seek justice for alleged abuse or other mistreatment is going to be a lawsuit against his estate.
 
The kids.

Apparently they are all liars. While MJ can't be

No; I'm not saying that. Rather, the kids seem to only be making these disclosures once the parents realize there's a payout to be had.

Or, after they're grown, and realize for themselves there's a payout to be had.

I'm the first to admit: the money muddies the water. Would these families have made these charges if there was no money to be made? The fact is: we don't know.

We do know Jordan's family took the money and ran -they refused to testify in court to the claims they were making. As a direct result, California state law was changed to prevent anyone ever doing it again, so the Arviso family was forced to wait 'til after the criminal case to be able to suit for a financial judgement. When he was acquitted I think that pretty much guaranteed they would lose...but I don't recall if they even tried? I'll have to Google that....
 
Everybody has a limit to how many of these kinds of hypothetical stories they're willing to make up to excuse someone for something. Your limit is greater than mine.

I suppose that's true. I have been -personally- involved in situations where a large number of small, trivial events caused a form of pareidolia. Suddenly, there was nothing I could say or point to that didn't just make the picture even worse, or that didn't just sound like ********. Hell, I lost a very dear friend not two years ago because we lost our trust in each other -over a preponderance of small things, on both sides, that may have been innocent coincidence, or not. For my side, I guess I'll never really know.

Well, about that - I simply disagree; nobody has contended that Jackson molested his alleged victims in the amusement park courtyard, or on the patio, or sitting out in the living room, or anywhere else that it could be said that scores of associates and visitors and employees must have witnessed any molestation if it had ever really happened.

No; but.... I'm almost certain I've seen allegations in this case of secret codes and cryptic handshakes and such? Further, there should have been some physical evidence somewhere that was more convincing than a couple of dusty books.

It is normal for victims and alleged victims to file civil suits against their perpetrators, especially wealthy ones.

Yes; of course it is. I'm not arguing against the system. I'm simply pointing out that it makes the waters murky, and makes it more difficult to really determine the motives of the people involved.

But........ As a parent of four, I can tell you: if I believed MJ had touched one of my children, I would've wanted him in jail. Money would've been a secondary concern, at best, after therapy and whatever else my kid needed to have a normal life.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom