I think page 7 of this thread has probably broken the all-time record for the highest number of fake laughs on a single page.

yes, poor Robson, we do not respect his feelings look better on the hatred to MJ on TMZ ...

the fact remains:
None of us knows the truth.
but that does not stop millions of people to accuse MJ, while not knowing for sure.
I stand on the position of the presumption of innocence .... anyone can be accused of anything.

Robson for you - the victim, for me - a liar and slanderer.

SoulAlive said:

Michael Jackson, Delayed Allegations and Witch Hunts

by JOE VOGEL on MAY 17, 2013

When Michael Jackson died unexpectedly in June of 2009, then-26-year-old choreographer Wade Robson – who has recently made headlines for accusing the pop star of molestation – wrote about his longtime friend and mentor:

Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

Such a gushing statement came as no surprise to those who knew Robson’s backstory. During Jackson’s Bad World Tour in 1987, five-year-old Robson won a local dance competition in Australia. The reward was attending a backstage meet-and-greet with the King of Pop and the opportunity to join his idol on stage at the end of the concert.

Two years passed before Robson saw Jackson again. This time he was performing at Disneyland when his mother, Joy, decided to reach out to Jackson’s secretary to see if they could meet again. Jackson allowed the Robson family to visit him at the recording studio at Record One where he was working on his Dangerous album. He also invited them to stay at his Neverland Ranch. This hospitality was not unusual for Jackson. Around this same time, Jackson also spent countless hours at his Ranch with AIDS victim, Ryan White, who had been shunned, taunted and bullied at his school in Kokomo, Indiana. “Those trips to California kept me going,” Ryan White said. Similar positive experiences have been shared by hundreds of others.

Not long after their visit to Neverland, the Robson family decided to move to California to allow Wade and his sister, Chantal, more opportunities in the entertainment industry. Over the subsequent years, a friendship blossomed between the Robsons and Jackson. Wade Robson was ambitious and talented, and Jackson took on the role of mentor, teaching him the nuances of his craft and signing him to his MJJ Productions label. Jackson also gave him small parts in his music videos, including “Black or White.”

Robson went on to have a successful career in the industry, choreographing for the likes of Britney Spears and ‘N Sync, and later having his work showcased on shows like So You Think You Can Dance. In 2005, he married Hawaii native Amanda Rodriguez.

That same year, Robson, who had every reason to avoid the circus that was the 2005 Michael Jackson child molestation trial, decided to testify under oath about his experiences with the singer. First questioned by Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau and then under rigorous cross-examination, Robson matter-of-factly gave his account of his time with the artist. Robson repeatedly and adamantly denied being molested or of any other inappropriate sexual activity.

After Jackson was acquitted of all charges a few months later, Wade Robson’s mother Joy spoke of their family’s relief about the verdict. “We were crying and screaming and crying and screaming…We all believed ultimately the truth would come out…I’ve always said to Michael, ‘I wished the world could know the Michael we do.’”

Wade Robson invited Jackson to his wedding later that year, but Jackson decided not to attend because he did not want to turn the joyous occasion into a media circus.

Jackson and Robson, however, remained good friends. Whenever asked, Robson continued to praise Jackson as his biggest inspiration.

They last met in Las Vegas in 2008. Jackson was living there with his three children and Robson was working on a show in the city. “Me, my wife and him and his three kids had a barbecue,” recalled Robson. “It was the most normal thing in the world.”

It had been over twenty years since they first met, and Robson was still, by his own admission, completely unaffected by any past abuse or trauma. His life and career were thriving. He also seemed to have no concerns about Jackson’s own young children.

According to initial reports, Robson’s attorney, Henry Gradstein, claimed the reason his client lied under oath and continued to praise the pop star following his death was because the alleged abuse was a “repressed memory.” Repressed memories — instances in which an individual believes they have blocked or forgotten a traumatic event before “recovering” it years or decades later — has become a highly controversial subject in the field of psychology. According to the American Psychological Association, “experienced clinical psychologists state that the phenomenon of a recovered memory is rare (e.g., one experienced practitioner reported having a recovered memory arise only once in 20 years of practice).” The overwhelming consensus by experts is that such “memories” are not reliable without corroborating evidence. Dr. Richard McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, describes the phenomenon of belatedly recovered memories as “the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry.”

In his interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, however, Robson claimed that that his memories of abuse were not repressed; he was simply unable to process them emotionally or psychologically. Robson claims that he was fully aware Jackson was a child abuser at the time of his 2005 trial, but decided to lie under oath because he didn’t yet realize what happened to him was wrong. Robson was 22 at the time. But perhaps, one might assume, in the months or years to come he regretted his decision and went to authorities — at least to prevent further “victims.” Nope. Instead, he was barbecuing with MJ and family in 2008, and praising him without any pressure or prompt in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

It goes without saying that accusations of abuse must always be taken seriously. When an individual has told one story very credibly and convincingly as an adult, however, and then suddenly changes it with no corroborating evidence (letters, photos, phone conversations, witnesses, etc.) to file a creditor’s claim, it deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. Believing such claims on faith can be dangerous, destroying lives and reputations with absolutely no proof beyond the accusation.

According to Wade Robson’s attorney, Henry Gradstein, it was sometime in 2012 when the choreographer had a mental breakdown, and “collapsed under the stress” of his recovered memory. Robson’s career had also taken a downturn with the choreographer mysteriously dropping out of many projects. Soon after, Robson decided to file a creditor’s claim against Jackson’s estate. Robson also filed a civil lawsuit in L.A. County Superior Court, in which he is reportedly targeting companies associated with Jackson. Whatever one makes of his allegations, then, they are not simply to heal. Robson clearly wants a payout.

In a statement, Howard Weitzman, an attorney representing Jackson’s estate, called Robson’s accusations “outrageous and pathetic…This is a young man who has testified at least twice under oath over the past 20 years and said in numerous interviews that Michael Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him or with him. Now, nearly 4 years after Michael has passed this sad and less than credible claim has been made. We are confident that the court will see this for what it is.“

Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau, feels Robson’s claims are shamelessly motivated by money, given the timing (a high-stakes trial between Jackson’s mother and concert promoter AEG Live, is currently being litigated) and the enormous amount of wealth the Jackson estate has generated since the singer’s death.

Regardless of one’s views of Jackson, Robson’s case raises serious questions about the nature and validity of decade-delayed allegations, especially when attached to money.

Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, a renowned cognitive psychologist and human memory expert from the University of Washington, notes that these memories can often be triggered by therapist suggestion. “Some contemporary therapists have been known to tell patients, merely on the basis of a suggestive history or symptom profile, that they definitely had a traumatic experience…Once the ‘diagnosis’ is made, the therapist urges the patient to pursue the recalcitrant memories.”

Wade Robson, then, could very well believe he was abused even if it never happened.

In any case, objectivity and fairness should compel at least some burden of proof. Robson’s own family members have repeatedly defended Jackson over a period of twenty years. Were all of them completely oblivious to what happened until just months ago?

Numerous other individuals who were close to Jackson as children continue to defend him with no apparent incentive for doing so. Since the latest allegations, several people who visited Jackson’s Neverland Ranch as children, have once again spoken out in support of the artist, including Alfonso Ribeiro, Frank Cascio, Brett Barnes, and Jackson’s nephews, Taryll, T.J. and Taj Jackson.

In defense of his uncle, Taj Jackson wrote movingly on Twitter:

As an eccentric, wealthy man who opened his home to thousands of people, including disadvantaged and ill children, Jackson was an undeniably easy target. But is it conceivable that of the hundreds of children who spent time with him, only a handful were abused? Is it possible that after two unannounced, scouring searches of his homes, in 1993 and again in 2003, resulting in no child pornography or other corroborating evidence, that the artist was nonetheless masterfully hiding criminal behavior?

Or have we, as a society, conflated Jackson’s difference and eccentricity with criminality? In 2005, infotainment pundit Nancy Grace infamously deduced Jackson’s guilt from his strange appearance and childlike sensibility. It was inconceivable to her that a grown man would want to spend so much time with children without wanting to have sex with them.

No doubt, after hearing these latest accusations, some will likewise conclude that “where there is smoke there is fire.”

Jackson, of course, is no longer here to defend himself. But the unacknowledged tragedy the fair-minded person must at least consider is this: the life and career of one of the most talented and creative artists of the past century was derailed and ultimately destroyed by allegations, innuendo, sensationalism and speculation, but no concrete evidence and no witnesses or accusers who didn’t want money.

The term “witch hunt” is often used to describe the moral panic and hysteria caused by individuals who threaten our sense of normalcy, order and social assumptions. They must be disciplined or punished to allow people to feel safe, regardless of actual guilt or innocence. So, for example, in the Salem witch trials, women were profiled, accused and sentenced to death for a range of perceived “suspicious” behaviors or traits. Or, historically, African American men have been unfairly targeted and lynched because of myths and culturally-ingrained hysteria about their “predatory” intentions with white women (see D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation).

Over his lifetime (and now in death), Michael Jackson faced more frivolous lawsuits than any individual in American history. During the Thriller era, dozens of women claimed he was the father of their children. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s estate.

In 2010, part of Jackson’s FBI file was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the request of media, including British journalist Charles Thomson. “A lengthy report,” writes Thomson, “shows that when Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was raided in 2003, the FBI went over every computer seized from the property with a fine tooth comb looking for any incriminating files or internet activity. Jackson’s file contained individual summaries of the FBI’s findings for each of the 16 computers. Scrawled in capital letters across each of those 16 reports – ‘NOTHING’.”

Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi, an incisive cultural critic with no investment whatsoever in Jackson’s legacy, described the 2005 court case against Jackson like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment…or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles. Sneddon’s hard-on for Jackson was a faith-based vengeance grab every bit as blind and desperate as George Bush’s “case” against Saddam Hussein…

Jackson, of course, was acquitted of all charges in 2005 after two grueling years of investigations, testimony and proceedings. Four years later, in 2009, after years of living as a cultural pariah, a vagabond drifting from country to country, he died at the age of fifty in Los Angeles. The silver lining, one assumed, was that at least his many troubles would end and the focus could return to his rich artistic legacy. But as long as big money is involved, it seems, the relentless stream of grifters will continue.

And in the court of public opinion, the Michael Jackson witch trial goes on.

nice read, thanks for posting this

And thanks claudiax for posting this also

[Edited 5/20/13 16:27pm]

I like maculay's shirt, I need something like that for myself

What does Culkin's t shirt even say?

Emancipation89 said:

alphastreet said:

I like maculay's shirt, I need something like that for myself

Lmao focus alphastreet, FOCUS ON THE TOPIC!!!!1!!

And whatever....my t shirt may say "bandwagon fans; better late than never" but I'm rocking it anyway =P

No I don't want to focus on never-getting-paid robson anymore

scriptgirl said:

What does Culkin's t shirt even say?

It says: I liked Michael Jackson,before he was dead.

It refers to all the bandwagon fans who dissed MJ when he was alive,then acted like they were suddenly huge fans after he died.

Here's a thoughtful blog from 2010. The section about Jolie Levine is fascinating - another silent conspirator letting the truth slip out when her guard was down.

Little known witnesses: is everyone a liar?

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Seeing the myriad group of workers that eventually spoke out against Michael Jackson (the so-called "Neverland Five", the Hayvenhurst bodyguards, the Lemarques, the Quindoys, Blanca Francia, Charli Michaels, late PR man Bob Jones, etc.), it is certainly a fair assumption to make that if any pedophilia occurred at Neverland, his employees were sure to have seen it.

This is not to say that everyone on Michael Jackson's payroll 'revealed all'--quite the contrary; Michael still had many handsomely-paid cheerleaders--but a decent amount of them did claim to witness reasonably suspicious behavior, even so much as molestation.

But, given the discourse regarding Michael's alleged boy-loving indiscretions within the fan community, many, if notmost, of the individuals above are seen as liars, peddling salacious stories to tabloids for small fortunes at Michael Jackson's expense.

If I am allowed a brief diversion, selling stories to the tabloids is not a credibility killer. Not even in the slightest.

What does annihilate credibility is lying.

Regardless of what Michael's defenders think they know about these Neverland workers, we do not know--either way--if they were simply dispensing fibs! Ralph Chacon reportedly passed not one, but, two polygraph tests over the things he claimed to have seen.

However, the fact Michael Jackson never sued any tabloid that reported the stories of these workers is certainly telling. He could have cited libel but he did not. That gives me cause to believe them.

While browsing and reading court documents on the Santa Barbara County website, I discovered the motion submitted by District Attorney Tom Sneddon regarding the so-called 'prior sexual offenses' committed by Michael Jackson.

Not surprisingly, he lists most of Michael's 'special friends' as having been victims of sexual abuse: Jonathan Spence, Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, and, of course, millionaires Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia.

It should be noted that all, except the latter two, disavowed any notion of having been molested by Michael Jackson.

Nevertheless, the alleged victimization of these boys is based upon the testimonies, depositions, and/or police interviews of former Michael Jackson employees, all of whom were listed as potential witnesses in the State's case.

As I read the document, spotting many familiar names, I was surprised to notice employees most fans had never heard about as having spoken against Michael, or, at least, confirming the easily recognizable fact that Michael Jackson had a 'thing' for young boys.

Among these former employees was Jolie Levine.

As a testament to her proximity to Michael Jackson, her name appeared in the production credits of his Bad album:

(As an interesting aside, Mary Coller, appearing just above Levine, also gave testimony about Michael's boy-loving!)

Page 260 of the paperback edition of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized goes into more detail about Levine's job description:

Jolie Levine had been in the record business for seven years--first as an executive at Qwest Records, then as a production coordinator on the Bad album--when Michael hired her to be his secretary in mid-1987. For the next two years Levine kept track of his schedule and his appointments, took his phone calls, served as his liaison with accountants, attorneys, managers--in short, all the duties of an executive secretary.

Levine was also called upon to run personal errands for Michael--to buy him clothes, household items, and, frequently, gifts for his friends.... [O]ften she was dispatched by Michael to buy toys for the young boys he had befriended.

Basically, Levine was a secretary who dealt with the typical goings-on of the Michael Jackson enterprise. She also joined Michael on his Bad Tour as his assistant.

According to Levine's summarized testimony as it appeared in Sneddon's motion, Michael exhibited the curiously correlative behavior he'd exhibited with all other parents of young boys: he became close to Levine's son and attempted to lavish Levine with expensive gifts.

I cannot help but wonder had Levine accepted Michael's gifts, instead of wisely turning down such gratuitous bribes, and became besotted with her wealthy and exceedingly famous employer, instead of wanting to maintain a professional relationship, could her son have been yet another "alleged" victim of sexual molestation?

Because that seems to be the pattern with so many parents of Michael's 'special friends': Michael sensed that they could be swayed, as many would be, by luxury items and spoiled them, all the while he surreptitiously molested their sons.

Perhaps Levine's wisdom, as we will see, was her son's best protection.

Also mentioned in the document was Levine's knowledge of the de facto sleeping arrangements Michael kept whenever he was with young boys.

Page 261 of Michael Jackson: Unauthorized:

Whatever city they were in around the world, Levine said, she would walk into Michael's hotel room and find her boss in bed with his young friend. There was always a second bed in the room, and it was, according to Levine and other witnesses, never slept in. When she saw Michael at the end of the day, her pajama-clad employer would be back in bed in his hotel room--again with his young companion.

It is well known by now that Michael Jackson shared his bed with young boys. The fans, of course, subscribe to the 'innocence' argument, saying Michael was reliving a lost childhood and 'sleepovers' were a necessary aspect of regaining one's lost youth.

Utter nonsense.

It should be noted many child stars never went on to share their beds with children and become the brunt of pedophilia innuendo and accusations they'd molested boys.

Even if a fan does not want to label Michael a pedophile, they can, at least, acknowledge the apparent need Michael had when it came to these sleepovers.

But Michael Jackson sleeping with Jimmy Safechuck was not the only suspicious thing Levine witnessed. Page 51 of Bob Jones and Stacy Brown's Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask explains:

One of the oddest things that happened occurred at Paris' DeCrillion Hotel. Jolie Levine, Jackson's assistant at the time, found a bed sheet in the King's hotel bedroom. On it, Michael had drew a picture of Peter [Jimmy Safechuck] and himself. Also written on the sheet was what amounted to a love note to the boy. Worried that if a housekeeper got hold of the sheet, it could end up in the hands of the media or law enforcement, we had our secretary pack it, taking it with us. That sheet was the first tangible clue that Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, was up to no good with this young kid.

Jones went on to tell of how, while in Nice, France, Michael's then-manager, Frank DiLeo, found a hotel sheet "painted with human feces." I will make a wager this bed sheet was also 'packed up' by Michael's dutiful staff in order to conceal their boss' predilection for shit.

But after seeing these encounters (and undoubtedly many others), it is no surprise Jolie Levine went on to call Michael Jackson, while she was being questioned by police in 1993, a "chicken hawk", a slang term for pedophile.*

Levine, of course, reverted to the predictable Jackson spin and Code of Silence, disavowing her use of the term, as mentioned in a Los Angeles Times article at the time of the scandal:

Among other edited depositions filed Monday in connection with the lawsuit is one taken from Jolie Levine, who worked as Jackson's secretary for two years starting in 1987. Levine told the lawyers that she called Jackson a "chicken hawk," a slang term for a pedophile, when police interviewed her about the allegationsagainst her former boss.

"And when you told that to the detectives or the police, you meant by that that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, correct?" asked Robert Turner, an associate of Feldman who also is representing the boy.

"I was caught off guard, angry, surprised," Levine said. "I didn't really mean saying that."

'Chicken hawk', it should be noted, is a very explicit term to level against another person. If Michael Jackson was soinnocent and blameless of any wrong-doing against boys, as his legions of fans would have you to believe, why would Jolie Levine use such language?

Her protestations of being 'caught off guard', 'angry', and 'surprised' do not seem to cut it in my view!

The only reasonable explanation behind her use of such a word is that she thought Michael Jackson was a pedophile and was capable of molesting young boys.

Like Debbie Rowe calling Michael a 'sociopath' to detectives in 2004, I imagine Levine gushed to police, and calling her former boss a 'chicken hawk' felt long overdue, given what she'd experienced under Michael Jackson's employ.

Jolie Levine was Michael's secretary and his assistant. Unlike the Hayvenhurst bodyguards, Blanca Francia, and the so-called Neverland Five of ill-repute, she never sought stardom or publicity, if that is to be the standard measure of a Jackson detractor's truthfulness. She cooperated with police and told them what she'd seen as his worker.

That testimony just happened to include calling Michael Jackson--who slept with young boys and scrawled love letters on hotel sheets (in pen or feces or both)--a 'chicken hawk'. I find it hard to doubt her honesty.

Diverting a bit, I often wonder how many people, outside of his employees, have seen Michael Jackson display suspicious behavior with regard to young boys and 'special friends'.

Earlier this year, we heard an anecdote from Kiss' Gene Simmons, who believed Michael molested boys and claimed to know of a musician who quit after seeing boys go in and out of Michael Jackson's hotel room.

Naturally, Michael Jackson's fans descended upon the story and sunk their teeth into Simmons, sometimes leavingfrighteningly hypocritica...c comments:

claudiajackson41:

so thinketh a man so is he. Because that's something he would do so that's why he thinks Michael is that way, but we all know the truth.

Love you more Michael

peace

Oubah:

JEALOUS PIECE OF CRAP. I wonder how many little girls he has raped that dirty a**hole.

mjthinker:

Thank you everyone for your hearty rants! i read this yesterday and felt so terrible, but i didn't want to bring any bad energy to the board, so i didn't post it. but all night i felt sick after reading it.

now i feel better! yes, this guy Gene has a serious sexual perversion if he feels the need to sleep with over 4,000 women and talk about it!! and i mean, ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. look at him!!!

mugsyam:

I have always hate KISS and Gene Simmons but wow now I really hate him. He "bedded" more 4600 women and calls Michael a child molester. Have you seen him without the make up (or really even with)? I may catch slack for this one, but I bet a few of those supposed 4600 women may not have been willingly. And a few had to be blind. All the women Gene ever slept with-supposedly-were disease ridden groupie wh0re$ that would blab to anyone that would listen that they had sex with Gene. While Michael was always in the company of true ladies that did not kiss and tell.......and their IQ's were probably more than Gene and any given bimbo of his combined too.

Jealous much Gene??

MJsTink87:

wow, this is one jealous messed up sick idiot who has some serious issues. you can bet he is getting a message from me.

I realize these comments are ancillary but fan psychosis is often too funny to pass up. Of course, anyone who says anything negative about Michael Jackson is either a pervert in their own right or utterly jealous of the man's success!

Yes, we shall forget Kiss was one of the biggest rock bands of the 1970s and Gene Simmons is a legend to fans of classic rock.

It was a little later that one of Michael's guitarists, Jennifer Batten, who'd worked with Michael on his Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory Tours, came out and supposedly disputed his claims.

I thought she left herself an interesting escape route, since ambiguity is the safe place of those out of The Know. From a Charles Thomson blog post:

Was it true, I asked her, that a musician had quit one of Jackson's tours while on the road?

"Number one," said Batten, "there's no truth to it. Number two, I would guess that it was somebody who got fired. Somebody who was embarrassed that they got fired and made-up a story."

But did any musicians ever get fired mid-way through a tour?

"No. Nuh-uh. No, there were a couple of people who got fired like a week before we took out on the road."

If any musician left Michael Jackson's employ, it could never have been because of moral scruples regarding Michael Jackson's conduct. It was because they were less than satisfactory at their jobs. I have a strong suspicion Batten did not know as much as she thinks she knows, not to mention her loyalties to Michael are forged in titanium. He did pluck her from utter obscurity.

Interestingly enough, Batten revealed on her own accord that it is highly likely she knew very little about the goings-on with regard to Michael Jackson. According to an interview with Jackson...er website, she confessed Michael was quite distant and separate from her and other 'employees' on his tours:

“We were looking at things in a shop when MJ came up behind us (Sheryl and her) and started talking to us. It surprized us because we'd only seen him surrounded by security whenever we were out with him and never bothered trying to get close.” ....

“There were 100 people on the tours and we took up 3 different hotels for the most part.” ....

“I was an employee along with 5 other musicians. We didn't socialize much outside of rehearsals but would do a group prayer before every show.” ....

“He'd review rehearsal tapes and make suggestions for changes to the musical director.”

Note, in particular, that Jennifer Batten states three different hotels were used during one tour, which is suggestive of a pattern Michael could have used while touring.

Is it not possible that the musicians saying Jackson had boys going in and out of his room, as Gene Simmons suggested, had shared a hotel with Michael but not Batten? It certainly is!

It is true: Simmons was not on tour as Batten had been; however, knowing the revelations as reported by Jolie Levine of Michael Jackson sleeping with Jimmy Safechuck every night in every city, not to mention Batten herself acknowledged the disconnect between Jackson and his staff, it is unlikely that the musicians with whom Simmons conversed were fibbing out of thin air. They'd had to seen something that Batten would not necessarily be able to refute.

Is it really unfathomable that Simmons, knowing by proxy Michael Jackson's boy habits, would, like Levine, think Michael was a pedophile?

I don't think so at all.

Gene Simmons, however, does not count as a witness since even the best connections in Tinseltown amount to nothing more than heresay.

James Hudnall is a more convincing bystander.

Hudnall wrote of his own encounter with Michael Jackson entitled, "My Disturbing Michael Ja...xperience" only one day after Michael died. He dates the 'experience' as being from 1993. Curiously enough, his brush with Michael Jackson included Jordie Chandler.

The tale is disturbing. I will paste some of it here:

Coincidentally, I was living in Encino, California in 1993. The Jackson family lived not far from me. I would see Joe Jackson at the supermarket or Randy at the car wash. But I never expected to meet Michael. About once a week I would go over the hill to Golden Apple Comics on Melrose. It was owned by a friend, the late Bill Liebowitz, and I also had a bunch of friends who worked there. They told me Michael was a big customer.He would go there with a group of kids and buy them whatever they wanted. He would often spend thousands on those days....

Everyone I know who knew him said he was a very nice guy, kind of quiet and he did a lot with charity. No one had a bad thing to say about him. But I did detect a certain reluctant vibe when discussing Michael with my friends at the store. They didn’t say why, but they felt he was weird. And this is from people who worked at a store on Melrose in L.A.

So one day I came in the store and one of my friends told me Jackson was in the store. And there he was, over by the comics rack. He had his arm around someone like he was on a date. That someone was Jordy Chandler.

I walked over to the long racks and pretended not to notice them. Jackson had his people with him including his driver. That driver was later a witness against Jackson in his trial.

Jackson was whispering in Jordy’s ear and they were acting totally like people on a date. It was not the kind of behavior a couple of straight guys do together. Then they went back in the store in the employee area and disappeared. They were gone for a half hour. I stuck around and talked to my friends, just shooting the breeze. I assumed Jackson left by the back door to avoid people. But Bill the owner asked me if I wanted to meet Michael Jackson, and I said, sure.

Jackson reappeared, and left the store. I went out there with Bill and he introduced me. Jordy had detached from Michael and went to the black SUV. I didn’t shake hands with Jackson, I only got to exchange pleasantries. But I noticed something, when I tried to look him in the eyes, he had this very evasive…almost crazed look. Like someone who had just committed a crime and didn’t want anyone to see them. It was weird.

I’ve met a lot of famous celebs and have never seen them as anything other than people. People who work in the entertainment industry, which I was doing at the time myself. So I’ve been very laid back in these encounters. So I know it was nothing I did that made him look at me like that. I thought, “Man, is he paranoid or what? Maybe he’s on something.”

After they took off, I went back in the store to buy some comics and I asked one of my friends what they were doing in the back room for so long. He said Michael and Jordy were in the bathroom for a half hour.

Yeah.

I said, huh? He said that’s not unusual for him.

Now, I don’t know what they did in there, but it was a small one-person bathroom. And I can only think of a couple reasons two people would go into a small bathroom together. One of the nice reasons is they were helping the other with their costumes. He wasn’t wearing anything that out of the ordinary. So that leaves the other two reasons, since we can assume Jordy is potty trained at 13. Sex or drugs.

When the story about the molestation broke a few months later, that pretty much made up my mind which reason it was.

A lot of people say Michael Jackson did not molest kids. Maybe not. But I have a hard time believing it.

It was not unusual for Michael to be in the bathroom for half an hour with the young male friends he'd bring to the comic book store?

Certainly telling.

Hudnall was attacked in the comments' section but defended his story to the naysayers:

ElaineC said:

I'm kind of surprised with a story like this to tell that you were not subpoenaed for the trial. Did you consider contacting the prosecutors in the case?

James Hudnall in reply:

I did, but when th (sic) trial was going on they seemed to have plenty of evidence. But they screwed up. Further, I would have had to involve my friends at the store, and the owner, and they would probably have hated me for that. I often think I should have got involved. But I was not even living in California when the trial started. I did post this story on my blog back at that time, though. It was not a secret I kept. I told a lot of people

Burrrbank said:

This is a creepy, 16 year-old, one-sided, unverifiable story best left in your memory. You couldn't have known then the name of any child Michael Jackson was with, but it sure is luridly sensational to claim it in this pathetic grab at fame at the expense of a dead man. The story is unfit for this site.

James Hudnall in reply:

I don't expect any fame from this nor do I want it. I just feel it should be told because people need to know the truth

David S said:

What kind of people regularly witness a grown man and a child spending extended time in a single stall bathroom, and do nothing about it? Apparently the same kind that hangout in Hollywood comic book stores. Quite the paradise you've made for yourselves out there. City of Angels my ass.

James Hudnall in reply:

I didn't see them go in. I saw them go in the back room. The bathroom was back there but a wall blocks you from seeing it in the front of the store. Reread the story. Someone who worked there told me they went in teh(sic) bathroom and they did that often. This was after they had already left the store.

James Hudnall said:

To clear up some confusion some people are having with this story: I did not know who Jordy Chandler was at the time. I did not know how old he was. He looked like he could have been 15 or so to me. I also didn't know at the time what we all "know" now, because this was before any molestation charges ever surfaced against Michael. So I had no reason to think that is what he was up to. I just got the feeling he was after the events of that day. When the molestation charges broke, it solidified my suspicions.

But at the time, I had no reason to react as some people thought I should have. I mean, Jackson was a weird guy who acted like a kid. He had a lot of people fooled into accepting such strange behavior with a shrug. It wasn't until after all the stories came out that people started being creeped out by him. Until that point he was just Michael.

If his story is to be believed (and I do believe him), Hudnall represents yet another 'onlooker', another silent witness stifled because all they have is a gut-based 'reasonable suspicion'.

Like Levine, Hudnall--after what he saw--believed Michael Jackson was a 'chicken hawk', a child molester.

And this all goes to the main point of this meandering blog entry: is everyone a liar?

Michael Jackson fans' reactionary position is to label everyone a liar if they say anything negative about Michael or err on the side that his conduct with little boys was criminal. But that is more than a little naive.

So what are the rules fans uphold when determining the truthfulness of a Michael Jackson naysayer? Do they have to have not sold a story to the tabloids? Do they have to have not lost a lawsuit against Michael Jackson?

If either choices reflect the 'rules', the believability of both Jolie Levine and James Hudnall seem pretty solid.

Gene Simmons, who was conspicuously out of The Know regarding Michael Jackson's affairs, still resides in Hollywood and still frequents celebrity circles. Perhaps the musicians to whom he refers simply slipped him information through the proverbial grapevine: Michael Jackson was sleeping with young boys during his tours.

But how untruthful is that really? Is it totally incomprehensible?

Did he not share a bed with Brett Barnes for an entire year while on the Dangerous Tour, according to Karlee Barnes' 2005 testimony?

Did Jolie Levine not testify to seeing Michael Jackson in bed with Jimmy Safechuck while on the Bad Tour?

Did Michael Jackson himself not reveal to the entire world he believed sharing a bed with an unrelated child was a 'beautiful thing'?

It seems, in my opinion, at least, that the likelihood of a so-called 'disgruntled' Jackson musician making up stories along the 'little boys going in and out of Michael's hotel room' tangent because he was let go is very slim.

I wonder how many other people exist with stories of Michael Jackson's pedophilia, those who have not spoken out, or written books, or sold stories to tabloids. Tom Sneddon's document linked earlier in this post mentions other little known Jackson employees.

But what would be the point of saying anything against the King of Pop? Michael Jackson got to exist in a world where families were given Rolls Royces, expensive jewelry, and checks in the millions in exchange for their sons' bodies. He could build an amusement park in his front yard, fill his house with candy and junk food, ply cancer patients with alcohol, and still be canonized as a saint--a Great--upon death.

Because he made Thriller and could moonwalk.

The anecdote of a lowly secretary would mean nothing to the thousands of fans trying to 'vindicate' Michael Jackson; lesser still is that of a little known blogger.

Because everyone is a liar, we know. Even with three accusations of child sexual abuse, two documented multimillion dollar payoffs (well, three if we count the $300,000 given to Ruby an...d Martinez of Argentina as part of an ongoing payment plan), a jury trial wherein tons of clues to his alleged pedophilia were revealed--Michael Jackson can do no wrong.

The reality is there were many witnesses to Michael Jackson's abuse or alleged abuse of young boys. It is true that some of them sold stories to the tabloids and some of them were unsuccessful in their lawsuits against Michael.

However, does any of that really matter?

At least with Jolie Levine and James Hudnall it shouldn't; with them, there are two witnesses that can at least vouch for Michael Jackson's 'reasonably suspicious' behavior with young boys. I happen to find them unimpeachable.

[Edited 5/21/13 6:33am]

^^^So as you've stated, all you have is gut feeling statements after it's all said and done. I was looking and reading to see if you posted something that would solidify the fact that MJ is a pedophile, but it doesn't. Nothing to show that he was caught in the act.

Why is this Robson guy coming forward with these allegations now? MJ is not even here to defend himself.

[Edited 5/21/13 6:52am]

Beautifulstarr123 said:

^^^So as you've stated, all you have is gut feeling statements after it's all said and done. I was looking and reading to see if you posted something that would solidify the fact that MJ is a pedophile, but it doesn't. Nothing to show that he was caught in the act.

Why is this Robson guy coming forward with these allegations now? MJ is not even here to defend himself.

[Edited 5/21/13 6:52am]

I stated no such thing, dummy. That is a blog I found online. It's not MY blog. I don't have a blog. It's from someone called Desiree. She's got a lot of fascinating info on there. If I had the time I could no doubt find a lot more. Here is the link. Have a look for yourself.

http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html

btw, aren't you that Alex Jones following climate change denier that posts on P&R? How appropriate that someone with that mindset is an MJ defender.

midnightmover said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

^^^So as you've stated, all you have is gut feeling statements after it's all said and done. I was looking and reading to see if you posted something that would solidify the fact that MJ is a pedophile, but it doesn't. Nothing to show that he was caught in the act.

Why is this Robson guy coming forward with these allegations now? MJ is not even here to defend himself.

[Edited 5/21/13 6:52am]

I stated no such thing, dummy. That is a blog I found online. It's not MY blog. I don't have a blog. It's from someone called Desiree. She's got a lot of fascinating info on there. If I had the time I could no doubt find a lot more. Here is the link. Have a look for yourself.

http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html

btw, aren't you that Alex Jones following climate change denier that posts on P&R? How appropriate that someone with that mindset is an MJ defender.

How infantile of you to resort to name calling. First of all, I'm just having a discussion with you. If that's not your statement, but a mistake on my part, then fine.

Second of all, if you wish to discuss Alex Jones or anything in P&R, then let's take it to P&R, not here.

Oh, by the way, aren't you the same MJ hater that always post in MJ threads? How convenient.

^^^btw, you've could have posted this link in the first place.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

midnightmover said:

I stated no such thing, dummy. That is a blog I found online. It's not MY blog. I don't have a blog. It's from someone called Desiree. She's got a lot of fascinating info on there. If I had the time I could no doubt find a lot more. Here is the link. Have a look for yourself.

http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/little-known-witnesses-is-everyone-liar.html

btw, aren't you that Alex Jones following climate change denier that posts on P&R? How appropriate that someone with that mindset is an MJ defender.

How infantile of you to resort to name calling. First of all, I'm just having a discussion with you. If that's not your statement, but a mistake on my part, then fine.

Second of all, if you wish to discuss Alex Jones or anything in P&R, then let's take it to P&R, not here.

Oh, by the way, aren't you the same MJ hater that always post in MJ threads? How convenient.

The Alex Jones thing is actually relevant because not only are his followers clearly lacking common sense, they are also supporting evil - just as the MJ defenders are. People denying the reality of climate-change and saying it's all a conspiracy by greedy scientists are helping to condemn future generations. It doesn't get any lower than that. Nor does it get more stupid. Therefore it's no surprise that such a person is also an MJ defender. They are intellectually and morally the same.

[Edited 5/21/13 8:02am]

I always wonder about the people who collect compromising information about celebrities.
I understand the fans, they are motivated by love or sympathy.

other people (if they don`t work for tabloids) might be interested in their favorite stars, instead of taking over the functions of the prosecutor's office and the court.

from the usual opinion, which I can understand, "Jackson is suspicious and may be a pedophile" to picking up dirty gossip and try to prove to everyone something that he doesn`t know himself---- abyss.
it is an obsession

get a life, people ...

midnightmover said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

How infantile of you to resort to name calling. First of all, I'm just having a discussion with you. If that's not your statement, but a mistake on my part, then fine.

Second of all, if you wish to discuss Alex Jones or anything in P&R, then let's take it to P&R, not here.

Oh, by the way, aren't you the same MJ hater that always post in MJ threads? How convenient.

The Alex Jones thing is actually relevant because not only are his followers clearly lacking common sense, they are also supporting evil - just as the MJ defenders are. People denying the reality of climate-change and saying it's all a conspiracy by greedy scientists are helping to condemn future generations. It doesn't get any lower than that. Nor does it get more stupid. Therefore it's no surprise that such a person is also an MJ defender. They are intellectually and morally the same.

[Edited 5/21/13 8:02am]

But yet and still, this smartass couldn't even post a link to his/her own post. Go away, and stop the obsession with MJ.

[Edited 5/21/13 9:44am]

NoVideo said:

midnightmover said:

The wilful blindness of MJ fans on this matter is truly sinister. They think they are decent; in reality they are the opposite. Anyone who dares to speak the truth about MJ is automatically subjected to vicious attacks and character assassinations from MJ fans who have no interest in reality.

It's normal for victims to take years (usually decades) to come to terms with what happened and speak about it so I knew it was only a matter of time till we heard from Robson. I'm glad for him that he's now thawing out and can start to heal. The MJ fans who are attacking him are manifesting evil though they don't know it.

This is now the fifth one of Michael's young pretty-boys to accuse him of abuse and, contrary to the claims of blaqueknight, not a single one of them has recanted. The signs of MJ's nature were all over the place if you were willing to look. No-one should be surprised at all that's emerged since his death. It was eminently predictable.

I agree with you. I see lot of blaming the victim here, and a lot of denial and wishful thinking.

This is an interesting piece linked below. The reality is that sexual abuse is a very complicated issue, as anybody who has experienced it will know. I think of the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn State. Imagine being in the shoes of one of these kids, or one of the kids MJ abused. It's beyond daunting to think about.

http://shine.yahoo.com/au...00823.html

I feel sorry for you...

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'

There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.

I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.

It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

Ace said:

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'

There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.

I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.

It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

Agreed.

Ace said:

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'

There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.

I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.

It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

Payoffs and hunches are not evidence of proof. If that could be video ever surfaced, then you have proof.

I know a lot of people who do not like MJ as an artist, but do not believe that he's a pedophile.
I know some fans who do not care whether he is guilty.
Well, none of us knows what really happened, so it's only a question of personal conviction

to me that he had paid in 1993 - is not an indicator ....
His career then went on to be very successful, Dangerous sold 25 million at the time and continued to sell well, he was on tour, MJ could not afford a 2 year investigation and trial, he and his label would suffer far greater losses than 20 million ... is it really there are people who do not understand this ...
striking ....

Ace said:

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'

There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.

I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.

It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

It was actually two kids' families who were paid off, not just one. As I stated earlier, one of those kids (Jason Frascia) came back twelve years later - as an adult - to testify against Jackson in the 2005 trial. It's amazing how little coverage that received in the media. To this day most people don't know about it. Frascia broke down as he related what Jackson had done to him. According to Vanity Fair, the star-struck jurors looked on with total indifference.

Oh and the insurance company thing is total bs. MJ himself confirmed in his Diane Sawyer interview that he did indeed pay off the boys. He said he did it so he could put it behind him. The fact that MJ fans still repeat the bullshit about the insurance company shows they'll even ignore their idol's own words when it suits them. These are seriously dishonest people.

[Edited 5/21/13 11:05am]

LiLi1992 said:

I know a lot of people who do not like MJ as an artist, but do not believe that he's a pedophile.
I know some fans who do not care whether he is guilty.
Well, none of us knows what really happened, so it's only a question of personal conviction

to me that he had paid in 1993 - is not an indicator ....
His career then went on to be very successful, Dangerous sold 25 million at the time and continued to sell well, he was on tour, MJ could not afford a 2 year investigation and trial, he and his label would suffer far greater losses than 20 million ... is it really there are people who do not understand this ...
striking ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...dissonance

midnightmover said:

Ace said:

As Joan Rivers said, 'You don't give away $20 million for shaking hands.'

There could be a video of Michael Jackson with his penis in a boy's rectum and some of his fans would still try to explain it away.

I understand the desire to not want to believe horrific things about someone you've admired, but the pay-off to the first kid is proof enough for me (as it should be for you, if you're not wilfully donning blinders). And please spare me the rationalization that the insurance company made him settle. We all know how insurance companies love to give millions of dollars away.

It's okay, folks - you can like the art, but not the artist.

It was actually two kids' families who were paid off, not just one. As I stated earlier, one of those kids (Jason Frascia) came back twelve years later - as an adult - to testify against Jackson in the 2005 trial. It's amazing how little coverage that received in the media. To this day most people don't know about it. Frascia broke down as he related what Jackson had done to him. According to Vanity Fair, the star-struck jurors looked on with total indifference.

Oh and the insurance company thing is total bs. MJ himself confirmed in his Diane Sawyer interview that he did indeed pay off the boys. He said he did it so he could put it behind him. The fact that MJ fans still repeat the bullshit about the insurance company shows they'll even ignore their idol's own words when it suits them.

Interesting.

Ace said:

LiLi1992 said:

I know a lot of people who do not like MJ as an artist, but do not believe that he's a pedophile.
I know some fans who do not care whether he is guilty.
Well, none of us knows what really happened, so it's only a question of personal conviction

to me that he had paid in 1993 - is not an indicator ....
His career then went on to be very successful, Dangerous sold 25 million at the time and continued to sell well, he was on tour, MJ could not afford a 2 year investigation and trial, he and his label would suffer far greater losses than 20 million ... is it really there are people who do not understand this ...
striking ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

Edit....

Its not right to randomly censor people just because they say something you disagree with. Whats the point of having rules if the mods are not going to follow them themselves? If nobdoy is not fighting, bickering or being disrespectful why are people being censored?

So negative things said about Prince are censored but not MJ?

I know this is a Prince forum but still..... we are not in elementary school, BE FAIR.

[Edited 5/21/13 13:59pm]

@midnightmovers copied drivel
Oh, god... here come the old and tired myth, legends and personal opinion again. Stories of former employees, who either have axes to grind, were out to make money and gave their opinions, based on their not so good thoughts of Michael Jackson, as facts. If it was so obvious to that secretary, Jones and co. that he was abusing those children. Why didn't they go to police??? Why did they all (in Jones case) stay in Michael's employment for years and only after being let go, mentioned that there was something bad going on?? If Jones knew all those years, why didn't he do anything? It doesn't matter how much you want to use them (or that "blog") to paint a picture. The fact is, they are not credible, for various reasons, either by their own actions (or inactions), by the implausibilities of their stories or the timing of when, where and how they decided to come out with their stories.


"Is it not possible that the musicians saying Jackson had boys going in and out of his room, as Gene Simmons suggested, had shared a hotel with Michael but not Batten? It certainly is!"


No. It's not. As Michael usually stayed at a hotel different from the band and crew. As it is common with most top level tours, the artist plus his management and immediate entourage stayed at a higher level hotel than the band and crew. They split up hotels for a reason. And the fact remains that, contrary to what Simmons was claiming, no musician ever left midtour. Simmons is an outspoken man and I find that refreshing, but he doesn't realize that just because he has made millions, he is not always right. And on this topic he's totally speaking out of his ass, with little actual knowledge, slandering a person he knows nothing about. And mind you, I'm a Kiss fan. I have most their albums and DVDs and saw them in concert 4 times in the past 17 years.



@that other dudes "first hand account" of Michael's evil deeds.
Geez. And another bs story, full of innuendos, assumptions and hearsay, which makes absolutely no sense, that should serve as proof that Michael Jackson is a child molestor. So we should believe that Michael brought Chandler into the public, into a comic shop, with other people around, to molest him then and there in the bath room? In a public forum, where Chandler could make a scene and retaliate or scream for help?? Right! If that would have been the case, I'm sure the Chandler's wouldn't have failed to mention that in their testimony of when the supposed abuse occured.


@ace
No, the insurance company did not make him settle. But the insurance company was the one paying the money. So Michael took the, at the time, easy way out (we all know that eventually he paid dearly for decision) and paid up with money, that wasn't his, to make the accusers go away. And guess what? They all did! Why does no one question those asses that took the money, despite their precious little children being molested, leaving a predator on the loose? But no, this is a admission of Michael Jackson's guilt. Right! If you're not convinced either way, then you also can not be convinced the other way. Then both actions are, at the least, suspicious.



And seriously, of course it's good to be cautious, but really, in what kind of world are we living today, where people rather like to believe that a person enjoys the company of children for the sole purpose of fucking them, instead of the purpose of just having a good time?? Me, personally, I have nothing to do with children. No children in my life and also no desire to have children in my life, but really, it is not too far fetched for me to believe that someone likes to have children around, especially someone, who, at one point, proclaimed himself to be one of the most lonely persons in the world and one, who was treated differently and taken advantage off all his life by grown ups. And just because someone supposedly is strange and different doesn't make him a criminal.


And that is main problem we have here. People think he's strange and of course, a strange man is not normal, a strange man has to be up to no good. It's impossible to like children, without wanting to fuck them.



Regarding sharing the bed. If you manage to keep your mind out of the gutter and not equate bed with sex, then you will see that there is nothing wrong or sinister with the act of simply sharing a bed. Of course it has all kinds of connotations and obviously it is unusual and may raise suspicion and thus unwise to do, but really, that is mainly the problem of people who have dirty minds. People, who know nothing about the situation and the people involved and are oversuspicious and see a Jack the ripper behind every tree. I agree, that he was playing with fire there and ultimately got burned and that in this day and age you simply shouldn't be saying that, but I doubt he would have been so forthcoming with that information if there would have been a sinister intention on his part.


And in closing I have to say, the same way you (and people like you) claim that he's guilty because of all the stories out there, I claim that all those stories (and the people telling them) cause too much suspicion and implausabilities in their stories and conduct to be taken at face value and to be trusted without questioning the validity and origins of those stories. And in my book he's innocent until proven guilty. And I mean proof, not flinging as much shit as possible against a wall, trying to see what sticks. That is not proving anything.

midnightmover said:

It was actually two kids' families who were paid off, not just one. As I stated earlier, one of those kids (Jason Frascia) came back twelve years later - as an adult - to testify against Jackson in the 2005 trial. It's amazing how little coverage that received in the media. To this day most people don't know about it. Frascia broke down as he related what Jackson had done to him. According to Vanity Fair, the star-struck jurors looked on with total indifference.

Oh and the insurance company thing is total bs. MJ himself confirmed in his Diane Sawyer interview that he did indeed pay off the boys. He said he did it so he could put it behind him. The fact that MJ fans still repeat the bullshit about the insurance company shows they'll even ignore their idol's own words when it suits them. These are seriously dishonest people.

[Edited 5/21/13 11:05am]

Ah, I see you're making shit up as you go along. It was widely reported all over the media at the time, that Jason Francia testified. And really, why wouldn't he? He is looked at as a liar an opportunist, if he doesn't. This was his chance for vindication. By the same token you can ask, why did the other "victim" not testify? Why did Chandler refuse? If you use one "victim" as "proof" that it was true, than you have to look at the other "victim" refusing to testify as "proof" that it was not true. And Jason Francia was only making money, because his mother jumped on the Chandler bandwagon.

And regarding the money that was paid. It was not Michael's money. The settlement agreement is out there. Even one of the biggest detractors (Diane Dimond) had to admit that it was insurance talk and that they coughed up the money. The term used was "neglicence" happening to a visitor of Neverland. And Michael never stated where that money originated, as he was, per the settlement agreement not allowed to talk about it. Chandler even sued him afterwards.

LiLi1992 said:

Ace said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

But everything is presumption. Yea there was a settlement, yet 12 years later when Jordan was invited back to testify against his abuser he refused. Why did he refused? We also have second hand sources saying that Jordan has stated in private that no abuse ever took place.

We have Wade Robson who swore under oath in 2005 and continue to praise MJ up last year that nothing happen ( and please this is not the same as a victim staying quiet) doing a U-turn and sueing the estate for money. The whole case is not as black and white as people like to make it.

Quite frankly I am surprise not alot more people have come out accusing MJ after his death, I expected the alleged victims to run into hundreds a bit like the Jimmy Saville case.