Napster
No ⭐
I watched most of episode 1 and the only thing that was running through my mind is, "you call yourself parents?" **** me.
have you seen Abducted in Plain Sight?
I watched most of episode 1 and the only thing that was running through my mind is, "you call yourself parents?" **** me.
have you seen Abducted in Plain Sight?
I watched most of episode 1 and the only thing that was running through my mind is, "you call yourself parents?" **** me.
Yep, terrible parents, especially the women who had their own agenda.
Whilst there’s no doubt in my mind that Jackson was a wrong’un, I’ll always scrutinise these people who come out of the woodwork when there’s a TV opportunity.
The maid for example, I don’t believe a word of it. She’s earning a few quid for herself. I mean, let’s have it right, if what she was saying is true, then she’s an accessory after the fact, which means she should face prosecution.
As for this latest documentary, again, I am sceptical because it’s not as if these “victims” were searching out justice & just so happened to find the right TV company willing to help them.
No, the TV company set out to make the programme before even obtaining any witnesses/victims. These guys jumped aboard as soon as they came knocking. I could be wrong, but that doesn’t sound like the behaviour of people who just want to set the record straight. That sounds like eh behaviour of people who smell an earner.
Again I must clarify, just becuase I doubt these people, there is no doubt in my mind that Jackson was a proper wrong’un.
They didn't speak harshly of MJ, in fact you could see they idolised him even now. If they wanted an "earner" they would be shown in tears and/or angry. It was a very matter of fact way they talked about the abuse. As for the maid, I'm sure would only be an accessory after the fact if the police questioned her or the prosecution brought her up as a witness (I haven't reached that point yet, so if she had been I'm unaware).
I get ya, but which version of their stories were more compelling? The one in court, where they said that this didn’t happen, or the documentary from last night where they said it did happen?
You see my point?
There is of course, every chance that they’re being honest now. But there is a chance that it’s all in hope of an earner.
I get ya, but which version of their stories were more compelling? The one in court, where they said that this didn’t happen, or the documentary from last night where they said it did happen?
You see my point?
There is of course, every chance that they’re being honest now. But there is a chance that it’s all in hope of an earner.
The one in court they were still kids. Michael Jackson spent hours telling them what to say and what questions they might be asked, and what their response should be if people asked. They loved him. He told them they would go to jail/prison if they told the truth. Anyone that watched that program last night could surely tell those two were genuine. They admitted a lot, and more or less said they enjoyed the intimate and sexual relationship because they were in love. They didn't like it so much when things got more kinky. Their stories matched as to what MJ liked sexually. In the Basheer interview MJ admitted that he liked young boys to sleep over in his bed, but he said just as friends and nothing would happen. Why do you really think a grown man that was already rumoured to be a paedophile wants young boys to sleep in his bed? That was just MJ saying to parents that it's O.K. for your son to sleep with me as we're just friends.
This is what La Toya's Manager producer Jack Gordon said.
He says Jacko’s obsession with kids began before he bought Neverland. It was going on even when Michael still lived at the Jackson family home, Havenhurst, in Encino, Calif., in the mid to late ’80s.
“He’d take them into his room for three or four days at a time,” Gordon said, “and then the kid would come out looking down and embarrassed.
“He had cameras outside the bedroom to see who was walking by. [When he had a child inside,] he’d call the maid for food, they’d leave it outside the door.”
The kids, he estimates, were between 5 and 10 years old at the time.
“He’d get hold of these children and keep them in the room, and if they cooperated, he took them on the road,” he said. “They dressed up like him and became part of his entourage.”
Gordon maintains that no one questioned Jackson – especially Gordon.
“I thought it was strange,” he said, “but then I thought the whole family was strange. It would never have occurred to me that he was doing this. In fact, I was a young man myself at the time, and truthfully, I didn’t even know what pedophile meant.”
Jackson, he said, was paying all the bills, so everyone looked the other way.
“LaToya and his mother found checks [made out to the boys’] parents for anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million. You tell me,” he said.
During those early years, when the first boy filed charges against Jackson, it was LaToya who often spoke out about her brother.
LaToya was quoted on Dec. 8, 1993, saying, “This has been going on since 1981, and it’s not just one child.”
Think about it. When MJ was first accused of being a paedophile that was abusing young boys, the first thing a normal person would do is never sleep with any young boys again, for obvious reasons. He didn't do that. He invited the camera's in and said he is Peter Pan, and that he's really a child that never grew up, and it's O.K. for him to sleep with young boys as it's just a friend thing. So he wanted an excuse to still sleep with young boys. The truth is almost certainly that he was a paedophile and couldn't stop sleeping with boys and having a sexual relationship, to fulfil his needs and desires. In 1993 another 13 year old boy confessed to his parents what was happening during the sleepovers. He could even describe distinguishing marks around Michael Jackson's genitals. The police arrested MJ and photographed his genitals. Obviously the boy was right about the marks as the parents were offered $23 Million, which they accepted to drop charges. Anyway, part 2 tonight 9pm Channel 4.
Did you read that article mate? That’s straight from a top-drawer, investigative journo.
At the very least it casts doubts over the claims of these two.
That being said, I’m not dismissing claims that Jackson was a peado. But these two can’t be taken at their word.
Regarding the payouts, as far as I’m aware, they were done in order to avoid the civil lawsuits. Jackson (and the Estate) didn’t want to deal with that so that was his way out of it. Worth noting however, that he was happy to defend himself in the criminal trials, of which many of the recipients of these payouts, accused him anyway.
The payouts were simply an out-of-court settlement.
How do you explain the 13 year old being able to pinpoint distinguishing marks on Michael Jackson's genitals?
Michael Jackson always had a special young boy friend he would tour with and stay with, normally in his bedroom once the parents allowed it, at hotels and Neverland throughout most his adult life. He went through a stage where he had the chosen one for about a year and then would discard and go onto the next one.
How do you explain untold pornographic pictures and video's of young boys mainly, as well as other sick stuff? If you're not a paedo, you wouldn't have this stuff of young boys. It's clearly what he was into. I for example have never, and could not ever watch a video of that type containing children. I think that would go for most of us, but I bet almost every paedo has this stuff or has watched this stuff. MJ had mountains of the stuff. Why?