|
Post by The 1Watcher Experience on Mar 12, 2019 6:14:42 GMT -5
Robson said he would’ve taken his secret to the grave if he didn’t have a son of his own. That he never saw himself as a victim. He loved Jackson and never saw anything wrong with their relationship. Once he had a son of his own he saw his innocence and wanted to protect him. His paternal instincts kicked in. That he didn’t want anything like that to happen to his son. He realizes now that he was groomed by Jackson to be abused, even though it never felt like abuse to him. Children have been groomed for abuse in families and churches forever. Now imagine that you’re a child and a larger than life superstar like Jackson is saying that being with you was the best part of his tour, sending you letters, bringing you to his property that’s arranged like a dreamland for kids and wanting to be with only you. There’s a lot of grooming going on there.
Jackson was definitely interested in sex. The extreme porn and books with nude children dismissed as art found in his home is enough proof of that. Jackson claimed he dated Tatum O’Neil when he was younger and that she tried to have sex with him and he freaked out and wasn’t interested. He was 17 at the time. And she was 12. O’Neil wrote in her book that it was the opposite, he tried to have sex with her, she rejected him and he fled. I’m inclined to believe O’Neil, especially since she was only 12. She had no interest or knowledge of sex. Jackson seems to have been interested in children for a long time. Maybe he moved on to seducing little boys because he didn’t know how to identify with girls.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 12, 2019 6:53:32 GMT -5
People would look oddly at a grown woman having sleepovers&things with kids she had no personal ties to. They might not think predator automatically, but they'd definitely think "that's weird".
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 12, 2019 7:42:52 GMT -5
I'm just putting this out there. whether you believe he did it or not, "he was a child in a man's body" is NOT a defense. he was a grown-ass man, and he knew better than to have these inappropriate relationships with children. his "I'm just a big kid" thing was a calculated persona to deflect blame that he was a colossal creep. it's kinda like the recent stuff with Vic Mignogna in a way; whether he sexually assaulted them or not he was still inappropriate with them and he deserves to be called out as a creep for it. I don't care if he had a rough childhood or he liked to pretend he was a child who didn't know better. defend MJ based on real reasons, not some cockamamie "he's just a big kid" bullshit. it's logic that actively offends me, both as a victim of sexual abuse and as a god-damn adult. Yeah, it's hard to square that with the absolute demanding perfectionist he was as a performer, and the ruthless and shrewd businessman he can be. You can't have the rest of his life like that, but when it comes to one aspect, he was a "child" he can be awkward, weird, f***ed up, whatever but not a child. Thank you!! While not 100% convinced that he did the things alleged in the documentary, I've always hated when people said he was "just a kid trapped in a man's body." That belittles his own intellect and provides an excuse for him if, in fact, he did do those horrible things. I just don't buy it. Again, I think he was messed up in the head, but he was not some stupid little kid. He was a very smart and ruthless business man. Just ask Paul McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by Raw is Doodie101 on Mar 12, 2019 9:18:44 GMT -5
I haven’t watched because it doesn’t matter to me. Unless they got video or a smoking gun then this is all circumstancial evidence. MJ might have been a pedofile or he might not. We’ll never know and the man is dead so at this point, it’s water under the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 12, 2019 10:34:27 GMT -5
Yeah, it's hard to square that with the absolute demanding perfectionist he was as a performer, and the ruthless and shrewd businessman he can be. You can't have the rest of his life like that, but when it comes to one aspect, he was a "child" he can be awkward, weird, f***ed up, whatever but not a child. Thank you!! While not 100% convinced that he did the things alleged in the documentary, I've always hated when people said he was "just a kid trapped in a man's body." That belittles his own intellect and provides an excuse for him if, in fact, he did do those horrible things. I just don't buy it. Again, I think he was messed up in the head, but he was not some stupid little kid. He was a very smart and ruthless business man. Just ask Paul McCartney. What's more is that what made people view him as a "child" is common place now. Adults watching cartoons, playing video games, collecting toys, reading comics, playing games. There are conventions for all these things now and they are majority adults attending. Most of whom I'd be willing to bet can maintain relatively normal relationships with kids and adults. I mean there are no stories of Mister Rogers needing children to help him sleep.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 12, 2019 10:57:21 GMT -5
I'm just putting this out there. whether you believe he did it or not, "he was a child in a man's body" is NOT a defense. he was a grown-ass man, and he knew better than to have these inappropriate relationships with children. his "I'm just a big kid" thing was a calculated persona to deflect blame that he was a colossal creep. it's kinda like the recent stuff with Vic Mignogna in a way; whether he sexually assaulted them or not he was still inappropriate with them and he deserves to be called out as a creep for it. I don't care if he had a rough childhood or he liked to pretend he was a child who didn't know better. defend MJ based on real reasons, not some cockamamie "he's just a big kid" bullshit. it's logic that actively offends me, both as a victim of sexual abuse and as a god-damn adult. Nobody’s saying it wasn’t inappropriate. I’m just arguing the fact that in his mind, it was completely innocent. Jackson, like it or not WAS a man child. Whether that makes him a “creep” or not is entirely subjective. It’s absurd to say “he’s a calculated predator who PRETENDED he was childlike”. That reeks of an opinion of somebody who doesn’t understand there’s legitimately guys like that out there. And they’re not all having sex with little kids. Let me just say, if this was a woman... let’s use Princess Diana as an example. Nobody would bat an eye at her spending days out with kids and having sleepovers and doing the things Michael Jackson has done. They would just say “Awww she’s so thoughtful and caring!” It's not absurd. He was an adult. He knew it was inappropriate and still did it. Believe his public persona all you want but I think it's a hopelessly naive outlook.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 12, 2019 12:30:02 GMT -5
Nobody’s saying it wasn’t inappropriate. I’m just arguing the fact that in his mind, it was completely innocent. Jackson, like it or not WAS a man child. Whether that makes him a “creep” or not is entirely subjective. It’s absurd to say “he’s a calculated predator who PRETENDED he was childlike”. That reeks of an opinion of somebody who doesn’t understand there’s legitimately guys like that out there. And they’re not all having sex with little kids. Let me just say, if this was a woman... let’s use Princess Diana as an example. Nobody would bat an eye at her spending days out with kids and having sleepovers and doing the things Michael Jackson has done. They would just say “Awww she’s so thoughtful and caring!” It's not absurd. He was an adult. He knew it was inappropriate and still did it. Believe his public persona all you want but I think it's a hopelessly naive outlook. Even if he was completely innocent, even if he had the mind of a child, a child learns. He STILL did it after he had accusations and was told his inappropriateness was why. That's the deathblow to me. Like if there was just the one and he took precautions after like made an adult, any adult of the hundreds he employed and were in his circle of dependence, stay in the rooms with him, but he still demanded his alone time with the boys. Come on now. If a kid gets severely punished for doing something they at the very least learn how to avoid getting in the same situation that got them in hot water.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,288
|
Post by Paul on Mar 12, 2019 12:51:05 GMT -5
Michael Jackson did not "have the mind of a child". He was not mentally disabled or slow. He knew exactly what he was doing and that it was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Mar 12, 2019 14:44:11 GMT -5
I watched it and those guys didn’t seem like they were lying to me.
|
|
|
Post by The 1Watcher Experience on Mar 12, 2019 15:07:11 GMT -5
For the people that think Robson and Safechuck only did this for financial gain the director has already stated publicly that they have received zero compensation and they aren’t part of any deal to see any profit from this documentary whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Display Name on Mar 12, 2019 15:56:41 GMT -5
For the people that think Robson and Safechuck only did this for financial gain the director has already stated publicly that they have received zero compensation and they aren’t part of any deal to see any profit from this documentary whatsoever. I should hope not. Still, it gets their names out there for financial gain elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 12, 2019 15:59:21 GMT -5
For the people that think Robson and Safechuck only did this for financial gain the director has already stated publicly that they have received zero compensation and they aren’t part of any deal to see any profit from this documentary whatsoever. They have something more valuable than a paycheck. Infamy. I didn't know either of their names until this documentary. Now they will be known forevermore. The talk show circuit and the media events surrounding this must amount to some financial compensation. They are the talk of the town. One thing will lead to another in Hollywood.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,181
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Mar 12, 2019 16:24:35 GMT -5
For the people that think Robson and Safechuck only did this for financial gain the director has already stated publicly that they have received zero compensation and they aren’t part of any deal to see any profit from this documentary whatsoever. They have something more valuable than a paycheck. Infamy. I didn't know either of their names until this documentary. Now they will be known forevermore. The talk show circuit and the media events surrounding this must amount to some financial compensation. They are the talk of the town. One thing will lead to another in Hollywood. I'd argue that. How many of Cosby's victims can people name? R. Kelly's? Saville's? Unless they were already famous, the victims are generally forgotten, even when they speak out. They're the talk now, but give it a few months or even weeks, and people will go back to not knowing who they are.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Mar 12, 2019 16:28:36 GMT -5
More things I've just learned:
1) Chandler, the boy Jackson paid millions of dollars to silence, correctly identified the location of the splotches on the underside of Jackson's penis. This is verified by one of the lead investigators. How would he know he had discolorations there, let alone in the exact spot they were in? I actually know someone who has vitiligo, and she had splotches on her chest, arms, and even on parts of her vagina. If I had to, I could easily depict it in drawing since it's very distinct. Related to this, there's a video of Jackson's legal team talking about why they paid him off. Here's a brief transcript: "His genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side."
Also, here is the direct document quote about the photo by the DA: "The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally."
2) Corey Feldman, a wealthy child star and former friend, spoke highly of Jackson. Recently in wake of the documentary, he said he cannot justify defending Jackson anymore with what has come out, but he's expressed a lot of good will towards him and insists he was never molested. However, Feldman had to reevaluate his friendship with Jackson over the years. He said this in an interview from awhile back in regards to being questioned about any inappropriateness on Jackson's behalf: "If you consider it inappropriate for a man to look at a book of naked pictures with a child that's 13 or 14 years old, then your answer would be yes."
Sounds like it fits the story of using pornography/nudity to groom kids. That interview was from over a decade ago, too. He's never tried to get any compensation and seems overall to fondly remember Jackson despite it all.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 12, 2019 16:40:41 GMT -5
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,181
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Mar 12, 2019 17:03:10 GMT -5
I'd argue that. How many of Cosby's victims can people name? R. Kelly's? Saville's? Unless they were already famous, the victims are generally forgotten, even when they speak out. They're the talk now, but give it a few months or even weeks, and people will go back to not knowing who they are. Counter point - how many of the victims get to sit down with Oprah, or have their statements debut at Sundance film festival? Maybe a book deal, or an appearance on a reality show or anything of the sort will probably come to fruition for these two. Really? They were all over TV, newspapers, social media, everywhere. Oprah specifically? No, but then she's known the accused for decades and hasn't been the first to stick her neck out in these situations. What gets the press? The big interviews with the accused and who knows them. The R.Kelly stuff came out, and this week, it's all about his interview. Jackson's dead, so he can't do that, but the focus of so much of this coverage is still on him and what he did, not who he did it to. This isn't saying he did or he didn't, we most likely will never really know, I'm leaning more towards he did as time goes on, but it's a question mark. This is just the way society goes with major crimes, it's always about the perpetrators.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,306
|
Post by Fade on Mar 12, 2019 19:02:23 GMT -5
More things I've just learned: 1) Chandler, the boy Jackson paid millions of dollars to silence, correctly identified the location of the splotches on the underside of Jackson's penis. This is verified by one of the lead investigators. How would he know he had discolorations there, let alone in the exact spot they were in? I actually know someone who has vitiligo, and she had splotches on her chest, arms, and even on parts of her vagina. If I had to, I could easily depict it in drawing since it's very distinct. Related to this, there's a video of Jackson's legal team talking about why they paid him off. Here's a brief transcript: "His genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side." Also, here is the direct document quote about the photo by the DA: "The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally."2) Corey Feldman, a wealthy child star and former friend, spoke highly of Jackson. Recently in wake of the documentary, he said he cannot justify defending Jackson anymore with what has come out, but he's expressed a lot of good will towards him and insists he was never molested. However, Feldman had to reevaluate his friendship with Jackson over the years. He said this in an interview from awhile back in regards to being questioned about any inappropriateness on Jackson's behalf: "If you consider it inappropriate for a man to look at a book of naked pictures with a child that's 13 or 14 years old, then your answer would be yes."Sounds like it fits the story of using pornography/nudity to groom kids. That interview was from over a decade ago, too. He's never tried to get any compensation and seems overall to fondly remember Jackson despite it all. Yeeeeaaahhhh...That on top of other stuff. Just way, way too much smoke yo. I’m pretty good at separating artist and it’s art but..it really seems one way more than the other.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 12, 2019 22:56:57 GMT -5
For the people that think Robson and Safechuck only did this for financial gain the director has already stated publicly that they have received zero compensation and they aren’t part of any deal to see any profit from this documentary whatsoever. They have something more valuable than a paycheck. Infamy. I didn't know either of their names until this documentary. Now they will be known forevermore. The talk show circuit and the media events surrounding this must amount to some financial compensation. They are the talk of the town. One thing will lead to another in Hollywood. The average Joe will forget them when the next big story rolls around. The obsessive Jackson fans will remember them. The ones who have spent decades stalking the other accusers, making one of the dads apply for protection. And from now on whenever someone googles their name if they ever try to apply to anything else they are going to be those boys. Maybe even by then the top searches will be the people who are slandering them everywhere. Doesn't seem like a smart path to fame to me.
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,528
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Mar 13, 2019 4:00:49 GMT -5
Every time I hear people claim he was a child in a man's body it reminds me of a murderers family going "he was always such a good boy".
And whenever they try to put into words how to prove he was a child in a man's body they inevitably end up describing typical pedophile behaviour to a T.
|
|
|
Post by The Legendary Ring Troll {BLM} on Mar 13, 2019 4:09:36 GMT -5
Finished part 2. My apologies to Wade, I’m fully convinced. Based on my own experiences and those of people close to me, I can absolutely see how both he and Safechuck had kids and suddenly realized it had been wrong the whole time. I can see how he convinced himself defending Jackson was the right thing to do. I’d always thought Jackson was guilty anyway, but Robson at first struck me as a fame hound. Thoroughly convinced me otherwise.
|
|