Am I wrong or.....

[WhoIsIt89]

I didn't know where to put this, so I figured this was the best place. Now maybe I'm losing my mind, or maybe I'm too protective, but peep. This is a discussion going on on another board . The discussion is supposed to be about whether people think Michael was innocent of any wrong-doing. Now the original poster meant for the question to be broader than that, but it's just broken down into solely the Allegations...Now example #1

If we're talking general blame to do with the trials, MJ screwed himself over with his dishonesty to possibly himself (he set himself up for the second allegations that went to trial with his behavior along with the actions of others, but he really didn't help himself) and the public (his Peter Pan image whether it be somewhat true or less needed a change).

Now my response to this was, how on earth was Michael dishonest with himself? Michael wasn't a abuser of children, therefore whatever he felt, he clearly thought it was the right thing to do and stood by that
So what did he lie about? Apparently I'm not supposed to ask these sort of questions or something because people responded by saying I have on rose colored glasses and was treating Michael like a God. Now to the Peter Pan thing, I said its who Michael was, growing up the way he did and having the life he had, he was an introverted child, he grew on the outside, but on the inside he was very much like a kid in certain aspects of his life. Now I said he did nothing wrong, he shouldn't have to change who he is because some idiots on the outside looking in, think he's weird or wrong for being the way he was. Mind you, this is an fan forum...Am I wrong or what?


Example #2

I sure as heck have my doubts, but I am a fan of his music.Anyway, it pains me to say this, but I am starting to believe Michael was guilty of sexually abusing children. I believe he was innocent of the 2003 allegations, but 1993 is another story IMO. What gives it away IMO is the strip search and Jordie's description.

This came from a "fan". And this person was unaware that Jordan's description was a load of shit. But I ultimately see this and question how a person can be a fan and think this way. I don't think being a fan, goes hand in hand with not believing in Michael's innocence. Because at the end of the day, you're condoning a person who did heinous acts by promoting his music, imo anyway. I just couldn't grasp how a person who dedicate themselves to a fan forum of a person, who they believe abused children. Apparently I was wrong for questioning this as well because I was then told I felt too strongly about this and that I should accept a "fans" differing opinion. With all the bs that comes with being an MJ fan from the general public and hearing people talk ignorance about Michael whenever they see me wearing a t-shirt with his image or bumping a song of his on my smartphone, and going at it with these people and leaving them mindfudged after I bombard them with all the evidence that clears Michael's name. Apparently I'm wrong for not wanting to hear such things from a fellow "fan". Maybe I'm going crazy and maybr I shouldn't defend the individual who I care so much about, because on places outside of MJJC, thats frowned upon.


There was a lot more to this but I'll end this with Example #3, this was said in response to me stating that Michael let kids sleep in his bed, while he slept on the floor, but didn't sleep in the bed with them. Which I guess I was mistaken about...

In regards to MJ saying he didn't sleep in bed with children, he did admit he did that. He only denies it in relation to the Arvizos.

On Jackson's habit of sharing his bedroom with children:

Bashir: "When you are talking about children we met Gavin - and it was agreat privilege to meet Gavin because he's had a lot of suffering in his life- when Gavin was there he talked about the fact that he shares your bedroom?"Jackson: "Yes."Bashir: "Can you understand why people would worry about that?"

Jackson: "Because they are ignorant."

Bashir: "But is it really appropriate for a 44-year-old man to share abedroom with a child that is not related to him at all?"

Jackson: "That's a beautiful thing."

Bashir: "That's not a worrying thing?"

Jackson: "Why should that be worrying, what's the criminal...who's Jack theRipper in the room? There's some guy trying to heal a healing child ... I'min a sleeping bag on the floor."I gave him the bed because he has a brother named Star, so him and Star tookthe bed and I went along on the sleeping bag ?"

Bashir: "Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?"

Jackson: "No. But I have slept in a bed with many children."I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little: KieranCulkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, hissisters in there...we all would just jam in the bed, you know."

Now of course me, in all my caped crusader mode, in a direct quote of that post, I added Macaulay Culkin's testimony, in which he states how it was never intentional and how he'd just pass out in Michael's bed, how he was always fully clothed, how Michaels door was never shut or locked and how his parents was always aware of his whereabouts. After doing so, I was basically asked why I did that, as the person couldn't understand why I posted that in response to that Bashit exerpt.


I then said, because whether its intentional or not, a post like that gives Michael's accusers the benefit of the doubt when you don't include the full story. I basically said some MJ noob comes across that Bashit exerpt, which didn't include Mac's testimony until I added it, and this person thinks "wow, Michael really was a creep" and goes spread the word. Apparently I'm supposed to use my internet powers to keep that from occurring, in the words of Michael, "We've already had enough". We don't need anymore people going around saying false things about Michael without knowing all the facts. And apparently I'm in the wrong for doing what I can to keep that from happening. Now I'm beginning to second guess myself and shouldn't speak up and point out these inaccuracies and half truths. Now for the last time, I ask, Am I wrong for doing all this or what?

 

[HIStory]

It's pretty sad that people who call themselves "fans" can remain so ignorant about the allegations. No, Jordan's description did not match. I know decades long media propaganda by Sneddon can do a number on people, but at least if you are a fan you should not fall for it and do your research before you talk BS. Because it was NOT a match. But that board was always famous for "fans" who think they are "keeping it real" when they think the worst of MJ. And you are right, if I thought MJ was a pedo there was no way I could enjoy his music, so that these people can say they think he abused children and turn around and say "but, hey Billie Jean is a great song, so who cares, I'm still a fan" are actually very creepy to me.

Apparently I was wrong for questioning this as well because I was then told I felt too strongly about this and that I should accept a "fans" differing opinion.

And that's always the easy cop out for these people. They usually know very little about the details of the allegations, they have some superficial info and they think they can base their judgement on that. And then when they get called out on their incorrect assumptions they will all start this crap about how they have the right to their opinion. Yeah, you have your right to have any opinion, but don't you want to get informed before you form an opinion? Don't you want the full facts before you form an opinion? Apparently some don't, which is a very ignorant attitude.

And they just called MJ a pedophile and then they criticize other fans for "feeling too strongly about it"? Apparently they have the right to form slanderous judgements such as "MJ abused children" but others are not allowed to call them out on it?

I then said, because whether its intentional or not, a post like that gives Michael's accusers the benefit of the doubt when you don't include the full story.

Yes, that's the problem. People always go on and on about what MJ said about sharing bed as if that is the alpha and the omega of these cases and as if one does not have to know anything else about these cases to judge whether he was guilty or innocent. Somewhat "acceptable" from someone who is not a fan and who simply does not care about MJ enough to do a deeper research about these cases. But a fan should know better than this.

These people who say BS like Jordan's description was a match are totally ignorant about things like the allegations.

 

[HIStory]

ETA: I have looked up that thread. So the person basically bases his opinion that it was a match on that Sneddon said so. Since when is Sneddon an unbiased source on MJ? And just because he wanted to introduce the description to court it does not mean it was a match.

1) If it was, why did he try to introduce it only at the very end (one week before the trial ended)? If it was such a bombshell evidence against MJ it should have been the first he tried to bring in during the "prior bad acts" section of the trial. Instead he only tried to bring it in at the very end, after both the Arvizo case and his "his prior bad acts" case crumbled. Before he even tried to bring in the description he brought in proven crooks and totally non-credible people like Ralph Chacon and Adrian McManus. That about tells us about the "strength" of this supposed bombshell evidence.
That he tried to bring it in at the end made it very unlikely in the first place that the Judge would allow it in and indeed he didn't. Sneddon knew it was unlikely it would be allowed in. It was just show for the public IMO.

2) Sneddon's motions were often highly deceptive and just because he introduced an evidence or witness it does not mean it then ended up to prove what he claimed they would prove. In fact, often his own witnesses ended up to prove the total opposite of what Sneddon claimed in his motions they would prove. It would not have been any different with this desctription. If it had been introduced it would not have proven MJ's guilt but it would have at least humiliated him even further by putting pictures of his private parts on public display. To Sneddon this would have been the second best thing if he could not have got a conviction.

3) By now we know for a fact that Jordan said MJ was circumcised and he wasn't. Sneddon's motion is mum about the circumcision issue. Not surprising. In fact, it only mentions one mark, that is (according to Sneddon's own assesment at least) is "about" and "relatively" on the same location as a mark on MJ's penis. It doesn't mention any other feature or mark. Is that because of all the blemishes and marks and of course whether the penis was circumcised, Sneddon could only find one mark that was "matching" and even that only as "relatively"? It seems to me. Simply because he was desperate to determine something as a "match".

The Chandlers only had to know that MJ had vitiligo to assume that some kind of blemishes were probably on his penis. Moreover in Ray Chandler's book there is a description of an event on May 28, 1993 when Evan drugged-up MJ and injected him in the gluetus. So Evan had first hand knowledge about how MJ's butt looked like! And look at this conversation in their book from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman and Evan Chandler:

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

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

“No, that’s good for us!”

‘Why?”

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

”Ha!”

“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”

“That’s very good.”

“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]

(* The Lauren Weis, who is claimed to have told Larry Feldman that anything Jordan says about the blemishes is irrelevant because they are subject to changes, is the same Lauren Weis to whom Jordan gave his original description in September. She was the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney at the time. In All That Glitters she is also described as a good friend of Richard Hirsch, the attorney who represented Evan Chandler against the extortion charges filed by Jackson [9; page 165].)

In the chapter entitled “December 14” Ray Chandler writes:

“Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael’s penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael’s defense. And the poor beast was already swayback.

On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry’s case was solid as a rock and he didn’t need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.”[9; page 206]

As you can see, the Chandlers cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to change and they were preparing excuses for themselves to explain why their description did not match the photographs. However, both the Chandlers and Sneddon failed to acknowledge that if vitiligo markings were subject to change then they are inadequate to prove MJ’s guilt, especially considering the fact the Chandlers got the circumcision issue completely wrong.

It seems that Sneddon, like the Chandlers, tried to have it both ways: if there was something in that drawing that remotely guessed a location of a marking right (at least according to Sneddon’s own assessment) it would have been used against MJ, while everything else that was not a match would have been ignored and/or explained away by the fact that vitiligo markings were subject to change. As Larry Feldman put it: “It’s a no-loser for us”.

And if it was a match then why did investigators look for information from Katherine before the Grand Jury in 1994 about whether MJ changed the appearance of his genitalia? On March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote:

“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.”

If it was a match why wasn't MJ arrested? Heck, why wasn't he even indicted by two Grand Juries?

Just because Sneddon claims something in the media it doesn't mean it is a fact. Sneddon was very manipulative and lied a lot both in interviews and his motions.

 

[Member Service]

Please do not be calling out or discussing other fans boards by name on MJJC. You can bring repercussion toward our board by doing that. Just as we don't want to be defined or bashed over some of our members off the wall comments or opinions. Let's keep the discussion anonymous.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Thanks Respect. I hadn't been aware of the Lauren Weiss portion before. Just goes to show how Sneddon & Co. really had it out for Michael.

 

[HIStory]

Thanks Respect. I hadn't been aware of the Lauren Weiss portion before. Just goes to show how Sneddon & Co. really had it out for Michael.

Yes. Think about it. Deputy DA Lauren Weiss acknowledges that "anything Jordan says is irrelevant" because vitiligo changes. So why did they subject MJ to a humiliating strip search if they knew the results were irrelevant? Just to humiliate him, nothing else! The only relevant thing would be the circumcision thing which they had a 50-50% chance to guess right and they got it wrong. But a 50% chance to guess something right is a pretty big chance, so even if they had guessed it right (which they didn't) it would not have mean anything, so there was no reason to subject MJ to a strip search IMO. According to the Chandler book it was Sneddon who insisted on it and IMO he's a closeted racist and this act is just too reminiscent of how slaves were treated... He just did it to humiliate MJ like a slave IMO.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

No, you're not wrong, but I do think some people are not worth wasting time over because no matter how many times you throw the facts in their face, they refuse to accept it. And those people don't sound like fans to me.

 

[analogue]

I think I know what forum people are talking about here and the people there have no business calling themselves fans. I really do think that they are haters disguising themselves as fans.

I remember someone on there said that Michael looked like a creepy clown on This Is It. What kind of fan would say something like that?! With ''fans'' like that who needs haters

 

[Spyce]

Now I'm beginning to second guess myself and shouldn't speak up and point out these inaccuracies and half truths. Now for the last time, I ask, Am I wrong for doing all this or what?

Don't allow those people to get to you. I can understand the pressure, but don't allow them to change your opinion. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe, whether they agree with it or not.

I do not think you are wrong for wanting to defend Michael. In fact, I think it speaks very highly of your character that you are standing up for him. It's not an easy thing to do as he is still very much a controversial figure. After all this time, people still believe the headlines that being fed to them, so it's easier for people to just believe what they read. Especially since he is no longer here to defend himself. And it's not just about looking at the facts (which is all anyone really needs to do anyway). It's about opening your eyes and really taking a long hard look at Michael's life. He simply was not capable of doing such heinous acts. It is simply not who he was. That statement he made, saying he would slit his wrists before harming a child, that's a pretty powerful thing to say, and I 100000% believe him.

I've gotten the same reaction from people, which is why, as proud of a fan as I am, I'm not too open and honest about my love for Michael and his music- which is a total shame because he should be, and needs to be, celebrated. Not just as an artist, dancer, musician, entertainer or even humanitarian. But as a man. He was an incredible human being. Some people understand, but most do not. Because people still believe the headlines, it makes it very hard for me to openly discuss and share my love for him. Even when I'm at work, I will often times put on a playlist of just Michael's music, and I get worried like.. "What will everyone say? What will they think?". I've had to "hand it" to a couple of my co-workers in the past week who have made comments about him. "I hope he didn't do anything to those boys" and "I was his fan in the 70's, but then he turned into a whacko and I stopped listening to his music."

For effs sake.

 

[analogue]

if I thought MJ was a pedo there was no way I could enjoy his music, so that these people can say they think he abused children and turn around and say "but, hey Billie Jean is a great song, so who cares, I'm still a fan" are actually very creepy to me

I've always said that if Michael was really guilty (which we all know he wasn't) then I would have been done with him and his music a long time ago.

Also I don't defend Michael because I'm a fan. I defend Michael because he is innocent

 

[Spyce]

Also I don't defend Michael because I'm a fan. I defend Michael because he is innocent

Beautifully said

 

[Petrarose]

Respect thanks as always for always giving the best facts on the allegations.

Whoisit Good that you try to deal with these people with facts, since that is the best way. Did you even mention about the circumcision? I mean a circumcised penis is a very graphic image, so if someone is not, you will notice it immediately. You will see that your penis does not look like this man's and it will be a lasting impression. How could Chandler make a mistake about this? The answer is that he never saw Michael's penis in the first place. When I think of all these people that you mention above, it seems they get a kind of pleasure from the idea of Michael being an abuser. They go on and on about it.

I never allow these types to bring me down because the evidence of a positive Michael legacy is always around me from the outside. For instance this past week, I think Thursday, I am on the train at 6:30 in the morning and this man in his 50s is playing ABC on his ipod. He is singing it loudly the way people sing out of tune when they are singing along to their music. The people on the train just glanced at him and smiled. Then during the month of February I went to the bank in the middle and the end of the month and would you believe Christmas songs were playing both times!!! Maybe because we had a crazy February with snow, but the music on was about "winter wonderland" have a good Christmas and even little Michael was on about Christmas and Santa. I stayed in the bank longer both times because I never heard this type of music after December and certainly not in a bank and mainly because Michael was singing both times. So these unexpected Michael incidents bring pleasure in spite of the fools out there who enjoy fake child abuse stories. However, we will continue to try to educate them while knowing that some of them do not want to be enlightened and will never be. We simply leave those and move on because others will welcome some knowledge.

I applaud you for having the courage to do this, because not everyone can accept persecution and remain strong and continue their good work. We all know that it is not easy being a Michael fan due to not knowing the reception one will get from others. If they see your Michael bag/button or hear you play his music like the fan above, they may bring up the allegations. Some may be curious while others can be very offensive, so sometimes fans are careful with displaying their love for Michael the person and his music. However, negativity and lies should not win in the end, so keep up the good work.

 

[analogue]

The people on that forum are nothing but a bunch of bullies

 

[Victory22]

This is not new stuff. For a long time I have noticed a number so-called MJ fan boards that bash him and fans who dare to defend him. I think these places have a definite agenda to make loyal fans change their positive feelings toward MJ. They mascaraed under the banner of “FANS” who just want to take a look at and examine the man MJ without emotion. They are full of it of course and I no longer spend any time associating with that manipulative sort. They try to pass themselves off as intellectuals but in reality they are nothing but a bunch of sick individuals full of venom with too much time on their hands. I’ve seen them take over a number of MJ fan sites and destroy them with their BS. Don’t get sucked in by them. They love to argue and hear themselves spout trash about MJ and they know exactly what they are doing.

 

[LastTear]

Wow! This is a fan board? I probably shouldn't say this as slightly off topic but it really pisses me off that MJJC gets attacked left right and centre for allowing members to have free opinions regarding the Jackson family and then there are boards carrying on like this example and no blogs are written and no one is attacked on twitter!

 

[jamba]

Re the strip-search. I agree it was a total violation of MJ's civil right and that search warrant never should have been issued by a judge, but MJ was not arrested afterwards b/c it was not a match and the main thing has to do with the vagueness of the splotches and the issue of circumcision. Claiming MJ was circumcised was a safe bet b/c most males are in USA. But he was not, and that threw them a curveball they could not handle. They even tried to suggest that maybe MJ had the foreskin somehow surgically reattached, either in Mexico or in UK while he was in rehab! Now Jordan stated to Dr. Richard Gardener (when he saw him in fall of 93 in NYC) that he had masturbated MJ something like 10 times!! And yet he did not notice he wasn't circumcised??? REALLY??? This PROVES that Jordan was inventing the whole thing. (Gardener's interview with Jordan was printed in Ray Chandler's book All That Glitters).

Re Peter Pan--MJ saw Peter Pan as full of magic and wonder. Peter Pan represented a child's creativity and joy. There is nothing sinister about loving this character. Peter Pan ran away from home when he heard his parents talking about how he would grow up and be a man and have an office job. Sitting in an office was not appealing to the magical child inside Peter Pan, so he ran away. MJ rejected the stultifying world of adults, a world full of cynicism, materialism, and a "been there, done that," "meh" attitude that has no sense of childlike wonder, magic, creativity and curiosity.

People will always say stupid things on the internet--it's a fact of life. Give yourself a pat on the back for trying to get through to them with some information and for defending MJ.

 

[HIStory]

This is not new stuff. For a long time I have noticed a number so-called MJ fan boards that bash him and fans who dare to defend him. I think these places have a definite agenda to make loyal fans change their positive feelings toward MJ. They mascaraed under the banner of “FANS” who just want to take a look at and examine the man MJ without emotion.

I don't think it's an agenda. More like these people have insecurities about being fans of MJ because the media always tries to label MJ fans crazy and because of that these people try to distance themselves from other fans and try to act like believing crap about MJ makes them somehow holier, more balanced, more reasonable etc. than other fans they so look down on. They think it's being "balanced" to accept narratives that the media/Sneddon feed about MJ, when if they really were reasonable and balanced they would look into the matter in-depth and they'd decide based on facts and not what the media claims (which are often two very different things esp. in MJ's case). Then they could see for themselves how wrong those narratives are. And to be fair, I looked into that thread that was mentioned by the OP and it was only one person who said these things, most did say that they believed in MJ's innocence.

 

[HIStory]

Re the strip-search. I agree it was a total violation of MJ's civil right and that search warrant never should have been issued by a judge, but MJ was not arrested afterwards b/c it was not a match and the main thing has to do with the vagueness of the splotches and the issue of circumcision. Claiming MJ was circumcised was a safe bet b/c most males are in USA. But he was not, and that threw them a curveball they could not handle. They even tried to suggest that maybe MJ had the foreskin somehow surgically removed, either in Mexico or in UK while he was in rehab! Now Jordan stated to Dr. Richard Gardener (when he saw him in fall of 93 in NYC) that he had masturbated MJ something like 10 times!! And yet he did not notice he wasn't circumcised??? REALLY??? This PROVES that Jordan was inventing the whole thing. (Gardener's interview with Jordan was printed in Ray Chandler's book All That Glitters).

Yeah, pro-prosecution journalists and haters try to explain away the circumcision issue by saying that an erect uncircumcised penis can look like a circumcised one. They do not seem to realize that this defense goes against everything that the Chandlers claimed. In All That Glitters it is specifically stated that Jordan "had a precise mental picture" of MJ's penis because he had allegedly seen it "from every possible angle". That is the Chandler's story so how are these pro-prosecution people gonna change it when it's convenient? Ridiculous. And yes, the prosecution made up all kind of crazy theories about why it wasn't a match (like looking for info on whether MJ had his foreskin restored), so that gives us another idea that it wasn't a match. And it also shows how desperately they WANTED it to be a match. They weren't after the truth, instead they were looking for ways to twist facts to make them fit into their preconcieved ideas. It was never a fair investigation, the prosecutors decided from the get go that MJ was guilty and if facts did not support that they made up theories to explain away that instead of making a fair conclusion from that - eg. in this case, if the description doesn't match maybe that's because Jordan has never seen MJ's penis.

If Michael was a bit more combative he could have so sued this prosecution for malicious prosecution both in 1993 and in 2005. My firm belief is (and I have seen legal analysts say that too) that MJ's constitutional and civil rights were trampled on on more than one occasion both in 1993 and 2005. One example is exactly the strip search. You need a probable cause for a search warrant and the word of one person without any other evidence is usually not considered a probable cause, so even the house searches were questionable, let alone the strip search, which is a highly humiliating process. I have never heard about a strip search even in other child molestation cases. You will have to have a VERY good reason for something like that and this prosecution just didn't. In fact, Deputy DA Lauren Weiss told the Chandlers that what Jordan said was irrelevant because vitiligo was subject to changes. So if even the prosecution acknowledged it privately then it makes the whole strip search even more abusive and probably in violation of Michael's rigthts. The whole thing was a shameless witch hunt 20th century style and it pisses me off how the media just ignores it.

 

[Spyce]

If Michael was a bit more combative he could have so sued this prosecution for malicious prosecution both in 1993 and in 2005. My firm belief is (and I have seen legal analysts say that too) that MJ's constitutional and civil rights were trampled on on more than one occasion both in 1993 and 2005. One example is exactly the strip search. You need a probable cause for a search warrant and the word of one person without any other evidence is usually not considered a probable cause, so even the house searches were questionable, let alone the strip search, which is a highly humiliating process. I have never heard about a strip search even in other child molestation cases. You will have to have a VERY good reason for something like that and this prosecution just didn't. In fact, Deputy DA Lauren Weiss told the Chandlers that what Jordan said was irrelevant because vitiligo was subject to changes. So if even the prosecution acknowledged it privately then it makes the whole strip search even more abusive and probably in violation of Michael's rigthts. The whole thing was a shameless witch hunt 20th century style and it pisses me off how the media just ignores it.

I really, truly, couldn't agree with you more. I, too, believe that both the strip search and the search at Neverland were orchestrated simply and purely to humiliate him. I found a clip of the interview Michael did on 60 minutes back in 2003. It is Michael's account of what happened to him when he was arrested that leads me to believe this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbTbopSCTck

Who does that? What the hell gives anybody the right to treat a fellow human being in such a manner? I can't even tell you how angry that makes me. My blood is full of p*ss and vinegar just thinking about it.

The only reason, I believe, why they would lock him in the bathroom and taunt him in such a manner would be so they could humiliate him. I can't find any other even semi-rational reason as to why. That being said, I think it's not impossible to believe that other events in his life- both before and after- were orchestrated simply to tear him down. All, I'm sure, in the hopes that he would get so sick and tired of being mistreated that he would relent and confess.

And of course, the comment he makes saying "I wanted the public to know I was okay, even though I was hurting"- was also very heartbreaking. He always remained so strong, at least in the public eye. One thing I have always wanted to ask people though is, what do you expect? All these stories and claims of him being "weird" and "crazy"- let's play devil's advocate for a minute. Let's say he was "crazy". Put yourself in his shoes. What would you have done? How would you have reacted? I, for one, would never ask "Why is he acting like this?". I would ask, "How could you possibly expect him to have any other reaction?".

 

[wendijane]

"Keeps Me from sleeping at night "
tHE BASTARDS.

 

[Spyce]

"Keeps Me from sleeping at night "
tHE BASTARDS.

I know, right? I've read the things people have said about his insomnia, and this pretty much sums up what I've heard/read: "He was a creative individual and his mind was always going going going. You can't shut off that creativity." and "After the shows he would be so pumped full of energy that he couldn't sleep."

While I think both things are partly true, I do not believe that these are the only reasons why he had such a hard time sleeping. I do not know for a fact, but it is my belief that Michael had severe anxiety. And as somebody who has dealt with crippling anxiety for the past 10 years of their life, I can see how this would have affected him both mentally and physically. When you're having an anxiety attack, you can't think. You can't focus. You can't sleep. I have no doubts that between the physical pain and the anxiety, this is why he had issues sleeping and ultimately turned to drugs for relief.

 

[jamba]

I know, right? I've read the things people have said about his insomnia, and this pretty much sums up what I've heard/read: "He was a creative individual and his mind was always going going going. You can't shut off that creativity." and "After the shows he would be so pumped full of energy that he couldn't sleep."

While I think both things are partly true, I do not believe that these are the only reasons why he had such a hard time sleeping. I do not know for a fact, but it is my belief that Michael had severe anxiety. And as somebody who has dealt with crippling anxiety for the past 10 years of their life, I can see how this would have affected him both mentally and physically. When you're having an anxiety attack, you can't think. You can't focus. You can't sleep. I have no doubts that between the physical pain and the anxiety, this is why he had issues sleeping and ultimately turned to drugs for relief.

He had about 500 reasons to have insomnia! Too many.Including being bullied for decades by the media. I agree with you re severe anxiety. The other thing is that the forced search was (according to what MJ told Boteach in Honoring Child Spirit) a replay of what Joe did to him. MJ told SB that Joe would make them strip, oil them, and then whip them. So being forced to be naked in front of prosecutors repeated an original trauma, which made it that much worse.

Re the foreskin issue--I had a partner who was uncircumcised and there is no way in hell that if you masturbate someone who is not circumcised you don't notice the difference. Jordan himself obviously was circumcised. Did he not look at his own equipment? Of course he did.

This kid never saw MJ's penis, let alone masturbated him about 10 times AS HE CLAIMED to Dr. Gardener.

 

[Spyce]

He had about 500 reasons to have insomnia! Too many.Including being bullied for decades by the media. I agree with you re severe anxiety. The other thing is that the forced search was (according to what MJ told Boteach in Honoring Child Spirit) a replay of what Joe did to him. MJ told SB that Joe would make them strip, oil them, and then whip them. So being forced to be naked in front of prosecutors repeated an original trauma, which made it that much worse.

Oh god... I had no idea he would have them do that I hope his kids aren't being raised this way.

 

[qbee]

They are are not being raised like that. They don't even live with Joseph and they are not his children. He isn't allowed to discipline them. That was the past.. They live with Katherine and have TJ Jackson as co guardian. And the court oversees their guardianship. Plus PPB would never allow any abuse like that without speaking out.

 

[Spyce]

They are are not being raised like that. They don't even live with Joseph and they are not his children. He isn't allowed to discipline them. That was the past.. They live with Katherine and have TJ Jackson as co guardian. And the court oversees their guardianship. Plus PPB would never allow any abuse like that without speaking out..

Oh good. I have to be honest, I don't know much about the kids' lives. I don't want to feed into any media frenzy about them. Michael wanted them to live their lives as normally as possible, so I am respectful of that wish and keep my distance. I didn't even know Joe didn't live with them. Are he and Katherine even still married? If they are, why wouldn't he live with them if they live with Katherine? (See, I know nothing, haha ;D)

 

[EilonnaArroway]

Oh good. I have to be honest, I don't know much about the kids' lives. I don't want to feed into any media frenzy about them. Michael wanted them to live their lives as normally as possible, so I am respectful of that wish and keep my distance. I didn't even know Joe didn't live with them. Are he and Katherine even still married? If they are, why wouldn't he live with them if they live with Katherine? (See, I know nothing, haha ;D)

Katherine and Joe are legally still married but have not lived in the same house for quite some time. Joe lives in Vegas last I heard of him.