Latest on MJJC

[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

SmoothCriminal1984 said:
Because shes a hater
Click to expand...
you cant even remember history or basic facts every fans knows. depression does not make you have dementia

Glanni said:
then why would you even post those links here??? *facepalm*
Click to expand...
so people are up to date with the medias rhetoric. dont hit yourself too hard, you might get a concussion little guy

article so people dont have to click

With last week’s release of Michael, anything related to the King of Pop have become a hot-button issue across newswires. Everyone is getting a word in on Michael Jackson, and Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed had some damning comparisons to make between one of the most famous entertainers of all time and our current zeitgeist’s most prominent sex offender. In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Reed said that “a lot of people, I think, will kind of swallow any misgivings they may have and just sort of say, ‘Oh well, it’s a great jukebox movie,’” completely ignoring what he described as behavior “worse than Jeffrey Epstein.” In the Epstein files released by the Department of Justice in December 2025, Jackson is pictured with the American financier and sex offender, alongside Diana Ross and Bill Clinton.


Michael just shattered the opening-weekend box-office record for biopics, grossing $97 million in the U.S. and $217 million worldwide. It seems that audiences may be experiencing a kind of mass cognitive dissonance in the name of nostalgia bait. At this rate, Michael will likely be one of 2026’s highest-grossing films across the board. As of this writing, it’s #6 on the yearly box office tally, trailing Wuthering Heights by $24 million. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is in the top spot, having grossed $831 million globally. But Michael’s strong ticket sales don’t remedy the film’s most-dangerous flaw: its handling of the child sexual abuse allegations that brought Michael Jackson under legal fire multiple times in the 1990s and 2000s.


Jackson was acquitted of felony sex abuse charges in 2005, but, following then-13-year-old Jordan Chandler’s allegations in 1994, he reached a $23 million settlement with the Chandler family, ending an ongoing criminal investigation. The Leaving Neverland documentary detailed the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who alleged that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children. Michael’s global popularity suggests that “people don’t care that [Jackson] was a child molester,” Reed continued. “Literally, people just don’t care. None of the allegations in Leaving Neverland have been seriously challenged, right? But there was enough noise online from those simplistic debunking [videos] that people found it easy to give themselves permission to like Michael Jackson’s music again, if they ever stopped liking it.” Reed continued, “I think a lot of people just love his music and turn a deaf ear. And short of having actual video evidence of Michael Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse with a 7-year-old child, I don’t know what would be sufficient to change these people’s minds.”


In a New Yorker feature Michael director Antoine Fuqua appeared to sort the claims that Jackson sexually assaulted children. “Sometimes people do some nasty things for some money,” he said, possibly alluding to Jackson’s accusers. Reed responded to Fuqua’s comments in his Hollywood Reporter interview: “For Antoine Fuqua to accuse people of gold digging is kind of ironic. It seems to me all the people involved in this movie are just making bank. How can you tell an authentic story about Michael Jackson without ever mentioning the fact that he was seriously accused of being a child molester? I just don’t really see it. If anyone’s making money, it’s Michael Jackson’s estate and the people who worked on this biographical picture.”


According to reports, the third act of Michael was originally set to include the molestation accusations made by Chandler. However, a written agreement forbidding the inclusion of Chandler’s story in the biopic was signed by the Jackson family, and the third act was later rewritten to reflect those terms.
Click to expand...
 
Toxic34 said:
I'm sure some of them insist that one such book, with "boy" in the title, was actually Germaine Greer's exploitative book "The Boy," where Greer, promoting, even said, "Every woman of taste is a pederast."

Obviously, Michael never had THIS particular book, but they'll claim otherwise.
Click to expand...
He had the book. The book "The Boy" was discovered by Los Angeles police during a raid on Neverland Ranch in 93. Additionally, the book "Boys Will Be Boys!" was also found in the same cabinet. This one even had a personal inscription written by MJ.

Does that mean he was a sexual abuser? No.
 
MsAshley said:
you cant even remember history or basic facts every fans knows. depression does not make you have dementia


so people are up to date with the medias rhetoric. dont hit yourself too hard, you might get a concussion little guy

article so people dont have to click
Click to expand...
Well i hatevto break it to u depression can mess a brain up so bad
 
alanram said:
He had the book. The book "The Boy" was discovered by Los Angeles police during a raid on Neverland Ranch in 93. Additionally, the book "Boys Will Be Boys!" was also found in the same cabinet. This one even had a personal inscription written by MJ.

Does that mean he was a sexual abuser? No.
Click to expand...
I made a mistake. Greer's sick, voyeuristic book is called "The Beautiful Boy," but many people forget the second word.

en.wikipedia.org

The Beautiful Boy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This book came out in 2003, just before the second Neverland raid. Michael certainly did not have it.
 
bluemoon7 said:
Just came out, have yet to watch ... Who this guy?? 🤨🤨🤨

Click to expand...
He matters because, besides the fact that he recently changed his story to call Michael guilty, he is the boyfriend of Rina Oh, a woman who happens to be one of Epstein's procurers, joined at the hip with Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellan and the other women she personally recruited for that purpose. Oh claims she was not a procurer, she was a victim, and that Virginia Giuffre was a real procurer. In short, DARVO tactics.

Oh is claiming otherwise to make herself credible, and Amen is supporting her, because they're clearly proffering "let her go, and we'll tell you a bigger, BETTER story. We can get you Michael."
 
I should also point out that there are a handful of people who defend Michael but aren't actually doing it because they're sincere; they often do it because they have a history of contrarianism that often tends to go with rape apologia and defending actual pedophiles. I'm not talking about NAMBLA, either. I'm talking about pundits who are supposed to be considered part of polite society.

One is John Ziegler. Besides defending Michael, Ziegler's most onerous and despicable rise to prominence is that he defends Jerry Sandusky, proclaiming that he never raped anyone. He's gone so far as to attack Sandusky's victims and their families. Most notably, he has a hard-on for attacking Aaron Fisher, the young man referred to as "Victim One," to the point of doxxing and stalking him and his mother, and also blaming his mother for everything: "If that really happened, why were you so busy working and being a slut at bars, Dawn?" The worst part is that Ziegler doesn't even actually care whether or not Sandusky is guilty. He does all of this for the sole purpose of absolving Joe Paterno, everything he does is for "JoePa is a hero, and he should be remembered as one." So he'll do anything to get there, even if he doesn't actually believe what he says. Especially in not just claiming Sandusky's innocence, but also that of Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier, that they did nothing to cover up for Sandusky. Ziegler, also rather sadly, has come out in defense of Epstein.

The other notable figure is Michael Tracey (not to be confused with the British-American journalism professor at University of Colorado Boulder of the same name who produced several documentaries about JonBenet Ramsey and was one of the first, and for a while, ONLY people to defend John and Patsy Ramsey), who formerly worked with Vice Media and The Young Turks, but was fired for doing things such as doxxing Lena Dunham. Tracey has currently made his entire identity about Epstein defense, claiming that Epstein was not a pedophile or sex trafficker, that he only ever "got massages from hookers." That every female who was ever in contact was just a prostitute desperate for money, but who turned on him for "sweet, tax-free government settlement money by pretending to be a victim." His main focus is attacking the memory of Virginia Guiffre, calling her a liar, that she recanted regarding Alan Dershowitz, and who constantly stalks and harasses public events where Epstein survivors gather just so he can heckle them. Just recently, he was at a public funeral gathering event for the anniversary of her death, and also went to corner and attack journalist Julie K. Brown (who did the Miami Herald stories in 2018), screaming at her. Jim Acosta had to get involved to separate them, and Tracey screamed that he was ready to get in a street fight with Acosta. In fact, he's been screaming on Twitter the last few days "Meet me outside anytime. I'll be there!" He's also recently started a podcast with former Rolling Stone correspondent Matt Taibbi, who also is claiming "Epstein did nothing wrong."

And these people DARE to get involved defending Michael. It's sickening.
 
Don't know what thread to post this is but does anyone else thinks Elizabeth Taylor seems to be hinting at more than 'just' domestic abuse and childhood fame as a reason that they bonded in this speech.?

Maybe I am projecting stuff here but she acts like she is mentioning something secret and uses the word 'fellow survivor', which makes it seem she means sexual abuse..?

 
hard to say,
Victorious said:
Don't know what thread to post this is but does anyone else thinks Elizabeth Taylor seems to be hinting at more than 'just' domestic abuse and childhood fame as a reason that they bonded in this speech.?

Maybe I am projecting stuff here but she acts like she is mentioning something secret and uses the word 'fellow survivor', which makes it seem she means sexual abuse..?

Click to expand...
hard to say, she referenced their friendship as private, so perhaps that was her reference to "I hope that is ok to talk about." I also feel like her mentioning they are both shy and suffer. That she can understand the pain. I think being in the business they are in, as child stars, there's a loneliness, a lack of a childhood. He seemed to always reference those things so I wouldn't assume sexual abuse... Anyone else have insight?
 
alanram said:
He had the book. The book "The Boy" was discovered by Los Angeles police during a raid on Neverland Ranch in 93. Additionally, the book "Boys Will Be Boys!" was also found in the same cabinet. This one even had a personal inscription written by MJ.

Does that mean he was a sexual abuser? No.
Click to expand...
Speaking of this, were there any other books in the file cabinet? And did MJ have other inscriptions on books?
 
Victorious said:
Don't know what thread to post this is but does anyone else thinks Elizabeth Taylor seems to be hinting at more than 'just' domestic abuse and childhood fame as a reason that they bonded in this speech.?

Maybe I am projecting stuff here but she acts like she is mentioning something secret and uses the word 'fellow survivor', which makes it seem she means sexual abuse..?

Click to expand...
At the time, people didn't know about Joseph's mental and physical abuse, so that is why she felt like she was revealing something that was a secret between them. As far as I'm concerned, some of the things that Joseph did were definitely sexual abuse, like forcing him to strip naked before oiling him down and whipping him with an ironing cord or letting a young child watch strippers night after night. But even outside of that, with everything Joseph did to him, I would say Michael was definitely a survivor whether or not the abuse was sexual, wouldn't you agree?
 
etoile 37 said:
At the time, people didn't know about Joseph's mental and physical abuse, so that is why she felt like she was revealing something that was a secret between them. As far as I'm concerned, some of the things that Joseph did were definitely sexual abuse, like forcing him to strip naked before oiling him down and whipping him with an ironing cord or letting a young child watch strippers night after night. But even outside of that, with everything Joseph did to him, I would say Michael was definitely a survivor whether or not the abuse was sexual, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

"like forcing him to strip naked before oiling him down and whipping him with an ironing cord"

I still groan and have a physical reaction every time I read this / hear about this. It´s one of the most cruel child abuse scenarios I heve ever heard about. To me this is some sadistic, psychopathic sh*t 😡😫
 
Toxic34 said:
I should also point out that there are a handful of people who defend Michael but aren't actually doing it because they're sincere; they often do it because they have a history of contrarianism that often tends to go with rape apologia and defending actual pedophiles. I'm not talking about NAMBLA, either. I'm talking about pundits who are supposed to be considered part of polite society.

One is John Ziegler. Besides defending Michael, Ziegler's most onerous and despicable rise to prominence is that he defends Jerry Sandusky, proclaiming that he never raped anyone. He's gone so far as to attack Sandusky's victims and their families. Most notably, he has a hard-on for attacking Aaron Fisher, the young man referred to as "Victim One," to the point of doxxing and stalking him and his mother, and also blaming his mother for everything: "If that really happened, why were you so busy working and being a slut at bars, Dawn?" The worst part is that Ziegler doesn't even actually care whether or not Sandusky is guilty. He does all of this for the sole purpose of absolving Joe Paterno, everything he does is for "JoePa is a hero, and he should be remembered as one." So he'll do anything to get there, even if he doesn't actually believe what he says. Especially in not just claiming Sandusky's innocence, but also that of Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier, that they did nothing to cover up for Sandusky. Ziegler, also rather sadly, has come out in defense of Epstein.

The other notable figure is Michael Tracey (not to be confused with the British-American journalism professor at University of Colorado Boulder of the same name who produced several documentaries about JonBenet Ramsey and was one of the first, and for a while, ONLY people to defend John and Patsy Ramsey), who formerly worked with Vice Media and The Young Turks, but was fired for doing things such as doxxing Lena Dunham. Tracey has currently made his entire identity about Epstein defense, claiming that Epstein was not a pedophile or sex trafficker, that he only ever "got massages from hookers." That every female who was ever in contact was just a prostitute desperate for money, but who turned on him for "sweet, tax-free government settlement money by pretending to be a victim." His main focus is attacking the memory of Virginia Guiffre, calling her a liar, that she recanted regarding Alan Dershowitz, and who constantly stalks and harasses public events where Epstein survivors gather just so he can heckle them. Just recently, he was at a public funeral gathering event for the anniversary of her death, and also went to corner and attack journalist Julie K. Brown (who did the Miami Herald stories in 2018), screaming at her. Jim Acosta had to get involved to separate them, and Tracey screamed that he was ready to get in a street fight with Acosta. In fact, he's been screaming on Twitter the last few days "Meet me outside anytime. I'll be there!" He's also recently started a podcast with former Rolling Stone correspondent Matt Taibbi, who also is claiming "Epstein did nothing wrong."

And these people DARE to get involved defending Michael. It's sickening.
Click to expand...

Thank you for talking about this because it's so important! Unfortunately not everyone who defends Michael is truly our ally and it can discredit us (and by extension, Michael) to align ourselves with people like this.

It's like when people who think he's guilty quote Victor Gutierrez left right and centre and then wonder why we can't take them seriously.
 
bluemoon7 said:
Absolutely!

"like forcing him to strip naked before oiling him down and whipping him with an ironing cord"

I still groan and have a physical reaction every time I read this / hear about this. It´s one of the most cruel child abuse scenarios I heve ever heard about. To me this is some sadistic, psychopathic sh*t 😡😫
Click to expand...
Wait people saying this bout joe or mike?
 
bluemoon7 said:
Absolutely!

"like forcing him to strip naked before oiling him down and whipping him with an ironing cord"

I still groan and have a physical reaction every time I read this / hear about this. It´s one of the most cruel child abuse scenarios I heve ever heard about. To me this is some sadistic, psychopathic sh*t 😡😫
Click to expand...
Worst of all, there are people who defend Joe Jackson and say it was normal back in the day :(:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top