Footage of Michael Jackson ring shopping with a young boy resurfaces

Nov 7, 2017
502
That's the least I want. I want to be everything crystal clear. That is what I am struggling with. With all these stories.
If they had pointed the camera on them they would need to give a statement. Now people are going back to where Latoya gave these stories about Michael Jackson and then retracted it. It would pressure them. Just like I would that they would pressure them now.
I don't know why no one hasn't got a response of these two.
About the other Jackson I don't agree with you.
No statement from any of the Jacksons would clarify anything. You already have interviews with Latoya from the 80s or 90s making these claims about knowledge of payoffs. I’m not sure what revisiting them will achieve.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
Its arguing in bad faith, pretending you know less about a subject than you do, to stir up discussion. It’s (IMO) claiming a distinction between abuse and molestation, it’s claiming we don’t have all the info when the masses of evidence we have shows a clear pattern of sexual abuse, it’s the “i never said im a fan, but....”
I said that I wouldn't react in the previous thread anymore because it seemed like I can't express myself.
Then I read this thread and again I get suckered in.
I don't know how much I know about this subject. The most I know is by reading the previous thread. Which had conflicting posts. You agree with that I think.
I give my opinion but how do I stir up the discussion? I just give my honest take about it, I can't control how other's react to it. I knew it is not really popular to not just come out and say burn him to the stake. But that doesn't mean I am trolling or such things.
 

saenima

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,848
May I ask you why you call me disingenuous. I was banned three days for disingenuous.
And I don't want to repeat that. So what do you mean by that? It would be great if you could say that. So I can avoid that.
Arguing in bad faith. Which is what you've been doing.

Michael Jackson was accused of grooming and molestation. When people talk about him abusing children that's what they're talking about. You then carry on to say you believe he was abusive (like a drunken father) but don't believe he molested those kids. This has nothing to do with the issue. Either he was abusive (which means he molested those kids) or he wasn't. You're trying to walk a tight rope where you are kind of defending him from the molestation accusation while repeating he's definitely guilty, but of something no one's accusing him of.

You are arguing in bad faith, making disingenuous arguments in order to cast doubt on something that is very simple and straightforward.
 

HanSoloCup

Member
Oct 27, 2017
919
Richmond, VA
I just renewed my HBO subscription for GoT and really have wanted to watch the documentary. After reading so much here and elsewhere, I don't know if I can anymore. Child abuse makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
 

Village

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,908
So, I love Michael Jackson's music. I grew up on it and it was a big part of my life as a kid and teenager. Obviously, there is renewed interest and new (to me, at least) evidence of, at best, inappropriate behavior by Jackson. It's wildly disappointing for me that this is the case, but it's hard to not seriously question what was going on between Jackson and the kids in his life.

I find with other actors, artists, etc., when relatively bad things surface about them, I more or less cut them out of my rotation of music/movies/etc, because I don't want to support that person. In MJ's case, well, he's dead. Listening to his music doesn't provide him any monetary advantage.

So, what do you all personally believe in regards to a "separating art from the artist" approach to a dead artist?
Depends on the severity of the offense, ussually in cases like these or something like overt horrid racism , I kind of cut that person out of my life generally

And if they are dead like MJ, I don't really mind listening to his stuff ( or just using it to sample for music for my own listening tbh ) because , me doing that only provides money for his kids I think?. And none of of them seem awful so... cool. I just keep in mind that MJ is not a good dude and don't glorify him anymore outside of " He did some good music " .
 

xxracerxx

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
17,085
I just renewed my HBO subscription for GoT and really have wanted to watch the documentary. After reading so much here and elsewhere, I don't know if I can anymore. Child abuse makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
The first part is really, really hard to watch. The second part is a little easier.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
This just feels like you won't believe anything unless you personally were in the room when anything happened.
Maybe I am weird and just naive and to biased, like I already said.
Really I am honest that I can't follow all these posts and stories anymore (I mean the conflicting posts in the previous thread are they true or not).
I don't know anymore.
 

Soda

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,609
Dunedin, New Zealand
And if they are dead like MJ, I don't really mind listening to his stuff ( or just using it to sample for music for my own listening tbh ) because , me doing that only provides money for his kids I think?. And none of of them seem awful so... cool. I just keep in mind that MJ is not a good dude and don't glorify him anymore outside of " He did some good music " .
Yeah, this is basically exactly where I'm at.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
Arguing in bad faith. Which is what you've been doing.

Michael Jackson was accused of grooming and molestation. When people talk about him abusing children that's what they're talking about. You then carry on to say you believe he was abusive (like a drunken father) but don't believe he molested those kids. This has nothing to do with the issue. Either he was abusive (which means he molested those kids) or he wasn't. You're trying to walk a tight rope where you are kind of defending him from the molestation accusation while repeating he's definitely guilty, but of something no one's accusing him of.

You are arguing in bad faith, making disingenuous arguments in order to cast doubt on something that is very simple and straightforward.
That is just plain wrong. You have many many posts where they say even if Michael Jackson wouldn't have molested them sexually that he still abused those children. It has been stated many times. I don't know if you read my post what I mean by him being guilty in the leaving neverland thread. That was clear on my part.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,477
He did that shit, there’s no question in my mind. But why did the director feel the need to set Mike’s grave on fire 10 years later?
Firstly. If you watch the second part of the documentary, you wouldn't be asking that.
Secondly. Interesting use of language there.
If you own a place called "neverland ranch" you are automatically a pedophile. Period.
Fucking DED. You're so right.
I remember in the documentary thread the defenders were calling Jimmy's ring story a "hoax" that had been "repeated multiple times before."

Now we have video proof of MJ buying a ring with him.

And they still don't stop.
It's just a friendship ring, Jett. That's just ignorance, you being ignorant, stop being ignorant.
That is why they should have made another documentary before this one. Maybe a longer one. And lay out the case one for one.
Because by now I sure can't follow anymore.
Some say that he paid millions so he is guilty. The other side says that he paid but that it meant a whole different thing.
Then you hear this story about Jordan Chandler, then you hear all the contra stories.
There are now so much stories going round that I don't know what is fact and fiction anymore.
And this would have been a great opportunity to set the record straight.
Let both sides show their story. Let every record show.
There is just to much now that my head is spinning from all the stories that are going round.
You don't actually know what a documentary is, do you.
 
Nov 7, 2017
502
That is just plain wrong. You have many many posts where they say even if Michael Jackson wouldn't have molested them sexually that he still abused those children. It has been stated many times. I don't know if you read my post what I mean by him being guilty in the leaving neverland thread. That was clear on my part.
No one is accusing him of that, though - the documentary directly accuses him of sexual molestation and you’re acting like he’s not guilty of it for some reason. But that he ‘abused’ those kids even if not sexually (what?) THAT is being disingenuous because you’re pretending you don’t have a bias. From what we know, he molested those kids.
 

Krejlooc

Indie Game Dev
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
18,556
No one is accusing him of that, though - the documentary directly accuses him of sexual molestation and you’re acting like he’s not guilty of it for some reason. But that he ‘abused’ those kids even if not sexually (what?) THAT is being disingenuous because you’re pretending you don’t have a bias. From what we know, he molested those kids.
The poster is basically drawing a line at penetration, so to speak. He doesn't seem to get that the non-sexual abuse being described is a component of sexual molestation. If the line is at explicit sex, then he doesn't get any of this, at all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,043
Nor did I say I did however coming into an MJ thread and bemoaning about how certain topics aren't allowed to be talked about here (while we currently talk about them) is pretty fucking hilarious and quite suspect. But I'm glad you popped in here with this contribution.
Fair enough. Just feels to me that a reoccurring theme on Era is posters jumping on those who refuse to vehemently condemn things in the harshest manner possible. It's just not the way I operate and I think it's a little offensive for others to assume or accuse others of supporting child molestation, pedophilia etc. if they don't denounce the allegations and evidence supporting something in a certain manner.

Perhaps people would know your opinion if you were to offer it in a thread about said topic instead of making snarky hivemind comments that add literally nothing to a discussion except the chance to derail it.
I think that Michael Jackson led a very troubled life. I think that his upbringing stunted him mentally and emotionally and he gravitated towards unhealthy obsessions as a way to cope for the things he lacked in his own childhood. While perhaps well intentioned and meaning to begin with, that line was obviously significantly crossed and became something that can't be defended.

I believe that the allegations against him are mostly true and that his behavior towards underage minors was not only wrong and reprehensible but that it was something that should have never been allowed to persist as long as it did by those around him. While all my sympathy goes towards those who suffered the emotional and physical abuse at his hands, the tragedy of Michael's life is also sad as well. To see someone with all the talent and success in the world tragically crash repeatedly throughout his adult life is and was such a waste. I separate the man from his music and can condemn one while still being able to appreciate the medium of entertainment he provided to the world through his talent.

Look above.
 

tatsu123

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
To those defending, please do some soul searching. Those going HAM on his defenders, realize that it’s hard. Guy was an icon, and mad galaxy level music. MJ IS CULTURE. But Me, I don’t give a fuck. Deleted that nigga off my iTunes when I heard a documentary was coming out. So about 2 months ago. I didn’t really watch (“skimmed”) it, but what I heard disgusted me. Fuck that guy. A woman tampered with me as a very young child (3 - 8 or so). I hope that bitch dies and I’m now glad that kid-touching piece of shit is dead.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
No one is accusing him of that, though - the documentary directly accuses him of sexual molestation and you’re acting like he’s not guilty of it for some reason. But that he ‘abused’ those kids even if not sexually (what?) THAT is being disingenuous because you’re pretending you don’t have a bias. From what we know, he molested those kids.
Yeah in my mind he abused all these kids by sleeping with them. And he needed to be penalized for it.And many agree with me. Because I have seen many posts showing that in the original thread.
Is no one getting what I am saying? Is it so wrong to call for all the information and also to know the whole story, all the facts pro and contra. To me that isn't a weird concept.
So that I can make a better judgement and also know the whole story. From the previous trial to all the other accusations.
 

KunaiDrilla

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,514
Harlem, NYC
No idea how people can defend any of this. Especially with everything shown in the doc. This is just not words without any merit. There is massive proof in that doc. Looking back at the Martin Bashir special it is disturbing as hell of him defending his practice of having little boys sleep in his bed. Especially when he has a kid who survived cancer lean on his shoulder while he says that to Bashir. And then there's the maid in that 60 minutes interview that gives more insight. They went after her hard(and others)She got into financial trouble for speaking about it and she was like fuck it. Props to her and the victims.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
I've seen the "those books were legal and available to the public" excuse but how the hell didn't the prosecution charge him with those photographs? That seems like a slam dunk posession case.
Yeah that is a great question. That's why I want the whole story to come out.
Why was sleeping with kids not enough, etc...
Surely we can't be the only that want to know all these answers?
 

Firmus_Anguis

Member
Oct 30, 2017
397
As a huge MJ fan growing up, listening to Wade talking about meeting him for the first time... Who the fuck didn't want to be friends with fucking Michael Jackson as a kid growing up in the 90's?! I absolutely buy it... I think it's very likely any fan as big as Wade was/is would lie for him, especially at that young an age... And James, oh boy. Poor guy...

As much of a fan as I've been of MJ's, I think this is it. I can learn to live without the music (don't think I could listen without thinking about Wade and James) and without doing the moonwalk (yup, even learned that as a kid...).

My mind still can't really process him doing all of these horrible things. And it sucks that we might never know for sure, BUT it shouldn't be about the fans or your personal attachment/nostalgia, or whether even if he was guilty or not, IMHO. It's about these two men trying to help people speak out against their abusers and ultimately try to learn to heal.

That's what I take from all of this.
 

Krejlooc

Indie Game Dev
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
18,556
I've seen the "those books were legal and available to the public" excuse but how the hell didn't the prosecution charge him with those photographs? That seems like a slam dunk posession case.
because it never went to trial. He settled in 1993, the victim refused to press charges after they settled.
 

BlackFyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,141
For someone who has no interest sexually with children, and brings children to bed to simply sleep with them and nothing more?

Why would he have a crazy amount of porn and pictures of naked children.

Do you have that in your house? Why and how can someone use logic to defend This?
 

Kasey

Member
Nov 1, 2017
4,687
Boise
I've seen the "those books were legal and available to the public" excuse but how the hell didn't the prosecution charge him with those photographs? That seems like a slam dunk posession case.
I think laws pertaining to what constitutes child porn were different then. I remember seeing stuff about 10 years ago about websites that offered pictures of “child models” in bathing suits that skirted laws because the children weren’t nude and eventually became illegal because they obviously were sexualizing children and were therefore porn.

I think if Michael were caught with those books today he would be put away. I mean it’s photos of naked kids compiled and edited by convicted child abusers.
 
Micheal's close friends and family were enabling as fuck. I don't care whether you think he raped those kids or not, somebody close to him at some point should've sat his ass down and told him that the way he was interacting with these kids all the time was looking weird to everybody and he needed to change course if he wanted people to think he was legit. But instead they just came up with excuses. "oh he's just eccentric." "he never had a childhood." Nobody showed any sort of concern.
 
Nov 7, 2017
502
Yeah in my mind he abused all these kids by sleeping with them. And he needed to be penalized for it.And many agree with me. Because I have seen many posts showing that in the original thread.
Is no one getting what I am saying? Is it so wrong to call for all the information and also to know the whole story, all the facts pro and contra. To me that isn't a weird concept.
So that I can make a better judgement and also know the whole story. From the previous trial to all the other accusations.
This is why you’re disingenuous - you say you’re not defending him, but you are. You’re saying he’s not guilty of what he’s been accused of by multiple people. Why? Then you want comment from Janet and Latoya and his niece for some reason. People see through your arguments - you’re ignoring the stories of multiple people claiming he did exactly that - molest them. The jacksons will not provide you with the full story you are asking for - all the info showing his guilt is staring you in the face.
 

Jarate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,150
Hey guys, I'm very confused about all the info out there, there's mountains of circumstantial evidence that showed MJ abused people, but there's also this Twitter named "MJloverxxx" who told me that the children were lying because they were aries. idk who to believe 😭
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,958
USA
Grooming means establishing a relationship with a child and or their family for the expressed purpose of sexually abusing them. That's the definition of grooming. As I've stated I don't deny that MJ established a relationship with the child and or their family, that's an objective fact that all sides have admitted to. However it's not an objective fact that he sexually abused these kids, it's opinion people have. And it's a very reasonable opinion. One I probably slightly lean towards. But it's not a fact. If it were a fact then MJ would have been imprisoned and or his estate would currently be bankrupt from the lawsuits these individuals have brought against it. So saying he "groomed" kids is not a "fact" like you stated.

As for the second point about the comment you bolded. I meant sexual abuse. I thought that was obvious but I'll accept it was poor wording on my part for not make that extremely clear. I say I thought it was obvious since I don't think a single child has simply accused MJ of just "abusing" them outside sexually. Has a child ever come forward and said "MJ didn't sexually abuse me but he did abuse me in other ways"? I've personally never heard anything to that effect but maybe you you enlighten me if you have. The discussion about MJ and "abuse" has always at least included if not only focused on the sexual aspect. But I never ever defended his sleeping with kids as you previously stated I did. That was an outright lie and you've quoted nothing here that states I said it was OK for him to sleep with kids.

So yes you did starman both of your points against me and the fact you can't see that shows you don't want to have a good faith discussion. And no doubt even after I've totally clarified my points here again you'll still resort to strawmaning. I hope you prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
You seem to be conflating "grooming" with "proof that he sexually abused children". You do realize you can groom without ever committing sexual assault right? It's about intent.

So, let me ask you then. Do you think a grown man, who admitted to sleeping alone with strange children didn't have a sexual motivation in doing so? Show me one, single case of a man who develops inappropriate relationships with children and sleeps, in the same bed with them, alone (after convincing the parents to provide access to their children via gifts and persuasion), without any sexual intent (someone who was already proven to be in possession of sexually explicit and nude child images). I'll wait.

Let's look up an extended description of grooming:
To establish a good relationship with a child and the child's family, child groomers might do several things: They might try to gain the child's or parents' trust by befriending them, with the goal of easy access to the child.[7][8][9] A trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations.[7] Child groomers might look for opportunities to have time alone with the child, which can be done by offering to babysit; the groomers may also

invite the child for sleepovers, for opportunistic bed sharing
So you're really gunna sit there and tell me this isn't black and white grooming? He admitted to doing this exact act on camera. The above description describes what MJ did, exactly, without having any proof that he actually committed illegal sexual acts.

Now, to your accusation that I lied about what you said. Your claim:
But I never ever defended his sleeping with kids as you previously stated I did. That was an outright lie and you've quoted nothing here that states I said it was OK for him to sleep with kids.
Your post in question:
As others kids have stated they slept with MJ and state he never sexually abused them, so it's clear that MJ sleeping with kids it's not a slam dunk for him abusing them
This is absolutely a defense of MJ sleeping with children. You're excusing it as not being clear abuse when it is. Full stop.

So, if you wanna amend this to "he abused children, but it's not proven that he sexually abused them", I'll wait.
 
Nov 7, 2017
502
Hey guys, I'm very confused about all the info out there, there's mountains of circumstantial evidence that showed MJ abused people, but there's also this Twitter named "MJloverxxx" who told me that the children were lying because they were aries. idk who to believe 😭
Who cares, Wade Robson dated someone when he was 9. Your move.
 

Shy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,477
You know i'm really getting tired of people trying to minimise the child abuse that MJ caused (even setting aside the sexual allegations) By saying "well, it wasn't sexual abuse. So whatevs" You people really are just a complete and total bunch of disgusting cunts.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,958
USA
I believe MJ's action to be despicable, especially now that we're learning about more stuff in this documentary, but believing a child and an adult can't be friends without any other kind of interest from the adult is a very sad thought.
Question, if you asked an adult who their friends are and they named one or more 7-12 year olds, would you find that problematic?

There's an imbalance in power dynamics between children and adults. I don't think it's appropriate to not distinguish between their children friends and adult relationships. That doesn't mean you cannot be friendly as mentor, teacher, counselor, etc, but not understanding the difference allows for abuse.
 
Nov 7, 2017
502
Question, if you asked an adult who their friends are and they named one or more 7-12 year olds, would you find that problematic?

There's an imbalance in power dynamics between children and adults. I don't think it's appropriate to not distinguish between their children friends and adult relationships. That doesn't mean you cannot be friendly as mentor, teacher, counselor, etc, but not understanding the difference allows for abuse.
The fact he slept with them in his bed with that age gap is so brazen, bizarre, so indefensible that I cant actually believe people try and explain it with a clear conscience. That’s before all the piles of stuff pointing to him sexually abusing these kids.
 

HardRojo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,215
Question, if you asked an adult who their friends are and they named one or more 7-12 year olds, would you find that problematic?
If they named 4 or more I'd definitely find that problematic, one or two would be fine in my opinion and even then it shouldn't be such a common occurrence, I'm just saying that it's possible. I hung around girls and guys 18-23 when I was like 10-14 because they were in the neighborhood and we'd get together sometimes for games and chatting.
With that said, MJ's case is different because there was a way bigger age gap, now that's very problematic and the power imbalance is sure to be at play.

Completely agreed on being a tutor or role figure being a much better fit in this case.

The fact he slept with them in his bed with that age gap is so brazen, bizarre, so indefensible that I cant actually believe people try and explain it with a clear conscience. That’s before all the piles of stuff pointing to him sexually abusing these kids.
I'm not fucking defending MJ at all, read my other posts if you need to. And yeah, someone assuming I'm defending him when I've tried to be as clear as I could makes me mad.
 

BlackFyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,141
Question, if you asked an adult who their friends are and they named one or more 7-12 year olds, would you find that problematic?

There's an imbalance in power dynamics between children and adults. I don't think it's appropriate to not distinguish between their children friends and adult relationships. That doesn't mean you cannot be friendly as mentor, teacher, counselor, etc, but not understanding the difference allows for abuse.
Exactly. Who else do you know that walks around in public holding hands of young boys who are not related to them.

What kind of adult talks to a child for 7 hours on the phone?

Fact is this is wrong. He knew it was wrong and still did it because he's Michael Fucking Jackson and his lawyers would take care of the rest.

He had a type - young, white/light skinned boys.

If he loved to entertain children, where a
we're the girls or other boys of color at Neverland?
 

NarohDethan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,469
If they named 4 or more I'd definitely find that problematic, one or two would be fine in my opinion and even then it shouldn't be such a common occurrence, I'm just saying that it's possible. I hung around girls and guys 18-23 when I was like 10-14 because they were in the neighborhood and we'd get together sometimes for games and chatting.
With that said, MJ's case is different because there was a way bigger age gap, now that's very problematic and the power imbalance is sure to be at play.
Plus, your acquaintances weren't filthy rich I pressume.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,958
USA
If they named 4 or more I'd definitely find that problematic, one or two would be fine in my opinion and even then it shouldn't be such a common occurrence, I'm just saying that it's possible. I hung around girls and guys 18-23 when I was like 10-14 because they were in the neighborhood and we'd get together sometimes for games and chatting.
With that said, MJ's case is different because there was a way bigger age gap, now that's very problematic and the power imbalance is sure to be at play.
I don't think we should quantify a grown adult saying "yeah, I'm friends with this 7-12 year old child". That is just wrong and an inappropriate relationship. It's also how a ton of sexual abuse happens.
 

BlackFyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,141
If they named 4 or more I'd definitely find that problematic, one or two would be fine in my opinion and even then it shouldn't be such a common occurrence, I'm just saying that it's possible. I hung around girls and guys 18-23 when I was like 10-14 because they were in the neighborhood and we'd get together sometimes for games and chatting.
With that said, MJ's case is different because there was a way bigger age gap, now that's very problematic and the power imbalance is sure to be at play.

Completely agreed on being a tutor or role figure being a much better fit in this case.
Did you hold hands with these said 18-23 year olds at 14?

Probably not.
 

Bliman

User Requested Ban
Banned
Jan 21, 2019
1,443
because it never went to trial. He settled in 1993, the victim refused to press charges after they settled.
Say that is to me very relevant information.
And why couldn't they use that information in 2005? Or why was the sleeping with children not damning?
You got to agree that not everybody knows these things. I find it all very relevant.
 

Deleted member 5549

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,198
Yeah in my mind he abused all these kids by sleeping with them. And he needed to be penalized for it.And many agree with me. Because I have seen many posts showing that in the original thread.
Is no one getting what I am saying? Is it so wrong to call for all the information and also to know the whole story, all the facts pro and contra. To me that isn't a weird concept.
So that I can make a better judgement and also know the whole story. From the previous trial to all the other accusations.
do you or do you not think michael jackson is a pedophile?
 

BlackFyre

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,141
Don't think so, no, as I said it was mostly playing games in the neighborhood. Cell phones and social networks weren't a thing back then.
Social Network also wasn't a thing back in 93 during when most of this stuff happened with Jackson.

He was "adult" enough to screw Paul McCartney out of the Beatles songs, yet too innocent to understand that holding hands with children was wrong? Lol .