Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Whitneyskates, May 8, 2013.
This is bizarre!
I have always wanted to believe in Michael Jackson's innocence; but the things he did that we know about (sleeping and probably showering with young boys, traveling with young boys, befriending young boys) and that crazy, weird interview he did pleading his case (forget the year) were just downright inappropriate and wrong. And why was he able to do those things? Because of his position, power, money, fame, and the stupidity/greed of the parents who allowed their children to be put in those situations.
I still argue with myself over this issue and Jackson's guilt vs. innocence, but no argument explains Jackson's bizarre and inappropriate behavior.
Wade Robson interview on the Today show available here.
So it wasn't repressed memories at all, just that he claims he didn't realize it was sexual abuse until now? How is that possible? He testified, under oath, that Michael never touched him, kissed him, etc. Repressed memories could explain that but he says he never forgot. This just got even harder to believe.
Here's the thing: the Jackson family is suing AEG (producers for MJ's last show that never took place) for wrongful death. The trial in that case has just started about the day before these allegations became public. The case is about whether AEG was the employer of Dr Murray (the dr convicted of manslaughter because of MJ's death) and thus bear some responsibility for what happened. There is an argument about whether Murray was an employee for AEG, because although there have been several email exchanges between them about basically agreeing to the contract terms (including that AEG will pay his salary) and he was already working with AEG's knowledge, the final contract was never signed by AEG (because it was finalized literally the day before MJ's death). AEG are saying that Murray was MJ's personal doctor hired at his request and they have nothing to do with him. The family argues that AEG hired and him so he should have been checked out and supervised more properly. There is a lot of potentially embarassing testimony for AEG, basically about MJ having some problems and not being ready to perform, some of the people on the production team trying to get help for him but being ignored, and some evidence that AEG wanted Murray reminded about who's paying his salary and to get MJ to perform no matter what. There's a lot more detail of course but that is about the gist of it.
Of course it is not clear how much AEG knew about what was going on or how much they should have known, so the lawsuit could go either way. But in any case, it's potentially embarassing for AEG.
Except that most people are not even aware that this is going on, because everyone is talking about the new allegations against MJ...
Michael Jackson 'paid $38m hush money to boys'
This article is by "a staff reporter" so how seriously should anyone take it? MJ is dead so he can't defend himself. And if the FBI knew about 24 boys why didn't they do something about it after the first couple of boys? I think there's something sickening about someone making up writing all these details & then hiding behind an anonymous signature. I guess it's possible that it could be true but I find it very unlikely. And I think all of us should refrain from passing on unsubstantuated gossip.
Yes, because there have been absolutely no examples in recent history of large institutions ignoring child abuse perpetrated by powerful men.
The reporter's name is at the bottom of the story, and the linked stories from the two UK papers both have reporters' bylines on them.
The stories in the UK papers also give the names of the MJ staffers who were interviewed, and one has a verbatim transcript of what they said in the interviews. There's not a lot of anonymity there. I can't help but think that with that amount of detail, the stories would have been pretty thoroughly reviewed by lawyers before they were published.
I don't see the comparison here, I assume you are referring to the Catholic Church. The FBI has nothing to fear from Michael Jackson. Jackson has no power over an entity such as the FBI. Not to mention, Jackson didn't seem to even have much wealth when he died.
If it is true, I do wonder why the FBI would not come forward with the information. That seems so irresponsible but I don't know all the details.
Jerry Sandusky at Penn State.
I can't see what the FBI had to gain from hiding such a thing nor do I see what the FBI had to lose if Michael Jackson was exposed.
Jackson's Aussie accuser gets trial date
Is there any evidence? I'm not sure how this can possibly end in Robson's favour.
Separate names with a comma.