MovieChat Forums > Michael Jackson Discussion > If you dont think he was a pedophile...

If you dont think he was a pedophile...

posted 4 years ago by ItsAugustAgain (5)
23 replies | jump to latest

then watch the documentary about the maid's perspective on an Australian 60 minutes video.

https://youtu.be/1Yp91zKBGgY

I cant imagine someone thinking he's innocent after watching that. Let's be real, people always believe the news if the people involved in a crime are not well known. If people are famous it changes the story. For example, when a horrible political figure dies the public celebrates. But if an average person dies and its reported then people instantly say how sad because they assume any stranger who dies is a good person. We know how far fans can go. One of the best videos I've seen on the subject.

[–] Adam60z (3767) 4 years ago

Who cares, he's dead. Let him rest in peace.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

It matters because pedophiles are still out there, both public and private people are preying on other people's children.

Discussing how pedophiles behave and what people should be wary of is a good thing in general, as is discussing how someone with money and influence might get away with criminal activities. And it can't do Jackson any harm, because as you point out, he's dead.

[–] Furienna (3345) 4 years ago

Bullshit! You want to hate Michael because you think it's the cool thing to do, despite the fact that he was innocent of these vile allegations and has been dead for eleven years! How pathetic!

If you want to prove to that you care about real victims, target the molesters who are guilty and still are alive!

And as for that maid, that woman is just a bitter liar and thief!

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Heh heh heh…

Funny thing, I didn't accuse Jackson of a damn thing in this post, just talked about the behavior of pedophiles in general. It was YOU that linked pedophilic behavior to Jackson!

Think about that, you silly person.

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 4 years ago

"I cant imagine someone thinking he's innocent after watching that.".....uhhhhhh, that's pretty much an accusation.😂

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Except that you're addressing the wrong person. I didn't say that.

[–] Burk48917 (11365) 4 years ago

Nope, you didn't. My mistake and apologies.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Thank you, I always leave myself wiggle room in my innuendo and implications.

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

Stop being so disingenuous. Your inference wasn't even remotely subtle. It's funny to see how white lbgt affiliates harbor just as much anti black vitrol as the straights. Only marginally better at covering it up.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

If you weren't so irrational on this subject, I wouldn't be so tempted to poke you with sticks.

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

Your hypocrisy , along with your insincerity is quite transparent coming from someone who admittedly bases their opinions on conjecture & innuendo, (rooted in bigotry) irrespective of the facts which have thoroughly vindicated the innocent black icon who you're constantly foaming at the mouth to slander. I'm truly disgusted by the unrestrained, duplicitous, anti black contempt displayed by so many white lbgt affiliates.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

FYI normal human beings deal with each other on the basis of "conjecture and innuendo", because there are rarely any solid facts when dealing with human beings. There's only impression, experience, observation, other people's reports, and conjecture.

Normal human beings do not look at an adult man who takes little boys on public dates, and conclude "I must blindly worship at this man's feet and attempt to shout down all criticism.".

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

"Normal human beings do not look at an adult man who takes little boys on public dates, and conclude "I must blindly worship at this man's feet and attempt to shout down all criticism."

Your perverted interpretation (conjecture) of the man's (innocuous by all reported accounts) hospitality with fans & their children (also fans) is your own burden. What I do imagine is that no normal human being would look favorably on a white man who takes a girl he helped raise as a child, a girl who called him father & grooms her to be his wife, while simultaneously his other daughter reports that he sexually abused her and maintains the accusation (never tainted by seeking money) her entire life and for someone to conclude "Yeah, nothing to see here. I'm not going to critique a white man I worship to the same standard as some uppity negro entertainer I already hate for eclipsing all of my white heroes. All that's perfectly normal and ethical behavior so I will shut down all criticism of said old , step daughter grooming/accused daughter molesting white man director ". Well almost no one besides someone you might know.... it's selective, disingenuous moral outrage.

As I've said before I've seen that you are capable common sense on different topics but on this issue you have enthusiastically embraced (regardless of the facts) an unethical, bigoted propaganda narrative that has always been its core an anti black witch hunt to destroy a black icon who got way too big and successful for the liking of the (white supremacist) status quo.

[–] Furienna (3345) 4 years ago

As if you haven't made it clear what you believe about Michael. Of course you were talking about him!

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

Pretending to believe thoroughly discredited, PROVEN liars like this disgruntled ex employee/ thief just shows how insincere the typical anti Michael Jackson hater is.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 4 years ago

*sigh*. The maid you are talking about is Adrian McManus who claimed during the Chandler investigation Jackson was innocent. She was fired in 1994 for stealing from Jackson. Her and 4 other disgruntled former Jackson employees (known as the Neverland 5) went to sue Jackson for wrongful dismissal, but lost and ended up owing a lot of money both in legal fees and to Jackson. Only then did these people conveniently claim they witnessed abuse. They claim they were too scared to contact police, but have had no problem in feeding the tabloids for the last 25 odd years and getting paid for their constant bullshit. This was all brought out during the 2005 trial btw. The Neverland 5 testified at the 2005 trial, and their claims completely fell apart and their monetary motives and personal grudges against Jackson were exposed.

You mean THAT maid? Yeah, she is REAL credible, lol. Not to mention, she still owes the Jackson estate legal fees today and is still bitter.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3800) 4 years ago

"Adrian McManus"? Lol, sounds like a scottish porn actress.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 4 years ago

Lol. Indeed.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 4 years ago

Here is an excellent breakdown of all the charges against Michael Jackson from the various accusers explaining why they're full of shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxGWZ2tAj4 . It's about 2 hours long. Yes, it's not as 'entertaining' or 'gripping' as LN with the cheesy drone shots/side effects and 'compelling' made-up stories from 2 accusers who have clear financial motives. The video is somewhat dry and matter-of-fact which is why not many people have watched it because people tend to have short attention spans and need to be entertained. But if you really want to get to the bottom of the cases, watch that video. He does an excellent job analyzing each cases and provides sources to back up his claims unlike that ridiculous maid interview in your OP. Watch it in stages if you have to. If you can watch nearly 4 hours of that LN drivel and that disgruntled maid interview, then you can watch this. You owe it to yourself to see the other side.

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

There's also Rageaholic's videos which are very detailed and informative on this subject. There's also Danny Wu's excellent Square One documentary. All free to watch on Youtube. I think Square One is available on Amazon Prime as well.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 4 years ago

Yes, I've seen both. While Rageaholic's videos, the substance is good; however, it may turn off some people due to his unnecessary swearing and he can come across as abrasive. Danny Wu was great too but it only focused on the 1993 case.

The video that I linked above is the best because he summarizes all cases and presents the cases in a well thought-out, well-researched, easy to follow and educated manner. It's the best one I've seen so far discussing all of the Jackson cases. And look at the likes/dislikes ratio of 3K to 118. Pretty impressive.

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 4 years ago

Journalist John Ziegler has done some good interviews and podcasts on the Leaving Neverland farce. He was a guy who went from assuming Michael Jacksons guilt for years to doing a complete 180 after actually researching the facts in the wake of the Neverland fraudumentary. British Journalists Mike Smallcombe and Charles Thompson are well versed in the facts of this case and have given numerous informative interviews and commentary on the subject which can be found on youtube. Smallcombe I believe was the one who blew the lid off of the train station story, exposing it as the lie it was with documented proof.

[–] Eric56 (4580) 4 years ago

Yes, Smallcombe was the one who did indeed blew the lid off that story. However, haters still deny it to this day despite the evidence.

Charles Thompson is great. I follow him and MJJRepository on twitter. They clearly know what they're talking about and have researched the cases for years.

It shall be interesting to see how this HBO lawsuit pans out this year. I believe they already had some delays due to COVID-19.