Leaving Neverland

[athousandclowns]

Thanks for posting that video Umbelina it all came rushing back to me how  that trial turned our little city into a circus.  Grown ass women from Europe  hanging on the fence daily. 

[Kostgard]

37 minutes ago, Calamity Jane said:

 Honestly, if he'd never done anything sexual, all the other stuff was out of the norm enough to qualify as abuse (and it's a pretty big stretch to believe he did nothing sexual in that set-up). 

Yes. EVERYTHING about what he did was unhealthy and inappropriate.

He entered their lives, took them on a strange whirlwind ride of fame and money, discouraged education (at least in James’s case, Wade was probably more focused on dance), isolated them from other people and drove a wedge between them and their parents, told them they were special and he loved them, and then they had to watch as he slowly moved away from them to someone else. Even if he never laid a finger on them, that’s a terrible thing to do to a kid. Wade talked about how Michael was also sort of a father figure to him (probably an important role considering the situation with Wade’s actual dad). Imagine watching your father figure slowly but surely replace you in his affections with some other boy. It’s no wonder he came running every time MJ decided to dangle a scrap of affection/attention before him. Imagine how heartbroken he was as a kid when he asked MJ if he could go on tour with him and MJ told him he couldn’t bring kids on that tour only to see tons of photos of MJ on tour...with another boy. Even if MJ never touched him, imagine how hard that would be when this is what Wade wanted to do with his life, and MJ told him he was special and talented and MJ brought him to the US to help him with this. Then he was essentially told, “it’s not that I can’t bring kids on tour, I don’t want to bring you on tour.”

All that was cruel enough. But then he did manipulate them into romantic/sexual relationships that as children they absolutely were not equipped to handle. And kept them in those relationships until he decided they just didn’t turn his crank any more. So they weren’t just abandoned by a friend, they were dumped. They were devastated, and couldn’t tell anyone about it.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Robert Lynch said:

I am glad GMA cancelled Brandi's interview. They made a wise choice. Hell, Gayle would have wore rose-tinted glasses throughout the whole thing. 

Do we know there was an interview really planned? That stuff from Brandi seems so steeped in fantasy I could believe it was just something she imagined was going to happen.

Her arguments just make the men's stories look more logical and straightforward in comparison. She's just all over the place, making up rules in the child predator handbook and then pretending Wade and Michael broke them. (Certainly the blunt descriptions of sex acts in the documentary make more anatomical sense than whatever she seems to be imagining!)

And sometimes coming at things from both sides at once--if Wade is sucking up to the family because they're the only people who give him work, why did he burn his bridges with them in response to not getting the one job? Did he forget he needed them to give him work? Did she forget that he's had a very easily verified, public non-MJ (or Spears or Timberlake) career? Like way more verifiabley Jackson-independent than her own?

Points for not only suggesting she was a closer confidante to Wade than his wife, but for doing it in an interview where she responds to him saying he was sexually assaulted by publicly calling him a liar. Who wouldn't want to confide in her? Clearly her loyalty would not lie with her uncle and the family at all times.

[Robert Lynch]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Do we know there was an interview really planned? That stuff from Brandi seems so steeped in fantasy I could believe it was just something she imagined was going to happen.

Her arguments just make the men's stories look more logical and straightforward in comparison. She's just all over the place, making up rules in the child predator handbook and then pretending Wade and Michael broke them. (Certainly the blunt descriptions of sex acts in the documentary make more anatomical sense than whatever she seems to be imagining!)

And sometimes coming at things from both sides at once--if Wade is sucking up to the family because they're the only people who give him work, why did he burn his bridges with them in response to not getting the one job? Did he forget he needed them to give him work? Did she forget that he's had a very easily verified, public non-MJ (or Spears or Timberlake) career? Like way more verifiabley Jackson-independent than her own?

Points for not only suggesting she was a closer confidante to Wade than his wife, but for doing it in an interview where she responds to him saying he was sexually assaulted by publicly calling him a liar. Who wouldn't want to confide in her? Clearly her loyalty would not lie with her uncle and the family at all times.

Unfortunately, her uncle had his share of porn inside the mansion.

[Irlandesa]

On 3/12/2019 at 9:40 PM, Umbelina said:

As for the cousin, I haven't seen that one, but certainly the documentary never suggested that every single boy that MJ invited to Neverland was molested.  Among other things, it would have been much too time consuming to groom each family and child, and there are only so many hours in the day.  A few people saying now that it never happened to them doesn't mean a thing.  It's also possible MJ simply was not attracted to them, or that their parents were more vigilant.

Yeah.  Pedophiles often describe their relationships to their victims similarly to the way an adult might describe their romantic relationships.  They're usually not attracted to every young boy (or girl) they meet just as adults aren't attracted to every other adult who meets their basic gender preference.

On 3/12/2019 at 10:29 PM, Kostgard said:

People use the phrase “they keep changing their stories” and I feel like that’s not really an accurate description. The story “changed” once, when they stopped lying. They haven’t flip-flopped back and forth.

People want the perfect victim.  Like there is all of this behavior by Michael that would certainly, in a man less revered, be seen as big old guilty red flags.  But because he's so revered, every move the victims made gets torn apart.   The family settled?  Sometimes that's the more practical/less traumatic option than a trial.  The family took Michael from Michael?  Well Michael giving them money is part of the grooming process and seeing where their boundaries are.  He can push them a little bit further each time.  The victims did drugs or were sexually promiscuous?  That's what can happen when you get messed up at a young age by abuse.  The victims said they weren't abuse?  There's still a lot of shame associated with being a victim that I don't think goes away even in the most supportive environments--which this one isn't?

The victims have imperfect memories of something that happened 20 years ago?  Well, most of us do.  I've seen people argue that some of the details, unrelated to the actual abuse, have to be wrong because....reasons.  In other words, if Wade or James said something like the pillows in MJ's room were green, they'd argue that can't possibly be because MJ hated green and therefore, their story can't be trusted.  Even though the fact that they were in his bed isn't being disputed by anyone. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

23 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

People want the perfect victim.  Like there is all of this behavior by Michael that would certainly, in a man less revered, be seen as big old guilty red flags.  But because he's so revered, every move the victims made gets torn apart.   The family settled?  Sometimes that's the more practical/less traumatic option than a trial.  The family took Michael from Michael?  Well Michael giving them money is part of the grooming process and seeing where their boundaries are.  He can push them a little bit further each time.  The victims did drugs or were sexually promiscuous?  That's what can happen when you get messed up at a young age by abuse.  The victims said they weren't abuse?  There's still a lot of shame associated with being a victim that I don't think goes away even in the most supportive environments--which this one isn't?

The victims have imperfect memories of something that happened 20 years ago?  Well, most of us do.  I've seen people argue that some of the details, unrelated to the actual abuse, have to be wrong because....reasons.  In other words, if Wade or James said something like the pillows in MJ's room were green, they'd argue that can't possibly be because MJ hated green and therefore, their story can't be trusted.  Even though the fact that they were in his bed isn't being disputed by anyone. 

All of this. The double standards of the MJ hardcore are nearly funny. I've seen all this hair-splitting about whether something happened in 1989 or 1991, and if someone who was a young boy in those years has an imperfect recall of such detail in 2019, it means his whole story is bogus. Never mind that these fans may cite the wrong year for one of their idol's songs or videos, suggesting that they would probably be even more slipshod about their own personal histories. Never mind that they credulously swallow every word MJ ever said, even though he claimed on camera that he had only ever had two cosmetic surgeries, both on his nose to help him sing better, and all the other changes in his appearance were simply the natural aging process. 

Pointing to the avaricious nature and shady behavior of parents and thus dismissing allegations isn't doing due diligence. The very sad truth is that real sexual molestation victims sometimes don't have good parents. They are exploited times two. They deserve even more sympathy, if their parents used their trauma for a cash grab...or enabled the trauma in the first place by granting unfettered access.  

Edited March 14, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[methodwriter85]

7 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

On a lighter note, Wade's wife is very pretty.  

She is. Their story about how they got together could have been a young adult comedy in the 2000's.

Both of their wives seemed right for them. James's wife comes off as a loyal Midwestern hausfrau with zero aspirations to fame, while Wade's wife seems to be into the whole industry thing.

[wendyg]

In other news, Transport for London is removing bus-side advertisements protesting Jackson's innocence that were paid for by crowd-funding (£20,000): https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/14/adverts-declaring-michael-jackson-innocent-taken-off-london-buses

The piece also has quotes from someone from The Simpsons saying that one reason for withdrawing the Jackson episode was his thought that Jackson may have used it to groom victims.

[TigerLynx]

To me, Michael Jackson's public persona was more of an indictment than any of the people who testified against him or for him.  My opinion maybe colored by the fact that I watched Michael Jackson go from a child star to an adult entertainer, and the I just want to be a six year old kid MJ didn't show up until later.  In the early 1980s, he was known for being reclusive, but he didn't act like a child.  After what happened in 1993, if Jackson was just a victim of people who wanted to blackmail him for money, why the hell did he keep putting himself back in those kinds of situations.  If he wanted to help sick and disadvantaged children, there were ways to do it that wouldn't have looked so shady.  Then there were all the interviews where MJ was questioning what was so wrong about sleeping with children, loving children, etc., that just gave me such a creepy icky vibe.

[doodlebug]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Yeah.  Pedophiles often describe their relationships to their victims similarly to the way an adult might describe their romantic relationships.  They're usually not attracted to every young boy (or girl) they meet just as adults aren't attracted to every other adult who meets their basic gender preference.

People want the perfect victim.  Like there is all of this behavior by Michael that would certainly, in a man less revered, be seen as big old guilty red flags.  But because he's so revered, every move the victims made gets torn apart.   The family settled?  Sometimes that's the more practical/less traumatic option than a trial.  The family took Michael from Michael?  Well Michael giving them money is part of the grooming process and seeing where their boundaries are.  He can push them a little bit further each time.  The victims did drugs or were sexually promiscuous?  That's what can happen when you get messed up at a young age by abuse.  The victims said they weren't abuse?  There's still a lot of shame associated with being a victim that I don't think goes away even in the most supportive environments--which this one isn't

Remember, the Chandlers settled for more than TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS.  To my way of thinking, that must indicate that had some pretty convincing evidence of the sexual abuse of their son.  Otherwise, why wouldn't they have settled for much, much less?  As I recall Jordie Chandler's father was a dentist, so I presume they were perhaps better off financially than some of the other families that Jackson groomed, but, still, I doubt he couldn't have been paid off for a whole lot less than he got had there not been a whole lot of fire behind that smoke.  BTW, in today's dollars, $22mil is worth about $38 million.  While Michael was presumably still pretty darned wealthy in 1993, the fact that it took such a huge chunk of change to settle with the Chandlers out of court indicates to me that Michael and his legal team were very afraid of what might happen if it went to court.  Obviously, he felt it could probably cost him a whole lot more than 22 million bucks.

As for Brandi's assertion that Wade is unemployable as a choreographer because he slept with Brittney behind Justin's back?  Because everyone in the music biz is a pure as the driven snow?  Because it was the very first time that a singer/dancer has slept with someone in the entourage (other than J Lo who's made a career of it)?  Because there isn't a whole lot of sex happening when a bunch of young, attractive people are thrown together on tour?  If Wade hasn't worked in a number of years. there has to be some other reason and his explanation that he was too messed up mentally makes a lot more sense than hers.

I heard someone say something very true today in talking about MJ.  He was tired of all the Michael defenders going on and on about what a sad, sad little boy MJ was because he 'didn't have a childhood'.  Well, bullshit!  He had a childhood, it was a lousy one; his father was awful, but MJ is far from the only person in the history of the world to have had a crummy childhood.  It didn't give him the right to ruin a bunch of kids' lives because of it.  As this guy also noted, even without the sexual abuse; for a guy who was so clearly revered and beloved by these kids and their families, to take a young kid and manipulate his emotions, give him gifts and access, tell him he's his best friend in the whole wide word and then dump him when another kid comes along is just plain cruel.  No adult has the right to manipulate and toy with the emotions of kids in that way.

[izabella]

6 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I heard someone say something very true today in talking about MJ.  He was tired of all the Michael defenders going on and on about what a sad, sad little boy MJ was because he 'didn't have a childhood'.  Well, bullshit!  He had a childhood, it was a lousy one; his father was awful, but MJ is far from the only person in the history of the world to have had a crummy childhood.  It didn't give him the right to ruin a bunch of kids' lives because of it. 

Most people with crappy childhoods who are suffering get help from psychiatrists and psychologists.  Jackson had all the money in the world to get the best psychiatric care in the world to ease his suffering from his childhood.  Had he taken that step, who knows how many boys wouldn't have had their childhoods stolen through Jackson's sexual abuse.  I honestly have no sympathy for his lost childhood.  There are all kinds of people who have had crappy childhoods.  Few of them had his resources and access to the best care possible to help them.

Edited March 14, 2019 by izabella

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

Then there were all the interviews where MJ was questioning what was so wrong about sleeping with children, loving children, etc., that just gave me such a creepy icky vibe.

One thing that's terrible about it is even if he himself wasn't having sex with the children, it's irresponsible to act as if the question itself is suspect. And I've seen people still do that, saying, "If you think wanting to sleep with a child means sex, that says more about you than him!" It's trying to make it off-limits to even acknowledge that sexual abuse happens, which gives cover to any pedophile anywhere. They want people to feel too embarrassed or ashamed to question what they're doing.

Which is exactly what MJ was doing, demanding that nobody question anything he did and refusing to accept the responsibility of an adult and consider how his actions might be harmful even if he wasn't molesting the kids. Obviously he's not somebody to be trusted with children if he just absolves himself of all responsibility like that.

15 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I heard someone say something very true today in talking about MJ.  He was tired of all the Michael defenders going on and on about what a sad, sad little boy MJ was because he 'didn't have a childhood'.  Well, bullshit!  He had a childhood, it was a lousy one; his father was awful, but MJ is far from the only person in the history of the world to have had a crummy childhood.  It didn't give him the right to ruin a bunch of kids' lives because of it. 

Exactly. There's so much gaslighting going on in the whole story. Even leaving aside the fact that he did have a childhood just as every human does and now it's over and being in the presence of children or cotton candy doesn't bring it back, it's not like sleeping with grown men--or sleeping in bed with other children--is some widely-recognized part of childhood.

Of course some children share beds or whatever. But they do it for practical reasons like space or money or warmth. I would bet James and Wade might never have shared a bed with any actual boy in their life, nor ever had a desire to do so. (They have, of course, shared beds with other *adults* as an adult.) So among all the other bullshit you've got this guy slipping in "sleeping in the same bed" as being linked to children or being a child or being childlike when probably every single one of the kids only ever associated it with being with Michael Jackson. 

Likewise holding hands. Who the hell in the US, at least, holds hands with their friends generally at 10? I don't think that would be something chaperones ordered as part of a field trip buddy system at that age.

[Umbelina]

Although I am a person who always believed the multiple assertions of child sex abuse about MJ, I really keep coming back to ONE thing as far as the MJ defenders.

If this were ANYONE else?  Some rich, but not famous, relatively unknown dude?  Say some nerd who made all of his billions in tech, or inherited his wealth from gr gr grandpa? 

How many would doubt the victims' stories?

In that youtube I posted above, or one of them I watch, one of MJ's long term employees, 17 years, the statements from someone who was involved in the music side, sorry, can't remember his name/title, was fired and had to sue MJ for his unused vacation pay was interesting.  He said MJ WAS broke, not just the ridiculous million dollar spending sprees, but also he estimated over a hundred million dollars went to the families of various boys, either as pay offs to shut up, or for bribes, such as houses, and gifts, while MJ was with the boys.  He was fired, he says, because MJ felt that person kept "bringing him bad news."  (about the press, the boys, his financial situation.)

ETA  Bob Jones is the man, MJ's manager and right hand man for 17 years, on every tour, etc.

As far as MJ's "estate" being worth a lot of money now, I think that is primarily from selling off his vast ownership of other people's music, the Beatles, Happy Birthday song, and much more by the estate managers since his death.  That and the renewed interest in MJ's music, videos, etc. after his death.  From a video with La Toya (talk about someone who continually changes her stories though!) the family is super pissed that all of those licenses to music were sold off (but I bet the didn't mind the checks from that.)

It's MJ so he is "innocent."  If it was some overweight white guy no one had ever heard off, with massive plastic surgery and porn collections who had a parade of young boy children sleeping in his bed every night?

Oh please.  I don't believe ANYONE would be calling these guys liars, or sending them death threats.

 

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

One thing that's terrible about it is even if he himself wasn't having sex with the children, it's irresponsible to act as if the question itself is suspect. And I've seen people still do that, saying, "If you think wanting to sleep with a child means sex, that says more about you than him!" It's trying to make it off-limits to even acknowledge that sexual abuse happens, which gives cover to any pedophile anywhere. They want people to feel too embarrassed or ashamed to question what they're doing.

Which is exactly what MJ was doing, demanding that nobody question anything he did and refusing to accept the responsibility of an adult and consider how his actions might be harmful even if he wasn't molesting the kids. Obviously he's not somebody to be trusted with children if he just absolves himself of all responsibility like that.

That is another thing!

When my nieces were born I was living two states away, but I adored them and visited as often as I could, we talked on the phone all the time, when I called my sister, etc.

When my oldest niece was about 4, during one visit she asked if I would sleep with her.  (I'm a woman.)  I usually slept on the couch when there, small 2 bedroom house, my niece and her sister (2 at the time) shared a room with twin beds.  At first I told her I would see her in the morning, but she was insisting that we read as story together (she could read already) and I stay with her.  I looked over at my sister.  She mouthed "it's up to you." and smiled.

My sister had been sexually abused by a cousin when she was little.  My point here is that I would NEVER have suggested it myself, and even though my sister had no reason to doubt me, I wouldn't have felt bad or even blinked if she thought it wasn't a good idea.  You just don't DO that.

So in the end I did, the two bedroom doors were left open, and were 6 feet apart. 

If our brother had asked to do that, even though he is also trustworthy and loved them, there is no way in hell my sister or her husband or even me would have agreed.  (He wouldn't have agreed either.)

IT IS JUST NOT OK! 

Now I'm back to blaming the parents here along with MJ.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Umbelina
Added the name, Bob Jones.

[Kostgard]

The "I had no childhood" excuse never held water for me. I was listening to a podcast the other day where they discussed the film, and one of the hosts really spelled out how I always felt about it, and it's this -  if you didn't have a "real" childhood, you don't try to solve that by basically creating another childhood for yourself in your 30s and 40s by living in an amusement park and hanging out with eight-year-olds. That's just not how this works. Yes, people who had abusive or traumatic childhoods are impacted by that and often end up displaying unhealthy or destructive behavior (see the substance/alcohol abuse and promiscuity reported by the victims in the film), but they don't just go and recreate a childhood they never had. 

So, MJ's "I'm just a child in a man's body" story was one of two things. First option - it was a total put-on (this was my opinion for years). A mask he could hide behind so he could get away with whatever he wanted to do. The other option was that he had some genuine, serious issues that made him want to act like a child, and in that case, hanging out in an amusement park with children was not going to help those issues and in fact, will damage the kids he seemed to expect would make him whole again. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Kostgard

[Sharonana]

This was posted on the Facebook page called Supporters of Wade Robson and other victims. So much truth!!!

[qtpye]

20 hours ago, Umbelina said:

This is new to me, but a pretty dang comprehensive recap of MJ and sex with kids, and what it did to his finances, etc.

Thought I'd put it here, because it does answer some questions raised in this thread.

Totally chilling. I was sick when they talked about him bouncing a 12-year-old Jordi on his knee and calling him rubber.

[ari333]

If  he was such a child why did he shock people by grabbing his crotch on tv in the early 80s and beyond? Then Madonna did it . Then everyone did it; but AFAIK MJ started it in mainstream media. I"m no prude but I recall that it was shocking.

That Bashir interview did it for me. Was that child next to MJ,  Gavin? Anyway it was creepy. And you could tell that Bashir was trying to get MJ to rephrase things.... and he didn't. "It's sweet. We have cookies and milk and sleep together. It's sweet." EWWW.

MJ was 45 freakin yrs old at the time

[doodlebug]

44 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

One thing that's terrible about it is even if he himself wasn't having sex with the children, it's irresponsible to act as if the question itself is suspect. And I've seen people still do that, saying, "If you think wanting to sleep with a child means sex, that says more about you than him!" It's trying to make it off-limits to even acknowledge that sexual abuse happens, which gives cover to any pedophile anywhere. They want people to feel too embarrassed or ashamed to question what they're doing.

I would also like to know why it is that anyone thinks that young kids frequently sleep together in the same bed?  When MJ's supporters are confronted about his own repeated insistence that sleeping with pre-pubescent boys was a loving and natural thing and that it was because he was just a child himself inside; I've got to wonder what their childhoods were like.  12 year old boys do not routinely share beds with one another, nor do they want to.  They don't, it is a fact.  Therefore, a grown man who asserts it is ok for him to sleep with little boys because he is just a kid himself is clearly lying.  And, any parent who allows their 12 year old kid to sleep in the same bed as a grown man is either stupid, gullible or complicit.  Take your pick.

ETA:  I am a grown woman who did share a bed as a kid.  A double bed with my sister who was a year older due to space issues-we had 4 girls sleeping in the same bedroom, my parents already had a couple double beds and no money for bunk beds, so that is where we slept.  I did it from ages 9-18 when my sister got married.  And, we both didn't really like it.  Not enough room to spread out, not comfortable when one of us was sick, and on and on.  I do not think we were exceptional in that, either.   So, any MJ fan who insists that a grown-ass man is sleeping with a kid in his bed because they both like it is delusional.

Edited March 14, 2019 by doodlebug

[Melina22]

4 minutes ago, ari333 said:

he was such a child why did he shock people by grabbing his crotch on tv in the early 80s and beyond? Then Madonna did it . Then everyone did it; but AFAIK MJ started it in mainstream media. I"m no prude but I recall that it was shocking.

This is such a good point! Do you remember in Leaving Neverland where they show Wade at 5 or 6 mimicking MJ's moves? I was shocked at how sexual some of the moves were and so inappropriate for a child to be doing. How on earth did MJ simultaneously convince everyone he was childlike and asexual while at the same time doing all these raunchy dance moves. It's like we were victims of mass hypnosis. 

[ari333]

21 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

This is such a good point! Do you remember in Leaving Neverland where they show Wade at 5 or 6 mimicking MJ's moves? I was shocked at how sexual some of the moves were and so inappropriate for a child to be doing. How on earth did MJ simultaneously convince everyone he was childlike and asexual while at the same time doing all these raunchy dance moves. It's like we were victims of mass hypnosis. 

Yes. all the thrusting and dick grabbing did not seem so innocent. Again I'm no prude, but it was shocking..... at the time back in the day

[TigerLynx]

I was in junior high when Thriller the album and the song came out, and my older sisters had listened to the Jackson 5.  Michael Jackson was huge, and there were all these rumors that his dates with Brooke Shields, Tatum O'Neal, etc., weren't real because he was gay.  Then other songs and other groups came along, and I forgot all about MJ.  Then in 1993, when the Chandler charges were being discussed, I was watching some of the news clips of MJ, and my first thought was, "Damn, what the hell did you do to your face?"  Once the Chandler's accepted the money, I once again, forgot all about Michael Jackson until 2003.  The more MJ talked, and he did not do a lot of talking, the more squicked out I became.  Then my thought was, "If I was this guy's attorney, I would be telling him to STFU ASAP."

I heard when Jackson died he was cash poor, but the trustees of his estate managed the trust he left for his children and his mother, and it is quite substantial now.

[Umbelina]

There are a couple of significant things on this video, for anyone who still doubts James and/or Wade.  Former chief of security for MJ kept track of where people were sleeping.  He says over 100 boys slept in the room while he was in charge.

The rest is about Jordy, and it's pretty shocking, many saying "the beginning of the end" for MJ.  Gag orders skirted here with other family members.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Sharonana said:

This was posted on the Facebook page called Supporters of Wade Robson and other victims. So much truth!!!

Well said! Yes, defenders of abusers are the very reason why victims don't come forward and the very reason abusers don't go to jail. 

 

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

One thing that's terrible about it is even if he himself wasn't having sex with the children, it's irresponsible to act as if the question itself is suspect. And I've seen people still do that, saying, "If you think wanting to sleep with a child means sex, that says more about you than him!" It's trying to make it off-limits to even acknowledge that sexual abuse happens, which gives cover to any pedophile anywhere. They want people to feel too embarrassed or ashamed to question what they're doing.

Which is exactly what MJ was doing, demanding that nobody question anything he did and refusing to accept the responsibility of an adult and consider how his actions might be harmful even if he wasn't molesting the kids. Obviously he's not somebody to be trusted with children if he just absolves himself of all responsibility like that.

Exactly. There's so much gaslighting going on in the whole story. Even leaving aside the fact that he did have a childhood just as every human does and now it's over and being in the presence of children or cotton candy doesn't bring it back, it's not like sleeping with grown men--or sleeping in bed with other children--is some widely-recognized part of childhood.

Of course some children share beds or whatever. But they do it for practical reasons like space or money or warmth. I would bet James and Wade might never have shared a bed with any actual boy in their life, nor ever had a desire to do so. (They have, of course, shared beds with other *adults* as an adult.) So among all the other bullshit you've got this guy slipping in "sleeping in the same bed" as being linked to children or being a child or being childlike when probably every single one of the kids only ever associated it with being with Michael Jackson. 

Likewise holding hands. Who the hell in the US, at least, holds hands with their friends generally at 10? I don't think that would be something chaperones ordered as part of a field trip buddy system at that age.

That's what I wonder too. How do the defenders think nothing wrong with sharing the same bed with children? A grown man not related to them? Its really unusual for kids to want to do that especially ten or older. Calling up a parent in the middle of the night and asking the child be brought to him? Then immediately goes into MJ's bedroom. What the hell do you think happened in there? I don't care if it says something about me. Fine, it says I keep my eyes open to child abuse. If it walks like a child abuse, quacks like a child abuse its a child abuse. It also says a lot about you if your defending an abuser. Honestly, I'd be happy to be wrong. I'd love to be wrong and no abuse is happening. I don't want children or anyone to be abused.

 

10 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Remember, the Chandlers settled for more than TWENTY TWO MILLION DOLLARS.  To my way of thinking, that must indicate that had some pretty convincing evidence of the sexual abuse of their son.  Otherwise, why wouldn't they have settled for much, much less?  As I recall Jordie Chandler's father was a dentist, so I presume they were perhaps better off financially than some of the other families that Jackson groomed, but, still, I doubt he couldn't have been paid off for a whole lot less than he got had there not been a whole lot of fire behind that smoke.  BTW, in today's dollars, $22mil is worth about $38 million.  While Michael was presumably still pretty darned wealthy in 1993, the fact that it took such a huge chunk of change to settle with the Chandlers out of court indicates to me that Michael and his legal team were very afraid of what might happen if it went to court.  Obviously, he felt it could probably cost him a whole lot more than 22 million bucks.

Yes! That's another thing. No one who is rich and/or a celebrity ever pays a settlement unless there's something to it. No way. They have all the money, lawyers and power to destroy anyone trying to scam them or people they've actually done wrong but have no evidence. It doesn't happen. The Chandlors had something.  

[Simon Boccanegra]

Also, Michael had nine siblings who, to one degree or another, "never had a childhood." At the least, they had the sad and abusive childhood he had. Strangely, there have been no reports of any of the others needing to hang out with seven-year-olds or have sleepovers.

[TigerLynx]

I don't doubt Joe Jackson was an abusive monster, however, for all the complaining MJ did about not having a childhood, he loved his success and being famous.  He loved being on stage.  Jackson had millions to do whatever he wanted with, and he continued to tour for years.  MJ chose to leave the Jackson 5, and pursue a solo career.  Marlon decided to leave the Jackson 5, and went into real estate.

There are videos from the early 80s of MJ working with people when he was making videos, on tour, etc., and he is very adult and very much in charge.  There was no giggling, or I'm just an overgrown kid nonsense.  So why develop the immature childish act years later?

[Umbelina]

In the interview, the mother that said she didn't want to watch the sexual information during the pre-showing.  The director says that mother did watch the whole thing when it aired on TV.

Oh, and by the way Jackson family, when an uncircumcised penis is erect, it can look very much like a circumcised penis.  (They are saying that Jordan's drawings of the erect penis showed a circumcised penis.)

Also picked up in some other video that the law was changed after Jordan Chandlers settlement to forbid future monetary settlements stopping criminal trials.  

[Robert Lynch]

And to think he is the only musician to get both an arcade and Sega Genesis game of Moonwalker. There is nothing childish about that. He was  in charge of the making. His Peter image was a front. A facade to make us pity for him.

I remember playing both versions of it at Planet Hollywood Video store/Pizza Hut and thinking that it was weird that your goal is to save captured children who always called you "Michael" every time you find them. At first, I didn't think of it, but watching this documentary now, you noticed something is not right.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[ruby24]

16 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

There are videos from the early 80s of MJ working with people when he was making videos, on tour, etc., and he is very adult and very much in charge.  There was no giggling, or I'm just an overgrown kid nonsense.  So why develop the immature childish act years later?

Well, the obvious answer is as a cover, so he could hide in plain sight as he indulged in serial child molesting. I think he knew that he needed to have some sort of image as a lover/protector of children to explain the constant presence of unrelated kids he was going to have around him. 

If he was one of those "fixated pedophiles," they are defined as having become trapped at the age when they themselves were traumatized, explaining their choice of targets. But while he was an absolute narcissist and brazen liar (the answer on the plastic surgery question alone in the Bashir interview is just SOOO clearly a lie), I don't think there's anything to suggest that he was mentally handicapped or somehow thought he was literally a child.

He knew what he was doing was a crime and he was manipulative and extremely careful in plotting out these seductions of entire families, which shows intelligence and pre-meditation. I firmly believe the whole point of him buying Neverland was as a lure for victims. I mean how could you not, given all the beds all over the place, the doors, bells and alarms people had to get through. The whole place was set up exactly FOR that (and used for it, as James spelled out for us). These kinds of pedophiles have extremely high sex drives, apparently, so he always had to have victims around- you never saw him without one. 

And his life seemed driven by exactly two things- music and pedophilia. 

[Umbelina]

50 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

1 hour ago, TigerLynx said:

There are videos from the early 80s of MJ working with people when he was making videos, on tour, etc., and he is very adult and very much in charge.  There was no giggling, or I'm just an overgrown kid nonsense.  So why develop the immature childish act years later?

He learned to lie early on, when Joe made him say he was 8 as the Jackson Five was hitting.  (He was 11.)  This long video talks a lot about him blowing it while making an "image."  He was very upset that the endless lies and "magic" crap he tried to sell blew up into "whacko Jacko."

This starts out as a big of a puff piece, but in spite of that has a few good points.  Among the bad points is explaining away the boy children in his bed being "MJ recreating his childhood."  while showing parts of his family objecting to that.

Interesting that his family didn't protest that THIS documentary didn't show "both sides."  Ahem.

Anyway, almost over my obsession with this topic, I feel l got sucked into watching all the stuff I've avoided over the years because it was sickening by the HBO show.

[Fable]

I have never been a Michael Jackson fan.  I didn’t even pay much attention when the rumors of molestation came out, so I watched this more out of curiosity than anything.  How eye opening and how sickening!  I was willing to keep an open mind until I heard the stories.  Even if one could believe he never molested anyone, it’s just too weird to understand why he would even have these boys in his room and his bed and claim he was just showing them love.  That, in and of itself, made me skeptical, but you know what chilled me to the bone were the pictures someone above posted with MJ and Emmanuel Lewis drinking out of baby bottles and him sitting on MJ’s lap at 16 years old.  No 16-year-old in his right mind would be sitting coI have never been a Michael Jackson fan.  I didn’t even pay much attention when the rumors of molestation came out, so I watched this more out of curiosity than anything.  How eye opening and how sickening.  I was willing to keep an open mind until I heard the stories.  Even if one could believe he never molested anyone, it’s just too weird to understand why he would even have these boys in his room and his bed and claim he was just showing them love.  That, in and of itself, made me skeptical, but you know what chilled me to the bone were the pictures someone above posted with MJ and Emmanuel Lewis drinking out of baby bottles and him sitting on MJ’s lap at 16 years old.  No 16-year-old in his right mind would be sitting comfortably on someone's lap, whether his growth was stunted or not.  

[Robert Lynch]

I remember a lot of the blame was on Dr. Conrad Murray, but MJ was definitely at fault here. He was doctor shopping, after all. Even if Dr. Conrad wouldn't  participated, he would have found another quack to fill him up.

Especially in Leaving Neverland, Wade found MJ a little on something when he visited him for a drink and the children were really use to it. That part was very telling to me when MJ never returns down stairs. He was already doctor shopping.

[funky-rat]

19 hours ago, ari333 said:

Yes. all the thrusting and dick grabbing did not seem so innocent. Again I'm no prude, but it was shocking..... at the time back in the day

His reasoning was always that he "was a slave to his rhythm".  Um....yeah.

[wendyg]

You can't make this stuff up: fans in France are *suing* Robson and Safechuck over their appearance in the film: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/michael-jackson-fan-groups-france-lawsuit

[Robert Lynch]

32 minutes ago, wendyg said:

You can't make this stuff up: fans in France are *suing* Robson and Safechuck over their appearance in the film: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/15/michael-jackson-fan-groups-france-lawsuit

Where is John Oliver when you need him? That is just batshit insane.  

Edited March 15, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[Melina22]

Well, according to the article, a few years ago a French lawyer sued Conrad Murray for harming the MJ fans emotionally, and was awarded 80 cents. So hopefully these fans will win a similar amount. 

Just kidding. I'm trying to put myself into the mindset of these people, but it's hard since for all I know they're a bunch of teenage boys with little or no insight into the reality of what happened. In the end it's probably just one more annoyance Wade and James have to deal with. It must be exhausting. 

[Brattinella]

Frivolous lawsuit; should be dropped immediately.

[ari333]

As mentioned up thread I wonder if MJ wanted to die. There is rarely a cure for pedophilia... jail or death. There are exceptions, but rare. He seemed to starve himself into a skeleton . Then the sleeping meds. 

What irks me is all the people who helped him cover it up....maids, staff, cooks, security. I see why they did it .... $$$$$$

[Robert Lynch]

An interesting theory on MJ supporters

[Melina22]

Such an interesting article! I'm not convinced about all of it, but I feel like the Mere Exposure theory carries a lot of weight. Over time what seems shocking at first gradually starts to feel familiar. People who are wildly eccentric gradually seem almost normal and likeable, and we're prone to taking their side against "strangers" despite the fact we've never actually met them. 

[icecweem]

1 hour ago, Robert Lynch said:

An interesting theory on MJ supporters

I'm not 100% sure on this one which is why I never used it for debate but something along the lines of the Beatles music catalogue. I know Sony purchased most of MJ's share  of the rights to the Beatles songs but that alone earned the estate 750 million for just 50% of the share if I'm not mistaking. MJ also owned some of Elvis's hit songs as well (not sure which ones) and Eminem's back catalogue. Point is, technically he still owns A LOT so one could argue that the documentary could not only ruin his legacy but also his rights to these catalogues. So suing the estate could be one of the biggest paychecks any of them would ever see. And I think it's easy to say to people "hey if you say such and such in this documentary then I'll give you x amount of dollars when we win the case." I'm not sure if people believe its a power thing where they don't want MJ to own any of the catalogues because they could be making money off of it still or whether it's racially motivated. I have no idea but I'm on the fence so I can't really speak for true supporters. This is just what I've heard so far.

[Melina22]

1 hour ago, icecweem said:

And I think it's easy to say to people "hey if you say such and such in this documentary then I'll give you x amount of dollars when we win the case

If you mean people offered Wade and James massive amounts of money to lie in the documentary, I can't buy this. Not because such a thing is impossible. People have done much worse for large amounts of money. It's just that, as many have noted, if Wade and James and their families were lying, a special Oscar would have to be created for the greatest performance by a group of all time. 

Over the years, I've found I'm good at reading facial expressions and body language, even on TV. I can't get a read on someone from a 4 second clip, but given enough time, I'm really good at telling when people are lying or faking emotion. Maybe that's why it didn't ring true for me the day MJ showed up at court in his pj's. I wasn't buying what he was selling. 

We got closeups of Wade and James and their families for 4 straight hours. Apart from the weird moment when James'  mother talked about her happiness at MJ's death, I never heard or saw a false note. Conceivably one person, a psychopath, could fake it that well, but never so many people. 

I always try to keep an open mind, but I can't believe they were lying. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Melina22

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, icecweem said:

I'm not 100% sure on this one which is why I never used it for debate but something along the lines of the Beatles music catalogue. I know Sony purchased most of MJ's share  of the rights to the Beatles songs but that alone earned the estate 750 million for just 50% of the share if I'm not mistaking. MJ also owned some of Elvis's hit songs as well (not sure which ones) and Eminem's back catalogue. Point is, technically he still owns A LOT so one could argue that the documentary could not only ruin his legacy but also his rights to these catalogues. So suing the estate could be one of the biggest paychecks any of them would ever see. And I think it's easy to say to people "hey if you say such and such in this documentary then I'll give you x amount of dollars when we win the case." I'm not sure if people believe its a power thing where they don't want MJ to own any of the catalogues because they could be making money off of it still or whether it's racially motivated. I have no idea but I'm on the fence so I can't really speak for true supporters. This is just what I've heard so far.

However, the path to these supposed riches is fraught with obstacles. First, a civil suit has to be filed.  That means finding a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency (a lawyer would be entitled to somewhere between a third and half of the proceeds if they win or settle)  Robson did that, in 2013.  That claim was denied due to the statute of limitations having run.  He has re-filed an amended complaint a couple of times but the whole thing remains in limbo pending a judge's decision on multiple issues.  Six years later, it is nowhere near going to trial and the end is not in sight. And, of course, once it does go to trial, if Robson wins a judgement, Jackson's estate is going to appeal it immediately and it will be many more years before anyone sees a dime, if ever.

Anyone who suggested to James or Wade that doing this documentary for free in hopes of bolstering public opinion and winning a civil case would need their head examined.  As it is, there is already a civil case out there for the past 6 years and it is highly unlikely that Wade is going to be seeing any money from it in the next few years.  That is one heckuva long con there.  Making a documentary in hopes of collecting millions of dollars a decade or more afterwards is nonsensical.

The other argument against the 'this is a ploy to get money' theory is that, if Robson just wanted money, he would've kept his yap shut and tried to negotiate a cash settlement for his silence ala Jordie Chandler and family.  What incentive does the estate have to settle at this point?  Wade's already laid all of his cards on the table, out in the open.  There is hardly anything worse that can come out.  So, that means that either Wade would've been given incredibly bad advice and ended up burning his bridges when it came to settling out of court, leaving him hanging and waiting for the case to come to trial while the estate just keeps dragging it out, or, most likely, he has no more fu*** to give about Michael Jackson and his money and decided that the money wasn't really the point anymore; that he wanted to tell his story either for his own sake or as a warning to others.  Probably both.

Edited March 16, 2019 by doodlebug

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

However, the path to these supposed riches is fraught with obstacles. First, a civil suit has to be filed.  That means finding a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency (a lawyer would be entitled to somewhere between a third and half of the proceeds if they win or settle)  Robson did that, in 2013.  That claim was denied due to the statute of limitations having run.  He has re-filed an amended complaint a couple of times but the whole thing remains in limbo pending a judge's decision on multiple issues.  Six years later, it is nowhere near going to trial and the end is not in sight. And, of course, once it does go to trial, if Robson wins a judgement, Jackson's estate is going to appeal it immediately and it will be many more years before anyone sees a dime, if ever.

Anyone who suggested to James or Wade that doing this documentary for free in hopes of bolstering public opinion and winning a civil case would need their head examined.  As it is, there is already a civil case out there for the past 6 years and it is highly unlikely that Wade is going to be seeing any money from it in the next few years.  That is one heckuva long con there.  Making a documentary in hopes of collecting millions of dollars a decade or more afterwards is nonsensical.

The other argument against the 'this is a ploy to get money' theory is that, if Robson just wanted money, he would've kept his yap shut and tried to negotiate a cash settlement for his silence ala Jordie Chandler and family.  What incentive does the estate have to settle at this point?  Wade's already laid all of his cards on the table, out in the open.  There is hardly anything worse that can come out.  So, that means that either Wade would've been given incredibly bad advice and ended up burning his bridges when it came to settling out of court, leaving him hanging and waiting for the case to come to trial while the estate just keeps dragging it out, or, most likely, he has no more fu*** to give about Michael Jackson and his money and decided that the money wasn't really the point anymore; that he wanted to tell his story either for his own sake or as a warning to others.  Probably both.

Exactly. There's this weird reaction people seem to have a lot whenever sexual assault comes up where they act like there's this magic lamp anyone can rub where you just accuse somebody of it and bells go off and money pours out of the helpless person like they're a slot machine. They just say "it's for the money" without really explaining the steps one would take. And then they forget about it by the time the person fails to become wealthy.

Even the whole thing of "he can't defend himself" is ironic since for years Michael Jackson had a far far bigger platform than a documentary, even one that got shown on HBO. He got to give his side of the story all over the place but suddenly none of it's on the level of this documentary.

[Kostgard]

3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

However, the path to these supposed riches is fraught with obstacles

Yes. This would be an extremely odd long con with no guarantee of anything other than MJ’s fans will rain shit down upon you. Don’t know why anyone would sign up for that.

So, in order for this to be a con, they would have to be willing to sign up for lawsuits that may never result in anything other than legal bills, they and their families would have to be excellent actors who never once cracked or wavered in their stories despite hours and hours of footage of them talking about it (Dan Reed said he had 22 hours of interview footage of just Wade alone), they had to have really researched child molesters to come up with stories of grooming that fit the patterns of predators and then designed their own behavior around the behavior of survivors, and then they were smart enough to not make themselves perfect victims to add a layer of realism. Then they decided that they would make up stories about their abuse that were graphic in detail and humiliating enough that their neighbors and coworkers probably have a hard time looking them in the eye. And they spilled all those details out on an international stage. Who would sign up for that if it weren’t true?

As pointed out above, they would probably have better luck trying to get a payoff from the MJ estate (there’s evidence that MJ payed off far more families than just the Chandlers). Especially if they teamed up. Instead they followed the legal route for restitution (that’s what a civil suit is, and no, it’s not weird to try to get money from someone when pressing criminal charges is impossible) and gave away their blackmail fodder for free. 

A lot of people point to Wade initially shopping the idea for a book back in 2012 or 2013. But that isn’t shady to me, either. In that scenario he wasn’t trying to get money from the estate, he has the right to tell his own story and he would have hardly been the first person to publish an autobiography that revealed a celeb’s dirty secrets. And it seems like lying about someone in a book is just asking for a lawsuit (which also begs the question why the Jacksons haven’t sued them if they are lying in the film). He dropped the book idea, don’t know why. I don’t think he’s specified why. The story is that there were no takers for the book, but I have a hard time believing that. Someone would have LOVED to publish something that explosive. And he really didn’t shop it for that long. But even if he couldn’t get a major publisher to bite, he could have found another way to get paid for his story. Trust me - SOMEONE , TMZ, whatever - would have paid him a pretty penny for that story. But instead he chose the uphill battle of a lawsuit and again, gave the blackmail fodder away for free by telling his story on the Today show in May 2013.

The argument that they just decided to trash MJ doesn’t hold water, either. Again, to what end? Unless they just love getting death threats. And if the goal was just to tear him down, why didn’t they just straight up paint him as a monster they hate? Why confess that they still struggle with feelings of love for him and why would James say he still feels guilty about exposing MJ’s secrets?

I think they are telling the truth and their motives for going public are exactly what they said they are. This is an extraordinary way to get your story out, but they were in an extraordinary situation. I believe that telling the truth is part of their healing process. James was especially terrified of the world finding out. Proactively telling the world your dirty secret on your own terms has to be the ultimate form of therapy. I believe them when they say they hope that by speaking up they can help other survivors. And honestly, if they are also motivated in part by some sort of revenge or if they believe they deserve a huge payday from the estate, I can hardly blame them after what MJ did to them. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Kostgard

[Simon Boccanegra]

There is grist for an entire book just in analyzing Jackson's work as a lyricist from a looking-back perspective. I mentioned a few days ago that Dangerous's "In the Closet" (minus the female pronouns) precisely echoes the claims of Safechuck and Robson about Jackson's swearing them to secrecy in those years. That is just a start. Of course, there is a danger in overreading. Even "confessional" songwriters are not writing their personal diaries all the time; they obscure or invent. But something of any lyricist will get into his or her work, whether it's Lorenz Hart, Cole Porter, John Lennon, Joni Mitchell, or Justin Timberlake.   

In 2002, Jackson was asked by a Vibe interviewer about the inspiration for a song called "Speechless," which the interviewer found "very loving." Jackson said the interviewer might be "surprised" to learn he had written it after he had had a water-balloon fight with some kids. He was so overcome with happiness that he ran upstairs and wrote the words. He added, "I hate to say that, because it's such a romantic song." It is (example: "I'll go anywhere and do anything just to touch your face"). I guess in 2002, he felt the Jordan Chandler settlement was far behind him, so he could get away with such an admission. He could have said anything; he did not have to tie it to a specific event in his life.   

I also remember one rock critic pointing out in a review of Bad that certain lines of "Dirty Diana" could have been about Jackson himself as much as the female groupie who is the subject of the song:  "I'll be the freak you can taunt / and I don't care what you say / I want to go too far / I'll be your everything / if you make me a star."  

[doodlebug]

Quote

And it seems like lying about someone in a book is just asking for a lawsuit (which also begs the question why the Jacksons haven’t sued them if they are lying in the film

In most states, including California, a dead person cannot be libeled, so the families cannot sue Robson or Safechuck.  The idea is that a person who is still alive has the right to earn a living and, if someone makes false accusations against them publicly, their ability to earn that living could be compromised which they would have to prove in court  Had they come out while Jackson was still alive, he could have filed suit against them and then the estate could have continued it after his death, but, the estate cannot file the suit itself after his death.  That's one of the family's claims: that James and Wade deliberately waited until after Michael was dead in order to avoid being sued for defamation.  It is also why they had to go after HBO by claiming that an agreement not to broadcast criticism of Jackson signed 25+ years ago was still binding even though Jackson was dead and there was new evidence of crimes committed by him during his life. It didn't work, but it was their only option.

[Robert Lynch]

Other than Emmanuel Lewis, Johnathan Spence comes to mind. I didn't think he would have started this at the height of Thriller/We Are The World, but he apparently did. And here's an article of MJ and Spence, featuring pictures of them and a shirtless MJ picture with kids.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[Sharonana]

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2009/06/26/my-disturbing-michael-jackson-experience/?fbclid=IwAR1JWBTvuROsNUmDFNYDW6HT7ahyzRxkI1tUrIXhKQiE0DAZepXeHASTq4o

Hope I copied and pasted this correctly. Found this story on Facebook. Sometimes I get the feeling that as MJ aged he got more arrogant and daring. Seems he didn't care if he got caught, especially when I read something like this.

Watched the Bashir documentary yesterday. It had been many years since I saw it. I'm such a softie and at times felt sorry that he had such a shitty childhood. Many people have regrettable childhoods, but they don't hurt other children because of it.

I am just way too embroiled in this documentary and everything MJ at the moment. My brain needs a break.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Sharonana

[Kostgard]

6 hours ago, doodlebug said:

In most states, including California, a dead person cannot be libeled, so the families cannot sue Robson or Safechuck.  The idea is that a person who is still alive has the right to earn a living and, if someone makes false accusations against them publicly, their ability to earn that living could be compromised which they would have to prove in court  Had they come out while Jackson was still alive, he could have filed suit against them and then the estate could have continued it after his death, but, the estate cannot file the suit itself after his death.  That's one of the family's claims: that James and Wade deliberately waited until after Michael was dead in order to avoid being sued for defamation.  It is also why they had to go after HBO by claiming that an agreement not to broadcast criticism of Jackson signed 25+ years ago was still binding even though Jackson was dead and there was new evidence of crimes committed by him during his life. It didn't work, but it was their only option.

Ah, okay. That makes sense. I almost wish MJ had the opportunity to sue them. Discovery would have been a bitch, I’m thinking.

But again, for whatever reason, Wade dropped the book (and the “You can’t defame/libel the dead” thing REALLY makes it hard to believe he couldn’t find a publisher), went the route of a lawsuit (that has much lower odds of a payout than a lucrative book deal) and spilled the beans publicly for free.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Kostgard

[Robert Lynch]

James wanted to be a director, right? I want to be sure of that.