Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Giant Misfit

Leaving Neverland

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Diane Mars said:

And it's so weird, because the only other dad (and thanks to both of them ! Dad's are apparently more suspicious than mothers, in all those cases !) who was speaking -and then retracting- was Jame's dad 😢

You mean Wade's dad. James' dad was always in support of Michael. And Latoya mentioned MJ making a 2 million dollars check to a garbage man, and James dad worked as a garbage man apparently. He died so I won't speak ill of the dead... (or is he ill and James didn't want to mention him?).

I hope that Jordan has a good life now. He probably got access to his money at 18 or 21, hopefully after years of therapy. Jordan apparently offered to persue criminal charges if Gavin's case didn't go well but the statute of limitations had run out. Someone on this thread mentioned this.

Edited by Dorne2.0
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

34 minutes ago, Dorne2.0 said:

You mean Wade's dad. James' dad was always in support of Michael. And Latoya mentioned MJ making a 2 million dollars check to a garbage man, and James dad worked as a garbage man apparently. He died so I won't speak ill of the dead... (or is he ill and James didn't want to mention him?).

I hope that Jordan has a good life now. He probably got access to his money at 18 or 21, hopefully after years of therapy. Jordan apparently offered to persue criminal charges if Gavin's case didn't go well but the statute of limitations had run out. Someone on this thread mentioned this.

Ho yes, you're correct ! My mistake. But... That's so sad 😢

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

MJ supporters are laughing at the idea that Michael would molest James in 94/95 because he was taller than MJ than...  I have no words.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Dorne2.0 said:

You mean Wade's dad. James' dad was always in support of Michael. And Latoya mentioned MJ making a 2 million dollars check to a garbage man, and James dad worked as a garbage man apparently. He died so I won't speak ill of the dead... (or is he ill and James didn't want to mention him?).

Dan Reed clarified this in an interview - James’ dad died shortly before they filmed the documentary of a brain tumor. He said James told him what happened with MJ not long before his death (I think he said it was before a surgery that sounded like one of those “this may not go well so say what you need to say” situations). He didn’t mention how much detail was shared or the dad’s reaction. But with his death so recent before the film, I can see why they didn’t talk about him much.

The Vanity Fair piece also mentioned that MJ bought the Safechuck a Rolls Royce. So - house, $100K car, who knows how much cash...MJ really had those people under his thumb.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Dorne2.0 said:

"Jamie began to withdraw from everyone else, no longer playing with other kids. Eventually, he wouldn't speak to his father and six-year-old half-brother, even on the phone. He and Michael were quickly labeled "inseparable." They played with slingshots and squirt guns. They threw water balloons off the balcony of Michael's condo in Century City onto passing cars." 

(...)

 "It was the first night Michael and Jamie would share the same bed, Michael wearing sweats, Jamie wearing pajamas. Michael had rented The Exorcist, and Jamie got scared. His mother and sister stayed in another bedroom in the suite. The next night the two wanted to sleep together again. But a confrontation ensued, because Jamie's mother objected.

At this point, claim insiders who believe the case against Jackson, Michael began to cry, telling Jamie's mother, "This is about being a family, not making judgments." He declared his love for each of them and pleaded, "Why don't you trust me? If we're a family, you've got to think of me as a brother. Why make me feel so bad? This is a bond. It's not about sex. This is something special." He then said Jamie could sleep wherever he wanted to. That did it—Jamie's mother was won over. From that night on, with few exceptions, she allowed 13-year-old Jamie and his 34-year-old rich and powerful friend to share the same bed for more than three months. Michael essentially moved in, and lived with Jamie in one room of the family's small, unpretentious house in Santa Monica Canyon while his little friend went to school."

(...)

"Minor stated Mr. Jackson told minor that minor would go to Juvenile Hall if he told and that they'd both be in trouble. Minor also said Mr. Jackson told him about other boys he had 'done this with' but he didn't go as far with 'them.' [Jamie gave authorities the names of four other boys Michael allegedly told him about. Macaulay Culkin's name appeared in the report, but he has denied any wrongdoing on the part of Jackson.] Minor stated Mr. Jackson tried to make him hate his mo. and fa. so that he could only go to Mr. Jackson."

(...)

"Then Jamie's father saw Jackson and Jamie in bed together. They were fully clothed, but his suspicions were aroused. Michael and Jamie told him, he has said, that they couldn't stand Jamie's mother, and that she hated his wife. They seemed to be playing the parents off against one another. Jamie's father eventually came to believe that because of Michael "there is no family anymore." Jamie's mother, with whom the dentist had always enjoyed a friendly relationship, scoffed at his concerns."

Oh my God... there are some pretty gross details in there, but I'm quoting the grooming part because it shows how manipulative M.J was. Bastard.

BTW, Jordan's dad deal was 20 million in a trust fund for Jordan and 2.5 million to each parent... 

That was enough to convince his mother? Why? She was suspicious enough to object. But all he had to say was that and she was convince. Why? Why did that win her over? 

  • Like 6
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

That was enough to convince his mother? Why? She was suspicious enough to object. But all he had to say was that and she was convince. Why? Why did that win her over? 

Gotta say, I think a grown man starting to cry at me because I wouldn't let him sleep with my 13-year-old would do the opposite of convincing me to trust him. 

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

21 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

That was enough to convince his mother? Why? She was suspicious enough to object. But all he had to say was that and she was convince. Why? Why did that win her over? 

I know, right?  That might convince a 6 year old, but his parents?  Wacko wasn't even very articulate, from what I've seen, he just sounds mentally ill.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Dorne2.0 said:

MJ supporters are laughing at the idea that Michael would molest James in 94/95 because he was taller than MJ than...  I have no words.

Oh, they acknowledge that MJ did have an affinity for smaller, younger looking boys, then?

For what purpose?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Gotta say, I think a grown man starting to cry at me because I wouldn't let him sleep with my 13-year-old would do the opposite of convincing me to trust him. 

2 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

I know, right?  That might convince a 6 year old, but his parents?  Wacko wasn't even very articulate, from what I've seen, he just sounds mentally ill.

Same here. That would make me even more suspicious. Why is this grown man crying, and talking about family and bonds, and crap after I told him no he couldn't sleep in the same bed as my child? 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Dorne2.0 said:

MJ supporters are laughing at the idea that Michael would molest James in 94/95 because he was taller than MJ than...  I have no words.

This is why I refuse to even engage with apologists.  It would make me stabby and put me at risk for the rage stroke I'm trying to avoid.

4 hours ago, Kostgard said:

The Vanity Fair piece also mentioned that MJ bought the Safechuck a Rolls Royce. So - house, $100K car, who knows how much cash...MJ really had those people under his thumb.

So a grown man is having private "sleepovers" with your son, and buying you a rolls Royce and a house and this situation doesn't look like exactly what it is?  My goodness, wolves take better care of their young.

MJ is to blame for his actions, but these parents were willfully ignorant to the point of being complicit.

You all could have bought a smaller house and driven a used Honda, but I guess a fancy house and a rolls Royce was what your son's innocence was worth.

  • Like 6
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Shakma said:

Oh, they acknowledge that MJ did have an affinity for smaller, younger looking boys, then?

For what purpose?

I know! First thought on my mind reading that. They sound like they are basically admiting MJ would prefer younger kids... I guess deep down they know and don't care because it was their Idol, Michael Jackson.

I think they possibly mean that it's not possible for MJ to abuse a kid who was taller than him, completely oblivious to the reality of sexual abuse. I mean the grooming that ocurred since age 9/10, I totally believe Michael wanted to "show his love for James" since he testified for him in the Jordan lawsuit.

Edited by Dorne2.0
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Gotta say, I think a grown man starting to cry at me because I wouldn't let him sleep with my 13-year-old would do the opposite of convincing me to trust him. 

I totally agree! I can't wrap my head how this kind of behavior could possibly have convinced a woman who was clearly already suspicious.

What kind of adult man has a temper tantrum over not letting your son sleep with him? If anything this should have confirmed her suspicions. Why was he so adamant about this particular thing? Why is this so important that he has to have the kid in the same bed with him at night?

She was crazy to think it was okay after he acted like that.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, RealReality10 said:

This is why I refuse to even engage with apologists.  It would make me stabby and put me at risk for the rage stroke I'm trying to avoid.

So a grown man is having private "sleepovers" with your son, and buying you a rolls Royce and a house and this situation doesn't look like exactly what it is?  My goodness, wolves take better care of their young.

MJ is to blame for his actions, but these parents were willfully ignorant to the point of being complicit.

You all could have bought a smaller house and driven a used Honda, but I guess a fancy house and a rolls Royce was what your son's innocence was worth.

Actually, wolves do take much much better care of their young than humans do.

It seems the MJ defenders want the perfect victim or a saint, and then they might consider the possibility MJ molested them.  However, I don't think it would matter who or how many came forward, they would still twist themselves into pretzels claiming Jackson would never, blah, blah blah, etc.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

Actually, wolves do take much much better care of their young than humans do.

It seems the MJ defenders want the perfect victim or a saint, and then they might consider the possibility MJ molested them.  However, I don't think it would matter who or how many came forward, they would still twist themselves into pretzels claiming Jackson would never, blah, blah blah, etc.

Oh I agree. Their the same as those who question rape victims and other abused victim. They want the perfect victim or think they do or would only believe if it was the victim was perfect. That of course is crap. They wouldn't believe no matter who the victim was. They'd still insist their a liar or out for money or revenge or some thing. Its the same with rape victims.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Oh I agree. Their the same as those who question rape victims and other abused victim. They want the perfect victim or think they do or would only believe if it was the victim was perfect. That of course is crap. They wouldn't believe no matter who the victim was. They'd still insist their a liar or out for money or revenge or some thing. Its the same with rape victims.  

The thing is, they WERE the "perfect victim".  They were CHILDREN.  Maybe they're not "perfect" now, but don't these people consider it may be because they were horrifically abused at such a young age?  It's actually quite surprising to me that they are not complete drug/alcohol addicts and both were able to get married and have children and seem to be (pretty much- getting there) functioning adults at all!  

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Whimsy said:

The thing is, they WERE the "perfect victim".  They were CHILDREN.  Maybe they're not "perfect" now, but don't these people consider it may be because they were horrifically abused at such a young age?  It's actually quite surprising to me that they are not complete drug/alcohol addicts and both were able to get married and have children and seem to be (pretty much- getting there) functioning adults at all!  

But then if they were still kids and accusing him they just say the parents are making them do it so they can pretend they're being nice to the kid while still dismissing their claims.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

The weirdos who worship MJ like a god wouldn't believe the testimony of any victim, no matter how "perfect" they seemed. They'd insist that he was after money, no matter who it was - even if it was Bill Gates' kid.

I think there are some people who aren't fanatics, who choose to believe MJ is innocent because a) they don't know much about the case and b) they're happier believing he didn't do it. And I think a lot of those people could be swayed by someone like Macaulay Culkin or Emmanuel Lewis coming forward.

But the MJ cultists? Forget it. They wouldn't even believe video footage.

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Blakeston said:

But the MJ cultists? Forget it. They wouldn't even believe video footage.

Yup.  And I would love to hear how they would explain video evidence...was Michael playing Twister with a kid, and bumped into him at the wrong moment?  As utterly ridiculous and fucked up as that sounds, I wouldn't put it past the Stans.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

51 minutes ago, Shakma said:

Yup.  And I would love to hear how they would explain video evidence...was Michael playing Twister with a kid, and bumped into him at the wrong moment?  As utterly ridiculous and fucked up as that sounds, I wouldn't put it past the Stans.

Or the Jerry Sandusky defense - "I was just showering, and when I leaned over to turn off the water my genitals accidentally rubbed against one of the children I was showering with."

In R. Kelly's case, even though there's a video of him with a 14-year-old girl, some of his fans have accepted his claim that the girl in the video was someone else.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 2:36 PM, Scarlett45 said:

A former classmate and Facebook friend of mine shared this- he works as an abuse counselor (I have his permission to share anonymously). I respect his insights as a human being and a professional so I wanted to share here. 

Quote

So I’ve watched all 4 hours of this documentary and consumed much of the cultural criticism about it and I’m going to say what I need to say and be done with it because everything those men have to share just resonates too much with all that I’ve heard and continue to hear from survivors I’ve worked with...

There’s not a doubt in my mind that they are telling the truth..........

Generally speaking sex offenders parse between rapists who happen to target children and pedophiles who exclusively target children.

Of the latter there are fixated pedophiles and regressed pedophiles. 

Regressed offenders are psychologically mature, identify as adults and prefer the company of adults, tend to offend when they feel the lack of power and control in some other area of their life, and usually target children in their family, regardless of gender.

Fixated offenders are not psychologically mature. They identify as children, prefer the company of children, and are usually developmentally stuck at an age when they were offended against or acutely traumatized some kind of way. They usually offend against boys around their own developmental age and they usually have no kinship relation with their victims.

Michael Jackson is obviously a fixated offender. He makes me feel the same way the fixated offenders I’ve counseled made me feel and his victims tell the same truths that the survivors I’ve worked with tend to tell.

Wow! That was quite insightful! I had theorized that Michael Jackson suffered from sort of arrested development after watching the infamous Bashir interview and things he did, like holding his baby over the balcony by its feet but couldn't articulate it. So are the motivations of "regressed" and "fixated" different? Would a "fixated offender" be aware of what he was doing?

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 7:30 PM, Scarlett45 said:

No (normal) adult man watches porn with 12yrs old boys. Don’t believe that story. Something else is fishy. It’s likely he was trying to groom and they had a strong negative reaction so he didn’t continue to abuse them. 

Wow, I had never considered that to be MJ's way of weeding out potential victims!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ubiquitous said:

Wow! That was quite insightful! I had theorized that Michael Jackson suffered from sort of arrested development after watching the infamous Bashir interview and things he did, like holding his baby over the balcony by its feet but couldn't articulate it. So are the motivations of "regressed" and "fixated" different? Would a "fixated offender" be aware of what he was doing?

Wow, I had never considered that to be MJ's way of weeding out potential victims!

I absolutely believe MJ and other fixated offenders know what they are doing. It’s not an issue where they cognitively don’t understand and are impulsive or suffering from a psychosis of some kind. They know it’s wrong but they want to do it so they did it. 

Regressed offenders are pedophiles of opportunity- they likely have significant sexual attraction to adults and adult relationships but they prey on kids because they are predators and kids are EASY targets. Think of the predators that go after mentally disabled people or the elderly- it’s about opportunity not because they have no other options for partnered sex.  

Fixated pedophiles want kids and kids only at a certain stage and for their own person gain. They may “hide” in adult relationships because it’s socially acceptable, but they continue to go after kids over and over again.

I’m sure MJ spent a great deal of time weeding out victims that would cause trouble for him. A kid who thinks his behavior is creepy, didn’t want to be touched and/or had involved attentive parents was NOT an ideal target. Given MJ was all about the “relationship” a kid that would hate his guts wasn’t an ideal target and more trouble than it was worth. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

Thanks for posting.  Notice what it says about if the victim is mistaken about one detail, they won't be believed.  This is one of the reasons people don't come forward, or drop charges/accusations.  The deck is stacked against them.

That's what so frustrating. If the victim is mistake about one detail nope there not believed. It doesn't matter how many details they were right about. Any other crime they would be completely understanding. Of course you don't remember every detail you went through a traumatic event. But victims of sexual abuse, molestation and rape are always exempt from that. Any detail they get wrong. That's it. Their lying.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

22 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Interestingly, Branca, as executor of Jackson's estate, receives 10% commission on any revenues generated from it; but he claims it is Robson and Safechuck who are greedy and just want money.  The two guys who have yet to receive a dime in payment for anything they've said or done pertaining to the documentary.  Very crafty of them! The article states Jackson's music catalog alone is worth $570 million; no wonder Branca wants to try to smear Jackson's victims, that's a lot of money he won't be seeing if the estate loses value due to the truth coming out.

Branca's remarks were made at a seminar at Harvard Law School called Trial by Media: Guilty Until Proven Innocent' which does sound like a worthwhile topic to explore.  I would hope there is a companion seminar about celebrities who use their wealth and fame to avoid consequences when charged with criminal acts and that Mr. Branca is there to discuss how Michael Jackson manipulated the fans and media and used his money to avoid consequences while he was alive.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

https://pagesix.com/2019/04/17/jackson-kids-quietly-investigating-wade-robson-and-james-safechuck/

"While the late Michael Jackson’s children continue to explore legal options against his accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck, Page Six has learned they’re also quietly investigating Robson and Safechuck in advance of filing a lawsuit.

Robson and Safechuck made headlines when they appeared in HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary, which aired earlier this year, to recount alleged sexual abuse by the King of Pop. Now Prince, Paris and Prince Michael Jackson II, aka “Blanket,” are on a mission to find out if the men were paid, in any capacity, for their participation, and to look for any inconsistencies in their accounts of the alleged abuse."

"According to a source close to the family, the children are said to be preparing a lawsuit for fraud, emotional distress, slander and misrepresentation.

We’re also told that in the potential suit, Prince, 22, Paris, 21, and Blanket, 17, are not looking for money, but want Robson and Safechuck to accept “responsibility” and give an “apology.” Any funds awarded will be given to charity.

Jackson’s three heirs feel the documentary violated their privacy as they are mentioned in it. “All of these things take away their privacy,” said a source."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 10:13 AM, qtpye said:

This article talks about how much his life was a mess financially at the time of his death. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/268276/michael-jackson-died-deeply-in-debt

Oh my gosh! I had forgotten about Captain EO until reading that article! Wasn't MJ with a little boy in it?

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 3:30 PM, Shakma said:

Chemical castration, I don't know.  Honestly, I find that one a bit too far-fetched, even though it would explain the super high voice.  I'm pretty sure a few people talked about Michael speaking with a deeper voice when not so many people were around.  Liza Minnelli had an anecdote about how Michael was talking to her then-husband on the phone one day, and when she picked up, she couldn't even tell it was Michael because his voice was so different.  People said the same thing about Marilyn Monroe and her breathy-baby voice.  IDK.

Wow, I remember someone talking about MJ speaking differently in private.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, Ubiquitous said:

Oh my gosh! I had forgotten about Captain EO until reading that article! Wasn't MJ with a little boy in it?

Wow, I remember someone talking about MJ speaking differently in private.

His name was Johnathan Spence if you were wondering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, maggiegil said:

We’re also told that in the potential suit, Prince, 22, Paris, 21, and Blanket, 17, are not looking for money, but want Robson and Safechuck to accept “responsibility” and give an “apology.” Any funds awarded will be given to charity.

I can understand why Paris, Prince and Blanket (isn’t he going by Bidi now?) would be upset about the documentary and wouldn’t want to believe their father was capable of such things. I don’t expect them to be objective given that they loved him and were so little when he died. But their privacy has NOT been violated by the documentary.

James and Wade did not discuss private and/or intimate details of their life and no footage was shown of them we haven’t seen 100x before. IF the three wanted to live a private life they’d be able to do so (and they would still be incredibly wealthy)- look at OJ’s kids who are never in the public eye! James and Wade don’t need to take responsibly for anything and they have nothing to apologize for. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I can understand why Paris, Prince and Blanket (isn’t he going by Bidi now?) would be upset about the documentary and wouldn’t want to believe their father was capable of such things. I don’t expect them to be objective given that they loved him and were so little when he died. But their privacy has NOT been violated by the documentary.

James and Wade did not discuss private and/or intimate details of their life and no footage was shown of them we haven’t seen 100x before. IF the three wanted to live a private life they’d be able to do so (and they would still be incredibly wealthy)- look at OJ’s kids who are never in the public eye! James and Wade don’t need to take responsibly for anything and they have nothing to apologize for. 

I think the problem is that they are adapted to social media and other outlets that put them back on the spotlight, Paris being the center of Twitter and Instagram. I am not blaming them for that because the Kardashians and Hilton sisters did this sort of thing to keep them relevant for years. Even without this documentary, I think they would have found other ways to keep them in the public eye. You can thank the family for that.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert Lynch said:

I think the problem is that they are adapted to social media and other outlets that put them back on the spotlight, Paris being the center of Twitter and Instagram. I am not blaming them for that because the Kardashians and Hilton sisters did this sort of thing to keep them relevant for years. Even without this documentary, I think they would have found other ways to keep them in the public eye. You can thank the family for that.

Right- I’m saying they cannot claim the documentary violated their privacy when it didn’t share anything they had already consent to be shared, or was public footage.

I am not suggesting they should be ashamed or hide away- no matter what Michael did THEY are not at fault (they weren’t even alive for most of it!!), and if they want public media profiles that’s their right, but their privacy wasn’t violated at all. Of course I do feel awful for them if people are harassing them because if michael’s crimes- that’s wrong, but that’s not Wade or James’ fault. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I don't remember them even being mentioned in Leaving Neverland,  but they have been in other docs.   Filing frivolous lawsuits and posting on instagram and twitter is probably not the best idea for people who truly desire privacy.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

I don't remember them even being mentioned in Leaving Neverland,  but they have been in other docs.   Filing frivolous lawsuits and posting on instagram and twitter is probably not the best idea for people who truly desire privacy.

Wade Robson mentioned them briefly when talking about going for dinner with his wife at Neverland sometime after he testified at the second trial.  He said that Jackson seemed to be pretty messed up and went upstairs to get something and never reappeared.  When he suggested to the kids that they should check up on him, they told him that this happened all the time and they were sure Jackson was fine.  Robson expressed surprise at how relaxed the kids were about it.  I'm not seeing how this was such a huge violation of their privacy.  MJ had been to rehab and the whole world knows how he died; there's no way anyone could think the kids weren't exposed to that side of him, too.  If anything, Robson seemed sorry for MJ's kids and I'd imagine most viewers were, too.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

There’s no way this lawsuit will happen. They can say they are suing for slander, but I would be really surprised if they actually do it and give James and Wade’s lawyers the opportunity to dig up evidence and witnesses to disprove claims of slander. Discovery can be a bitch.

In other news, in the most recent episode of the “Real Crime Profile” podcast, Jim Clemente hinted that he believes more evidence/victims will surface in the near future. It could be speculation on his part, but he is former FBI and had ties to the Gavin case and it didn’t sound like he was just spitballing.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if it was Prince, Paris, and Blanket/Bidi's idea to file a lawsuit about the documentary, or if they are being pressured to do so.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, a "source" is quoting that Prince, Paris, and Blanket are........  Since most of us have heard that "Blanket" is now going by the name "Bidi" (well, I suppose if your given name is "blanket" changing it to "bidi" probably doesn't seem weird, but....) but the "source" doesn't know what "blanket's" name should be?  Just a guess, but this source is most likely not from the inner circle.

That being said, the doc hardly invaded their privacy.  It did not show old or current photos, did they even mention these children by name?  I think that train has left the station on any privacy claims they may have.  Their beloved father set them up to live in this shit show!  I know it's not their fault, but I heard their father say there was nothing weird about a grown man sharing a bed with a young boy.  In my opinion, that is weird.  Jackson was a weirdo, he found a way to bring three children into his weirdo world, they had no control over that, but they now do have control over their social media presence, as in, they don't need to be on social media in a recognizable form.  And yet, they are. 

They may not know any better, and I'm sure none of the rest of the weirdo Jackson's will advise them otherwise.  They were kind of screwed from the get go with Wacko for a father.  It's too bad.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Kostgard said:

There’s no way this lawsuit will happen. They can say they are suing for slander, but I would be really surprised if they actually do it and give James and Wade’s lawyers the opportunity to dig up evidence and witnesses to disprove claims of slander. Discovery can be a bitch.

I don't think they could even do that. Doesn't the person have to be alive to be libeled/slandered? Nobody says anything about any of them--except for that one story Wade told about dinner at their house, and all he says is that Jackson went upstairs and went to bed and the kids said he was fine. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 8:13 PM, sistermagpie said:

I took it as part of the misogyny he [MJ] seemed to always be teaching the boys. Women are deceitful and make-up is part of that. The person James thought was attracted was a womanly trick. She didn't really look how he thought she looked.

Isn't misogyny a part of Jehova's Witnesses, MJ's family's religion? I kinda remember JW being against women dancing and them "dressing like sluts".

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ubiquitous said:

Isn't misogyny a part of Jehova's Witnesses, MJ's family's religion? I kinda remember JW being against women dancing and them "dressing like sluts".

It seems hypocritical of them because I remember a 16 year old Janet Jackson for her first album cover in a swimming pool and was bare shouldered there. Not to mention the crotch grabbing that MJ did on Motown 25. I don't think any of that was appropriate due to their religion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for that link--this morning I was hoping I'd remember to check who did that hummingbird dance on SYTYCD and it was Wade! It's so bizarre for anyone to suggest that he owed Michael Jackson much of anything for his success.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Ubiquitous said:

Isn't misogyny a part of Jehova's Witnesses, MJ's family's religion? I kinda remember JW being against women dancing and them "dressing like sluts".

Misogyny and beating their kids to discipline them is absolutely a JW thing.  I knew someone in high school whose family was JW and the beatings he described were horrific, like beating toddlers who couldn't sit still for 2 hours of assembly, belts, rods, you name it.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, izabella said:

Misogyny and beating their kids to discipline them is absolutely a JW thing.  I knew someone in high school whose family was JW and the beatings he described were horrific, like beating toddlers who couldn't sit still for 2 hours of assembly, belts, rods, you name it.

But they love Jesus!  There are no words.........

  • Like 4
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 10:08 AM, doodlebug said:

Branca's remarks were made at a seminar at Harvard Law School called Trial by Media: Guilty Until Proven Innocent' which does sound like a worthwhile topic to explore.  I would hope there is a companion seminar about celebrities who use their wealth and fame to avoid consequences when charged with criminal acts and that Mr. Branca is there to discuss how Michael Jackson manipulated the fans and media and used his money to avoid consequences while he was alive.

I agree that it is a worthwhile topic to discuss, but I am highly disappointed that Harvard chose Mr. Branca to be part of the discussion. I hate that in some people's eyes, this will lend credibility to whatever self-serving bile he is spewing. Harvard, you could and should do better.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/19/2019 at 7:12 AM, TigerLynx said:

I wonder if it was Prince, Paris, and Blanket/Bidi's idea to file a lawsuit about the documentary, or if they are being pressured to do so.

I can almost guarantee you they are being pressured by the rest of the family.  Probably by Joe Jackson indirectly or directly.  And not because of any great love he has for MJ, but because he figures it's a reflection on him. 

And in some way, it may be.  I'm not a psychologist, but Joe Jackson terrorized his children, sexually abused Rebe and never let his children be children. This was particularly true for MJ who was the youngest of the Jackson 5.

As an armchair psychologist I can see a million twisted ways a grown man who idealizes childhood because he never had one could act out.  But if he had these feelings he should have gotten help, he knew what he was doing was wrong, no matter the motivation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, RealReality said:

I can almost guarantee you they are being pressured by the rest of the family.  Probably by Joe Jackson indirectly or directly.  And not because of any great love he has for MJ, but because he figures it's a reflection on him. 

And in some way, it may be.  I'm not a psychologist, but Joe Jackson terrorized his children, sexually abused Rebe and never let his children be children. This was particularly true for MJ who was the youngest of the Jackson 5.

As an armchair psychologist I can see a million twisted ways a grown man who idealizes childhood because he never had one could act out.  But if he had these feelings he should have gotten help, he knew what he was doing was wrong, no matter the motivation.

Joe Jackson's dead. But probably the rest of them. None of them are decent people, I don't think. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size