Michael Jackson Hit With New Abuse ClaimBy Diane Dimond

May 12, 2014 Full story: The Daily Beast 337

The star of a 1987 Pepsi ad featuring Michael Jackson has joined a suit against the singer's estate, alleging that Jackson sexually abused him for years.

Full Story

Since: Jun 13

Wilson, NC

#23 May 12, 2014
Ultimately Michael Jackson is guilty of putting himself in the situation where now FIVE men have accused him of child molestation, two other men who claimed Michael was acting inappropriately (Terry & Aaron Carter) and one man whose family was giving three hundred G's to shut up (David Martinez).

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#24 May 12, 2014
tally09 wrote:
<quoted text>His son? That poor child.
Yes he was 12 years old at the time of Jackson's death.

“Still the Dark Lord.”

Since: Jun 13

Everywhere.

#26 May 13, 2014
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he did something to Prince Michael I. The depraved scumbag was capable of it.
For sure he did. I'm just glad Prince is turning out well.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#27 May 13, 2014
Reality_Awaits wrote:
Macaulay Culkin's turn to come forward. Let the lawsuits begin.
!!!!!!RELEASE THE AVALANCHE!!!!!!
Maybe Jonathan Spence will have the courage to step forward. Then f'loons will have more difficulty pretending there was nothing wrong with the nude photo Michael owned of Jonathan, while still a boy.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#28 May 13, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
You know what's interesting: how Thomas Mesereau had straight up lied and said Jimmy married at Neverland when the last time Jimmy was around was when he was about 18 and that was on the set of his "HIStory" promo video in Europe and he was never allowed to spend more than an hour with MJ after his 15th birthday. Funny how the chickens are coming home to roost.
If Mesereau has an ounce of common sense, he won't say a word. It would be too easy to pull out the stops, about the so-called wedding that never took place, and feed him a big slice of humble pie.
Ancalime

Everswinkel, Germany

#29 May 13, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe Jonathan Spence will have the courage to step forward. Then f'loons will have more difficulty pretending there was nothing wrong with the nude photo Michael owned of Jonathan, while still a boy.
BTW. Thomas Meserau currently reported that he had mixed up the names Jimmy Savechuck and Jonathan Spence by saying that Spence married in Neverland, not Savechuck. Ooopsie. That perjury could cost Meserau dearly....

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#30 May 13, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe Jonathan Spence will have the courage to step forward. Then f'loons will have more difficulty pretending there was nothing wrong with the nude photo Michael owned of Jonathan, while still a boy.
The one thing which confuses me most about that picture is if Jonathan Spence was indeed naked. Why didn't the 2004 grand jury indict Jackson on one count of child pornography? Why did Jackson get a pass on that if Spence was in the nude?

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#31 May 13, 2014
Stormageddon wrote:
<quoted text> For sure he did. I'm just glad Prince is turning out well.
Indeed he is. All of them appear happier, apart from Paris's suicide attempt last summer of course. It must feel good to not wear mask and veils like a circus sideshow.
jill

Tampa, FL

#33 May 13, 2014
You are all disgusting.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#34 May 13, 2014
jill wrote:
You are all disgusting.
Well, if you are a devout Michael Jackson fan your comment doesn't amount to squat around here.
Octopus

Schenectady, NY

#35 May 13, 2014
Diane Dimond continues to expose the filthy dead clown for what he will always be. She deserves the uttermost respect for siding with Wacko's victims that are finally coming forward to spill the beans on the dead clown's wicked and perverted deeds involving children that were sexually abused beyond the walls of his pleasure dens in Neverland Valley. Celebration day is close. I am glad that Michael Jackson took his last breath on June 25th 2009. His empty and worthless heart stopped beating in his strawny little chest as Dr Conrad Murray plugged his nose from the horrible stink of Wacko's flowing diarrhea as the nude clown struggled to stay alive on his urine stained mattress pad. The odor of death.

Congrats to both Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck for being brave enough to tell on the dead grasshopper despite threats from floons and the greedy Jacksons that have failed to get people to ignore Michael Jackson's past of unspeakable sexual crimes against children.

Karma.

Since: Jun 13

Wilson, NC

#36 May 13, 2014
Ancalime wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW. Thomas Meserau currently reported that he had mixed up the names Jimmy Savechuck and Jonathan Spence by saying that Spence married in Neverland, not Savechuck. Ooopsie. That perjury could cost Meserau dearly....
WTF? Michael wasn't studying Jonathan Spence after the 1980s! How could he have been married? The only known wedding conducted at Neverland was Elizabeth Taylor's back in 1991! If Mez knows any better, he'll shut up but he can't help but put his foot in his mouth. Now if Spence comes out with a lawsuit, who will he claim got married at Neverland? MACAULAY!? SMH
jill

Tampa, FL

#37 May 13, 2014
I wonder why they are coming forward after his death, because he can't defend himself. It was ironic that it came out when the MJ estate put out a new album of michael's. Of course they will believe him, everyone believes children when they say that. He is just like the others, money grubbing parasite liars who will do and say anything to get money and they don't care who they hurt in the process.

Since: Jun 13

Wilson, NC

#38 May 13, 2014
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one thing which confuses me most about that picture is if Jonathan Spence was indeed naked. Why didn't the 2004 grand jury indict Jackson on one count of child pornography? Why did Jackson get a pass on that if Spence was in the nude?
If I recall, they didn't accept the picture to be included in the trial. Apparently they were not allowed this at the 1994 grand jury hearings either. The 2004 grand jury indicted MJ on the charges against him as told by the Arvizos. The past stuff was brought up after the trial took place, if I recall correctly. And even then they couldn't present the photo. Mesereau tried to get the picture back as well as the "art" books (which were allowed to be presented to the court room) and wasn't allowed to so it's still in control of the Santa Barbara police department. The picture could be presented during Wade's/Jimmy's case though.

“Evolution is fab!”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#41 May 13, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mesereau tried to get the picture back as well as the "art" books (which were allowed to be presented to the court room) and wasn't allowed to so it's still in control of the Santa Barbara police department. The picture could be presented during Wade's/Jimmy's case though.
Thomas Mesereau also attempted to have the photographs of Wacko's splotchy penis returned by claiming they were his property. Strangely, I don't think a single floon on here has ever commented on why Wacko would want photographs back, which according to them absolutely did not match, or pose a threat.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#42 May 13, 2014
Ancalime wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW. Thomas Meserau currently reported that he had mixed up the names Jimmy Savechuck and Jonathan Spence by saying that Spence married in Neverland, not Savechuck. Ooopsie. That perjury could cost Meserau dearly....
Unfortunately, that would be another easy one to prove or disprove. Does he think people won't research that? The lie about Jimmy Safechuck's wedding has come back to haunt Mesereau, with a vengeance.

Of course, there is always the possibility he mixed up Jimmy Safechuck with Elizabeth Taylor's Neverland Ranch Wedding.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#43 May 13, 2014
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
The one thing which confuses me most about that picture is if Jonathan Spence was indeed naked. Why didn't the 2004 grand jury indict Jackson on one count of child pornography? Why did Jackson get a pass on that if Spence was in the nude?
Because he wasn't photographed engaging in sex acts. That's how pedophiles get away with owning material of nude children. It is considered child erotica when owned by them. It was introduced, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. However, considering the jury foreman refused to look at key pieces of evidence, such as the nude-child books, it wouldn't surprise me if the nude photo of Jonathan was also "overlooked."

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#44 May 13, 2014
Jina Wild_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange then that the estate have no plans to counter sue, don't you think? After all, if they are money grabbing and lying parasites, their claims should be easy enough to debunk. I wonder why, instead of doing that, the Wacksons are trying frantically to put legal obstacles in the way instead? Any idea, person who thinks she knows the fecking lot?
Meet Wade & Jimmy in court & all the little details become a matter of the public record.

That should be fun for his kids and family.

Since: Jun 13

Wilson, NC

#46 May 13, 2014
Butterballs wrote:
<quoted text>
Thomas Mesereau also attempted to have the photographs of Wacko's splotchy penis returned by claiming they were his property. Strangely, I don't think a single floon on here has ever commented on why Wacko would want photographs back, which according to them absolutely did not match, or pose a threat.
If they weren't a match, why didn't they allow the prosecution to present it? Especially since according to T. Mez, Michael had nothing to hide, right? lol

Since: Jun 13

Wilson, NC

#47 May 13, 2014
Jina Wild_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Strange then that the estate have no plans to counter sue, don't you think? After all, if they are money grabbing and lying parasites, their claims should be easy enough to debunk. I wonder why, instead of doing that, the Wacksons are trying frantically to put legal obstacles in the way instead? Any idea, person who thinks she knows the fecking lot?
All they can do is cry to TMZ about "why are they saying this?! They're bad people looking for our dead cash cow, er, meal ticket, er,'beloved' client's money!" Lol. L.A. Reid the other day said MJ was some kind of angel...smh

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Wacko photoshoot, circa 1993 16 min Pop Tart- 181
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) 23 min Lee 12,827
CHRISTMAS is a time to say we Love you Michael 27 min Octopus 25
listen 1 hr Sleepingboy 2
Butchered Nose: Most Painful, Wacko michael jac... 1 hr Sleepingboy 6
just when you thought floons couldn't get any c... 1 hr Sleepingboy 12
If Michael Jackson was standing in front of you... 8 hr Octopus 369
Are MJ Fans Worried? 15 hr Len is Disgusted 228
More from around the web