Michael Jackson spent A 23MILLION buying silence of at least TWO...

Jun 29, 2013 Full story: Mirror.co.uk 145

Secret FBI files exclusively seen by the Sunday People reveal Michael Jackson spent A 23million buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years.

Full Story
persephone

Sunnyvale, CA

#304 Jul 22, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
I think those who still buy his music that are more casual fans know his relationships with boys was unsettling (regardless of sex or not) and they probably believe he did molest kids due to him settling with at least three boys' families but they're also like "look the man released some great stuff anyway so I'll buy it". For some, it's harder to separate the music from the man because if they read the FBI files, it would make it hard for them to enjoy the music. The man who sang "Rock With You" was rocking with some little kid allegedly. I mean, it just doesn't look good but then people can be comforted that he didn't write it anyway so that's a good excuse to listen to it without feeling guilty of listening to it. Someone like R. Kelly would have a much more difficult time in separating the man from the music because if they believe R. Kelly was a pederast, it'll be hard to listen to him singing about sex ("Bump and Grind" for example). And unlike MJ, R. Kelly wrote the majority, if not all, of his songs.
Of course there are no FBI files which contain solid proof of any criminal activity on MJ's part, but I realize you don't wish to be bothered with the facts.
rosalinda de la quatch

Cardiff, UK

#305 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> It's difficult to wade through the voluminous sludge that you keep posting, but I'll make an attempt.
Janet Arvizo never complained of any groping by any security guard at the time of her arrest, nor were there any signs of bruising to be seen on her mug shot. Those allegations came nearly a year later. Jc Penneys may have paid the settlement, but they also made it clear that they did not believe her version of events.
Of course molestation occurs, I never said that it didn't. Are you capable of conceding that false accusations also occur? And just how do you propose to tell the difference?
Why do you always have to resort to hatred and abusive comments when somebody is talking about whether somebody has been abused or not ? You have real issues regarding the issues don't you unregistered and suspicious persephone ? You must be unbelievably stupid if you think a big department store is going to agree and say that they have hired security guards who use sexually groping on people who enter their stores correct? You don't like the fact that they did pay out a compensating package rather than trying to proceed with criminal proceedings against this woman correct? That they did pay money regardless of any time frames that you have just made up makes no difference as this is solid proof that they had no faith in the security guards correct? Also on the subject of mug shots ? How did you feel when Michael Jackson had his done ? I thought he looked pretty ridiculous correct? But I'm guessing in the mind of the celebrity worshiper and all around hater like you - you believed it was perfect correct?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#306 Jul 22, 2013
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm with you on that. I think the majority of people are intelligent and can see through the web of lies Michael Jackson and his attorneys created for him. I know many who are willing to buy and listen to the music, but they are not fans of Michael Jackson the man. The difference between fanatics and fans is that fanatics are unwilling to separate the entertainer from the man. They keep him as one package and hence the ludicrous excuses and support for Michael's abhorrent behaviour for children.
Exactly. I hear countless comments saying things like ''even though he was a pedophile, his music was awesome'' or something along those lines.

Some people invest too much time with a celebrity's persona and let that overshadow the real deal. I personally cant enjoy his music knowing who sings it.. This is coming from a person who enjoyed his music greatly in the past. I was also on the fence not long ago - this was largely to do with lies (unknown to me at the time) spread by MJ fanatics claiming Jordan recanted his statements. After some simple research - LOGIC and rational thinking swayed me to the conclusion I have now.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#307 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Aside from that bit of whining on that 60 Minutes interview, I don't remember hearing anything much about it ever again.
It doesn't matter. The fact is the lie occurred. Not only that it was a blatant lie, because the public saw Michael Jackson leave the police station and was able to make a victory sign for the media. Weeks after the 60 Minutes interview he was able to pull himself on the roof of his SUV and dance for the f'loons attending his arraignment on child molestation charges. If his shoulder was separated he wouldn't be able to make the victory sign, nor recover in a few weeks to pull himself on the SUV and dance. These incredulous and manipulative lies to garner sympathy from the public make Michael Jackson less, and less credible. So why should the majority of people believe him when he says he wants cute, innocent, childish, time with other people's children? How do I know that's not a lie? It's uncommon for young boys to fabricate sexual abuse with another male. The stigma of being labelled homosexuals is too embrrassing for them. I choose to believe the children, not the manipulative and lying Michael Jackson.
rosalinda de la quatch

UK

#308 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Aside from that bit of whining on that 60 Minutes interview, I don't remember hearing anything much about it ever again.
You call that whining ? That Michael Jackson deliberately went on talkshow of the United States of North America and blatantly told lies that he was physically injured by police officers is whining to you ? It was a deliberate attempt by MJ himself to seek sympathy and make out that he was a poor victim of nasty police officers correct? He was tricking everybody in the world including his own fans that he had been a victim of a crime that didn't take place correct? But somehow you just see that MJ was just having a little irrelevant whinge correct? This is totally crazy correct? And proof that you are simply not interested in the truth as to whether Michael Jackson was a serial abuser of children correct? You don't care about the multiple and serious lies he told to deceive people correct? You simply have this ridiculous and stupid image of MJ in your head that he was perfect in every single way - and anybody who ever disagrees must be hated and abused to the maximum by you celebrity worshipers correct?

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#309 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> It's difficult to wade through the voluminous sludge that you keep posting, but I'll make an attempt.
Janet Arvizo never complained of any groping by any security guard at the time of her arrest, nor were there any signs of bruising to be seen on her mug shot. Those allegations came nearly a year later. Jc Penneys may have paid the settlement, but they also made it clear that they did not believe her version of events.
Of course molestation occurs, I never said that it didn't. Are you capable of conceding that false accusations also occur? And just how do you propose to tell the difference?
Janet Arvizo has been unfairly vilified by f'loons. Even if she lied about being sexually abused by the JC Penny security guards. You shouldn't prejudice her son because of his mother's action. Do you think all little boys sexually molested by child molesters have Saints for parents?? No, the parent does not have to be perfect. A child can have a monstrous parent and still fall victim to a sexual predator.
persephone

Sunnyvale, CA

#310 Jul 22, 2013
rosalinda de la quatch wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you always have to resort to hatred and abusive comments when somebody is talking about whether somebody has been abused or not ? You have real issues regarding the issues don't you unregistered and suspicious persephone ? You must be unbelievably stupid if you think a big department store is going to agree and say that they have hired security guards who use sexually groping on people who enter their stores correct? You don't like the fact that they did pay out a compensating package rather than trying to proceed with criminal proceedings against this woman correct? That they did pay money regardless of any time frames that you have just made up makes no difference as this is solid proof that they had no faith in the security guards correct? Also on the subject of mug shots ? How did you feel when Michael Jackson had his done ? I thought he looked pretty ridiculous correct? But I'm guessing in the mind of the celebrity worshiper and all around hater like you - you believed it was perfect correct?
You are ignoring the undeniable fact that the mug shot, which was taken just after the incident, shows no sign of bruising--no swollen face, nothing.

There were also no reports of groping or sexual molestaion of any kind. That didn't come until months later, when Janet came up with the idea of suing.
rosalinda de la quatch

UK

#311 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> You are ignoring the undeniable fact that the mug shot, which was taken just after the incident, shows no sign of bruising--no swollen face, nothing.
There were also no reports of groping or sexual molestaion of any kind. That didn't come until months later, when Janet came up with the idea of suing.
Am I ? You are clearly ignoring the undeniable fact that Michael Jackson left police custody in perfect health despite him claiming he had his shoulder physically dislocated from its socket correct? You are also ignoring the undeniable fact that Michael Jackson was not locked in a feces covered bathroom for 35 mins as he was released from police custody with in less time correct? You are also ignoring the fact that that bruise which MJ claims was caused by handcuffs was halfway up his arm and not on his wrists correct?

It is so easy to play the blame game correct? You are so eager to point out any faults in the families who accused MJ correct? But you are making a total hypocrite of yourself as MJ was 1000 million times worse than they ever could be correct? He just constantly lied about everything and lied to his own fans correct? But I guess in the head of the celebrity worship like yourself it just does not compute correct? Your sole purpose is to keep on believing he was perfect and to hate on others correct? A stupid dead celebrity is more important to you than possible victims correct?

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#312 Jul 22, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> You are ignoring the undeniable fact that the mug shot, which was taken just after the incident, shows no sign of bruising--no swollen face, nothing.
There were also no reports of groping or sexual molestaion of any kind. That didn't come until months later, when Janet came up with the idea of suing.
Be that as is it may. It's got ZERO to do with her son claiming he was sexually abused by a lying, self-loathing pedophile named Michael Jackson.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#313 Jul 22, 2013
Pishpash1234 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. I hear countless comments saying things like ''even though he was a pedophile, his music was awesome'' or something along those lines.
Some people invest too much time with a celebrity's persona and let that overshadow the real deal. I personally cant enjoy his music knowing who sings it.. This is coming from a person who enjoyed his music greatly in the past. I was also on the fence not long ago - this was largely to do with lies (unknown to me at the time) spread by MJ fanatics claiming Jordan recanted his statements. After some simple research - LOGIC and rational thinking swayed me to the conclusion I have now.
I haven't listened to MJ's music in a while. And even hearing it when viewing reviews of his work (by those who weren't in awe of him), it makes me realize these songs didn't age well, especially the Bad, Dangerous and HIStory material... then again Thriller hasn't aged well either. Off the Wall has aged less than the others though there are a few dated songs ("Burn This Disco Out", "Get on the Floor", "Girlfriend", "She's Out of My Life" and "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" with those annoying Star Wars-esque strings).

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#314 Jul 22, 2013
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
Janet Arvizo has been unfairly vilified by f'loons. Even if she lied about being sexually abused by the JC Penny security guards. You shouldn't prejudice her son because of his mother's action. Do you think all little boys sexually molested by child molesters have Saints for parents?? No, the parent does not have to be perfect. A child can have a monstrous parent and still fall victim to a sexual predator.
The more I think about how Janet Arvizo was handled in that trial, the more I realize that judge was bipartisan for the wrong reasons. He blocked some of the evidence from MJ's past but allowed the defense to bring everything about Janet's past... f'loons may think that is not a fair assessment but that stands out with me.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#315 Jul 22, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
The more I think about how Janet Arvizo was handled in that trial, the more I realize that judge was bipartisan for the wrong reasons. He blocked some of the evidence from MJ's past but allowed the defense to bring everything about Janet's past... f'loons may think that is not a fair assessment but that stands out with me.
Agreed. I've been searching for an unbiased site to find out the truth about Janet Arvizo and the JC Penney lawsuit and I keep coming across those ridiculous MJ vindication sites (anyone with a brain knows those sites are not credible and desperately try to "vindicate" a well documented child molester). I know the Jackson's defense strategy is always to discredit anyone who speaks out against them, accuse them of being after fame and money... same old BS excuse. I found out on this thread that JC Penney paid her, which tells me she DID have a case, if not they'd want to clear their name. But you guys are right, regardless of what her personal story is the kids are separate from that. They weren't going after money either, it's a shame they didn't get justice. MJ's shady attorneys sure did a major smear campaign on Janet Arvizo, and attacked even more victims. It's a sad world where attorneys like this exist- pay them enough and they'll enable crime.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#316 Jul 22, 2013
MJisGUILTY wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. I've been searching for an unbiased site to find out the truth about Janet Arvizo and the JC Penney lawsuit and I keep coming across those ridiculous MJ vindication sites (anyone with a brain knows those sites are not credible and desperately try to "vindicate" a well documented child molester). I know the Jackson's defense strategy is always to discredit anyone who speaks out against them, accuse them of being after fame and money... same old BS excuse. I found out on this thread that JC Penney paid her, which tells me she DID have a case, if not they'd want to clear their name. But you guys are right, regardless of what her personal story is the kids are separate from that. They weren't going after money either, it's a shame they didn't get justice. MJ's shady attorneys sure did a major smear campaign on Janet Arvizo, and attacked even more victims. It's a sad world where attorneys like this exist- pay them enough and they'll enable crime.
That's the American justice system for you... it's no surprise to see why Michael got away with it. And add racist sensationalism despite MJ not wanting to be a black man.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#317 Jul 22, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the American justice system for you... it's no surprise to see why Michael got away with it. And add racist sensationalism despite MJ not wanting to be a black man.
Right on man, it was obvious MJ hated being black so much he bleached his skin and it's baffling why he had so many fans from the black community. Intentionally turning himself white was a slap in the face to his own race. It should have turned fans off, that and being a child molester of all things! I think most folks see the truth now aside from internet f'loons, who thankfully I've never met in real life. Shoot, I wouldn't have believed they even existed had I not happened upon them online. Like Triple H said, I think many of them have several accounts with various screen names. I know people can be stupid, but not that many that stupid!

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#319 Jul 22, 2013
MJisGUILTY wrote:
<quoted text>
YouTube sure does have a lot of freaks! It's f'loon central over there. They think they "defending MJ's honor" with their stupid comments all over his videos, and Robson's. As if anybody going to change their opinion because of some whack MJ defender on you tube! Some of them literally on the site all damn day defending a child molester, pathetic. I prefer this site hands down, most folks over here got common sense... with the occasional ridiculous f'loon comments of course.
I actually like it when the f'loons arrive. It's so much fun to swat them around, with links to legal documents, and then watch them foam at the mouth.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#320 Jul 22, 2013
rosalinda de la quatch wrote:
Also what are these history of molestation claims that the unregistered and suspicious persephone talks about ? Is he talking about the claim that one mother claimed she was groped by security guards of a store ? That was never proven to be a lie by the mother and the department store paid out a compensation package which only indicates that they had no faith in the security guards they hired correct? I honestly believe the suspicious persephone gets a kick out of hating on possible victims of sex crimes correct? He seems to live in some kind of deluded world where he believes everybody who makes allegations of sex crimes are liars correct?
I think Pedophone has personal experience with child molestation accusations. Either the creep or one of his/her family members did something untoward. But everytime people have asked the creep a direct question or a request for an explanation, Pedophone sidesteps it.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#321 Jul 23, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
The more I think about how Janet Arvizo was handled in that trial, the more I realize that judge was bipartisan for the wrong reasons. He blocked some of the evidence from MJ's past but allowed the defense to bring everything about Janet's past... f'loons may think that is not a fair assessment but that stands out with me.
Judging by her testimony, and if the reports are true she was theatrical and people in the gallery laughed at her testimony, Janet was mentally ill and compounded with her son nearly dying of cancer, divorcing an abusive husband. Her family was ripe for the picking by a snake like Michael Jackson.

Judge Melville should have disallowed the JC Penny lawsuit. They did win the lawsuit anyhow, and they were in a criminal trial meaning Janet wanted Michael going to prison for sexually molesting Gavin and attempting to sexually molest Starr. She wasn't going for money and verified this in the court through her testimony. Tom Mesereau must have sensed she was mentally unbalanced and it's no wonder why he grilled her for close to 5 days of testimony.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#322 Jul 23, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually like it when the f'loons arrive. It's so much fun to swat them around, with links to legal documents, and then watch them foam at the mouth.
It's difficult to give them on Youtube. The comment box area provided by Youtube doesn't permit links. I don't know why Youtube is like this. Maybe the founder of Youtube is a Jackson f'loon. lol

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#323 Jul 23, 2013
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
Judging by her testimony, and if the reports are true she was theatrical and people in the gallery laughed at her testimony, Janet was mentally ill and compounded with her son nearly dying of cancer, divorcing an abusive husband. Her family was ripe for the picking by a snake like Michael Jackson.
Judge Melville should have disallowed the JC Penny lawsuit. They did win the lawsuit anyhow, and they were in a criminal trial meaning Janet wanted Michael going to prison for sexually molesting Gavin and attempting to sexually molest Starr. She wasn't going for money and verified this in the court through her testimony. Tom Mesereau must have sensed she was mentally unbalanced and it's no wonder why he grilled her for close to 5 days of testimony.
Exactly. It's no wonder the woman was as unstable as she was. Mez was cold hearted but most lawyers are.
John

Melbourne, Australia

#324 Jul 23, 2013
Nation of child molester lovers.

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
listen 24 min stayreal 1
Butchered Nose: Most Painful, Wacko michael jac... 1 hr Octopus 4
If Michael Jackson was standing in front of you... 2 hr Octopus 369
just when you thought floons couldn't get any c... 3 hr Octopus 11
CHRISTMAS is a time to say we Love you Michael 3 hr goodvibrations 20
Merchandise of Michael 4 hr Octopus 3
Are MJ Fans Worried? 9 hr Len is Disgusted 228
More from around the web