A Conversation for Michael Jackson - Singer/Songwriter
Uber Phreak Started conversation May 2, 2001
hummmmm...no mention of Micheal attraction to small boys......
rickydazla Posted May 8, 2001
er, actually there is...
Under 'Somwhere in the Middle'; paragraphs 1 and 3...
The main point of the article was to highlight the outstanding aspects of his musical career - I doubt anyone is unaware of his link with small boys, fact or fiction. If I had written more about this side of his life then either a) h2g2/the beeb would probably not have approved the article as/or b) Jackson has fairly solid legal backing and would probably sue.
Researcher 196890 Posted Jun 20, 2002
OF COURSE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF HIS ATTRACTION OF THE SMALL BOYS, BECAUSE IN THE YEAR 2000, THE LAWYER OF JORDY CHANDLER, WHO ACCUSED HIM, CAME FORWARD WITH A BOOK, WHICH CONTAINED EVIDENCE PROVING MICHAEL WAS INNOCENT!!! NOBODY EVER KNOWS THAT BIT. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THOSE STORIES HAS TO BE A TABLOID READER, AND THE TABLOIDS REFUSED TO PRINT GERALDINE HUGHES' STORY (THE LAWYER) AS FIRSTLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THEY HAD BEEN WRONG, AND SECONFLY, THEY WOULD HAVE NOTHING DO DIG UP LATER ON. QUIT BUGGING MICHAEL ABOUT IT, HE HAS BEEN PROVED INNOCENT, IT IS OVER!!!!!
rickydazla Posted Jun 26, 2002
No, as I've already said, there was no mention of it because I chose not to mention it. You're right, it has never been proven, but that doesn't stop people being suspicious or stop them reading tabloid newspapers (which are not all bad by the way - have you ever read one?) or from making jokes about it. I presume you are a fan in the true sense of the word? Welcome, speak up, your voice will be heard...
Mazstar Posted Apr 10, 2005
It's time for MJ to face the music. I'm glad his crime has got to a court at last. I'm scottish so I spose I dont understand the full ins and outs of an american showbiz court case, the money and fame for all involved are no doubt major factors. But I've been thinking for years now...how does he get away with it? He's a man...and he can take little boys to bed, and its ok for him? That is wrong, totally wrong, I dont go for that Peter Pan innocent/child/man idea. He takes small boys to bed...thats so wrong its not right.
I appreciate the mother of this little boy is probably very dodgy...she's probably an unreliable witness, if she was a good person she'd never have left her son alone with a bad man in the first place. But because she is wrong shouldnt mean MJ should be allowed to carry on abusing small boys. Even if he ONLY takes them to bed to cuddle...that in itself is wrong, but no one in the real world believes he only cuddles them. Imagine your husband/boyfriend/brother/son/father/uncle/grandad took little boys to his bed! Wouldnt you suspect sexual abuse? Wouldnt you stop that? Wouldnt you report him? No amount of musical tallent, money or fame should allow him to do that to small boys.
He pretends to be a messiah figure, innocently loving children, if that is the case...does he only see male children? And preferably between ages 10 and 14? Most of his young male 'pals' have been of similar hair and skin colour...his 'type'?
I have an 11 year old son, no man is allowed to take him to bed...even for a whole load of money. No one, however famous or rich is allowed to take little boys to bed. Come on MJ...small boys are not your playmates...you are 46, they are children.
I hope the jury can see past the money-grabbing, dishonest people involved and make sure MJ isnt allowed to walk away from his crimes.
Key: Complain about this post