The Celebrity Abusers Thread

[Brewster McCloud]

4 minutes ago, Steve Justice said:

But you only know what you know based on what you've read and seen in this documentary. It doesn't make it fact.

I've not seen the doc yet, and when I do I may well be in the same mindset as you. But I genuinely hope it isn't true. Not just because I want to keep and continue to listen to his music, but mainly because if it isn't true then they'll be no victims.

Well, it kind of does make it a fact; sworn testimony from people who I don't think (based on everything I've read) have an agenda. The whole thing is incredibly horrible, Steve. And, there are numerous victims, who clearly aren't making it up.

[wordsfromlee]

Wasn’t one of the guys who’s accusing him in this doc a defence witness for MJ during that trial a decade or so ago?

[Brewster McCloud]

2 minutes ago, wordsfromlee said:

Wasn’t one of the guys who’s accusing him in this doc a defence witness for MJ during that trial a decade or so ago?

Yes, and it's very unfortunate. One can't possibly put oneself in the same shoes. That was then, this is now, and from everything I've read about the case, Jackson's family should be horrified. 

[Brewster McCloud]

34 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

So is this an unbiased factual look at him, or is it just a matter of a couple of new people have came forward when there's a documentary to be made with a clear agenda?.

1

it's quite obviously not.

[WyattSheepMask]

R Kelly has been arrested again, this time for failing to pay Child Support. He’s been held in custody until he pays ex-wife, Andrea Kelly, the full amount of $161,000

[David]

43 minutes ago, Brewster McCloud said:

Well, it kind of does make it a fact; sworn testimony from people who I don't think (based on everything I've read) have an agenda.

It absolutely doesn't make it a fact. 

The New York Times makes a comment that has been forgotten in all of the intrigue and sensationalism;

"No corroborating testimony or evidence for their accounts is presented."

These are the same people who offered sworn testimony previously to the contrary, right? Sworn testimony that helped land one of them a new house. And I may be wrong, but didn't both of these guys file a lawsuit a few years back that was dismissed? 

I'm not saying Jackson was innocent of all the charges brought against him, but I think it's a bit more of a grey area than some want to believe. He was a weird character by all accounts with some pretty serious mental issues, and I think we're naive if we don't think that some parents and guardians didn't see dollar signs when allowing their children to interact with him.

As for people having an agenda, you'd have to be a fool to think there's no agenda in all of this. The two guys featured have appealed their lawsuit that was thrown out previously, and they hope to land themselves some of those royalties that the Jackson estate seems to be enjoying at the moment. Making themselves higher profile through this documentary certainly won't hurt their case when it comes time for the decision to be made on their appeal, will it? They're essentially rolling the dice for the last time.

As I mentioned previously, maybe I'm just a bit too cynical, but when I see people actively step up in court and say one thing that obviously benefits them at the time, only to remain silent for a period and then reappear with a lawsuit once there's a chance of money to be had and when the accused isn't able to defend himself I'm not really going to take them seriously.

Edited March 7, 2019 by David

[Chest Rockwell]

7 minutes ago, WyattSheepMask said:

R Kelly has been arrested again, this time for failing to pay Child Support. He’s been held in custody until he pays ex-wife, Andrea Kelly, the full amount of $161,000

What's that got to do with raping and nonceing?

[WyattSheepMask]

Just now, Chest Rockwell said:

What's that got to do with raping and nonceing?

Nothing directly,  it being out on bail for raping and nonceing to then get arrested again isn’t going to do him any favours

[Brewster McCloud]

16 minutes ago, David said:

It absolutely doesn't make it a fact. 

The New York Times makes a comment that has been forgotten in all of the intrigue and sensationalism;

"No corroborating testimony or evidence for their accounts is presented."

These are the same people who offered sworn testimony previously to the contrary, right? Sworn testimony that helped land one of them a new house. And I may be wrong, but didn't both of these guys file a lawsuit a few years back that was dismissed? 

I'm not saying Jackson was innocent of all the charges brought against him, but I think it's a bit more of a grey area than some want to believe. He was a weird character by all accounts with some pretty serious mental issues, and I think we're naive if we don't think that some parents and guardians didn't see dollar signs when allowing their children to interact with him.

As for people having an agenda, you'd have to be a fool to think there's no agenda in all of this. The two guys featured have appealed their lawsuit that was thrown out previously, and they hope to land themselves some of those royalties that the Jackson estate seems to be enjoying at the moment. Making themselves higher profile through this documentary certainly won't hurt their case when it comes time for the decision to be made on their appeal, will it? They're essentially rolling the dice for the last time.

As I mentioned previously, maybe I'm just a bit too cynical, but when I see people actively step up in court and say one thing that obviously benefits them at the time, only to remain silent for a period and then reappear with a lawsuit once there's a chance of money to be had and when the accused isn't able to defend himself I'm not really going to take them seriously.

Fine. You should be more cynical, not less, though. 

[FLips]

Oh so there’s no evidence at all and both guys have tried this before and got nowhere?

[BomberPat]

It's an account of nothing less than years of meticulously orchestrated child grooming - of the kind we already know Michael Jackson was doing for years. 

I find it baffling that people can full well accept that he did this - I don't think anyone is disputing that Jackson did foster relationships with these children, and did sleep in the same bad as them - but so emphatically draw the line at the suggestion that he - the powerful adult sharing a bed with children - abused them. 

Consider "Abducted In Plain Sight"; everyone watching thought , "how the fuck would you let him share a bed with her?", yet write off Jackson sharing his bed with children as some kind of naive childish fantasy from a man who "never grew up"? Paedophiles who didn't record "Off The Wall" don't get the benefit of being able to pretend to be overgrown kids themselves, I don't see why Jackson should.

 

As for the suggestion people are just trying to make some money off it. Maybe that's the case, maybe it's not. But if I watch the documentary through those eyes, and see people close to tears and trembling while recounting supposedly fictitious abuse, I can only think, "fucking hell, there must be an easier way to make a few quid".

[wordsfromlee]

13 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

As for the suggestion people are just trying to make some money off it. Maybe that's the case, maybe it's not. But if I watch the documentary through those eyes, and see people close to tears and trembling while recounting supposedly fictitious abuse, I can only think, "fucking hell, there must be an easier way to make a few quid".

Worked for Evan Chandler in the 90s. He got $23m for it!

[David]

38 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I find it baffling that people can full well accept that he did this - I don't think anyone is disputing that Jackson did foster relationships with these children, and did sleep in the same bad as them - but so emphatically draw the line at the suggestion that he - the powerful adult sharing a bed with children - abused them.

I can only speak for myself of course, but I'm not drawing the line anywhere. I'm not arguing with the suggestion that he abused those kids, just in the same way as I'm not arguing with the suggestion that he didn't. 

My main point is that when we have people saying that the allegations against him are some sort of fact, and that people are "clearly not making it up" we have to be careful not to overstep the line and get caught up in the sensationalism.

43 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Paedophiles who didn't record "Off The Wall" don't get the benefit of being able to pretend to be overgrown kids themselves, I don't see why Jackson should.

Paedophiles who didn't record "Off The Wall," but who also weren't found guilty of the crimes they were accused of should absolutely get the benefit of the doubt in my opinion. In fact, isn't the very idea of calling someone a paedophile when there's no actual evidence of it being true a little bit off?

I'm not an avid fan of Jackson's and I haven't followed all of his career as closely as some, so maybe I'm missing where he was taken to trial and convicted of being a paedophile? All I know is that there was a case against him the mid-2000's where he was found not guilty on all 14 counts brought against him.

Maybe it's all rather old fashioned of me, but the whole "innocent until proven guilty" gimmick still appeals, despite what juicy shit the media may throw our way.

[BomberPat]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Maybe it's all rather old fashioned of me, but the whole "innocent until proven guilty" gimmick still appeals, despite what juicy shit the media may throw our way.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for the courts, it doesn't preclude the rest of us from making our minds up.

I was once assaulted, and the case thrown out for lack of evidence. I still know the fucker did it, even if he was never found guilty.

[David]

Well, whatever blows your hair back mate, but it's not for me. I won't be shouting his innocence from the rooftops, but I'll hold off on labelling the man a paedophile when there's no actual evidence that it's true.