Michael Jackson's Kids

WesternNight

phasers wrote: »

Since when did "sleeping with someone" = sex?
I believe he meant it in a slumber party sort of way which, although unconventional , is not harmful.

Why on EARTH would parents accept a financial settlement if they for one second believed that he behaved inappropriately with their children? Would you put money before seeing a pedophile being brought to justice?

+1

I don't believe for a second that he ever harmed a child.

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child he wasn't related to seems compeltely inappropriate because you assume he was a fully developed, sexual man. This wasn't the case here.

The man was aesexual. He was a child in a man's body. And we simply can't comprehend that. So therefore there must be something inappropriate going on.

How easy would it be for a kid to go home and mention anything about being in the same bed with Michael Jackson and the parents to freak out because they've been conditioned to believe that if that happens it's automatically abuse? And my god, imagine the dollar signs.

As someone said recently, they may as well have just asked him for money - as he's probably have given it to them.

annabellee77

walshb wrote: »

I didn't know that. Jade is a white woman. I wonder was he black himself or a half caste?

Jackson is African American. A black man. Not half caste.

So, a half caste with a white person could produce a very lightly tanned
child (like Jade), but with Jacko's case, there is no darkness or tan, they are white.

A child of an African American man and white woman could definately be white, blonde even, but I think the odds of three children of a black man being white are veeery slim.....

I think that the eldest 2 are not biologically his. With the youngest guy people are saying he kinda looks like him and though I can kinda see it if I were a betting woman......

WesternNight

Oh, and about the masks thing. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it was a case of covering their faces so they couldn't be recognised anywhere else. Because let's face it, Michael was never able to do anything normal as a kid, I can only imagine that he didn't want the same for his kids.

He's not the biological father. He raised those children, and that makes him their father. Would you walk up to an adoptive father and tell them he's not a dad?

Long Onion

If you look closely you can see that their heads are the same shape as a turkey baster ... hmm ...

Eoin

But I don't think even he claimed that the youngest child was his biological child.

Fink Goddie

WesternNight wrote: »

+1

I don't believe for a second that he ever harmed a child.

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child he wasn't related to seems compeltely inappropriate because you assume he was a fully developed, sexual man. This wasn't the case here.

The man was aesexual. He was a child in a man's body. And we simply can't comprehend that. So therefore there must be something inappropriate going on.

How easy would it be for a kid to go home and mention anything about being in the same bed with Michael Jackson and the parents to freak out because they've been conditioned to believe that if that happens it's automatically abuse? And my god, imagine the dollar signs.

As someone said recently, they may as well have just asked him for money - as he's probably have given it to them.

Have you inside information to prove he wasnt a fully developed sexual man???

WesternNight

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Have you inside information to prove he wasnt a fully developed sexual man???

Have you inside information to prove he was?

Has any of us inside information to prove anything at all? Of course we don't. Doesn't stop speculation.

Fink Goddie

WesternNight wrote: »

Have you inside information to prove he was?

Has any of us inside information to prove anything at all? Of course we don't. Doesn't stop speculation.

You said we assumed he was and that it wasnt the case, you sounded very sure.
so you're speculating that he wasnt.
The information we do have is that he was a man in his 40's with children in his bed, this is not speculation, he admitted it.

I wouldnt let children sleep in a bed with a man in his 40's that wasnt related and i dont know any men that would want to.

Its a bit suspect.

If he wasnt Michael Jackson and he was some man on your road sleeping with the kids on your road, you would also think it was very suspect.

General Zod

I've read the deposition of Jordi Chandler before the case was settled. Grim reading.

And as for all who say they wouldn't take money to prevent someone who messed with their kids recieving justice, well, unfortunately money talks. always has done, always will do.


And while they may not share any biological link to Jackson, the kids have a very visible and very real link to the man who might not be their father, but definitely was their Dad. That's all that's really important.

The media circus surrounding all this hopefully will disappear now the memorial service is done with.

Although, the sureallity of Sky News interviewing The Incredible Hulk last night about Michael Jackson will long live in my memory.

truecrippler

General Zod wrote: »

And while they may not share any biological link to Jackson, the kids have a very visible and very real link to the man who might not be their father, but definitely was their Dad. That's all that's really important.

I believe anyone can be someones Father but everyone will only ever have one Daddy.

Diabhal Beag

Even in death people are still trying to make him look less of a man.

He raised the ****ing kids, therefore they ARE his kids.

annabellee77

General Zod wrote: »

I've read the deposition of Jordi Chandler before the case was settled. Grim reading...

Jordan Chandler case is a bad example to be honest. A lot came out in recent years about that whole thing and his family

General Zod wrote: »

And as for all who say they wouldn't take money to prevent someone who messed with their kids recieving justice, well, unfortunately money talks. always has done, always will do..

I think it's a case of shouldn't take money rather than wouldn't, and you're right, money talks unfortunately, but I do genuinely think in Chandler case money was the movtivation from day 1.

General Zod wrote: »

And while they may not share any biological link to Jackson, the kids have a very visible and very real link to the man who might not be their father, but definitely was their Dad. That's all that's really important.

The media circus surrounding all this hopefully will disappear now the memorial service is done with..

+1

General Zod wrote: »

Although, the sureallity of Sky News interviewing The Incredible Hulk last night about Michael Jackson will long live in my memory.

:D:D

latenia

WesternNight wrote: »

+1

I don't believe for a second that he ever harmed a child.

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child he wasn't related to seems compeltely inappropriate because you assume he was a fully developed, sexual man. This wasn't the case here.

The man was aesexual. He was a child in a man's body. And we simply can't comprehend that. So therefore there must be something inappropriate going on.

How easy would it be for a kid to go home and mention anything about being in the same bed with Michael Jackson and the parents to freak out because they've been conditioned to believe that if that happens it's automatically abuse? And my god, imagine the dollar signs.

As someone said recently, they may as well have just asked him for money - as he's probably have given it to them.

Can you show me some links to medical/psychiatric journals that show that this a recognised condition with other recorded cases (I mean an adult compulsively sleeping with children in a non-sexual way, not asexuality) or is this a unique illness only he suffered from? (Michael Jackson Syndrome if you will.)
He was undoubtably a paedophile-the notion that he was a misunderstood innocent is the best possible scenario that the PR people could come up with. While the majority of people will review the evidence and see him for what he is, there will always be naive starstruck people out of his millions of fans whose judgment has been clouded by the legalistic mumbo jumbo and PR doublespeak and who can be rinsed for cash.
I bet if videos emerged of him caught in the act (and who knows, maybe they do exist somewhere) there would still be naysayers who want to believe his innocence no matter what.

shenanigans1982

General Zod wrote: »

Although, the sureallity of Sky News interviewing The Incredible Hulk last night about Michael Jackson will long live in my memory.

I think if you look at things that way rather than seperating the person from the character a lot of things will appear surreal.;)

And I don't think that the media circus will die down now that the memorial service is finsihed...according to the news the custody battle will start on Monday and his daughters speech last night and the Jacksons reaction seemed like nothing more than an advert on there behalf claiming that the children will be in good ahnds with them.

My name is URL

aDeener wrote: »

i could call you dad, doesn't make you my father:rolleyes:

Maybe I am your father.

/mindfcuk

WesternNight

latenia wrote: »

Can you show me some links to medical/psychiatric journals that show that this a recognised condition with other recorded cases (I mean an adult compulsively sleeping with children in a non-sexual way, not asexuality) or is this a unique illness only he suffered from? (Michael Jackson Syndrome if you will.)
He was undoubtably a paedophile-the notion that he was a misunderstood innocent is the best possible scenario that the PR people could come up with. While the majority of people will review the evidence and see him for what he is, there will always be naive starstruck people out of his millions of fans whose judgment has been clouded by the legalistic mumbo jumbo and PR doublespeak and who can be rinsed for cash.
I bet if videos emerged of him caught in the act (and who knows, maybe they do exist somewhere) there would still be naysayers who want to believe his innocence no matter what.

See, you saying that with such certainty is no different from someone saying the opposite with such certainty.

Show me proof that what you say is true and I'll gladly retract what I said.

For the record I'm not in any way starstruck. And I'm sure as hell not naive. That doesn't mean I have to join in with those who wish to believe the worst when they really know no better than those who wish to believe that people are innocent until proven otherwise.

aDeener

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe I am your father.

/mindfcuk

touché sir

latenia

WesternNight wrote: »

See, you saying that with such certainty is no different from someone saying the opposite with such certainty.

Show me proof that what you say is true and I'll gladly retract what I said.

For the record I'm not in any way starstruck. And I'm sure as hell not naive. That doesn't mean I have to join in with those who wish to believe the worst when they really know no better than those who wish to believe that people are innocent until proven otherwise.

So you believe that he suffers from this psychiatric condition I called Michael Jackson Syndrome which causes him to sleep with children in a non-sexual way?

moneyman

walshb wrote: »

I didn't know that. Jade is a white woman. I wonder was he black himself or a half caste?

Jackson is African American. A black man. Not half caste.

So, a half caste with a white person could produce a very lightly tanned
child (like Jade), but with Jacko's case, there is no darkness or tan, they are white.

What are you talking about? The kids are clearly not fully white. They are darker than white, and could easily be half-caste (you do realise that there are many shades of half-caste, don't you?).

As regards to whether he actually was a dad to them, I think it's obvious he was. Paris said he was the best dad possible. I don't think she would have said that had they been taken care of by nannies all the time etc..

As for the molestation cases, what kind of parents settle for compensation if they really believe their child was molested? I don't think it's been pointed out yet that Jackson didn't even want to settle with them, he wanted to fight the case but his insurance etc., wanted him to settle to get rid of all the bad press and to get his career back on track. The second accusations just a few years ago were a joke. Anyone that can't see how farcical it was needs their head checked. Arvisos story kept changing and he even told his teacher that the stories were completely fabricated. Money-grabbers, quite clearly actually. There's a reason he was aquitted, and based on all the evidence, he was innocent.

Irishcrx

"Blanket" is not the kids real name it's Micheal Jackson JR it's a name the prss gave him when Jacko covered him with a blanket to avoid photos when he was young, I don't know if they were his kids or not or if he was able to biologicaly father a child, but he was their guardian, he raised them and by the sounds of them speaking at his memorial they are extremely upset after his death that's all that matters.

Silcocky

My Tuppence:

I believe he was their Dad, and they loved him - but as to whether he was their biological father or not...? According to Debbie Rowe (in two of the cases) she may not have even been their biological mother...more of a surrogate (to who's sperm/egg, it will most probably never be known).

I believe that his sleeping with kids was highly inappropriate and I never liked the man following the accusations and his unusual admissions (though would never take away from him what he did, musically)
I believe, that while he may be a victim of his own childhood/father/fame, he abused those kids though perhaps due to diminished responsibility.
I believe the parents who let their kids hang out with him are as much abusers as he was (if he indeed did it - I don't think we will ever know the truth).

On the black/white/half-caste debate- Ryan Giggs dad was black (as was Jade Goodys as mentioned previously), so if he WAS their biological father, it is possible for them to be as light-skinned as they are, but all three?

annabellee77

Irishcrx wrote: »

"Blanket" is not the kids real name it's Micheal Jackson JR it's a name the prss gave him when Jacko covered him with a blanket to avoid photos when he was young, I don't know if they were his kids or not or if he was able to biologicaly father a child, but he was their guardian, he raised them and by the sounds of them speaking at his memorial they are extremely upset after his death that's all that matters.

He was called Blanket by Michael J himself.... cant remember why exactly... something to do with a pet name that his mother used to use to comfort them as kids or something along those lines. Def not from the press anyway. Those kids were very rarely in the media. Until now.

moneyman

latenia wrote: »

Can you show me some links to medical/psychiatric journals that show that this a recognised condition with other recorded cases (I mean an adult compulsively sleeping with children in a non-sexual way, not asexuality) or is this a unique illness only he suffered from? (Michael Jackson Syndrome if you will.)
He was undoubtably a paedophile-the notion that he was a misunderstood innocent is the best possible scenario that the PR people could come up with. While the majority of people will review the evidence and see him for what he is, there will always be naive starstruck people out of his millions of fans whose judgment has been clouded by the legalistic mumbo jumbo and PR doublespeak and who can be rinsed for cash.
I bet if videos emerged of him caught in the act (and who knows, maybe they do exist somewhere) there would still be naysayers who want to believe his innocence no matter what.

If it's not a crime, why would it be recorded? And how do you know it was compulsive? The fact is that you are choosing to blatantly ignore the testimonies of many people who were in neverland with Michael as kids, and who have nothing but fond memories. They all said that Michael was childlike and that he never touched them nor did anything inappropriate. But still, feel free to believe the media and all their "Wacko-Jacko" hype. I'd rather believe the people who had experience with him and who knew him well.

And actually, Jackson is unique. Nobody else went through what he did as a child. He was famous world-wide as a ten year old, had no childhood, and was abused by his father. People who knew him at the time say he was withdrawn and often used to be by himself, seen crying in a corner. I'd imagine his childhood was a very troubling time. It's natural that he'd be trying to have a childhood in adulthood.

He was undoubtably a paedophile

What an ignorant statement. If you'd researched his cases enough, you'd see that he was aquitted rightfully on his second case. I've already mentioned the first one (again, who takes money instead of justice?).
Saying you believe he's a peadoplhile is one thing, stating it as fact is nothing short of stupidity. :rolleyes:

Lochaber

pipelaser wrote: »

Oh, on the subject of "Half Caste", my grlfriend is arguing that its a racist/derogatory expression! I dont think so?
Is it?

walshb wrote:

No disrespect to your lady, but she is so wrong.
It is a legitimate phrase and accepted phrase and has
zero to do with racism. And if it was, to which
colour would it be offensive?

Well, just reading over its entry in wiki, maybe it could be deemed offensive,
but really, you would have to be very sensitive to be offended by it

Not to walk in here flailing fists or anything but there obviously aren't many mixed people posting here on boards.

Half Caste is absolutely a racist term - I'm sorry but it's just not acceptable to go around saying to someone that they are half pure! I would generally call myself mixed.

And as for skin tone, as the people who mentioned Jade and have pointed out... you just can't really be sure how it would turn out, some people spot straight off that I'm mixed while others are very surprised when I say I am...

I will say though, that not all that many people I've met in Ireland seem to realise that it is offensive and in general people here don't seem to mean it in a derogatory sense. So I don't get that offend when someone says it here, it really is a case of ignorance - there just aren't that many mixed people in Ireland.

But honestly... you don't have to be particularly sensitive to feel that essentially being called half pure is offensive

moneyman

Silcocky wrote: »

My Tuppence:

I believe he was their Dad, and they loved him - but as to whether he was their biological father or not...? According to Debbie Rowe (in two of the cases) she may not have even been their biological mother...more of a surrogate (to who's sperm/egg, it will most probably never be known).

I believe that his sleeping with kids was highly inappropriate and I never liked the man following the accusations and his unusual admissions (though would never take away from him what he did, musically)
I believe, that while he may be a victim of his own childhood/father/fame, he abused those kids though perhaps due to diminished responsibility.
I believe the parents who let their kids hang out with him are as much abusers as he was (if he indeed did it - I don't think we will ever know the truth).

People are acting as if these two accusers are the only two people to have stayed at Neverland. What about the hundreds of other terminally ill children who Jackson gave endless fun and memories to? Why are they ignored? Many people who stayed with him as a child have described him as completely harmless and childlike.

On the black/white/half-caste debate- Ryan Giggs dad was black (as was Jade Goodys as mentioned previously), so if he WAS their biological father, it is possible for them to be as light-skinned as they are, but all three?

Giggs' dad was actually half-caste. However, Jacksons kids really aren't as light-skinned as people are making out. They may not be his biological kids, but they could pass for half-caste. Not all half-caste people are the same. I'm not sure if it's possible, but perhaps Jacksons vitiligo played a part?

eth0_

annabellee77 wrote: »

Jordan Chandler case is a bad example to be honest. A lot came out in recent years about that whole thing and his family

Exactly. He's a liar and his dad is pure scum. He gave completely inaccurate information about Jackson's body - said he was circumsized but in fact he wasn't - and his father was secretly recorded laughing about how rich he was going to be and how he was going to enjoy destroying Jackson's career!

Jordy will have to live with destroying this man for the rest of his life. Hope all those millions were worth it.

eth0_

moneyman wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's possible, but perhaps Jacksons vitiligo played a part?

No it wouldn't. It could be recessive genes - a lot of black women were raped by white slave owners back in the day, and some of Jackson's family are blue/green eyed - or maybe they are "designer babies", chosen because they would be lighter skinned, if that is possible.

latenia

eth0_ wrote: »

Exactly. He's a liar and his dad is pure scum. He gave completely inaccurate information about Jackson's body - said he was circumsized but in fact he wasn't - and his father was secretly recorded laughing about how rich he was going to be and how he was going to enjoy destroying Jackson's career!

Jordy will have to live with destroying this man for the rest of his life. Hope all those millions were worth it.

Wow-the exact opposite is true. Chandler gave a detailed description of Jackson's genitalia, including the fact that he was circumcised. An examination of Jackson proved this. How much money did the employees mentioned here receive?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article378615.ece

LadyMayBelle

annabellee77 wrote: »

They are his real kids. He was 100% their father. It's who raises you, and who you call "Daddy" (or Dad or whatever) is what counts.

Doubt very much they're his biological kids obviously. Any fool can create a child. It takes a father to raise one.

The last two lines are very Jeremy Kyle
But I agree.

eth0_

latenia wrote: »

Wow-the exact opposite is true. Chandler gave a detailed description of Jackson's genitalia, including the fact that he was circumcised. An examination of Jackson proved this. How much money did the employees mentioned here receive?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article378615.ece

Pity that employee wasn't tried himself, if what he is saying is true, he saw a grown man raping a child and didn't try to stop things or report it to the police?

I'm 99% sure you're wrong about Chandler, I will double check this when i get home from work.