Bubbles was not Michael Jacksons pet. It was rented when needed from a Film Animal Company in the San Fernando Valley, and was simply another prop used as a lie. Jackson never owned any pets as he was incapable of looking after himself let alone an animal. Bubbles was "put down" by its' owners when it developed aggressive behaviour as most male chimps do when they pass puberty. That's why it disappeared from Jacksons public life.
Talking of paying off people, exactly why did Roman Abramovich pay hush money? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/03/chelsea-apologise-striker-gary-johnson-abuse/ Footballing genius' in the body of slimy garbage
I couldn't stomach watching the documentary but my own conclusion, as it has been since the first allegations back in the 90s, is that Jackson was a sad victim of his cruel and bullying greedy father but those kids were much bigger victims. The father, Joe Jackson is probably as much to blame as Michael if not more as he helped to create the monster.
Chelsea fans know all about this sort of thing Saf ... https://www.not606.com/threads/is-there-any-club.372160/ Quote: 'Owner paying people off to keep quiet about child sex claims'
Chelsea or Utd,, Liverpool or Arsenal, every fan should condemn that peadophile monster for his depravity. The only praise due Michael Jackson is for his music. His life is a litany of perverse decisions and kiddy fiddling, all covered up by his wealth and PR. He would have made a great Catholic priest. History will eventually remember him for his depravity, not for his music. The surface has only been scratched.
Jacko went for trials at Chelsea in the early 90’s. They turned him down because he wasn’t noncey enough. FACT
I think the plastic surgeons did more than scratch the surface. My position was and is, I don't know. There's smoke there but no fire. He had a trial and the evidence wasn't there. I don't think it will ever be resolved one way or the other now that he's no longer here to be challenged further on it. Just out of interest do you feel the same about Cliff Richard or Paul Gambaccini?
I'm still wanting to know why Chelsea paid hush money rather than the child sex allegations go to court. Surely in the same context of Saville music no longer being played, surely in the same context of discussions of whether Jacko's music should still be aired....i ask, should Chelsea still be allowed to play?
In a word no. There is a mountain of evidence against Jackson, supressed under US Law, ie the more money you have the more you can suppress. Once this expose' gathers momentum, you will see an avalanche of information appear, and Jackson will finally be exposed for the monster he was. Cliff is just an old **** and Gambochini likewise, neither a peadophile from what I can glean. No doubt, both took advantage of vulnerable youngsters but didn't prey on children. Jackson certainly did.
I don't believe that. Wealth alone doesn't suppress evidence, it requires some degree of political power. Then there's the media. Nobody can deny MJ has had every aspect of his life scrutinised and investigated by the media, and if US Law was suppressing anything, it would be uncovered. There are PLENTY of public figures, more powerful than Michael Jackson, who couldn't suppress it, I doubt he could. I'm not saying he's innocent, but the evidence is weak, and we're talking about 27 years of this being in the public eye... and still nothing of note.
