BBC bans Michael Jackson music amidst child abuse claims

[rusticgal]

Told you Kazanne.

It makes me wonder what we ever need courts or the law for..
When condemnation and judgement can just come from thinking, rather than substantiated hard evidence.

Then even when the result is, someone gets tried, then fully acquitted.
It's not valid to accept that.
Nor to even listen to the other side, or read it if the other person is dead.

Thank all powers that be though that the law does exist.
It would be a sad society indeed probably otherwise to have people judged on crimes,on likes or dislikes.

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

[joeysteele]

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

Well since you admit the law means little to nothing to you and you can simply dismiss all that case while believing 2 others, who must have lied then or now.
That's your affair.

I cannot, and even think the trial shouldn't be dismissed at all.

Anyone accused of anything has the right to be heard too.
These have now made their turnaround after MJs death.
So the only way MJ can answer back, is what he defended himself with in thst trial.

That's not just law, its also fair play.

[joeysteele]

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

I'm talking about crimes.

These 2 said no crimes, had ever been committed.
Now they are.

So already 2 liars in my view.
After however listening to them and watching them.

So giving them their hearing.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

I'm not judging them, I don't believe them.
There was swearing under oath in court that no crimes were committed by MJ.

You are discounting that.
I'm giving an opinion, not judging them at all.
They haven't 'YET' been investigated or tried for any crimes.

I am accepting the law, and what the law carried out, investigation, multiple charges and trial, which found MJ not guilty of all.

Now you can discount that and give MJ a criminal record, the law didn't if you wish.
However I won't.

[chuff me dizzy]

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

This is what Ive seen on all social media, fans claiming they are in it for money and calling them liars with no proof whatsoever ,there is a lot more proof of MJ guilt ( he admitted sleeping with small boys ) than there is of Wade and Jimmy lying

[Twosugars]

Yeah it did

Jermaine said it

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother :shrug:
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

[Twosugars]

tbf, Peter Pan syndrome would explain a lot without resorting to him being a paedo

[chuff me dizzy]

tbf, Peter Pan syndrome would explain a lot without resorting to him being a paedo

Also would him being a dirty,filthy pervert

[chuff me dizzy]

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother :shrug:
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

You disgust me, you really do

[user104658]

I'm talking about crimes.

These 2 said no crimes, had ever been committed.
Now they are.

So already 2 liars in my view.
After however listening to them and watching them.

So giving them their hearing.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

I'm not judging them, I don't believe them.
There was swearing under oath in court that no crimes were committed by MJ.

You are discounting that.
I'm giving an opinion, not judging them at all.
They haven't 'YET' been investigated or tried for any crimes.

I am accepting the law, and what the law carried out, investigation, multiple charges and trial, which found MJ not guilty of all.

Now you can discount that and give MJ a criminal record, the law didn't if you wish.
However I won't.

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

[Twosugars]

You disgust me, you really do

when I consider your views expressed across the forum over the period I've been reading, that's a compliment :)

[chuff me dizzy]

when I consider your views expressed across the forum over the period I've been reading, that's a compliment :)

Im glad you saw it as a compliment

[user104658]

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was rightWell this is a flat out lie because I watched and commented on at least two of the videos you've posted, and I believed them to be full of "red herrings". Character slurs against the accusers and a propaganda machine in full spin. There was nothing in them that invalidated the claims... Just more attempts to discredit by saying things like "it can't be true because they stayed friends", "their careers were in trouble", "Wades Co workers say he was an arsehole", "they want money" ... none of which means anything at all. I assume any other videos you've posted follow a similar pattern.

But if it serves your argument to pretend that they were enlightening commentaries that were selectively ignored, then I can see why that's what you'd rather do.

[chuff me dizzy]

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

This seems to have been forgotten

[joeysteele]

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.

What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.
Plus where's the proof other than words.

I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.
It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

[Beso]

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother :shrug:
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

I don't think they would stoop as low as defending a paedophille.

[Beso]

Does anyone know if it's true they found pictures of naked boys at neverland?

[chuff me dizzy]

Does anyone know if it's true they found pictures of naked boys at neverland?

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

[Beso]

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

I'm sure they found pictures of naked boys but it wasn't an offence to have them in that state.

[user104658]

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.



What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.

Plus where's the proof other than words.



I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.

It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

[chuff me dizzy]

I'm sure they found pictures of naked boys but it wasn't an offence to have them in that state.

It rings a bell

What I would like to know from the MJ fans is .....Why did MJ settle out of court to shut up Jordy's family ? An innocent man would never have done that

[Kazanne]

Because the last one posted was half an hour long

But you managed to watch a 4 hour one over 2 nights,surely if you were unbiased you would watch half an hour:shrug:

[Kazanne]

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

It's not true ,watch the vids

[chuff me dizzy]

It's not true ,watch the vids

Michael Jackson’s California home contained a considerable stash of pornography as well as sexual imagery featuring children, S&M and animal torture, according to purported police reports from the 2003 investigation of the superstar for child molestation.

Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara was raided in November 2003, shortly before the Thriller singer was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of providing an intoxicant to a minor under the age of 14.

Read more

Read more Memoir reveals Michael Jackson enjoyed laughing at Prince messing up
The report from the raid was never made public. But now Radar Online has obtained what appear to be the case documents. Among the items found at Jackson's home were images of children bleeding or in pain, and of children’s faces superimposed onto adult bodies, the gossip site reported.

Many of the images included in the documents could be described as erotic or provocative art photography, including works from a book entitled The Fourth Sex, by artists such as the Chapman Brothers and Tracey Emin. Other books found by police contained images of children nude or in swimwear. There were also multiple porn magazines and videos in the star’s bedroom and bathroom, including recent issues of Hustler’s Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse.

Ron Zonen, formerly of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office, who worked on the Jackson prosecution, told Radar that many of the materials were used to “desensitise” the children whom the star was allegedly grooming for abuse. “We identified five different boys, who all made allegations of sexual abuse,” Mr Zonen said. “There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.”


Copied from the Independent

[Kazanne]

It rings a bell

What I would like to know from the MJ fans is .....Why did MJ settle out of court to shut up Jordy's family ? An innocent man would never have done that

HE didn't ,he wanted it to go through the courts ,if you watch the vids it was something to do with insurers or something like that they advised him to pay out,dont believe all those rag tops Chuff ,same as the photos there were none,its all hearsay from rag tops.

[Kazanne]

Michael Jackson’s California home contained a considerable stash of pornography as well as sexual imagery featuring children, S&M and animal torture, according to purported police reports from the 2003 investigation of the superstar for child molestation.

Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara was raided in November 2003, shortly before the Thriller singer was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of providing an intoxicant to a minor under the age of 14.

Read more

Read more Memoir reveals Michael Jackson enjoyed laughing at Prince messing up
The report from the raid was never made public. But now Radar Online has obtained what appear to be the case documents. Among the items found at Jackson's home were images of children bleeding or in pain, and of children’s faces superimposed onto adult bodies, the gossip site reported.

Many of the images included in the documents could be described as erotic or provocative art photography, including works from a book entitled The Fourth Sex, by artists such as the Chapman Brothers and Tracey Emin. Other books found by police contained images of children nude or in swimwear. There were also multiple porn magazines and videos in the star’s bedroom and bathroom, including recent issues of Hustler’s Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse.

Ron Zonen, formerly of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office, who worked on the Jackson prosecution, told Radar that many of the materials were used to “desensitise” the children whom the star was allegedly grooming for abuse. “We identified five different boys, who all made allegations of sexual abuse,” Mr Zonen said. “There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.”


Copied from the Independent

I've seen it already Chuff,there were no photos.C'mon IF there was photos they would have been used as evidence,lol

[chuff me dizzy]

HE didn't ,he wanted it to go through the courts ,if you watch the vids it was something to do with insurers or something like that they advised him to pay out,dont believe all those rag tops Chuff ,same as the photos there were none,its all hearsay from rag tops.

He spoke about it in Martin documentary and said HE paid out to save it dragging on and on ,either way he must have agreed to the payment

[Kazanne]

He spoke about it in Martin documentary and said HE paid out to save it dragging on and on ,either way he must have agreed to the payment

Yes as he was advised to do, Jordans father can be heard saying he just wanted money,if that was my kid I'de want justice

[Cherie]

Okay I have watched the rest now, and while some of it is damning, there are a few issues for me

both had babies and that is what prompted these revelations, it made them so angry that their kids might be exposed to something like this, but no anger towards their parents, these two weren't abducted they were handed over by their money grabbing parents so why no anger in the parents direction....

Jimmys mother kept his secret after he revealed it to her?????? although she then went on to be happy he had died so no one else could be hurt, but it looks like she never bothered to try and get Jimmy to bring his revelations to the authorities


after the first trial, Wade and his Mom returned to Neverland ....did Wades Mom not have any doubts about that given they had just testifed against Chandler :crazy:

[Twosugars]

I don't think they would stoop as low as defending a paedophille.

but would they reach as high as defending somebody accused of it without compelling evidence? Or would they jump on the bandwagon?

[user104658]

but would they reach as high as defending somebody accused of it without compelling evidence? Or would they jump on the bandwagon?

Defending Jackson necessitates accusing others of making it up without any real evidence either way... you can't really take the accusation-highground on that without at most saying "we simply don't know if it's true or not".

[joeysteele]

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[Kazanne]

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

:clap1::clap1:

[Matthew.]

Yes it did

Yeah it did

Jermaine said it

Oh I didn’t know that

[user104658]

You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.


False

There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents

Like I said earlier; we're barely even debating the same topic, you just keep reiterating that "there isn't enough evidence to convict him in a trial" which I have never disputed and apparently you aren't interested in anything beyond the legal basics of the debate. With that in mind - and the fact that you've now taken to deliberately misquoting me - I'm not going to go back-and-forth with it any more.

[Kazanne]

This seems to have been forgotten

And 350 came out of the woodwork all of them dismissed ,this seems to be have forgotten too

[rusticgal]

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

[Cherie]

given all the children who passed through Neverland 7 seems tame

[user104658]

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

There's also the fact that R Kelly was found not guilty in 2008 despite there being an actual video tape of him having sex with a 14 year old plus the fact that literally everyone knows he was in a relationship with Aaliyah when she was 15 and he was in his late 20's. And his own lawyer from 2008 says he was guilty. Again; there is a tape of it happening and yet he was found not guilty.

Are those arguing so strongly for legal verdicts to be believed willing to say that they think R Kelly is innocent, too? :think:

[Kazanne]

Oh I didn’t know that

Jermain did not say that in a derogotary way though /

[Niamh.]

But you managed to watch a 4 hour one over 2 nights,surely if you were unbiased you would watch half an hour:shrug:Yes an actual properly made documentary not some you tube ****e

[Kazanne]

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

The OJ case is totally different rusti,it's not just the court case for me either ,It could also be said it's amazing how people have taken these two at face value and believe every word they say.

[Kazanne]

Yes an actual properly made documentary not some you tube ****e

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews :laugh:, yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.

[Niamh.]

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews [emoji23], yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.I've seen plenty of creepy footage of MJ over the years to base my opinion on thanks, I love how you think yours video is the only one that counts though [emoji1787]

[Kazanne]

I've seen plenty of creepy footage of MJ over the years to base my opinion on thanks, I love how you think yours video is the only one that counts though [emoji1787]

They are not my videos ,I just posted them I was sent them to post, if you debate things fairly surely we look at all sides so they are not hurting are they? but it's obvious you are not interested but some people maybe they are the ones they are aimed at.

[Matthew.]

Jermain did not say that in a derogotary way though /

I don’t doubt that at all

[joeysteele]

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews :laugh:, yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.

Anything, which does not contain analytical expansion or analysis of what is being claimed.
Therefore presented as you say in this weighted, non challenging way, as this programme was.

In my view, should be treated with sceptism.
What were they afraid of if questioned and challenged.

Whereas the videos you posted, which I knew would be poo pooed as I said.

They, as the court case and all other facts, contained in the video you posted, don't fit the agenda of those thinking and wanting MJ guilty and pilloried.

You were right before too, when you said MJ wanted to fight the Chandler issue publicly in court.

MJs lawyer was pressed on that in your video, where he clearly stated the settling of that was done without MJs approval, against his wishes.

It won't matter because the lawyer won't be believed either over these 2 in this programme.

MJ did fight all charges brought, all through.
Challenged all and won.
That says far more about these 2 now in my view.

[Marsh.]

Multiple people have used "AHA look they have a civil case on appeal" as supposed evidence that they are lying. More than once.

Have they? They've used that as "evidence" they're after money?

[user104658]

Have they? They've used that as "evidence" they're after money?

Which is relevant because?

[rusticgal]

given all the children who passed through Neverland 7 seems tame


7 too many imo...

[rusticgal]

The OJ case is totally different rusti,it's not just the court case for me either ,It could also be said it's amazing how people have taken these two at face value and believe every word they say.


The thing is Kaz it’s Michael Jackson’s behaviour and mentality that makes their story more believable.
If these two were making these accusations about Elvis Presley (just an example) I would doubt their story because Elvis Presley didn’t create a massive house with a funfair in every corner of his garden to entertain young children and call it Neverland and refer to himself as Peter Pan.:shrug:

[Twosugars]

I've seen plenty of creepy footage of MJ over the years to base my opinion on thanks, I love how you think yours video is the only one that counts though [emoji1787]

Now Niamh, there's no need for this condescention. She didn't say it was the only one that counts. There's no harm, the opposite, it is strongly advised to watch material presenting different picture to the ch4 documentary. If you want to have as full a picture as possible that is. If you have an open mind.

[LaLaLand]

I've just finished watching ep 1 of Leaving Neverland and it's just left me with a horrible feeling, feeling sick actually.

The graphic details of what went down just, ergh. Horrific. I don't know if I can actually face ep 2 if it's in the same vein.

[GoldHeart]

Sorry Chuff that's wrong their careers are failing, one is an actor who cant get work, the nervous breakdown that he said occurred was because of this NOT MJ, but I know that wont be believed which is your prerogative,but it's all there to be seen and heard in other videos.

Wade's ex Brandy aka MJ's niece has said he's burned soo many bridges he's just desperate basically to stay relevant with her family's name next to his name :joker: .

And yes Jimmy is an actor that's failed and he's desperate for money , so surely it's easy for him to repeat scripted lies in front on a camera but i guess that get's ignored as we must feel sympathy for these 2 known liars! :facepalm: .

[Denver]

Wade's ex Brandy aka MJ's niece has said he's burned soo many bridges he's just desperate basically to stay relevant with her family's name next to his name :joker: .

And yes Jimmy is an actor that's failed and he's desperate for money , so surely it's easy for him to repeat scripted lies in front on a camera but i guess that get's ignored as we must feel sympathy for these 2 known liars! :facepalm: .

Well his niece wont exactly defend him against MJ will she

[GoldHeart]

Absolutely brilliant post Goldheart.

It's incredible that a full legal process resulting in acquittal, is just bypassed and seen as irrelevant.
Because years later, when they got nothing as yet, from the Jackson estate, 2 clear liars then before, have changed their minds.

Excellent post and I agree with Marsh too.

Plus since we are in the realms of hypothetical scenarios,taking MJ out while only to take account of the 2 currently being in the media.

How about in a hypothetical scenario, if this was a loved one of those supporting these 2, now being accused like this, by 2 people.
When their loved one had been investigated, charged, found not guilty of ALL charges, and who had now died.

Would they be wanting people to condemn their own loved one on the strength of 2 mind changers, seeking money from an estate.
Taking part in a rehearsed, no questions asked of them, documentary and no challenge to their claims.

I can answer easily for myself,NO, I would not.
I've always hated these kangaroo media court style of trial and judgement.
Which is again all this is, despite years of thorough investigation, charges and trial, then full unreserved acquittal..
That's the one full, true known fact on Michael Jackson and this serious issue.

:wavey: Thanks Joey & Kaz

It's truly baffling that a full in depth court case where MJ was cleared of all charges get's thrown away just because 2 guys now claim they were repeatedly & graphically abuse :facepalm:. And if i challenge it and do research and look at the facts and the dodgy backgrounds of wade & jimmy then it's shut down , especially on youtube the comments are crazy .

I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Reed had a dodgy past, wonder what the police would find if they raided his home .

There's a bigger issue and problem here , where certain people's truth is seen as "the truth" . Body expert analysis points out all the guilty cues of Wade in his 2013 interview.

We now live in a dangerous culture and trend where any documentary maker can make a movie and claim it's "real" & "accurate" when actually it's BS & inaccurate and just solely relies on manipulation tactics and emotions . Dan Reed went for the lazy option , he did zero research of Wade & Jimmy and he just cares about the media attention.

BBC turned against Cliff Richard and Banned Mj music yet they covered for Saville for years and not long ago they even "mistakenly" showed a children's programme episode of Jimmy Saville :bored: . So many contradictions and i feel like alot of these networks are corrupt like BBC & HBO.

[chuff me dizzy]

Out of respect to Kazanne I will watch one of the videos she posted when I get a spare hour today

[Niamh.]

Now Niamh, there's no need for this condescention. She didn't say it was the only one that counts. There's no harm, the opposite, it is strongly advised to watch material presenting different picture to the ch4 documentary. If you want to have as full a picture as possible that is. If you have an open mind.

Now TS, practice what you preach ;)

[Niamh.]

I've just finished watching ep 1 of Leaving Neverland and it's just left me with a horrible feeling, feeling sick actually.

The graphic details of what went down just, ergh. Horrific. I don't know if I can actually face ep 2 if it's in the same vein.

The second episode doesn't really go into details like the first one

[user104658]

Now TS, practice what you preach ;)

Excuse me that is 2S, or TS2: Judgement Day. :hmph:

[Niamh.]

Excuse me that is 2S, or TS2: Judgement Day. :hmph:

:laugh2:

Well he was certainly TS2: Judgement Day in that post :oh:

[Kazanne]

Out of respect to Kazanne I will watch one of the videos she posted when I get a spare hour today

You don't have to Chuff,I posted them as I was asked to then at least we have a level playing field, which seems only fair,but fairness doesn't seem warranted here, but if you watch them at least you might see why some of us are not believing those two,It's difficult when you go into it not liking him,but people should at least try,I watched that documentry even though I knew what the outcome would be with some people.

[chuff me dizzy]

You don't have to Chuff,I posted them as I was asked to then at least we have a level playing field, which seems only fair,but fairness doesn't seem warranted here, but if you watch them at least you might see why some of us are not believing those two,It's difficult when you go into it not liking him,but people should at least try,I watched that documentry even though I knew what the outcome would be with some people.

Can you repost the link,Ive been over half an hour searching this thread looking for them lol

[Kazanne]

These are really interesting too,
WPChVeVRdHY

kgLSfvq628M

EwpDvVXqMQA

UGEN-u6cqmc

[Kazanne]

Can you repost the link,Ive been over half an hour searching this thread looking for them lol

I will see if I can find it Chuff, but they may have been taken off.

This is the first one posted it has a long intro and also a gap in the middle just FF those,
w4DtFqpLVrs

[Nicky91]

UGH :notimpressed: why now and not when he was still alive


back when MJ was still alive they could've punished him, now not anymore, now we can only talk about it

[rusticgal]

Wade's ex Brandy aka MJ's niece has said he's burned soo many bridges he's just desperate basically to stay relevant with her family's name next to his name :joker: .

And yes Jimmy is an actor that's failed and he's desperate for money , so surely it's easy for him to repeat scripted lies in front on a camera but i guess that get's ignored as we must feel sympathy for these 2 known liars! :facepalm: .

So what? The ex is hardly going to support him is she....and who cares if it’s for money...it doesnt take away what happened...they deserve every penny they can get imo.

[Niamh.]

So what? The ex is hardly going to support him is she....and who cares if it’s for money...it doesnt take away what happened...they deserve every penny they can get imo.

Indeed

[Kazanne]

So what? The ex is hardly going to support him is she....and who cares if it’s for money...it doesnt take away what happened...they deserve every penny they can get imo.

I would agree had I believed this story.They both tried for the money before it was dismissed

[rusticgal]

I would agree had I believed this story.They both tried for the money before it was dismissed

It is all down to whether you believe them or not Kaz....of course it can look like they are doing it for the money...perhaps they are BUT I believe them.
Michael had power money and influence..
Do you really believe Michael Jackson was innocent?...or are you just calling out these two as liars?

[chuff me dizzy]

So what? The ex is hardly going to support him is she....and who cares if it’s for money...it doesnt take away what happened...they deserve every penny they can get imo.

:clap1:

[Kazanne]

It is all down to whether you believe them or not Kaz....of course it can look like they are doing it for the money...perhaps they are BUT I believe them.
Michael had power money and influence..
Do you really believe Michael Jackson was innocent?...or are you just calling out these two as liars?

I believe he was innocent of molesting kids,yes . I think his relationship with kids came from a good place but was all misconstrued, as it is so alien to most of us, just because you have a kid in the bed or spent a lot of time with them does not mean you have molested them , not everyone is sexually motivated, I believe the police,child services and FBI more than these two randoms who have decided now is the time to tell their story.I am calling them out as liars aswell.

[chuff me dizzy]

Well I tried ,but sorry Kaz I switched off at 21 minutes...Ive never heard so much bollox in my life, 1st up is his lawyer who is getting paid to praise MJ and to deny everything Jimmy and Wade claim ,then we have a woman who couldn't get further up MJ arse if she tried

I never expected it to change my views and it hasn't, but at least I gave it a go xx

[Kazanne]

Well I tried ,but sorry Kaz I switched off at 21 minutes...Ive never heard so much bollox in my life, 1st up is his lawyer who is getting paid to praise MJ and to deny everything Jimmy and Wade claim ,then we have a woman who couldn't get further up MJ arse if she tried

I never expected it to change my views and it hasn't, but at least I gave it a go xx

Yes you did Chuff and thankyou for that:wavey:

[joeysteele]

I believe he was innocent of molesting kids,yes . I think his relationship with kids came from a good place but was all misconstrued, as it is so alien to most of us, just because you have a kid in the bed or spent a lot of time with them does not mean you have molested them , not everyone is sexually motivated, I believe the police,child services and FBI more than these two randoms who have decided now is the time to tell their story.I am calling them out as liars aswell.

I accept it is an odd arrangement with it being children.

I can take on board however, MJ likely lived a childhood he hadn't had through others.

It was bizarre yes it should have been inappropriate without the childrens or parents knowledge.

So strange it is, as is the celebrity showbiz world.

Like you however, and after the trial.
I do not believe he molested them.

In a crazy warped way, it comes across to me more like when 2 schoolmates had sleepovers.
Watching MJ playing games etc, he was as much as if not moreso, excited like the children.
He was child-like.

He's been cleared of wrongdoing no matter how much those who would love to see him destroyed wish he hadn't.
So they dismiss it and anything anyone may say positive towards MJ.
While believing anything said bad about him with no hard proof of the bad either.

Bizarre, ill advised, inappropriate probably too. However anything bad and being guilty of abuse.
No, not for me, and never on these two peoples testimony now.
Or the other 6,7,8,9 or whatever the figure may have risen to.

I'll believe it, if and when there's hard evidence.
If there's none forthcoming, then for me it's being done for one only other agenda only.
So like you in addition again Kazanne, I would also call these 2 out as liars too.

[rusticgal]

I believe he was innocent of molesting kids,yes . I think his relationship with kids came from a good place but was all misconstrued, as it is so alien to most of us, just because you have a kid in the bed or spent a lot of time with them does not mean you have molested them , not everyone is sexually motivated, I believe the police,child services and FBI more than these two randoms who have decided now is the time to tell their story.I am calling them out as liars aswell.

I know where you are coming from...and I respect your views.
Isnt it odd though that only boys have actually made these accusations....it’s fine to adore children but any adult knows where you draw the line...

[LaLaLand]

I find it awful that the majority of people on social media etc are basically just flat-out dismissing the two guy's revelations as lies, regardless of the trial and all that stuff, JUST BECAUSE it's MJ they're accusing. We all know that in terms of these cases, and some more serious, that correct justice does not always prevail.

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve them, I just don't think anybody would make stuff like this up, especially in such detail and in such a big way like this (regardless of their sketchy behaviour in history [Wade] - which could have been a result OF said abuse), the way in which they've basically been lynched by many is one of the big reasons why abuse victims never come forward, for fear of being called a liar.

I dunno what to think.

[Marsh.]

Oh I agree about them basically being lynched on social media.

I disagree about not thinking anybody would lie about something like this. People can be horrible bastards.

[chuff me dizzy]

I find it awful that the majority of people on social media etc are basically just flat-out dismissing the two guy's revelations as lies, regardless of the trial and all that stuff, JUST BECAUSE it's MJ they're accusing. We all know that in terms of these cases, and some more serious, that correct justice does not always prevail.

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve them, I just don't think anybody would make stuff like this up, especially in such detail and in such a big way like this (regardless of their sketchy behaviour in history [Wade] - which could have been a result OF said abuse), the way in which they've basically been lynched by many is one of the big reasons why abuse victims never come forward, for fear of being called a liar.

I dunno what to think.

I cannot remember this happening with Rolf Harris and Savilles victims ?

[rusticgal]

I find it awful that the majority of people on social media etc are basically just flat-out dismissing the two guy's revelations as lies, regardless of the trial and all that stuff, JUST BECAUSE it's MJ they're accusing. We all know that in terms of these cases, and some more serious, that correct justice does not always prevail.

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve them, I just don't think anybody would make stuff like this up, especially in such detail and in such a big way like this (regardless of their sketchy behaviour in history [Wade] - which could have been a result OF said abuse), the way in which they've basically been lynched by many is one of the big reasons why abuse victims never come forward, for fear of being called a liar.

I dunno what to think.


And that’s blinded loyalty....people who adored him, awestruck. The very people who discredit two men who at the tender age of 7 were groomed by MJ and adored him but can’t understand their loyalty to him whilst he was alive.

[Kazanne]

And that’s blinded loyalty....people who adored him, awestruck. The very people who discredit two men who at the tender age of 7 were groomed by MJ and adored him but can’t understand their loyalty to him whilst he was alive.

I'm a fan, but I am in no way blinded by loyalty,I have just taken time to see and hear both sides of this and so far as much as people condemn him ,no actual proof ,we can call them liars just as people who believe them ,call anyone who believes Jackson etc a liar.

[chuff me dizzy]

Matt Lucas got abuse and a death threat form MJ fans

https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.uk/news/matt-lucas-calls-in-police-after-receiving-death-threats-from-michael-jackson-fans/

[user104658]

I find it awful that the majority of people on social media etc are basically just flat-out dismissing the two guy's revelations as lies, regardless of the trial and all that stuff, JUST BECAUSE it's MJ they're accusing. We all know that in terms of these cases, and some more serious, that correct justice does not always prevail.

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve them, I just don't think anybody would make stuff like this up, especially in such detail and in such a big way like this (regardless of their sketchy behaviour in history [Wade] - which could have been a result OF said abuse), the way in which they've basically been lynched by many is one of the big reasons why abuse victims never come forward, for fear of being called a liar.

I dunno what to think.

I agree, no matter what you think someone coming forward with abuse claims should always at the very least be given the benefit of the doubt unless it can be proven that they ARE lying. No matter how hard people believe Wade and James are lying, there's no definitive proof of that, either. Their financial troubles are not proof, their personalities aren't proof, the previous trials are not proof.

I fear that not just the disbelief of them, but the venom, hatred and mocking that is being thrown at them, will do massive damage to any historic abuse victim who might be thinking of coming forward.

There's a HUGE difference between saying "There's not enough here to make me personally believe that Michael Jackson is guilty", and saying "These two are LIARS and SCUM!!!" ... which so many people are doing. Like I said that should never, ever be the reaction to someone coming forward with allegations like these.

[Marsh.]

I cannot remember this happening with Rolf Harris and Savilles victims ?

Then your memory fails you. Because it did.

[user104658]

Then your memory fails you. Because it did.

Yes, Vicky posted the Saville thread yesterday, it was jammed full of familiar faces insisting that Saville's accusers were "after money". Honestly a fascinating read given that it was a full 7 years ago. So I guess you have to assume that social media was similar.

TBH quite a few people STILL defend ol' Harris.

[Beso]

I watched the videos the other day Kaz. ..just the same old pishy rumblings of a load of paid off nonces imo.

[user104658]

the same old pishy rumblings of a load of paid off nonces imo.

:joker:

[Beso]

And that’s blinded loyalty....people who adored him, awestruck. The very people who discredit two men who at the tender age of 7 were groomed by MJ and adored him but can’t understand their loyalty to him whilst he was alive.

fantastic post

[user104658]

We ploughed through the R Kelly documentary (it's called "Surviving R Kelly") yesterday, it's pretty long (about 5 and a half hours) but honestly, in some ways it's an even wilder ride than this one.

Plus like I said a couple of pages back, it illustrates a lot about the power of stardom. He went to trial on child porn charges and was found guilty. THERE WAS A VIDEO! The jury saw it! The press and even the lawyers were considering the trial to be practically a formality, everyone saw the tape and knew it was real, and yet the jury was like "nah" :facepalm:. His own lawyer from the trial admits that he was definitely guilty and yet :shrug:.

Was also interesting to note that he was an acquaintance of MJ at one point.

[rusticgal]

I'm a fan, but I am in no way blinded by loyalty,I have just taken time to see and hear both sides of this and so far as much as people condemn him ,no actual proof ,we can call them liars just as people who believe them ,call anyone who believes Jackson etc a liar.

I’m not saying you can’t call them liars...I’ve told you I respect your opinion as I do everybody’s.
We know there is no ‘proof’...just the word of those that have come forward...and the suspiciously bizarre behaviour of an adult man.

[UserSince2005]

Anyone who doesnt believe them deserves MJ set upon them.

[Beso]

We ploughed through the R Kelly documentary (it's called "Surviving R Kelly") yesterday, it's pretty long (about 5 and a half hours) but honestly, in some ways it's an even wilder ride than this one.

Plus like I said a couple of pages back, it illustrates a lot about the power of stardom. He went to trial on child porn charges and was found guilty. THERE WAS A VIDEO! The jury saw it! The press and even the lawyers were considering the trial to be practically a formality, everyone saw the tape and knew it was real, and yet the jury was like "nah" :facepalm:. His own lawyer from the trial admits that he was definitely guilty and yet :shrug:.

Was also interesting to note that he was an acquaintance of MJ at one point.

As was trump, and his children.

[Marsh.]

Anyone who doesnt believe them deserves MJ set upon them.

Anyone who believes them deserves Weinstein set upon them.

[Mokka]

We ploughed through the R Kelly documentary (it's called "Surviving R Kelly") yesterday, it's pretty long (about 5 and a half hours) but honestly, in some ways it's an even wilder ride than this one.

Plus like I said a couple of pages back, it illustrates a lot about the power of stardom. He went to trial on child porn charges and was found guilty. THERE WAS A VIDEO! The jury saw it! The press and even the lawyers were considering the trial to be practically a formality, everyone saw the tape and knew it was real, and yet the jury was like "nah" :facepalm:. His own lawyer from the trial admits that he was definitely guilty and yet :shrug:.

Was also interesting to note that he was an acquaintance of MJ at one point.

I watched the first two episodes, and while I do believe the allegations against him and the victims shown... I just found the presentation of the documentary itself to be very leading and one sided. It is why I've chosen not to watch the MJ one now.

[user104658]

I watched the first two episodes, and while I do believe the allegations against him and the victims shown... I just found the presentation of the documentary itself to be very leading and one sided. It is why I've chosen not to watch the MJ one now.To be fair there's not much to disbelieve in the R Kelly case; the tape exists, it did the rounds years ago and it's apparently still online (though I'd suggest not looking for it, obviously it's child porn and thus highly illegal), the girl in it is 14... There's not much more to say. There's also very little doubt over him being abusive, by court order he's not allowed near his ex wife or kids. I do find some of the later "cult" stuff a bit far fetched though. I think it's more that people can't get their heads around the fact that the two girls who are still with him genuinely seem to want to be there so people think they MUST be "brainwashed".

Also the girl who ended up stealing the tape was BLATANTLY trying to blackmail him, she keeps insisting not in the documentary and it's like "Err.... No one even asked?" but the circumstances are dodgy there. However, again, that doesn't really matter; she was using it to try to blackmail him because the tape is *real*, and that's the important aspect.

Again though, to get both sides you can watch other interviews etc. with Kelly and his two current girlfriends. Overall I think it gives an extensive picture. The stuff from his lawyer also comes from a non-documentary source.

[GoldHeart]

I'm a fan, but I am in no way blinded by loyalty,I have just taken time to see and hear both sides of this and so far as much as people condemn him ,no actual proof ,we can call them liars just as people who believe them ,call anyone who believes Jackson etc a liar.

Leaving Neverland is full of biased one sided stories and suspicious editing.

Did you hear about the birthday message ?? , even that they twisted for their own narrative :facepalm:

[chuff me dizzy]

We ploughed through the R Kelly documentary (it's called "Surviving R Kelly") yesterday, it's pretty long (about 5 and a half hours) but honestly, in some ways it's an even wilder ride than this one.

Plus like I said a couple of pages back, it illustrates a lot about the power of stardom. He went to trial on child porn charges and was found guilty. THERE WAS A VIDEO! The jury saw it! The press and even the lawyers were considering the trial to be practically a formality, everyone saw the tape and knew it was real, and yet the jury was like "nah" :facepalm:. His own lawyer from the trial admits that he was definitely guilty and yet :shrug:.

Was also interesting to note that he was an acquaintance of MJ at one point.

I seem to think R Kelly defended him at his trial ?

[Beso]

Anyone who believes them deserves Weinstein set upon them.

Well I will point and laugh at his flaccid penis and pathetic bathrobe....then kick him in the bits.

[Beso]

Actually I would probably wank him off for 5g

[rusticgal]

Leaving Neverland is full of biased one sided stories and suspicious editing.

Did you hear about the birthday message ?? , even that they twisted for their own narrative :facepalm:


Well of course it’s biased...it’s telling THEIR story and showing us insights of his life that shows behaviour supporting their claim. What did you expect?

[GoldHeart]

Well of course it’s biased...it’s telling THEIR story and showing us insights of his life that shows behaviour supporting their claim. What did you expect?

The birthday video was filmed months before Wade's birthday :facepalm: .

And they edited out bits

[Twosugars]

Yes, Vicky posted the Saville thread yesterday, it was jammed full of familiar faces insisting that Saville's accusers were "after money". Honestly a fascinating read given that it was a full 7 years ago. So I guess you have to assume that social media was similar.

TBH quite a few people STILL defend ol' Harris.

what exactly are you suggesting here TS? It's not the first time you've gone for fms rather than their arguments :suspect:

We ploughed through the R Kelly documentary (it's called "Surviving R Kelly") yesterday, it's pretty long (about 5 and a half hours) but honestly, in some ways it's an even wilder ride than this one.

Plus like I said a couple of pages back, it illustrates a lot about the power of stardom. He went to trial on child porn charges and was found guilty. THERE WAS A VIDEO! The jury saw it! The press and even the lawyers were considering the trial to be practically a formality, everyone saw the tape and knew it was real, and yet the jury was like "nah" :facepalm:. His own lawyer from the trial admits that he was definitely guilty and yet :shrug:.

Was also interesting to note that he was an acquaintance of MJ at one point.
Interesting to note Liza Minelli was an acquintance of MJ and she was never accused of anything.
MJ had probably thousands of aquaintances. He was bezzy mates with Elizabeth Taylor. Does it meant she was a nonce too?

[Kazanne]

I seem to think R Kelly defended him at his trial ?

Not found any evidence to that at all.

[Marsh.]

Actually I would probably wank him off for 5g

He wants your bum for that price.

[Beso]

He wants your bum for that price.

He can pretend he had it for that price, I will charge him 1.75m

[bots]

Linda McCartney told me to fook off once. I think all Beatles and Wings music should be banned.

[Beso]

In fact. ..at the time I would probably be moonwalking about the school going, I got tossed of by Michael Jackson last night......so I dunno maybe these rumours ain't true after all...cause at that age....ask yourself. Could you keep it in?

[GoldHeart]

Not found any evidence to that at all.

Me niether and even if there was ,why does other people defending MJ get ignored?? .

There's also a theory that safechuck got that grooming jewellery from a tacky pawn shop cheap :whistle:

[Kazanne]

Me niether and even if there was ,why does other people defending MJ get ignored?? .

There's also a theory that safechuck got that grooming jewellery from a tacky pawn shop cheap :whistle:

Really ? I wonder if the media will relay that,doubt it,lets face it they were always vile about MJ.

[Beso]

Me niether and even if there was ,why does other people defending MJ get ignored?? .

There's also a theory that safechuck got that grooming jewellery from a tacky pawn shop cheap :whistle:



He did or michael did???..maybe Michael thought he just didn't do it for him that night so decided to further humiliate him by making fun of him by buying cheap **** saying it was great....mbut secretly giggling to himself about his scrawny ass being useless that night as he slept.

[GoldHeart]

Really ? I wonder if the media will relay that,doubt it,lets face it they were always vile about MJ.

Why did safechuck Keep jewellery from a "child abuser" , plus wouldn't police take it as evidence?? :suspect: .

[user104658]

what exactly are you suggesting here TS? It's not the first time you've gone for fms rather than their arguments :suspect:



That they were wrong then and I suspect they're wrong now. Going for their arguments - by demonstrating that their logic was flawed in the past yet they're using the same reasoning now - is exactly what I'm doing.

As for playing the "Das against da rules" game 2S... It's lame even from the people who are relatively good at it and you're doing a mediocre job of copying them :suspect:. Be yourself! Or if you're not going to be yourself, goodness gracious don't be LT :umm2:.

[Beso]

Why did safechuck Keep jewellery from a "child abuser" , plus wouldn't police take it as evidence?? :suspect: .

Because he loved him....it really is as easy as that goldheart.:shrug:


Edit bit....they would also have to take every playstation game, etc etc etc etc.

[GoldHeart]

Because he loved him....it really is as easy as that goldheart.:shrug:

I don't think so :bored: , and usually victims no matter how much they've been groomed don't usually keep jewellery neatly displayed in a box of trinkets :facepalm:

[Beso]

I don't think so :bored: , and usually victims no matter how much they've been groomed don't usually keep jewellery neatly displayed in a box of trinkets :facepalm:

You don't think a young boy moonwalking on stage in a sparkly hat and white coat loves the guy he's imitating?


Oh, ok..guess it's joke time now...it's been long enough, don't you think?

[GoldHeart]

You don't think a young boy moonwalking on stage in a sparkly hat and white coat loves the guy he's imitating?


Oh, ok..guess it's joke time now...it's been long enough, don't you think?

Stop twisting things :sleep:

[GoldHeart]

what exactly are you suggesting here TS? It's not the first time you've gone for fms rather than their arguments :suspect:


Interesting to note Liza Minelli was an acquintance of MJ and she was never accused of anything.
MJ had probably thousands of aquaintances. He was bezzy mates with Elizabeth Taylor. Does it meant she was a nonce too?

Only Mj's male friends get suspected you know how the media works lol

[Beso]

Stop twisting things :sleep:

How on earth is me putting myself into the mind of a besotted young fan twisting things? I'm confused?

[GoldHeart]

Also why is HBO or website now cutting out bits from the film , that in itself sounds suspicious.

[Beso]

Ok seeing as I have already stayed my experiences earlier in the thread goldheart, and you just ignored me..

The MJ case is so much like my experience.


1..young, impressionable moving to a new house with my family next door to our cousins..instantly looking up to my stronger older by 2 and a half years cousin...

2..he pitches a tent in his back garden in the summer and obvioysly I'm up for camping..

3..normal jokey nights to begin with, then a little experimenting..


4..the doing it because you looked up to him..it felt ok, didn't it...at the time.


5..just guilt for years really, guilt for it feeling ok.

6..ah **** this, am no having this **** anymorem

[Beso]

I'm imagining that's how it feels for them...pretty confusing, and a lot of soul searching and guilt...

[GoldHeart]

Ok seeing as I have already stayed my experiences earlier in the thread goldheart, and you just ignored me..

The MJ case is so much like my experience.


1..young, impressionable moving to a new house with my family next door to our cousins..instantly looking up to my stronger older by 2 and a half years cousin...

2..he pitches a tent in his back garden in the summer and obvioysly I'm up for camping..

3..normal jokey nights to begin with, then a little experimenting..


4..the doing it because you looked up to him..it felt ok, didn't it...at the time.


5..just guilt for years really, guilt for it feeling ok.

6..ah **** this, am no having this **** anymorem

I'm not an idiot I understand all that but it doesn't fit with James & Wade's stories :facepalm:

I'm not going to believe 2 well known pathological liars ! , its as simply as that . plus if they've lived under oath what makes you think suddenly they're telling the truth??? I can't understand that.

[joeysteele]

Some of us, and I'd hope most of the population.
Just like to balance things and fully explore all and particularly both sides.

I have one of the most suspicious minds imaginable, however that works both ways too.
I am suspicious of both accusers and accused.

Words are easy to say and anything can be said either way too.
However when it happens that for near decades someone has said and sworn one thing.
Then changes their minds years after that sends my suspicious bells ringing.

These 2 were around at the Chandler issue and the other charges brought against MJ.

They saw no one go to prison.
So saw they could speak out.
To do so when who they are accusing is dead and adding a claim for money.
That has really fired up my suspicious mind, to the point I don't trust them and don't believe their testimony can be trusted.

It is serious to abuse children, it's one of the worst crimes.
It also is equally serious to accuse someone of it too.

To do so.
After never doing so all the time the person was alive to put their side, is worrying.

I know, and have come across groomed and sexually abused individuals.
Of all of them,.I have yet to find one who even wanted to keep anything that reminded them of their abuser, never mind doing so.

I weigh all up.
I would be the first to say MJ was really strange.
Even that I consider it inappropriate to share a bed with children.

However, that in itself does NOT prove he molested them.
All the investigations in the rooms they were in,the thorough checks done, all produced no evidence of sexual abuse.

So that's why I do not believe these 2 now and stay with the not guilty verdicts on all charges at his trial.
Where he, Michael Jackson defended himself and was submitted to cross examination as to his defence.

Something these 2 are never likely to have to do despite their changed minds and their accusations now.

I for one, just like to explore all sides and hear what all involved say, in any of these cases.
As to accusers and the one/s accused.

We've heard here and elsewhere, this is why sexual abuse cases fail because the accusers are not believed.

On the other side, the point is as I've come across, so many cases are rooted in false accusations at times too.
Which often can have equally devastating effects on the accused, even at times too after acquittal.

[GoldHeart]

Didn't Wade's wife claim she didn't have any knowledge of sexual abuse yet they've both set up a charity page to help victims as she's a survivor of abuse . Yet said she had no experience of abuse .

The charity page asking for donations sounds like a scam :suspect:

[user104658]

Some of us, and I'd hope most of the population.
Just like to balance things and fully explore all and particularly both sides.

I have one of the most suspicious minds imaginable, however that works both ways too.
I am suspicious of both accusers and accused.

Words are easy to say and anything can be said either way too.
However when it happens that for near decades someone has said and sworn one thing.
Then changes their minds years after that sends my suspicious bells ringing.

These 2 were around at the Chandler issue and the other charges brought against MJ.

They saw no one go to prison.
So saw they could speak out.
To do so when who they are accusing is dead and adding a claim for money.
That has really fired up my suspicious mind, to the point I don't trust them and don't believe their testimony can be trusted.

It is serious to abuse children, it's one of the worst crimes.
It also is equally serious to accuse someone of it too.

To do so.
After never doing so all the time the person was alive to put their side, is worrying.

I know, and have come across groomed and sexually abused individuals.
Of all of them,.I have yet to find one who even wanted to keep anything that reminded them of their abuser, never mind doing so.

I weigh all up.
I would be the first to say MJ was really strange.
Even that I consider it inappropriate to share a bed with children.

However, that in itself does NOT prove he molested them.
All the investigations in the rooms they were in,the thorough checks done, all produced no evidence of sexual abuse.

So that's why I do not believe these 2 now and stay with the not guilty verdicts on all charges at his trial.
Where he, Michael Jackson defended himself and was submitted to cross examination as to his defence.

Something these 2 are never likely to have to do despite their changed minds and their accusations now.

I for one, just like to explore all sides and hear what all involved say, in any of these cases.
As to accusers and the one/s accused.

We've heard here and elsewhere, this is why sexual abuse cases fail because the accusers are not believed.

On the other side, the point is as I've come across, so many cases are rooted in false accusations at times too.
Which often can have equally devastating effects on the accused, even at times too after acquittal.

That's fair enough Joey but if you truly had a suspicious mind surely the most you could say is "Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, we may never know"... but thus far you have been adamant that he definitely did not do it so I'd suggest your suspicious mind in this case, for whatever reason, only appears to work one way.

[user104658]

I'm not an idiot I understand all that but it doesn't fit with James & Wade's stories :facepalm:

I'm not going to believe 2 well known pathological liars ! , its as simply as that . plus if they've lived under oath what makes you think suddenly they're telling the truth??? I can't understand that.

Didn't Wade's wife claim she didn't have any knowledge of sexual abuse yet they've both set up a charity page to help victims as she's a survivor of abuse . Yet said she had no experience of abuse .

The charity page asking for donations sounds like a scam :suspect:

They're "pathological" liars and the charity is probably "a scam"? Your reaching is getting more and more desperate, here, surely. Do you even actually know what the term "pathological liar" means?

[Beso]

I'm not an idiot I understand all that but it doesn't fit with James & Wade's stories :facepalm:

I'm not going to believe 2 well known pathological liars ! , its as simply as that . plus if they've lived under oath what makes you think suddenly they're telling the truth??? I can't understand that.



I don't need the word of anyone to judge a man that's slept in the same bed as a boy from the age of 9 or whatever to the age of 16...nah...sorry.

[GoldHeart]

They're "pathological" liars and the charity is probably "a scam"? Your reaching is getting more and more desperate, here, surely. Do you even actually know what the term "pathological liar" means?

I'm "desperate" ??? :facepalm:
Pretty sure safechuck , Robson & Reed are the desperate ones but OK

[Crimson Dynamo]

Come on parmy he just wanted to be a child again

:skull:

[GoldHeart]

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

[Beso]

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.



One could say the size of scrooges layer, just more comfortable..

What if...there is a paedophile ring/or was.

Michael at the head to begin with, he grooms and trains these five kids who all seem to be in all photos...they then become the paedophille ring, the abused kids selecting kids for michael scrooge to abuse...

[joeysteele]

That's fair enough Joey but if you truly had a suspicious mind surely the most you could say is "Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, we may never know"... but thus far you have been adamant that he definitely did not do it so I'd suggest your suspicious mind in this case, for whatever reason, only appears to work one way.

Because I've explained comprehensiveky why I am at the conclusions I've reached if you bothered to really understand it.

You just throw out all pro MJ matter as you just believe, totally this pair it seems.

Its all there in my post why with my suspicious mind, I have reached the point I am at.

My conclusion works one way now, from weighing all up on both sides.
So what you're trying to infer as my mind working one way for whatever reason, I'd like to know.

Since my reasons for my position on this are all clearly laid out in my post.

No whatever other reasons at all.

[user104658]

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

Is that a defense though, or does it make it even stranger that he shared a bed with kids? As you say his bedroom had multiple beds in it, it even reportedly had an entirely separate little sleeping area up some stairs, so if you believe it's just that they all partied in his room watching films etc. then fell asleep... why would it involve sharing a bed? I can understand the argument that he had a childlike nature, I can understand the suggestion that it was innocent, but to believe that he didn't think twice about sharing a bed - EVEN if his intentions were innocent... especially after the first accusation... you have to believe that he was not just childlike but also incredibly stupid. And I don't believe that he was stupid. So I have to assume that continuing with sharing beds after the first allegation was not because he thought it was OK - he by then KNEW FOR A FACT that it wasn't seen as being OK - so it can only realistically have been down to compulsion which suggests ulterior motive. Honestly either he was compelled to sleep with children, or he's innocent but he wasn't just "odd" - he was completely off-the-rails insane.

[Beso]

Can I guess that you believe the law has the final say joey, no matter what any off us think because the law has spoken and that is final?

[Beso]

Imagine him running amok with them all in his Jim jams....**** sake..money does indeed talk.

[Beso]

Kiss cuddle or tickle..

[user104658]

Because I've explained comprehensiveky why I am at the conclusions I've reached if you bothered to really understand it.

You just throw out all pro MJ matter as you just believe, totally this pair it seems.

Its all there in my post why with my suspicious mind, I have reached the point I am at.

My conclusion works one way now, from weighing all up on both sides.
So what you're trying to infer as my mind working one way for whatever reason, I'd like to know.

Since my reasons for my position on this are all clearly laid out in my post.

No whatever other reasons at all.

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

[rusticgal]

Why did safechuck Keep jewellery from a "child abuser" , plus wouldn't police take it as evidence?? :suspect: .


How would that be evidence?....MJ gave him loads of stuff why would a ring be evidence of abuse?...:shrug:

[GoldHeart]

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

Very convenient that When safechuck & Robson have financial problems that's when they remember they were abused by MJ .

[GoldHeart]

How would that be evidence?....MJ gave him loads of stuff why would a ring be evidence of abuse?...:shrug:

I'm pretty sure if a paedophile gave his victims gifts then that would be classed as some type of evidence when he stood trial . And even now those things would be examined.

[rusticgal]

I don't think so :bored: , and usually victims no matter how much they've been groomed don't usually keep jewellery neatly displayed in a box of trinkets :facepalm:

How do you know that?....

[joeysteele]

Can I guess that you believe the law has the final say joey, no matter what any off us think because the law has spoken and that is final?

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.

[Beso]

I'm pretty sure if a paedophile gave his victims gifts then that would be classed as some type of evidence when he stood trial . And even now those things would be examined.

They would have to take every playstation game, bracelet..thread or gold...puppy....etc etc..half the flippi bedrooms fgs would have to be removed.



Your carefully lined up jewelry on a trinket box means **** all.

[GoldHeart]

They would have to take every playstation game, bracelet..thread or gold...puppy....etc etc..half the flippi bedrooms fgs would have to be removed.

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .

[joeysteele]

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

TS, you are asking the same thing over and over and its all in my post why I am at the point I am and have come to hold the view I have on this now.
Also try to avoid telling me how to think, I know very well how to.


So to save time as Mrs May often says at PMQs.

'' I refer you to the answer I gave a while ago''.

[GoldHeart]

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.


:clap1:

[rusticgal]

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.


They slept in the same bed....the size of the room is irrelevant.

[user104658]

TS, you are asking the same thing over and over

Well yes because the answer doesn't make sense to me, but if it's the only answer there is I suppose I'll have to accept that.

[Beso]

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.









Michael Jackson is dead, and I don't care. So I appreciate and understand your view and reasoning on this one, but can I maybe lean you slightly to my argument about the last few years and the metoo movement and the high profile cases surrounding that.

Maybe these messed up, because that is what they are. Maybe these messed up young men, thrust into the limelight, into their dream you could say......maybe now..after the last couple of years have thankfully been able to feel strong enough to speak up, on camera for no money.

[Beso]

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .



You know what, I wouldn't be surprised if he allowed himself to be abused(edit,in the end) knowing or perhaps bribing michael for stuff to keep to sell at a later date......


But Michael would still abuse him by law.

[rusticgal]

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .


Not really....by the end of the programme it was pretty clear he was still trying to come to terms with everything...and when he does maybe then he will sling them into a fire pit.

[joeysteele]

Well yes because the answer doesn't make sense to me, but if it's the only answer there is I suppose I'll have to accept that.

Well yes, of course it won't make sense to you because its not the answers containing what you want to hear.
Also its not in agreement with you either.

Frankly your dismissal on the law in this issue and your past usual sense of fair play does surprise me.

However, I'm not asking you anything, I only post what I think and have come to believe.
You are on the total opposite side.
I just maybe have stronger respect for the law.

You raised Rolf Harris before for instance.
I was stunned in disbelief at the Rolf Harris case.
However he was found guilty and his accusers made their allegations when he was here to answer them.

Not silenced by death as in the case of these 2 accusing Jackson now.

[Marsh.]

Which is relevant because?

Eh? You're the one that said it. I asked you, hence the question mark.

[rusticgal]

You raised Rolf Harris before for instance.
I was stunned in disbelief at the Rolf Harris case.
However he was found guilty and his accusers made their allegations when he was here to answer them.

Not silenced by death as in the case of these 2 accusing Jackson now.



....and wasn’t it years after the abuse they made their complaint?...and in the shadow of the Jimmy Saville revelations?

Had MJ had a longer life then he might not have got away with it as it wasn’t until the birth of their own children that the realisation of it came to the fore.

[Beso]

Is it safe to trust the law though?...people have been hung for simply shouting let him have it chris, in the uk...and that's before we mention what innocent people have been hung in the USA.

And why isn't elvis being dug up for dna testing?

[rusticgal]

Is it safe to trust the law though?...people have been hung for simply shouting let him have it chris, in the uk...and that's before we mention what innocent people have been hung in the USA.

And why isn't elvis being dug up for dna testing?


Now you leave Elvis alone :nono:

[Beso]

Elvis was my hero growing up, when i look at him i dont see sex case..I sat today in a cafe in romford decorated with elvis memorabilia....laughing into my poached eggs on toast.nodding at my work mate kev, "aye, he was another one, good music though"

[joeysteele]

....and wasn’t it years after the abuse they made their complaint?...and in the shadow of the Jimmy Saville revelations?

Had MJ had a longer life then he might not have got away with it as it wasn’t until the birth of their own children that the realisation of it came to the fore.


Yes, however you miss the point.

Rolf Harris was found guilty.
Michael Jackson was not.
After both having extensive investigation, charges and trial they were both cross examined at.

You can choose to ignore and dismiss the law when it suits but that is still a proven fact on this issue.
MJ was acquitted.
Harris was not.

While as to Saville.
There would have been witnesses to present evidence on his abusing.
I believe there was other evidence too.
However, do I believe every claim against Saville, no I don't.
Not all of them.

This pair have only words not hard evidence.
Even the investigation, even thoroughly and personally done as to person and belongings, found not a scrap of evidence.
Other than the accusers words as to Jackson.

I'm sorry but I really do believe had there been something left to this pair by Jackson after his death in his estate.
We'd never have heard of these allegations now.

[GoldHeart]

Now you leave Elvis alone :nono:

Elvis Married Priscilla when she was 14 years old but i guess that's ok?? :facepalm:

[Beso]

Elvis Married Priscilla when she was 14 years old but i guess that's ok?? :facepalm:

No, both are really, really wrong.

[user104658]

Eh? You're the one that said it. I asked you, hence the question mark.

No, I asked you hence MY question mark :suspect:

[GoldHeart]

No, both are really, really wrong.

And yet Elvis is still seen as the KING of rock and roll :whistle:

[Beso]

And yet Elvis is still seen as the KING of rock and roll :whistle:

I would imagine in most people's eyes he will be the king of rock and roll who liked younger girls and michael will be the king of pop who liked young boys.

[Beso]

But my granny still loves cliff(the uks elvis)....rip minnie.

[GoldHeart]

I would imagine in most people's eyes he will be the king of rock and roll who liked younger girls and michael will be the king of pop who liked young boys.

Once again you've taken what i said out of context , the point i'm making is MJ was found innocent and was highly INVESTIGATED like a criminal for years. Finding someone weird and unusual around kids doesn't automatically make him a child molester.

Yet Elvis actually marries a 14 year old and people shrug and go "meh" , Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old! and travelled with her like it was casual and they looked like father and daughter . But lets continue to sing 'great balls of fire' :bored: . Yet MJ music is banned from stations LOGIC ! .

[Beso]

Once again you've taken what i said out of context , the point i'm making is MJ was found innocent and was highly INVESTIGATED like a criminal for years. Finding someone weird and usual around kids doesn't automatically make him a child molester.

Yet Elvis actually marries a 14 year old and people shrug and go "meh" , Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old! and travelled with her like it was casual and they looked like father and daughter . But lets continue to sing 'great balls of fire' :bored: . Yet MJ music is banned from stations LOGIC ! .


I knew the point you were making. I am telling you what about 86 percent off the world are thinking.

[GoldHeart]

But my granny still loves cliff(the uks elvis)....rip minnie.

Unless i've missed something Cliff never married a minor , plus one of his accusers was a convicted rapist :umm2::facepalm:

[Beso]

OUnless i've missed something Cliff never married a minor , plus one of his accusers was a convicted rapist :umm2::facepalm:

Eh..what the heck. .I'm on about his lip.:cheer2:..no wasn't really. .listen..the BBC covered up.for Saville. .the royals covered up for Saville. ..cliffs names been involved...ask yourself why? Why clif, of all people

[Beso]

Not excusing a rapist but im not surprised if he was one of the boys passed around in those days.

[GoldHeart]

Not excusing a rapist but im not surprised if he was one of the boys passed around in those days.

:umm2::facepalm: Actually it sounds exactly like you ARE excusing him.
The guy is known to be a rapist with severe schizophrenia , he's about as credible as a paper roof in a snow blizzard .

Once again Cliff was treated like a criminal and his home was raided and he was investigated and he was proved INNOCENT! . That's how the law works, if we suddenly go against that then what's the point ??? .

Also the BBC never covered for Cliff , they treated him like crap , however yes they covered for Saville which was disgusting.

[Twosugars]

Ok seeing as I have already stayed my experiences earlier in the thread goldheart, and you just ignored me..

The MJ case is so much like my experience.


1..young, impressionable moving to a new house with my family next door to our cousins..instantly looking up to my stronger older by 2 and a half years cousin...

2..he pitches a tent in his back garden in the summer and obvioysly I'm up for camping..

3..normal jokey nights to begin with, then a little experimenting..


4..the doing it because you looked up to him..it felt ok, didn't it...at the time.


5..just guilt for years really, guilt for it feeling ok.

6..ah **** this, am no having this **** anymorem

No, Parm, your experience is nothing like the MJ case.
There was 2,5 years difference between you and your cousin. So you were almost peers. Not a kid and an adult more than twice his age.
What you describing is two kids/adolescents (?, don't know how old you both were) fooling around which some kids do. I'm sorry you feel he coerced you into it. But you didn't mind it at the time?
It seems to me you feel guilty you enjoyed gay sex in some form, but that's a different matter. Not your cousin's fault you can't come to terms you may be a little gay.
And before you shout at me, I had the same thing done to me by an older cousin. :shrug:

[Twosugars]

That they were wrong then and I suspect they're wrong now. Going for their arguments - by demonstrating that their logic was flawed in the past yet they're using the same reasoning now - is exactly what I'm doing.

As for playing the "Das against da rules" game 2S... It's lame even from the people who are relatively good at it and you're doing a mediocre job of copying them :suspect:. Be yourself! Or if you're not going to be yourself, goodness gracious don't be LT :umm2:.

Not LT, please :bawling:

You've argued your case long enough without reaching to other cases and going personal. TS, you don't need to start doing that now. That's not the TS I admire. So gonna give you the same advice: be yourself :love:

[GoldHeart]

No, Parm, your experience is nothing like the MJ case.
There was 2,5 years difference between you and your cousin. So you were almost peers. Not a kid and an adult more than twice his age.
What you describing is two kids/adolescents (?, don't know how old you both were) fooling around which some kids do. I'm sorry you feel he coerced you into it. But you didn't mind it at the time?
It seems to me you feel guilty you enjoyed gay sex in some form, but that's a different matter. Not your cousin's fault you can't come to terms you may be a little gay.
And before you shout at me, I had the same thing done to me by an older cousin. :shrug:

Yeah it's not comparable with MJ when alleged abuse happened from aged 7 !! while MJ was a grown man . I just can't get my head around a 7 year old not reacting to a grown adult doing graphic disturbing things to him .

Plus the so called victims became adults and still didn't say anything about the abuse until NOW when they're in financial problems.

[Marsh.]

No, I asked you hence MY question mark :suspect:

You said they are throwing the lawsuit around as evidence they are lying. They're using the lawsuit as "evidence" they're after money, which is a possible reason for them to tell these lies. Obviously.

[GoldHeart]

They were also sweating like they were in the Sahara desert in the Oprah interview reeks of guilt ! :whistle:.

[thesheriff443]

Would an innocent man give 21 million to a blackmailer?

After being blackmailed would you continue to have kids sleep at your house?

[GoldHeart]

Would an innocent man give 21 million to a blackmailer?

After being blackmailed would you continue to have kids sleep at your house?

Yeah lets all ignore a huge chunk of facts shall we like how Evan Chandler was a sleazy con artist who was recorded on tape!!! talking about getting everything he can out of MJ .

Jordy never said he was abused until his dad drugged him to lie . In 2005 Jody was nowhere to be seen to testify . So if it wasn't just about money on the familie's side why didn't they testify again??? .

And if you do your research you'll realise in some of these cases they could still report MJ to the authorities despite "huge pay outs" , but once they got their money they conveniently forgot everything and moved on.

[thesheriff443]

Yeah lets all ignore a huge chunk of facts shall we like how Evan Chandler was a sleazy con artist who was recorded on tape!!! talking about getting everything he can out of MJ .

Jordy never said he was abused until his dad drugged him to lie . In 2005 Jody was nowhere to be seen to testify . So if it wasn't just about money on the familie's side why didn't they testify again??? .

And if you do your research you'll realise in some of these cases they could still report MJ to the authorities despite "huge pay outs" , but once they got their money they conveniently forgot everything and moved on.

So if these people are con artist’s and blackmailers why on Earth would you pay them?

And you say despite him giving them the money they could still report him!, even more of a reason to go to the cops and report them.

Don’t tell me to do research when the golden rule is, you should never give in to blackmailers.

[Beso]

No, Parm, your experience is nothing like the MJ case.
There was 2,5 years difference between you and your cousin. So you were almost peers. Not a kid and an adult more than twice his age.
What you describing is two kids/adolescents (?, don't know how old you both were) fooling around which some kids do. I'm sorry you feel he coerced you into it. But you didn't mind it at the time?
It seems to me you feel guilty you enjoyed gay sex in some form, but that's a different matter. Not your cousin's fault you can't come to terms you may be a little gay.
And before you shout at me, I had the same thing done to me by an older cousin. :shrug:


What I mean h similar is the feelings I and they would have felt because it was someone they and I looked up to....the age difference is the only difference imo...and I didn't enjoy gay sex at all..I thought I enjoyed it because I looked up tomy cousin so much.

[user104658]

You said they are throwing the lawsuit around as evidence they are lying. They're using the lawsuit as "evidence" they're after money, which is a possible reason for them to tell these lies. Obviously.Well no, you're saying that money may possibly be a motive to lie which is true BUT the claim often pushed on this thread is more that "there's money involved so they are obviously lying" which is false.

The money and the judging the validity of the claims are largely unrelated to be honest. Especially in the US where seeking financial compensation when one feels "wronged" is baked into the legal culture.

[Kazanne]

Elvis Married Priscilla when she was 14 years old but i guess that's ok?? :facepalm:

Of course it is Goldheart,also Jerry Lee Lewis,I did hear something about Elvis but I will leave that little surprise until I know more.

[bots]

Lets look at the Monica situation. She clearly kept the stained dress to use for monetary gain later. She intended to go for the money shot right from the start. However, no matter her greed, President Clinton did spunk over her dress, and it showed him to be an out and out liar.

[thesheriff443]

Of course it is Goldheart,also Jerry Lee Lewis,I did hear something about Elvis but I will leave that little surprise until I know more.

Jerry Lee Lewis, married his cousin, she was 13

To wrongs don’t make a right.

[Kazanne]

Jerry Lee Lewis, married his cousin, she was 13

To wrongs don’t make a right.

I didn't say they did sheriff:shrug: just pointing out both he and Elvis married kids

[thesheriff443]

I didn't say they did sheriff:shrug: just pointing out both he and Elvis married kids

That’s to do with American law 17 states in America still have no minimum age for marriage.

In 2001 Tennessee, three ten year old girls married men between the ages of 24 and 31 that state has since raised the age of marriage.

There is another case of a 14 year old marring a 74 year old man

[joeysteele]

To be fair to Elvis, he met Priscilla when she was 14, in Germany and likely something happened.
However it was early 60s when she was around 17 she went to see him in the States.
Then she was 22 when they married in 1967.
She was born I believe in 1945.

As to the Clinton case, there was evidence, that's the point.

With MJ, there is no real evidence, yet this pair say they were molested over 100 times.
I come back to the trial again.
No evidence other than words.

If you are going to make accusations as was done, anyone could easily have acquired evidence to stand up in court.
None ever was.
MJ faced 10 counts and 4 minor ones.
He was found not guilty on all 14 charges.
All of them.

That was also the outcome despite the permitting of including in the trial,the raising of the 1993 allegations too.
Which MJ totally refuted too.

I am repeating myself here, likely to deaf selectively ears but those are solid facts.
Facts borne out of only worded accusations but with nothing of substance whatsoever as to evidence.
All through a very personally invasive investigation of MJ personally and his premises, clothing and belongings.
Then a very high profile trial too.

It's mystifying it seems why I, Kazanne, Goldheart and others look at those facts a lot on this issue.

Honestly, it's both mystifying and worrying to me as to real justice, that others just blatantly dismiss those facts.

[Nicky91]

whole day long they are playing michael jackson music here at our omroep brabant radio channel :D

[Kazanne]

whole day long they are playing michael jackson music here at our omroep brabant radio channel :D

Good for them Nicky for not taking that stupid knee jerk reaction:wavey:

[Nicky91]

Good for them Nicky for not taking that stupid knee jerk reaction:wavey:

in the north of my country they have banned his music, luckily we aren't moaners here in the south :)

[Nicky91]

if this was when MJ was still alive i would've had different thoughts, then they could've punished him for his actions but now they can't, so it has no point now

[Northern Monkey]

48 pages deep and probably no one is still any the wiser.

I think this is one case where nobody will ever know the truth.
Give up guys :laugh:

[Withano]

Obvious pedo. Expensive lawyers and little evidence doesn’t change his inner-self. Up to each person if they want to separate the man and the music or not, I have. He has some bangers.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Intriguingly, she (Lisa Presley) has spoken often about the Jackson who existed behind closed doors, explaining that his voice and personality were vastly different to what he presented to the public. “Not a lot of people know who he really is,” she told Diane Sawyer in 2003.

“He doesn’t let anybody see it. And he has some idea about how he should represent himself in the public that he thinks works for him, which is the sort of meek, victim-y, quiet thing that he does, which is not like how he really is. He doesn’t let a lot of people see that. When he wants to lock into you, or intrigue you, or capture you, or, you know, whatever he wants to do with you, he can do it.” :shocked:

From Today's Telegraph Premium content

[Crimson Dynamo]

It remains a mystery why quite so many people are fighting to protect the legacy of a man who admitted to sharing his bed with numerous young boys and had an unusual fixation on befriending them (including lavishing them with expensive gifts and taking part in private telephone conversations that often lasted hours at at time). But it does speak to Leaving Neverland's biggest challenge - convincing many of Jackson’s guilt.

While the general public has been quick to “cancel” the likes of Kevin Spacey, R Kelly and Harvey Weinstein, all of whom have been accused of serious sexual misconduct (denied by all three) and experienced legal blowback in the post-#MeToo climate, there remains something untouchable about Michael Jackson.

His hold on a large swathe of society seems undiminished, despite the horrifying allegations in Reed’s film, and his undeniably odd personal history.

While several radio stations around the world have pulled Jackson’s music in the wake of Leaving Neverland, it remains to be seen whether it’s just the first step in a widespread condemnation of everything Jackson represented, or the miniscule full extent of a Jackson backlash.

From Today's Telegraph Premium content

[rusticgal]

if this was when MJ was still alive i would've had different thoughts, then they could've punished him for his actions but now they can't, so it has no point now


Everyone has the right to tell the truth whether the abuser is alive or dead...

[bots]

No serious percentage of todays music buying public will purchase Elvis Presley music today, it's no longer relevant to the majority. In 20 or 30 years time, no one will buy Jacksons music either. In 30 years he will be more remembered for being a perv

[Niamh.]

It remains a mystery why quite so many people are fighting to protect the legacy of a man who admitted to sharing his bed with numerous young boys and had an unusual fixation on befriending them (including lavishing them with expensive gifts and taking part in private telephone conversations that often lasted hours at at time). But it does speak to Leaving Neverland's biggest challenge - convincing many of Jackson’s guilt.

While the general public has been quick to “cancel” the likes of Kevin Spacey, R Kelly and Harvey Weinstein, all of whom have been accused of serious sexual misconduct (denied by all three) and experienced legal blowback in the post-#MeToo climate, there remains something untouchable about Michael Jackson.

His hold on a large swathe of society seems undiminished, despite the horrifying allegations in Reed’s film, and his undeniably odd personal history.

While several radio stations around the world have pulled Jackson’s music in the wake of Leaving Neverland, it remains to be seen whether it’s just the first step in a widespread condemnation of everything Jackson represented, or the miniscule full extent of a Jackson backlash.

From Today's Telegraph Premium content

Yeah. This is the part I can't get passed or understand how anyone could get passed this piece on information. It's bizarre that people are trying to justify that.

In relation to the other post, I remember David Gest saying that about MJ before that, his "real" voice was much deeper, totally different to what he presented to the public

[joeysteele]

No serious percentage of todays music buying public will purchase Elvis Presley music today, it's no longer relevant to the majority. In 20 or 30 years time, no one will buy Jacksons music either. In 30 years he will be more remembered for being a perv



Multi millions around the whole world will still be playing, requesting and enjoying their music however.
As they have the last near 50 years for MJ and near 65 years for Elvis.

Both can hardly make 'new' recordings now but very few artistes can claim, in any shape or form, the success of these 2 as to the history of pop music.

[Ramsay]

Everyone has the right to tell the truth whether the abuser is alive or dead...

Indeed, hate this idea that just because he's dead he should get a free pass

[Niamh.]

Indeed, hate this idea that just because he's dead he should get a free pass

Or too much time has passed or whatever. How long is too long? Victims should be able to come out whenever they feel ready and maybe some child abuse victim only feels ready when their abuser is dead?

[GoldHeart]

Of course it is Goldheart,also Jerry Lee Lewis,I did hear something about Elvis but I will leave that little surprise until I know more.

I bet Roman Polanski will be praised as well.

I was just as surprised by Elvis as well , I guess when you have a relationship & MARRY a minor then it's ok ?? . Jerry Lee Lewis is even worse ,he lied about her age and said she was 15 which would of still been weird but yeah she was actually 13 !!! :shocked:

[GoldHeart]

Good for them Nicky for not taking that stupid knee jerk reaction:wavey:

It's good but now I'm thinking it's a set up as the royalties roll in ie more money for liar & liar to sue the estate for :suspect: .

[rusticgal]

Or too much time has passed or whatever. How long is too long? Victims should be able to come out whenever they feel ready and maybe some child abuse victim only feels ready when their abuser is dead?


Exactly.....many abused as children/youths and young adults are now telling their stories because at the time they didn’t know how to deal with it.
It’s so sad.

[rusticgal]

It's good but now I'm thinking it's a set up as the royalties roll in ie more money for liar & liar to sue the estate for :suspect: .


You cannot prove they are lying...:shrug:

[joeysteele]

You cannot prove they are lying...:shrug:

Well you nor it seems this pair can prove MJ did abuse them.
They can only say the words, not prove them.

Furthermore, they saw how it could be dealt with in 2005.
When Jackson was prosecuted.

They did and said nothing but deny firmly and extensively abuse had ever happened to them.

It's just words now from them too.

[Ramsay]

RV7-HDO5zb0

Shopping for a wedding ring, with a little kid in tow, in Simi valley California where Jimmy from the documentary is from, who said he kept the wedding ring MJ gave him...

[GoldHeart]

RV7-HDO5zb0

Shopping for a wedding ring, with a little kid in tow, in Simi valley California where Jimmy from the documentary is from, who said he kept the wedding ring MJ gave him...

Did they match it with the ring in the documentary ? ,and trace it back to MJ? .

[Niamh.]

RV7-HDO5zb0

Shopping for a wedding ring, with a little kid in tow, in Simi valley California where Jimmy from the documentary is from, who said he kept the wedding ring MJ gave him...

But it's perfectly normal for adult men reliving their childhoods cos they didn't have one to go buy wedding rings for little boys :oh:

[Kazanne]

Well you nor it seems this pair can prove MJ did abuse them.
They can only say the words, not prove them.

Furthermore, they saw how it could be dealt with in 2005.
When Jackson was prosecuted.

They did and said nothing but deny firmly and extensively abuse had ever happened to them.

It's just words now from them too.

Well they have more chance of lying than, MJ can speak of his innocence, and they knew this, they look like nice normal guys so they must be telling the truth as for MJ he was a eccentric and strange man so must have done it , lol, so once again to have a child in your bed is strange to us , but no way does that mean he molested anyone

[GoldHeart]

Why has this "footage" only just emerged ?? . Has it actually been traced back to MJ ??

[Kazanne]

RV7-HDO5zb0

Shopping for a wedding ring, with a little kid in tow, in Simi valley California where Jimmy from the documentary is from, who said he kept the wedding ring MJ gave him...

Not more ****e YouTube vids,can't be arsed to watch it :smug: only a clean cut scripted documentary will do.

[bots]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt one of the kids describe a "feature" that was present on the underside of Jackson's willy. I mean, if that's true, how could that be considered to have happened during innocent relations.

[GoldHeart]

Not more ****e YouTube vids,can't be arsed to watch it :smug: only a clean cut scripted documentary will do.

Tabloids are having a field day now and have posted online an image of a guy in disguise with fake moustache buying a ring for a child apparently .

It's interesting how this only emerges now after the leaving Neverland film :bored: , and still the story makes no sense .

[Kazanne]

Why has this "footage" only just emerged ?? . Has it actually been traced back to MJ ??

Apparently he brought the wedding ring for Cheryl Crow :joker::joker:, didn't even see if it was the same ring, but THIS is supposed to tell us something. we didn't know.

[Niamh.]

Not more ****e YouTube vids,can't be arsed to watch it :smug: only a clean cut scripted documentary will do.

boo hoo

[Niamh.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt one of the kids describe a "feature" that was present on the underside of Jackson's willy. I mean, if that's true, how could that be considered to have happened during innocent relations.

Oddly this was the one boy MJ decided to pay off :think:

[Kazanne]

Tabloids are having a field day now and have posted online an image of a guy in disguise with fake moustache buying a ring for a child apparently .

It's interesting how this only emerges now after the leaving Neverland film :bored: , and still the story makes no sense .

C'mon Goldheart the tabloids always had it him for him it was relentless ,they named him Wacko Jacko and constantly made fun of him,I didn't believe them then and certainly wouldn't believe them now, they will be loving it.

[Niamh.]

C'mon Goldheart the tabloids always had it him for him it was relentless ,they named him Wacko Jacko and constantly made fun of him,I didn't believe them then and certainly wouldn't believe them now, they will be loving it.

Course you don't, you believe the adult man who slept with 7 year olds, that makes much more sense :hehe:

[Ramsay]

You guys seriously think it's just a coincidence hahah okay I'm out

[GoldHeart]

Apparently he brought the wedding ring for Cheryl Crow :joker::joker:, didn't even see if it was the same ring, but THIS is supposed to tell us something. we didn't know.

I had to google her as I didn't know who she was ,apparently they never dated ?? but who knows. There's actually stories of mj having a few girlfriend's but maybe we only hear about the ones he was serious about ? .

Either way maybe the ring was still for a girlfriend , I don't think the ring James has is the same one :suspect: .

[Tony Montana]

I had to google her as I didn't know who she was ,apparently they never dated ?? but who knows. There's actually stories of mj having a few girlfriend's but maybe we only hear about the ones he was serious about ? .

Either way maybe the ring was still for a girlfriend , I don't think the ring James has is the same one :suspect: .

He's had two girlfriends before his first marriage to Lisa Marie Presley

Tatum O'Neal and Brooke Shields

[GoldHeart]

C'mon Goldheart the tabloids always had it him for him it was relentless ,they named him Wacko Jacko and constantly made fun of him,I didn't believe them then and certainly wouldn't believe them now, they will be loving it.

I know that's why I'm more suspicious of the media rather than MJ , it still doesn't make sense to me and it feels very convenient after all the inconsistencies that James' story about a ring gets believed . But I'm still not convinced :suspect: .

[GoldHeart]

He's had two girlfriends before his first marriage to Lisa Marie Presley

Tatum O'Neal and Brooke Shields

I always forget about Brooke Shields

[bots]

Oddly this was the one boy MJ decided to pay off :think:

it was probably some innocent naked morning wood :whistle:

[Kazanne]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt one of the kids describe a "feature" that was present on the underside of Jackson's willy. I mean, if that's true, how could that be considered to have happened during innocent relations.

There is something out there about that Bots this was , something to do with one of the reasons he was aquitted ,I will see if I can find it again,this is one I found it's something to do with him not being circumcised but I am sure this was also covered in one of the videos.


https://www.answers.com/Q/Is_Michael_Jackson_circumcised

[Kazanne]

I had to google her as I didn't know who she was ,apparently they never dated ?? but who knows. There's actually stories of mj having a few girlfriend's but maybe we only hear about the ones he was serious about ? .

Either way maybe the ring was still for a girlfriend , I don't think the ring James has is the same one :suspect: .

She was one of his guitarists on the BAD tour Goldheart,I went to see him with my mom, fantastic.

[Kazanne]

Course you don't, you believe the adult man who slept with 7 year olds, that makes much more sense :hehe:

Boo Hoo :bawling:

[Niamh.]

Boo Hoo :bawling:

:hehe:

[joeysteele]

There is something out there about that Bots this was , something to do with one of the reasons he was aquitted ,I will see if I can find it again,this is one I found it's something to do with him not being circumcised but I am sure this was also covered in one of the videos.


https://www.answers.com/Q/Is_Michael_Jackson_circumcised

It was in the video you posted Kazanne, the one with the lawyer in.
That people can't be bothered to watch as its more balanced in its arguments.

There was a description of his private parts given which when investigated, the description didn't match what the accuser described.

As for tabloids.
I stopped believing near all in tabloids ages ago.
I doubt there are any reliable tabloids now on just about any issue.

[GoldHeart]

There is something out there about that Bots this was , something to do with one of the reasons he was aquitted ,I will see if I can find it again,this is one I found it's something to do with him not being circumcised but I am sure this was also covered in one of the videos.


https://www.answers.com/Q/Is_Michael_Jackson_circumcised

Yeah the kid WRONGLY described MJ as circumcised ,as a lot of American men are apparently . But MJ was actually uncircumcised.

[Kazanne]

It was in the video you posted Kazanne, the one with the lawyer in.
That people can't be bothered to watch as its more balanced in its arguments.

There was a description of his private parts given which when investigated, the description didn't match what the accuser described.

As for tabloids.
I stopped believing near all in tabloids ages ago.
I doubt there are any reliable tabloids now on just about any issue.

Thankyou Joey there are so many truths and untruths out there now , I am the same with tabloids ,all out to make money and destroy people ,are there any factual ones left out there ?

[GoldHeart]

Thankyou Joey there are so many truths and untruths out there now , I am the same with tabloids ,all out to make money and destroy people ,are there any factual ones left out there ?

Like I said they're having a field day with MJ , we've gone back in time with the media hate & MJ it would seem

[Kazanne]

Like I said they're having a field day with MJ , we've gone back in time with the media hate & MJ it would seem

I don't buy any tabloids now Goldheart,they are all full of sensationalism and are so hypocritical.

[GoldHeart]

I don't buy any tabloids now Goldheart,they are all full of sensationalism and are so hypocritical.

I don't believe tabloids either . The amount of fabrications I've seen not just with mj but with celebrities in general is ridiculous :facepalm: .

[user104658]

Yeah the kid WRONGLY described MJ as circumcised ,as a lot of American men are apparently . But MJ was actually uncircumcised.A young teenage boy didn't know the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised erect adult male penis. I wouldn't call this evidence of any kind, honestly.

[Marsh.]

Well no, you're saying that money may possibly be a motive to lie which is true BUT the claim often pushed on this thread is more that "there's money involved so they are obviously lying" which is false.

The money and the judging the validity of the claims are largely unrelated to be honest. Especially in the US where seeking financial compensation when one feels "wronged" is baked into the legal culture.

I never said it hasn't been said in this thread.

I was referring more to the specific members you were referring to. :hmph:

[Beso]

I know that's why I'm more suspicious of the media rather than MJ , it still doesn't make sense to me and it feels very convenient after all the inconsistencies that James' story about a ring gets believed . But I'm still not convinced :suspect: .

There's a video of the vile beast buying jewelery in disguise with a young kid in tow just popped up on the mirror website.

[Kazanne]

A young teenage boy didn't know the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised erect adult male penis. I wouldn't call this evidence of any kind, honestly.

Some kids and him have a sleepover ,I wouldn't call that evidence either:hehe:

[Beso]

Some kids and him have a sleepover ,I wouldn't call that evidence either:hehe:

It would be if he was being charged with buggery.

[Kazanne]

There's a video of the vile beast buying jewelery in disguise with a young kid in tow just popped up on the mirror website.

:joker: bloody hell Parmy keep up this has already been posted

[Cherie]

There's a video of the vile beast buying jewelery in disguise with a young kid in tow just popped up on the mirror website.

its hardly a crime :hehe: If it were Jimmy surely he would have referenced that video? Keeping the gold was a bit odd given what he says happened to him

[Beso]

:joker: bloody hell Parmy keep up this has already been posted

Kaz...if the stories about Michael Jackson were already out in the open, why would he continue to pay people not to talk about it?

Wouldn't you after once or twice shelling out finally say ..no, I'm fighting this.

[Beso]

its hardly a crime :hehe: If it were Jimmy surely he would have referenced that video? Keeping the gold was a bit odd given what he says happened to him

It shows that he goes and buys jewellery...so could back up the story.

[Kazanne]

Kaz...if the stories about Michael Jackson were already out in the open, why would he continue to pay people not to talk about it?

Wouldn't you after once or twice shelling out finally say ..no, I'm fighting this.

He didn't he paid the Chandlers and there are vids on here that explains why.no others have been paid off,.

[Beso]

He didn't he paid the Chandlers and there are vids on here that explains why.no others have been paid off,.



That's not what la toya says..

[GoldHeart]

He didn't he paid the Chandlers and there are vids on here that explains why.no others have been paid off,.

Didn't Arvizo try and get money from MJ , that case was such a mess though . and his mother was proven to be mentally unstable .

[Kazanne]

That's not what la toya says..

:laugh::laugh:

[Kazanne]

Didn't Arvizo try and get money from MJ , that case was such a mess though . and his mother was proven to be mentally unstable .

He paid a lot for his treatment maybe that's getting mixed up,he had a paid carer at the ranch for him,he had cancer didn't he?

[GoldHeart]

He paid a lot for his treatment maybe that's getting mixed up,he had a paid carer at the ranch for him,he had cancer didn't he?

Yeah he had cancer and MJ was there for him , but I'm sure the mother tried to sue him for alleged "child abuse" . Maybe I need to revisit it to refresh my memory ,but like I said it was such a mess :facepalm: and the mother didn't have her faculties .

[Beso]

:laugh::laugh:

It's true though, she said it...she said she had seen many many cheques...

She later said her husband told her to say it...unluckily idiots believe that to mean he forced her to lie, when in fact he was merely so shocked and disgusted by what his wife had told him that he told her she should speak out.

[joeysteele]

Thankyou Joey there are so many truths and untruths out there now , I am the same with tabloids ,all out to make money and destroy people ,are there any factual ones left out there ?

The answer to your question in my opinion is no as to the tabloids.

I would display the lot in fiction stands or comics.