BBC bans Michael Jackson music amidst child abuse claims

[Brother Leon]

1112066970134798337

Worth watching as a counterpoint to the Leaving Neverland documentary.

[Kazanne]

This is going to sound sarcastic, but please believe me, it isn't but IF some irrefutable evidence came out to prove MJ did have sexual relationships with these or other boys, would you guys then condemn him or still believe, as Streisand obviously does, that his upbringing were to blame and so in some way his actions can be excused?

I would not be the fan I am now but I would not stop playing his music,there are also celebrities (Diana Ross,Will-I-am) etc who have also said they do not believe the accustations so no different to some of us really, Streisand is unsure imo,she just doesn't want to be seen as 'sticking up for him' hence the apology ,also if the shoe was on the other foot and those two men were found to be lying would people feel bad for accusing him,I don't think they would as the theory is set in their minds already.

[Niamh.]

But Annie's point was about them absolving him of blame due to his upbringing, not his work.I know?

[Marsh.]

I know?

I said that because you said "absolve him because of his fame and career" not his upbringing. :oh:

[bots]

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

[user104658]

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

There's nothing to be gained by the public but there is plenty for his victims; bringing historic abuse out into the open can finally give closure and a sense of at least some sort of justice. Harbouring things like this unheard destroys lives.

My argument really has eff all to do with MJ, my "interest" in this or reason for continuing to argue against those who would vilify his accusers is that all victims of abuse should be able to share their story without being torn down and attacked for it. That is HUGELY important, whether the perpetrator is alive or dead.

I mean when it comes down to the story itself, my reaction has never been "what scum!" or "what an unforgivable paedo!" ... it's just "what an all around tragic and horrible story". Michael Jackson's life is a horror story and I don't know how anyone can deny that, even with ALL of the accusations out of the equation, he had an absolutely bizarre childhood, and adulthood, destroyed his face with surgery after surgery, and had terrible addiction problems that wound up killing him. He undeniably had SIGNIFICANT mental health problems, and a tragic part of that (in my belief) involved being sexually inappropriate with young boys. But his story is still a sad one in itself. Funnily enough - I get the strong impression that James Safechuck and especially Wade Robson themselves understand that.

[Cherie]

1112066970134798337

Worth watching as a counterpoint to the Leaving Neverland documentary.

very interesting, especially the timeline regarding the alleged Cirque de Soleil booking and subsequent dropping for Robson and also Safechucks claim that he refused to testify for Jackson second time round when he was never called by the defence

[bots]

There's nothing to be gained by the public but there is plenty for his victims; bringing historic abuse out into the open can finally give closure and a sense of at least some sort of justice. Harbouring things like this unheard destroys lives.

My argument really has eff all to do with MJ, my "interest" in this or reason for continuing to argue against those who would vilify his accusers is that all victims of abuse should be able to share their story without being torn down and attacked for it. That is HUGELY important, whether the perpetrator is alive or dead.

I mean when it comes down to the story itself, my reaction has never been "what scum!" or "what an unforgivable paedo!" ... it's just "what an all around tragic and horrible story". Michael Jackson's life is a horror story and I don't know how anyone can deny that, even with ALL of the accusations out of the equation, he had an absolutely bizarre childhood, and adulthood, destroyed his face with surgery after surgery, and had terrible addiction problems that wound up killing him. He undeniably had SIGNIFICANT mental health problems, and a tragic part of that (in my belief) involved being sexually inappropriate with young boys. But his story is still a sad one in itself. Funnily enough - I get the strong impression that James Safechuck and especially Wade Robson themselves understand that.

but the people are not bringing anything into the open, there is nothing new in any of it. Jackson was who he was. Nothing is being achieved. Also, the more allegations that go on, the more it reduces the earning potential for his legacy, so the less money is going to be available for any "victims". It's all self-defeating

[Niamh.]

I said that because you said "absolve him because of his fame and career" not his upbringing. :oh:I was just moving on the conversation :oh:

[chuff me dizzy]

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

There is no excuse for taking away children innocence for your own self want and perversion

[GoldHeart]

It's as if we're not allowed to think MJ is innocent , and it's like we musn't question Wade & James despite the financial motivation & the dodgy backgrounds .

People call MJ "weird" & "manipulative" but what about Wade & James ? .Wade called himself "master of deception" , what kind of victim calls himself that? :bored: .

And if MJ was alive today I doubt they would of come forward claiming they'd been abused . As MJ would fight them on it & like with the 93 & 03 cases they'd fall to pieces due to all the inconsistencies & contradictions.By suing the estate after the man is dead they can't get challenged by him as he's not around to defend himself.

I honestly hope their appeal gets rejected. They're using Leaving Neverland as some kind of messed up insurance to back up their graphic insane stories because they have NO REAL PROOF !! .

[Brother Leon]

It's as if we're not allowed to think MJ is innocent , and it's like we musn't question Wade & James despite the financial motivation & the dodgy backgrounds .

People call MJ "weird" & "manipulative" but what about Wade & James ? .Wade called himself "master of deception" , what kind of victim calls himself that? :bored: .

And if MJ was alive today I doubt they would of come forward claiming they'd been abused . As MJ would fight them on it & like with the 93 & 03 cases they'd fall to pieces due to all the inconsistencies & contradictions.By suing the estate after the man is dead they can't get challenged by him as he's not around to defend himself.

I honestly hope their appeal gets rejected. They're using Leaving Neverland as some kind of messed up insurance to back up their graphic insane stories because they have NO REAL PROOF !! .

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

[Kazanne]

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

Well said Brother Leon, but I fear the damage has already been done.

[Nancy.]

1112364525922254850

So according to him, Safechuck was still being abused at 16 / 17 - which completely goes against their narrative in the movie. How many more times are their stories going to change?

This hole they've dug themselves into just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

[GoldHeart]

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

Sensible post :clap1:

Sadly the pop culture we live in now is jumping to conclusions and anyone can say they were abused today or 30 years ago without proof and it's taken as gospel , the media love bashing MJ alive & dead .

As soon as Safechuck mentioned the ridiculous "wedding ring " , the tabloids had a field day twisting old footage of MJ shopping in disguise . That footage is old and it only reamerged after the allegations . MJ was only in disguise so he doesn't get mobbed, he had a kid possibly Safechuck so that he could speak for MJ as people would recognise his voice, he even told a security guard at the time that he's incognito because of that . Not everything is sinister.

MJ was actually buying kids stuff , even if he bought jewellery doesn't mean it was a wedding ring for a Mock wedding . I hate how things get taken out of context & the media runs with it in a frenzy ! :facepalm: .

[Parmy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecut.com/amp/2019/03/why-michael-jacksons-victims-use-the-second-person.html

[Parmy]

Sensible post :clap1:

Sadly the pop culture we live in now is jumping to conclusions and anyone can say they were abused today or 30 years ago without proof and it's taken as gospel , the media love bashing MJ alive & dead .

As soon as Safechuck mentioned the ridiculous "wedding ring " , the tabloids had a field day twisting old footage of MJ shopping in disguise . That footage is old and it only reamerged after the allegations . MJ was only in disguise so he doesn't get mobbed, he had a kid possibly Safechuck so that he could speak for MJ as people would recognise his voice, he even told a security guard at the time that he's incognito because of that . Not everything is sinister.

MJ was actually buying kids stuff , even if he bought jewellery doesn't mean it was a wedding ring for a Mock wedding . I hate how things get taken out of context & the media runs with it in a frenzy ! :facepalm: .

You have just described a guilty paedophile in the middle of grooming his child victim.

[GoldHeart]

You have just described a guilty paedophile in the middle of grooming his child victim.

No I haven't , people like Diane Diamond ,Tom Sneddon , Martin Bashir & Victor Gutierrez are the ones with dirty minds that twisted anything MJ did and tried to make it seem sinister .

Also if they care so much about stopping abuse ,how come NON of them seemed bothered about Jordy Chandler getting beaten almost to death by his psychotic dad ! .

Also everyone ignores Guittierez the real pervert , who wrote a slanderous book on MJ full of paedophilia.

[Parmy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/victor-gutierrez-and-his-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/amp/

[Nancy.]

Michael Jackson biographer claims he’s uncovered evidence that could disprove child sex abuse allegations

https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-biographer-exposes-wade-robson-james-safechucks-allegations-false-leaving-neverland-2469413/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Speaking to the Mirror Online on Friday (March 29), Smallcombe made reference to the fact that Robson said the abuse started when his family went to the Grand Canyon and he stayed behind with Jackson at Neverland. But Smallcombe claims that Robson’s mother, Joy, told a court under oath in 1993 that Robson actually joined them on them trip.

1111992775673810944

:facepalm:

[Nicky91]

oh shocking breakthrough, tbh i believe this immediately, and this proves they made stuff up for attention

[Nicky91]

1112374954413166592

1112148785436725253

James Safechuck's story also proving to be a bit false here and there :umm2:


WTF was this was all for attention making that leaving neverland documentary

[user104658]

Michael Jackson biographer claims he’s uncovered evidence that could disprove child sex abuse allegations

https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-biographer-exposes-wade-robson-james-safechucks-allegations-false-leaving-neverland-2469413/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Speaking to the Mirror Online on Friday (March 29), Smallcombe made reference to the fact that Robson said the abuse started when his family went to the Grand Canyon and he stayed behind with Jackson at Neverland. But Smallcombe claims that Robson’s mother, Joy, told a court under oath in 1993 that Robson actually joined them on them trip.

:facepalm:

We already know that the Robsons testified in Jackson's defense in 1993 how is this in any way new information. Honestly some people must make Christmas so easy for their families. Put last year's gift in a different box and wrap a bow around it, and it becomes a brand new present.

[Kazanne]

We already know that the Robsons testified in Jackson's defense in 1993 how is this in any way new information. Honestly some people must make Christmas so easy for their families. Put last year's gift in a different box and wrap a bow around it, and it becomes a brand new present.

Is there any need to be so condescending ?You may know the ins and outs of a ducks arse about MJ but not everyone does,Nancy is just posting information, you don't have to read it,but some of us want to.

[Parmy]

I WATCHED THE NEW SAVILLE THING WITH LOIUS THERROUX ON NETFLIX LAST NIGHT....

he was interviewing one of the girls saville abused, she is now about 50 yr old....she laughed as she recounted the abuse.

[Cherie]

I WATCHED THE NEW SAVILLE THING WITH LOIUS THERROUX ON NETFLIX LAST NIGHT....

he was interviewing one of the girls saville abused, she is now about 50 yr old....she laughed as she recounted the abuse.

There is literally no correlation between the Saville case, where 13 police forces ignored complaints until his death, and MJ who was investigated by the FBI for 10 years during his life

[Nicky91]

There is literally no correlation between the Saville case, where 13 police forces ignored complaints until his death, and MJ who was investigated by the FBI for 10 years during his life

just Parmy trying to bring that story back up too i guess

Saville (for me personally) well what i've read about him, he definitely seemed like the type to be a real creep

[Parmy]

just Parmy trying to bring that story back up too i guess

Saville (for me personally) well what i've read about him, he definitely seemed like the type to be a real creep

or perhaps pointing out that survivers of abuse do infact laugh or smile when they recount the abuse...just like robson and safechuck and this lady last night.


if you doubt me, watch it your bloody self.

[Parmy]

There is literally no correlation between the Saville case, where 13 police forces ignored complaints until his death, and MJ who was investigated by the FBI for 10 years during his life

except both cases left the two perpertrateurs dead, but many victims still alive, who, from what i have witnessed, laugh at innapropriatte moments as they recount the abuse they suffered.

[Nancy.]

We already know that the Robsons testified in Jackson's defense in 1993 how is this in any way new information. Honestly some people must make Christmas so easy for their families. Put last year's gift in a different box and wrap a bow around it, and it becomes a brand new present.

Well despite you taking up residence in here, you're not the only one posting, so perhaps you should refrain from speaking on other people's behalf.

The information I (or we) post is for those who don't know much about MJ and the accusers, so therefore we will CONTINUE to post information regardless of whether you like it or not.

[Nancy.]

Is there any need to be so condescending ?You may know the ins and outs of a ducks arse about MJ but not everyone does,Nancy is just posting information, you don't have to read it,but some of us want to.

Exactly. Thanks Kazanne. :thumbs:

[Nicky91]

Well despite you taking up residence in here, you're not the only one posting, so perhaps you should refrain from speaking on other people's behalf.

The information I (or we) post is for those who don't know much about MJ and the accusers, so therefore we will CONTINUE to post information regardless of whether you like it or not.

wCEtKczc6jI

to back up your information, here's a video of safechuck's lies

[user104658]

There is literally no correlation between the Saville case, where 13 police forces ignored complaints until his death, and MJ who was investigated by the FBI for 10 years during his life

Yes but several times throughout this thread, it has been insisted that Robson and Safechuck "must by lying" and are "laughing in the face of people who have been abused" because they smile and laugh at times during a Q&A. Screenshots of them smiling were posted as "proof" of them being liars.

[user104658]

Is there any need to be so condescending ?You may know the ins and outs of a ducks arse about MJ but not everyone does,Nancy is just posting information, you don't have to read it,but some of us want to.

So there are people posting here who didn't know that the Robsons testified in Jackson's defense in the past and have now said differently? ... I mean OK but that was sort of a huge part of the documentary so I'd have to question whether or not they watched it?

[GoldHeart]

Well despite you taking up residence in here, you're not the only one posting, so perhaps you should refrain from speaking on other people's behalf.

The information I (or we) post is for those who don't know much about MJ and the accusers, so therefore we will CONTINUE to post information regardless of whether you like it or not.

Did you see the Liam McEwen video? , Brandi & Taj were being interviewed.

And I read about the biographer , but the thing is all the information & facts are out there but they get ignored . I guess what's needed is a mainstream documentary on tv going through all the lies & inconsistencies , seen as tv is people's best friend .

Google is also their friend but they can't be bothered to do a 5 minute research .

[user104658]

Google is also their friend but they can't be bothered to do a 5 minute research .

Google is not your friend at all if you give it biased search parameters like; "proof that Michael Jackson is innocent" or "proof that James Safechuck and Wade Robson are proven liars", though, and it's not very nice to suggest that other people haven't done their research. It's just that not everyone's research is limited to biased MJ fan sites, Facebook groups, twitter accounts and YouTube videos.

[GoldHeart]

If you think all the research is "mj biased " & "mj fan sites" then I pity you :idc:

[AnnieK]

The only thing I am finding hard with this thread is that if I am reading this correctly, some people think members who have voiced their views that they believe MJ did in fact have inappropriate relationships with boys are basing their beliefs on one particular documentary. For me, at least, that is not the case. My views are from many years of thinking his relationships with children were not healthy, for anyone involved

[Parmy]

The only thing I am finding hard with this thread is that if I am reading this correctly, some people think members who have voiced their views that they believe MJ did in fact have inappropriate relationships with boys are basing their beliefs on one particular documentary. For me, at least, that is not the case. My views are from many years of thinking his relationships with children were not healthy, for anyone involved



Same.

[GoldHeart]

The only thing I am finding hard with this thread is that if I am reading this correctly, some people think members who have voiced their views that they believe MJ did in fact have inappropriate relationships with boys are basing their beliefs on one particular documentary. For me, at least, that is not the case. My views are from many years of thinking his relationships with children were not healthy, for anyone involved

But MJ had a different upbringing , and he never invited these kids to his bedroom plus he also made sure the parents were OK with things.

You can think it's innapropriate , nobody is defending that as such but we're more understanding to it .

Plus if you look further into it you'll realise he didn't have the childhood he wanted & missed . He spent his childhood touring & in music studios , he looked outside and saw kids playing in the park and he wanted to do the same but he couldn't.

Also if you research you'll see a lot of these kids were fans that wanted to spend time withMJ ,he wasn't always at Neverland and all 4 accusers had opportunistic parents that kept stalking MJ. So its false that MJ kept pursuing kids if anything it's the other way round.

Yes MJ invited them into Neverland which was a mistake, but loads & loads of families were invited . it was like a theme park for disadvantaged kids. It was innocent & far from sinister . But I will agree MJ took risks & he was naive .


Jay Leno & Chris Tucker distanced themselves from the Arvizo family as they could see through them before it was too late ,whereas MJ took longer to realise .

Also some kids were disrespectful and ran around his home going through his belongings& making a mess .

[Nancy.]

Did you see the Liam McEwen video? , Brandi & Taj were being interviewed.

And I read about the biographer , but the thing is all the information & facts are out there but they get ignored . I guess what's needed is a mainstream documentary on tv going through all the lies & inconsistencies , seen as tv is people's best friend .

Google is also their friend but they can't be bothered to do a 5 minute research .

Hi, Goldheart, No I haven't watched it yet. Do you have a link?

How's Taj going with the documentary?

[GoldHeart]

Hi, Goldheart, No I haven't watched it yet. Do you have a link?

How's Taj going with the documentary?

And Taj is collecting all the receipts i think from fact checkers so he can have everything he needs. He still has a long way to for the donations , but fingers crossed hopefully he manages to make his documentary on MJ :thumbs::fc:

https://uk.gofundme.com/untitled-michael-jackson-documentary-series


m4trDbeFWTY

[Marsh.]

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

Who said being eccentric was an excuse for preying on little kids?

It seems "being eccentric" is being used in place of any evidence that he preyed on little kids.

[user104658]

It seems "being eccentric" is being used in place of any evidence that he preyed on little kids.

Well you know... that,
plus compulsively befriending a string of young boys,

and spending unusual amounts of time alone with those boys,

and having them sleep over at his house,

and getting them to look at adult images (even Feldman says this happened),

and more than one of those boys accusing him of being inappropriate at the time,

and then another two as adults saying he molested them,

oh and two or three others saying he wrote inappropriate letters or made inappropriate comments to them in phonecalls (NONE of which was in the doc to be dismissed as a money grab).


Little eccentric details like that.

But of course, let's continue to pretend that it's just two men out for cash and smear them as liars, rather than admitting that there are in total seven individuals who have made at least one comment that suggests the relationships were not just "innocent childhood" stuff.

[Marsh.]

Well you know... that,
plus compulsively befriending a string of young boys,

and spending unusual amounts of time alone with those boys,

and having them sleep over at his house,

and getting them to look at adult images (even Feldman says this happened),

and more than one of those boys accusing him of being inappropriate at the time,

and then another two as adults saying he molested them,

oh and two or three others saying he wrote inappropriate letters or made inappropriate comments to them in phonecalls (NONE of which was in the doc to be dismissed as a money grab).


Little eccentric details like that.

But of course, let's continue to pretend that it's just two men out for cash and smear them as liars, rather than admitting that there are in total seven individuals who have made at least one comment that suggests the relationships were not just "innocent childhood" stuff.

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth.

Any time you wish to make a comment on what I've actually said, let me know.

[Parmy]

It was innocent & far from sinister


Apart from the kids running free stealing the jesus juice, and all the fondling.

[user104658]

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth.



Any time you wish to make a comment on what I've actually said, let me know.You implied that those who think there are indications of something being very wrong base that entirely on "him being a bit eccentric" which is obviously false. I'm not putting any words in your mouth; I'm giving a list of just SOME of the reasons beyond "being a bit weird" that one might be suspicious of what the deal was.

In fact, if a less eccentric adult had done all of the above, I'd guess that far fewer people would be so sure of his innocence. So far from him being accused because of his odd personality, it seems to me that it's often used as a smokescreen covering multiple other behaviours that would be considered suspicious in any other adult man.

[Marsh.]

You implied that those who think there are indications of something being very wrong base that entirely on "him being a bit eccentric" which is obviously false. I'm not putting any words in your mouth; I'm giving a list of just SOME of the reasons beyond "being a bit weird" that one might be suspicious of what the deal was.

No I didn't. I pointed out that "Well, he was weird" has been said by many people when it comes to these allegations. I didn't say they were the basis of the people making allegations, nor everyone. But it has been used and said by people who believe the unproven allegations due to him being "eccentric", as though someone being "weird" is evidence of guilt, which is ridiculous.

[chuff me dizzy]

The only thing I am finding hard with this thread is that if I am reading this correctly, some people think members who have voiced their views that they believe MJ did in fact have inappropriate relationships with boys are basing their beliefs on one particular documentary. For me, at least, that is not the case. My views are from many years of thinking his relationships with children were not healthy, for anyone involved

Agree,my bad feelings of him go back to when he was paying people out of court to silence them

[Niamh.]

The only thing I am finding hard with this thread is that if I am reading this correctly, some people think members who have voiced their views that they believe MJ did in fact have inappropriate relationships with boys are basing their beliefs on one particular documentary. For me, at least, that is not the case. My views are from many years of thinking his relationships with children were not healthy, for anyone involved

100%

[GoldHeart]

Agree,my bad feelings of him go back to when he was paying people out of court to silence them

Clearly ZERO research you've done .

in 93 it was a civil law suit and it was the insurance company that actually paid the chandlers, Evan Chandler didn't give a damn about getting MJ locked up all he wanted was money . hmm i wonder why that is? if he genuinely thought his son was being molested why would he avoid a criminal trial to testify? .

There was every chance for all the family to testify back in court in the 05 trial and none of them bothered as they got their money and the case fell to pieces as there was contradictions!!! .

Chandler drugged his own son to lie , he's caught on tape planning his extortion towards MJ and how he wants to destroy him and get everything he can . No mention of his concern for the safety of his son or whether or not MJ actually harmed his son.

If MJ was paying out loads of money to silence his "victims" i'm pretty sure they'd be evidence of that . Plus Why would you accept a settlement instead of putting the criminal behind bars ?? . And that never got MJ off the hook atall so all that's false as he was still suspected.

Evan chandler beat his son and almost killed him , Jordy fled the country to get away from his parents. Does this sound like the actions of a normal family .

[Parmy]

in 93 it was a civil law suit and it was the insurance company that actually paid the chandlers, Evan Chandler didn't give a damn about getting MJ locked up all he wanted was money . hmm i wonder why that is? if he genuinely thought his son was being molested why would he avoid a criminal trial to testify?



Basically because they were all morons that loved michael that much that they preferred money rather than see michael go to jail at the time.


The guilt has obviously, and understandably come many years later.

[GoldHeart]

in 93 it was a civil law suit and it was the insurance company that actually paid the chandlers, Evan Chandler didn't give a damn about getting MJ locked up all he wanted was money . hmm i wonder why that is? if he genuinely thought his son was being molested why would he avoid a criminal trial to testify?



Basically because they were all morons that loved michael that much that they preferred money rather than see michael go to jail at the time.


The guilt has obviously, and understandably come many years later.

what a load of rubbish :crazy: , if you genuinely thought your child had been abused i don't care who it is why wouldn't you want them arrested and locked up ??? . No amount of money can repair that !.
It wasn't hush money it was the insurance company that settled with the chandlers.

Yes there's such a thing as compensation but if someone was a danger to children! , you would keep fighting for justice.

you going to ignore the fact that Evan chandler was a greedy psycho that wanted MJ's money ? and when MJ refused to finance his movie idea he turned nasty and started accusing him of abusing Jordy. Evan wasn't even on the scene until he saw his ex wife & son hanging around MJ then all of a sudden he wanted to play dad. He owed loads of child support that he couldn't be bothered to pay.

Also what kind of parent drugs their own son!???, why did he drug him ? . And he got angry with Jordy and beat him and almost killed him yet MJ is the abuser sure ok ? .

[Parmy]

what a load of rubbish , if you genuinely thought your child had been abused i don't care who it is why wouldn't you want them arrested and locked up ??? . No amount of money can repair that !.
It wasn't hush money it was the insurance company that settled with the chandlers.



Luckily I also think your opinions are full of ****e so we may get along...


But the way michael abused these parents kids made the kids feel loved, so loved that they would probably be begging thier parents to accept money and not send michael to jail...imagine them after years with Michael, basically running the household all.pissed up after years of smuggling wine and growing up way to fast..thinking they are adults after doing adult thing.


You goldheart are savagely ignoring the view off an abused child.

[Nancy.]

This just get's better and better.

1112965406761930753




1113243783615979520

:dance:

[user104658]

https://i.imgflip.com/2xn8ei.jpg

[chuff me dizzy]

Clearly ZERO research you've done .

in 93 it was a civil law suit and it was the insurance company that actually paid the chandlers, Evan Chandler didn't give a damn about getting MJ locked up all he wanted was money . hmm i wonder why that is? if he genuinely thought his son was being molested why would he avoid a criminal trial to testify? .

There was every chance for all the family to testify back in court in the 05 trial and none of them bothered as they got their money and the case fell to pieces as there was contradictions!!! .

Chandler drugged his own son to lie , he's caught on tape planning his extortion towards MJ and how he wants to destroy him and get everything he can . No mention of his concern for the safety of his son or whether or not MJ actually harmed his son.

If MJ was paying out loads of money to silence his "victims" i'm pretty sure they'd be evidence of that . Plus Why would you accept a settlement instead of putting the criminal behind bars ?? . And that never got MJ off the hook atall so all that's false as he was still suspected.

Evan chandler beat his son and almost killed him , Jordy fled the country to get away from his parents. Does this sound like the actions of a normal family .

Utter BS ... Mj paid his way out of a jail term

[Nancy.]

https://i.imgflip.com/2xn8ei.jpg

Zzzz
I think now's the time for you to go on my ignore list, sweetheart...

https://media2.giphy.com/media/l0MYzLLxlJDfYtzy0/giphy.gif

Anyway, here's a summary of ROBson and SafeCHECK's inconsistencies...i'm sure there's more to follow:


* In the documentary Wades wife states that she did not know how to deal with Wades abuse because she had no experience with abuse.. Yet their website stated that she was also an abuse survivor (This was until people started to catch on, any mention of his wife was taken down)

* That edited/sliced 'Happy Birthday' message was recorded within days that Wade and Michael first ever spent any time together (aside from the time they met in Australia) and was filmed 7 months before his Bday

* James claimed to have owned the Thriller Jacket, it was actually given to Dennis Thompson (his clothing designers) and they had it until 2011 when it was auctioned

* James claims Harrison Ford gave him the whip from the Indiana Jones movie but it was actually given to the Institute of Archeology in 1990 (only 1 was used in the trilogy)

* James claims Michael called him asking him to testify in 2005 but he was considered a 'non entity' in the case months before the trial began. Neither one of them had a say as to if he could testify.

* James claims his abuse occurred from the age of 10-14 (1988-1992), he tells a story of often going into the train station and doing sexual acts with Michael Jackson... The Train station was not built until towards the end of 1993.

* James claims doing sexual acts in the room looking over the theater, stated the room had one way mirrors so no one can look in.. The room had normal windows - no one way mirrors.

* James mother states she danced when Michael Jackson died... James states that he was unaware what 'happened' to him was abuse until seeing Wade Robson on TV in 2013..

* Wades mother claims that Wade has been to Neverland 14 times and a total of 4 times Michael was actually there (In the doc he says hundreds of times)

* In the doc Wade claims that it was after his family left to the Grand Canyon when they had their first sexual experience, went into great detail as to having no contact with his family.. in court 2 months prior to the taping he stated that it was before his family left to the Grand Canyon while his sister was sleeping in the room. There are multiple testimonies from Wades mother that specifically states he went with the family to the Grand Canyon..

* Both mothers were laughing and lovingly talking about the time period they spent with Michael.. This is the time they would have been 'neglecting' their children, it is unnatural for a mother to lovingly express of the time she neglected her child by handing over their sons to an 'abuser'.

* James claims they told the jewelers that the ring Michael was buying him was for a woman.. They are adult MALE rings he owns!

* They talk about this elaborate grooming process Michael did but say he molested him the first day they were alone.. That's only hours from day to evening to make Wade comfortable enough to feel ok about something like that? Mind you, they were not US citizens so after the event, they'd be going home to Australia.. That's VERY risky!

* James claims he, another boy (insinuating Jordan Chandler) was with Michael in his Century City CA apartment in September 1992. He describes crying himself to sleep due to Michael having a new 'special friend'.. Michael Jackson was on tour traveling between Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain, Portugal, and Romania in September 1992.

* They express a 'sexually satisfying relationship' at the age of 7 with MJ yet no mention of the conflicting feelings coming from two straight boys/now men.. We are to overlook not only the discomfort of a minor with an adult but to overlook the discomfort of sexual acts that conflicted with their true sexuality (heterosexuals).. Given the late 80's & 90's and where our culture was with homosexuality and the later period was post Jordan Chandler allegations, it is very unlikely that the duality of thee sexual acts would not leave an impact worth mentioning I the film.. But falsely claiming he owned the whip from Indiana Jones movie was worth keeping in.

IN COURT & beyond....

* When Wade was forced to release his emails, he breached the order claiming it did not exist, than refused to submit, than tried using 'attorney client privileges' to prevent the emails to enter the case.. It eventually entered the case after the internet provider submitted the deleted emails.

* Wade Robsons emails show he sent himself a link from an anti MJ website that paints Jackson as a pedophile to build his case (why would he need to do that if it's a personal event?)

* Emails between Wade and his mother, Wade sends her an article making claims about Michael, she responds "wow, that never happened" and he still used the story in court.

* Emails between him and his mother show them going over stories and having 'many versions'

* Wade was caught lying under oath so bad that the judge stated "Their is no rational juror that could believe his testimony"

* Wade Robson wrote 2 drafts of a 'tell all' book, the court ordered Wade to produce both drafts and the story of his abuse changed significantly from one draft to the next

* James claims that he first addressed his abuse after seeing an interview with Wade on TV, however it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James before James made any move about the abuse.

* In court James 'jewelry' story never included a 'wedding ring' story, he stated he had a neckless he was given with a medallion - and that is where the story ends.. The wedding ring would be the most important piece of jewelry to the story... James original interview with Dan Reed in Feb 2017 did not include the ring story, they later got together in July 2017 to film and include the 'ring' story..

* The court ordered Wade to present his personal journals to the court and it stated allegations would make him "relatable and relevant" and "it's time for me to get mine". When questioned about the quotes he stated he does not know what he meant by his own words.
* Wade robson claims two contradictory things.. 1. that he did not see anything wrong with the abuse at the time because he felt that he was in a 'fulfilling sexual relationship' at 7 years old and that's why he did not speak out... 2. that Michael would drill & threaten him about if he spoke out and he did not speak out due to fear.

* James legal briefing states Michael spent thanksgiving with the Safechucks in 1987, Michael was in Australia on the Bad tour and was actually the day Michael Jackson met Wade Robson after the Target event.

* Wade Robson was trying to have his wedding at Neverland and Michael Jacksons Nanny had to tell both Wade and Joy "NO" because the 2005 trial was going on at the time

* Wade claimed in court that he was unaware of the administration of the Michael Jackson Estate prior to March 6th 2013 which is another lie considering he was in contact with them about the Cirque De Soleil show and claims to have worked under MJ Ventures in the past. (which is why the estate would be liable in the first place)

* Wade claims that he was at Neverland and saw Michaels children and did not want Michaels kids to live without their dad and that's how he knew he 'had' to testify on Michaels behalf.. The time he visited Neverland was AFTER he testified

* They both have been working together since 2014 against the Jackson estate, it was Wades legal team that reached out to James (before James came forward). They worked with this legal team until both cases were thrown out. together switched to a different law firm where their complaints were amended. With those amendments, the accusations changed.

* James original case against the estate never stated that he had any working relationship with the estate, thus had no 'Duty Of Care'.. In the new claim, it included allegations against MJJ Ventures in respect to his alleged abuse in the 80's.. MJJ Ventures was not established until 1991 and never had any working relationship with Michael Jackson until 1994, 2 years after the alleged abuse ended.

* When chronologically looking at the claims against Jackson, as they had a hard time battling the estates 'ownership' in the alleged abuse - the stories became increasingly more elaborate including Michael Jacksons employees to incriminate those who are hired under MJJ companies.. Neither Wade or James can actually name any employee that allegedly were willing participants in covering up any abuse (including those they supposedly had personal interaction with)

* James 3rd amended complaint added a story including companies under MJJ companies that had 'youth programs' where Michael would be a mentor, these companies were called the 'most sophisticated child abuse procurement & Facilitation organization'. '.... a 'youth program' never existed..

* James case came to a dead end, trying to make the estate liable. James and his lawyers desperately tried to make the argument since Michael Jackson was the sole share holder and owner of MJJ companies. That Michael Jackson had the obligation to 'supervise himself', knowing he (himself) had 'criminal tendencies' and should not allow himself work in his own company. Fire himself and warn others about his tendencies.. This is all to make the estate liable for alleged abuse.

* Wade claims this is about victim awareness, has a charity established in 2019 yet has not mentioned the charity on television or interviews. The Charity is based out of Hawaii, a state that does not force companies to prove where donations come from.

[Josy]

Closing this for now as it seems to be going round in circles with some members clearly only posting in it to bait others.