Indeed which is why I think it's quite feasible that Macaulay Culkin is telling the truth about their relationship, but that's not really very meaningful in itself... he was at the peak of his fame at the time, where part of MJ's process seems to have been engaging with somewhat star-struck kids and families and making it seem like there were "big things ahead" with him as a friend. None of that applied to Culkin. Also, he had a very similar childhood to Jackson. It's perfectly feasible that they WERE just close as friends and doesn't mean that abuse didn't happen elsewhere. Especially as I personally don't think Jackson was "faking the friendships" just for the sexual aspect; the relationships were genuine in themselves but had "a darker side" along with the friendship.

So I ended up not going to sleep til 6am because I was watching both parts of this, along with reading a bunch of fan sites that apparently 'discredit' every single one of the
people who ever said anything about Jackson. I didn't look too much into this, but I didn't know there were more witnesses (of course, according to his lawyers more random people after money) and that he basically got off because a few kids said he had never touched them. Erm, thats not quite generally how paedophilia works. They don't tend to abuse every kid they come into contact with, and how the hell that was used to discredit the other kids I don't bloody know, but I guess thats the sad state of ur 'justice system'..and even moreso with sexual abuse where there is not likely to be much physical proof. Tbh, it sounds like this 'childlike persona' was a cover for his 'nighttime activities'. I still cannot believe the two mothers in the show didn't think anything of any of it but again, the fame dazzled them enough to make them not look after their kids properly it seems. Along with them 'falling for' the kid trapped in an adult body line. There is no reason for these men to lie now, and its also quite 'usual' (as usual as child abuse cases get) that they deny it was abuse or whatever to themselves but their perspective changes when they have children themselves. It sounds like he groomed them 'well', the basically coaching them what to say in court, telling them from aged 7 that they would go to prison too if ever found out, etc etc..its odd to think if they had not stood up for him, he probably would have gone to prison then.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve what they say. I really don't. Its even quite normal for groomed kids to still feel 'love' for the person they now recognise as their abuser so quite why so many fans seem to be using that against them..I don't get it really.

In short, I wish I had never read this thread last night as its lead to me feeling very zombified now. I fell asleep with maybe 30 mins left so watching the last bit of it now...but yeah. It sounded dodgy before, and I cannot really see any reason to disbelieve them...and the 'they want money!!!!!' excuse thats been trotted out so many times before really does not apply now either. They are not being compensated, and they have set the more rabid fans onto themselves too, for seemingly no reason. Why? Just why? I actually didn't know quite how nuch work some o the more obsessed fans put into twisting every thing in the sotory to make it 'nasty adults wanting money!'. Its possible a few of the people in this saga did, but its highly unlikely that he was totally innocent and everyone just kept trying to randomly extort him, and coming up with such elaborate stories even after there was no money left to be had...

Something else that interests me, is that I have sen a few people say that people are believing 'two proven liars'. Except, the only way these men are 'proven liars' is if you accept that they lied in court..which is accepting that MJ did touch them as kids?

I don't thin its realistic to ban his music totally. I don't thin its even needed really. He does not profit from it now, his kids have done **** all wrong. But again, I see no reason at all to disbelieve these men. Especially not for not acting like the 'perfect victims', erm, thats kind of how grooming works.

:clap1::

Exactly the same for me.

I also am all the way with Kazanne too.

The more the programme went on, the more I found myself moving to not trusting their testimony.

I had questions and challenges, I'd have loved to be able to put to them and particularly their parents too.

By the end of the programme, I was convinced in a challenged confrontational questioning as to their statements.
The holes left from that questioning, would likely leave nothing left.
No wonder they chose a soapbox style documentary.

Michael Jackson was strange, being strange doesn't make someone an abuser of anyone.
From what these 2 came over like last night, I found like yourself, to just disbelieve their accounts more.

This has already been posted.he does make sense he cant be seen to be taking one side of things considering what he says happened to him he has to be neutral.

I just get the impression that you've gone into this with preconceptions and a bias for wanting to believe in his innocence, Joey, it's pretty clear that that's the case for a few people.

They said on oath that MJ never touched them, but we are now 10 after his death are supposed to believe their words now , which says he did , that is why they are NOW perceived as liars.

Regarding the "perfect victim" Vicky, just look at how Jan acted around B, she was smitten with him for years after aswell

So you get to decide which time they were lying? That's convenient

I had no strong feelings for Michael Jackson either way prior to this. I'd wager Joey hasn't either. Your point seems to be that people who think Jackson is a paedophile have come into this with no preconceptions, but those who think the whole thing is hogwash had biased, preconceived ideas from the off.

Yes but the flipside of that, is that we're supposed to believe that they're now willingly confessing to lying under oath in an attempt to make a little bit of money; when there's a high likelihood that the civil suit will still fail on technicalities. It doesn't make sense at all. The next argument is that "they'll make money from interviews" but what? How much? Six figures if they're VERY lucky? And we're then supposed to believe that they've willingly put themselves in the firing line of millions of obsessive fans, destroyed their families, and opened up their parents to a lifetime of shame "for interview money". It's just... well. It's a stretch, isn't it.

The fact they were ever lying would lead me to believe they're lying now.

When the book comes out... and then the film of the book... we can meet up here to discuss it.

I'm commenting purely on the fact that the people who "don't believe it" watching the interviews, also strongly expressed "not believing it" early in the thread before they had seen or read anything about it... thus, it seems fairly clear that those people were never likely to really consider the possibility of guilt.

I'm not saying that I think everyone should come out of it saying "YUP definitely a paedophile", but coming out of it still adamant that everything is 100% innocent seems like it must take a logical leap or two.

But not then? :laugh:

I still don't understand why people ignore the fact they swore on oath ,which is illegal isn't it ?!! .

I think as well some people who have suffered abuse themselves ,have a different view and are led to believe it as it brings back memories .

"Michael Jackson was cleared in 2005 and Wade Robson is a complete and utter LIAR! Once a liar always a liar!"

"A huge part of him being cleared in 2005 was Wade Robson's testimony, he was considered the #1 key witness..."

"Err yes he is a liar now, he was telling the truth in 2005"

Sorry their reasons for sticking up for him made sense to me. Hell one of the guys still sounds confused as hell about it all, sounds like he still considers it was a 'relationship' rather than abuse. The other seems a bit more sorted in his head and seems to have realised it was abuse rather than 'love' but still sounds very confused to be quite honest at times, and the anxiety when talking about it..I don't believe that can be faked that well, and if it was, he really should have an amazing career in acting.

I don't understand.

If they have ever lied, they are likely to again.

I'm not ignoring it I think it's quite a compelling reason to believe what they have to say; they're admitting to lying in court which is not something someone would normally want to do. I can't think of much reason for them to admit to something like that, if they didn't have a very good reason to do so. A better reason than "because they MIGHT get a book deal or something" at least.

Yes.
I hold the view anyone should be views as possibly innocent until proven guilty.

It's why things like investigations are done and trials occur.
Jackson has already had extensive investigation and trial.
While he was alive.

I've never liked or supported media led kangaroo style court and judgements.


They were not convincing at all.
No one saw anything they said happened.
Their parents were with them.
They said nothing to their parents.
To anyone in fact.

Now they are, when Jackson can no longer again submit himself to answer all this again.

It seems the other way to me actually TS, I'm sorry to say.

That some want to think him guilty and won't accept he's been extensively investigated and tried before.
Acquitted too.

That's a dangerous precedent to follow on such serious allegations.
One thankfully, I'd never want to follow.

I would never describe myself as a Jackson fan.
I like much of his music work.
I watched this, very one sided documentary, and even being so weighted against him.
They did not convince me at all, in fact the more they went on, the less I believed them.

They lied has kids and we all know kids can be made to do a lot of things, a child’s mind is different to an adults.

Eloquently put, Joey.

Surely this line of thinking though, accepts that they led when they testified in his favour? which means basically, when asked if he ever touched them and they said no, that was a lie and he did.

So yeah I guess you could deduct from that that they might embellish or whatever now to sensationalise it or whatever. But, it still relies on admitting they lied in the first place, and Wade was one of the major reasons he got off (though I really dont get that..as I said earlier...not abusing every kid does not mean you abused none).

I agree and in all honesty I think that if Jackson was still alive, and that distance / headspace wasn't there, Wade Robson may quite likely still be friends with him to this day. Though I doubt he would be leaving him alone with his son.

James Safechuck just seems utterly broken and I have no idea how people imagine one "fakes" something like that in an attempt to get some money. As you say, if he's faking it then he's an exceptional method actor.

Yeah, to me the two men looked and sounded like they were telling the truth, like you say. The mothers and I mean both of them giggled through the interview and looked almost nostalagic thinking back to the first class flights and hotel rooms, that in itself, for me is pretty telling on how the abuse happened like it did, they were the perfect targets for MJ with mothers like them two "protecting" them