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.

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

Come on parmy he just wanted to be a child again

:skull:

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...

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.

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.

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?

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

Kiss cuddle or tickle..

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.

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

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

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.

How do you know that?....

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.

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.

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 ??? .

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''.

:clap1:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.