Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10466505)

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466509)

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466509)

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466510)

Well I mean, as controversial as it may be to say it... the two are really not related :shrug:.

Though I personally would argue that fewer than 10 of his songs can be described as "great", mostly it's just "very good for pop".

Originally Posted by Nancy. (Post 10466514)

Exactly.

I watched the documentary last night and was disgusted by how incredibly one sided it was. It's nothing but a 4 hour propoganda piece designed to help get their appeal overturned after failing to sue MJ's estate for a BILLION dollars.

No one can deny the content and overly graphic and compelling material isn't shocking, but there are so many inconsistencies and facts the director, Dan Reed chose to omit or care to check up on. We see plenty of Wade and Jimmy's family, but nobody from Michael's family or anyone to speak up for him on his behalf.

Nothing is mentioned about Wade being bitter about being tossed aside in favour of Jamie King choreographing the Cirque Du Soleil shows that he DESPERATELY wanted to do, and coming to the realization he was abused by MJ TWO WEEKS afterwards.

Nothing is mentioned about him shopping around for a book deal to reveal all about MJ after getting dropped from Cirque Du Soleil.

Just like nothing is mentioned about MJ setting Wade and Brandy Jackson up on a date - to which they embarked on a 7 year relationship but ended after she found out he'd been cheating on her with Britney Spears - bearing in mind this was the same MJ who they claimed didn't like them associating and forming relationships with girls.

It's interesting how they spend so much of the documentary going into great detail about what happened durung the sexual abuse, but don't mention ANYTHING about Michael's Vitilego or the markings on his penis / body - which is something you'd expect to be of relevance to these accusations.

It's really difficult to comprehend how both would keep going back to a man who had allegedy done such disgusting things to them. I very much doubt a chld of 7 would perform oral sex on an adult without screaming blue murder, no matter how much they said they "loved each other".

They don't mention anything about the accusers appeal currently in motion to screw billions from MJ's Estate. (despite claiming "its not about money").

There's also inconsistencies with the familes too. Like when Safechuck's Mother claimed she danced when she heard MJ was dead in 2009, yet James said he didn't reveal anything about the abuse to her until 2013?

Then in the end credits we see Wade burning his MJ memorobilia, but what they don't tell you is he had sold off most items of REAL value years earlier with Julien’s Auctions - where he originally tried to sell them anonymously, but they wouldn't let him.

There's so many more shady facts on these guys that I could tell you.

When you look at their history of trying to get money out of MJ's estate, it's clear "Leaving Neverland" is just one big propoganda piece designed to make us pity them, and hoping this documentary this will help with their appeal. Unfortunately, those who don't know anything about the accusers will believe it and that's what's worrying. It's a slap in the face to REAL victims of abuse, tbh.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10466520)

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466506)

Well... it's a fact that neither of the men on the documentary received non-disclosure payments from Jackson? Unless you're suggesting that they took payment off-the-record to testify for him / stay quiet but that would be pretty damning in itself.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10466527)

No one knows, TS. You don't... I don't.... Jackson's dead so can't be interrogated... although if all the years that the FBI investigated him threw up nothing, I'm not about to believe unsubstantiated reports from people who haven't said anything until Jackson's dead and can't answer.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466530)

Do you believe that Saville might be innocent?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466515)

In an ideal world that I think we all have to sadly acknowledge does not reflect the real world.

People do a lot worse for significantly less, every single day.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10466534)

No I don't. I believe the evidence against Saville was overwhelming. Unlike this case... so I'm not sure what point you're making by bringing that up.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10466525)

I mean he slept in the same bed as strangers kids, what do you think it "tells" about people who think that's a bit suspicious? :laugh:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466539)

Yeah, I'm aware. I, too, live on planet Earth.

The question was put to Parm who categorically said he would take a payout.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466542)

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466546)

Yes but being totally honest I suspect most people say they wouldn't take the (alleged) $20+ million, until they're actually sat with a cheque for $20+ million in their hands. Especially when there are ZERO guarantees of what will happen if legal action continues, and the case may fail on lack of evidence. 20 million dallaz buys a lot of therapy.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466509)

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466542)

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Nancy. (Post 10466552)

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10466520)

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

Originally Posted by Nancy. (Post 10466552)

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10466551)

when you start lecturing me on witness statements and how to interpret evidence, I think you're taking the piss.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10466557)

I had him as guilty long before these 2 came out.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466564)

Yes, Livia, that's called professional arrogance. It's not out of character, sadly.

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10466565)

I know you did as a lot of people did and do , but according to the USA court they didn't feel he was .

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10466568)

Why is it professional arrogance? What's arrogant is that you think you can lecture me on my own profession and then tell ME I'm arrogant.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10466549)

As a kid, probably not. Infact it probably wouldn't even enter my head at that age.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466574)

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to quite frequently.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10466574)

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to mean something quite frequently.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466578)

True. But then as a kid of the age of 7 I can't imagine I'd have any understanding of any of it. Even money.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10466594)

But as a grown up you would look back and think, no..
.that wasn't right, then perhaps you would start talking to protect other kids from this form of abuse.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 10466580)

Whereas you have nothing to back up your own assertions.

You get very prickly whenever I say anything about my profession.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466583)

How is it different to parents bringing their kids into the discussion as a statement on how much more valid their opinion was on the James Bulger thread?

It's ok for one and not the other?

:smug:

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466598)

Yes true. I'm just saying as a child I wouldn't understand the magnitude of a 20 million dollar check either. In terms of making a choice to make money rather than tell anyone.

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10466602)

That's probably when the parents stepped in.:hee:

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10466505)

My brothers response to me saying Gav won't watch it incase it turns him off the music........:hehe:

Ah I think people have been compartmentalising that for a long time
"Great music, probably a paedo"

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10466613)

Well exactly. Case closed.

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 10466639)

Yup, that's my view too.
I think he was emotionally and psychologically immature, arrested development, no childhood etc
Even those alleged sex acts remind of kids experimenting behind a bike shed: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10466644)

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10466645)

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10466644)

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo