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

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.

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.

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.

Exactly. Thanks Kazanne. :thumbs:

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

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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

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.

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 .

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-mic...mentary-series

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.

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.

It was innocent & far from sinister


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

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.

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.

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

100%