[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Not at all , but if someone says one thing then the exact opposite after they are a liar.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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'm not convinced . Why wait 10 years!??? , and they can't be that confused if they're happy to take part in a documentary claiming Jackson was a paedophile .

I still think it's money motivated with a dash of jealousy at the attention he gave other kids . And by attention I don't mean anything inappropriate . Yes he was a strange guy with issues who shouldn't of invited kids in his home like that , but in his mind he obviously didn't see it as odd .

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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'm with Judge Judy on this one. If you get caught lying once, I'm always going to assume you're not being wholly truthful.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

They were both consummate performers. And have been since they were kids.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

Quite. And you know, if I think hard enough I can kind of see how that happened too, but cannot imagine myself ever being so blinded by someones fame or whatever as to allow random adult men to sleep with my 7 year old, on their own. Like, how the **** did they suspect nothing when their rooms started getting further and further from the adult who was sleeping with their kid?

They were definitely the perfect targets. Unfortunately, they did not behave the way victims should...random crying and getting emotional and telling everyone in secret at the time, etc etc. Which, tbh I would think is probably much more 'typical' than the victim the public tend to expect.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I'm not convinced . Why wait 10 years!??? , and they can't be that confused if they're happy to take part in a documentary claiming Jackson was a paedophile .

I still think it's money motivated with a dash of jealousy at the attention he gave other kids . And by attention I don't mean anything inappropriate . Yes he was a strange guy with issues who shouldn't of invited kids in his home like that , but in his mind he obviously didn't see it as odd .

You could say this about thousands of victims of grooming, why wait so long to say anything.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Quite. And you know, if I think hard enough I can kind of see how that happened too, but cannot imagine myself ever being so blinded by someones fame or whatever as to allow random adult men to sleep with my 7 year old, on their own. Like, how the **** did they suspect nothing when their rooms started getting further and further from the adult who was sleeping with their kid?

They were definitely the perfect targets. Unfortunately, they did not behave the way victims should...random crying and getting emotional and telling everyone in secret at the time, etc etc. Which, tbh I would think is probably much more 'typical' than the victim the public tend to expect.

Whatever happened with Jackson, I have to say... if what the parents said about the kids sleeping separately from their parents, the parents themselves would be partially culpable.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Not at all , but if someone says one thing then the exact opposite after they are a liar.

But no-one really has any proof as to which time they were lying....people took their word as gospel when it fit their narrative.

Even is MJ was still alive, he would still vehemently deny it and regardless of anything else, his actions towards children have led to broken people today

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm with Judge Judy on this one. If you get caught lying once, I'm always going to assume you're not being wholly truthful.

Fair enough. But this does kind of say, that the testimony that got him off was lies also, as it was told by a liar

[LeatherTrumpet]

what is it that the nay sayers think is the motive for this?

I mean just how much money can you make by saying you had painful anal sex with bleeding with an adult when you were a child?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Whatever happened with Jackson, I have to say... if what the parents said about the kids sleeping separately from their parents, the parents themselves would be partially culpable.

Oh ****ing definitely. They way the mothers were giggling on and that kind of sickened me. Still don't see themselves as wrong, seemingly, though they said the words at a few points.

Like, you have 'known' this random guy a few days, and you leave your young child there and **** off touring America, leaving your child with this random adult man who...while yeah he was famous, you still DONT EVEN KNOW!

Its bonkers. The parents have a definite part to play in this.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Fair enough. But this does kind of say, that the testimony that got him off was lies also, as it was told by a liar

If someone lies under oath, they are the ones who've broken the law. So people believe he was telling the truth at the trial or lying? What about now? We know he's capable of lying... how can we tell?

[Vicky.]

And sorry but the parents also just 'believing' the 'random extortionist' line too. And still allowing their kids to sleep alone with this man who has been accused of being a nonce. Nah.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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

In legal terms, I agree with you but I don't think legal proceedings and personal opinion are ultimately, or necessarily, interchangeable and I think it's a mistake to view the world in those terms. Doing so requires believing in an infallible legal system and unfortunately, such a thing simply does not exist. Each to their own on that though, I suppose.

Taking the legal judgement out of it; you're not even doing what you suggest you support? You say that everyone should be viewed as possibly innocent until proven guilty, yet you go on to say that you feel that Jackson is definitely innocent. And in doing so, you demonstrate that you do NOT believe that everyone should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, as you will happily assert that Robson and Safechuck are guilty of lying about this abuse when there is - likewise - no concrete evidence on which to base that assumption that guilt? It's bias, Joey. The most you can say if you truly believe in hardline proof, is that there's not enough evidence to condemn Jackson OR his accusers - and yet, you freely condemn his accusers on "personal feeling".

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.

Historically I've actually been inclined to believe that MJ was "weird but not necessarily an abuser" - indeed to give him the benefit of the doubt due to lack of evidence - but having watched this and having read around it and watched other footage - as I agree that the documentary is biased - I honestly feel that the weight of circumstantial evidence at this point is heavily suggestive of there being inappropriate behaviour. Would it be enough for me to put him behind bars, if I was Judge Dredd and had absolute power to do so? No, probably not. But to circle back around; personal views and absolute legal certainty are not (and don't need to be) the same thing at all.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

If someone lies under oath, they are the ones who've broken the law. So people believe he was telling the truth at the trial or lying? What about now? We know he's capable of lying... how can we tell?

Well we can't 'tell' as such, but one can try and weigh up the balance of probabilities. I just find it odd that fans seem to be declaring them liars now...because they lied back then, but refusing to follow that to its logical conclusion. If you declare them liars now because of the testimony then, that discounts the testimony then also. Surely...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In legal terms, I agree with you but I don't think legal proceedings and personal opinion are ultimately, or necessarily, interchangeable and I think it's a mistake to view the world in those terms. Doing so requires believing in an infallible legal system and unfortunately, such a thing simply does not exist. Each to their own on that though, I suppose.

Taking the legal judgement out of it; you're not even doing what you suggest you support? You say that everyone should be viewed as possibly innocent until proven guilty, yet you go on to say that you feel that Jackson is definitely innocent. And in doing so, you demonstrate that you do NOT believe that everyone should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty, as you will happily assert that Robson and Safechuck are guilty of lying about this abuse when there is - likewise - no concrete evidence on which to base that assumption that guilt? It's bias, Joey. The most you can say if you truly believe in hardline proof, is that there's not enough evidence to condemn Jackson OR his accusers - and yet, you freely condemn his accusers on "personal feeling".





Historically I've actually been inclined to believe that MJ was "weird but not necessarily an abuser" - indeed to give him the benefit of the doubt due to lack of evidence - but having watched this and having read around it and watched other footage - as I agree that the documentary is biased - I honestly feel that the weight of circumstantial evidence at this point is heavily suggestive of there being inappropriate behaviour. Would it be enough for me to put him behind bars, if I was Judge Dredd and had absolute power to do so? No, probably not. But to circle back around; personal views and absolute legal certainty are not (and don't need to be) the same thing at all.

It's inevitable that someone trained in law, who works in the law, will have that information colour all their opinions TS, whether you like it or not.

[LeatherTrumpet]

what age were they when they told the "lies"?

(i dont know so genuine q)

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well we can't 'tell' as such, but one can try and weigh up the balance of probabilities. I just find it odd that fans seem to be declaring them liars now...because they lied back then, but refusing to follow that to its logical conclusion. If you declare them liars now because of the testimony then, that discounts the testimony then also. Surely...

All it tells me is that they unreliable witnesses.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Not at all , but if someone says one thing then the exact opposite after they are a liar.

But they were kids surrounded by adults, the maid said lots of videos were removed before the first police raid.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I'm not convinced . Why wait 10 years!??? , and they can't be that confused if they're happy to take part in a documentary claiming Jackson was a paedophile .

I still think it's money motivated with a dash of jealousy at the attention he gave other kids . And by attention I don't mean anything inappropriate . Yes he was a strange guy with issues who shouldn't of invited kids in his home like that , but in his mind he obviously didn't see it as odd .

That sentence just sounds so messed up though, you're even talking about them like they're scorned lovers.........which is not far off the truth imo

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's inevitable that someone trained in law, who works in the law, will have that information colour all their opinions TS, whether you like it or not.

I would HOPE that someone trained in law and who works in law understands better than most that legal rulings are not 100% infallible or even close to it?

If you're trying to tell me that most lawyers believe that "legal ruling = objective truth" then that's really quite terrifying.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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 .

Or they just may have a better understanding of what these boys went through and how they feel mentally about it all now...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

All it tells me is that they unreliable witnesses.

So you agree that the #1 key witness - described as such by Jackson's own legal team - in the 2005 trial, instrumental in his acquittal, is in fact by your own judgement "an unreliable witness" and thus the outcome of that trial is in question.

At least we're getting somewhere.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So you agree that the #1 key witness - described as such by Jackson's own legal team - in the 2005 trial, instrumental in his acquittal, is in fact by your own judgement "an unreliable witness" and thus the outcome of that trial is in question.

At least we're getting somewhere.

You might as well be a dog chasing it’s tail.

[parmnion]

One thing stands out for me in all this.



The fact the fathers were very rarely invited to neverland with the mothers and kids.