[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

One was 20,so I presume the other one was close

Originally Posted by Kazanne

kids? they were grown men

For having such strong opinions you have a lot of the facts wrong on this, Kazanne.

Wade Robson testified when he was 11, in 1993, and when he was 23, in 2005. James Safechuck ONLY testified in 1993, when he was around 14. He was asked to defend Jackson again in 2005 and refused to do so. This was LONG before he started any legal proceedings, also, so can't be waved away as "greed".

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Did you watch Tuesday nights documentary ? IMO it was far more damning than last nights ... In Bashirs film Jackson showed himself to be a liar ,he openly denied having facial surgery apart from having his nose done " to breath easier " then back tracked and said he had maybe had 2 surgeries then it went to 3 !!

Seen that documentary ages ago, Bashir got some bad feedback from that,He did deny having facial surgery but he was clearly embarrassed by it as he tried to hide his face, as was said in the documentary,Bashir kept pushing the plastic surgery questions and even the doctor said, most doctors would have refused to do it, and if anyone cares to read it MJ trusted Bashir,this is why he got the backlash.

Spoiler:

Bashir Interviewed MJ from 2002 to 2003 at Jackson's home for a documentary called "Living with Michael Jackson". MJ opened his home to Bashir as he had never done to anyone else, thinking this was an opportunity to show his life to the world and be candid about his troubles. Bashir later admitted that the documentary portrayed MJ in a skewed light, and gave the impression that MJ was a child molester. Bashir later said:

"Certainly when I made the documentary, there was a small part of that which contained a controversy concerning his relationship with other young people. The truth is that he was never convicted of any crime. I never saw any wrongdoing myself and whilst his lifestyle may have been a bit unorthodox, I don’t believe it was criminal and I think the world has now lost the greatest entertainer probably ever known.“

During Bashir's interview, MJ made references to sleeping in with kids in his bed:


"Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone."

After the Bashir "documentary" appeared in early 2003, Santa Barbara County DA Tom Sneddon- who 10 years prior had failed to successfully prosecute charges against MJ- used this evidence and proposed testimony by one of the children who apparently slept in MJ's bed to press charges of child molestation (Even though the mere fact of having a child sleep in your bed is not a crime without evidence of more).

Although MJ was acquitted on all charges, it would be hard to deny or doubt that the public embarassment and complete betrayal by Bashir led MJ to lead an even more withdrawn life.

Today, Bashir is a reporter on ABC's "Nightline". He essentially propelled his career off the back of Michael Jackson's own tragedy, a tragedy that was fueled largely by his documentary. At no point did Bashir comment that he did not feel MJ was a child molester, even though, as the above quote shows, Bashir himself never believed MJ was a molester. (But this begs the question concerning Bashir: if his first-hand experience indicated to Bashir that MJ was not a criminal, why did Bashir not emphasize this during the documentary, at least as a footnote? Why did Bashir edit out the parts of his documentary that showed MJ was not a criminal? Wasn't this intentional omission biased and unprofessional, to say the very least?).

Bashir essentially is a peddler of sleaze, a latter day Connie Chung (if you recall, Chung had asked Newt Gingrich's mom to "confide" in her- on camera- about her negative feelings for Hillary Clinton, promising her that it was "just between you and me"). While on tape, Newt's mom commented that Hillary was a "b*tch". Chung, of course, had the tape rolling, and showed the tape on CBS Evening News (this led to CBS justifiably firing her).

Bashir, on the other hand, used his deceitful and unprofessional presentation to launch his own career. If anything, it launched him into the stratosphere of media celebritydom.

I am not saying Bashir "killed" MJ. But consider this: MJ was already in a fragile emotional state. Yes, a lot of this was due to a troubled childhood- which MJ was very candid about on Bashir's presentation. Yes a lot of this was from drugs, and yes the proximate cause of MJ's death was drug use. But the Bashir documentary was what directly led to the 2004-05 trial of molestation, and the immense riducle of Jackson in the public eye. It would be hard to believe that this ridicule and embarassment, in turn, dd not lead Jackson to lead a more reclusive and troubled existence, one plagued by increasing drug use.

I am not asking you to believe this, but rather, consider it thoughtfully. Why has Bashir himself not been placed under the spotlight? Ironically, and obviously self servingly, Bashir now says he never believed MJ was guilty, calling him "the greatest entertainer the world has ever known".

How disgusting.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

For having such strong opinions you have a lot of the facts wrong on this, Kazanne.

Wade Robson testified when he was 11, in 1993, and when he was 23, in 2005. James Safechuck ONLY testified in 1993, when he was around 14. He was asked to defend Jackson again in 2005 and refused to do so. This was LONG before he started any legal proceedings, also, so can't be waved away as "greed".

Yes you're right I was going on when they decided to tell 10 years after he died,got them mixed up,My bad

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Did you watch Tuesday nights documentary ? IMO it was far more damning than last nights ... In Bashirs film Jackson showed himself to be a liar ,he openly denied having facial surgery apart from having his nose done " to breath easier " then back tracked and said he had maybe had 2 surgeries then it went to 3 !!

so a proven liar then?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

so a proven liar then?

He always said he had ,had a few surgeries on his nose, imo he had more but he never admitted to it maybe for fear of the tabloids again who knows but he clearly believed his nose surgeries had altered his face

[joeysteele]

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.

Well they are lying somewhere.
That cannot be got away from.

Either on oath in a trial, or here with no repercussions possibly.

They were not, the only ones giving the same evidence for Michael Jackson years ago.
Others did too.

Now saying something opposite, of course I'm going to have to assess who is lying and likely when.
These 2 certainly have once at least.

Michael Jackson, this is something very relevant.
Was thoroughly investigated, put on trial and acquitted.
The court believed Michael Jackson.
Also witnesses for him, of which these were only 2 of many.

So the leaning for me is now they've changed their story, in the media, not that court.
Have now a claim in against the Jackson estate,.their appeal coming up soon.


I'm sorry, that would arise suspicion in me without my own legal training.
I watched every move and listened to every word from them last night.
I didn't detect, emotion or sincerity.


In the absence now of Jackson not being here.
I will take account of the long original proceedings of his trial in 2005.

These 2 who have chosen to do this now after his death.
While seeking a substantial payout from the Jackson estate.

I doubt were Michael Jackson here now, that he would be saying anything different he did at his trial where he was acquitted.

I also doubt if these 2 would have actually been doing this, had Jackson been here to now also refute their claims, as he successfully did at his trial as to others.

If I'd seen or heard anything from them to substantiate or remotely convince me they weren't being more than economical with the truth, I'd have happily said so.
However I didn't so simply don't believe them.

Their track record of lying, as either they lied before or are now.
Really doesn't help their cause, whatever that csuse may be.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

whatever that cause may be.

their "cause " is to get justice for being abused sexually by a repulsive and committed paedophile

namely Michael Jackson

[Ramsay]

Can people stop using the the jury found him innocent as a reason to think he's not a pedo, a jury acquitted OJ ffs

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Well they are lying somewhere.
That cannot be got away from.

Either on oath in a trial, or here with no repercussions possibly.

They were not, the only ones giving the same evidence for Michael Jackson years ago.
Others did too.

Now saying something opposite, of course I'm going to have to assess who is lying and likely when.
These 2 certainly have once at least.

Michael Jackson, this is something very relevant.
Was thoroughly investigated, put on trial and acquitted.
The court believed Michael Jackson.
Also witnesses for him, of which these were only 2 of many.

So the leaning for me is now they've changed their story, in the media, not that court.
Have now a claim in against the Jackson estate,.their appeal coming up soon.


I'm sorry, that would arise suspicion in me without my own legal training.
I watched every move and listened to every word from them last night.
I didn't detect, emotion or sincerity.


In the absence now of Jackson not being here.
I will take account of the long original proceedings of his trial in 2005.

These 2 who have chosen to do this now after his death.
While seeking a substantial payout from the Jackson estate.

I doubt were Michael Jackson here now, that he would be saying anything different he did at his trial where he was acquitted.

I also doubt if these 2 would have actually been doing this, had Jackson been here to now also refute their claims, as he successfully did at his trial as to others.

If I'd seen or heard anything from them to substantiate or remotely convince me they weren't being more than economical with the truth, I'd have happily said so.
However I didn't so simply don't believe them.

Their track record of lying, as either they lied before or are now.
Really doesn't help their cause, whatever that csuse may be.

In 2013, choreographer Wade Robson, who had testified in the trial that Jackson had not molested him, filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit against Jackson's estate, claiming Jackson had molested him over seven years when he was a child. In May 2015, judge Mitchell Beckloff dismissed the lawsuit, saying Robson had waited too long to make it.
In 2013, another man who had spent time with Jackson as a child, James Safechuck, filed suit with the same lawyer as Robson. Safechuck claimed he realized he had been abused when he heard Robson's allegations. He alleged that he had been sexually abused by Jackson over 100 times in a four-year period, and had been "brainwashed" into believing the incidents were "acts of love". The lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.
Robson and Safechuck's allegations are the focus of a 2019 documentary film, Leaving Neverland.

These were also dismissed Joey.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

Can people stop using the the jury found him innocent as a reason to think he's not a pedo, a jury acquitted OJ ffs

Indeed.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

Can people stop using the the jury found him innocent as a reason to think he's not a pedo, a jury acquitted OJ ffs

Well excuse us ffs for having a different opinion to you , he was investigated by the FBI , child services. police the whole kit and caboodle so forgive us for erring on the side of the law , why do people get ancy because some don't agree with them.

[arista]

A CD you can Play
Great Musicians

[Crimson Dynamo]

yes but back then when he was accused his victims were still kids - now they are adults and want to talk about what he did

game changer

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Well excuse us ffs for having a different opinion to you , he was investigated by the FBI , child services. police the whole kit and caboodle so forgive us for erring on the side of the law , why do people get ancy because some don't agree with them.

Paedophilia tends to bring out the "ancy" in people I find

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

These were also dismissed Joey.

Wasn't this a technicality though, statute of limitations I think?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Paedophilia tends to bring out the "ancy" in people I find

Maybe it does but nothing is proven on that is it ?

[Amy Jade]

I just watched it and it has not changed my mind. Still believe he is innocent.

One of the guys accusing him again is clearly just trying to raise his profile. Sadly in the wake of R Kelly I think some are just jumping on the bandwagon and calling Michael a peado to join the witch hunt.

[Ramsay]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Well excuse us ffs for having a different opinion to you , he was investigated by the FBI , child services. police the whole kit and caboodle so forgive us for erring on the side of the law , why do people get ancy because some don't agree with them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.van...llegations/amp

Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings

Please explain how he would know that

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Maybe it does but nothing is proven on that is it ?

If it walks like a duck........

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

I just watched it and it has not changed my mind. Still believe he is innocent.

One of the guys accusing him again is clearly just trying to raise his profile. Sadly in the wake of R Kelly I think some are just jumping on the bandwagon and calling Michael a peado to join the witch hunt.

sorry but can you hear what you are saying?



You are accusing a man of confessing to have undergone vile debased paedophilic sexual abuse in order to...raise his profile????

I mean WTAF am i reading on this thread?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.van...llegations/amp



Please explain how he would know that

Oddly the same victim who was paid off

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its a 3 hour long ages in the making world wide documentary that will be around forever

to think that 2 men are doing this for sh1ts and giggles is just bamboozling

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Wasn't this a technicality though, statute of limitations I think?

I'm not sure how it works I can only go by what is out there ,it seems the jury thought the families were not so trustworthy

In 2011, Universal Pictures released a documentary directed by David Gest, Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon, arguing that Jackson was innocent.
In 2017, the documentary series The Jury Speaks (2017) covered the trial with four members of the jury. Some reported receiving anonymous threats, and one said someone had loosened the wheels on her car. All said they would acquit Jackson again, even in the wake of later allegations. One juror said: "It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family , there wasn't a shred of evidence that was able to show us or give us any doubt in voting guilty."

So for me there are too many things that don't add up and until there is some solid evidence I will continue to be a fan ,being weird , eccentric and liking kids does not equal paedophile . just my opinion , no one has to like it.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

sorry but can you hear what you are saying?



You are accusing a man of confessing to have undergone vile debased paedophilic sexual abuse in order to...raise his profile????

I mean WTAF am i reading on this thread?

You know deliberately misinterpreting others posts to raise an argument is trolling, right?

I don't believe the guy was abused to begin with but prodded by his parents to say so to gain money off of Jackson and his reappearance now is to heighten his profile to get acting jobs. My opinion.

[Cherie]

Has anyone changed their stance one way or the other since watching?