[Candy Annie Cane]

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

[Christmas Lights]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

Once again the same argument about the "average joe down the road" .

Why won't you also realise that MJ was a target for greedy families who saw him as a cash cow and too gullible and trusting . Average Joe down the road wouldn't be accused multiple times of "child molestation" while paying out millions , he'd just be thrown in prison if there was substantial evidence . You don't sue a potential paedophile for his money , you report him to the police and you hope he never get's let out of prison!!. That's what justice looks like .

Why do people ignore the fact that MJ was acquitted and was investigated for years and authorities , FBI you name it went in his personal business , his home , his documents everything he owned . He was the most scrutinised person ever !! .

Nobody said it was sensible what MJ was doing , but it's so easy to see things as weird and uncomfortable when people twist things and don't get facts straight . Corey feldman said him and MJ spoke for ages and it was so innocent there was nothing that ever made him suspect MJ was a child molester .

Maculay is the same he praising MJ and continues to say it was just a fun friendship , there was nothing inappropriate going on . Maculay is the type of guy and same with Corey who wouldn't be afraid to confess all , so why do people ignore these 2? but we're suppose to believe wade & james?? who are proved liars!! this is what i can't get my head round people supporting them . Say a lie enough times and people jump on the band wagon especially when it becomes more and more graphic and shocking like what we're seeing .

It just reminds me of the other one sided slanderous programme they did on MJ 15 years ago where again shocking accusations were made about MJ showering with kids etc . Then later on the same person who claimed she saw MJ in a shower with a young kid later admitted she was lying and just saw MJ on his own in the shower! . All money motivated!! .


When facts are laid out for people their so called accusations crumble or they contradict themselves.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Once again the same argument about the "average joe down the road" .

Why won't you also realise that MJ was a target for greedy families who saw him as a cash cow and too gullible and trusting . Average Joe down the road wouldn't be accused multiple times of "child molestation" while paying out millions , he'd just be thrown in prison if there was substantial evidence . You don't sue a potential paedophile for his money , you report him to the police and you hope he never get's let out of prison!!. That's what justice looks like .

Why do people ignore the fact that MJ was acquitted and was investigated for years and authorities , FBI you name it went in his personal business , his home , his documents everything he owned . He was the most scrutinised person ever !! .

Nobody said it was sensible what MJ was doing , but it's so easy to see things as weird and uncomfortable when people twist things and don't get facts straight . Corey feldman said him and MJ spoke for ages and it was so innocent there was nothing that ever made him suspect MJ was a child molester .

Maculay is the same he praising MJ and continues to say it was just a fun friendship , there was nothing inappropriate going on . Maculay is the type of guy and same with Corey who wouldn't be afraid to confess all , so why do people ignore these 2? but we're suppose to believe wade & james?? who are proved liars!! this is what i can't get my head round people supporting them . Say a lie enough times and people jump on the band wagon especially when it becomes more and more graphic and shocking like what we're seeing .

It just reminds me of the other one sided slanderous programme they did on MJ 15 years ago where again shocking accusations were made about MJ showering with kids etc . Then later on the same person who claimed she saw MJ in a shower with a young kid later admitted she was lying and just saw MJ on his own in the shower! . All money motivated!! .


When facts are laid out for people their so called accusations crumble or they contradict themselves.

Absolutely brilliant post Goldheart.

It's incredible that a full legal process resulting in acquittal, is just bypassed and seen as irrelevant.
Because years later, when they got nothing as yet, from the Jackson estate, 2 clear liars then before, have changed their minds.

Excellent post and I agree with Marsh too.

Plus since we are in the realms of hypothetical scenarios,taking MJ out while only to take account of the 2 currently being in the media.

How about in a hypothetical scenario, if this was a loved one of those supporting these 2, now being accused like this, by 2 people.
When their loved one had been investigated, charged, found not guilty of ALL charges, and who had now died.

Would they be wanting people to condemn their own loved one on the strength of 2 mind changers, seeking money from an estate.
Taking part in a rehearsed, no questions asked of them, documentary and no challenge to their claims.

I can answer easily for myself,NO, I would not.
I've always hated these kangaroo media court style of trial and judgement.
Which is again all this is, despite years of thorough investigation, charges and trial, then full unreserved acquittal..
That's the one full, true known fact on Michael Jackson and this serious issue.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I can answer easily for myself,NO, I would not.

I've always hated these kangaroo media court style of trial and judgement.

Which is again all this is, despite years of thorough investigation, charges and trial, then full unreserved acquittal..

That's the one full, true known fact on Michael Jackson and this serious issue.

It wasn't full and unreserved though, jury members have openly expressed doubts but that there wasn't sufficient evidence, so they had little choice but to aquit as the US legal system is very clear about "beyond reasonable doubt".

The legal outcome is not being overlooked Joey and hasn't been at any point it's been discussed at length, and repeatedly stating that its "overlooked" isn't going to make it true.

It's just that a legal "not guilty" outcome of a trial is not proof of innocence or even close to it and never has been, it is proof that the crime was not PROVEN and nothing more, which is correct legally because of the risk of innocent people going to prison but it in no way dictates what personal opinion should be. With conviction rates for all varieties of sexual assault being ABYSMALLY low - you surely understand that?

A TINY proportion of sexual abuse and sexual assault cases even make it to court, and then a tiny proportion of those that do result in conviction. It's well known that the vast majority of rapists walk free through lack of evidence. It doesn't mean anything.

I can't possibly believe that you're naive enough to think that the legal system usually or even particularly often "gets it right" when it comes to sex crimes.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It wasn't full and unreserved though, jury members have openly expressed doubts but that there wasn't sufficient evidence, so they had little choice but to aquit as the US legal system is very clear about "beyond reasonable doubt".

The legal outcome is not being overlooked Joey and hasn't been at any point it's been discussed at length, and repeatedly stating that its "overlooked" isn't going to make it true.

It's just that a legal "not guilty" outcome of a trial is not proof of innocence or even close to it and never has been, it is proof that the crime was not PROVEN and nothing more, which is correct legally because of the risk of innocent people going to prison but it in no way dictates what personal opinion should be. With conviction rates for all varieties of sexual assault being ABYSMALLY low - you surely understand that?

A TINY proportion of sexual abuse and sexual assault cases even make it to court, and then a tiny proportion of those that do result in conviction. It's well known that the vast majority of rapists walk free through lack of evidence. It doesn't mean anything.

I can't possibly believe that you're naive enough to think that the legal system usually or even particularly often "gets it right" when it comes to sex crimes.

I take it you did not watch the videos TS,as you would have heard that there was not ONE scrap of evidence against him ,why would you believe otherwise,this is after the FBI,child services and the police investigated him and also proven evidence of people lying about what they had seen,none existant photographs,surely if people can spare 4 hours to condemn him sure 1 hour of video to give the other side of the coin is worth a watch

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I take it you did not watch the videos TS,as you would have heard that there was not ONE scrap of evidence against him ,why would you believe otherwise,this is after the FBI,child services and the police investigated him and also proven evidence of people lying about what they had seen,none existant photographs,surely if people can spare 4 hours to condemn him sure 1 hour of video to give the other side of the coin is worth a watch

This is exactly why most sexual assault cases fail in court though Kazanne; that there is no physical evidence and the entire case relies on witness statement. Why would there be physical evidence? Why would there be witnesses other than the victims? Why would he keep things like pictures or videos on his property knowing that a raid by the authorities was imminent?

The fact that there is no physical evidence is exactly what it is; a lack of evidence. It's not proof of innocence.

Are you really arguing that every case of sexual crime that goes nowhere through lack of evidence must be "false"? Less than 1% of sex crimes result in conviction. That statistic means something.

Ive also stated repeatedly that my opinion on the Jackson case is not based even "mostly" on this documentary.


I agree Annie though; there's not much point in this thread continuing at this point. We've all made up our minds and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is exactly why most sexual assault cases fail in court though Kazanne; that there is no physical evidence and the entire case relies on witness statement. Why would there be physical evidence? Why would there be witnesses other than the victims? Why would he keep things like pictures or videos on his property knowing that a raid by the authorities was imminent?

The fact that there is no physical evidence is exactly what it is; a lack of evidence. It's not proof of innocence.

Are you really arguing that every case of sexual crime that goes nowhere through lack of evidence must be "false"? Less than 1% of sex crimes result in conviction. That statistic means something.

Ive also stated repeatedly that my opinion on the Jackson case is not based even "mostly" on this documentary.


I agree Annie though; there's not much point in this thread continuing at this point. We've all made up our minds and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Why do you think there is no point in the thread now? I think it's a good debate mostly and yes some already have made there minds up,but it's good to see some people willing to be open minded to all info not just the so called 'documentry' and if there is no evidence why do some believe he is a peado ?Is it his looks the way he acts,his love for kids,having kids sleep over,none of which prove anything other than he was of a different mindset to us

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It wasn't full and unreserved though, jury members have openly expressed doubts but that there wasn't sufficient evidence, so they had little choice but to aquit as the US legal system is very clear about "beyond reasonable doubt".

The legal outcome is not being overlooked Joey and hasn't been at any point it's been discussed at length, and repeatedly stating that its "overlooked" isn't going to make it true.

It's just that a legal "not guilty" outcome of a trial is not proof of innocence or even close to it and never has been, it is proof that the crime was not PROVEN and nothing more, which is correct legally because of the risk of innocent people going to prison but it in no way dictates what personal opinion should be. With conviction rates for all varieties of sexual assault being ABYSMALLY low - you surely understand that?

A TINY proportion of sexual abuse and sexual assault cases even make it to court, and then a tiny proportion of those that do result in conviction. It's well known that the vast majority of rapists walk free through lack of evidence. It doesn't mean anything.

I can't possibly believe that you're naive enough to think that the legal system usually or even particularly often "gets it right" when it comes to sex crimes.

I work in law.
The law doesn't always come up with the right result.

However, you can dismiss all you want the court verdict.
Adding any footnotes you like, that neither the jury or judge did.


The fact, fact being the word is after years of investigation, charges and trial.
On every single charge he was found not guilty.

Now in the absence of all the investigators and what the court had, you can add conditions to all those not guilty verdicts.
I never could or would.

Had his case only rested on these 2 individuals, then that would present an issue
He wasn't acquitted just on this pairs connection and statements.
He was because the court believed from all the evidence, he was not guilty.

You can keep saying he is all you like but in law you are wrong. Sorry.

I've seen many examples of false accusations, a lot of cases fail because the one alleging cries off appearing in court.
Sex crimes are a difficult area and a lot of the problems round them are people making false accusations and claims.

You say the legal facts of MJs trial aren't being overlooked and are being discussed.
They are mentioned and at tines as you are doing, adding conditions not in place by jury or judge.
So not overlooked but being clouded or dismissed.

While accepting in full the now new and changed claims of these 2 men.

I'll stick with the court verdicts, even not taking into consideration what these were saying at the time of the trial.
Accepting what all other witnesses said under oath.

Unlike the now conveniently changed things this pair are saying now.
Waiting until the man is dead to do so.
Some may possibly be being naive here but it ain't me.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

You can keep saying he is all you like but in law you are wrong. Sorry.

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

Well since you admit the law means little to nothing to you and you can simply dismiss all that case while believing 2 others, who must have lied then or now.
That's your affair.

I cannot, and even think the trial shouldn't be dismissed at all.

Anyone accused of anything has the right to be heard too.
These have now made their turnaround after MJs death.
So the only way MJ can answer back, is what he defended himself with in thst trial.

That's not just law, its also fair play.

[Christmas Lights]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Absolutely brilliant post Goldheart.

It's incredible that a full legal process resulting in acquittal, is just bypassed and seen as irrelevant.
Because years later, when they got nothing as yet, from the Jackson estate, 2 clear liars then before, have changed their minds.

Excellent post and I agree with Marsh too.

Plus since we are in the realms of hypothetical scenarios,taking MJ out while only to take account of the 2 currently being in the media.

How about in a hypothetical scenario, if this was a loved one of those supporting these 2, now being accused like this, by 2 people.
When their loved one had been investigated, charged, found not guilty of ALL charges, and who had now died.

Would they be wanting people to condemn their own loved one on the strength of 2 mind changers, seeking money from an estate.
Taking part in a rehearsed, no questions asked of them, documentary and no challenge to their claims.

I can answer easily for myself,NO, I would not.
I've always hated these kangaroo media court style of trial and judgement.
Which is again all this is, despite years of thorough investigation, charges and trial, then full unreserved acquittal..
That's the one full, true known fact on Michael Jackson and this serious issue.

Thanks Joey & Kaz

It's truly baffling that a full in depth court case where MJ was cleared of all charges get's thrown away just because 2 guys now claim they were repeatedly & graphically abuse . And if i challenge it and do research and look at the facts and the dodgy backgrounds of wade & jimmy then it's shut down , especially on youtube the comments are crazy .

I wouldn't be surprised if Dan Reed had a dodgy past, wonder what the police would find if they raided his home .

There's a bigger issue and problem here , where certain people's truth is seen as "the truth" . Body expert analysis points out all the guilty cues of Wade in his 2013 interview.

We now live in a dangerous culture and trend where any documentary maker can make a movie and claim it's "real" & "accurate" when actually it's BS & inaccurate and just solely relies on manipulation tactics and emotions . Dan Reed went for the lazy option , he did zero research of Wade & Jimmy and he just cares about the media attention.

BBC turned against Cliff Richard and Banned Mj music yet they covered for Saville for years and not long ago they even "mistakenly" showed a children's programme episode of Jimmy Saville . So many contradictions and i feel like alot of these networks are corrupt like BBC & HBO.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Once again the same argument about the "average joe down the road" .

Why won't you also realise that MJ was a target for greedy families who saw him as a cash cow and too gullible and trusting . Average Joe down the road wouldn't be accused multiple times of "child molestation" while paying out millions , he'd just be thrown in prison if there was substantial evidence . You don't sue a potential paedophile for his money , you report him to the police and you hope he never get's let out of prison!!. That's what justice looks like .

Why do people ignore the fact that MJ was acquitted and was investigated for years and authorities , FBI you name it went in his personal business , his home , his documents everything he owned . He was the most scrutinised person ever !! .

Nobody said it was sensible what MJ was doing , but it's so easy to see things as weird and uncomfortable when people twist things and don't get facts straight . Corey feldman said him and MJ spoke for ages and it was so innocent there was nothing that ever made him suspect MJ was a child molester .

Maculay is the same he praising MJ and continues to say it was just a fun friendship , there was nothing inappropriate going on . Maculay is the type of guy and same with Corey who wouldn't be afraid to confess all , so why do people ignore these 2? but we're suppose to believe wade & james?? who are proved liars!! this is what i can't get my head round people supporting them . Say a lie enough times and people jump on the band wagon especially when it becomes more and more graphic and shocking like what we're seeing .

It just reminds me of the other one sided slanderous programme they did on MJ 15 years ago where again shocking accusations were made about MJ showering with kids etc . Then later on the same person who claimed she saw MJ in a shower with a young kid later admitted she was lying and just saw MJ on his own in the shower! . All money motivated!! .


When facts are laid out for people their so called accusations crumble or they contradict themselves.

Old Willie Wonka will be the next in line this is all so silly the ignoring of facts it's funny talk about tunnel vision.Goldheart .

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Old Willie Wonka will be the next in line this is all so silly the ignoring of facts it's funny talk about tunnel vision.Goldheart .

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

no idea but no doubt you do.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

no idea but no doubt you do.

Michael Jackson

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Michael Jackson

Oh never saw that coming,how hilarious,splitting my sides here.Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.He looks more like him in Scissorhands.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

A stoned George Bush?

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A stoned George Bush?

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

Absolutely Annie.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

My final word on this (as I believe we are just gping round in circles) is this....forget MJ is involved. If a rich unfamous guy, in his 30s, created a childhood paradise ideal, fairground, unlimited treats etc etc, invited children and families to stay, asked pre pubescent children to sleep in his room, away from their parents.....then after treating them this way, in a few years after they were older, dropped them for younger boys who became gia favourite.....is anyone really going to suggest that there was no ulterior motive?

I am, and have said many times through this thread, shocked at the lack of empathy for these boys. Regardless of the fact of whether you believe jackson abused them sexually, he abused them emotionally by dropping them when they were older and replacing them with younger models. At best, its abandonment.

As a parent, it is like having an child then sending it away when you give birth to another.

Maybe we should look at in in a positive way he backed off as they got older so they could start to lead normal teenage lives rather than be forever kids, also I am not sure that he did back off with Wade, but stage Mom felt threatened enough to pack up and move to American... from what we are told he 'moved on' from two sexual relationships with young boys to two non sexual ones with Brett and Macauley which showed incredbile restraint on his part

[Cherry Christmas]

Also how did Wades Mom manage to move to the States, was she already an American citizen or something?