[Niamh.]

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 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

[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.

[Niamh.]

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Oh how hilarious,splitting my sides here.Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.He looks more like him in Scissorhands.

Glad to be of service

[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]

Wade Robson talking about MJ

Youtube video

[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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

Nothing new is being said, the same arguments are being reposted over and over from all sides and the responses are the same . I guess it's up to each individual to decide if there's a point in continuing but there isn't as far as I'm concerned. The general trend across the Internet now seems to be a concentrated effort to discredit and shame the accusers and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that, personally, no matter which side you come down on. I think Feldman covered that quite eloquently in his latter interview.

[Niamh.]

"He loves kids" no he loves little boys between the ages if 7 and 12. . . Nothing suspicious about that all

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nothing new is being said, the same arguments are being reposted over and over from all sides and the responses are the same . I guess it's up to each individual to decide if there's a point in continuing but there isn't as far as I'm concerned. The general trend across the Internet now seems to be a concentrated effort to discredit and shame the accusers and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that, personally, no matter which side you come down on. I think Feldman covered that quite eloquently in his latter interview.

I have asked some pertinent questions and brought a fresh feel to the thread

Not that anyone has responded


The American citizenship for Wades family is puzzling me, can anyone answer how they got it and so quickly?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nothing new is being said, the same arguments are being reposted over and over from all sides and the responses are the same . I guess it's up to each individual to decide if there's a point in continuing but there isn't as far as I'm concerned. The general trend across the Internet now seems to be a concentrated effort to discredit and shame the accusers and I'm deeply uncomfortable with that, personally, no matter which side you come down on. I think Feldman covered that quite eloquently in his latter interview.

I really like Corey, he went through so much as kid but comes across so together these days.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I have asked some pertinent questions and brought a fresh feel to the thread



Not that anyone has responded





The American citizenship for Wades family is puzzling me, can anyone answer how they got it and so quickly?

No idea, sorry Cherie

[bots]

Here is my take.

Jackson was in a unique position to be able to do something about disadvantaged kids. Set up trusts, set up charities and give something back to the community.

What did he choose to do? Set up an exclusive club that was open only to little boys of his choosing. Go figure .....

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

"He loves kids" no he loves little boys between the ages if 7 and 12. . . Nothing suspicious about that all

media just homing in on the boys , girls stayed there aswell.

[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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

media just homing in on the boys , girls stayed there aswell.

Which girls went on tour with him and slept with him? How come it was only boys of that age bracket ever made allegations against him?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Here is my take.

Jackson was in a unique position to be able to do something about disadvantaged kids. Set up trusts, set up charities and give something back to the community.

What did he choose to do? Set up an exclusive club that was open only to little boys of his choosing. Go figure .....

He did do those things bots He paid for lots of kids treatments etc Neverland was not built with children in mind,did you watch any of the videos ? it was built to impress Elizabeth Taylor who he was very close to and also Marlon Brando

[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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Which girls went on tour with him and slept with him? How come it was only boys of that age bracket ever made allegations against him?

Perhaps only the boys are greedy and want some of that sweet Jackson Estate pudding. Men!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

He did do those things bots He paid for lots of kids treatments etc Neverland was not built with children in mind,did you watch any of the videos ? it was built to impress Elizabeth Taylor who he was very close to and also Marlon Brando

IIRC he himself stated quite explicitly in the Bashir documentary that he built it for children to come and enjoy . They may even have played an audio clip in Leaving Neverland, though I'm not 100% sure on that, it may have been one of the participants that said it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Perhaps only the boys are greedy and want some of that sweet Jackson Estate pudding. Men!

Well it makes a change anyway it's usually the women being accused of doing that

[Cherie]

Honestly I lean in and out of him being guilty, not guilty, but nothing have seen in the new documentary cements a guilty for me, I would love a body language expert to comment on them and the mothers testimony

and as for the families, just like abducted in plain sight, how they have the brass neck to sit there and accept no responsibility for their actions really sticks in my craw

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You might be right to be fair. I thought she seemed more accepting of what happened but then, it's been nearly 15 years since James told her (as he told her long before anyone else, back in 2004, but made her promise not to tell anyone else) so she's had time to process it?

Wades mum gets upset towards the end but thinking about it, it feels more like she feels sorry for herself and the damage its done to her relationships than "guilt".

She pulled the faces, but not a single tear