[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

HE didn't ,he wanted it to go through the courts ,if you watch the vids it was something to do with insurers or something like that they advised him to pay out,dont believe all those rag tops Chuff ,same as the photos there were none,its all hearsay from rag tops.

He spoke about it in Martin documentary and said HE paid out to save it dragging on and on ,either way he must have agreed to the payment

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

He spoke about it in Martin documentary and said HE paid out to save it dragging on and on ,either way he must have agreed to the payment

Yes as he was advised to do, Jordans father can be heard saying he just wanted money,if that was my kid I'de want justice

[Cherie]

Okay I have watched the rest now, and while some of it is damning, there are a few issues for me

both had babies and that is what prompted these revelations, it made them so angry that their kids might be exposed to something like this, but no anger towards their parents, these two weren't abducted they were handed over by their money grabbing parents so why no anger in the parents direction....

Jimmys mother kept his secret after he revealed it to her?????? although she then went on to be happy he had died so no one else could be hurt, but it looks like she never bothered to try and get Jimmy to bring his revelations to the authorities


after the first trial, Wade and his Mom returned to Neverland ....did Wades Mom not have any doubts about that given they had just testifed against Chandler

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I don't think they would stoop as low as defending a paedophille.

but would they reach as high as defending somebody accused of it without compelling evidence? Or would they jump on the bandwagon?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

but would they reach as high as defending somebody accused of it without compelling evidence? Or would they jump on the bandwagon?

Defending Jackson necessitates accusing others of making it up without any real evidence either way... you can't really take the accusation-highground on that without at most saying "we simply don't know if it's true or not".

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Yes it did

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

Yeah it did

Jermaine said it

Oh I didn’t know that

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.

False

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents

Like I said earlier; we're barely even debating the same topic, you just keep reiterating that "there isn't enough evidence to convict him in a trial" which I have never disputed and apparently you aren't interested in anything beyond the legal basics of the debate. With that in mind - and the fact that you've now taken to deliberately misquoting me - I'm not going to go back-and-forth with it any more.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

This seems to have been forgotten

And 350 came out of the woodwork all of them dismissed ,this seems to be have forgotten too

[rusticgal]

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

[Cherie]

given all the children who passed through Neverland 7 seems tame

[user104658]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

There's also the fact that R Kelly was found not guilty in 2008 despite there being an actual video tape of him having sex with a 14 year old plus the fact that literally everyone knows he was in a relationship with Aaliyah when she was 15 and he was in his late 20's. And his own lawyer from 2008 says he was guilty. Again; there is a tape of it happening and yet he was found not guilty.

Are those arguing so strongly for legal verdicts to be believed willing to say that they think R Kelly is innocent, too?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Matthew.

Oh I didn’t know that

Jermain did not say that in a derogotary way though /

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

But you managed to watch a 4 hour one over 2 nights,surely if you were unbiased you would watch half an hour

Yes an actual properly made documentary not some you tube ****e

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

It’s amazing how people happily accept the court verdict....after the OJ Simpson case proves how miscarriages of justice occur when the defendant is an American idol.

The OJ case is totally different rusti,it's not just the court case for me either ,It could also be said it's amazing how people have taken these two at face value and believe every word they say.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes an actual properly made documentary not some you tube ****e

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews , yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews , yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.

I've seen plenty of creepy footage of MJ over the years to base my opinion on thanks, I love how you think yours video is the only one that counts though

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I've seen plenty of creepy footage of MJ over the years to base my opinion on thanks, I love how you think yours video is the only one that counts though

They are not my videos ,I just posted them I was sent them to post, if you debate things fairly surely we look at all sides so they are not hurting are they? but it's obvious you are not interested but some people maybe they are the ones they are aimed at.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Jermain did not say that in a derogotary way though /

I don’t doubt that at all

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

So because it was on YouTube it's ****e, actual footage and interviews , yes I guess something made to look so sombre ,so cold and scripted would probably fit some peoples notions of him.How would you know anyway as you haven't seen them.

Anything, which does not contain analytical expansion or analysis of what is being claimed.
Therefore presented as you say in this weighted, non challenging way, as this programme was.

In my view, should be treated with sceptism.
What were they afraid of if questioned and challenged.

Whereas the videos you posted, which I knew would be poo pooed as I said.

They, as the court case and all other facts, contained in the video you posted, don't fit the agenda of those thinking and wanting MJ guilty and pilloried.

You were right before too, when you said MJ wanted to fight the Chandler issue publicly in court.

MJs lawyer was pressed on that in your video, where he clearly stated the settling of that was done without MJs approval, against his wishes.

It won't matter because the lawyer won't be believed either over these 2 in this programme.

MJ did fight all charges brought, all through.
Challenged all and won.
That says far more about these 2 now in my view.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Multiple people have used "AHA look they have a civil case on appeal" as supposed evidence that they are lying. More than once.

Have they? They've used that as "evidence" they're after money?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Have they? They've used that as "evidence" they're after money?

Which is relevant because?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Cherie

given all the children who passed through Neverland 7 seems tame

7 too many imo...

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

The OJ case is totally different rusti,it's not just the court case for me either ,It could also be said it's amazing how people have taken these two at face value and believe every word they say.

The thing is Kaz it’s Michael Jackson’s behaviour and mentality that makes their story more believable.
If these two were making these accusations about Elvis Presley (just an example) I would doubt their story because Elvis Presley didn’t create a massive house with a funfair in every corner of his garden to entertain young children and call it Neverland and refer to himself as Peter Pan.