[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I'm not an idiot I understand all that but it doesn't fit with James & Wade's stories

I'm not going to believe 2 well known pathological liars ! , its as simply as that . plus if they've lived under oath what makes you think suddenly they're telling the truth??? I can't understand that.

I don't need the word of anyone to judge a man that's slept in the same bed as a boy from the age of 9 or whatever to the age of 16...nah...sorry.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're "pathological" liars and the charity is probably "a scam"? Your reaching is getting more and more desperate, here, surely. Do you even actually know what the term "pathological liar" means?

I'm "desperate" ???
Pretty sure safechuck , Robson & Reed are the desperate ones but OK

[Crimson Dynamo]

Come on parmy he just wanted to be a child again

[GoldHeart]

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

One could say the size of scrooges layer, just more comfortable..

What if...there is a paedophile ring/or was.

Michael at the head to begin with, he grooms and trains these five kids who all seem to be in all photos...they then become the paedophille ring, the abused kids selecting kids for michael scrooge to abuse...

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

That's fair enough Joey but if you truly had a suspicious mind surely the most you could say is "Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, we may never know"... but thus far you have been adamant that he definitely did not do it so I'd suggest your suspicious mind in this case, for whatever reason, only appears to work one way.

Because I've explained comprehensiveky why I am at the conclusions I've reached if you bothered to really understand it.

You just throw out all pro MJ matter as you just believe, totally this pair it seems.

Its all there in my post why with my suspicious mind, I have reached the point I am at.

My conclusion works one way now, from weighing all up on both sides.
So what you're trying to infer as my mind working one way for whatever reason, I'd like to know.

Since my reasons for my position on this are all clearly laid out in my post.

No whatever other reasons at all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

Is that a defense though, or does it make it even stranger that he shared a bed with kids? As you say his bedroom had multiple beds in it, it even reportedly had an entirely separate little sleeping area up some stairs, so if you believe it's just that they all partied in his room watching films etc. then fell asleep... why would it involve sharing a bed? I can understand the argument that he had a childlike nature, I can understand the suggestion that it was innocent, but to believe that he didn't think twice about sharing a bed - EVEN if his intentions were innocent... especially after the first accusation... you have to believe that he was not just childlike but also incredibly stupid. And I don't believe that he was stupid. So I have to assume that continuing with sharing beds after the first allegation was not because he thought it was OK - he by then KNEW FOR A FACT that it wasn't seen as being OK - so it can only realistically have been down to compulsion which suggests ulterior motive. Honestly either he was compelled to sleep with children, or he's innocent but he wasn't just "odd" - he was completely off-the-rails insane.

[Beso]

Can I guess that you believe the law has the final say joey, no matter what any off us think because the law has spoken and that is final?

[Beso]

Imagine him running amok with them all in his Jim jams....**** sake..money does indeed talk.

[Beso]

Kiss cuddle or tickle..

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Because I've explained comprehensiveky why I am at the conclusions I've reached if you bothered to really understand it.

You just throw out all pro MJ matter as you just believe, totally this pair it seems.

Its all there in my post why with my suspicious mind, I have reached the point I am at.

My conclusion works one way now, from weighing all up on both sides.
So what you're trying to infer as my mind working one way for whatever reason, I'd like to know.

Since my reasons for my position on this are all clearly laid out in my post.

No whatever other reasons at all.

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Why did safechuck Keep jewellery from a "child abuser" , plus wouldn't police take it as evidence?? .

How would that be evidence?....MJ gave him loads of stuff why would a ring be evidence of abuse?...

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

Very convenient that When safechuck & Robson have financial problems that's when they remember they were abused by MJ .

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

How would that be evidence?....MJ gave him loads of stuff why would a ring be evidence of abuse?...

I'm pretty sure if a paedophile gave his victims gifts then that would be classed as some type of evidence when he stood trial . And even now those things would be examined.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I don't think so , and usually victims no matter how much they've been groomed don't usually keep jewellery neatly displayed in a box of trinkets

How do you know that?....

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Can I guess that you believe the law has the final say joey, no matter what any off us think because the law has spoken and that is final?

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I'm pretty sure if a paedophile gave his victims gifts then that would be classed as some type of evidence when he stood trial . And even now those things would be examined.

They would have to take every playstation game, bracelet..thread or gold...puppy....etc etc..half the flippi bedrooms fgs would have to be removed.



Your carefully lined up jewelry on a trinket box means **** all.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by parmnion

They would have to take every playstation game, bracelet..thread or gold...puppy....etc etc..half the flippi bedrooms fgs would have to be removed.

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's no concrete proof that he abused them but there's also no concrete proof that they're lying; it's all just observations and various statements from each side. Your reasoning for any of us believing one argument over the other can only be on faith and balance of probabilities, at the end of the day, and it's odd to claim that it's anything other than that? A 100% suspicious mind would be equally suspicious of the counter-statements against Robson and Safechuck but you clearly are not... you choose to believe those counter-statements and in Jackson's innocence wholeheartedly. That's faith - not a suspicious mind.

TS, you are asking the same thing over and over and its all in my post why I am at the point I am and have come to hold the view I have on this now.
Also try to avoid telling me how to think, I know very well how to.


So to save time as Mrs May often says at PMQs.

'' I refer you to the answer I gave a while ago''.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

His bedroom was the size of an apartment complex. It's not your average bedroom , families have slept there.

They slept in the same bed....the size of the room is irrelevant.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

TS, you are asking the same thing over and over

Well yes because the answer doesn't make sense to me, but if it's the only answer there is I suppose I'll have to accept that.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

The law is very important to me yes and I accept mistakes are made of course.

However this was a jury trial, with a formidable prosecutor in court cross examining MJ.
Years of investigation from police etc.

Which resulted in all charges being given not guilty verdicts.

This was where accusers and accused got their say and were challenged and questioned as to all elements of the charges.

These 2 have sat talking to a camera.
Not challenged as to their claims, no court environment, never likely to be.

Plus the person accused long dead and not able to contradict or put his side to their claims.
Made after near decades of knowing him

So on this yes, I the law had its way with MJ and investigated him thoroughly, charged him and tried him.

That can't be done now and this pair know thst too.

So yes, on this the law had its say on MJ.
From a full extensive trial.

As for final say, this pair claimed their final say over a decade ago was MJ was innocent.
Not then supporting others claiming MJ abused them.

Now they are making claims like them, with a money claim pending too.
Well after MJ has died, and they knew he'd left nothing to them in his estate.

Yes, on this I think and believe the law was right.

Michael Jackson is dead, and I don't care. So I appreciate and understand your view and reasoning on this one, but can I maybe lean you slightly to my argument about the last few years and the metoo movement and the high profile cases surrounding that.

Maybe these messed up, because that is what they are. Maybe these messed up young men, thrust into the limelight, into their dream you could say......maybe now..after the last couple of years have thankfully been able to feel strong enough to speak up, on camera for no money.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .

You know what, I wouldn't be surprised if he allowed himself to be abused(edit,in the end) knowing or perhaps bribing michael for stuff to keep to sell at a later date......


But Michael would still abuse him by law.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Considering what safechuck said the rings were meant to symbolise , pretty sure that would be their focus .

But no instead safechuck keeps it in a little jewellery box for his story . Also if you were married to safechuck wouldn't you find that weird he's still kept it ??? .

Not really....by the end of the programme it was pretty clear he was still trying to come to terms with everything...and when he does maybe then he will sling them into a fire pit.