[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But Annie's point was about them absolving him of blame due to his upbringing, not his work.

I know?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I know?

I said that because you said "absolve him because of his fame and career" not his upbringing.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I said that because you said "absolve him because of his fame and career" not his upbringing.

I was just moving on the conversation

[GoldHeart]

It's as if we're not allowed to think MJ is innocent , and it's like we musn't question Wade & James despite the financial motivation & the dodgy backgrounds .

People call MJ "weird" & "manipulative" but what about Wade & James ? .Wade called himself "master of deception" , what kind of victim calls himself that? .

And if MJ was alive today I doubt they would of come forward claiming they'd been abused . As MJ would fight them on it & like with the 93 & 03 cases they'd fall to pieces due to all the inconsistencies & contradictions.By suing the estate after the man is dead they can't get challenged by him as he's not around to defend himself.

I honestly hope their appeal gets rejected. They're using Leaving Neverland as some kind of messed up insurance to back up their graphic insane stories because they have NO REAL PROOF !! .

[Brother Leon]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

It's as if we're not allowed to think MJ is innocent , and it's like we musn't question Wade & James despite the financial motivation & the dodgy backgrounds .

People call MJ "weird" & "manipulative" but what about Wade & James ? .Wade called himself "master of deception" , what kind of victim calls himself that? .

And if MJ was alive today I doubt they would of come forward claiming they'd been abused . As MJ would fight them on it & like with the 93 & 03 cases they'd fall to pieces due to all the inconsistencies & contradictions.By suing the estate after the man is dead they can't get challenged by him as he's not around to defend himself.

I honestly hope their appeal gets rejected. They're using Leaving Neverland as some kind of messed up insurance to back up their graphic insane stories because they have NO REAL PROOF !! .

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Brother Leon

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

Well said Brother Leon, but I fear the damage has already been done.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Brother Leon

This is what makes the whole thing just uncomfortable tbh. It’s putting a dead person on trial through media with no real substantial evidence. So we either tarnish a dead man’s name or accuse potential sex abuse victims as liars. Just a mess of a situation.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s untrue and it’s not because it’s MJ. Too many stories just don’t add up with either previous testimony or simple facts and I’m just not going to brand someone a paedophile in that scenario.

Sensible post

Sadly the pop culture we live in now is jumping to conclusions and anyone can say they were abused today or 30 years ago without proof and it's taken as gospel , the media love bashing MJ alive & dead .

As soon as Safechuck mentioned the ridiculous "wedding ring " , the tabloids had a field day twisting old footage of MJ shopping in disguise . That footage is old and it only reamerged after the allegations . MJ was only in disguise so he doesn't get mobbed, he had a kid possibly Safechuck so that he could speak for MJ as people would recognise his voice, he even told a security guard at the time that he's incognito because of that . Not everything is sinister.

MJ was actually buying kids stuff , even if he bought jewellery doesn't mean it was a wedding ring for a Mock wedding . I hate how things get taken out of context & the media runs with it in a frenzy ! .

[Beso]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Sensible post

Sadly the pop culture we live in now is jumping to conclusions and anyone can say they were abused today or 30 years ago without proof and it's taken as gospel , the media love bashing MJ alive & dead .

As soon as Safechuck mentioned the ridiculous "wedding ring " , the tabloids had a field day twisting old footage of MJ shopping in disguise . That footage is old and it only reamerged after the allegations . MJ was only in disguise so he doesn't get mobbed, he had a kid possibly Safechuck so that he could speak for MJ as people would recognise his voice, he even told a security guard at the time that he's incognito because of that . Not everything is sinister.

MJ was actually buying kids stuff , even if he bought jewellery doesn't mean it was a wedding ring for a Mock wedding . I hate how things get taken out of context & the media runs with it in a frenzy ! .

You have just described a guilty paedophile in the middle of grooming his child victim.

[bots]

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

There's nothing to be gained by the public but there is plenty for his victims; bringing historic abuse out into the open can finally give closure and a sense of at least some sort of justice. Harbouring things like this unheard destroys lives.

My argument really has eff all to do with MJ, my "interest" in this or reason for continuing to argue against those who would vilify his accusers is that all victims of abuse should be able to share their story without being torn down and attacked for it. That is HUGELY important, whether the perpetrator is alive or dead.

I mean when it comes down to the story itself, my reaction has never been "what scum!" or "what an unforgivable paedo!" ... it's just "what an all around tragic and horrible story". Michael Jackson's life is a horror story and I don't know how anyone can deny that, even with ALL of the accusations out of the equation, he had an absolutely bizarre childhood, and adulthood, destroyed his face with surgery after surgery, and had terrible addiction problems that wound up killing him. He undeniably had SIGNIFICANT mental health problems, and a tragic part of that (in my belief) involved being sexually inappropriate with young boys. But his story is still a sad one in itself. Funnily enough - I get the strong impression that James Safechuck and especially Wade Robson themselves understand that.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's nothing to be gained by the public but there is plenty for his victims; bringing historic abuse out into the open can finally give closure and a sense of at least some sort of justice. Harbouring things like this unheard destroys lives.

My argument really has eff all to do with MJ, my "interest" in this or reason for continuing to argue against those who would vilify his accusers is that all victims of abuse should be able to share their story without being torn down and attacked for it. That is HUGELY important, whether the perpetrator is alive or dead.

I mean when it comes down to the story itself, my reaction has never been "what scum!" or "what an unforgivable paedo!" ... it's just "what an all around tragic and horrible story". Michael Jackson's life is a horror story and I don't know how anyone can deny that, even with ALL of the accusations out of the equation, he had an absolutely bizarre childhood, and adulthood, destroyed his face with surgery after surgery, and had terrible addiction problems that wound up killing him. He undeniably had SIGNIFICANT mental health problems, and a tragic part of that (in my belief) involved being sexually inappropriate with young boys. But his story is still a sad one in itself. Funnily enough - I get the strong impression that James Safechuck and especially Wade Robson themselves understand that.

but the people are not bringing anything into the open, there is nothing new in any of it. Jackson was who he was. Nothing is being achieved. Also, the more allegations that go on, the more it reduces the earning potential for his legacy, so the less money is going to be available for any "victims". It's all self-defeating

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

There is no excuse for taking away children innocence for your own self want and perversion

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I never liked Jackson's music, i never liked Jackson, I always thought he was very dodgy, and being eccentric does not excuse anyone for preying on little kids. That being said, the guy is dead, he can do no more harm, so it's of no concern to me what other peoples view is of him and I really don't know what either side of the arguments hope to achieve by regurgitating stuff over and over again. In terms of world problems its about as low on the priority list as you could get.

Who said being eccentric was an excuse for preying on little kids?

It seems "being eccentric" is being used in place of any evidence that he preyed on little kids.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It seems "being eccentric" is being used in place of any evidence that he preyed on little kids.

Well you know... that,
plus compulsively befriending a string of young boys,

and spending unusual amounts of time alone with those boys,

and having them sleep over at his house,

and getting them to look at adult images (even Feldman says this happened),

and more than one of those boys accusing him of being inappropriate at the time,

and then another two as adults saying he molested them,

oh and two or three others saying he wrote inappropriate letters or made inappropriate comments to them in phonecalls (NONE of which was in the doc to be dismissed as a money grab).


Little eccentric details like that.

But of course, let's continue to pretend that it's just two men out for cash and smear them as liars, rather than admitting that there are in total seven individuals who have made at least one comment that suggests the relationships were not just "innocent childhood" stuff.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well you know... that,
plus compulsively befriending a string of young boys,

and spending unusual amounts of time alone with those boys,

and having them sleep over at his house,

and getting them to look at adult images (even Feldman says this happened),

and more than one of those boys accusing him of being inappropriate at the time,

and then another two as adults saying he molested them,

oh and two or three others saying he wrote inappropriate letters or made inappropriate comments to them in phonecalls (NONE of which was in the doc to be dismissed as a money grab).


Little eccentric details like that.

But of course, let's continue to pretend that it's just two men out for cash and smear them as liars, rather than admitting that there are in total seven individuals who have made at least one comment that suggests the relationships were not just "innocent childhood" stuff.

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth.

Any time you wish to make a comment on what I've actually said, let me know.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth.



Any time you wish to make a comment on what I've actually said, let me know.

You implied that those who think there are indications of something being very wrong base that entirely on "him being a bit eccentric" which is obviously false. I'm not putting any words in your mouth; I'm giving a list of just SOME of the reasons beyond "being a bit weird" that one might be suspicious of what the deal was.

In fact, if a less eccentric adult had done all of the above, I'd guess that far fewer people would be so sure of his innocence. So far from him being accused because of his odd personality, it seems to me that it's often used as a smokescreen covering multiple other behaviours that would be considered suspicious in any other adult man.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You implied that those who think there are indications of something being very wrong base that entirely on "him being a bit eccentric" which is obviously false. I'm not putting any words in your mouth; I'm giving a list of just SOME of the reasons beyond "being a bit weird" that one might be suspicious of what the deal was.

No I didn't. I pointed out that "Well, he was weird" has been said by many people when it comes to these allegations. I didn't say they were the basis of the people making allegations, nor everyone. But it has been used and said by people who believe the unproven allegations due to him being "eccentric", as though someone being "weird" is evidence of guilt, which is ridiculous.