[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Nancy.

Oh surprise surprise!

It doesn't matter who tweeted it.

Did you actually bother to watch the video to see what Ron had to say or did you see the origin and immediately dismiss it as nonsense? I'm guessing the latter.

Some don't want to hear or see things that dont fit with thier beliefs Nancy,dont be silly ,of course these are just skipped by people who are more interested in who tweeted them

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Nancy.

Oh surprise surprise!



It doesn't matter who tweeted it.



Did you actually bother to watch the video to see what Ron had to say or did you see the origin and immediately dismiss it as nonsense? I'm guessing the latter.

I've watched it now... And a tabloid newspaper offered him money for a story during the 2005 trial?

I'm not sure what you're saying this is evidence of, other than tabloids being trash, but that's hardly news. I'm not sure what sort of revelation you think this clip is.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Joey my wife works with addicts, sadly many of whom have been badly abused as childen, and found Robson and Safechuck's demeanor perfectly within the bounds of "normal" for people talking about these things. Not everyone is the same. I'm not saying that you don't also have experience, just that it is again clearly a matter of opinion.

Also worth noting that these aren't spontaneous things being said to a family member, therapist or in a legal setting... They've been written out for filming and filmed over multiple takes. You can't expect the same raw emotional output that you would get in a face to face discussion.

Of course its a matter of opinion.
That's all I'm expressing.
It is you challenging mine not vice versa.

As I said to LT. I believe they were not telling the truth.
He does, as you do.
That's fine, you must state your opinion/conclusions just as I am.

This documentary was to present what they claim is their case.
I'd guess near everyone watching it made up their mind, if they could, as to believing them or not.

I am stating I don't and why I don't.
With weighing up what they say, with the only references we have from the man accused, when he answered, fought and won against several past allegations when alive.

I can't hear his defence of himself now.
So really these or anyone could say anything.
However, they've chosen to do so after they cannot now be challenged by him.

I think they were mixing truth with fantasy, so I don't believe them, no.

You do, you can accept their word with no questioning of any other motives by them.
That's your opinion.
I simply can't.

It's differing opinions of course it is.
A matter of opinion.
You're not going to change my view and I'm not going to change yours.

I state my opinion and conclusion only.
Obviously.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Some don't want to hear or see things that dont fit with thier beliefs Nancy,dont be silly ,of course these are just skipped by people who are more interested in who tweeted them

That's the same on both sides though Kaz......you don't believe the allegations and so refute any vids from people saying he is guilty. Same as people who believe the allegations against him will brush over pro MJ vids

[Josy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

If this had been Meatloaf he would have been guilty as sin on page one by all members

Not on my watch pal

Meatloaf>>>>>>>MJ

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

If all happened as they say, their emotions would be strong and mixed.

Its one thing saying you disbelieve them. Its quite another when people say stuff like this. There is no 'right' way to disclose abuse, no right way to act, and so on. I think this kind of thing has been the most upsetting of all throughout the past few days. As this does not just apply to this case, its like..any child abuse case.

Like, taking MJ out of the picture here entirely..Do people really think that if someone does not break down when discussing alleged abuse or something then their story cannot be true? If people do not act the way 'we' expect abuse victims to act then they must be lying? Any expert on child abuse (or any abuse really tbh..) will tell you that every person deals with it their own way, and the reactions are not predictable at all. Nor does how upset one gets over the memories mean they suffered more, or anything like that.

[Marsh.]

If there is no "right" way to react to this situation as people can, and do, react different to all manner of things, then why do we have "experts" telling us their demeanour is exactly that of an abuse victim (or in some cases not typical of an abuse victim)?

If the victim can act any and all ways depending on the individual circumstances, the length of time, the type of abuse, the type of person etc etc etc?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Its one thing saying you disbelieve them. Its quite another when people say stuff like this. There is no 'right' way to disclose abuse, no right way to act, and so on. I think this kind of thing has been the most upsetting of all throughout the past few days. As this does not just apply to this case, its like..any child abuse case.

Like, taking MJ out of the picture here entirely..Do people really think that if someone does not break down when discussing alleged abuse or something then their story cannot be true? If people do not act the way 'we' expect abuse victims to act then they must be lying? Any expert on child abuse (or any abuse really tbh..) will tell you that every person deals with it their own way, and the reactions are not predictable at all. Nor does how upset one gets over the memories mean they suffered more, or anything like that.

Excuse me.

I can say what I like as to my opinions and conclusions thank you.
Do all of us who disagree with you and others who think they told the truth, just have to roll over and agree with you.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not or what you think is acceptable for me to say, unless I break forum rules that is.

I make my conclusions from what I heard.
I base it on my experiences in life and coming into contact with people who have been affected by grooming and abuse.

You have different experiences.
Fair enough.
I have different ones to yours.

I've listed far more than just emotions as to why I disbelieve them.
If you bothered to properly read my posts.

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you want people to post in this site.
Unless they are in agreement.

I say what I think and know from my experiences just as all others do.
Including you.

When have I pulled you up on your conclusions.
We state our opinions and you and others are never going to get me to say I believe someone or something if I don't.

Just as I wouldn't expect to make anyone not believe something they did.

Its.my opinions, my conclusions, what I believe and I'll say them how I like.
Within the rules of the forum of course.

Honestly on here is becoming ridiculous, really it is.

[Vicky.]

Haha joey you really need to chill

I literally said, its obviously fine to disbelieve them, up to you. Its the abuse myths I find a bit disturbing. Its moreso on facebook than here actually, but its been fair bit here too. The 'if their abuse was as bad as they said it was, no way could they have not told anyone til now'..kind of thing.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

If there is no "right" way to react to this situation as people can, and do, react different to all manner of things, then why do we have "experts" telling us their demeanour is exactly that of an abuse victim (or in some cases not typical of an abuse victim)?

If the victim can act any and all ways depending on the individual circumstances, the length of time, the type of abuse, the type of person etc etc etc?

Which experts? I am fairly sure I haven't seen that because, well experts know that its so different for each person..as it has been studied, extensively. An expert might of course say 'their behaviour is totally normal for a victim', but this is pretty much because..well any reaction is normal for a victim, and grooming seems to make it even more confusing than random pervs.

There is a more 'typical/common way' I would imagine (for example it seems pretty 'usual' for people to speak out after having kids), but any reaction/behaviour is 'normal' as there is such a wide range..

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Haha joey you really need to chill

I literally said, its obviously fine to disbelieve them, up to you. Its the abuse myths I find a bit disturbing. Its moreso on facebook than here actually, but its been fair bit here too. The 'if their abuse was as bad as they said it was, no way could they have not told anyone til now'..kind of thing.

I'm perfectly chilled thank you.

[Vicky.]

Great

[bots]

I can't for the life of me understand why people are getting so worked up about this .... years after the event and years after he is dead

[Twosugars]

I haven't changed my mind about it all, despite watching this docu, reading this thread and skim-reading a couple of books back in 2005 and the Bashir docu. Remain sceptical as to MJ being a paedophile. Not saying he was normal, of course. He was infantile, probably had Peter Pan syndrome and other issues too, but I don't consider him a paedo. Not based on the all above mentioned.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Which experts? I am fairly sure I haven't seen that because, well experts know that its so different for each person..as it has been studied, extensively. An expert might of course say 'their behaviour is totally normal for a victim', but this is pretty much because..well any reaction is normal for a victim, and grooming seems to make it even more confusing than random pervs.

There is a more 'typical/common way' I would imagine (for example it seems pretty 'usual' for people to speak out after having kids), but any reaction/behaviour is 'normal' as there is such a wide range..

TS mentioned his wife's professional experience.

Joey my wife works with addicts, sadly many of whom have been badly abused as childen, and found Robson and Safechuck's demeanor perfectly within the bounds of "normal" for people talking about these things.

Therefore, to me, this isn't an indicator of truth in believing an accuser's words because literally ANY behaviour can be "normal" for an abuse victim.

So, a lot of people coming out with "I believe them because when you're groomed you would do this or that, and bottle it up and etc etc. This or that is common in childhood abuse" is just as wide of the mark as anyone saying "I don't believe them because they don't shed tears, or look sad, or behave as x, y, z".

Just find it odd that the people in the 'not believing' camp are having that argument used against theirs, when it equally works against the 'believe everything they say' camp.

TL;DR These two men can act and say ANYTHING and it's no indication of whether they're telling the truth or not.

[Ramsay]

In part 2, they both clearly show emotion

[Jake.]

Originally Posted by Ramsay

In part 2, they both clearly show emotion

.

And it’s nonsense to suggest otherwise.

Also, the La Tayo interview had been popping back up from the 90’s (not sure if it’s been mentioned already)

[GoldHeart]

looks like these 2 will be crying to the bank to ease their so called pain , I'd never heard of wade robson and james safechuck prior to this documentary . The director will be getting alot of exposure to so hope all 3 of them are happy with themselves and hope they can sleep at night after destroying a dead man's legacy ! .

I would have no issue with this documentary if it wasn't shockingly biased AF ! , also they conveniently delete from history alot of facts & information as it doesn't fit their agenda ,so instead they enjoy demonising Michael as the monster paedo . A fair journalist or director with morals & compassion would ask the Jackson family to take part and give their side of the story , aswell as people associated with MJ like Macualy Culkin & Corey feldman .

It would stay impartial and not try and sway the viewers , it would be left for us to make our own judgement . it would just lay out facts with receipts and try and gets both sides & different points of view from the alleged victims aswell as his friends , family & authorities . Not just 2 randoms who come out the wood work for media attention and focusing entirely on their word against a dead man who can no longer defend himself! i have a huge problem with that.

The director sounds like a sleazebag tbqh , and i find it laughable how he insists Robson & Safechuch are "TELLING THE TRUTH" yet anyone who's not convinced who challenges it get's shut down . I guess he must of been sharing a bedroom with MJ and the boys so was he hiding in the cupboard listening to everything??.

The interview Piers did made piers look like the fair person(and that's rare for piers) who tried to get reasonable answers to crucial questions most of us are wondering , and what Reed does is he basically avoids important answers and continues to profess MJ was abusing children . He talks BS , there's nothing mentioned in the documentary that's hard evidence or proof . Everything is still hearsay and it was all originally debunked years ago.

I guess being acquitted means zero then , if years later 2 bitter greedy guys can make up malicious lies . Even though they're both as trustworthy a paper roof !!! . Why do people believe them now? if they're known to be liars , if you keep changing your story then it's basically the boy who cried wolf and i have no time for people like that and you've lost any credibility you once had.

And i don't see any emotion or heartbreak from either of these 2 guys , there's been cases where murderer's have killed their own loved ones and cried their eyes out trying to convince police and everyone that somebody "did it". Later when they're found out experts analyse that those tears were either forced out for the drama or it's just a weird remorseful emotion.

So i personally think even if Wade & James show a shred of "emotion" it's probably either fake or just their own guilt . Also i get the impression the little cogs are turning in their head . Crying & showing emotion doesn't automatically make you a victim especially when it feels calculated & planned.

It speaks volumes that MJ's niece is completely erased despite Wade having like a 10 year relationship with her aswell as other suspicious things

1.Attending Mj's funeral

2. Cheating on gf and using people to get ahead in fame

3 .still trying to be apart of MJ's life

4 .Time line not making sense & alot of inconsistencies

5. keeping gifts from an alleged child molester

6. Emailing himself tabloids about Mj scandals

7. changing their stories over and over again /known to be liars

8. The fact they've been trying to sue Mj's estate for millions for the past few years

9. financial troubles & financial motives to lie for gain

[Beso]

Have you watched it yet goldheart?


If you have you will have seen the numerous clips of Michael denying anything took place.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Flip that question around;

Why would he continue to have close, questionable friendships with more children knowing what happened with Jordan Chandler? If they were just innocent friendships that he enjoyed, why wouldn't he say "I know people think it looked bad the last time" and change his way of doing things. And it's not even that he couldn't still befriend children, but why wouldn't he take precautions e.g. always have the kid's parents or another adult around to witness that everything was OK, if any kids sleep over always sleep in separate rooms, just general safeguarding.

Why wouldn't he do that? Unless he had a compulsive reason to want to be alone with children that he wasn't able to keep in check.

The reason he carried on doing it was because he was arrogant ... MJ knew he had the power and the money to buy himself out of every situation he got himself into

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well it's nice to see that this tweet came from an unbiased twitter account.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Haha joey you really need to chill

I literally said, its obviously fine to disbelieve them, up to you. Its the abuse myths I find a bit disturbing. Its moreso on facebook than here actually, but its been fair bit here too. The 'if their abuse was as bad as they said it was, no way could they have not told anyone til now'..kind of thing.

If they were so traumatised why beg to go to his funeral,why keep the gifts he gave and why did the one mother sleep with his jacket, most victims would keep well away, There was a case the other week,I don't know the guys name but it was posted on here he faked some homophobic attack ,he was believed at first but got caught out as a liar,Anyone can make anything up and say its fact but you need proof and considering the FBI investigated him for 4 years as did child services and the police,it's not like he was let off because of who he is. I'm with Joey here ,and it's NOT about his music it's about how someone can be vilified by the public and media who totally ignore his acquittal ,it's so wrong he has children too who have to listen and see what people are saying about their dad who was found innocent by a court of law,even when those men tried to sue his estate before it got thrown out, why do you think that is? They were happy to take stuff of him ,he even brought them a house ,but seems they still want more,but that is my opinion and I just know there is more to come.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

The reason he carried on doing it was because he was arrogant ... MJ knew he had the power and the money to buy himself out of every situation he got himself into

You don't know he was arrogant Chuff,I always found him kinda shy,but I suppose to some that would all be an act, people are just sumising about what they THINK he would do.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

You don't know he was arrogant Chuff,I always found him kinda shy,but I suppose to some that would all be an act, people are just sumising about what they THINK he would do.

I always believed (and still do ) that the shy, simple man/boy Peter Pan thing was fake and a way to draw children in and their parents to believe their children were safe with him

[Ramsay]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

If they were so traumatised why beg to go to his funeral,why keep the gifts he gave and why did the one mother sleep with his jacket, most victims would keep well away.

Just Wade went to the funeral and that was because he still had love for MJ at the time, the gifts were kept because there was still love there for MJ and the mother that slept with MJs jacket was Wade's and Wade hadn't come out with his story yet so she still believed MJ was a friend when he died hence sleeping with his jacket. Again you say most victims but when it comes to grooming everyone is different like it has been said MANY times in this thread and elsewhere