[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

We are going to watch it tonight...or Part 1 anyway.
What parent would let their young child sleep around his house in the first place. It seems the mothers are more awestruck with MJ than the welfare of their children.

...and from clips I have seen the two do look alike.

Wades Mam agreed to share her son for a year with MJ ? WTAF ?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

She pulled the faces, but not a single tear

I can't really judge based on that because I can count on one hand the times I've literally "cried with tears" over a real life situation in the last decade, and I've had plenty of reasons to by "society's standards". It doesn't come easily to some of us, which is probably sad. I'm more likely to cry at a movie or TV show than when something genuinely bad has happened in my life.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

No girls involved and you cannot "love children" if you want to abuse them and wreck their lives

[rusticgal]

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?

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

Oh yeah but not on their own with him like he did with the boys

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

they dont look alike as kids though, only as adults, I wonder is something in the edit has been done to achieve this similarity in appearance

Not CGI. THE LITTLE RATS!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well you know who Johnny Depp based his version of Willy Wonka on, don't You?

A stoned George Bush?

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

In the documentary Wades and his sister spent the night in his room...but I don’t think he was interested in girls but he had to balance his story out and not make it too obvious..imo.

Never on her own ,she wasn't asked to be kept for a year either

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

A stoned George Bush?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Never on her own ,she wasn't asked to be kept for a year either

we only have Wades Moms word on that, I would't trust that woman as far as I would throw her, she has dollar signs in her eyes, any mother that would leave her 7 year old with a stranger for days on end with no contact, and then pass it off as 'starstruck' more like 'dollarstruck'

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

we only have Wades Moms word on that, I would't trust that woman as far as I would throw her, she has dollar signs in her eyes, any mother that would leave her 7 year old with a stranger for days on end with no contact, and then pass it off as 'starstruck' more like 'dollarstruck'

[user104658]

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

we only have Wades Moms word on that, I would't trust that woman as far as I would throw her, she has dollar signs in her eyes, any mother that would leave her 7 year old with a stranger for days on end with no contact, and then pass it off as 'starstruck' more like 'dollarstruck'

Awful woman ......... But the girl never said she had stayed in his bed alone either

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

I believe he slept and had sexual contact with both of the men and countless others, many who took his hush money ,IMO it won't be long before lots more find the strength to come out about it all, these 2 men are the tip of the iceberg

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I know this argument is coming up a lot so I think it's just worth pointing out;

It is logically false to say that potential for money to be made, or even money being the main motivation, means that the claims are false.

Pose this hypothetical scenario.

Let's say Wade Robson was genuinely sexually involved with Michael but he doesn't care, he's fine with what happened between them, it didn't bother him then and it doesn't bother him now, he thinks their relationship was one of genuine love and affection. He is now broke and is like "Hey I could make some money if I tell people about that and pretend it bothers me!", and his entire reason for doing it is the $$$$.

I'm not saying that is the truth but let's pretend it is, for hypothetical reasons.

Would that make any difference to the moral rights and wrongs of their relationship. Does the motivation for sharing the facts in any way alter the objective morality of those facts. Does it matter if they're doing it purely for money if it is also true.

Just worth some thought IMO.

Because overall my opinion is that Wade DID have sexual contact with Michael but that if Michael was still alive and Wade's career was thriving, then yes, he would probably still be friends with Michael and seeking his attention and approval. That doesn't make it in any way more acceptable for that relationship to have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant.

But... if it were as you say.... we still wouldn't know anything other than the words of Wade so the hypothetical is rather pointless and leads to the same conclusion.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But... if it were as you say.... we still wouldn't know anything other than the words of Wade so the hypothetical is rather pointless and leads to the same conclusion.

All I'm illustrating is that "They want money!" can be true without making "He did abuse them" necessarily false. Both can be true. The claim that they want money is repeatedly being used in an attempt to "prove" that the abuse allegations are false. It actually has no bearing... it doesn't matter if they have dollar signs in their eyes if the claims are still true.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I'm illustrating is that "They want money!" can be true without making "He did abuse them" necessarily false. Both can be true. The claim that they want money is repeatedly being used in an attempt to "prove" that the abuse allegations are false. It actually has no bearing... it doesn't matter if they have dollar signs in their eyes if the claims are still true.

Call me naive but I don't think for one minute they spoke out for money ,both seem to have good careers ,I think they spoke out to make people see what a monster he was ,and to cleanse themselves

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I'm illustrating is that "They want money!" can be true without making "He did abuse them" necessarily false. Both can be true. The claim that they want money is repeatedly being used in an attempt to "prove" that the abuse allegations are false. It actually has no bearing... it doesn't matter if they have dollar signs in their eyes if the claims are still true.

But people have given opinions on both. Nobody's said they can't both be true. Doesn't change the fact they don't believe it to be true.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But people have given opinions on both. Nobody's said they can't both be true. Doesn't change the fact they don't believe it to be true.

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Call me naive but I don't think for one minute they spoke out for money ,both seem to have good careers ,I think they spoke out to make people see what a monster he was ,and to cleanse themselves

they should be questioning their mothers given they are alive to answer to their part in any alleged abuse

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

they should be questioning their mothers given they are alive to answer to their part in any alleged abuse

The Mothers need charging with child neglect, aiding and abetting a crime

[Kazanne]

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was right

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was right

That they don't want to watch the video?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Call me naive but I don't think for one minute they spoke out for money ,both seem to have good careers ,I think they spoke out to make people see what a monster he was ,and to cleanse themselves

Sorry Chuff that's wrong their careers are failing, one is an actor who cant get work, the nervous breakdown that he said occurred was because of this NOT MJ, but I know that wont be believed which is your prerogative,but it's all there to be seen and heard in other videos.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

That they don't want to watch the video?

Of course they don't ,wonder why.