.

[Edited 3/24/19 11:18am]

jayaredee said:

There really is such mass hysteria regarding this documentary right now. It's sad that we can't even question the legitimacy of their claims without being labelled a pedophile apologist. I'm not even a huge MJ fan but I have an open mind enough to look at both sides. The majority of people are taking this documentary at face value without even researching MJ's side of things.

I don't think in general people get called a paedophile apologist - maybe by some people, but that's no different than some people on the other side calling anyone who believes the claims mentally deficient or a hater. You just have to let it slide, because you know you're not any of those things.

I'm not sure about the 'majority' taking it at face value. Again, some people will, but we can't know what percentage.

Edit - missed out the word 'Don't' - I don't think in general people get called a paedophile apologist. Fixed. Sorry for any confusion!

[Edited 3/11/19 5:04am]

RichardS said:

jayaredee said:

There really is such mass hysteria regarding this documentary right now. It's sad that we can't even question the legitimacy of their claims without being labelled a pedophile apologist. I'm not even a huge MJ fan but I have an open mind enough to look at both sides. The majority of people are taking this documentary at face value without even researching MJ's side of things.

I think in general people get called a paedophile apologist - maybe by some people, but that's no different than some people on the other side calling anyone who believes the claims mentally deficient or a hater. You just have to let it slide, because you know you're not any of those things.

I'm not sure about the 'majority' taking it at face value. Again, some people will, but we can't know what percentage.

It's really frustrating. I'm not a huge MJ fan to being with but I have to give his fans credit. They do their research and know their shit. Thanks to their work I was finally open to the reality that there is no evidence against him.

I also watched the documentary. Did they seem believeable? Yes however because I did the research too I realize that their stories are inconsistent with the truth.

jayaredee said:

RichardS said:

I think in general people get called a paedophile apologist - maybe by some people, but that's no different than some people on the other side calling anyone who believes the claims mentally deficient or a hater. You just have to let it slide, because you know you're not any of those things.

I'm not sure about the 'majority' taking it at face value. Again, some people will, but we can't know what percentage.

It's really frustrating. I'm not a huge MJ fan to being with but I have to give his fans credit. They do their research and know their shit. Thanks to their work I was finally open to the reality that there is no evidence against him.

I also watched the documentary. Did they seem believeable? Yes however because I did the research too I realize that their stories are inconsistent with the truth.

It's important to do your own research and not be influenced too much by either side as a lot of the research/statements I've seen from both sides turns out not to be true. Or they are not full disclosure.

I've seen evidence - court documents, interviews given by lawyers, jurors etc - and read interpretations from both sides - and I am reasonably sure in my own mind that he had a sexual interest in young boys. I am less sure whether he acted out on those, but there are certainly reasons to think he did - but not enough for me to be sure.

RichardS said:

jayaredee said:

It's really frustrating. I'm not a huge MJ fan to being with but I have to give his fans credit. They do their research and know their shit. Thanks to their work I was finally open to the reality that there is no evidence against him.

I also watched the documentary. Did they seem believeable? Yes however because I did the research too I realize that their stories are inconsistent with the truth.

It's important to do your own research and not be influenced too much by either side as a lot of the research/statements I've seen from both sides turns out not to be true. Or they are not full disclosure.

I've seen evidence - court documents, interviews given by lawyers, jurors etc - and read interpretations from both sides - and I am reasonably sure in my own mind that he had a sexual interest in young boys. I am less sure whether he acted out on those, but there are certainly reasons to think he did - but not enough for me to be sure.

How do you conclude that he had a sexual interest in young boys? Just out of sheer curiosity because I have not seen evidence of this.

jayaredee said:

RichardS said:

It's important to do your own research and not be influenced too much by either side as a lot of the research/statements I've seen from both sides turns out not to be true. Or they are not full disclosure.

I've seen evidence - court documents, interviews given by lawyers, jurors etc - and read interpretations from both sides - and I am reasonably sure in my own mind that he had a sexual interest in young boys. I am less sure whether he acted out on those, but there are certainly reasons to think he did - but not enough for me to be sure.

How do you conclude that he had a sexual interest in young boys? Just out of sheer curiosity because I have not seen evidence of this.

The contents of this court document - https://www.mjfacts.com/r...aseemd.pdf

It is from mjfacts - which some people claim is a hater site - but I've asked people to discredit this doucment as faked or tampered with, and no-one has.

Take a look at wha was found, and where it was found, in both 1993 and 2003. Note that none of it is illegal and the judge ruled it inadmissable, for the purposes of the trial. Note also that the document nevertheless appears to be accurate. Research the books yourself in terms of the photographs and the photographers who took them. Some are more damning than others.

Also, at least 4 of the jurors in the 2005 trial have stated that although they did not have the evidence to convict in that case, they still believed that he had molested children at some point in the past. These are people who are not haters (because MJ's lawyers would have vetted them) and who saw the evidence first hand. They seem about as credible as possible and even if wrong about the molesting, it is still a strong indication of sexual interest. I don't know if the other jurors disagreed with this or simply did not comment.

The out of court settlement is also a factor, albeit a lesser one. It is often claimed that the insurance company paid out, and that MJ wanted to go to court, but even Jackson's lawyers have stated this not to be the case. I don't have the links to hand - but can dig them out if necessary - one was even on the vindicatemj site, who argued that the insurance company may have paid part fo the claim, but it didn't matter who paid it - so even they agreed the insurance company did not pay all of the money.

From the documentary I found Safechuck's testimony and credibility to be compelling and much of the discrediting of him has been done by association to Robson, which doesn't hold water imo - they are separate (alleged) victims.

[Edited 3/11/19 5:37am]

RichardS said:

jayaredee said:

How do you conclude that he had a sexual interest in young boys? Just out of sheer curiosity because I have not seen evidence of this.

The contents of this court document - https://www.mjfacts.com/r...aseemd.pdf

It is from mjfacts - which some people claim is a hater site - but I've asked people to discredit this doucment as faked or tampered with, and no-one has.

Take a look at wha was found, and where it was found, in both 1993 and 2003. Note that none of it is illegal and the judge ruled it inadmissable, for the purposes of the trial. Note also that the document nevertheless appears to be accurate. Research the books yourself in terms of the photographs and the photographers who took them. Some are more damning than others.

Also, at least 4 of the jurors in the 2005 trial have stated that although they did not have the evidence to convict in that case, they still believed that he had molested children at some point in the past. These are people who are not haters (because MJ's lawyers would have vetted them) and who saw the evidence first hand. They seem about as credible as possible and even if wrong about the molesting, it is still a strong indication of sexual interest. I don't know if the other jurors disagreed with this or simply did not comment.

The out of court settlement is also a factor, albeit a lesser one. It is often claimed that the insurance company paid out, and that MJ wanted to go to court, but even Jackson's lawyers have stated this not to be the case. I don't have the links to hand - but can dig them out if necessary - one was even on the vindicatemj site, who argued that the insurance company may have paid part fo the claim, but it didn't matter who paid it - so even they agreed the insurance company did not pay all of the money.

From the documentary I found Safechuck's testimony and credibility to be compelling and much of the discrediting of him has been done by association to Robson, which doesn't hold water imo - they are separate (alleged) victims.

[Edited 3/11/19 5:37am]

I appreciate the information. I will review it later after work. Thing is that I'm not against the possibility that he had a sexual interest in boys but would he not have access to full blown child porn? He is Michael Jackson after all surely he could have had his resources get it for him.

They raided the ranch unexpectedly so there wouldn't have been sufficient time to hide the evidence if he did have child porn. Just a thought.

jayaredee said:

Rob$on: “I lied under oath in 2005 because I felt bad for my abuser.”

When asked why he desperately wanted to choreograph MJONE in 2012

Rob$on: “I didn’t realize I was abused yet.”

Rob$on = shit at maths.

jayaredee said:

RichardS said:

The contents of this court document - https://www.mjfacts.com/r...aseemd.pdf

It is from mjfacts - which some people claim is a hater site - but I've asked people to discredit this doucment as faked or tampered with, and no-one has.

Take a look at wha was found, and where it was found, in both 1993 and 2003. Note that none of it is illegal and the judge ruled it inadmissable, for the purposes of the trial. Note also that the document nevertheless appears to be accurate. Research the books yourself in terms of the photographs and the photographers who took them. Some are more damning than others.

Also, at least 4 of the jurors in the 2005 trial have stated that although they did not have the evidence to convict in that case, they still believed that he had molested children at some point in the past. These are people who are not haters (because MJ's lawyers would have vetted them) and who saw the evidence first hand. They seem about as credible as possible and even if wrong about the molesting, it is still a strong indication of sexual interest. I don't know if the other jurors disagreed with this or simply did not comment.

The out of court settlement is also a factor, albeit a lesser one. It is often claimed that the insurance company paid out, and that MJ wanted to go to court, but even Jackson's lawyers have stated this not to be the case. I don't have the links to hand - but can dig them out if necessary - one was even on the vindicatemj site, who argued that the insurance company may have paid part fo the claim, but it didn't matter who paid it - so even they agreed the insurance company did not pay all of the money.

From the documentary I found Safechuck's testimony and credibility to be compelling and much of the discrediting of him has been done by association to Robson, which doesn't hold water imo - they are separate (alleged) victims.

[Edited 3/11/19 5:37am]

I appreciate the information. I will review it later after work. Thing is that I'm not against the possibility that he had a sexual interest in boys but would he not have access to full blown child porn? He is Michael Jackson after all surely he could have had his resources get it for him.

They raided the ranch unexpectedly so there wouldn't have been sufficient time to hide the evidence if he did have child porn. Just a thought.

Child porn is illegal. Would someone who is already under suspicion risk keeping that in a place where the authorities might find it, should they knock on his door unexpectedly? We hear that the FBI kept tabs on him for 10 years - I have no idea if that is true or not, but if MJ thought is was true, he might well have been expecting an unannounced raid at any time.

Either way, it is just speculation - it is something we cannot know the answer to.

RichardS said:

jayaredee said:

I appreciate the information. I will review it later after work. Thing is that I'm not against the possibility that he had a sexual interest in boys but would he not have access to full blown child porn? He is Michael Jackson after all surely he could have had his resources get it for him.

They raided the ranch unexpectedly so there wouldn't have been sufficient time to hide the evidence if he did have child porn. Just a thought.

Child porn is illegal. Would someone who is already under suspicion risk keeping that in a place where the authorities might find it, should they knock on his door unexpectedly? We hear that the FBI kept tabs on him for 10 years - I have no idea if that is true or not, but if MJ thought is was true, he might well have been expecting an unannounced raid at any time.

Either way, it is just speculation - it is something we cannot know the answer to.

I get it but maybe he would have had child porn prior to 1993's investigation? This would have been before the FBI monitoring. I mean if he was truly a pedophile you think he would have more than just a few questionable picture books? Just speaking theoretical of course.

RichardS said:

jayaredee said:

I appreciate the information. I will review it later after work. Thing is that I'm not against the possibility that he had a sexual interest in boys but would he not have access to full blown child porn? He is Michael Jackson after all surely he could have had his resources get it for him.

They raided the ranch unexpectedly so there wouldn't have been sufficient time to hide the evidence if he did have child porn. Just a thought.

Child porn is illegal. Would someone who is already under suspicion risk keeping that in a place where the authorities might find it, should they knock on his door unexpectedly? We hear that the FBI kept tabs on him for 10 years - I have no idea if that is true or not, but if MJ thought is was true, he might well have been expecting an unannounced raid at any time.

Either way, it is just speculation - it is something we cannot know the answer to.

Why would someone under suspicion openly talk about sharing his bed with kids? Best to assume that he had none rather than speculate the other way with imho

jayaredee said:

RichardS said:

Child porn is illegal. Would someone who is already under suspicion risk keeping that in a place where the authorities might find it, should they knock on his door unexpectedly? We hear that the FBI kept tabs on him for 10 years - I have no idea if that is true or not, but if MJ thought is was true, he might well have been expecting an unannounced raid at any time.

Either way, it is just speculation - it is something we cannot know the answer to.

I get it but maybe he would have had child porn prior to 1993's investigation? This would have been before the FBI monitoring. I mean if he was truly a pedophile you think he would have more than just a few questionable picture books? Just speaking theoretical of course.

A study would need to be done of convicted paedphiles to see if every single one of them had child porn. Otherwise we're making assumptions without the relevant information. I'm basing my opinion on what was found i.e. factual evidence.

jaawwnn said:

RichardS said:

Child porn is illegal. Would someone who is already under suspicion risk keeping that in a place where the authorities might find it, should they knock on his door unexpectedly? We hear that the FBI kept tabs on him for 10 years - I have no idea if that is true or not, but if MJ thought is was true, he might well have been expecting an unannounced raid at any time.

Either way, it is just speculation - it is something we cannot know the answer to.

Why would someone under suspicion openly talk about sharing his bed with kids? Best to assume that he had none rather than speculate the other way with imho

This is what I never understood. You think he would have been quiet about it. Instead he was presenting a way of life that was normal for him. If he simply shared the bed with the child and went to sleep it isn't a crime. The parents knew where their child was. And more often than not he would sleep on the floor and give up his bed for the child. That is the message I believe he was trying to convey. He was saying that it was a loving thing to "share" the bed. But many interpreted as that he was sleeping in the bed with them. Meanwhile he was the one giving up his bed.

Hee did it. The proof is, that Latoya said he did it.

.

[Edited 3/24/19 11:21am]

PurpleBlackmon said:

Hee did it. The proof is, that Latoya said he did it.

She later retracted her statements and said her ex husband made her say those things. Who to believe?

But oddly enough those interviews she did she seemed so convinced about it hmm.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:14am]

jayaredee said:

PurpleBlackmon said:

Hee did it. The proof is, that Latoya said he did it.

She later retracted her statements and said her ex husband made her say those things. Who to believe?

But oddly enough those interviews she did she seemed so convinced about it hmm.

Which just shows you how easy it is to convince people. If there really was a crime committed and hush money paid for people to shut up, do you really think Michael would be that stupid the let checks and shit lie around all over the house for everyone to see? Do you really think if he paid people and parents to shut up from accusing him LaToya, of all people, would be privy to any information on that?? Think.

But I still despise LaToya for never really owing up to it and publicly apologizing and adressing this issue. All she ever did was say that "management" made her say these things and quickly changed the topic. Really, she's a cunt. Many people cite her as a reason they believe this shit. And really, with her it's the same as with Robson and Safechuck. Either she was lying then or she is lying now. No reason to ever believe anything she says.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:36am]

jayaredee said:

jaawwnn said:

Why would someone under suspicion openly talk about sharing his bed with kids? Best to assume that he had none rather than speculate the other way with imho

This is what I never understood. You think he would have been quiet about it. Instead he was presenting a way of life that was normal for him. If he simply shared the bed with the child and went to sleep it isn't a crime. The parents knew where their child was. And more often than not he would sleep on the floor and give up his bed for the child. That is the message I believe he was trying to convey. He was saying that it was a loving thing to "share" the bed. But many interpreted as that he was sleeping in the bed with them. Meanwhile he was the one giving up his bed.

Probably because he just simply had nothing to hide. He wanted to show that there is nothing wrong with his relationships to kids. But of course, it got misunderstood. It ruffled some feathers, alerted some people and put ideas in the head of more people and eventually was his big mistake that put a downward spiral into motion. Because people simply don't want to believe that someone just likes to be in company of kids without wanting to fuck them. It's really sad that people at large seem to think that the only reason someone wants to be with kids is something pervert.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:31am]

PatrickS77 said:

jayaredee said:

This is what I never understood. You think he would have been quiet about it. Instead he was presenting a way of life that was normal for him. If he simply shared the bed with the child and went to sleep it isn't a crime. The parents knew where their child was. And more often than not he would sleep on the floor and give up his bed for the child. That is the message I believe he was trying to convey. He was saying that it was a loving thing to "share" the bed. But many interpreted as that he was sleeping in the bed with them. Meanwhile he was the one giving up his bed.

Probably because he just simply had nothing to hide. He wanted to show that there is nothing wrong with his relationships to kids. But of course, it got misunderstood. It ruffled some feathers, alerted some people and put ideas in the head of more people and eventually was his big mistake that put a downward spiral into motion. Because people simply don't want to believe that someone just likes to be in company of kids without wanting to fuck them. It's really sad that people at large seem to think that the only reason someone wants to be with kids is something pervert.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:31am]

People DO want to believe that people enjoy the company of kids without wanting to fuck them. Because most of the time that is true, thank God. I wish that it were true all of the time, but it isn't.

I reckon that most people who innocently enjoy the company of children don't have naked pictures of children kept in the same location as heterosexual and homosexual erotica and pornography.

PatrickS77 said:

jayaredee said:

She later retracted her statements and said her ex husband made her say those things. Who to believe?

But oddly enough those interviews she did she seemed so convinced about it hmm.

Which just shows you how easy it is to convince people. If there really was a crime committed and hush money paid for people to shut up, do you really think Michael would be that stupid the let checks and shit lie around all over the house for everyone to see? Do you really think if he paid people and parents to shut up from accusing him LaToya, of all people, would be privy to any information on that?? Think.

But I still despise LaToya for never really owing up to it and publicly apologizing and adressing this issue. All she ever did was say that "management" made her say these things and quickly changed the topic. Really, she's a cunt. Many people cite her as a reason they believe this shit. And really, with her it's the same as with Robson and Safechuck. Either she was lying then or she is lying now. No reason to ever believe anything she says.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:36am]

Oh I'm not taking Latoya's side or anything. I'm just saying when I first seen it I was a little surprised that she came across so candidly. I'm not saying that I beleived her. She's always been wishy washy.

PatrickS77 said:

jayaredee said:

This is what I never understood. You think he would have been quiet about it. Instead he was presenting a way of life that was normal for him. If he simply shared the bed with the child and went to sleep it isn't a crime. The parents knew where their child was. And more often than not he would sleep on the floor and give up his bed for the child. That is the message I believe he was trying to convey. He was saying that it was a loving thing to "share" the bed. But many interpreted as that he was sleeping in the bed with them. Meanwhile he was the one giving up his bed.

Probably because he just simply had nothing to hide. He wanted to show that there is nothing wrong with his relationships to kids. But of course, it got misunderstood. It ruffled some feathers, alerted some people and put ideas in the head of more people and eventually was his big mistake that put a downward spiral into motion. Because people simply don't want to believe that someone just likes to be in company of kids without wanting to fuck them. It's really sad that people at large seem to think that the only reason someone wants to be with kids is something pervert.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:31am]

Honestly that Bashir documentary was probably the worst thing he could do for his career. Perhaps for his life too?

Culkin and his nephew both say that MJ is bad at explaining himself. I can see that. Unfortunately people take his words at face value and run with it.

rdhull said:

[Edited 3/11/19 8:14am]

This guy is ace. He should be on every morning show. He should actually sit head to head with Dan Reed and chew him out.

jayaredee said:

rdhull said:

[Edited 3/11/19 8:14am]

This guy is ace. He should be on every morning show. He should actually sit head to head with Dan Reed and chew him out.

Some in another site dont like his presentation but who cares about that? He is talking facts.

.

[Edited 3/24/19 11:19am]

PatrickS77 said:

jayaredee said:

This is what I never understood. You think he would have been quiet about it. Instead he was presenting a way of life that was normal for him. If he simply shared the bed with the child and went to sleep it isn't a crime. The parents knew where their child was. And more often than not he would sleep on the floor and give up his bed for the child. That is the message I believe he was trying to convey. He was saying that it was a loving thing to "share" the bed. But many interpreted as that he was sleeping in the bed with them. Meanwhile he was the one giving up his bed.

Probably because he just simply had nothing to hide. He wanted to show that there is nothing wrong with his relationships to kids. But of course, it got misunderstood. It ruffled some feathers, alerted some people and put ideas in the head of more people and eventually was his big mistake that put a downward spiral into motion. Because people simply don't want to believe that someone just likes to be in company of kids without wanting to fuck them. It's really sad that people at large seem to think that the only reason someone wants to be with kids is something pervert.

[Edited 3/11/19 8:31am]

Most people generally Do enjoy the company of kids without insisting on and making special arrangements to spend the night alone with some selected boys.

What's Victor Gutierrez up to these days? Is he behind the scenes writing stories for Wade and James to recite on their next tv interview? Apparently the material from his book was used for the majority of James Safechuk's story.

I'm not sure because I never read that book.

.

[Edited 3/17/19 17:21pm]