RODSERLING said:

motownlover said:

RODSERLING said:

I m amazed that people here, and friends of mine dare to say "MJ is guilty because he payed 30 millions to Chandler" . You are lobotomized by the media that keeps on telling the Same lie. MJ never gave a penny to Chandler, and always refused to pay. His insurance did. . MJ wanted a criminal trial, but Evan Chandler only wanted a civil trial because he only wanted Money. If his son was really a victim, he would have call for a criminal trial for sure. But even his son and the mother testified MJ didn't do anything to him. That's only after having drug him that Evan Chandler obtained confessions from the kid that he put into his head. . Someone in the legal team of Evan Chandler wrote a book about it and revealed the whole truth.

Wich book?

Redemption by Geraldine Hughes

if this is true, good, i could see why people didn't want to hear graphic shit and the people that would like that are fucking freaks. the director fucked up, 4 hours of intense graphic shit and oprah on top of it? i' really hope it did flop.

Goddess4Real said:

URGENT: “Leaving Neverland” Second Night was a BUST With Fewer than 1 Million Viewers, Oprah Part Scored Just 780K https://www.showbiz411.co...on-viewers

Yikes! The second night of “Leaving Neverland” was worse than the first.

Only 927.000 people watched. The audience didn’t break 1 million. Oprah’s “After Neverland” did worse–780,000.

"This is very important: no victim of sexual abuse should ever be disbelieved, or ignored. Everyone should share their stories, and there is no shame.

But “Leaving Neverland” broke several conventions of documentary. It functioned not as journalism but as a personal grudge. I expected lie detector tests to show the veracity of the claims. But there were none. There was also no context provided. No medical or psychological expert to explain how Jackson could have been one way with so many other children, and this way with Safechuck and Robson."...................................

Plus that Brillo pad comment and the endless amounts of drone shots pretty much sealed it for me. I give Leaving Neverland and Oprah's After Neverland a out of 5

MotownSubdivision said:

In all honesty, Robson and Safechuck should be getting questioned for "lying" under oath. On Oprah they even touched on that point from what I heard so how come nobody had the presence of mind to dig deeper? They're lying all around but why isn't anybody grilling them for lying in the court of law (in accordance with their story)? All someone has to say is that they allowed someone they're accusing of being a serial child rapist walk free by defending him. That would have busted this whole thing wide open. Either they're lying about MJ being a pedophile and having abused them (the probable scenario) or they lied under oath and aided in a pedophile walking free when they had the opportunity to seal him away. It's a bad look for them either way and should result in them (Robson specifically) having a SUB-ZERO chance at ever having a career again. It'll all boil down to this one way or another. [Edited 3/5/19 23:09pm]

I don't think Safechuck testified on behalf of MJ in a court of law, did he? He signed a sworn statement at age 14, in 1993, but that was it.

IF Safechuck is now telling the truth, then it is understandable why, at the age of 14, he did what he did. Apart from that, has the statute of limitations run out? And can a minor be charged with perjury? Edit - I mean, can an adult be charged for perjury, if he was a minor at the time?

[Edited 3/6/19 1:00am]

[Edited 3/6/19 1:25am]

MotownSubdivision said:

In all honesty, Robson and Safechuck should be getting questioned for "lying" under oath. On Oprah they even touched on that point from what I heard so how come nobody had the presence of mind to dig deeper? They're lying all around but why isn't anybody grilling them for lying in the court of law (in accordance with their story)? All someone has to say is that they allowed someone they're accusing of being a serial child rapist walk free by defending him. That would have busted this whole thing wide open. Either they're lying about MJ being a pedophile and having abused them (the probable scenario) or they lied under oath and aided in a pedophile walking free when they had the opportunity to seal him away. It's a bad look for them either way and should result in them (Robson specifically) having a SUB-ZERO chance at ever having a career again. It'll all boil down to this one way or another. [Edited 3/5/19 23:09pm]

Agreed. Fuck the perjury. It's the covering for a pedophile, if true, that should be the topic.

PatrickS77 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

In all honesty, Robson and Safechuck should be getting questioned for "lying" under oath. On Oprah they even touched on that point from what I heard so how come nobody had the presence of mind to dig deeper? They're lying all around but why isn't anybody grilling them for lying in the court of law (in accordance with their story)? All someone has to say is that they allowed someone they're accusing of being a serial child rapist walk free by defending him. That would have busted this whole thing wide open. Either they're lying about MJ being a pedophile and having abused them (the probable scenario) or they lied under oath and aided in a pedophile walking free when they had the opportunity to seal him away. It's a bad look for them either way and should result in them (Robson specifically) having a SUB-ZERO chance at ever having a career again. It'll all boil down to this one way or another. [Edited 3/5/19 23:09pm]

Agreed. Fuck the perjury. It's the covering for a pedophile, if true, that should be the topic.

Victim shaming. Classy.

RichardS said:

PatrickS77 said:

Agreed. Fuck the perjury. It's the covering for a pedophile, if true, that should be the topic.

Victim shaming. Classy.

What victims?

Free2BMe said:

Goddess4Real said:

URGENT: “Leaving Neverland” Second Night was a BUST With Fewer than 1 Million Viewers, Oprah Part Scored Just 780K https://www.showbiz411.co...on-viewers

Yikes! The second night of “Leaving Neverland” was worse than the first.

Only 927.000 people watched. The audience didn’t break 1 million. Oprah’s “After Neverland” did worse–780,000.

"This is very important: no victim of sexual abuse should ever be disbelieved, or ignored. Everyone should share their stories, and there is no shame.

But “Leaving Neverland” broke several conventions of documentary. It functioned not as journalism but as a personal grudge. I expected lie detector tests to show the veracity of the claims. But there were none. There was also no context provided. No medical or psychological expert to explain how Jackson could have been one way with so many other children, and this way with Safechuck and Robson."...................................

Plus that Brillo pad comment and the endless amounts of drone shots pretty much sealed it for me. I give Leaving Neverland and Oprah's After Neverland a out of 5

The “Brillo Pad”comment was racist and offended a LOT of people. This comment also shows how trashy and lowlife the perjurers are. The Brillo statement alone, show that Robson and Safechuck are making this shit up as they go along. Why would the bastard use that analogy on a black man’s hair? It shows their agenda and what they are trying to do with no facts to support their pedophilic fantasies and assertions. This racist scum will go to the depths of hell trying to dredge up ANYTHING to satisfy a weak, guillible and stupid public. Wade is laughing his ass off at the idiots who believe this shit. Safechuck looks as if he is going break at any second. Of course, we are speaking of two perjurers who have rehearsed their script for two years before they made this fraudomentary.

That comment he made was VERY offensive & NOT TRUE! I will say Wade is in the wrong career path. He would make a GREAT actor! He DID NOT break one bit. But I do have to admit his dancing starting at a VERY extremely, young age was quite impressive. Then got even better after Mj's mentorship.

MotownSubdivision said:

RichardS said:

RODSERLING said:

RODSERLING said:

MotownSubdivision said:

In all honesty, Robson and Safechuck should be getting questioned for "lying" under oath. On Oprah they even touched on that point from what I heard so how come nobody had the presence of mind to dig deeper? They're lying all around but why isn't anybody grilling them for lying in the court of law (in accordance with their story)? All someone has to say is that they allowed someone they're accusing of being a serial child rapist walk free by defending him. That would have busted this whole thing wide open. Either they're lying about MJ being a pedophile and having abused them (the probable scenario) or they lied under oath and aided in a pedophile walking free when they had the opportunity to seal him away. It's a bad look for them either way and should result in them (Robson specifically) having a SUB-ZERO chance at ever having a career again. It'll all boil down to this one way or another. [Edited 3/5/19 23:09pm]

You summarised well the situation. I can't understand why he isn't sued by the court, why he isn't heard by the police, etc. He is major since twenty years, And if he were afraid of MJ, well he is dead since 2009. So why waiting four years ? After trying to get money from the estate to do some tribute shows ! . If he lied in front of the court, then it s criminal because MJ was released, knowing he was a freaky pedophile...This is ubuesque, not understand me at all

If anyone believes Robson lied under oath, they then must also believe Jackson was guilty. In which case their opinion of Jackson must be worse than of Robson, because one would be a paedophile and one would by a perjurer, which is obviously a lesser crime. I've read that the statute of limitations for perjury has passed, so I'm not sure how the authorities would follow up with any action.

Safechuck, as far as I can tell, never testified in court that Jackson was innocent, nor make any such sworn statement as an adult, so why would the authorities now persue him over his false statement?

sro100 said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

Anything is possible - human nature dictates that. WHo would have thought that a grown man could call and talk to a 7-year-old for hours on the phone or send 100s of faxes to him in one day?

[Edited 3/5/19 17:46pm]

Everyone KNEW Micheal had odd relationships with little kids. He made absolutely no secret about it at all. He basically boasted about it.

And that makes it ...OK? Normal?

To most it appeared these children were in his shows (Safecheck, for sure) running from cars to hotels with him, appearing on stage. I had no idea MJ was spending nights alone with them in his hotel rooms, bedrooms at home - UNTIL HIS TRIAL and subsequent interviews. DID EVERYONE KNOW that when it was happening at the time? Come on, no one knew that.

PatrickS77 said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

Their credibility is a matter of opinion. They both signed depositions as children when MJ was first accused but then he settled out of court, but only one of them (Robson) testified as a young adult during the trial. You are quick to merge facts here.

I have been listening to what vicitms of child abuse and doctors who treat them have to say in this case and in the cases involving Catholic priests - they do not come to terms with this for several years after the abuse because they are emotionally and mentally fucked up. They deny it happened and lie to protect the abuser because they care for them, trust them and love them.

It's also true that Jackson can be a child abuser and still be a good person in many other respects. Some of the priests accused were beloved pastros of their communities and did good work through the church. Jackson was philanthropic, he was generous, he was kind, he was immensely talented. But he was also a grown man who spent many intimate hours with very very young chidren - Robson was only 7 years old when he slept over Jackson's home. Perhaps he only molested some of these children but not all f whom he befriended (at least 5-6 have openly accused him) - why is that not a possibility?

Safechuck wasn't called for the defense, as they could only respond to what the prosecution brought up. Robson was named as a prior victim, Safechuck wasn't.

Yeah. And that is the loophole these people use to flip flop back and forth and change their stories as they see fit.

Because people like that usually do not restrain themselves and use any chance they can get. See, that works too.

You've twisted it with your own logic becasue you cannot see the possibiities - you're not relying on facts. "People like that" can also be applied to MJ with regard to te behavior of child abusers. See how that works?

RODSERLING said:

Jimmy Safeschuck was NEVER called for testimony on the MJ s trial. According to Masereau, he was never even considered. Safes Chuck and Robson are liars. If Robson was raped by MJ, he would have never testify for him in the 2005 trial. MJ would have faced the fear of his life of a so called real victim went on to testify. That s insane... . By 2005 Robson and MJ were not on good terms, he had cheated the niece of MJ with Britney and a lot of women... And it was MJ who presented Robson to his niece. If he raped him, why would he make his niece intimate with his victim ? . That is not logical at all. . Every facts in this case points out that the two accusers are lyers and manipulators. The things they describe are impossible. Do you imagine MJ raping them and then writing Heal the world ? . Their only motivation is money, just like Oprah.

You are confusing rape with child abuse. Abuse that took place over time once the victims were groomed (seduced, befriended, told they were engaging in acts of love) and trusted their abuser.

DiminutiveRocker said:

sro100 said:

Everyone KNEW Micheal had odd relationships with little kids. He made absolutely no secret about it at all. He basically boasted about it.

And that makes it ...OK? Normal?

To most it appeared these children were in his shows (Safecheck, for sure) running from cars to hotels with him, appearing on stage. I had no idea MJ was spending nights alone with them in his hotel rooms, bedrooms at home - UNTIL HIS TRIAL and subsequent interviews. DID EVERYONE KNOW that when it was happening at the time? Come on, no one knew that.

Well... I remember the Bashir documentary. I can't remember the exact ins and outs of what came out then but I certainly got from it that he was spending nights alone with children in his bed. Here's an article from the time that fairly confirms my memory


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/04/broadcasting.michaeljacksontrial

this was in February 2003.

[Edited 3/6/19 5:40am]

skywalker said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

Their credibility is a matter of opinion. They both signed depositions as children when MJ was first accused but then he settled out of court, but only one of them (Robson) testified as a young adult during the trial. You are quick to merge facts here.

I have been listening to what vicitms of child abuse and doctors who treat them have to say in this case and in the cases involving Catholic priests - they do not come to terms with this for several years after the abuse because they are emotionally and mentally fucked up. They deny it happened and lie to protect the abuser because they care for them, trust them and love them.

It's also true that Jackson can be a child abuser and still be a good person in many other respects. Some of the priests accused were beloved pastros of their communities and did good work through the church. Jackson was philanthropic, he was generous, he was kind, he was immensely talented. But he was also a grown man who spent many intimate hours with very very young chidren - Robson was only 7 years old when he slept over Jackson's home. Perhaps he only molested some of these children but not all f whom he befriended (at least 5-6 have openly accused him) - why is that not a possibility?

Anything is possible. I am open to the fact that Jackson abused kids. As I have said before, after all of these years, there just hasn’t been any real evidence. So, we are left to believe what we will. Wade Robeson is relatively famous, and infamous for being one of the shadiest guys in Hollywood. Look into it his history. Is it not a possibility that these two have ulterior motives? They had a contentious falling out with the Jackson estate. Have they provided any semblance of evidence to back up their clsims? [Edited 3/5/19 18:27pm]

It could also be that they are emotionally and mentally fucked up because of the abuse they endured as small children over years. Were they sophistcated and shady 7 and 10 year olds too? Are their wives lso shady? Are their siblings shady? Everyone is shady except MJ? If so, what does that say about him?

jaawwnn said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

And that makes it ...OK? Normal?

To most it appeared these children were in his shows (Safecheck, for sure) running from cars to hotels with him, appearing on stage. I had no idea MJ was spending nights alone with them in his hotel rooms, bedrooms at home - UNTIL HIS TRIAL and subsequent interviews. DID EVERYONE KNOW that when it was happening at the time? Come on, no one knew that.

Well... I remember the Bashir documentary. I can't remember the exact ins and outs of what came out then but I certainly got from it that he was spending nights alone with children in his bed. Here's an article from the time that fairly confirms my memory


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/04/broadcasting.michaeljacksontrial

this was in February 2003.

[Edited 3/6/19 5:40am]

He settled child abuse accusation out of court in 1993... Bashir's interview wsa 1994? The two men claim their abuse began 1990-ish?

Michael Jackson still allows children to sleep in his bedroom with him, despite spending millions of pounds on an out-of-court settlement over child abuse allegations in 1993, he admitted in a documentary screened last night
.

The 44-year-old pop star, who announced he wanted to adopt two children from every continent, also admitted that his children had been born to surrogate mothers whom they never see.

But he continued to deny that he had undergone cosmetic surgery, despite the incredulity of his interviewer, Martin Bashir, insisting he had had just two nose operations so he could sing better.

He insisted that having children to sleep in his bedroom with him was OK. Why do people think it was OK, just because he said it was? IMO, it was not OK for parents to allow it.

I remember when he said he only had two nose operations. I remember not believing that.

[Edited 3/6/19 5:59am]

DiminutiveRocker said:

jaawwnn said:

Well... I remember the Bashir documentary. I can't remember the exact ins and outs of what came out then but I certainly got from it that he was spending nights alone with children in his bed. Here's an article from the time that fairly confirms my memory


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/feb/04/broadcasting.michaeljacksontrial

this was in February 2003.

[Edited 3/6/19 5:40am]

He settled child abuse accusation out of court in 1993... Bashir's interview wsa 1994? The two men claim their abuse began 1990-ish?

Michael Jackson still allows children to sleep in his bedroom with him, despite spending millions of pounds on an out-of-court settlement over child abuse allegations in 1993, he admitted in a documentary screened last night
.

The 44-year-old pop star, who announced he wanted to adopt two children from every continent, also admitted that his children had been born to surrogate mothers whom they never see.

But he continued to deny that he had undergone cosmetic surgery, despite the incredulity of his interviewer, Martin Bashir, insisting he had had just two nose operations so he could sing better.

He insisted that having children to sleep in his bedroom with him was OK. Why do people think it was OK, just because he said it was? IMO, it was not OK for parents to allow it.

He settled in 1994, Bashir was 2003. I never said it was ok, you said no one knew about it before the trial I pointed that that people knew about it before the trial.

jaawwnn said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

He settled child abuse accusation out of court in 1993... Bashir's interview wsa 1994? The two men claim their abuse began 1990-ish?

Michael Jackson still allows children to sleep in his bedroom with him, despite spending millions of pounds on an out-of-court settlement over child abuse allegations in 1993, he admitted in a documentary screened last night
.

The 44-year-old pop star, who announced he wanted to adopt two children from every continent, also admitted that his children had been born to surrogate mothers whom they never see.

But he continued to deny that he had undergone cosmetic surgery, despite the incredulity of his interviewer, Martin Bashir, insisting he had had just two nose operations so he could sing better.

He insisted that having children to sleep in his bedroom with him was OK. Why do people think it was OK, just because he said it was? IMO, it was not OK for parents to allow it.

He settled in 1994, Bashir was 2003. I never said it was ok, you said no one knew about it before the trial I pointed that that people knew about it before the trial.

Sorry - my questons were not directed at you


Bashir doc 2004.

People v. Jackson was a 2004–2005 criminal trial held in Santa Barbara County Superior Court

I am not sure I knew he continued this practice of sleeping with children until Bashir (which spans the time Robson and Safecheck claim). You could argue he was getting away with it in plain sight - the first abuse claim was squelched 1993 when he settled out of court, until the next public claim went to trial and much more was revealed including the continued practice of sleeping with kids.

The whole thing is bizarre. He was a huge international star, possessing a popularity the likes of which was unparralleled - we have not seen anything like it since.

DiminutiveRocker said:

skywalker said:

DiminutiveRocker said: Anything is possible. I am open to the fact that Jackson abused kids. As I have said before, after all of these years, there just hasn’t been any real evidence. So, we are left to believe what we will. Wade Robeson is relatively famous, and infamous for being one of the shadiest guys in Hollywood. Look into it his history. Is it not a possibility that these two have ulterior motives? They had a contentious falling out with the Jackson estate. Have they provided any semblance of evidence to back up their clsims? [Edited 3/5/19 18:27pm]

It could also be that they are emotionally and mentally fucked up because of the abuse they endured as small children over years. Were they sophistcated and shady 7 and 10 year olds too? Are their wives lso shady? Are their siblings shady? Everyone is shady except MJ? If so, what does that say about him?

1. I was only referring Wade Robeson as being shady. Do a bit of digging and check out his past as an adult.

-

2. Again, I am judging these two only on their actions as adults. At some point, one has to be responsible as an adult regardless of their childhood. The same goes for Michael Jackson....or are you going to argue that he gets a pass because he was "emotionally and mentally fucked up because of his childhood" as well?

-

3. I'm not saying Michael Jackson was a saint/god/angel, whatever. He was super controversial in his life. However, his weirdness does not negate the fact that there has been no evidence found EVER that he abused anyone. Am I wrong about that?

-

4. As someone pointed out earlier: Let's say Wade Robeson was abused by Michael Jackson. Let's say he is "mentally and emotionally fucked up" because of it so he didn't know right from wrong. Why would Michael Jackson and his defense team allow an actual/closeted victim on the stand in open court? Especially one that is "emotionally and mentally fucked up?" That would never happen. You know, lawyers vet the hell out of people before they put them on the stand.

[Edited 3/6/19 8:44am]

DiminutiveRocker said:

sro100 said:

Everyone KNEW Micheal had odd relationships with little kids. He made absolutely no secret about it at all. He basically boasted about it.

And that makes it ...OK? Normal?

To most it appeared these children were in his shows (Safecheck, for sure) running from cars to hotels with him, appearing on stage. I had no idea MJ was spending nights alone with them in his hotel rooms, bedrooms at home - UNTIL HIS TRIAL and subsequent interviews. DID EVERYONE KNOW that when it was happening at the time? Come on, no one knew that.

Yes. Everyone knew in about 1993. In the (Bashir?) interviews he admitted as much when questioned in interviews. He said, "What's wrong with sharing a bed?" And would say that people who thought it was sexual, "Were sick." This was before the trial.

[Edited 3/6/19 7:53am]

Just watched part one there. Tough viewing. No proof but it's true you can't prove this stuff either way. Even if you take away the abuse bits, the manipulation of the families (showering people with attention and then ignoring them)is consistent from what i've read about how he treated people over the years.

Watched Part 1 and Part 2. IMO, I felt like the whole thing was staged and rehearsed. Just didn't get the sense anything inappropriate ever happened. The only time Wade seemed to get really emotional was when he talked about his father. The problem is, Michael Jackson made himself an easy target.

RODSERLING said:

Corey Feldman and Macaulay Cullin are still defending MJ to death. They know better than some orgers here. Feldman even claim he has phone recordings of him and MJ proving the innocence of their relationship. Feldman is well known to be the defender of pedophile victims in Hollywood. Why would he defend Michael ?

Feldman is taking a very sensible approach - saying he never saw anything appropriate and doesn't believe Robson & Safechuck, but that their voices do need to be heard.