I get the sense MJ supporters are turning on Feldman a bit here.
I thought he gave a very thoughtful, reasoned interview and agree with much of what he says.
As for the publicity side - he needs all the publicity he can get in his efforts to remove the statute of limitations on such crimes - I would have thought that everyone (apart from abusers/enablers) would consider that a good thing.
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.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
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 and Caulkin coud be telling the truth and so could Safecheck and Robson.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
No. The story about seeing MJ showering with children was sold to the media. During the trial she admitted that she had seen no such thing. The court transcripts are available online.
oh, this bitch is flip flopping like a fish out of water, he thought about how he trying to get money for his docu so he does an about face, fuck you carey.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
No. The story about seeing MJ showering with children was sold to the media. During the trial she admitted that she had seen no such thing. The court transcripts are available online.
I get the sense MJ supporters are turning on Feldman a bit here.
I thought he gave a very thoughtful, reasoned interview and agree with much of what he says.
As for the publicity side - he needs all the publicity he can get in his efforts to remove the statute of limitations on such crimes - I would have thought that everyone (apart from abusers/enablers) would consider that a good thing.
fuck no that's not a good thing, statutes are there for a reason, evidence! people's memories change, evidence is lost and then it becomes what it is now, "so and so did such and such" it's a scary time really. Some of you have a lot more faith in people than i do, but I guess i've seen a lot worse than you guys. People are sick.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
No. The story about seeing MJ showering with children was sold to the media. During the trial she admitted that she had seen no such thing. The court transcripts are available online.
wasn't it macauley culkin? adrian mcmanus I think, said she saw michael reaching down culkins briefs, which he denies, sorry to say folks, we'll go around in circles forever on this.
No. The story about seeing MJ showering with children was sold to the media. During the trial she admitted that she had seen no such thing. The court transcripts are available online.
wasn't it macauley culkin? adrian mcmanus I think, said she saw michael reaching down culkins briefs, which he denies, sorry to say folks, we'll go around in circles forever on this.
I don't remember if it was McManus who claimed that. Though McManus didn't come out of the courtroom in a very favourable light. She had initially defended MJ in a deposition during December 1993 only to change her mind a year later. Also, in an unrelated case, McManus along with four others sued MJ for monetary damages only to be ordered to pay MJ $1.4m in legal fees as well as an additional $40,000 in damages due to fraud. She was found to have stolen items from MJ's home. She continues to sell stories to the media to this day. Probably never gave a cent she's earned to MJ.
wasn't it macauley culkin? adrian mcmanus I think, said she saw michael reaching down culkins briefs, which he denies, sorry to say folks, we'll go around in circles forever on this.
I don't remember if it was McManus who claimed that. Though McManus didn't come out of the courtroom in a very favourable light. She had initially defended MJ in a deposition during December 1993 only to change her mind a year later. Also, in an unrelated case, McManus along with four others sued MJ for monetary damages only to be ordered to pay MJ $1.4m in legal fees as well as an additional $40,000 in damages due to fraud. She was found to have stolen items from MJ's home. She continues to sell stories to the media to this day. Probably never gave a cent she's earned to MJ.
Just remembered that it was Blanca Francia who made the shower claims. And it wasn't Culkin but Wade Rob$on.
ok, and wasn't it her son that was paid off, he also supposedly said the police coerced him, these guys need to come out. but someone did say they saw him with culkin doing something, he's always denied it.
I get the sense MJ supporters are turning on Feldman a bit here.
I thought he gave a very thoughtful, reasoned interview and agree with much of what he says.
As for the publicity side - he needs all the publicity he can get in his efforts to remove the statute of limitations on such crimes - I would have thought that everyone (apart from abusers/enablers) would consider that a good thing.
fuck no that's not a good thing, statutes are there for a reason, evidence! people's memories change, evidence is lost and then it becomes what it is now, "so and so did such and such" it's a scary time really. Some of you have a lot more faith in people than i do, but I guess i've seen a lot worse than you guys. People are sick.
If a crime happened and it can be proven, there should not be a statute of limitations. A judge should decide whether evidence is strong enough to allow a trial.
No. The story about seeing MJ showering with children was sold to the media. During the trial she admitted that she had seen no such thing. The court transcripts are available online.
wasn't it macauley culkin? adrian mcmanus I think, said she saw michael reaching down culkins briefs, which he denies, sorry to say folks, we'll go around in circles forever on this.
I too think it was MacManus. A former employee, who got fired, sued for wrongful termination and sold her stories to tabloid. Not trustworthy. If she saw something criminal, she should have gone to police. Or at least quit her job, if she really believed child molestation was going on at that place.
Just remembered that it was Blanca Francia who made the shower claims. And it wasn't Culkin but Wade Rob$on.
ok, and wasn't it her son that was paid off, he also supposedly said the police coerced him, these guys need to come out. but someone did say they saw him with culkin doing something, he's always denied it.
Yes, Jason Francia suffered psychological trauma after MJ had tickled him on several occasions. Such damage can only be reversed by a monetary settlement.
Just remembered that it was Blanca Francia who made the shower claims. And it wasn't Culkin but Wade Rob$on.
ok, and wasn't it her son that was paid off, he also supposedly said the police coerced him, these guys need to come out. but someone did say they saw him with culkin doing something, he's always denied it.
Okay. Same difference if it was her who claimed that shower thing. Also one that sold her stories and managed to jump the bandwagon and wrangle a settlement out of the situation. She played her cards right.
fuck no that's not a good thing, statutes are there for a reason, evidence! people's memories change, evidence is lost and then it becomes what it is now, "so and so did such and such" it's a scary time really. Some of you have a lot more faith in people than i do, but I guess i've seen a lot worse than you guys. People are sick.
If a crime happened and it can be proven, there should not be a statute of limitations. A judge should decide whether evidence is strong enough to allow a trial.
Yeah, this. Personally I'd like to see child abusers brought to justice, regardless of the time that's elapsed, as long as there is evidence.
fuck no that's not a good thing, statutes are there for a reason, evidence! people's memories change, evidence is lost and then it becomes what it is now, "so and so did such and such" it's a scary time really. Some of you have a lot more faith in people than i do, but I guess i've seen a lot worse than you guys. People are sick.
If a crime happened and it can be proven, there should not be a statute of limitations. A judge should decide whether evidence is strong enough to allow a trial.
bullshit, as hysterical as american women? fuck you, but then, I shouldn't worry, i don't deal with them no more so i'm halfway safe. I'll watch the rest of you suckers get called rapists and molesters when you do something minor that offends some woman.
where is he now? I thought Francia said he only admitted to anything because the cops were so pushy and he just wanted them to stop. he should come out and clarify. and ya, cops are dirty for you naive people out there, i could see it.
Cloudbuster said:
PeteSilas said:
ok, and wasn't it her son that was paid off, he also supposedly said the police coerced him, these guys need to come out. but someone did say they saw him with culkin doing something, he's always denied it.
Yes, Jason Francia suffered psychological trauma after MJ had tickled him on several occasions. Such damage can only be reversed by a monetary settlement.
where is he now? I thought Francia said he only admitted to anything because the cops were so pushy and he just wanted them to stop. he should come out and clarify. and ya, cops are dirty for you naive people out there, i could see it.
Cloudbuster said:
Yes, Jason Francia suffered psychological trauma after MJ had tickled him on several occasions. Such damage can only be reversed by a monetary settlement.
Jason Francia is a mere footnote, really. I don't think he directly asserted in court that the cops were pushy (Mesereau had the police interview on tape if I remember right) but admitted that he had not been sexually molested by MJ nor slept with him. However, extreme trauma had been caused by being tickled. Where is he now? Who cares. Probably happily spending his hard earned pot of gold somewhere.
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.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
Well this is it isn't it? If can't have proof you look at how credible they are. Their stories have problems, their credibility has been pretty strongly questioned. You heard one side of the story and believed it apparently, good for you.
Having said all that, I watched the whole doc and even knowing their credibility problems I find it very hard to call them liars. Maybe they are but my mind is a hung jury right now. If you have made up your mind fair enough, i'm not too bothered, Michael Jackson is dead and can't be punished and most of the writing about this documentary has been in favour of it so you're in good company.
on what little i've seen, safechuck is way more believable than robson. wade never was belieable to me, safechuck actually has a bearing and a presence as if he has ptsd, shell shock or what have you. I still won't believe a damned thing without more proof, long live MIKE!
jaawwnn said:
DiminutiveRocker said:
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
Well this is it isn't it? If can't have proof you look at how credible they are. Their stories have problems, their credibility has been pretty strongly questioned. You heard one side of the story and believed it apparently, good for you.
Having said all that, I watched the whole doc and even knowing their credibility problems I find it very hard to call them liars. Maybe they are but my mind is a hung jury right now. If you have made up your mind fair enough, i'm not too bothered, Michael Jackson is dead and can't be punished and most of the writing about this documentary has been in favour of it so you're in good company.
on what little i've seen, safechuck is way more believable than robson. wade never was belieable to me, safechuck actually has a bearing and a presence as if he has ptsd, shell shock or what have you. I still won't believe a damned thing without more proof, long live MIKE
$afechuck has no more credibilty than Rob$on does. He only remembered that he'd been abused when he found out about Rob$on's lawsuit. He has since claimed that he told his mother in 2005 that he'd been abused only to backtrack and say that until 2014 he was willing to take his secret to the grave having told no one.
He also claims that MJ begged him to testify at the 2005 trial. This is nonsense because the judge had already ruled that $afechuck was a non-entity and that he wouldn't be needed. He's as full of shit as Rob$on is.
on what little i've seen, safechuck is way more believable than robson. wade never was belieable to me, safechuck actually has a bearing and a presence as if he has ptsd, shell shock or what have you. I still won't believe a damned thing without more proof, long live MIKE
$afechuck has no more credibilty than Rob$on does. He only remembered that he'd been abused when he found out about Rob$on's lawsuit. He has since claimed that he told his mother in 2005 that he'd been abused only to backtrack and say that until 2014 he was willing to take his secret to the grave having told no one.
He also claims that MJ begged him to testify at the 2005 trial. This is nonsense because the judge had already ruled that $afechuck was a non-entity and that he wouldn't be needed. He's as full of shit as Rob$on is.
also, just reading the stories of the legions of people who stole shit from mj and or just wanted revenge for getting fired who made up stories is sickening. I have to stop reading this shit because i already don't trust any human and this shit? well...
$afechuck has no more credibilty than Rob$on does. He only remembered that he'd been abused when he found out about Rob$on's lawsuit. He has since claimed that he told his mother in 2005 that he'd been abused only to backtrack and say that until 2014 he was willing to take his secret to the grave having told no one.
He also claims that MJ begged him to testify at the 2005 trial. This is nonsense because the judge had already ruled that $afechuck was a non-entity and that he wouldn't be needed. He's as full of shit as Rob$on is.
where did you get this info
Interviews with Scott Ross and Charles Thomson. Ross was involved in MJ's 2005 trial and Thomson has been carefully following all legal proceedings concerning MJ since the trial.
Interviews with Scott Ross and Charles Thomson. Ross was involved in MJ's 2005 trial and Thomson has been carefully following all legal proceedings concerning MJ since the trial.
ok, real quick, what was the reason he was seen as a poor witness?
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
