OperatingThetan said:

Should TV shows really become the new form of justice and undermine formal court proceedings? A very dangerous precedent is being set here.

It's hardly a precedent - trial by media has being going on for decades.

OperatingThetan said:

Should TV shows really become the new form of justice and undermine formal court proceedings? A very dangerous precedent is being set here.

The twin-turbo engines of mob mentality and propaganda seem to suggest that the answer is "yes".

RODSERLING said:

http://dailymichael.com/l...l-all-book


EG

Free2BMe said:

RODSERLING said:

According to one of Berry Gordy s niece, Robson used his MJ connections to enter into Prince s inner circle. Maybe as a dancer? She said he also slept with Mayte when she was with Prince. Hence the song I love You but I don t trust you anymore? . Mayte said in a Twitter in 2013 that she was proud of him, when he first made the allegations. [Edited 3/7/19 2:57am]

Yeah I'm just glad she didn't say anything about it for now. I really hope she stopped believing this Dude, because he's obviously a liar.

Urine said:

One thing we know for sure is he took children to bed with him. That is just downright wrong. No excuses should be made for that. I don't buy into the trying to have a childhood again.

Exactly what I'm saying. I will never believe that he molested a child but taking children to bed with you that aren't your own or even related to you in any way is wrong in my book. And the parents giving their okay to that are stupid, because, while Michael didn't do anything to these kids, another person probably would've, so what would've been the parents excuses in court for allowing a person to share his/her bed with their kids?

ThatWhiteDude said:

RODSERLING said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Exactly what I'm saying. I will never believe that he molested a child but taking children to bed with you that aren't your own or even related to you in any way is wrong in my book. And the parents giving their okay to that are stupid, because, while Michael didn't do anything to these kids, another person probably would've, so what would've been the parents excuses in court for allowing a person to share his/her bed with their kids?

I agree too, even if he didn't actually share any bed with any kid. Taking diseased, burnt, orphan, poor or dying children with him to offer them hope and care was great. . Being with child star to teach them how to cope with it is completely understandable. . Helping aspiring child talent to fulfill themselves, like Wade Robson ok. But pajamas parties ? Was it necessary? . But what was the point spending time with children the likes of Jordan Chandler, that had no talents whatsoever, that weren't burnt, I'll, dying, orphan, star, etc? .

Didn't he say himself in an interview, that he shared the bed with some kids?. Anyway, I listened to what he said and to me it really sounds like a man who knows exactly what it feels like to be unloved and I get the feeling that he just wanted to help these kids. But I agree on the part with Jordan Chandler.

ThatWhiteDude said:

RODSERLING said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Exactly what I'm saying. I will never believe that he molested a child but taking children to bed with you that aren't your own or even related to you in any way is wrong in my book. And the parents giving their okay to that are stupid, because, while Michael didn't do anything to these kids, another person probably would've, so what would've been the parents excuses in court for allowing a person to share his/her bed with their kids?

I agree too, even if he didn't actually share any bed with any kid. Taking diseased, burnt, orphan, poor or dying children with him to offer them hope and care was great. . Being with child star to teach them how to cope with it is completely understandable. . Helping aspiring child talent to fulfill themselves, like Wade Robson ok. But pajamas parties ? Was it necessary? . But what was the point spending time with children the likes of Jordan Chandler, that had no talents whatsoever, that weren't burnt, I'll, dying, orphan, star, etc? .

Part of the problem is that some people cannot grasp that a person can do both very good things and very evil things.

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.

Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?

Ask him. http://www.charles-thomso...ntact.html

I've had a reply from Charles Thompson.

On reddit he wrote "Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson"

I asked if he could direct me to the testimony under oath. He replied "This was in his statement of claim, as I believe his case was thrown out before he was even deposed."

So in other words, Safechuck wasn't under oath - Thompson has directly contradicted his own reddit statement.

Also Safechuck's statement of claim states this -

"80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment."

Nowhere does it mention that he "only remembered" it after seeing Robson on TV. Again, this contradicts what Thompson wrote on reddit, who has clearly put his own spin on it. So much for objective journalism.

RichardS said:

Cloudbuster said:

Ask him. http://www.charles-thomso...ntact.html

I've had a reply from Charles Thompson.

On reddit he wrote "Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson"

I asked if he could direct me to the testimony under oath. He replied "This was in his statement of claim, as I believe his case was thrown out before he was even deposed."

So in other words, Safechuck wasn't under oath - Thompson has directly contradicted his own reddit statement.

Also Safechuck's statement of claim states this -

"80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment."

Nowhere does it mention that he "only remembered" it after seeing Robson on TV. Again, this contradicts what Thompson wrote on reddit, who has clearly put his own spin on it. So much for objective journalism.

It's worth calling this out on Twitter. He seems fairly responsive to people.

jaawwnn said:

RichardS said:

I've had a reply from Charles Thompson.

On reddit he wrote "Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson"

I asked if he could direct me to the testimony under oath. He replied "This was in his statement of claim, as I believe his case was thrown out before he was even deposed."

So in other words, Safechuck wasn't under oath - Thompson has directly contradicted his own reddit statement.

Also Safechuck's statement of claim states this -

"80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment."

Nowhere does it mention that he "only remembered" it after seeing Robson on TV. Again, this contradicts what Thompson wrote on reddit, who has clearly put his own spin on it. So much for objective journalism.

It's worth calling this out on Twitter. He seems fairly responsive to people.

Maybe - I don't want to spend the rest of my life arguing with journalists about it

RichardS said:

Cloudbuster said:

Ask him. http://www.charles-thomso...ntact.html

I've had a reply from Charles Thompson.

On reddit he wrote "Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson"

I asked if he could direct me to the testimony under oath. He replied "This was in his statement of claim, as I believe his case was thrown out before he was even deposed."

So in other words, Safechuck wasn't under oath - Thompson has directly contradicted his own reddit statement.

Also Safechuck's statement of claim states this -

"80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment."

Nowhere does it mention that he "only remembered" it after seeing Robson on TV. Again, this contradicts what Thompson wrote on reddit, who has clearly put his own spin on it. So much for objective journalism.

Thanks, did you reply to him?

Still reeks of opportunism to me. Rob$on was clearly his prompt. Are we to believe that $afechuck was unaware of the accusations leveled at MJ before he learned of Rob$on's lawsuit?
Sure, if he lived in another galaxy. We've yet to have a credible accuser come forward who isn't looking for millions.

I may email Thomson myself when I have enough time to put into words what I'd like to ask.

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

I've had a reply from Charles Thompson.

On reddit he wrote "Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson"

I asked if he could direct me to the testimony under oath. He replied "This was in his statement of claim, as I believe his case was thrown out before he was even deposed."

So in other words, Safechuck wasn't under oath - Thompson has directly contradicted his own reddit statement.

Also Safechuck's statement of claim states this -

"80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them.
81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment."

Nowhere does it mention that he "only remembered" it after seeing Robson on TV. Again, this contradicts what Thompson wrote on reddit, who has clearly put his own spin on it. So much for objective journalism.

Thanks, did you reply to him?

Still reeks of opportunism to me. Rob$on was clearly his prompt. Are we to believe that $afechuck was unaware of the accusations leveled at MJ before he learned of Rob$on's lawsuit?
Sure, if he lived in another galaxy. We've yet to have a credible accuser come forward who isn't looking for millions.

I may email Thomson myself when I have enough time to put into words what I'd like to ask.

I haven't replied - I don't want to get into a long e-mail ping-pong with the guy where we both just end up back where we started disagreeing with each other. I just wanted to see if he was credible - and although he seems knowledgeable, he's putting a tabloid spin on it. Not surprising, as he worked for The Sun and The Mirror - but it means he shouldn't be taken at face value.

RichardS said:

Cloudbuster said:

Thanks, did you reply to him?

Still reeks of opportunism to me. Rob$on was clearly his prompt. Are we to believe that $afechuck was unaware of the accusations leveled at MJ before he learned of Rob$on's lawsuit?
Sure, if he lived in another galaxy. We've yet to have a credible accuser come forward who isn't looking for millions.

I may email Thomson myself when I have enough time to put into words what I'd like to ask.

I haven't replied - I don't want to get into a long e-mail ping-pong with the guy where we both just end up back where we started disagreeing with each other. I just wanted to see if he was credible - and although he seems knowledgeable, he's putting a tabloid spin on it. Not surprising, as he worked for The Sun and The Mirror - but it means he shouldn't be taken at face value.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

RODSERLING said:

PeteSilas said:

my opinion was he feared being blackballed but he doesn't have much of a career anyways. And let me make my position straight, I love MJ, even if the shit is true, I love him just like I'd still love a family member if they did the shit. Some of us fans ain't going nowhere and I'm glad as fuck that oprah's little ploy is backfiring, people are "cancelling" her, not mike, fuck oprah.

What does that mean "people are cancelling Oprah not MJ"? Radios and TV all over the world bans MJ, and around me colleagues and friends all believe MJ was guilty.

Oprah said she knew she would be criticized intensely.

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

I haven't replied - I don't want to get into a long e-mail ping-pong with the guy where we both just end up back where we started disagreeing with each other. I just wanted to see if he was credible - and although he seems knowledgeable, he's putting a tabloid spin on it. Not surprising, as he worked for The Sun and The Mirror - but it means he shouldn't be taken at face value.

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

One issue is that defenders and accusers alike shout 'Do your research!' but finding anything objective online is very difficult and even where the facts are agreed, people put different interpretations on the facts. And in some cases them shout their opinion as the 'truth', and in a few cases are staggeringly abusive to those who don't share their 'truth'. I don't see how that helps anybody, lease of all themselves.

In terms of research, I found this about the books that were found at Neverland - it's very damning (about the boosk themselves). Technically they are not child porn but they look very borderline and disturbing. The article also has strong opinions about the sort of people who would own them - https://www.mjfacts.com/w...sons-home/

However, it's not proof of anything and claims that they are 'illegal' or 'pornography' can be rebutted. I I would nevertheless have suspicions about people that owned them.

$afechuck claims that MJ cut him off at puberty. Here he is with MJ, Lisa Marie and his own family in the mid 90s. He was born in 1978 - that puts him well beyond puberty in these pics.

https://twitter.com/NikTo...3Fpage%3D5

RichardS said:

Cloudbuster said:

Fair enough, thanks for the reply.

One issue is that defenders and accusers alike shout 'Do your research!' but finding anything objective online is very difficult and even where the facts are agreed, people put different interpretations on the facts. And in some cases them shout their opinion as the 'truth', and in a few cases are staggeringly abusive to those who don't share their 'truth'. I don't see how that helps anybody, lease of all themselves.

In terms of research, I found this about the books that were found at Neverland - it's very damning (about the boosk themselves). Technically they are not child porn but they look very borderline and disturbing. The article also has strong opinions about the sort of people who would own them - https://www.mjfacts.com/w...sons-home/

However, it's not proof of anything and claims that they are 'illegal' or 'pornography' can be rebutted. I I would nevertheless have suspicions about people that owned them.

Oh, you went to MJFacts. You're one of those.
I know about the books, thanks. You're right, they don't prove anything.

Did you retire your MidnightMover account?

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

One issue is that defenders and accusers alike shout 'Do your research!' but finding anything objective online is very difficult and even where the facts are agreed, people put different interpretations on the facts. And in some cases them shout their opinion as the 'truth', and in a few cases are staggeringly abusive to those who don't share their 'truth'. I don't see how that helps anybody, lease of all themselves.

In terms of research, I found this about the books that were found at Neverland - it's very damning (about the boosk themselves). Technically they are not child porn but they look very borderline and disturbing. The article also has strong opinions about the sort of people who would own them - https://www.mjfacts.com/w...sons-home/

However, it's not proof of anything and claims that they are 'illegal' or 'pornography' can be rebutted. I I would nevertheless have suspicions about people that owned them.

Oh, you went to MJFacts. You're one of those.
I know about the books, thanks. You're right, they don't prove anything.

Did you retire your MidnightMover account?

One of those? You mean someone who is looking at both sides, rather than approaching it with a closed mind, based on either irrational idolatry or irrational hatred? Yes I am one of those. Thankfully I am well-adjusted in that respect.

I don't know what MidnightMover is.

Were the books written/photographed by two known paedophiles or not? Should be easy to disprove that at least. If not, then it would be a fact that MJ owned two books that contained naked pictures of boys, photographed by paedophiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Interpreting that fact is a different matter - a matter of opinion.

Also, in the court transcript from 17th March 2005, Tom Mesereau - Jackson's defence lawyer, stated - " In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, wasn't he?" Wouldn't this seem to corroborate Safechuck's claim that he was married at Neverland? Or did he marry hsi wife there? Honest question.

[Edited 3/7/19 8:40am]

RichardS said:

One of those? You mean someone who is looking at both sides, rather than approaching it with a closed mind, based on either irrational idolatry or irrational hatred? Yes I am one of those. Thankfully I am well-adjusted in that respect.

I don't know what MidnightMover is.

Were the books written/photographed by two known paedophiles or not? Should be easy to disprove that at least. If not, then it would be a fact that MJ owned two books that contained naked pictures of boys, photographed by paedophiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Interpreting that fact is a different matter - a matter of opinion.

Also, in the court transcript from 17th March 2005, Tom Mesereau - Jackson's defence lawyer, stated - " In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, wasn't he?" Wouldn't this seem to corroborate Safechuck's claim that he was married at Neverland?

Of course you don't.

MJFacts. The site for those who desperately want MJ to be a paedophile.

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

One of those? You mean someone who is looking at both sides, rather than approaching it with a closed mind, based on either irrational idolatry or irrational hatred? Yes I am one of those. Thankfully I am well-adjusted in that respect.

I don't know what MidnightMover is.

Were the books written/photographed by two known paedophiles or not? Should be easy to disprove that at least. If not, then it would be a fact that MJ owned two books that contained naked pictures of boys, photographed by paedophiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Interpreting that fact is a different matter - a matter of opinion.

Also, in the court transcript from 17th March 2005, Tom Mesereau - Jackson's defence lawyer, stated - " In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, wasn't he?" Wouldn't this seem to corroborate Safechuck's claim that he was married at Neverland?

Of course you don't.

MJFacts. The site for those who desperately want MJ to be a paedophile.

I was looking online for today for court transcripts and Safechuck's satement of claim - they are on that site and it was the first one I found that had them. Previously I'd never heard of or visited that site.

If you want to call me a liar, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, then I can't stop you - it says more about you than it does about me.

If you wish to have a civilised discussion, please address my points.

ElGorillos said:

http://dailymichael.com/l...l-all-book


EG

Thank you for this.

Cloudbuster said:

RichardS said:

One of those? You mean someone who is looking at both sides, rather than approaching it with a closed mind, based on either irrational idolatry or irrational hatred? Yes I am one of those. Thankfully I am well-adjusted in that respect.

I don't know what MidnightMover is.

Were the books written/photographed by two known paedophiles or not? Should be easy to disprove that at least. If not, then it would be a fact that MJ owned two books that contained naked pictures of boys, photographed by paedophiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Interpreting that fact is a different matter - a matter of opinion.

Also, in the court transcript from 17th March 2005, Tom Mesereau - Jackson's defence lawyer, stated - " In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at Neverland, wasn't he?" Wouldn't this seem to corroborate Safechuck's claim that he was married at Neverland?

Of course you don't.

MJFacts. The site for those who desperately want MJ to be a paedophile.

So what is the defense against those books? They were planted there by his maid (there was something about her having a key wasn't there?) ? Or he just had them in a safe by his bed while his other books were elsewhere? This isn't a leading question, it's one of the issues I'm unsure about. The fact that they aren't technically illegal isn't enough to cut it for me but I accept that it's not necessarily proof either.

[Edited 3/7/19 9:22am]