independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Question for those that believe that Michael Jackson is guilty
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 04/02/19 5:51pm

SoulAlive

It’s hard for me to believe people who have credibility problems shrug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 04/02/19 6:10pm

Free2BMe

EmmaMcG said:

Free2BMe said:



Wow, I wonder who you talked to. FTR, I have never heard ANYONE say Michael was mentally ill. That sounds like something a mentally ill person themselves would say. Credible people who have worked with MichAel or been around him say he was business savvy, kind, generous, trusting to a fault, great entertainer, etc. I’m wondering where you heard the mentally ill vrap, unless it was from a tabloid or some other person who didn’t know shit about him
Of course, he had problems, EVERYONE does. Don’t try and act as if this is exclusive to Michael. I don’t want to name the other celebrities that I could say have the exact same “problems” that you claim MichAel has. Let’s not be hypocrital just because it’s Michael.


Several backing dancers from the This Is It concerts, two members of his band, one record company executive who, while MJ was not signed to his label, he had met with and worked with several times and also one member of MJ's family. Not ALL of them suggested he was mentally ill but enough for it to be taken seriously. Nobody is doubting that he was all the other things you say. Kind, generous, definitely trusting to a fault, great entertainer etc. But he seems to have also had problems that go way beyond the usual celebrity issues. That's why it's not fair to compare him to normal people. When people question his proclivity for sharing his bed with children or telling young boys that he loved them, it's important to keep this in mind. With almost any other person, that would be suspicious behaviour. But MJ wasn't normal. That's why I believe he was innocent.


Again, I don’t believe that anyone with credibility has ever called Michael mentally ill. They may have said he was different, unique and not “normal” . Of course, he wasn’t normal, he was different from ANYONE. He didn’t conform to what people thought he should be. THANK GOD for that. That’s why his fans love him so much. He was never boring. He never tried to act like anyone else. He walked to his own drummer. I know some of you are very young and interpret things in your own way. However, being different doesn’t mean mentally ill. I will say it again, I don’t believe anyone said what you claimed that knew or worked around Michael. Your claim sounds like something from a tabloid source. Sorry, I don’t buy what you said for a mi Ute. Btw, I’m glad you think Michael is innocent, because he is 1000% innocent. He is innocent because these Robson and Safechuck are lying pieces of trash. It has nothing to do with Michael being different or “normal”, whatever the feck that means. Damn, people said I was different, because I didn’t follow the mob mentality or crowd. I thought for myself and didn’t give a damn what people thought. I still don’t follow the crowd. I don’t conform to other people’s wishes and that is what Michael did. He didn’t give a damn what people wanted him to do, because he knew that he was doing nothing wrong. That’s why my admiration, love and respect has only increased ten-fold for this wonderful, beautiful, kind and generous man, since this fraudomentary cane out. From what I have heard, Other MJ fans feel as I do, if not stronger. Lies from two racists accusers and an equally racist promoter/director of a NAMBLA driven child porn movie, only strengthens our resolve.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 04/02/19 8:19pm

oceanblue

Honestly, I think only God and those involved know the real truth, and whether abuse happened or not. We can speculate and choose sides, but nobody knows except for the ones that were involved, and I don't think we ever will know what truly happened in that situation.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 04/02/19 8:52pm

Scorp

oceanblue said:

Honestly, I think only God and those involved know the real truth, and whether abuse happened or not. We can speculate and choose sides, but nobody knows except for the ones that were involved, and I don't think we ever will know what truly happened in that situation.

The ultimate truth

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 04/02/19 9:39pm

Free2BMe

oceanblue said:

Honestly, I think only God and those involved know the real truth, and whether abuse happened or not. We can speculate and choose sides, but nobody knows except for the ones that were involved, and I don't think we ever will know what truly happened in that situation.



You are correct, God KNOWS that Michael is innocent. ALL of the facts, Timelines, 10 year FBI investigation during the time these creatures claim they were abused and absolutely NOTHING found, complete and total acquittal of another false accusations, etc. These are the things that give me the UzlTIMATE TRUTH. Not only do WE know these things, GOD knows the truth. That’s the great thing about defending Michael, we don’t have to just rely on the false words of two extortionists, weak innuendo, rumors, gossip, etc., we have the documents and receipts to PROVE what we are speaking of. “Lies run sprints. The truth runs marathons.” We have the TRUTH on our side and it is strong and solid. No wavering, no adjusting timelines to fit an agenda, no 5 versions of the lie, no editing and deleting scenes from a child porn fraudomentary by a complicit and guilty director and promoter of NAMBLA doctrine. WE have Irrefutable PROOF that Robson and Safechuck are LIARS. Bottomline is only lazy, weak minded, gullible, sheep are blinded by the propaganda SCRIPT these two actors, definently not victims, used. Ironically these idiots were stupid enough to use the same graphic SCRIPT from the book of NAMBLA supporter/advocate, Victor Guitterez. I guess Reed, Robson and Safechuck were so sure that a gullible and weak minded public wouldn’t know where there graphic accusations came from. They were correct, the sheep/public/media fell for this child porn SCRIPT hook, line and sinker. What these three scam artist did not fathom was the awareness, intelligence and dedication of the best fan base ever-the MJ fandom. Not only did we recognize word for word where the child porn/NAMBLA inspired SCRIPT came from, we have the SCRIPT.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 04/02/19 10:43pm

purple05

jungleluv said:



Free2BMe said:


jungleluv said:

I watched Leaving Neverland and was disgusted and upset for James and Wade. I believe them. You seriously think that they would lie about being sexually abused? There were too many specific details for it to be untrue - like when Michael phoned James and instructed him to put his underpants in the bin after he had tried to rape him. Michael fooled us all with his 'I'm innocent' act.



There is not one utterance from these liars/perjurers that is believable. Everything that they regurgitated was from the book by Victor Guitterez. Of course, their SCRIPT was graphic, because that is what Guitterez had in his book. Since Guitterez is an advocate for man/boy sex and a supporter of NAMBLA, is there any wonder that these two and Dan Used Guitterez’s book for reference. Of course, people who WANT Michael to be guilty are eithertoo stupid to look at where these liars got their graphic details from OR simply want to support the NAMBLA doctrine, as Dan Reed does.

Michael Jackson fans can't handle the fact that he may have had sexual relations with boys. The clues were there - having slumber parties with kids, always touching his crotch whilst performing onstage in the prescence of children. He had an unnatural interest in boys. If Wade and James are lying then they both deserve an oscar. Reading their facial expressions and body language I think they are telling the truth. To those people who say that they have not watched Leaving Neverland, I would say watch it before u post your comments.



So you believe they’re telling the truth from body language(which is subjective) vs them being caught in lies and in consistencies? Just from what you know casually? You don’t question anything they said?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #66 posted 04/02/19 10:45pm

purple05

Cinny said:

I believe the memories are real but if they are recalled with timeline errors, that could have something to do with TRAUMA and the brain working to block them, or something stupid like movie editing error.

It also sounds like their current relationships with their moms wouldn't allow them to get help in putting years to the vacations.

The fact is, I used to calm my mind as a fan who was aware of Jimmy Safechuck and Wade Robson, like "well if they say it was all cool, then it was". So, I knew I was in for a rude awakening when those exact dudes came out with their story.

I am the same age as these dudes and remember seeing them going to Disney and shit and thinking it was so cool. I know I wouldn't have been ready to stand trial against Michael Jackson in 2004. His power and their internalized fear is what kept them silent. It must have felt even more shameful as emerging heterosexuals. And just as confusing with their adoration of him AS YOU FANS IN DENIAL YOURSELVES.



Everything isn’t trauma. That’s a cop out. The trauma wasn’t that bad or they would’ve testified against them. There’s no way someone did that to me and I’m helping their defense.

I don’t buy the bullshit stories of why they helped either because both have not only been disproven. They don’t make sense if they didn’t realize they were molested until after he died
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #67 posted 04/02/19 11:09pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Scorp said:

oceanblue said:

Honestly, I think only God and those involved know the real truth, and whether abuse happened or not. We can speculate and choose sides, but nobody knows except for the ones that were involved, and I don't think we ever will know what truly happened in that situation.

The ultimate truth


yeahthat

canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #68 posted 04/03/19 12:19am

EmmaMcG

Free2BMe said:

EmmaMcG said:



Several backing dancers from the This Is It concerts, two members of his band, one record company executive who, while MJ was not signed to his label, he had met with and worked with several times and also one member of MJ's family. Not ALL of them suggested he was mentally ill but enough for it to be taken seriously. Nobody is doubting that he was all the other things you say. Kind, generous, definitely trusting to a fault, great entertainer etc. But he seems to have also had problems that go way beyond the usual celebrity issues. That's why it's not fair to compare him to normal people. When people question his proclivity for sharing his bed with children or telling young boys that he loved them, it's important to keep this in mind. With almost any other person, that would be suspicious behaviour. But MJ wasn't normal. That's why I believe he was innocent.


Again, I don’t believe that anyone with credibility has ever called Michael mentally ill. They may have said he was different, unique and not “normal” . Of course, he wasn’t normal, he was different from ANYONE. He didn’t conform to what people thought he should be. THANK GOD for that. That’s why his fans love him so much. He was never boring. He never tried to act like anyone else. He walked to his own drummer. I know some of you are very young and interpret things in your own way. However, being different doesn’t mean mentally ill. I will say it again, I don’t believe anyone said what you claimed that knew or worked around Michael. Your claim sounds like something from a tabloid source. Sorry, I don’t buy what you said for a mi Ute. Btw, I’m glad you think Michael is innocent, because he is 1000% innocent. He is innocent because these Robson and Safechuck are lying pieces of trash. It has nothing to do with Michael being different or “normal”, whatever the feck that means. Damn, people said I was different, because I didn’t follow the mob mentality or crowd. I thought for myself and didn’t give a damn what people thought. I still don’t follow the crowd. I don’t conform to other people’s wishes and that is what Michael did. He didn’t give a damn what people wanted him to do, because he knew that he was doing nothing wrong. That’s why my admiration, love and respect has only increased ten-fold for this wonderful, beautiful, kind and generous man, since this fraudomentary cane out. From what I have heard, Other MJ fans feel as I do, if not stronger. Lies from two racists accusers and an equally racist promoter/director of a NAMBLA driven child porn movie, only strengthens our resolve.


You're free to believe whatever you want of course and ultimately, it makes no difference to me. I only met Michael Jackson once and I was too young to remember it so I can't say for sure if he was nuts or not. But several people who knew him better than me have made that claim. That's just a fact. Their reasons for saying it vary from person to person. One or two say it because of his absolute refusal to accept criticism. In fact, during rehearsals for This Is It, he was out of time with his backing dancers and when the choreograper told him, he blamed the other dancers and stormed off despite the fact that he was the one at fault. And I've heard that story from 3 seperate people so if it's not true, then it's one hell of a coincidence. I could give more examples, including one from a certain celebrity record executive, but I know you probably won't believe it anyway so I won't waste my time. I will say this, however. Not one of the people who knew him believed that he was a child molester. Not even one. Because as much as some of them might have disliked him or thought he was a bit mad, not one of them actually believe him to be capable of hurting a child in that way. So if the holes in the accusers testimonies isn't enough proof of his innocence, then surely the testimony of those that knew him well is enough. Especially considering that some of these people have an axe to grind and even they dismiss the allegations as false.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #69 posted 04/03/19 3:22am

Free2BMe

purple05 said:

Cinny said:

I believe the memories are real but if they are recalled with timeline errors, that could have something to do with TRAUMA and the brain working to block them, or something stupid like movie editing error.

It also sounds like their current relationships with their moms wouldn't allow them to get help in putting years to the vacations.

The fact is, I used to calm my mind as a fan who was aware of Jimmy Safechuck and Wade Robson, like "well if they say it was all cool, then it was". So, I knew I was in for a rude awakening when those exact dudes came out with their story.

I am the same age as these dudes and remember seeing them going to Disney and shit and thinking it was so cool. I know I wouldn't have been ready to stand trial against Michael Jackson in 2004. His power and their internalized fear is what kept them silent. It must have felt even more shameful as emerging heterosexuals. And just as confusing with their adoration of him AS YOU FANS IN DENIAL YOURSELVES.



Everything isn’t trauma. That’s a cop out. The trauma wasn’t that bad or they would’ve testified against them. There’s no way someone did that to me and I’m helping their defense.

I don’t buy the bullshit stories of why they helped either because both have not only been disproven. They don’t make sense if they didn’t realize they were molested until after he died


The bottomline that every hater is conveniently forgetting is that Robsons memory only occurred AFTER he was turned down for the Cirque “One” shoe. Up until that time he was STILL defending Micharl profusely AND doing tributes to him. Strange that the haters don’t bring this up. BOTH of these liars are broke and need money. Safechuck jumped on the money bandwagon.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #70 posted 04/03/19 3:43am

Free2BMe

jungleluv said:



Free2BMe said:


jungleluv said:

I watched Leaving Neverland and was disgusted and upset for James and Wade. I believe them. You seriously think that they would lie about being sexually abused? There were too many specific details for it to be untrue - like when Michael phoned James and instructed him to put his underpants in the bin after he had tried to rape him. Michael fooled us all with his 'I'm innocent' act.



There is not one utterance from these liars/perjurers that is believable. Everything that they regurgitated was from the book by Victor Guitterez. Of course, their SCRIPT was graphic, because that is what Guitterez had in his book. Since Guitterez is an advocate for man/boy sex and a supporter of NAMBLA, is there any wonder that these two and Dan Used Guitterez’s book for reference. Of course, people who WANT Michael to be guilty are eithertoo stupid to look at where these liars got their graphic details from OR simply want to support the NAMBLA doctrine, as Dan Reed does.

Michael Jackson fans can't handle the fact that he may have had sexual relations with boys. The clues were there - having slumber parties with kids, always touching his crotch whilst performing onstage in the prescence of children. He had an unnatural interest in boys. If Wade and James are lying then they both deserve an oscar. Reading their facial expressions and body language I think they are telling the truth. To those people who say that they have not watched Leaving Neverland, I would say watch it before u post your comments.



Let me remind you that most pedos are like you, your father, your mother, your uncle/aunt, grandfather, your pastor or priest, your so-called “normal” people. Most pedophiles don’t molest children in a bed or bedroom. I know a lady who was molested at 5 years old by a woman in the CHURC restroom.
Therefore all this bullshit you are spewing about children, not just boys idiot, shows how ignorant you haters are. You sheep have no evidence, so you bring up that weak argument about sleeping in a bed. Michael’s bed was in a 900 ft. Apartment sized bedroom/gameroom with two levels, three bathrooms and several beds.
Btw, since you are so preoccupied with sec and cjildren, it is clearly obvious thst you can’t be trusted around children at all. I am 100% certain that you and others with your mindset could NOT be in your bed without having sex with a child.

Since you are basing your ASSumptions on body and facial expressions, do you realize that the two actors did many retakes before they could get their graphic script the way Reed wanted them to. Reed said he encouraged them to be as graphic as possible. Thus why both used the SCRIPT from Guitterez’s book. I bet REAL pedophiles and NAMBLA man/boy lovers who support this fraudomentary are jumping for glee and thanking the three scam artists for giving them a platform.
Reed has turned this entire fraudomentary into a fulfilling sexual experience. Those are Reeds words, not mine. Not once has he portrayed the scam artists as victims. In fact, Reed is giddy with the NAMBLA connotation. I would doubt that mit only does Reed masturbate while watch this fraudomentary, so do a lot of you haters. You people are really, really sick!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #71 posted 04/03/19 3:49am

Free2BMe

EmmaMcG said:

Free2BMe said:



Again, I don’t believe that anyone with credibility has ever called Michael mentally ill. They may have said he was different, unique and not “normal” . Of course, he wasn’t normal, he was different from ANYONE. He didn’t conform to what people thought he should be. THANK GOD for that. That’s why his fans love him so much. He was never boring. He never tried to act like anyone else. He walked to his own drummer. I know some of you are very young and interpret things in your own way. However, being different doesn’t mean mentally ill. I will say it again, I don’t believe anyone said what you claimed that knew or worked around Michael. Your claim sounds like something from a tabloid source. Sorry, I don’t buy what you said for a mi Ute. Btw, I’m glad you think Michael is innocent, because he is 1000% innocent. He is innocent because these Robson and Safechuck are lying pieces of trash. It has nothing to do with Michael being different or “normal”, whatever the feck that means. Damn, people said I was different, because I didn’t follow the mob mentality or crowd. I thought for myself and didn’t give a damn what people thought. I still don’t follow the crowd. I don’t conform to other people’s wishes and that is what Michael did. He didn’t give a damn what people wanted him to do, because he knew that he was doing nothing wrong. That’s why my admiration, love and respect has only increased ten-fold for this wonderful, beautiful, kind and generous man, since this fraudomentary cane out. From what I have heard, Other MJ fans feel as I do, if not stronger. Lies from two racists accusers and an equally racist promoter/director of a NAMBLA driven child porn movie, only strengthens our resolve.


You're free to believe whatever you want of course and ultimately, it makes no difference to me. I only met Michael Jackson once and I was too young to remember it so I can't say for sure if he was nuts or not. But several people who knew him better than me have made that claim. That's just a fact. Their reasons for saying it vary from person to person. One or two say it because of his absolute refusal to accept criticism. In fact, during rehearsals for This Is It, he was out of time with his backing dancers and when the choreograper told him, he blamed the other dancers and stormed off despite the fact that he was the one at fault. And I've heard that story from 3 seperate people so if it's not true, then it's one hell of a coincidence. I could give more examples, including one from a certain celebrity record executive, but I know you probably won't believe it anyway so I won't waste my time. I will say this, however. Not one of the people who knew him believed that he was a child molester. Not even one. Because as much as some of them might have disliked him or thought he was a bit mad, not one of them actually believe him to be capable of hurting a child in that way. So if the holes in the accusers testimonies isn't enough proof of his innocence, then surely the testimony of those that knew him well is enough. Especially considering that some of these people have an axe to grind and even they dismiss the allegations as false.


That’s great that these people don’t believe the false allegations. I just don’t believe that these people called Micharl mentally ill. Just because someone doesn’t agree with something doesn’t make them mentally ill. I’m sure Prince didn’t agree or admit to a lot of things.Did that make him mentally ill? Of course not. Stop trying to change the rules for Michael.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #72 posted 04/03/19 4:52am

EmmaMcG

Free2BMe said:

EmmaMcG said:



You're free to believe whatever you want of course and ultimately, it makes no difference to me. I only met Michael Jackson once and I was too young to remember it so I can't say for sure if he was nuts or not. But several people who knew him better than me have made that claim. That's just a fact. Their reasons for saying it vary from person to person. One or two say it because of his absolute refusal to accept criticism. In fact, during rehearsals for This Is It, he was out of time with his backing dancers and when the choreograper told him, he blamed the other dancers and stormed off despite the fact that he was the one at fault. And I've heard that story from 3 seperate people so if it's not true, then it's one hell of a coincidence. I could give more examples, including one from a certain celebrity record executive, but I know you probably won't believe it anyway so I won't waste my time. I will say this, however. Not one of the people who knew him believed that he was a child molester. Not even one. Because as much as some of them might have disliked him or thought he was a bit mad, not one of them actually believe him to be capable of hurting a child in that way. So if the holes in the accusers testimonies isn't enough proof of his innocence, then surely the testimony of those that knew him well is enough. Especially considering that some of these people have an axe to grind and even they dismiss the allegations as false.


That’s great that these people don’t believe the false allegations. I just don’t believe that these people called Micharl mentally ill. Just because someone doesn’t agree with something doesn’t make them mentally ill. I’m sure Prince didn’t agree or admit to a lot of things.Did that make him mentally ill? Of course not. Stop trying to change the rules for Michael.


I'm not changing rules for anyone. I'm simply repeating what was said. I'm a big Michael Jackson fan and I always have been.

I think it says a lot that pretty much everyone who knew him says he wouldn't be capable of doing the things he's accused of doing. Also, add to that the fact he was found not guilty in court AND the sheer amount of holes in the accusers testimonies and the whole picture becomes a bit clearer. Of course, there will always be people who believe everything they read on social media and see in "documentaries" but to anyone paying close attention, it seems pretty obvious that Michael Jackson was not a child molester.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #73 posted 04/03/19 6:08am

thedoorkeeper

Did I watch the documentary?
No. Not interested.
Do I believe the accusations?
Pretty much.
Has it affected my appreciation of his music?
No. Still listen to his songs.
The many years of these stories hasn't really dampened my attitude.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #74 posted 04/03/19 6:17am

homesquid

avatar

nextedition said:

I was pretty surprised to hear that everybody i talked to about the documentary said they didnt believe the accusations.

I'm not. Anyone that digs deep enough will come to that realization. That documentary should never have been allowed to happen. Fuck HBO

And i;m someone that initially believed the 2005 victims. I was wrong.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #75 posted 04/03/19 6:55am

Unholyalliance

Cinny said:

I believe the memories are real but if they are recalled with timeline errors, that could have something to do with TRAUMA and the brain working to block them, or something stupid like movie editing error.

Do you have evidence of trauma doing this? Like, not your uneducated opinion, but actual peer reviewed papers? We are not talking about a month or day difference. We are talking about a 2-3 year difference. Also, we are talking about a teenager who may have been abused at 16-17 years old. This is slightly different from being abused at 12 years old.

For example, the general consensus on repressed memories is that they don't exist. The last paper I read where they interviewed victims of abuse some years later, many of them did forget, but once they began talking about it they were able to recall the abuse and the stories they told were pretty similar to the initial reports they made over 20+ years ago. It's not as if they were suddenly confused about how old they were when it happened. Mind you, many of the people in the study had already reported the abuse when they were younger. Forgetting the abuse was what helped them move on with their lives. Yet, they claim that they were in love with him and that they didn't know it was abuse so what is the point of repressing memories if they considered them positive?

This is what I don't get and even though people got on Babara Streisand about her tweet, she's not wrong. Even though what they explained was abuse, in the film they described it in a abnormally positive manner. If that was the case then why did they have to repress the memories? When they were being cross examined back in the 90s and 00s why didn't they just answer 'yes' when they were asked if Michael Jackson touched them if they thought what they were doing wasn't considered 'wrong'? In the movie they never even used language to make it seem like they were scared or traumatized in order to hide what had been going. This is what I don't understand.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #76 posted 04/03/19 7:16am

automatic

avatar

LaToya Jackson brings up James Safechuck by name in this 1993 interview with Howard Stern. Sure sounds like she was telling the truth back then.



[Edited 4/3/19 7:25am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #77 posted 04/03/19 8:45am

oceanblue

Free2BMe said:

oceanblue said:

Honestly, I think only God and those involved know the real truth, and whether abuse happened or not. We can speculate and choose sides, but nobody knows except for the ones that were involved, and I don't think we ever will know what truly happened in that situation.

You are correct, God KNOWS that Michael is innocent. ALL of the facts, Timelines, 10 year FBI investigation during the time these creatures claim they were abused and absolutely NOTHING found, complete and total acquittal of another false accusations, etc. These are the things that give me the UzlTIMATE TRUTH. Not only do WE know these things, GOD knows the truth. That’s the great thing about defending Michael, we don’t have to just rely on the false words of two extortionists, weak innuendo, rumors, gossip, etc., we have the documents and receipts to PROVE what we are speaking of. “Lies run sprints. The truth runs marathons.” We have the TRUTH on our side and it is strong and solid. No wavering, no adjusting timelines to fit an agenda, no 5 versions of the lie, no editing and deleting scenes from a child porn fraudomentary by a complicit and guilty director and promoter of NAMBLA doctrine. WE have Irrefutable PROOF that Robson and Safechuck are LIARS. Bottomline is only lazy, weak minded, gullible, sheep are blinded by the propaganda SCRIPT these two actors, definently not victims, used. Ironically these idiots were stupid enough to use the same graphic SCRIPT from the book of NAMBLA supporter/advocate, Victor Guitterez. I guess Reed, Robson and Safechuck were so sure that a gullible and weak minded public wouldn’t know where there graphic accusations came from. They were correct, the sheep/public/media fell for this child porn SCRIPT hook, line and sinker. What these three scam artist did not fathom was the awareness, intelligence and dedication of the best fan base ever-the MJ fandom. Not only did we recognize word for word where the child porn/NAMBLA inspired SCRIPT came from, we have the SCRIPT.

So you speak for God now? I'll believe it when the words comes out of GOD"S mouth, not yours, and what are the odds of that happening? So until then, NONE of us know the TRUTH, and I'm not talking YOUR truth or what YOU believe about these men, Michael Jackson, etc, because NONE of us know or can say what REALLY and TRULY happened between Michael Jackson and these men, because NONE of us were there, except them!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #78 posted 04/03/19 10:47am

onlyforaminute

avatar

A few months ago I was reading some things about memory, that also contributed to me not watching this. Memory is a funny thing.
Time keeps on slipping into the future...


This moment is all there is...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #79 posted 04/03/19 12:56pm

PatrickS77

avatar

Tuls101 said:



Mintchip said:


Okay, I'll bite.


I chalk factual inaccuracies up to the abuse being 30 years ago, the victim being 7, and the trauma being...well, traumatic. It's easy to imagine being confused about locations and dates, something that goes down at Disneyland in 1988, and something else goes down at Eurodisney in 1992, or Disneyland Paris, and I get them confused. That's human. Especially if I'm jet setting around the world, and Disney trips are a common event.


Put another way, in my late thirties, if I had to describe to you a situation of abuse that happened to me in 1988, I would hate it if you didn't believe me because I got some specific details wrong. I was 8 in 1988, and those years seem like a dream of another life.


On the flip side, what convinces me is the uncomfortable emotional truth of their testimony; the small details no one would come up with, the conflicting nature of their emotions toward Michael Jackson to this day. There's a depth, a messiness, and an honesty there, which I don't think can be faked, or anticipated.


So...yeah. That's me.




This is pretty much where I'm at. Going into this I figured if anything convinced me he was guilty it would be the details of the actual acts of abuse that occurred but that wasn't the case for me. Like you, it was the finer details that got me, little things I never would've anticipated. I also never considered how closely these two relationships would mirror actual romantic relationships that two adults would have. Often times when they spoke about MJ it felt as if they were speaking of an ex lover. It's subtleties like that I feel like would be difficult to fake. Either these guys are telling the truth or they're sociopaths that could give Streep a run for her money with their acting chops.



Who says that everything they are saying is a lie? Obviously there is some truth to what they are saying. They were friends of Michael, They did spend time with him. Hey may have acted borderline in how these friendships came together and how they ended. But they embellished their shit and added stuff to claim molestation.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #80 posted 04/03/19 3:23pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

Okay, I wanted to post this a few days ago, so here goes: Some people ask "If Michael was innocent, why did he have such a weird relationship with kids?" A week ago, I met a guy infront of a electronics store, I signed up to a program that helps victims of sexual abuse, and he gave me a magazine and in that magazine, I read a very interesting thing, wich COULD explain why Michael was the way he was with kids (without being a pedophile). So they say that some children who are sexually abused tend to completely refuse to have contact to people around their age, so as kids, they don't play with other kids and when they grow up, they don't like the company of people around their age.

I always believed that Michael was molested as a child, why was he, out of all his siblings, the one with the biggest damage? Like, I don't know about the others, but it seems like the horrible childhood hit Michael the hardest. And yes it could easily be that he was just the most sensitive, but I believe that it was even deeper than that.

And even if he wasn't molested, the trauma Joseph caused would be enough for him to rather enjoy the company of kids.

All I'm saying is that this explanation gives the whole thing another perspective. I just want to say that his "weird relationship regarding kids" is no evidence that he molested them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #81 posted 04/03/19 4:24pm

RichardS

ThatWhiteDude said:

Okay, I wanted to post this a few days ago, so here goes: Some people ask "If Michael was innocent, why did he have such a weird relationship with kids?" A week ago, I met a guy infront of a electronics store, I signed up to a program that helps victims of sexual abuse, and he gave me a magazine and in that magazine, I read a very interesting thing, wich COULD explain why Michael was the way he was with kids (without being a pedophile). So they say that some children who are sexually abused tend to completely refuse to have contact to people around their age, so as kids, they don't play with other kids and when they grow up, they don't like the company of people around their age.

I always believed that Michael was molested as a child, why was he, out of all his siblings, the one with the biggest damage? Like, I don't know about the others, but it seems like the horrible childhood hit Michael the hardest. And yes it could easily be that he was just the most sensitive, but I believe that it was even deeper than that.

And even if he wasn't molested, the trauma Joseph caused would be enough for him to rather enjoy the company of kids.

All I'm saying is that this explanation gives the whole thing another perspective. I just want to say that his "weird relationship regarding kids" is no evidence that he molested them.

There's no actual evidence that MJ was molested as child, but you still believe he was. Aren't you just doing to MJ's dad, what some people say is being done to MJ himself - accusing the dead without evidence?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #82 posted 04/03/19 4:33pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

RichardS said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Okay, I wanted to post this a few days ago, so here goes: Some people ask "If Michael was innocent, why did he have such a weird relationship with kids?" A week ago, I met a guy infront of a electronics store, I signed up to a program that helps victims of sexual abuse, and he gave me a magazine and in that magazine, I read a very interesting thing, wich COULD explain why Michael was the way he was with kids (without being a pedophile). So they say that some children who are sexually abused tend to completely refuse to have contact to people around their age, so as kids, they don't play with other kids and when they grow up, they don't like the company of people around their age.

I always believed that Michael was molested as a child, why was he, out of all his siblings, the one with the biggest damage? Like, I don't know about the others, but it seems like the horrible childhood hit Michael the hardest. And yes it could easily be that he was just the most sensitive, but I believe that it was even deeper than that.

And even if he wasn't molested, the trauma Joseph caused would be enough for him to rather enjoy the company of kids.

All I'm saying is that this explanation gives the whole thing another perspective. I just want to say that his "weird relationship regarding kids" is no evidence that he molested them.

There's no actual evidence that MJ was molested as child, but you still believe he was. Aren't you just doing to MJ's dad, what some people say is being done to MJ himself - accusing the dead without evidence?

I didn't say that Joseph molested him, I said I believe he was molested, never said who it was. The only time I mentioned Joe was when I said: "And even if he wasn't molested, the trauma Joseph caused (you know, the whole stuff we know for sure) would be enough for Michael to keep a distance to adults and to rather enjoy the company of children.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #83 posted 04/03/19 8:36pm

purple05

automatic said:

LaToya Jackson brings up James Safechuck by name in this 1993 interview with Howard Stern. Sure sounds like she was telling the truth back then.



[Edited 4/3/19 7:25am]

You say it like she didn’t know James wasn’t around. LaToya has said none of that was true and that she was being abused. I guess you only believe victims when it fits your narrative
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #84 posted 04/03/19 10:11pm

Lovejunky

ThatWhiteDude said:

The only reason why I'd watch this would be if I was a body language expert.....but then again....they are actors....so who knows how good they are...

You havent watched it ?

If they are acting Meryl Streep could take lessons from them

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #85 posted 04/04/19 12:46am

SoulSplash

avatar

I believe it because I was one of "those" boys. It is absolutely how it happens, how it makes you feel, how you see them as your hero, how you want to protect them, how you feel special and loyal to them, etc. Then when you have your own kid, it makes you feel sick about it all. Never mind straining at gnats, people. There's no doubt their stories are true, for it's my story, too.

∞ ʀ⁅VERB⁆я ∞
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #86 posted 04/04/19 1:18am

Lovejunky

SoulSplash said:

I believe it because I was one of "those" boys. It is absolutely how it happens, how it makes you feel, how you see them as your hero, how you want to protect them, how you feel special and loyal to them, etc. Then when you have your own kid, it makes you feel sick about it all. Never mind straining at gnats, people. There's no doubt their stories are true, for it's my story, too.

My heart goes out to you.....<3

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #87 posted 04/04/19 1:21am

Free2BMe

SoulSplash said:

I believe it because I was one of "those" boys. It is absolutely how it happens, how it makes you feel, how you see them as your hero, how you want to protect them, how you feel special and loyal to them, etc. Then when you have your own kid, it makes you feel sick about it all. Never mind straining at gnats, people. There's no doubt their stories are true, for it's my story, too.



Let’s consider this scenario:

Did you do tributes to your accuser? Did you get on a court stand and voluntarily testified on your accusers behalf and say nothing happened? Did you. Continue those tributes even after your accuser died when you could easily have made claims against your accuser? There was nothing holding you back after accuser was dead. Did younSUDDENLY come up with accusations after you were turned down for a job from your accusers estate? Did you file a 1.5 billion lawsuit against an estate when you couldn’t extort money? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then you would be a liar.

I now have a problem with People claiming to be “victims”. You may be a real victim, I don’t know. However, there is infinite PROOF that Robson and Safechuck are NOT victims. Their SCRIPT doesn’t fit the timeline, the locations, the scenario, the supposed incident, etc. NOTHING fits. That’s why I know they are lying. They are no more a victim than I am, and I am not a victim. Their ACTING is harming real victims. Their pedophilic FANTASIES are what they WANTED to happen. None of it did.
Sadly, that’s the situation with these two proven liars, perjurers, extortionists and scam artists.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #88 posted 04/04/19 1:22am

FullLipsDotNos
e

avatar

Thank you for your replies.

-

I have also read that survivors can get facts, such as times, places, people (!!!) twisted, so it makes sense now that they said inaccurate things in the doc. I believe they have been abused by someone, but I'm not sure if it was MJ or someone else.

-

And I think it's fair to point out these inconsistencies, especially if we want to know what really happened, so that we can help them (or any sexual abuse survivors in general).

-

Culkin said that MJ's beds were two-storey, so even if they shared beds, each person slept on their own mattress. If we believe what Culkin says.

-

I also believe that MJ was neurodivergent. Maybe even autistic, but that's just my wild guess. He did things in his own way and didn't understand that others would find it upsetting. It's really funny, because women are not thought to be pedophiles when they are around children. Obviously, they can abuse them and so can men, it's just that the responses vary according to gender. When he died, there were dolls in his bedroom. I don't know if he surrounded himself with girls, but there were female friends in his life: Diana Ross, Elizabeth Taylor, etc. He also had male friends of adult age.

-

I've been a fan of both MJ's and Prince's for a long time. I'm not a newbie here, so I don't understand why I'm accused of "taking over" this discussion board.

-

Why would people lie about sexual abuse? It's happened. Black men have been falsely accused and then imprisoned (or lynched). Of course, that doesn't mean black men are not capable of sexual abuse. We just have to be careful. There is little outrage about Kelly and Weinstein because Kelly's victims are black women (he admitted his wrongdoings, there's was that tape and he married Aaliyah) and Weinstein is a white man. It's a power play, unfortunately.

-

Did MJ commit sexual abuse? I don't know. I see wrong arguments on both sides and I find it hard to believe this documentary, based on the evidence that is publicly available. That being said, the other side doesn't always have convicing counterarguments either.

full lips, freckles, and upturned nose
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #89 posted 04/04/19 7:16am

Tuls101

purple05 said:

Cinny said:

I believe the memories are real but if they are recalled with timeline errors, that could have something to do with TRAUMA and the brain working to block them, or something stupid like movie editing error.

It also sounds like their current relationships with their moms wouldn't allow them to get help in putting years to the vacations.

The fact is, I used to calm my mind as a fan who was aware of Jimmy Safechuck and Wade Robson, like "well if they say it was all cool, then it was". So, I knew I was in for a rude awakening when those exact dudes came out with their story.

I am the same age as these dudes and remember seeing them going to Disney and shit and thinking it was so cool. I know I wouldn't have been ready to stand trial against Michael Jackson in 2004. His power and their internalized fear is what kept them silent. It must have felt even more shameful as emerging heterosexuals. And just as confusing with their adoration of him AS YOU FANS IN DENIAL YOURSELVES.

Everything isn’t trauma. That’s a cop out. The trauma wasn’t that bad or they would’ve testified against them. There’s no way someone did that to me and I’m helping their defense. I don’t buy the bullshit stories of why they helped either because both have not only been disproven. They don’t make sense if they didn’t realize they were molested until after he died

But they did realize what happened before he died. This wasn't a case of suppressed memory, or trauma "blocking" the events. It's more a case of fully understanding, comprehending and accepting what happened to you. You don't have to search far on the subject to see that it's very common for the abused to defend their abusers. Even in domestic violence cases that's a common thing. It's easy to sit on the outside and say "there's no way I'd defend....." and perhaps you'd be one of the braver ones that wouldn't. As with many situations in life, you can guess how you'd want to or "should" react to a bad situation, but conjecture isn't reality and until you're placed in that postion you really don't know. I don't understand how it's hard for someone to understand why someone wouldn't speak out in this situation. First of all, as we see first hand, often times the first thing that happens when someone speaks out is they're immediately shamed. That in itself is enough to prevent some from speaking out. Let's look at this situation in particular though, by all accounts, these are two "regular", heterosexual guys going up against perhaps the most famous man in the world, a multi millionaire with an iron clad legal team that could only be afforded by someone with some monetary privilege. I know that in itself would intimidate me. Then, they'd have to literally tell the world graphic details of sexual acts they had with another man.....these are straight men. I don't think a lot of straight men would ever feel comfortable speaking about that if it happened to them. Most would probably sweep it under the rug and deal with it on their own rather than have any perceived "gay" connotation attached to them. Finally, going up against the most famous man on earth is obviously going to bring incredibly invasive press, that's not something everyone wants to do deal, especially in a situation like this. It blows my mind people don't think about these things in the midst of finger wagging at the victims for "lying".

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 4 <1234>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Question for those that believe that Michael Jackson is guilty