Michael Jackson

[Walken]

So you don’t buy Wade’s story. What about Safechuck’s? You say there is something there but don’t believe one of the people saying there was (more than) something there?

As for Wade sticking by Jackson, you maybe need to read up on how abused people stick by their abusers. It is very common. It’s not as easy as “I was abused so will call it out at the first opportunity”. It’s a form of PTSD effectively.

There is so much corroborating evidence that he was a serial child abuser. He admitted himself that he slept with children. His sister said he was acting inappropriately with kids. People that worked for him said they saw him showering with kids. He paid off a child for $20m+. A child that identified his genitalia down to marks that could only be seen if his penis had been lifted up/erect. They found images of naked and semi naked boys when they raided his house.

The evidence is staggering.

Mate don't bother replying to him, there is no subject depraved enough that he won't consider a contrary opinion to troll people

 

[Stav1985]

Mate don't bother replying to him, there is no subject depraved enough that he won't consider a contrary opinion to troll people

Butters on his 183rd account.

 

[Frang]

Butters on his 183rd account.

oh hello sa.. stav !

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Butters on his 183rd account.

Seeing as you've seemingly only been around since June, you appear to know an awful lot about me, you complete weirdo. You joining the clique are you? Good work. I'll save you the bother and put you on ignore instead mate. See? It's easy.

 

[Frang]

Seeing as you've seemingly only been around since June, you appear to know an awful lot about me, you complete weirdo. You joining the clique are you? Good work. I'll save you the bother and put you on ignore instead mate. See? It's easy.

chill out butters ya melting !

 

[d34noj]

Watched both episodes. Not at all convinced by Wade. I'm not buying the whole "I can only just talk about it now" charade. He's in it for the money, just like he always stuck to Jackson for the fame.

Not at all suggesting Jackson is innocent. There is something there, I don't know to what extent, but I just don't buy this fella's story as he's told it.

If proof were to emerge that Jackson had done these things with children, it wouldn't surprise me, however. I can't see where that proof will come from, mind you.

This. It all came about after his sister-in-law had a dream? Ok mate. Plus he seems to know in intricate detail every single thing that happened - an almost photographic memory for a 7 year old, which is completely implausible.

It also blatantly shows Wade and Safechuck being jealous and angry that they were pushed to one side when Jackson found new best mates - ones who say he never abused them.

Then theres the law suit bought by Wade against the Jackson estate for $1.6bn, he even blames Jackson for the suicide of his father - facilitating the move to the USA, when its blatant it was his money and fame chasing mum who split the family, along with the father suffering from bi-polar.


I thought Wade was completely unbelievevable, and Safechuck seemed credible, but he and his mum have both been found to be lying along with Wade and his camp.

Strange how people believe the media when they want to, yet don't when they dont want to believe it.

 

[davids]

I haven’t watched the documentary and doubt I will as think it would upset me too much.

But I’ve read about the “wedding” ring that Safechuck describes , which is still in his possession, and can’t find many non incriminating explanations for it.

If I worked in a jewelry shop and an adult came in to buy a "wedding ring" for a young child,guess who my first phone call would be to? And the BS story it was for someone else with the same size finger...

 

[Tubey]

Yep, totally agreed. However, that doesn’t mean all the stuff that was talked about in the documentary was true. Which is what I said orginally.



Here’s a few bits of information that could prove what they said is embellished.

This is exactly why it's very dangerous to take unverified and unchallenged information from a documentary as undisputed fact.

But we live in the social media age - everyone knows best now.

 

[Wizard]

This. It all came about after his sister-in-law had a dream? Ok mate. Plus he seems to know in intricate detail every single thing that happened - an almost photographic memory for a 7 year old, which is completely implausible.

It also blatantly shows Wade and Safechuck being jealous and angry that they were pushed to one side when Jackson found new best mates - ones who say he never abused them.

Then theres the law suit bought by Wade against the Jackson estate for $1.6bn, he even blames Jackson for the suicide of his father - facilitating the move to the USA, when its blatant it was his money and fame chasing mum who split the family, along with the father suffering from bi-polar.


I thought Wade was completely unbelievevable, and Safechuck seemed credible, but he and his mum have both been found to be lying along with Wade and his camp.

Strange how people believe the media when they want to, yet don't when they dont want to believe it.

It’s not just a case of believing the media. These opinions haven’t cropped up just because of the documentary. It’s multiple accounts over decades of a man who at best clearly had a very inappropriate relationship with children. Worst case is he was a serial child abuser.

 

[Wizard]

This is exactly why it's very dangerous to take unverified and unchallenged information from a documentary as undisputed fact.

But we live in the social media age - everyone knows best now.

The irony of you using a post on social media to back up your point about social media being a bad source of information.

 

[Tubey]

The irony of you using a post on social media to back up your point about social media being a bad source of information.

No, you missed my point - it was highlighting how anyone can use unverified information to prove innocence or guilt.

I was criticising both the documentary and the use of hearsay both for and against. My point was this is an issue that shouldn't be in the court of public opinion at all.

 

[d34noj]

It’s not just a case of believing the media. These opinions haven’t cropped up just because of the documentary. It’s multiple accounts over decades of a man who at best clearly had a very inappropriate relationship with children. Worst case is he was a serial child abuser.

It's not multiple accounts, its 2, as the Jordy Chandler one was obviously extortion by his father (which was played on tape in the trial). Both in the 'documentary' owe the Jackson estate thousands of dollars, and have changed their stories extensively over the course of the allegations.

Theres masses of evidence to the contrary regarding Michael Jackson, yet it doesnt get released by the media because that's not the story they want to portray is it.

 

[d34noj]

It’s not just a case of believing the media. These opinions haven’t cropped up just because of the documentary. It’s multiple accounts over decades of a man who at best clearly had a very inappropriate relationship with children. Worst case is he was a serial child abuser.

It's absolutely a case of just believing the media.

The accusers stories get thrown onto every media outlet possible, whereas Michael Jackson's estates replies are posted onto Twitter and such like as the media wouldn't want their stories invalidated.

Do you know about the corroborated lies Wade and Safechuck have told? No, because it's not on the shown on media outlets. And that's the whole point.

The whole 'documentary' is a 1 sided hack job, designed purely to open up a can of worms to get a court case re-opened that has been settled (on Jacksons side, hence the 2 owing money in court costs) so the 2 accusers can get paid.

 

[Wizard]

No, you missed my point - it was highlighting how anyone can use unverified information to prove innocence or guilt.

I was criticising both the documentary and the use of hearsay both for and against. My point was this is an issue that shouldn't be in the court of public opinion at all.

Well in that post you questioned the documentary over unverified and unchallenged information. Then said that is the issue with the social media age. All of this replying to a post that uses unverified information on social media. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way but that’s how it came across

 

[Tubey]

Well in that post you questioned the documentary over unverified and unchallenged information. Then said that is the issue with the social media age. All of this replying to a post that uses unverified information on social media. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way but that’s how it came across

Fair enough, perhaps worded badly but I basically meant that both are a crap way of determining the truth and a persons' guilt.