Michael Jackson

[ArtetaMoney]

One sided!!! It was an account by two men of the sexual abuse they suffered at 7 & 10 years old by a man in his 30s. You balance that up how exactly? Fans discussing his best CD, which tour did it for them? Or maybe other people saying MJ had them at his fun fair and he didn't abuse them. Which proves what? The abused men weren't the first to make accusations but a pattern of abuse seem not to be enough for some

Yeah 1 sided, an account of what happened from one side of the story. He was also proven not guilty in a court, where that one side gave a testimony under oath to say he was innocent.

They could’ve quite easily added accounts to the documentary from both Culkin and the other lad who testified for MJs innocence.

They also didn’t go in depth into reported stories that both the lads are in it for money.

I’m not saying he’s innocent at all as he was a proper weirdo with children, it’s all just a bit dodgy (especially the Wade side of it). The guy who produced the movie has even admitted that all his evidence is circumstantial.

 

[Tim UpperBullen]

the defense of him in here is genuinely disturbing

Makes you realise how paedos like MJ get away with it for so long and how it makes it harder for the abused to speak out

 

[davids]

Yeah 1 sided, an account of what happened from one side of the story. He was also proven not guilty in a court, where that one side gave a testimony under oath to say he was innocent.

They could’ve quite easily added accounts to the documentary from both Culkin and the other lad who testified for as innocence.

They also didn’t go in depth into reported stories that both the lads are in it for money.

I’m not saying he’s innocent at all as he was a proper weirdo with children, it’s all just a bit dodgy (especially the Wade side of it). The guy who produced the movie has even admitted that all his evidence is circumstantial.

All very true,but the point still stands that if you or I was found in bed with a 7 year old child our feet wouldn't touch.

 

[ArtetaMoney]

All very true,but the point still stands that if you or I was found in bed with a 7 year old child our feet wouldn't touch.

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.

 

[davids]

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.

No doubt there has been some substitution of facts and fiction.Jackson obvious illness is being highlighted when the spotlight really should be on his family and advisers and the families of the children involved.

 

[Prevenger17]

Finshed it last night. Wade Robson seems like a bit of an arsehole and his motivations could be reasonably questioned I think. Safechuck is v credible imo

 

[LostLegend]

lol

An old bit, but definitely still relevant.

 

[bullybeef]

Just watched both docs.

Guilty as sin auld MJ.

Similar to Sir Jimmy in that all the clues were there staring us all in the face but we fell for the persona both paedos used to fool the masses.

A grown man Sleeping with kids is never going to innocent unless it’s their father.

 

[Big Fat Sam]

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.

 

[EFCPaul]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Safechuck is v credible imo

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.

 

[Wizard]

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.

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.

 

[Prevenger17]

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.

I should clarify, it's not that I don't believe Robson, because I do. It's just to note that if the documentary was based on his testimony alone, it probably wouldn't have seen the light of day. It might sound harsh, but this is a documentary that relies on the viewer to take accounts at face value, so their credibility is all we have to go on. Safechuck just a far more compelling witness

 

[Blueclouds]

Just read 52 pages. I'm convinced he guilty. Power to the forum.

 

[Blueclouds]

By the way Charles Thomson a journalist wrote an article on the credibility of the two lads. Cant be arsed sharing link. He says most of what he found about these lads is all public records.