Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 317

Thread: Asking ourselves tough questions.

   
  1. #16
    Points: 14,097, Level: 77
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 353
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    IceoPlex
    Posts
    653
    Points
    14,097
    Level
    77
    Thanks
    184
    Thanked 430 Times in 164 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikky Dee View Post
    In our opinion, a fan club and forum dedicated to Michael Jackson is not an appropriate place to express doubts about his innocence. There are other places to do that, such as twitter, Facebook, in the comment sections of tabloid articles, Reddit, MJ Facts, LSA and so on. MJJC is for supporting Michael Jackson and his family. People are free to have doubts, but they are not free to bring them here. This entire mess is heartbreaking enough already and it's enough to have to fight against the media, trolls and haters, without putting fans into the mix, as well. If someone is being swayed by these two liars, who incidentally made their claims against Michael's companies and against the Estate six years ago....well......that confuses the hell out of us.

    A statement was made for the members, by the Administration Team at the time that the thread was deleted, to explain the philosophy expressed above, although it should be an understanding on the part of most members that doubting Michael's innocence is not part of a site dedicated to the man. The Administration announcement appeared in the MJJ Community Announcements and Feedback thread.
    Can you link me to that thread? I can not find it. I must be stupid, but I have searched for 15 minutes and still cant find it. I also searched MJJ Community Announcements and did not find the thread that way either. Thank you!

  2. #17
    Points: 14,097, Level: 77
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 353
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    IceoPlex
    Posts
    653
    Points
    14,097
    Level
    77
    Thanks
    184
    Thanked 430 Times in 164 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinncl View Post

    The first part was graphic but I battered it away with “there’s no proof, they are after money” etc but the second part, seeing their emotions and their family’s reactions has destroyed me. For me, the most brutal line of the whole thing was when James was asked to testify and he said to him mum back in 2005 “Michael’s Evil”.
    OOPS. Only one problem, Safechuck was NEVER asked to testify.

    Safechuck were not allowed to testify either, because nobody had seen him be molested. The only persons who were allowed to testify were Culkin, Barnes and Robson because the neverland 5 allegedly had "seen" events that suggested that they had been molested.

    Nobody had seen allegedly seen anything about Safechuck, so the judge decided Safechuck was not going to be part of the trial.

    I recomend STRONGLY that you listen to this interview below:



    I did a transcript on Safechucks lie.

    Q. Can you explain Safechucks relation to the 2005 trial.

    Scott Ross: “Pre-trial motions are in place to prevent things coming in that are irrelevant. With Safechuck there was declaration in 1993-94 somehow in connection with the Jordan Chandler matter. Safechuck had signed a declaration that nothing ever happened, Michael did not do anything. So Safechuck for purposes of the trial, was what we would call a nonentity. The judge had already ruled that nothing regarding Safechuck were going to be allowed, nothing was going to be discussed, no evidence one way or the other was going to be brought in. Safechuck for purposes of this trial, did not exist, plain and simple. So when I heard these stories that Evvy Tavasci, Michaels personal assistant for 20 years, was calling Safechuck repeatedly and begging him to testify, it’s not even absurdity, the stupidity of that comment is beyond belief. Simply based on the fact that it’s not up to Evvy Tavasci to decide who’s going to testify, it was not even up to Mesereau or Sneddon. At that point the judge had already long since ruled, well over 7-8 months before that Safechuck was a nonentity."

    Q. So Safechuck was not even a part of the trial?
    Scott Ross: “He had absolutely nothing to do with it at all, other than maybe if he was watching it on TV, that was as close as he got to it. He was never ever an entity.”

    Scott Ross - Michael Jacksons Private Investigator for the 2005 trial, from interview 2019-03-04
    Last edited by Lightbringer; 05-03-2019 at 08:01 PM.

  3. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lightbringer For This Useful Post:


  4. #18
    Points: 6,213, Level: 51
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 137
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    strangerinncl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Points
    6,213
    Level
    51
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Honestly, I am not a hater. Nothing would make me happier right now than exposing all of this as lies. But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.

    And it’s not just what they say, it’s how they say it. That’s a problem that we’ve never had to deal with as fans before and it’s not as easy to dismiss.

  5. #19
    Points: 14,097, Level: 77
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 353
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    IceoPlex
    Posts
    653
    Points
    14,097
    Level
    77
    Thanks
    184
    Thanked 430 Times in 164 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinncl View Post
    Honestly, I am not a hater. Nothing would make me happier right now than exposing all of this as lies. But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.

    And it’s not just what they say, it’s how they say it. That’s a problem that we’ve never had to deal with as fans before and it’s not as easy to dismiss.
    I have never said you were a hater or anything to that effect, so you dont have to defend yourself.

    Alright. So you take the proven liar Safechucks words as proof that MJ did call him to ask him to "stand by him" even though he would not be allowed to testify in the trial?

  6. #20
    Points: 74,001, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger Second Class50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,934
    Points
    74,001
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    1,374
    Thanked 3,216 Times in 1,086 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    The media and the documentary have really gotten a hold of you, guys. Take a few days off from all social media, TV and news is my tip. This whole situation is nothing but an illusion which will pass on soon and the more you ignore it, the sooner it will pass on. Peace

  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Pentum For This Useful Post:


  8. #21
    Achievements:
    Overdrive7 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    224
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 55 Times in 34 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    I haven't watched the doc yet. I probably will on Friday but that's no certainty.
    It's not easy to stay away from news and stuff I'm an avid newspaper reader and my curiosity on the subject is way too big to ignore

  9. #22
    Points: 9,389, Level: 65
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 261
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,754
    Points
    9,389
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked 1,977 Times in 569 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightbringer View Post
    I have never said you were a hater or anything to that effect, so you dont have to defend yourself.

    Alright. So you take the proven liar Safechucks words as proof that MJ did call him to ask him to "stand by him" even though he would not be allowed to testify in the trial?
    That's the problem with these things. Safechuck could be lying, but saying the defense lawyers didn't need him is not 100% proof that Michael himself didn't call him for whatever reason. Michael did have a falling out with Frank Cascio thinking that he didn't want to testify when the situation was actually more complex than that and it was T-Mez that didn't want him to testify. The reason for him not testifying being different to Safechuck's however.
    Last edited by WildStyle; 06-03-2019 at 01:49 AM.
    Do you want an official MJ collectors label? Vote now!
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...llectors-label
    If it's good enough for Elvis, it's good enough for Michael.
    ---

  10. #23
    Points: 239, Level: 4
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 11
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    63
    Points
    239
    Level
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 19 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by WildStyle View Post
    But at the end of the day... he was still HUMAN. He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.
    We don't know Michael's personal relationships with women, we know some rumours about them here and there, you can't think you know who he slept with, or that he didn't have women (or men - some guy claimed he was gay and dating him lol!) we also don't know will.i.am of the black eyed peas personal relationships, he's never known to be in relationships. That doesn't mean anything. Also
    "the needs of other adult males... How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights?"
    Not all men, in fact, very very very very etc. few are out there having sex every night/all the time, and some , I assume a lot have sex very infrequently, and some men are celibate, voluntarily or not, there are those who take a vow, and some who are asexual. Even if he had a sex drive and these "needs" and wasn't having sex at the time it doesn't mean he would abuse children. Also men who are married and have sex lives with women do abuse children, so it isn't about that.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DDam For This Useful Post:


  12. #24
    Points: 9,389, Level: 65
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 261
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,754
    Points
    9,389
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked 1,977 Times in 569 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DDam View Post
    We don't know Michael's personal relationships with women, we know some rumours about them here and there, you can't think you know who he slept with, or that he didn't have women (or men - some guy claimed he was gay and dating him lol!) we also don't know will.i.am of the black eyed peas personal relationships, he's never known to be in relationships. That doesn't mean anything. Also Not all men, in fact, very very very very etc. few are out there having sex every night/all the time, and some , I assume a lot have sex very infrequently, and some men are celibate, voluntarily or not, there are those who take a vow, and some who are asexual. Even if he had a sex drive and these "needs" and wasn't having sex at the time it doesn't mean he would abuse children. Also men who are married and have sex lives with women do abuse children, so it isn't about that.
    I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying. I'm saying we don't know. We do know for a fact that he slept with Lisa, but that is all we know.

    What I'm saying is that I'm open to questioning some things now that I wasn't open to before.
    Do you want an official MJ collectors label? Vote now!
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...llectors-label
    If it's good enough for Elvis, it's good enough for Michael.
    ---

  13. #25
    Points: 3,610, Level: 37
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 40
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    114
    Points
    3,610
    Level
    37
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 113 Times in 50 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    I think we should make it emphatically clear that our defense of Michael Jackson is based on evidence and facts, not solely our love for MJs music or a "blind adoration" of Michael.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to fraroc04 For This Useful Post:


  15. #26
    Points: 9,566, Level: 65
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 84
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    767
    Points
    9,566
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    10,414
    Thanked 1,408 Times in 416 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by WildStyle View Post
    He was still an adult male with the needs of any other adult male. How were these needs being fulfilled all those nights? We know of only one woman that he ever slept with for sure. Lisa. That's it? Where are all the other women? Was he that good at hiding them? Maybe. But they certainly weren't on the road with him all those nights. It's possible that there were some after Lisa. We know of some of those stories. We know of him continuing to see Lisa for years after their divorce. But before Lisa? Maybe Michael WAS sexually repressed. Maybe he WASN'T ready for a sexual relationship. Maybe all of these friendships with children WERE innocent. Possibly.
    Not talking about Michael, but I think I need to point out here that there are tons of people who don’t have an active sex life. They are not asexual, they are just not dependent on sex. They just haven’t found someone they want to be in a relationship with, and they are not into having one-night stands. So the argument that if Michael wasn’t having sex with women then he MUST have been having sex with someone is just... Frankly, I don’t understand that argument. There’s nothing abnormal or wrong with people who don’t have an active sex life. Just because some people feel they can’t go for long without sex doesn’t mean that everybody feels the same way. And whether or not Michael was having sex with women outside of his wives is completely irrelevant when it comes to the allegations. What proves the allegations to be false is this:
    -Evan Chandler being on tape detailing his extortion plan before “knowing” that his son had been molested.
    -Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck not being able to keep their story straight. There’s only one version of the truth, but Robson and Safechuck's version of the truth keeps changing all the time. That is not the truth. And we have clear proof that some of the things they are alleging are false (like Arvizo claiming that Michael had shown him a certain magazine, but the date on the magazine indicated that the magazine hadn’t even been published yet at the time, etc.)

    I also think I need to point out something else: Michael wasn’t sleeping with children, he was sleeping with people, including grown men and women he had no sexual interest in. Stephanie Mills said she used to sleep with him in his bed when he was filming the Wiz, but they never had sex. Robson said in 2005 that he was still sleeping in Michael’s bed when he was 19 years old and the only reason he stopped doing it is because he felt maybe he should give Michael his privacy. But if it wasn’t for him stopping on his own, Michael probably never would have kicked him out of his bed, despite the fact that he was now a grown man. I think it would be interesting to make a list of all the people who slept in Michael’s bed, I think that list would be pretty long…

    Now why did he sleep with so many people?

    Well, for one, that’s what he was used to. That’s what he had been doing since he was a little child. He said on the Glenda tapes that as a child and as an adult, his bodyguard Bill Bray used to sleep in his hotel room. He said on the Shmuley tapes that as a child, he used to share his hotel room with two jewish men who were working for them. This was normal for him. That’s what he had known all his life. Of course, we can’t relate to that.

    Another interesting thing, this is a quote from Diana Ross in 1984: “He has so many people around him but he’s still afraid, especially to be alone at night.”

    I’m wondering if maybe Michael didn’t feel comfortable sleeping alone and that’s why he was happy to let (I say ‘let’, because Michael said himself that he never invited people in his bed, he simply allowed them when they wanted to) people sleep in his bedroom. Maybe it comes from his childhood, his father scaring him in the middle of the night with the monster masks, his father bringing fans in the room so they could watch him sleep, crazy fans breaking in his house and hiding in his closet… All of this could explain why he liked having people he trusted in his bedroom with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinncl View Post
    seeing their emotions and their family’s reactions has destroyed me.
    Good actors... Doesn't mean what they are saying is true. People cry when they watch sad fictive movies. Just look at how Safechuck's timeline is all wrong and you will know that the things he's saying just didn't happen. That's what you need to look at to know whether they are telling the truth or not, not at their emotions. Check how their stories kept changing in the court documents from their lawsuit against the Estate.

  16. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to etoile 37 For This Useful Post:


  17. #27
    Points: 9,566, Level: 65
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 84
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    767
    Points
    9,566
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    10,414
    Thanked 1,408 Times in 416 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Before people start relying on their emotions to determine whether they are being truthful or not, I think it’s important to take into account that both of them happen to be actors. Safechuck was a child actor, that’s even how he met Michael. Robson’s own mother said he was such a good liar he should get an Oscar. When it comes to actors, you can’t rely on their emotions, because they are good at faking them. Therefore you can only rely on facts and whether or not their story is consistent (and we know by all the different versions they gave that it is NOT.)

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to etoile 37 For This Useful Post:


  19. #28
    Points: 9,389, Level: 65
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 261
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,754
    Points
    9,389
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked 1,977 Times in 569 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Thanks for those posts etoile 37. I do agree with most of what you say.
    Do you want an official MJ collectors label? Vote now!
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...llectors-label
    If it's good enough for Elvis, it's good enough for Michael.
    ---

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to WildStyle For This Useful Post:


  21. #29
    Points: 9,389, Level: 65
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 261
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,754
    Points
    9,389
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked 1,977 Times in 569 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    One thing that seems to be popping up a lot is Safechuck's mother saying she was happy when Michael died. The defense I have seen about that that is supposed to prove he is lying is Safechuck only realised he was abused after Wade came out so how could his mother know about it in 2009? But reading his initial complaint, that is not what he says. He says he mentioned to his mother in 2005 that he was "abused". He says that he compartmentalised his feelings about the abuse for years, not that he didn't realise it was abuse. I need to re-read the later documents to see what he claims later, but I think fans maybe should stop going to that argument as it's not really accurate.

    Possibly James was bitter about Michael in 2005. Possibly the phone calls never happened in the first place and his mother is in on this with him. There are hundreds of millions of reasons to go along with it after all. The claims of the defense team calling him to testify are very dubious after all.
    Last edited by WildStyle; 06-03-2019 at 02:35 PM.
    Do you want an official MJ collectors label? Vote now!
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...llectors-label
    If it's good enough for Elvis, it's good enough for Michael.
    ---

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to WildStyle For This Useful Post:


  23. #30
    Points: 15,144, Level: 79
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 206
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,838
    Points
    15,144
    Level
    79
    Thanks
    4,354
    Thanked 2,949 Times in 992 Posts

    Default Re: Asking ourselves tough questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by WildStyle View Post
    One thing that seems to be popping up a lot is Safechuck's mother saying she was happy when Michael died. The defense I have seen about that that is supposed to prove he is lying is Safechuck only realised he was abused after Wade came out so how could his mother know about it in 2009? But reading his initial complaint, that is not what he says. He says he mentioned to his mother in 2005 that he was "abused". He says that he compartmentalised his feelings about the abuse for years, not that he didn't realise it was abuse. I need to re-read the later documents to see what he claims later, but I think fans maybe should stop going to that argument as it's not really accurate.
    Yes, he says he told his mom MJ was "an evil man" in 2005 because he did not want them to defend MJ during the trial (not that they could have anyway, as they could not have been called as witnesses for the reasons Scott Ross described).

    He does actually say he did not realize it was abuse until Wade came forward in 2013. See this clip:

    https://twitter.com/SoCav_/status/1102966764172951552

    Oprah: "When did you first realize it was abuse? You use the word freely now as adult men, but when did you start to think of it as abuse?"
    Safechuck: "It wasn't until Wade came out."

    Quote Originally Posted by WildStyle View Post
    That's the problem with these things. Safechuck could be lying, but saying the defense lawyers didn't need him is not 100% proof that Michael himself didn't call him for whatever reason. Michael did have a falling out with Frank Cascio thinking that he didn't want to testify when the situation was actually more complex than that and it was T-Mez that didn't want him to testify. The reason for him not testifying being different to Safechuck's however.
    I do think that's a different matter, because Frank was actually named as an unindicted co-conspirator, and he was Michael's assistant while the Arvizos were around. Safechuck had not been around MJ for many years and was, as Scott Ross explained, legally a non-entity. There simply was no reason to call him, as he simply could not testify. Ross also was pretty adamant that he was the one reaching out to witnesses.

    By the way, if I am not mistaken, Safechuck argued during his case that MJ's attorneys and Evvy Tavascy contacted him about testifying. I believe the film is the first time he says MJ was the one to call him.

    Quote Originally Posted by strangerinncl View Post
    But in LN, James says Michael (not anyone else) phoned him to ask him to stand by him and he couldn’t. He doesn’t give a timeline for if this was as the story broke, mid trial or what.
    He does actually. He says Michael called him twice, and he says the second time was "towards the end of the trial." He again says Michael tried to get him to testify. Now, not only does this not make sense because, again, Safechuck was a non-entity. It also does not make sense because the court needs to be informed of witnesses at a much earlier stage. Even if he had not been a non-entity, it makes no sense that MJ would have called him towards the end of the trial.
    Last edited by SoCav; 06-03-2019 at 04:25 PM.

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SoCav For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •