It's even worse than that. Wade, his sister and his wife talked about being at a dinner at Neverland during the trial with his family and Michael's family. Wade talks about Paris trying to get Michael's attention and Michael just being so far gone that "he wasn't there". He said seeing his kids with their Dad in that state gave him even more strength to "save" Michael. His sister and wife both go along with this story in their interviews. Only problem is... Taj was at that dinner and he revealed that it happened AFTER Wade testified. I'm waiting for Taj to see the whole documentary. He has only seen clips.
Smh these stupid assholes
Is that true? Is there proof?But he did do promotion work for This is it in 2009.
I'm just confused now. Wade claims he was saving Michael, so he knew the public wouldn't understand the relationship he claims they had, so he knew it was not right. But he wants the people to believe he didn't see it as wrong back then in 2005, when he was in his twenties? And then even in his thirties he still thought it was normal until he was rejected by the estate for Cirque and then all of a sudden realized it was abuse.
How do viewers, some viewers of LN take that at face value? How can anyone fall for that? But do they cover that at all in LN, that he still thought it was normal in his twenties and thirties?
Galactus123;4246177 said:I'm thinking about sending an email to Yle that is going to air the documentary here in Finland. I'm not sure what to write. What things should I include?
thanks for that post. i have watched it yesterday. havent realized that.
she says she was happy when Michael died. But the problem is then, how can she be happy about his death when she doesnt know at that time about the claimed abuse? haha lol. Idiots.
But its very very insane to say something like that in a tv special. Never saw something like that. Such a hate, and laughing about that. Pure devilish, weird and insane. You can clearly see the brutal hate she has.
So to everyone. Dont think about what they are saying. Now its proven that everything in this shit special are lies.
He did not deny in 2005 that there was no abuse, he was not required to testify at that time and anyway he says that he didnt want defend Michael in 2005.
When he denied the abuse was in 1993 in a sign document when he was still a child, so in the eyes of the people this is not very valid because it was a child and it is known that the victims of abuse do not process the abuse until an average of 20 years later.
so in this case he could be hiding it then in 1993.
in 2005, however, he did not defend michael, nor years before. he lost contact with michael in 96 and never came out to defend it publicly after that, he simply retired from public life and in his lawsuit says that in 2005 michael personally called him several times to "supposedly" make sure everything went well between them and that did not give him away, and that was when he "insinuated" his mother that something was wrong with Michael when he was a child without going into details or naming the word abuse, but his mother as a mother seemed to understand that something it was good between michael and him, but without knowing the magnitude of what had happened because he did not give more details or talk more about the subject.
There he was already 26 years old, so his mother knew that something was wrong but I respect his son in the decision to remain silent because he was already an adult.
thanks for that post. i have watched it yesterday. havent realized that.
she says she was happy when Michael died. But the problem is then, how can she be happy about his death when she doesnt know at that time about the claimed abuse? haha lol. Idiots.
But its very very insane to say something like that in a tv special. Never saw something like that. Such a hate, and laughing about that. Pure devilish, weird and insane. You can clearly see the brutal hate she has.
So to everyone. Dont think about what they are saying. Now its proven that everything in this shit special are lies.
MJJ2theMAX;4246196 said:But didn’t Safechuck help with This is It?
razorfist did not read the safehuck lawsuit well.
in the safechucks lawsuit is explained that Safechuck told his mother in 2005 that Michael had not acted well with him when he was a child, but without giving details of what happened because he was not even prepared to tell anyone.
so he did not tell more details to his mother anymore , he made him promise that she would not say anything. his mother did not know exactly what had happened but due to the reaction of his son and the 2005 trial, he imagined it or had suspicions. So that's why she says that in 2009 I dance, because she knew something had happened since 2005.
They must read the demands of everything. there he puts everything.
Yes he did.
Lovepeace1;4246195 said:razorfist did not read the safehuck lawsuit well.
in the safechucks lawsuit is explained that Safechuck told his mother in 2005 that Michael had not acted well with him when he was a child, but without giving details of what happened because he was not even prepared to tell anyone.
so he did not tell more details to his mother anymore , he made him promise that she would not say anything. his mother did not know exactly what had happened but due to the reaction of his son and the 2005 trial, he imagined it or had suspicions. So that's why she says that in 2009 I dance, because she knew something had happened since 2005.
They must read the demands of everything. there he puts everything.
MJJ2theMAX;4246196 said:But didn’t Safechuck help with This is It?
La74;4246198 said:Yes he did.
Can someone please elaborate on this and share some proof. If it is true that Safechuck helped with This Is It then surely this blows his whole storey to pieces.Yes he did.
I'm thinking about sending an email to Yle that is going to air the documentary here in Finland. I'm not sure what to write. What things should I include?
Of all the things being claimed so far I find this the most odd one. I can't take Wade serious at all and neither Safechuck with everything else. But if he did say that in 2005, one has to wonder why he called him a bad man. Since I have zero doubts about Michael I'm not even gonna entertain the possibility that it had to do with abuse. Maybe MJ stopped contacting him and that Safechuck felt neglected? Of coooouuuurse the mother is now making it fit the narrative of abuse, all too convenient for her.
Can someone please elaborate on this and share some proof. If it is true that Safechuck helped with This Is It then surely this blows his whole storey to pieces.
He did promotion work for it.
wait so is it true or not true that James told his mom in 2005 and told her not to say anything?
Yeah. But what is the source of this?
Cory Feldman being POLITICAL CORRECT now, how suprising.
Wade is a sociopath and he is very capable of lying. As TSCM pointed out, he claimed he testified for mj because he was afraid mi's kids will lose their dad. So he did the unthinkable to you, but you were ok with him raising kids, you were worried that his kids would lose him he who raped you? what kind of a ****ed up excuse is this?!