Asking ourselves tough questions.

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
"Hey doubters and haters.
If you read this thread, I want to say: You are welcome to MJJC, here you can say what you think about MJ (moderators will protect you with deleting your posts).
You are wrong if you think that this community to praise MJ, no you can be here with us".

Well I did have doubts creep in but since joining the forum I have felt better about them. If you think that is a bad thing then you are entitled to that opinion but I can't imagine it would be an opinion shared by most, since the majority are actively trying to preserve his legacy and convince others to do the same.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
WannaScream;4258299 said:
The thread is still here so I also wanted to ask something that has been subconsciously niggling at me and I hope this doesn't bother anyone. I think it’s one of those situations where I am majorly overthinking things. It’s to do with a song and I know a lot of people do this overthinking with lyrics (for example when singers die people go off looking for suicide notes in the songs). I’d rather actually get it out and ask what others think though.

I can’t totally feel settled with the song “Speechless” given the inspiration he had just before writing it. It’s the lines “Though I'm with you I am far away and nothing is for real .... Nothing's real, but all is possible if God is on my side” that makes me feel a bit unsure about who the song is about and what he is implying. It would be good to hear others’ thoughts on it (both the song and whether I am overthinking!). Thanks.

Michael was pretty bad at explaining things sometimes. Bless him. I think when he said he took inspiration from seeing the children playing, he just meant the core meaning of the song was born from his joy in that moment. Not applying it to each individual lyric. I don't think he would have even thought about it in that way, because of the way he wrote music. He said that he didn't "write" the music, he would let it create itself. The inspiration could hit at any time, in any place, and then he would channel all of the music and words he was hearing into a song.

I know all about overthinking, I have an anxiety disorder. The overthinking is naturally going to happen if you have doubts. Your mind will pick up on certain things and focus on them. I think it just helps if you recognise this and then try and see it from a different angle.
 

maral

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
840
Points
18
Location
Stockholm, Sweden, Sweden
I agree with you. i totally believe Michael had something wrong with him mentally. and I'm not saying that to be a bad thing. I 100% believes he is innocent. true nobody was there so no one can't say anything. but Michael is innocent.


I never said MICHAEL had a mental illness! I said some might see pedophilia as a mental illness, which makes them separate the art from the artist even if they believe the accusations.
 

Thriller_MJ

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,834
Points
63
I never said MICHAEL had a mental illness! I said some might see pedophilia as a mental illness, which makes them separate the art from the artist even if they believe the accusations.

Paedophilia is a mental illness. I have a degree in criminal psychology and have dealt with people who have harmed children, even go as far as murder. Paedophiles will try and normalise there behaviour because in there mind they aren't doing anything wrong. Some paedophiles genuinely have feelings for children and others just simply want to hurt them and feel some sort of power over them.

Even though Paedophilia gets a lot of attention now it dates back 1000s & 1000s of years, it's a hardly a new phenomenon much like any other sexual stuff you hear a lot about now.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
Paedophilia is a mental illness. I have a degree in criminal psychology and have dealt with people who have harmed children, even go as far as murder. Paedophiles will try and normalise there behaviour because in there mind they aren't doing anything wrong. Some paedophiles genuinely have feelings for children and others just simply want to hurt them and feel some sort of power over them.

Even though Paedophilia gets a lot of attention now it dates back 1000s & 1000s of years, it's a hardly a new phenomenon much like any other sexual stuff you hear a lot about now.

Wow. I always knew it was an illness but not as bad. i hope all the people who has this get better if they can. that's very sad.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
I never said MICHAEL had a mental illness! I said some might see pedophilia as a mental illness, which makes them separate the art from the artist even if they believe the accusations.

Oh. well my bad. i thought you mean it that way. if micheal had any type of mental illness i would still listen to his songs. as long it isn't about hurt children or anything.

as Thriller_MJ just said pedophilia is an mental illness but i do not think Michael had that. i'm no doctor just a person with who struggle with mental health.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
Michael was pretty bad at explaining things sometimes. Bless him. I think when he said he took inspiration from seeing the children playing, he just meant the core meaning of the song was born from his joy in that moment. Not applying it to each individual lyric. I don't think he would have even thought about it in that way, because of the way he wrote music. He said that he didn't "write" the music, he would let it create itself. The inspiration could hit at any time, in any place, and then he would channel all of the music and words he was hearing into a song.

I know all about overthinking, I have an anxiety disorder. The overthinking is naturally going to happen if you have doubts. Your mind will pick up on certain things and focus on them. I think it just helps if you recognise this and then try and see it from a different angle.

Thank You very Much.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
Paedophilia is a mental illness. I have a degree in criminal psychology and have dealt with people who have harmed children, even go as far as murder. Paedophiles will try and normalise there behaviour because in there mind they aren't doing anything wrong. Some paedophiles genuinely have feelings for children and others just simply want to hurt them and feel some sort of power over them.

Even though Paedophilia gets a lot of attention now it dates back 1000s & 1000s of years, it's a hardly a new phenomenon much like any other sexual stuff you hear a lot about now.

I think if Paedophiles had easy access to treatment before they ended up acting on their attraction, it would benefit society as a whole, greatly. But the only acceptable viewpoint is still: 'If you're a paedophile, you are evil. The end'. Even if the person has never acted on their feelings. From what I understand, they don't choose to have that attraction. They just have it and they have to live with it. Paedophiles that haven't acted on their urges should be able to get treatment without fear, just like any other mental illness. This is a serious issue that needs to be properly and openly addressed, to help limit the amount of children getting hurt.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
What's the point of this thread anyway? it feels just a thread to start trouble. which it has. this thread was deleted.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
I think if Paedophiles had easy access to treatment before they ended up acting on their attraction, it would benefit society as a whole, greatly. But the only acceptable viewpoint is still: 'If you're a paedophile, you are evil. The end'. Even if the person has never acted on their feelings. From what I understand, they don't choose to have that attraction. They just have it and they have to live with it. Paedophiles that haven't acted on their urges should be able to get treatment without fear, just like any other mental illness. This is a serious issue that needs to be properly and openly addressed, to help limit the amount of children getting hurt.

Thank You very Much.
 

Thriller_MJ

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,834
Points
63
I think if Paedophiles had easy access to treatment before they ended up acting on their attraction, it would benefit society as a whole, greatly. But the only acceptable viewpoint is still: 'If you're a paedophile, you are evil. The end'. Even if the person has never acted on their feelings. From what I understand, they don't choose to have that attraction. They just have it and they have to live with it. Paedophiles that haven't acted on their urges should be able to get treatment without fear, just like any other mental illness. This is a serious issue that needs to be properly and openly addressed, to help limit the amount of children getting hurt.

You have to keep in mind cultural issues as well. In some places Paedophilia, like incest is encouraged. It's a widespread issue but not one case is the same which makes it hard to spot potential child abusers. It's like psychopaths, nobody can spot a psychopath cause they hide it so well same with paedophiles.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
What's the point of this thread anyway? it feels just a thread to start trouble. which it has. this thread was deleted.
Well, I have explained the purpose of this thread several times in here already. So did Gaz. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already been said. I would advise people who are offended by this thread to just ignore it and enjoy the other 99.99% of the forum. It's literally one thread. People need to accept that not everyone feels the same way we do. This thread is helpful for those people.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
You have to keep in mind cultural issues as well. In some places Paedophilia, like incest is encouraged. It's a widespread issue but not one case is the same which makes it hard to spot potential child abusers. It's like psychopaths, nobody can spot a psychopath cause they hide it so well same with paedophiles.
That's true. It's a very complicated issue. There's a lot of angles to consider.
 

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
Anna;4258342 said:
Michael was pretty bad at explaining things sometimes. Bless him. I think when he said he took inspiration from seeing the children playing, he just meant the core meaning of the song was born from his joy in that moment. Not applying it to each individual lyric. I don't think he would have even thought about it in that way, because of the way he wrote music. He said that he didn't "write" the music, he would let it create itself. The inspiration could hit at any time, in any place, and then he would channel all of the music and words he was hearing into a song.

I know all about overthinking, I have an anxiety disorder. The overthinking is naturally going to happen if you have doubts. Your mind will pick up on certain things and focus on them. I think it just helps if you recognise this and then try and see it from a different angle.


Anna, thanks for your explanation, it does make more sense now. I have an anxious brain too and it’s often quite busy in there. At some stage I have to step away from my thoughts otherwise I latch onto them and get into a loop mulling things over!
 

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
Thriller_MJ;4258345 said:
Paedophilia is a mental illness. I have a degree in criminal psychology and have dealt with people who have harmed children, even go as far as murder. Paedophiles will try and normalise there behaviour because in there mind they aren't doing anything wrong. Some paedophiles genuinely have feelings for children and others just simply want to hurt them and feel some sort of power over them.

Even though Paedophilia gets a lot of attention now it dates back 1000s & 1000s of years, it's a hardly a new phenomenon much like any other sexual stuff you hear a lot about now.


When I was looking around the internet for MJ discussions I came across one that had gone a bit off topic when a paedophile came along. He said he hadn’t acted on his urges but the reasons were not because he thought it was wrong, it was because he didn’t want to break the law! He was going to great lengths to explain why the age of consent should be significantly lowered. As you can imagine the reaction wasn’t good (I didn't get involved). He ended up saying it was a lonely place to be in when no-one understands where he is coming from so I don’t know whether he would even try to seek treatment. I just hope he at least continues to respect the law!
 

Resa

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
785
Points
28
AG5050;4258286 said:
Moving back on topic:

One of the things that’s been troubling me lately is understanding why Wade & James (and their families) would lie. I know we think it’s because of their lawsuit against the estate, which I can see why people would think may be motivation to do the doc.

But the more time that passes and the more I think about it I’m just struggling to see how LN helps their appeal, if anything the extensive scrutiny and hole picking in their allegations is more likely to hinder it than help it.

They would both have known how much hate, abuse and accusations of lies and extortion they would be opening themselves up to, it could seriously damage Wades career in the entertainment industry if people think he’s lying, or he’s proven to be lying. I guess I’m just struggling to understand the why, and what they had to gain from making the doc specifically, it seems like they had more to lose.

The parents also come across very badly in the doc so it also makes me wonder why they’d agree to it if they are lying.

I think that you underestimate the things that some people will do, probably because you wouldn't do them. People have conspired with others and murdered family members in an attempt to get a few thousand dollars.

I really don't think that they anticipated the level of scrutiny that their allegations received. Surely if they had things like the train station story wouldn't have been said.

Robson had already burned his bridges in Hollywood. So what career?
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,270
Points
0
Leaving Neverland is nothing but a great big joke. me and mother didn't watch the crap because we both knew it was a bunch of lies. as soon as we heard about we cancel HBO. HBO no longer exist in our house. and for the people who has download it or brought you realize you just gave these people your money right?

the people who made this joke is nothing but LAIRS! EVIL DIRTY GREEDLY LAIRS!
 

maral

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
840
Points
18
Location
Stockholm, Sweden, Sweden
Paedophilia is a mental illness. I have a degree in criminal psychology and have dealt with people who have harmed children, even go as far as murder. Paedophiles will try and normalise there behaviour because in there mind they aren't doing anything wrong. Some paedophiles genuinely have feelings for children and others just simply want to hurt them and feel some sort of power over them.

Even though Paedophilia gets a lot of attention now it dates back 1000s & 1000s of years, it's a hardly a new phenomenon much like any other sexual stuff you hear a lot about now.

Thank you for your explanation. I just wanted to point out that it's not as black and white as some believe. But you explained it perfectly!
 

maral

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
840
Points
18
Location
Stockholm, Sweden, Sweden
Leaving Neverland is nothing but a great big joke. me and mother didn't watch the crap because we both knew it was a bunch of lies. as soon as we heard about we cancel HBO. HBO no longer exist in our house. and for the people who has download it or brought you realize you just gave these people yourhttps://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/blog_post.php?do=newblog&p=4258405 money right?

the people who made this joke is nothing but LAIRS! EVIL DIRTY GREEDLY LAIRS!
Here is the issue. This is what YOU believe and you are entitled to it. But others might see it differently and it is my understanding that this thread is for those who want to discuss other aspects of the accusations and that in my opinion should be allowed.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
Talking about money, do you remember that in 2005 there was a criminal case and no civil lawsuit ?
And do you remember that Jason Francia did not ask for money either, despite the testimony he made under oath ?
Even if every MJ accuser had been after money, it wouldn't mean that they were lying. Especially in the USA. The reality is that 2 out of 5 did not even ask for money.

I am BAFFLED and SHOCKED you do seem to have so little knowledge about what went on....and YET cruise around the boards here claiming Michael did it.

Lets correct your wrongs now:

Why no civil case in 2005? Because the family Arvizo went to Larry Feldman, the same civil lawyer as in 1993 hoping to get a settlement like the Chandlers, they wanted money first only. The problem for them was that even Larry Feldman thought the Arvizo family was "nuts" and not "credible" and refused to co-operate with them in any civil case without a criminal conviction first. So the Arvizos had to pursue the criminal case first.

Had there been a criminal conviction in 2005, the Arvizos would have had a SLAM DUNK civil case to MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. They would have become extremely rich.

And Jason Francia? The guys mother sold bogus stories to tabloids for at least 20 000$ and then used the Chandler situation to extract a 2$ million settlement from the MJ camp. The boy Jason Francia wanted millions of dollars for being tickled innappropriately outside of his jeans once. Jason Francia also claimed he needed years psychoterapy to heal from the horrible experience etc. His mother also wanted millions of dollars.

So the Francias are probably one of the most greedy people accusing MJ, if you look at the laughable accusations they made of improper tickling.

The Francias appearances at the 2005 trial was a farce, and they were pretty much laughed out of there. Sneddon must have been really desperate and stupid to call these obvious con-artists.

The reality is ALL 5 of 5 accusers wanted MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!
---
Its odd that you declare Michael Jackson guilty when you dont even know basic and crucial facts about both the 1993 and 2005 case?

-----
Maybe listen to Tom Mesereaus Harvard speech where he talks about the francias and more.

The MJ case starts at 21 minutes.

 
Last edited:

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
822
Points
28
This train station thing... The guy obviously has a hard time dealing with what happened to him 25 to 30 years ago, and you would expect him to be accurate on every single date, place and circumstances ? It is very well documented that the trauma people have experienced when they suffered child abuse often makes them remember very precisely the details of the abuse, where their recalling of the circumstances can be very blurry.

What? Come on now.

Safechuck has signed two sworn declarations saying the abuse took place between 1988-1992. And also according to the story Jackson was already starting to prepare him for "separation" in 1990 when he was 10 years old.

Further more, the reason why Jackson and him had sex everyday at the train station was that they were in the "honeymoon" period of their marriage/relationship which places it in 1988 or 1989 at latest - which is also where it is placed in the Leaving Neverland movie time frame (1989 segment)

The train station was completed in mid 1994, thus we have a DIFFERENCE of 5 years, which is completely absurd.

Dan Reed excused this by saying the abuse went on a longer time, although Safechuck mentions in his sworn declarations only visiting neverland twice after 1992. Michael also moved to New York with Lisa Marie Presley and lived in the Trump tower or at Lisa Maries house while recording the HIstory album. Meanwhile Jackson allegedly still abused a 17 year old Safechuck at Neverland even though neither Jackson or Safechuck were there.

If Safechuck indeed had sex with Jackson in 1994 or 1995, it would mean Jackson had sex with a 17 years old Safechuck who at that point were a full grown man and bigger than Michael himself. This completely DESTROYS the narrative in the whole Leaving Neverland film. That Jacksons modus operandi was kids between 7 and 12 years old and that he disposed them after that and found replacements.

How does this fit with Safechuck feeling replaced by Brett Barnes already in 1991? How does this fit in with that Safechuck cried and begged for his mum on a couch while Jackson slept with Brett Barnes in 1991?

And what happened with the story about Jackson losing all contact with Safechuck, and that he just called him up and contacted him again to get Safechuck to witness for him in the Jordan Chandler case? And that Safechuck was happy to be back in Jacksons life again but nothing sexually happened because Michael had lost interest and the contact did not last - everything according to the movie.

The whole movie is a lie, the narrative has been completely exposed as untrue and is obviously falsehood.

The train station is a a copy of the train station at disneyland, its impossible to wrongly remember to have had sex in such a unique building every day 5 years before it was built. Anyone using logic can understand this.

How credible is the rest of Safechucks claims when he can sit and lie about such an important thing without blinking? The performance he puts on during the train station lie impressed many as genuine, and it turned out to be an act.

"SAFECHUCK: "At the train station, there's a room upstairs, and we would have sex up there, too. It would happen every day. It sounds sick, but it's kind of like when you're first dating somebody, right, and you do a lot of it. (Chuckles.) So it was very much like that. At the same time the sexual relationship is growing, he's working on pushing you away from your parents, or pushing you away from everybody else, and it feels more like it's just you and him."
 
Last edited:

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
JCO8;4258400 said:
This train station thing... The guy obviously has a hard time dealing with what happened to him 25 to 30 years ago, and you would expect him to be accurate on every single date, place and circumstances ? It is very well documented that the trauma people have experienced when they suffered child abuse often makes them remember very precisely the détails of the abuse, where their recalling of the circumstances can be very blurry.


I don’t think you can definitely say what happens to an abuse victim’s memory. Some are saying they remember the time and place but not the graphic details i.e complete opposite of Safechuck. What seems consistent though is most victims don’t go into the detail with everyone. They might comment on it with the metoo hashtag but they don’t explain further. Yet these two alleged victims go ahead and make a detailed four hour documentary about it.

But going back to memory, there are so many events going on at that time of your life (e.g.school, and for Safechuck, the tour and arrival of Barnes) that it’s easier to attach events to a year. I can’t imagine that even in an abuse case it’s that likely someone would be confused between when they were a child and an older teenager. It’s also not like we are talking about a mix up between two bedrooms within a building either, the train station is pretty unique...

Plus you can’t ignore things like the emotional manipulation of the film; the music and editing etc. There was no emotion describing the abuse examples, it just looked scripted. Then there are the lawsuit circumstances as well. C'mon, surely you can't look at all this combined and not be at least suspicious.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
JCO8;4258400 said:
You're right. By the way, have you ever considered the idea that Michael could have been one of those people ? Or is this option only concievable for the accusers and their familles?
Talking about money, do you remember that in 2005 there was a criminal case and no civil lawsuit ?
And do you remember that Jason Francia did not ask for money either, despite the testimony he made under oath ?
Even if every MJ accuser had been after money, it wouldn't mean that they were lying. Especially in the USA. The reality is that 2 out of 5 did not even ask for money.

This train station thing... The guy obviously has a hard time dealing with what happened to him 25 to 30 years ago, and you would expect him to be accurate on every single date, place and circumstances ? It is very well documented that the trauma people have experienced when they suffered child abuse often makes them remember very precisely the détails of the abuse, where their recalling of the circumstances can be very blurry.

The Arvizos had a civil lawyer sending demanding letters to MJ's camp as early as February 2003, even before any 'abuse' took place. Janet was leaving the ranch regularly to meet him and this fact was one of many that made their conspiracy theory laughable. Her civil lawyer put her in contact with Larry Feldman, the lawyer who won the settlement for Jordan chandler in 1993, immediately after she left the ranch. Knowing the law had changed and they no longer could sue before a criminal investigation is done, Larry referred them to Stanely Katz, the same psychiatrist to whom Larry Feldman referred Jordan Chandler in 1993, who had been working with him since 1988. The same psychiatrist who supervised the work in the infamous McMartin case where 300 children claimed to have been raped and abused, only to be discovered later the allegations were bogus. Why did he refer them to Katz? Because similar to the tactic used in 1993, a psychiatrist is a mandatory reporter, if he came to know there is a suspicion of molestation he must report to law enforcement. On the other hand, if Janet reported directly, like Evan, she could have been sued for extortion, not like Sneddon would have prosecuted her. Katz reported to the police and they came to interview the family. Now, the absurd part is Sneddon testified under oath that Janet was not aware her son was molested until September 2003. She met Larry Feldman, she met Stanely Katz, she met Sneddon and half of the SBPD as early as June 2003 and she was on video encouraging her son to open up about what MJ did to him, but Sneddon wanted us to believe she had no idea TWO of her children were claiming to be molested and the third is claiming to have seen them intoxicated. The Advizos case was a complete joke. When a juror with two nieces who both were victims of sexual abuse as children says she could not relate to gavin as a victim then you must understand how weak their claims were. When Linda Deutch of Associated Press, a very old and respectful journalist, became convinced after that trial Jackson was innocent because of the amount of lies Sneddon made during the trial. He could not produce ONE CREDIBLE WITNESS.

Jason Francia met the police investigators a couple of months before the trial and had a completely new set of allegations from those for which his mother reached a settlement with Jackson in 1994, with the intent to sue A SECOND TIME, should mj was convicted. Told the jurors some wild lies: for example, he claimed he had no idea his mother was selling stories to tabloids, he also claimed he had no idea his mother on his behalf received a settlement until weeks before he took the stand, he claimed to have been in therapy for freaking 7 years because of the tickling (the basis for a new lawsuit) ....etc. The media reported that the jurors were laughing at him when he left the stand and during the break. Mothers and family men were laughing at an abuse victim because he was so believable? They knew he and his mother were complete frauds.

The train station, Safechuck says he was not traumatised by the "sex". He actually said he had no bad memories at all except for the fact he could not urinate. so, here goes your theory about him being so much traumatised that he could not remember EVERY SINGLE DATE, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCE.

No one forced him to say we were having sex in the second floor of the train station, nor was he forced to say he was having sex on non-existing beds in the castle and the arcade. He LIED LIED LIED about these events and there is nothing you can do to explain that.
 
Last edited:

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
I forgot to mention Larry Feldman had a launch meeting with Larry king and told him he did not trust the Arvizos and the mom was a nut. the judge of course refused to allow Larry king to testify to his meeting with Larry Feldman citing 'hearsay'.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
WannaScream;4258371 said:
Anna, thanks for your explanation, it does make more sense now. I have an anxious brain too and it’s often quite busy in there. At some stage I have to step away from my thoughts otherwise I latch onto them and get into a loop mulling things over!

I'm happy to help if I can. I hope at some point you get to a place where you feel fully comfortable with Michael. I imagine your current situation is not a nice mental space to be in.
 

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
I'm happy to help if I can. I hope at some point you get to a place where you feel fully comfortable with Michael. I imagine your current situation is not a nice mental space to be in.

Thank you Anna :)
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Gavin: he was abusing me before the rebuttal, he had Frank Casico point a gun at my head to force me to deny I was being abused. Sneddon then raided MJ's private investigator's office, found exonerating evidence showing the abuse could not have taken place before the rebuttal. Suddenly, Gavin switch the timeline to being abused after the rebuttal, but what about the gun? "I denied being abused on tape because frank casico put a gun to my head" but according to your second version you were not abused SO?
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
JCO8, why Francia had the keys to that cabinet? Why was she called that day to bring the keys? Answer that. You have a wild imagination and seems to pull excuses out of your ass all the time. Show us your creativity.
 

Anna

Free As A Bird
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
6,681
Points
63
How many times do I have to say it?

Report a post if you think it is offensive.

Me and Mikky are not omniscient and omnipresent. And
MODERATORS DO NOT DECIDE WHAT IS PERMITTED ON MJJC.

JCO8's post has been removed. I will bring it to Gaz's attention.
 
Top