Asking ourselves tough questions.

1nn5

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
1,022
Points
48
Popescu, if you are a former MJ "fan", why you visit MJJC ?
To tell us (like others) that you believe JS and WR allegations !
 

JCO8

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
189
Points
16
Location
Paris, France
Here's a tough question, wouldn't you stay angry for years if someone violated you?

You obviously don't know too much about the complexity of child abuse, and I can understand that. You should read some articles, there are plenty out there, and the documentary explains a lot of this complexity, manipulation, and paradoxal feelings.

Wade Robson and James Safechuck never said MJ violated or raped them. They said he had sex with them, and that they happened to enjoy it. They did not feel violated at all at the time. They said MJ told them right from the start that it was the expression of their special love and that they had to keep it a secret because the other people would not understand and put them all in jail. So they constructed themselves in this culture of secrets and lies, the distrust of other people, even their own parents, their love for MJ and the pride of protecting him as much as they could, exactly the way he helped them and gave them his time and tons of presents through their lives.

Still today, they say they feel some guilt for talking because a part of themselves still loves MJ, and because he made them feel that they were actively participating and therefore were consentent and responsible for their relationship. James Safechuck even says that MJ made him believe that he was the one who initiated MJ to french kiss. Later on, he says that MJ initiated him to masturbation. It felt like they were 2 kids/young teenagers who were teaching each other and experimenting new things. Like it was part of the adventure they shared together.

Oprah, who knows a lot about child molesting, said it shloud not be called sexual abuse, but sexual seduction. This is a very important point to understand.

I saw zero evidence of shame. They were smirking and very emotionless when they described the so called abuse.

A very interesting article about that :

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-do-michael-jacksons-alleged-victims-seem-so-stoic.html
 
Last edited:

PopOfKing

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
49
Points
0
I've only seen portions of the fictitious move "Not Believing Neverland" but there's absolutely no way I trust a word Wade Robson the "master of deception" says. A real narcissist That's one shady MF'er.

Safechuck I believe has begrudgingly gone along with this farce because his family needs money and he has actually deluded himself into believing what he says. Mental illness. The mind is an amazing thing.

Now, understand, I'm not a fanatical MJ fan. I actually believed he was guilty back in 2005...before I researched. I actually became more than a casual fan AFTER I realized he was innocent and that research exposed me to more of his catalog than just his hits.

It's just disgusting this film was even made and so shamelessly one sided to boot. Oh well. This will blow over eventually. The good news is there's many many who doubt these shysters. #$%! Oprah. Never liked her anyway.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
You obviously don't know too much about the complexity of child abuse, and I can understand that. You should read some articles, there are plenty out there, and the documentary explains a lot of this complexity, manipulation, and paradoxal feelings.

Wade Robson and James Safechuck never said MJ violated or raped them. They said he had sex with them, and that they happened to enjoy it. They did not feel violated at all at the time. They said MJ told them right from the start that it was the expression of their special love and that they had to keep it a secret because the other people would not understand and put them all in jail. So they constructed themselves in this culture of secrets and lies, the distrust of other people, even their own parents, their love for MJ and the pride of protecting him as much as they could, exactly the way he helped them and gave them his time and tons of presents through their lives.

Still today, they say they feel some guilt for talking because a part of themselves still loves MJ, and because he made them feel that they were actively participating and therefore were consentent and responsible for their relationship. James Safechuck even says that MJ made him believe that he was the one who initiated MJ to french kiss. Later on, he says that MJ initiated him to masturbation. It felt like they were 2 kids/young teenagers who were teaching each other and experimenting new things. Like it was part of the adventure they shared together.

Oprah, who knows a lot about child molesting, said it shloud not be called sexual abuse, but sexual seduction. This is a very important point to understand.



A very interesting article about that :

https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/why-do-michael-jacksons-alleged-victims-seem-so-stoic.html


Why Safechuck is using that sad face all the time if he is indeed a victim? why is he FAKING his emotions if he is indeed a victim? Because one needs to be stupid and blind not to have noticed that his sad face is an ACT. And safe chuck 'realised' MJ was an evil man as early as 2005, so why is he still struggling with his emotions toward him? I mean if it were not for the 'love' towards mj and the claim that he was under mi's control even after mi's death, safe chuck has no chance of filing a lawsuit against the estate. That's something everyone needs to keep in mind. The whole i was in love with him and did not realise i was abuse was their excuse to explain their previous contradictions AND MOST IMPORTANTLY to get around the status of limitation. If he says anything else he is tossed. and the judge did not believe him. Simply he did not believe that if indeed he told his mom in 2005 MJ was evil that it took him until Wade was on tv to realise he was abused. Yes, their cases was thrown out based on status of limitation but if the judge believed what they have said in the documentary, then they would have been able to go around the status of limitation BUT HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT. Unlike the media he scrutinised their statements and found them not believable. Which takes us back to the question WHY DID THEY LIE AFTER MJ'S CORPSE LOST CONTROL OVER THEM?

Why did Robson lie so much in his statement to the judge that the judge had to throw it out completely? Why he resorted to lie BIG LIES after he supposedly realised he was abused and MJ had no control over him? BTW, why did he file his lawsuit under seal if he INDEED wanted to be heard finally? why was he lying about that to Oprah?

Yesterday, I re read Jordan Chanlder's interview with Dr Richard Gardner, found Jordan very very rehearsed and there is absolutely no evidence of him being a victim of sexual abuse. His answers were just very scripted. Anyone could have built on what the Chandlers did in 1993. MJ's profile as a paedophile was written by Victor Gutierrez and all other accusers just tried to create their own version of the profile Victor created that's why the stories are similar and people think there is a modus operandi. B all of them have been caught lying. ALL OF THEM. When one sees the bigger picture, the context, one will realise that this is a big lie based on some truth. MJ's story with tens of other families was identical except for the sexual abuse. That's when you know what part is the truth and what part is the lie.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
JCO8 is anouther influencer who don't deserve attention.
He tried to convince everyone that MJ is guilty since the announcement that the film will air on sundance.
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
986
Points
43
ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona;4250084 said:
JCO8 is anouther influencer who don't deserve attention.
He tried to convice everyone that MJ is guilty since the announcement that the film will air on sundance.

I agree that this person is deceptive and an influencer. Btw, these infiltrators ALWAYS have an agenda. Don’t fall for it! They did it with the 2005 scam, also. They come to foster doubt and division. They are not to be trusted at all. Don’t let their so-called “objectiveness” fool you!! It is best not to try and engage with them. They don’t care about the truth.
 

Lovepeace1

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
96
Points
0
When JC 08 will be banned ?

The moderator has already said several times that messages like yours asking for the prohibition of members are not allowed. please do not incite hatred anymore.
 

JCO8

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
189
Points
16
Location
Paris, France
Thank you Lovepeace.

The funny part is that the ones who call others "influencers" are the same who try to invade the web and social media to hammer their one and only thruth home. Then the soldiers come back to their base and try to flush out the enemy within, i.e. people they consider to be spies, haters, traitors or blasphemers (tick a box). This is scary.

If they can't handle different points of view, it would be so much easier for them to avoid a thread called "asking ourselves tough questions"...
 
Last edited:

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
Thank you Lovepeace.

The funny part is that the ones who call others "influencers" are the same who try to invade the web and social media to hammer their one and only thruth home. Then the soldiers come back to their base and try to flush out the enemy within, i.e. people they consider to be spies, haters, traitors or blasphemers (tick a box). This is scary.

If they can't handle different points of view, it would be so much easier for them to avoid a thread called "asking ourselves tough questions"...

There is one truth only which is MJ is innocent. Stop acting smart because you are not.
 

EmuFan

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
25
Points
3
Michael's name was cleared long ago and that includes being cleared of these accusations made by Robson and Safechuck. They are bogus accusations, made up of lies and inconsistencies and false interpretations. It is innuendo based. NOTHING from Michael's life....his personality, his actions etc. is any different....it can't be different because it can't change and it can't be undone. What is different now, is their interpretation of his history and their re-write of their time with Michael, as part of his history. All they are doing now, in this documentary and in interviews, is looking at photos and messages and video footage and gifts and attaching a sinister undertone and a new "sexual" meaning to all of it. I don't need to ask myself any tough questions. I knew who Michael Jackson was years ago....I knew his heart and I knew his soul....both of which spoke directly to my heart and soul. This re-write of all of his interactions with people who chased HIM and begged HIM to allow them into his world, means less than nothing to me and never will mean a single damn thing.
Just so I'm being clear here, I VERY much believe that MJ is innocent. With that said, believing that he is innocent because you "knew" him, is not a valid argument to me. It has to be based on solid facts, and not a belief that you THINK you knew a guy you never met. NONE of us fully knew MJ, and that's a goddamn fact. I'm not trying to start crap, I'm just being realistic here. It doesn't matter how much we've seen or heard of MJ, that doesn't mean that we fully know who he was when he was by himself, without cameras on him. We have an IDEA, but we don't know everything. What I'm trying to say is.. If you want the people who believe that MJ is guilty to LISTEN, don't do the "I knew him" routine, because I can pretty much guarantee that it will NOT be taken seriously.

With that said, I share this video, which is part 1 out of 3 in a series of rebuttal videos, I would urge the people who have doubts about MJ to watch them. Please, look past the whole sunglasses-tough guy act, it's part of his persona. Oh yeah, there's a shitload of swearing, if you're sensitive to that kinda thing (Get over yourselves). It might have been shared already, I haven't checked. Part one came out almost THREE years ago, and part 3 came out recently.

 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,571
Points
83
You are delusional and sick in the head if you want to follow the 'sexually fulfilling' relationship. That is pedophile fantasy erotica.

A 7 year old boy does not sexually fulfilling relationship.
 

Nantucket Cat

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
222
Points
18
You are delusional and sick in the head if you want to follow the 'sexually fulfilling' relationship. That is pedophile fantasy erotica.

A 7 year old boy does not sexually fulfilling relationship.

Yeah, I was shocked when Streisand said that. Even if she buys the BS allegations, that was a super messed up thing to say. It makes me wonder what her thought process about this whole thing is and why she thought people would find such a statement acceptable.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,571
Points
83
Yeah, I was shocked when Streisand said that. Even if she buys the BS allegations, that was a super messed up thing to say. It makes me wonder what her thought process about this whole thing is and why she thought people would find such a statement acceptable.

Dan Reed said it first and it was part of the marketing narrative of the 'abuse'.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Yeah .... sadly I must cancel my most favorite one with the german "Aufwachen Podcast" because they didn't resarch, belive these liars and made a over three hours episode on this subject. I am sooooooooo disapointed! It did really hit me.
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
I have spent a long time researching the allegations and reading up on them in the past few months, way more so than I never did with the previous allegations. As well as educating myself more on CSA and Paedophile/grooming behaviour.

The tough questions/points I now ask myself, and feel as fans we need to ask ourselves are:

- Was Michaels behaviour text-book Paedophile? - My honest answer to this question is now yes it was. That doesn't mean I am convinced he was a one, but I cannot deny his pattern of behaviour was disturbing and suspicious regardless of whether allegations were made or not.

- If he wasn't 'Michael Jackson' what would we all think? If I think of the allegations and Michaels behaviour/interest in young boys attributed to some random person I would find it really hard not to condemn that person and would find it almost impossible to believe that they were not a paedphile, are we letting our celeb goggles blind us?

- What would make us ever believe the allegations, how many accusers and witnesses are we prepared to accept are all liars and after money? Would we believe Brett Barnes if he came forward with accusations? Would we believe McCauley?

- Why did Michael think sharing his room & bed with children was acceptable, even if nothing sexual occurred why did he think it was appropriate. Why did he continue to think and do this after the first allegations?

- Why would Wade & James put themselves through what they are now for a lie, I'm not sure LN and the response will either help or hurt their appeal against the estate, it almost feels now like they had more to lose than to gain by coming forward with these allegations.

- Can we really be convinced so finally that Michael never behaved inappropriately with a child that we can justify the types of comments and attacks that we (as fans in general) have launched against his accusers?

Other things I have learnt/worth mentioning:

- I have learnt in the past few months that unfortunately a lot of the arguments that fans use to defend Michael are simply not true and show a huge lack of understanding about CSA and grooming. For example there was no 10 year FBI investigation. Them both testifying under oath that he never abused them is NOT evidence they are lying now. It is text-book behaviour for them to want to lie about it and defend an abuser.

- Inconsistencies & Inaccuracies and even entirely exaggerated/made up parts of Wade & James stories do not automatically mean they were never abused.

- Wade being a 'bad person' and wanting to profit from the situation, again, is not sufficient evidence that he was never abused. He can be a bad person and an opportunist and still be a victim of abuse.

This is not me saying I believe the allegations against Michael. I have maybe shifted from wholly believing his innocence to having reasonable grounds to doubt it. I am becoming increasingly frustrated at some of the lines of defence that fans, Taj, and the estate are using to defend Michael as I don't feel that they are the solid evidence of his innocence that we claim they are, and could actually support the opposite.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
@AG5050

Ya can't prove a negative,MJ was innocent,all the facts point to extortion.
He seen nothing wrong with families staying with him,it wasn't just kids,he knew he was doing nothing wrong.
Your post and thought process seems to be based on the continuous lies told about MJ
As I have said to haters,I don't necessarily blame them as these stories have been spread for years and there is plenty of proof to show such.
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
Thanks for the response but you don’t actually address any of the points that I made.
I’ve been a fan all my life so I certainly haven’t based anything on lies about Michael, what in post is based on lies as I would like to edit any lies/false information if I have included any.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
You now prefer again to wanna belive greedy prooven liars like Gavin Aviso, Even Chandler, Wade & James, Jocobshagen, Mc Manus Dimand, the media and other people then Michael, his family and maaany people who spend time with him children and wanna see the things MJ did in a dark light?

I think we can not help you!
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona;4257524 said:
You now prefer again to wanna belive greedy prooven liars like Gavin Aviso, Even Chandler, Wade & James, Jocobshagen, Mc Manus Dimand, the media and other people then Michael, his family and maaany people who spend time with him children and wanna see the things MJ did in a dark light?

I think we can not help you!
When did I say I prefer to believe them? I am simply exploring all possibilities and facts. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m happy to discuss things rationally but you have just jumped on the defence without addressing any of the points that I raised so have therefore contributed nothing to the discussion.
 
Last edited:

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
etoile 37;4246018 said:
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.

Thanks for sharing. I knew Michael's childhood was messed up but didn't know about these things. It could explain his behaviour.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257523 said:
Thanks for the response but you don’t actually address any of the points that I made.
I’ve been a fan all my life so I certainly haven’t based anything on lies about Michael, what in post is based on lies as I would like to edit any lies/false information if I have included any.

Sorry,I was in work and didn't have the time.
I have no doubt his childhood did have a bearing on the sleepovers,we all turn into adults from how we are brought up and experiences as kids can define certain things in adulthood.


Was his behaviour textbook peadophille?Well if being kind and generous is suspicious behaviour,I give up.

Comparing MJ to your average Joe isn't applicable,it's actually ridiculous.
Can we be convinced he never acted inappropriately?Yes....while we weren't in the room,everything else points towards nothing happening.
No it wasn't a 10 year investigation but it was over 4 years I believe,the FBI assisted SBSD at the end of the day,it doesn't really matter for how long.
Their stories,timelines,lies,defending right up until finance problems,not to mention a claim under seal,in buildings that didn't exist,in two places at once,burning MJ memorabilia that wasn't MJ's....I could go on and on....its fabricated lies.

Remember,no kids have ever accused MJ of any wrongdoing and there are alot of people in high places who have had it in for him for years,I've no doubt Geffen and Winfrey are behind LN....that's why they watched it in his yacht before it was released.

The only truth in all of it is kids stayed in his room....as did adults,that does not make you a peadophille.....MJ didn't like to offend anyone and probably didn't want to say no.....he stayed away from his own home when the Safechucks were there disrespecting Neverland and using his credit card.....rather than put an end to it,he hoped they would lose interest with him not being there.

So....to round things up,all we have is kids stayed in his room and don't forget MJ had access to thousands of kids.....is it simply a coincidence that the few families who wanted money(not justice) were the ones he touched?Experts have stated a peadophille would lust at every opportunity.
 
Last edited:

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
Sorry,I was in work and didn't have the time.
I have no doubt his childhood did have a bearing on the sleepovers,we all turn I to adults from how we are brought up and experiences as kids can define certain things in adulthood.


Was his behaviour textbook peadophille?Well if being kind and generous is suspicious behaviour,I give up.

Comparing MJ to your average Joe isn't applicable,it's actually ridiculous.
Can we be convinced he never acted inappropriately?Yes....while we weren't in the room,everything else points towards nothing happening.
No it wasn't a 10 year investigation but it was over 4 years I believe,the FBI assisted SBSD at the end of the day,it doesn't really matter for how long.
Their stories,timelines,lies,defending right up until finance problems,not to mention a claim under seal,in buildings that didn't exist,in two places at once,burning MJ memorabilia that wasn't MJ's....I could go on and on....its fabricated lies.

Remember,no kids have ever accused MJ of any wrongdoing and there are alot of people in high places who have had it in for him for years,I've no doubt Geffen and Winfrey are behind LN....that's why they watched it in his yacht before it was released.

The only truth in all of it is kids stayed in his room....as did adults,that does not make you a peadophille.....MJ didn't like to offend anyone and probably didn't want to say no.....he stayed away from his own home when the Safechucks were there disrespecting Neverland and using his credit card.....rather than put an end to it,he hoped they would lose interest with him not being there.

So....to round things up,all we have is kids stayed in his room and don't forget MJ had access to thousands of kids.....is it simply a coincidence that the few families who wanted money(not justice) were the ones he touched?Experts have stated a peadophille would lust at every opportunity.
These are all really good points that I wholeheartedly agree with. It does provide a rational explanation and everything you've said is why I've always believed he was innocent. I'm just maybe not feeling as convinced by it as I once was. I don't think his kindness and generosity is suspicious, I never said that, what i mean is I find it harder and harder to explain away why he was so interested in young children (mostly boys), the sleepovers, not just a Neverland but at hotels as well. It's not right for an adult to behave that way, and I find it more and more incredible that he continued this behaviour even after he was accused in '93. It's very frustrating that he made himself so vulnerable to further allegations so needlessly.
I agree Michaels case is not easily comparible to average Joe as there are a lot of unique factors when it comes to Michael, but the point I stand by is that people are willing to defend and excuse Michael sharing his room and bed with children, when most of these people would not defend that behaviour from another person. We are basing our attitude on a feeling that we 'know' Michael, when in fact we don't. A lot of people who were close to Michael have shared how he was/could be a very different person to how he made sure the fans/public perceived him, and a lot of his business decisions and actions show that he wasn't just the naive child-like person that we like to think of him as.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Nobody saying if Michael did do anything he shouldn't get in trouble for it. no. it's just that he didn't do anything. Michael is innocent. it's already been say 100 of times.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
These are all really good points that I wholeheartedly agree with. It does provide a rational explanation and everything you've said is why I've always believed he was innocent. I'm just maybe not feeling as convinced by it as I once was. I don't think his kindness and generosity is suspicious, I never said that, what i mean is I find it harder and harder to explain away why he was so interested in young children (mostly boys), the sleepovers, not just a Neverland but at hotels as well. It's not right for an adult to behave that way, and I find it more and more incredible that he continued this behaviour even after he was accused in '93. It's very frustrating that he made himself so vulnerable to further allegations so needlessly.
I agree Michaels case is not easily comparible to average Joe as there are a lot of unique factors when it comes to Michael, but the point I stand by is that people are willing to defend and excuse Michael sharing his room and bed with children, when most of these people would not defend that behaviour from another person. We are basing our attitude on a feeling that we 'know' Michael, when in fact we don't. A lot of people who were close to Michael have shared how he was/could be a very different person to how he made sure the fans/public perceived him, and a lot of his business decisions and actions show that he wasn't just the naive child-like person that we like to think of him as.
Why all of a sudden change of heart?because of LN? That is actually terrible because these two are liars,its not about repressed memory,its about money....no need to change stories if what you are telling is the truth.....theres too many in LN plus no facts,just sordid sex stories with haunting music to effect the viewer,that's what it does well.

After 93,MJ's stance was he wouldn't change as he had done nothing wrong,while maybe not the best idea,he should get credit for sticking with his beliefs,actually when you think of it,if he was up to no good,then that would have been the moment to stop not the opposite.

Smokey Robinson said they he grew up being used to everyone sharing a bed,he said it was normal,again,it wasn't just kids,that is what the media states,I think he hung around boys more as he enjoyed doing male fun things.

Of course he was an adult and knew exactly what was what,it wasn't a mental illness saying he was like a child,it was that he enjoyed doing childish things for fun but of course he had a persona to portray but all stars do.

Not one accuser is credible,not one,so the police,FBI and a judge and jury couldn't find one single thing that said he was gulity is not good enough?Tom Sneedon would have loved nothing more than to put him away and couldn't get one piece of evidence anywhere that said MJ was guilty.....surely that means more than saying but kids stayed over because when most say that,they automatically think sexual,bed=sex which isn't correct....MJ liked women,heterosexual pornography was found at Neverland.
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
MJInnocent;4257532 said:
Why all of a sudden change of heart?because of LN? That is actually terrible because these two are liars,its not about repressed memory,its about money....no need to change stories if what you are telling is the truth.....theres too many in LN plus no facts,just sordid sex stories with haunting music to effect the viewer,that's what it does well.

After 93,MJ's stance was he wouldn't change as he had done nothing wrong,while maybe not the best idea,he should get credit for sticking with his beliefs,actually when you think of it,if he was up to no good,then that would have been the moment to stop not the opposite.

Smokey Robinson said they he grew up being used to everyone sharing a bed,he said it was normal,again,it wasn't just kids,that is what the media states,I think he hung around boys more as he enjoyed doing male fun things.

Of course he was an adult and knew exactly what was what,it wasn't a mental illness saying he was like a child,it was that he enjoyed doing childish things for fun but of course he had a persona to portray but all stars do.

Not one accuser is credible,not one,so the police,FBI and a judge and jury couldn't find one single thing that said he was gulity is not good enough?Tom Sneedon would have loved nothing more than to put him away and couldn't get one piece of evidence anywhere that said MJ was guilty.....surely that means more than saying but kids stayed over because when most say that,they automatically think sexual,bed=sex which isn't correct....MJ liked women,heterosexual pornography was found at Neverland.

Not because of LN specifically (I did watch the doc and had mixed reactions to it. Wade came across as the arrogant prick we all believe him to be. James was a lot more convincing and the final scenes with all their family members talking about the revelations and crying was probably the most convincing part. But I am able to separate the obvious emotional impact the doc intended and put my mind back to a place where I only stand by the facts), but a growing number of accusers is what made me really delve into it. I never knew much about the Chandler case and the Arviso one was, and still is, an incredibly hard one to believe given the timeline of the alleged abuse among other things.

It’s not just the bed=sex thing. It’s a pattern of behaviour over years of Michaels life of befriending young boys, having them sleep over, taking them out in public and on tour etc that is hard to justify. As much as I love Michael as an artist as I’ve gotten older myself I just don’t agree that type of behaviour is acceptable, so I guess guilty or innocent I find it hard to defend his pattern of behaviour, even if he wasn’t an abuser.

I’ve never really bought the no hard evidence so must be innocent argument. Physical evidence is rare if abuse isn’t reported immediately after having occurred so it’s always going to pin on who is more believable. The Arvisos are the least credible/believable of all the accusers in my opinion so even if Michael were guilty i’m not surprised at all that a jury couldn’t convict him.
It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened had the Chandler case gone to criminal trial.
As an aside I often see fans claiming that they didn’t go to criminal trial to be proof that the allegations were false. I can’t buy this either. Jordan didn’t want to testify, children rarely, if ever do in these situations, that added with the fan reaction and threats the family were receiving and media attention are just as likely why they took the money and ran.

The list of people we now need to believe are lying and are/were just trying to extort money is now long enough that I have to question whether I have just been believing what I want to believe.
 
Last edited:

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257538 said:
Not because of LN specifically (I did watch the doc and had mixed reactions to it. Wade came across as the arrogant prick we all believe him to be. James was a lot more convincing and the final scenes with all their family members talking about the revelations and crying was probably the most convincing part. But I am able to separate the obvious emotional impact the doc intended and put my mind back to a place where I only stand by the facts), but a growing number of accusers is what made me really delve into it. I never knew much about the Chandler case and the Arviso one was, and still is, an incredibly hard one to believe given the timeline of the alleged abuse among other things.

It’s not just the bed=sex thing. It’s a pattern of behaviour over years of Michaels life of befriending young boys, having them sleep over, taking them out in public and on tour etc that is hard to justify. As much as I love Michael as an artist as I’ve gotten older myself I just don’t agree that type of behaviour is acceptable, so I guess guilty or innocent I find it hard to defend his pattern of behaviour, even if he wasn’t an abuser.

I’ve never really bought the no hard evidence so must be innocent argument. Physical evidence is rare if abuse isn’t reported immediately after having occurred so it’s always going to pin on who is more believable. The Arvisos are the least credible/believable of all the accusers in my opinion so even if Michael were guilty i’m not surprised at all that a jury couldn’t convict him.
It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened had the Chandler case gone to criminal trial.
As an aside I often see fans claiming that they didn’t go to criminal trial to be proof that the allegations were false. I can’t buy this either. Jordan didn’t want to testify, children rarely, if ever do in these situations, that added with the fan reaction and threats the family were receiving and media attention are just as likely why they took the money and ran.

JS may have looked more convincing but his lies mean nothing?his train station myth,that adult wedding ring story?his mum celebrating MJ's death even though at that time she would have been unaware of any claims of abuse.....MJ was living in NYC in with Lisa Marie for part of their timeline.
A growing number of accusers?there could be more if they think they can get millions also....Jordie was drugged when he cocorced into saying something happened,this after Evan had asked for millions of MJ who refused,what his phone call saying he would finish MJ?
The Arviso's simply wanted a slice of that pie,but importantly,they never said anything has happened until after the Bashir programme and being contacted by the police and a lawyer....and these two have umpteen issues with their claims.

The saying no real evidence exists in sex abuse cases so it could have happened doesn't hold up because many sex offenders are caught years later....for MJ to be guilty,he would have to be up there with the criminal masterminds of all time.

Gavin Arviso and his brother had no issue testifying,its like you are twisting every little thing to fit a narrative in your head....prior acts were allowed in 05,still nothing of any substance from 93.

Forget MJ,you simply cannot believe someone is gulity of such crimes because a few say so with zero proof and are willing to accept money....I mean,MJ even went to court,14 charges and not one stuck and it was nothing to do with brilliant lawyers,it was because it was lies.....Gavin Arviso was asked why he was angry with MJ and he replied because he stopped calling.....that's the real issue,people brought into the life of a megastar,spoilt rotten and then it ends....no way are they willing to give up the taste of that high life without a fight.....how many average paid workers has the same chip on their shoulder when they were let go from working at Neverland????
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
MJInnocent;4257539 said:
JS may have looked more convincing but his lies mean nothing?his train station myth,that adult wedding ring story?his mum celebrating MJ's death even though at that time she would have been unaware of any claims of abuse.....MJ was living in NYC in with Lisa Marie for part of their timeline.
A growing number of accusers?there could be more if they think they can get millions also....Jordie was drugged when he cocorced into saying something happened,this after Evan had asked for millions of MJ who refused,what his phone call saying he would finish MJ?
The Arviso's simply wanted a slice of that pie,but importantly,they never said anything has happened until after the Bashir programme and being contacted by the police and a lawyer....and these two have umpteen issues with their claims.

The saying no real evidence exists in sex abuse cases so it could have happened doesn't hold up because many sex offenders are caught years later....for MJ to be guilty,he would have to be up there with the criminal masterminds of all time.

Gavin Arviso and his brother had no issue testifying,its like you are twisting every little thing to fit a narrative in your head....prior acts were allowed in 05,still nothing of any substance from 93.

Forget MJ,you simply cannot believe someone is gulity of such crimes because a few say so with zero proof and are willing to accept money....I mean,MJ even went to court,14 charges and not one stuck and it was nothing to do with brilliant lawyers,it was because it was lies.....Gavin Arviso was asked why he was angry with MJ and he replied because he stopped calling.....that's the real issue,people brought into the life of a megastar,spoilt rotten and then it ends....no way are they willing to give up the taste of that high life without a fight.....how many average paid workers has the same chip on their shoulder when they were let go from working at Neverland????
Again, I won’t argue with anything you’ve said. I do find that all believable and a possible truth. But for me, it doesn’t explain everything enough for me to be 100% convinced any more.
I said to everyone I knew after the ‘05 trial that if any one else accused him I would have to accept the possibility it’s all true. I went back on that after Wade came forward, due to all the issues with his allegations that we have discussed to death on this forum. But on further reflection I have had to ask myself the difficult questions I initially posted.

I suspect I will always carry some doubts as to whether anything really happened or not. I will always be a fan and I am not here to try and condemn Michael.

I’m not even here to be convinced one way or another as I truly don’t feel I’ll be able to be (either way) unless there a big future developments. I’ve just had a lot going on in my mind about this for a long time now so wanted to voice my doubts/feelings in the appropriate section of this forum.
 
Last edited:

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257542 said:
Again, I won’t argue with anything you’ve said. I do find that all believable and a possible truth. But for me, it doesn’t explain everything enough for me to be 100% convinced any more.
I said to everyone I knew after the ‘05 trial that if any one else accused him I would have to accept the possibility it’s all true. I went back on that after Wade came forward, due to all the issues with his allegations that we have discussed to death on this forum. But on further reflection I have had to ask myself the difficult questions I initially posted.

I suspect I will always carry some doubts as to whether anything really happened or not. I will always be a fan and I am not here to try and condemn Michael.

I’m not even here to be convincing one way or another as I truly don’t feel I’ll be able to be (either way) unless there a big future developments. I’ve just had a lot going on in my mind about this for a long time now so wanted to voice my doubts/feelings in the appropriate section of this forum.

It's a sad shame when fans are questioning the truth when it's not up to MJ or the Estate to prove him innocent,its up to others to prove him guilty,that's a fact,that's the law.

So you are admitting that LN has swayed your mind.....it's a bullshit film made to discredit MJ and for all involved to make money.....I'm sorry but if you believe that pile of shit,theres no hope for ya and I don't mean any disrespect.....its just that shitfest is a joke and a real disservice to actual CSA victims.

Your logical thinking seems to have left you....he can have people stay over,he can spoil them,he had more money than most people on earth and yet a few adult accusers who's stories have more holes than the Titanic is all it takes to make people believe because some think....well it is possible??? It's also possible I might own Neverland one day but don't be holding your breath.
 
Top