Asking ourselves tough questions.

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
MJInnocent;4257545 said:
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.
No not the doc. What I have read extensively online due to 2 more accusers coming forward. The doc itself did not change my opinion as it didn’t provide any new evidence or facts that I wasn’t already aware of.

I respect your opinion but I feel I am being more logical than most fans by acknowledging certain facts that most refuse to. You could argue it’s not logical to try and defend a grown adult sharing a room and bed with children he is not related to. Yes it’s perfectly possible that it was innocent, but the most logical explanation is not the one that we believe. Just as it could be argued that logically speaking it is highly unlikely for someone to be accused of the same crime by multiple independent accusers and be innocent. I am playing devils advocate here slightly to make my point but I am just trying to emphasis that I don’t think it’s fair to say my thinking is not logical when in fact the most logical approach is to acknowledge the strong argument for both sides as well as the holes in both arguments.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257549 said:
No not the doc. What I have read extensively online due to 2 more accusers coming forward. The doc itself did not change my opinion as it didn’t provide any new evidence or facts that I wasn’t already aware of.

I respect your opinion but I feel I am being more logical than most fans by acknowledging certain facts that most refuse to. You could argue it’s not logical to try and defend a grown adult sharing a room and bed with children he is not related to. Yes it’s perfectly possible that it was innocent, but the most logical explanation is not the one that we believe. Just as it could be argued that logically speaking it is highly unlikely for someone to be accused of the same crime by multiple independent accusers and be innocent. I am playing devils advocate here slightly to make my point but I am just trying to emphasis that I don’t think it’s fair to say my thinking is not logical when in fact the most logical approach is to acknowledge the strong argument for both sides as well as the holes in both arguments.

What after the 05 trial that you have read has made you doubt?
Yes,you probably are being more logical than some fans but I wasn't comparing,rather,just picking from what you are posting.
It comes full circle.....spending time and spoiling families could be generous or grooming....that's true but I think almost anything can be twisted to mean something else.
MJ was not perfect,he made mistakes,still doesn't make him a peadophille.

I'm not an ignorant fan(most aren't) and I am happy to hear something that says MJ was in fact gulity and then I will no longer defend him but there is nothing out there that says such....that's my point about your logical thinking.....you were fine after 05 but now.....he may be gulity....you tell me why.
 
Last edited:

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
I've had a few doubts here and there. I think it's partly because I don't know enough about it all and partly because I do try to think critically and challenge any bias I may have. I do believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality and tbh I can't see there is any very damning evidence anyway. I'm only human so can't help but start forming opinions and most of the time it just seems unlikely he did these things.

On one hand you have someone who appears (and reported by many) to be a nice person, helping others and wanting to spend time with kids for reasons many have already explained. On the other hand you have people trying to obtain large amounts of money, willing to sell DVDs and soundtracks to their alleged abuse and appearing to be pretty dodgy personalities (the latter I am referring to is Evan Chandler; even people who believe Michael is guilty are saying Evan was a nasty piece of work and tried to pimp his kid out). So what is the more likely scenario? False allegations are low in the general population but they are not with celebrities, Madonna recently confirming this to be the case with her. The settlement was likely to prick up the ears of anyone else with poor morals so further accusations are not really a surprise.

There are things here and there that have concerned me (and I may still question other stuff that comes up), but there seems to be rebuttals for everything. Overall I don't find the accusers very believable myself (especially not 'Leaving Neverland').

Just to add, even non-fans have rejected LN. I know someone who doesn't even like Michael but said she thought the men were lying. She's a mental health nurse as well so pretty good at analysing people!
 
Last edited:

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
What after the 05 trial that you have read has made you doubt?
Yes,you probably are being more logical than some fans but I wasn't comparing,rather,just picking from what you are posting.
It comes full circle.....spending time and spoiling families could be generous or grooming....that's true but I think almost anything can be twisted to mean something else.
MJ was not perfect,he made mistakes,still doesn't make him a peadophille.

I'm not an ignorant fan(most aren't) and I am happy to hear something that says MJ was in fact gulity and then I will no longer defend him but there is nothing out there that says such....that's my point about your logical thinking.....you were fine after 05 but now.....he may be gulity....you tell me why.
In response to what has changed since '05 when I was convinced of his innocence. Firstly the most obvious, further allegations have been made. Secondly, I have done a lot more research on the Chandler case, I had relied purely on in the information circulating in the fan communities before, however I have since learnt more information on this. For example I had only heard the short clip of the recorded Evan conversation 'I get everything I want etc' we've all heard it. After someone pointed me to the full transcript of that whole conversation I realise that fans often take the short clip on its own out of context as evidence he was making it all up. The full conversation doesn't paint that picture and I think its obvious from the entire conversation that Evan believed abuse had occurred.
Fans also say it had been proven that the drawings and the photos of MJs body didnt match. After further research it is certainly not that clear cut and it appears its something his legal team were concerned about at the time.
People also say Jordan was drugged, if this is true is it not also just as possible that drugging him could make him reveal truths that he was previously too afraid to?

I don't have anything new to show or tell you that would indicate he was guilty. With no physical evidence it cannot be proven beyond doubt that he did anything, and as you've rightly said before, you can't prove a negative. So all we have to go on is peoples testimony and observed behaviour.
The facts we have available don't lead to any definitive answer to me, although im willing to accept for some fans it is enough. So my option is to either adopt the 'innocent until prove guilty' approach, or to remain open to the possibility of either scenario being the correct one due to strong arguments each side and flaws in the arguments debunking each side. If I was put in a jury for these allegations, based on everything we know I would have to go with a not guilty verdict because there is plenty of doubt, but I would also walk away wondering if I had possibly let a paedophile off the hook because it couldn't be proven.

I think it important to keep emphasising that I do not believe Michael is guilty. I have just found myself not able to say he is innocent with the same conviction I used to, I feel the information available and Michaels strange behaviour does leave room for doubt unfortunately.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
I've had a few doubts here and there. I think it's partly because I don't know enough about it all and partly because I do try to think critically and challenge any bias I may have. I do believe in the 'innocent until proven guilty' mentality and tbh I can't see there is any very damning evidence anyway. I'm only human so can't help but start forming opinions and most of the time it just seems unlikely he did these things.

On one hand you have someone who appears (and reported by many) to be a nice person, helping others and wanting to spend time with kids for reasons many have already explained. On the other hand you have people trying to obtain large amounts of money, willing to sell DVDs and soundtracks to their alleged abuse and appearing to be pretty dodgy personalities (the latter I am referring to is Evan Chandler; even people who believe Michael is guilty are saying Evan was a nasty piece of work and tried to pimp his kid out). So what is the more likely scenario? False allegations are low in the general population but they are not with celebrities, Madonna recently confirming this to be the case with her. The settlement was likely to prick up the ears of anyone else with poor morals so further accusations are not really a surprise.

There are things here and there that have concerned me (and I may still question other stuff that comes up), but there seems to be rebuttals for everything. Overall I don't find the accusers very believable myself (especially not 'Leaving Neverland').

Just to add, even non-fans have rejected LN. I know someone who doesn't even like Michael but said she thought the men were lying. She's a mental health nurse as well so pretty good at analysing people!

This is the issue....not just with you but the masses....they don't know enough,and by that I mean facts,not media bullshit....which in fairness is easy to fall into if you're not a fan and don't care for the truth but the facts are there for anyone wishing to listen and find out... the problem is that many hate MJ for all sorts of strange reasons and for that,they will think he is gulity even if everyone who previously accused him said it was false.
 

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
AG5050 said:
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.
[...]
Just as it could be argued that logically speaking it is highly unlikely for someone to be accused of the same crime by multiple independent accusers and be innocent.
[...]
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.
It's a logical fallacy: the number of accusers doesn't validate the case if none of them are credible (it's like multiplying with zero).
Will you believe Jacobshagen too if he comes forward? The fact that he's a proven fraud doesn't matter just that "here's another accuser"?
Or do you believe those who claimed that MJ fathered their child or any other (often ridiculous) accusations thrown at him? Going by the number of them you should believe them too.

AG5050 said:
I suspect I will always carry some doubts as to whether anything really happened or not.
Going by this "we'll never know" argument anyone can have doubts about anyone (ironically to much less extent about MJ, who was heavily investigated because of the allegations, as opposed to those who weren't).

A more rational approach is: you can't expect anyone to prove MJ's (or anyone's) innocence, as no one can prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser's side. If you want to think logically as you said you have to understand and accept that.

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.
But that's the main point: neither Robson or Safechuck is credible, they provably lied about things and their stories aren't consistent and are always changing. You said you investigated the cases, so you should know. Why did they need to lie? If they didn't remember things exactly, why didn't they say just that, why invent dates and places? Why give a false impression that they were more involved in MJ's life than in reality?
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
It's a logical fallacy: the number of accusers doesn't validate the case if none of them are credible (it's like multiplying with zero).
Will you believe Jacobshagen too if he comes forward? The fact that he's a proven fraud doesn't matter just that "here's another accuser"?
Or do you believe those who claimed that MJ fathered their child or any other (often ridiculous) accusations thrown at him? Going by the number of them you should believe them too.
Fair point, I've made this argument myself when defending Michael. One false allegation opens the doors for more so its a waterfall affect. The counter point is purely that there is such a long list of liars and extortionists now that I do find myself questioning can they really ALL be lying. Maybe they are, but it must make Michael the most falsely accused person in history (granted nothing about Michael or the allegations are typical).

Going by this "we'll never know" argument anyone can have doubts about anyone (ironically to much less extent about MJ, who was heavily investigated because of the allegations, as opposed to those who weren't).

A more rational approach is: you can't expect anyone to prove MJ's (or anyone's) innocence, as no one can prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser's side. If you want to think logically as you said you have to understand and accept that.
100% agree, its why I wish the whole thing would just disappear because it simply cannot be proven or taken to trial now that he's gone. 'Cancelling' MJ or his legacy isn't something that should even be considered. The doc would never have even been made if he was still alive. I am purely talking from how I am processing and viewing this as a fan, its not about legal proof for me, Im just very torn in my feelings and as someone who's invested his whole life in being a fan its very important to me and I have to explore all avenues and be open minded.

But that's the main point: neither Robson or Safechuck is credible, they provably lied about things and their stories aren't consistent and are always changing. You said you investigated the cases, so you should know. Why did they need to lie? If they didn't remember things exactly, why didn't they say just that, why invent dates and places? Why give a false impression that they were more involved in MJ's life than in reality?
I've had long conversations about this with people and I have gradually come around to a way of thinking that just because there are inconsistencies, possible made up dates etc doesn't mean 100% that its ALL lies (I used to think this). Fair enough if people do think that but its not that clear cut to me that someone being caught in a lie or an exaggeration means they are lying about everything. I don't want to upset people and go down this route as I know its controversial in the fan community, but Michael has lied before (only two surgeries!), by the same logic do we have to discredit everything he's ever said as a possible lie?
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
In response to what has changed since '05 when I was convinced of his innocence. Firstly the most obvious, further allegations have been made. Secondly, I have done a lot more research on the Chandler case, I had relied purely on in the information circulating in the fan communities before, however I have since learnt more information on this. For example I had only heard the short clip of the recorded Evan conversation 'I get everything I want etc' we've all heard it. After someone pointed me to the full transcript of that whole conversation I realise that fans often take the short clip on its own out of context as evidence he was making it all up. The full conversation doesn't paint that picture and I think its obvious from the entire conversation that Evan believed abuse had occurred.
Fans also say it had been proven that the drawings and the photos of MJs body didnt match. After further research it is certainly not that clear cut and it appears its something his legal team were concerned about at the time.
People also say Jordan was drugged, if this is true is it not also just as possible that drugging him could make him reveal truths that he was previously too afraid to?

I don't have anything new to show or tell you that would indicate he was guilty. With no physical evidence it cannot be proven beyond doubt that he did anything, and as you've rightly said before, you can't prove a negative. So all we have to go on is peoples testimony and observed behaviour.
The facts we have available don't lead to any definitive answer to me, although im willing to accept for some fans it is enough. So my option is to either adopt the 'innocent until prove guilty' approach, or to remain open to the possibility of either scenario being the correct one due to strong arguments each side and flaws in the arguments debunking each side. If I was put in a jury for these allegations, based on everything we know I would have to go with a not guilty verdict because there is plenty of doubt, but I would also walk away wondering if I had possibly let a paedophile off the hook because it couldn't be proven.

I think it important to keep emphasising that I do not believe Michael is guilty. I have just found myself not able to say he is innocent with the same conviction I used to, I feel the information available and Michaels strange behaviour does leave room for doubt unfortunately.

I'm doing all this on my phone which is tiring as I have to keep going back and forth to what is written so please forgive any small mistakes....

Further allegations does not equal facts....you are way off in thinking that when you look at these accusers.
EC asked MJ for millions to fund a film project,he was refused,he continued to hang around spounging until MJ got fed up with his demands and only June and Jordy were invited back to Neverland,its then when jealousy kicked in did these accusations arise.
The drug given to JC is renowned for making the participants tell stories that are not true.....look it up.

How was MJ's legal team concerned about the drawings matching? You are wrong in most things you write and yet can show me nothing to the facts I have stated.
If the drawings matched MJ would have been indicted by a grand jury...they didn't....and the dirty police(Sneedon)tried to admit it late on in 05 knowing fine well it wouldn't be allowed because of the timing but hoped it would play in the jury's mind thinking this said pic must exist.....its a bullshit story....if it was true MJ would have been jailed years ago,its beyond ridiculous to think the prosecution had matching mark's but didn't introduce it due to a timing error.

I'm actually getting tired of this,I may continue tomorrow but right now,in my phone after a days work,I have better things to do than try and convince an MJ "fan" of his innocence all night on my phone.

Believe what you want,ignore the facts and go with the sheep.
You cannot prove a negative,MJ was innocent and we have to prove that????
It is what it is facts don't lie....people do.
 

WannaScream

Proud Member
Joined
May 1, 2019
Messages
214
Points
0
This is the issue....not just with you but the masses....they don't know enough,and by that I mean facts,not media bullshit....which in fairness is easy to fall into if you're not a fan and don't care for the truth but the facts are there for anyone wishing to listen and find out... the problem is that many hate MJ for all sorts of strange reasons and for that,they will think he is gulity even if everyone who previously accused him said it was false.

I don't read tabloids and I'm aware the media is often sensationalised and not always that factual but have to say until now I didn't realise quite how bad the media has been with Michael. I've been a fan of his music and dance since I was a child and felt connected to him in that way but I didn't know a huge amount about him as a person or his private life. Now I've been researching this more I am seeing a very different picture and it's making me a bit angry that this is not even vaguely what is being portrayed by the media. Probably not what Dan Reed wants to hear but since Leaving Neverland aired I am feeling more and more sorry for Michael!
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
I'm doing all this on my phone which is tiring as I have to keep going back and forth to what is written so please forgive any small mistakes....

Further allegations does not equal facts....you are way off in thinking that when you look at these accusers.
EC asked MJ for millions to fund a film project,he was refused,he continued to hang around spounging until MJ got fed up with his demands and only June and Jordy were invited back to Neverland,its then when jealousy kicked in did these accusations arise.
The drug given to JC is renowned for making the participants tell stories that are not true.....look it up.

How was MJ's legal team concerned about the drawings matching? You are wrong in most things you write and yet can show me nothing to the facts I have stated.
If the drawings matched MJ would have been indicted by a grand jury...they didn't....and the dirty police(Sneedon)tried to admit it late on in 05 knowing fine well it wouldn't be allowed because of the timing but hoped it would play in the jury's mind thinking this said pic must exist.....its a bullshit story....if it was true MJ would have been jailed years ago,its beyond ridiculous to think the prosecution had matching mark's but didn't introduce it due to a timing error.

I'm actually getting tired of this,I may continue tomorrow but right now,in my phone after a days work,I have better things to do than try and convince an MJ "fan" of his innocence all night on my phone.

Believe what you want,ignore the facts and go with the sheep.
You cannot prove a negative,MJ was innocent and we have to prove that????
It is what it is facts don't lie....people do.
Its disappointing you've resorted to behaving like a child and being rude and name calling as I felt like we were having an interesting and mature discussion. This thread is for people to express doubts and ask difficult questions. If everyone who does this is a 'fan' rather than a fan and a sheep and you find it so exhausting then why are you here engaging with people who have doubts? You are free to ignore this thread completely.
Im not asking you to prove anything, I didnt ask you to try and convince me you've chosen to do that. I have informed myself of all the facts so theres nothing you can tell me I don't already know so as much as I appreciate your time, if what you are doing is trying to change my opinion or intepretation of the facts then you are wasting your time. Everyone is different and processes and acknowledges things differently, we are all aware of the same facts, for you that convinces you 100% Michael is innocent, thats great, im actually envious as I wish I felt that way myself. Just because I have reason for doubt (valid reasoning that I have detailed) doesn't make me a fake fan or a sheep. I wouldn't even be here if I wasnt a fan, I wouldnt care either way about the allegations if I wasnt a fan, I wouldn't have been a member here since the sites creation if I wasnt a fan.

Its such a shame that any conversation like this always ends the same way with people sticking their fingers in the ears and calling 'fake fan' whenever people pose difficult questions or express doubts.
 
Last edited:

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
I've had long conversations about this with people and I have gradually come around to a way of thinking that just because there are inconsistencies, possible made up dates etc doesn't mean 100% that its ALL lies (I used to think this). Fair enough if people do think that but its not that clear cut to me that someone being caught in a lie or an exaggeration means they are lying about everything. I don't want to upset people and go down this route as I know its controversial in the fan community, but Michael has lied before (only two surgeries!), by the same logic do we have to discredit everything he's ever said as a possible lie?
It's a bit of a reach of an example, as having surgeries isn't a crime (it's not even public interest, but someone's private issue) and MJ wasn't under oath when he talked about it, which makes the whole situation entirely different. But to answer the question still: I guess we shoudn't rely on MJ's words in the topic of his surgeries, haha. It doesn't discredit him in other, independent topics though.

The problem with R&S (apart from the fact that they are accusing someone with a crime, during legal process and under oath, so in a situation that requires much more responsibility, and concerning a case that is of public interest) that the inconsistencies lie in their main claims, therefor their accusations are heaviley discredited by their own contradictions.

So my option is to either adopt the 'innocent until prove guilty' approach
Sorry to emphasise this again, but it's not just some "option", it's one of the bases of the rule of law!
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
Its disappointing you've resorted to behaving like a child and being rude and name calling as I felt like we were having an interesting and mature discussion. This thread is for people to express doubts and ask difficult questions. If everyone who does this is a 'fan' rather than a fan and a sheep and you find it so exhausting then why are you here engaging with people who have doubts? You are free to ignore this thread completely.
Im not asking you to prove anything, I didnt ask you to try and convince me you've chosen to do that. I have informed myself of all the facts so theres nothing you can tell me I don't already know so as much as I appreciate your time, if what you are doing is trying to change my opinion or intepretation of the facts then you are wasting your time. Everyone is different and processes and acknowledges things differently, we are all aware of the same facts, for you that convinces you 100% Michael is innocent, thats great, im actually envious as I wish I felt that way myself. Just because I have reason for doubt (valid reasoning that I have detailed) doesn't make me a fake fan or a sheep. I wouldn't even be here if I wasnt a fan, I wouldnt care either way about the allegations if I wasnt a fan, I wouldn't have been a member here since the sites creation if I wasnt a fan.

Its such a shame that any conversation like this always ends the same way with people sticking their fingers in the ears and calling 'fake fan' whenever people pose difficult questions or express doubts.

Where is the name calling?You have constantly came up with concerns which I have addressed....I have asked you questions that you have conveniently ignored yet came back with more questions....I'm tired and bored to be honest.
As I say,believe what you want.......tell me what facts has made you doubt MJ??
You can't answer the ****ing questions so why should I entertain your pathetic mind numbing shit?

How I love the old "the fans response when there is a valid question"
The fans are fed up with people believing shit....well done...you're now in that club
 
Last edited:

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
MJInnocent;4257580 said:
Where is the name calling?You have constantly came up with concerns which I have addressed....I have asked you questions that you have conveniently ignored yet came back with more questions....I'm tired and bored to be honest.
As I say,believe what you want.......tell me what facts has made you doubt MJ??
You can't answer the ****ing questions so why should I entertain your pathetic mind numbing shit?
You called me a sheep and you implied I wasn’t a real fan. And you have now gone on to prove my point further by calling me more names and using foul language.

I am also tired so may have missed some comments but I have answered your questions and on re-reading I can’t see anything I’ve conveniently ignored. You have counter-argued the answers I’ve given with some points I agree with and others that I don’t agree with. That doesn’t make them invalid just because you have a counter argument for them, I feel I have made clear the reasons why I have developed doubts. You may disagree with them by those reasons still stand.

Again you have resorted to a very childish mindset saying things like “believe what you want”. I have clearly stated that I have doubts and therefore don’t know what to believe, so making a comment like that which implies I am choosing to believe he is guilty is both false and childish.

It sounds like you don’t wish to continue this conversation as you are bored and tired of it. That is absolutely fine, but I would ask that you please simply stop engaging if you don’t agree with me rather than swear and call me names when I have tried my best to be respectful and mature in discussing this issue with you.
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257582 said:
You called me a sheep and you implied I wasn’t a real fan. And you have now gone on to prove my point further by calling me more names and using foul language.

I am also tired so may have missed some comments but I have answered your question and on re-reading I can’t see anything I’ve conveniently ignored. You have counter-argued the answers I’ve given with some points I agree with and others that I don’t. That doesn’t make them invalid just because you have a counter argument for them.

Again you have resorted to a very childish minds set saying things like “believe what you want”. I have clearly stated that I have doubts and therefore don’t know what to believe, so making a comment like that that implies I am choosing to believe he is guilty is both false and childish.

It sounds like you don’t wish to continue this conversation as you are bored and tired of it. That is absolutely fine, but I would ask that you please simply stop engaging if you don’t agree with me rather than swear and call me names when I have tried my best to be respectful and mature in discussing this issue with you.

No I didn't! You seem to have selective reading and responding,I have learnt that much which says way more than I need to add to.
Maybe go back and read again....you have got nothing correct yet here you are still blaming others....hmm.

You have provided nothing to back up your doubts....hey,we all can only listen to so much tripe in a day.
Come back please with what says MJ was guilty and I will entertain you but until then you don't deserve to have your points listened to because you don't have ANY valid ones
��
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
MJInnocent;4257583 said:
No I didn't! You seem to have selective reading and responding,I have learnt that much which says way more than I need to add to.
Maybe go back and read again....you have got nothing correct yet here you are still blaming others....hmm.

You have provided nothing to back up your doubts....hey,we all can only listen to so much tripe in a day.
Come back please with what says MJ was guilty and I will entertain you but until then you don't deserve to have your points listened to because you don't have ANY valid ones
��
I have made many valid points. You either disagree that they are valid (I am happy to accept that) or you have ignored them. I explained quite clearly what I had learnt about CSA, and about the Chandler case. You obviously feel you have successfully critiqued those points but for me it is not enough to dismiss them fully.
What we have here is a difference of opinion rather than me not having any valid points. I am open to accepting your point of view but you are burying your head deeper in the sand and simply shouting “all lies, no valid points, sheep etc etc” rather than actually acknowledging why I feel differently than you do.

I honestly don’t understand what you mean about me blaming others, what have I blamed people for? I have been completely open and accepting of the points other users have made and have responded politely and appropriately to them.

It appears to me that you just thrown your toys out of the pram because I don’t agree with everything you have to say rather than rationally continuing what I had thought to be a sensible discussion!
 

MJInnocent

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
371
Points
0
Location
Northern Ireland
AG5050;4257587 said:
I have made many valid points. You either disagree that they are valid (I am happy to accept that) or you have ignored them. I explained quite clearly what I had learnt about CSA, and about the Chandler case. You obviously feel you have successfully critiqued those points but for me it is not enough to dismiss them fully.
What we have here is a difference of opinion rather than me not having any valid points. I am open to accepting your point of view but you are burying your head deeper in the sand and simply shouting “all lies, no valid points, sheep etc etc” rather than actually acknowledging why I feel differently than you do.

I honestly don’t understand what you mean about me blaming others, what have I blamed people for? I have been completely open and accepting of the points other users have made and have responded politely and appropriately to them.

It appears to me that you just thrown your toys out of the pram because I don’t agree with everything you have to say rather than rationally continuing what I had thought to be a sensible discussion!

Your "valid points" mean nothing....you're a fantasist.
The law states evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for an individual to be guilty of that said crime.
Now you can give me all sorts of petty shit about no evidence remains in these cases(which is incorrect) all you want but when dealing with the mountain of facts regarding MJ,there is money grabbing adults and no credible details from alot of people in regards to such claims.
It's so obvious you won't have your mind changed,you believe JS so all you're doing now is trolling and twisting it to say.....MJ fans twist everything...��������
 

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
AG5050,
You've brought up a lot of things that simply cannot be answered entirely, because the documents weren't ever used in court and therefore aren't on public domain (e.g. the body strip photos issue). I sort of get the "need" of having answers to/knowledge about everything, but it just simply doesn't work like that (not just in MJ's case, a trial it's quite rarely a "clear-cut" case, think of the the expression of "beyond reasonable doubt", and we're dealing with issues that never even went to court), we have to accept and understand that.

However, the mere fact that they weren't used in court could be telling and cause for a conclusion. E.g. the photos: if they matched (evidence against MJ!), why weren't there charges? Why wasn't it enough evidence for the grand juries to indict? If they weren't used, why not?

That's what most pro-MJ people are basically saying, that in the cases where full documentation is not available the most plausible explanation points in MJ's favour.

People also say Jordan was drugged, if this is true is it not also just as possible that drugging him could make him reveal truths that he was previously too afraid to?
Again, you want to know something that is not disclosed, no one is able (or is in a position) to answer that, and moreover the question is quite vague: What drug? You can't make assumptions without even identifying it. Why would it reveal the truth instead of e.g. implementing a false memor? Why was it administered?
You see? And these are just basic questions that need to be determined before even beginning a discussion about it.

Good resource concerning this issue (and many others):
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-use-of-sodium-amytal/
Please note though that you won't find definite answers to those issues that didn't became publicly available, only the knowledge that is accessible to this day and the most plausible conclusions.

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.
The problem is that the pro-MJ people (not just fans TBH) are not talking about the 2005 trial! Reed tried to imply that, as it can be explained away, but it's just simply not true. What they are saying is that R&S perjured themselves SINCE 2013 in their lawsuits (as adults, after MJ's death). It can be "text-book behaviour to defend the abuser", but it certainly not the case here since R&S are accusing MJ.

May I ask why didn't you addressed any inconsistencies factually proved since LN came out?

If I was put in a jury for these allegations, based on everything we know I would have to go with a not guilty verdict because there is plenty of doubt, but I would also walk away wondering if I had possibly let a paedophile off the hook because it couldn't be proven.
The jury's duty to decide on the case they are hearing, and not else though. So none of them should be wondering about this. That would be the duty of the police/prosecution to investigate/present the right case in court.
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
Your "valid points" mean nothing....you're a fantasist.
The law states evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt for an individual to be guilty of that said crime.
Now you can give me all sorts of petty shit about no evidence remains in these cases(which is incorrect) all you want but when dealing with the mountain of facts regarding MJ,there is money grabbing adults and no credible details from alot of people in regards to such claims.
It's so obvious you won't have your mind changed,you believe JS so all you're doing now is trolling and twisting it to say.....MJ fans twist everything...????????
We aren't talking about the law though. Im talking about what I believe as an individual and as a fan. There are plenty of crimes that go unproven and un-prosecuted and there are plenty of wrongly convicted people. You're using the facts of the legal system to try and control the way people are allowed to think, which I find rather bizarre.

I also didnt say no evidence ever exists in these cases. I said PHYSICAL evidence RARELY exists in HISTORIC sexual abuse allegations. This is correct and is not really up for debate as it usually include evidence of physical trauma and/or DNA evidence. Both of which are long gone in a historic accusation. Why do you think its so important for sexual assault victims to report the attack straight away, and get a forensic medical exam? It's pretty much the one and only chance for concrete physical evidence to be collected.

I am also clearly not trolling and once again you misquote me, where have I stated I believe JS? I said I found him MORE believable than Wade, not that I believe him. I have repeatedly said over and over and over again that I mostly believe in Michaels innocence but i have SOME DOUBTS, how does that make me a troll or a fantasist. Quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself now and are trying to label me as something I am not rather than acknowledge my point of view and are getting more and more hysterical with each response. It is classic behaviour I see here and on social media that whenever someone raises a valid point or concern we shout TROLL or HATER but no actual rational response to the points raised is ever made. I haven't said you have twisted anything, in fact if you read back you will see I have actually agreed with the majority of what you have said!

Once again I ask (because you didnt answer before). This is a topic for fans to express their doubts. Why are you here getting so upset over the fact that I have doubts when this is the correct place for me to express and share them. I could understand your hysterical reaction if I was posting this in the exposing LN section and I would fully expect to be shut down and the mods to move my comments. But I have kept this to the appropriate sub-forum and topic. You do not have to come here and read what I have to say if you cannot respect the fact that a genuine fan can also have doubts.
 
Last edited:

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
AG5050,
You've brought up a lot of things that simply cannot be answered entirely, because the documents weren't ever used in court and therefore aren't on public domain (e.g. the body strip photos issue). I sort of get the "need" of having answers to/knowledge about everything, but it just simply doesn't work like that (not just in MJ's case, a trial it's quite rarely a "clear-cut" case, think of the the expression of "beyond reasonable doubt", and we're dealing with issues that never even went to court), we have to accept and understand that.

However, the mere fact that they weren't used in court could be telling and cause for a conclusion. E.g. the photos: if they matched (evidence against MJ!), why weren't there charges? Why wasn't it enough evidence for the grand juries to indict? If they weren't used, why not?

That's what most pro-MJ people are basically saying, that in the cases where full documentation is not available the most plausible explanation points in MJ's favour.


Again, you want to know something that is not disclosed, no one is able (or is in a position) to answer that, and moreover the question is quite vague: What drug? You can't make assumptions without even identifying it. Why would it reveal the truth instead of e.g. implementing a false memor? Why was it administered?
You see? And these are just basic questions that need to be determined before even beginning a discussion about it.

Good resource concerning this issue (and many others):
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/the-use-of-sodium-amytal/
Please note though that you won't find definite answers to those issues that didn't became publicly available, only the knowledge that is accessible to this day and the most plausible conclusions.


The problem is that the pro-MJ people (not just fans TBH) are not talking about the 2005 trial! Reed tried to imply that, as it can be explained away, but it's just simply not true. What they are saying is that R&S perjured themselves SINCE 2013 in their lawsuits (as adults, after MJ's death). It can be "text-book behaviour to defend the abuser", but it certainly not the case here since R&S are accusing MJ.

May I ask why didn't you addressed any inconsistencies factually proved since LN came out?


The jury's duty to decide on the case they are hearing, and not else though. So none of them should be wondering about this. That would be the duty of the police/prosecution to investigate/present the right case in court.

Thanks for this reply. You are right in that I do feel the need for information I am never going to get to fully feel like I can believe Michael is innocent. I am quite obsessive and thorough in things like this and to not have the information that could prove/disapprove either way. It's why I think in the back of mind I will always have the 'I'll never really know' thoughts, as much as id like to feel some sort of conviction one way or another I just don't think my mind will allow that to happen based on the information that we do have!

I didnt address the inaccuracies proven in LN as they have already been discussed to death and I am fully aware of and acknowledge them. I feel whilst some are strong, some could have alternative explanations and aren't as concrete as most fans believe they are, and basically none of the inaccuracies are solid enough proof that the entire thing is fabricated for me to completely accept it as that, even though that is what I mostly believe.

I feel like the more I try and explain myself the more I seem to be coming across as believing he is guilty despite saying over and over again that I don't think that.

Is it really so hard to accept and understand that a loyal fan can believe he is likely innocent but also have room for doubt? Im sure i'm not the only one but based on the way people are treated when they express this I suspect most are too scared to admit it! (I'm not talking about your reply by the way, you have been very fair and rational).
 
Last edited:

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
~Quote of offensive post deleted~

Please stop with this insanity before you get yourself banned. I would highly suggest deleting this post because if I don't report it someone else probably will.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
86dbe8189c3e458688f4365de1b6c2f1.jpg
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
NatureCriminal7896;4257604 said:

I honestly didn’t want to argue with anyone. I was careful to express myself in the appropriate place on here. I am all about love for Michael I am currently sat at my laptop listening to the masterpiece that is HIStory. Things get heated when people feel so passionately about something. Safe to say based on their last response I won’t be engaging with a certain user any more so the arguing has ended.
 

ozemouze

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
852
Points
18
Thanks for this reply. You are right in that I do feel the need for information I am never going to get to fully feel like I can believe Michael is innocent. I am quite obsessive and thorough in things like this and to not have the information that could prove/disapprove either way. It's why I think in the back of mind I will always have the 'I'll never really know' thoughts, as much as id like to feel some sort of conviction one way or another I just don't think my brain will allow that to happen based on the information that we do have!

I didnt address the inaccuracies proven in LN as they have already been discussed to death and I am fully aware of them. I feel some can be explained away and aren't as concrete as most fans believe they are, and basically none of the inaccuracies are solid enough proof that the entire thing is fabricated for me to accept it as that, even though that is what I mostly believe.
I see your point, but what you brought up seems like picking and choosing (and explaining) everything against MJ. It's maybe not intentional but it came out like that a bit.
About the bolded part: the topic itself could be a matter of discussion, but I rather address the fact that you give R&S the benefit of the doubt (their inconsistencies "can be explained away"), while you require solid and unequivocal proof on MJ's innocence. I now understand that it's not intentional on your part, but it's still not balanced: you shouldn't require more from MJ than from anyone else and from what is possible.

Is it really so hard to accept and understand that a loyal fan can believe he is likely innocent but also have room for doubt?
I don't think it has to do anything with being a fan or not, it's more like the experience that if someone actually starts to research the cases things will point to MJ's innocence (after LN many people initially thinking he was guilty started to do research and changed their minds eventually).

And sorry to repeat myself, haha, but the presumption of innocence is not only a legal term, but a basic human right and a very important one.
 

AG5050

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
515
Points
0
ozemouze;4257608 said:
I see your point, but what you brought up seems like picking and choosing (and explaining) everything against MJ. It's maybe not intentional but it came out like that a bit.
About the bolded part: the topic itself could be a matter of discussion, but I rather address the fact that you give R&S the benefit of the doubt (their inconsistencies "can be explained away"), while you require solid and unequivocal proof on MJ's innocence. I now understand that it's not intentional on your part, but it's still not balanced: you shouldn't require more from MJ than from anyone else and from what is possible.


I don't think it has to do anything with being a fan or not, it's more like the experience that if someone actually starts to research the cases things will point to MJ's innocence (after LN many people initially thinking he was guilty started to do research and changed their minds eventually).

And sorry to repeat myself, haha, but the presumption of innocence is not only a legal term, but a basic human right and a very important one.
I suppose I am doing that. In challenging what I feel before was a slightly one sided believe that Michael was innocent I am going for the things that challenge this the most as I feel like up until recently I have ignored facts that go against what I wanted to believe. Whereas all the stuff that supports MJ I am so familiar with that I haven’t brought it up in this particular discussion as in this topic I am voicing my doubts, not the stuff that makes me think he is innocent.
I understand about presumption of innocence which is why I would never think it fair or right to talk about it as an accepted fact that he was a paedohpile or abuser, and that from a legal point of view he was acquitted. But going back to the topic title part of “asking ourselves difficult questions” is asking myself whether what is legally proven or not proven sits right with me. For example OJ was found not guilty and it is widely accepted that he was.
The other user seemed to think it outrageous that I was trying to review this from a perspective outside of how it had played out by law. But for me, I think it’s important to do so as the legal justice system is not perfect.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
804
Points
18
AG5050;4257605 said:
I am all about love for Michael I am currently sat at my laptop listening to the masterpiece that is HIStory. Things get heated when people feel so passionately about something. Safe to say based on their last response I won’t be engaging with a certain user any more so the arguing has ended.

Hey. I appreciate that people are allowed to have this type of discussion in a respectful manner, like you are are. Just a quick question for you, as you mentioned the HIstory album.

Do you think Michael Jackson is speaking an honest truth in his lyrics on the HIstory album about all the injustice done to him? Or do you feel its possible its a work of a child molester trying to "cover up his crimes?"
 
Last edited:

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Hey. I appreciate that people are allowed to have this type of discussion in a respectful manner, like you are are. Just a quick question for you, as you mentioned the HIstory album.

Do you think Michael Jackson is speaking an honest truth in his lyrics on the HIstory album about all the injustice done to him? Or do you feel its possible its a work of a child molester trying to #cover up his crimes?"

Of course he speaking the honest truth about all the injustice that happen to him. what else?
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Hey. I appreciate that people are allowed to have this type of discussion in a respectful manner, like you are are. Just a quick question for you, as you mentioned the HIstory album.

Do you think Michael Jackson is speaking an honest truth in his lyrics on the HIstory album about all the injustice done to him? Or do you feel its possible its a work of a child molester trying to #cover up his crimes?"

Why would someone make a whole album about it if it wasn't true? of course it's true and he's telling the truth.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
Please do not twist up the story to make seem Michael did anything. no hate but please don't that. Michael is innocent and always was.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
804
Points
18
Of course he speaking the honest truth about all the injustice that happen to him. what else?

Why would someone make a whole album about it if it wasn't true? of course it's true and he's telling the truth

Please do not twist up the story to make seem Michael did anything. no hate but please don't that. Michael is innocent and always was.

The problem is you are assuming by my question that I reckon Michael is lying on the HIstory album, when in fact my opinion is the complete opposite.

I just thought it was a valid question to ask, since either Michael is faking it or Robson & Safechuck. Personally I cant see Michael faking the HIstory album, thats the point that I was making.
 

JCO8

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
189
Points
16
Location
Paris, France
All my respect for You, AG5050. For your freedom of speech, for the way you articulate your thoughts and for your ability to stay clever and respectful in front of the sick and the hate.
 
Top