Yeah exactly, she could've join them to get revenge on Michael, only to hear something about him being a bad man and when it concerned the trial could've instantly imply something really suspicious between S and Michael! Which mother could not react on that??
What really happened was, and I well remember that 14 years ago back and what the private investigator said in that video clip, he wasn't even appointed to come and testify by either the prosecutor team or defense team from the first beginning. In fact he was disbarred by Judge Melville as a potential victim witness in the 1108 prior bad act that Tom Sneddon put forward to him, due to the evidence was so unreliable and unbelievable.
Another thing worth to point out that if these molestation took place between 1988 and 1992, why the hell wasn't there even ONE disgruntled employee of Michael who came up with juicy and salacious details about Michael and S? You hear all the rest of clowns talking about Culkin, W, Barnes and Chandler being molested by Michael but nothing about S? Anyone of them must have surely seen anything!
strangerinncl;4246222 said:
Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him
Look, think about that segment about the mockery wedding and the rings. And how he talks. It all looks so fake and acted up. Doesn't seem like he got affected or deeply hurt by it, rather he just smiles and was not shaking by putting on that ring contrary to what Dan Greed claimed to happen in the segment. How come this corresponds more or less the same way as described in that fan fiction book Victor Guiterrez wrote? Why keep the rings? I don't know if they were tossed or burned at the same time with those MJ clothes they do in the film, I have only heard the clothes so far. I have also heard that Greed claims Michael recorded a sex tape with S in it and then destroyed it. What?? How can you claim something like that without having the real access to the sex tape as evidence?? Whats the point of record the sex on the tape from the first beginning??
And that interesting this about this wedding, if they were married, having a loving relationship, why the hell would S follow Michael and Lisa Marie, AS THEY WERE A REAL WEDDED COUPLE, to Budapest and work as an assistant to Michael to hold up the umbrella for them?? And this was in 1994 after the first allegations were levelled against him and two years after the alleged molestation took an end! Wouldn't S feel even an ounce of being betrayed, cheated, jealous of Michael and Lisa Marie when he sees them having a love relationship?