MJresearcher
Proud Member
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson files claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate
Exactly! It also creates a problem for those insisting that MJ had the censors and alarm in his room so he could molest children there privately and make sure nobody could catch him. What would be the point of that if he was going to do things to them outside his bedroom and in front of people? What a load of crap!
Saying MJ has been "suspect" for a while doesn't prove anything. There's a big difference between suspecting someone of something and having the evidence required to reach a conclusion. It's clear this person hasn't done their homework on the previous cases or they wouldn't be trying to use those past claims to validate their current opinion.
When she says this isn't "random" people making the claims what is she trying to achieve there? People targeted by real pedophiles usually aren't random children in the first place, it's usually close family members and friends so the claim isn't unusual in that way. Having a lot of contact with a child only proves they knew each other, nothing beyond that.
It's true that real victims can have great difficulty going through a case in the court system as children but this excuse could only count for 1993 when Jimmy was 15, and he wasn't a "small child" then either. Jimmy was 27 in 2005 so what's the excuse then? As has already been mentioned, when a criminal case goes to court it's the D.A who brings the charges, gets the indictment and prosecutes the case. It's not the responsibility of the plaintiff to do that, so their money doesn't get used to prosecute, that's not a problem there. If the case is a civil one that's a different story but that's not what's being referred to here.
She then questions why at MJ's age did he have so many "little boy" friends. She ignores the fact that there were also girls and their families. Having children as friends doesn't automatically mean anything sinister either, people only think this because of the hysteria surrounding child abuse. I remember when teachers were allowed to hold hands with children as they walked through the school yard and nobody blinked an eye because it wasn't seen as suspicious, it wasn't thought of as being sexual. These days people have a heightened suspicion of anybody who even talks to a child.
Having an amusement park and many toys also proves nothing criminal. Many children visited Neverland over the years, the point of it was to give children (some of which were terminally ill) some happiness in their lives. Last time I checked this was not a crime. Should every amusement park also be considered suspicious based on this reasoning? Should we shut down Disneyland because trying to entertain and make children happy is considered suspicious by some? I don't think so. You will have trouble finding a pedophile that would have a theme park at their own home because they don't want to draw any attention to their interactions with children at all.
Sleepovers don't prove or equate to criminal acts either, and no pedophile in the world will ever admit to having children anywhere near their bed, again, they don't want to get caught. It's not uncommon for people to equate more than one person being in a bed together with sex, but people sharing a bed does not automatically have to mean this. Yes, people will have suspicions when they think of an adult and a child in the same bed, but suspicion is not evidence. Molestation isn't an act which is exclusive to beds either.
Throwing O.J into the mix doesn't help her case either, the two have nothing to do with each other! You can't determine a person's guilt or innocence based on another case that had nothing to do with MJ's! This is terrible logic! If she wants people to believe MJ was really guilty why not focus on the facts of the case? I'll bet it's because she doesn't know what they are.
She then throws in an argument from emotion, asking if the people skeptical of the claims have been molested. This is a bad argument to use because molestation has not been proved here. I myself know people who don't believe these claims who were abused as children, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they believe Jimmy's claim because it's not about their own experiences, it's about the facts. This woman has not helped her case here, she's just jumped to conclusions using only speculation and logical fallacies. Nothing of substance there at all.
Exactly! It also creates a problem for those insisting that MJ had the censors and alarm in his room so he could molest children there privately and make sure nobody could catch him. What would be the point of that if he was going to do things to them outside his bedroom and in front of people? What a load of crap!
Saying MJ has been "suspect" for a while doesn't prove anything. There's a big difference between suspecting someone of something and having the evidence required to reach a conclusion. It's clear this person hasn't done their homework on the previous cases or they wouldn't be trying to use those past claims to validate their current opinion.
When she says this isn't "random" people making the claims what is she trying to achieve there? People targeted by real pedophiles usually aren't random children in the first place, it's usually close family members and friends so the claim isn't unusual in that way. Having a lot of contact with a child only proves they knew each other, nothing beyond that.
It's true that real victims can have great difficulty going through a case in the court system as children but this excuse could only count for 1993 when Jimmy was 15, and he wasn't a "small child" then either. Jimmy was 27 in 2005 so what's the excuse then? As has already been mentioned, when a criminal case goes to court it's the D.A who brings the charges, gets the indictment and prosecutes the case. It's not the responsibility of the plaintiff to do that, so their money doesn't get used to prosecute, that's not a problem there. If the case is a civil one that's a different story but that's not what's being referred to here.
She then questions why at MJ's age did he have so many "little boy" friends. She ignores the fact that there were also girls and their families. Having children as friends doesn't automatically mean anything sinister either, people only think this because of the hysteria surrounding child abuse. I remember when teachers were allowed to hold hands with children as they walked through the school yard and nobody blinked an eye because it wasn't seen as suspicious, it wasn't thought of as being sexual. These days people have a heightened suspicion of anybody who even talks to a child.
Having an amusement park and many toys also proves nothing criminal. Many children visited Neverland over the years, the point of it was to give children (some of which were terminally ill) some happiness in their lives. Last time I checked this was not a crime. Should every amusement park also be considered suspicious based on this reasoning? Should we shut down Disneyland because trying to entertain and make children happy is considered suspicious by some? I don't think so. You will have trouble finding a pedophile that would have a theme park at their own home because they don't want to draw any attention to their interactions with children at all.
Sleepovers don't prove or equate to criminal acts either, and no pedophile in the world will ever admit to having children anywhere near their bed, again, they don't want to get caught. It's not uncommon for people to equate more than one person being in a bed together with sex, but people sharing a bed does not automatically have to mean this. Yes, people will have suspicions when they think of an adult and a child in the same bed, but suspicion is not evidence. Molestation isn't an act which is exclusive to beds either.
Throwing O.J into the mix doesn't help her case either, the two have nothing to do with each other! You can't determine a person's guilt or innocence based on another case that had nothing to do with MJ's! This is terrible logic! If she wants people to believe MJ was really guilty why not focus on the facts of the case? I'll bet it's because she doesn't know what they are.
She then throws in an argument from emotion, asking if the people skeptical of the claims have been molested. This is a bad argument to use because molestation has not been proved here. I myself know people who don't believe these claims who were abused as children, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they believe Jimmy's claim because it's not about their own experiences, it's about the facts. This woman has not helped her case here, she's just jumped to conclusions using only speculation and logical fallacies. Nothing of substance there at all.
Last edited:
n_the_sly:
