You're right, it's an emotive subject. The child abuse industry seems to have an explanation for every odd behaviour, but I don't think there's any harm in pointing out the ridiculousness of these people's sudden 'recognition' they were abuse victims even tho they spent the past 2 decades being portrayed by the us justice auths and global media as abuse victims. Their narrative is pretty unusual i think, and it's clear their convoluted tale is designed to try and get round the strict rules governing making a claim against people who are dead which is why it makes so little sense.MJresearcher;4004041 said:
The problem with this is that these men aren't just coming forward decades later to reveal abuse - they're filing multimillion $ court cases against someone who's been dead for years and who now can't defend himself. In the interests of natural justice, although it might take decades and decades for someone to feel ready to reveal abuse, there have to be procedures in place to stop witch hunts against the dead. These victims we've had in the uk of dead public figures - saville and cyril smith - these victims never got justice at the time as the police did a coverup and everybody in charge knew something was going on but kept quiet. There was no cover up with mj - every possible opportunity was given to these men to spill, there were grand juries, one of the most expensive crim trial in us history, they knew exactly what mj was being accused of. So this super late realisation that they were abuse victims and sueing him once he's been dead for years looks so hard to justify even for those who are sympathetic to abuse victims.
seany;4004507 said:
so, with the quote from Weitzman, it's safe to assume that Safechuck did accuse Michael?
