Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, Didymus said: What are you talking about? I'm talking about the 2004-5 case, not about the 2016 controversy. The "art books" argument is just as hysterical as it was in 2004/5. These were the books that pedophiles had in their home back then and they all used the "this is legal" excuse, because, duh. How can you compare Michael Jackson to other people who had these books as part of their "art collection"? These people didn't invite strange kids over for adult sleepovers It's the combination that makes the possession suspicious, the author of that article fails to make note of that super obvious fact. Also, "You have to remember that Jackson was under constant FBI surveillance for over ten years." How embarrassing. Just not true. You can just look on the official webpage of the FBI and you can see with your own eyes they didn't investigate sh-t about the child abuse allegations. Clearly written by a fan, which Raven Woods undeniably and self-admittedly is. So again, super unreliable account as it is biased af. People are guilty when a crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If we were to convict people based on suspicion alone, you know what kind of world we'd be living in right? I am really frightened by this new social justice warrior culture, that instead of advocating for people's rights, we are now finding people guilty by assumption and suspicion. And I love how you don't pay attention whatsoever to the other side. They filed the lawsuit right after Wade was dropped by MJ Estate and he became jobless. Isn't that suspicious? Isn't it suspicious that they are suing for 100M$ and hoping to win the case because of this documentary while claiming they have no financial interest in this? I will not call someone a pedophile based on hearsay from people who have sketchy history (lied several times under oath, even one time the trial judge said "no rational fact-finder could possibly believe robson's sworn statement" in one of his lawsuits against MJ Estate) On another note I did go to the FBI website as you requested, actually they do confirm they investigated him for those allegations: https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pray4FameGa 3,141 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 This argument is flawed, but I agree these guys are lying scumbags Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,379 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 44 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: People are guilty when a crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If we were to convict people based on suspicion alone, you know what kind of world we'd be living in right? I am really frightened by this new social justice warrior culture, that instead of advocating for people's rights, we are now finding people guilty by assumption and suspicion. How dare you? Most people in here are saying they don't know if Michael is guilty or not yet you're the one trying to convince everyone in here that Wade and James are money-hungry liars based on nothing but assumption and suspicion You've done nothing but contradict yourself this whole entire time, it's crazy you don't see that. Like, every argument or line of thought you will post in defense of Michael works just as well for Wade and James and, likewise, everything you post against them works against Michael in terms of logic and moral values If we can't judge Michael without perfect factual certainty you seriously have to stop running your mouth about Wade and James too 'cause you have nothing but pure speculation. 44 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Isn't it suspicious that they are suing for 100M$ and hoping to win the case because of this documentary while claiming they have no financial interest in this? That is pure speculation. It's been repeated over and over by officials that the only reason their cases have been dismissed was purely due to technical matters and not related to credibility of testimony. They went to court long before this documentary was made which means they were confident enough about their testimony to win anyway. It's the court situation that actually drew the director's attention, not the other way around... 44 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: I will not call someone a pedophile based on hearsay from people who have sketchy history No one's asking you to do that though, god I'm not even saying that. 44 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: On another note I did go to the FBI website as you requested, actually they do confirm they investigated him for those allegations: https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson Girl pls. Don't lie. The FBI did not investigate him once, they only offered assistance to local police departments. The only time they did investigate something related to Michael was when his life was at risk due to some stalker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMROD 104,131 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 Y'all who believe this TV show are freaking deluded Y'all can say what you want, but FBI have been investigating throughly for months on MJ when he was alive and they cannot find anything, and deemed MJ IS INNOCENT! Here's the coverage just in case y'all cried for receipts https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/266333/michael-jacksons-fbi-files-released Now scram! (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ✧*:･ﾟ 𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 17 (*´艸｀*) ♡♡♡ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy McQueen 4,484 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 MJ apologists are so tiring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giskardsb 12,565 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 The amount of pure idol worship from MJ Stan’s in this thread. He was a human, and a flawed one. Appreciate his music but he wasn’t a god to be worshiped and not above being called out for sketchy behavior. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 11 hours ago, Didymus said: then all those people saying Michael was a good guy and he never touched anyone aren’t relevant either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson#Witnesses_for_the_prosecution it only takes 5 min to read facts and not from a blog... but i guess u wanna believe whatever u wanna believe 11 hours ago, Didymus said: So don’t come at other people with your bs. The irony Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgusPop 4,064 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 11 hours ago, Didymus said: He did though... He’s right, it’s all explained in the documentary With their family’s reconstruction of their emotional state at the time. We’re not gonna start quoting the whole entire movie just because y’all refuse to watch it. And before you come at me with ‘that’s just people saying stuff, that’s no evidence’, then all those people saying Michael was a good guy and he never touched anyone aren’t relevant either and we just don’t know anything. Except for the fact that Michael’s staff’s claims corroborate their story, as well as the damaging objects found at Neverland of course. You wanna talk facts? Let’s talk about those facts then instead of blabbering on about your guesses about why the accusers can’t be trusted. Pure speculation that can never be proven. So don’t come at other people with your bs Macaulay Culkin said what the staff said is False. Now we have a first hand witness saying the staff is lying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatislaps 34,758 Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 I find the overall belief in hearsay and a trial by media disgusting, some of yall are sheep of the media. If you are going to question a 10 year fbi investigation and a multimillion trial, there is something extremely flawed with the judiciary system. In normal circumstances I would believe them, there are just too many inconsistent receipts, and the timing could not be more convenient. They are liars. You have to realize there were a lot of trained people involved: detectives, investigators, cops, lawyers, psychiatrists, doctors, etc. There was a whole business around bringing down Michael and they found nothing. Also during the alleged abuse, Michael was already being investigated, again found nothing. I'm just going to watch how this unfolds, but revealing "receipts" 20+ years after the alleged abuse... Come one... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 7 hours ago, Didymus said: Girl pls. Don't lie. The FBI did not investigate him once, they only offered assistance to local police departments. The only time they did investigate something related to Michael was when his life was at risk due to some stalker. You clearly don't understand what "FBI provided investigative assistance" mean. It means it participated in the investigation alongside other law enforcement departments. The District Attorney was leading the case anyway. There are even documents on their website showing the FBI's involvement. And actually the raids were performed by the FBI. So yes, he was thoroughly investigated even by the FBI on FOUR occasions. And from the article RAMROD posted above (Billboard): "The FBI monitored Jackson for more than a decade, but the files contain no major revelations about his private life and the bureau apparently never developed any solid evidence against him." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,379 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 10 hours ago, kyanewest said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson#Witnesses_for_the_prosecution it only takes 5 min to read facts and not from a blog... I don't understand at all how a Wiki list of people saying Michael molested them (interesting read though) is relevant to what I said. Maybe you can try again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus 34,379 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 7 hours ago, nicolasrumet said: You clearly don't understand what "FBI provided investigative assistance" mean. It means it participated in the investigation alongside other law enforcement departments. The District Attorney was leading the case anyway. There are even documents on their website showing the FBI's involvement. And actually the raids were performed by the FBI. Obviously I do know what it means as I literally said it was investigative assistance myself Give it up, pal. Child abuse is not a federal crime unless in very rare circumstances that did not apply to Michael's cases. Whether or not the FBI assisted, it's simply not an FBI investigation and y'all should stop calling it that If we have to suffer through "they're art books, not p-rnography!!" arguments then you better be damn sure you're not making **** up to aggrandize your own claims Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCHofficial 5,293 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Honestly, we will never know the truth. /thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolyDelRey 21,101 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 nvm The only prisons that exist are ones we put each other in.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 27 minutes ago, Didymus said: Obviously I do know what it means as I literally said it was investigative assistance myself Give it up, pal. Child abuse is not a federal crime unless in very rare circumstances that did not apply to Michael's cases. Whether or not the FBI assisted, it's simply not an FBI investigation and y'all should stop calling it that If we have to suffer through "they're art books, not p-rnography!!" arguments then you better be damn sure you're not making **** up to aggrandize your own claims FBI isn't restricted to investigating federal crimes only for your information. It has offices throughout the country and often times work with local law enforcement at the state level. For "they're art books, not ****ography" that was the finding of the court. Why should I go with what anyone else says, when such things were tried already? Have you seen the material? You have not. The court did, and determined there was nothing illegal about them or anything close to child ****ography. So why should I believe anyone who didn't see them and say otherwise? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.