Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Didymus 34,379]

15 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

@Didymus so now you are posting evidence that you admit yourself is inconclusive and even the prosecution did not use against Michael Jackson?

Sure I'm not out to prove Michael was guilty, I can't do that and I don't want to do that. I'm just saying the raids actually did find evidence that the majority of people today would find incriminating, contrary to your repeated suggestion that they never found anything even mildly suspicious, from full frontal nudity pictures of underaged boys in his bed- and bathroom, bedsheets with foreign sperm on them, an absolute truckload of hetero- and homosexual p-rn that is typically used for grooming, etc. etc.

I'm not saying all that to make people doubt Michael's innocence. I just don't want them listening to you guys, since you are deliberately spreading lies just to be able to vindicate Michael at all costs. And not because I despise you kind of people, but because I find it incredibly damaging for all victims of sexual abuse in general, especially those who still carry their memory as a secret and are afraid of sharing it. People like you are the reason they don't dare to speak out. And it disgusts me.

15 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Apparently you'll convict people based on suspicion alone.

Once ****ing more: I DON'T KNOW IF MICHAEL IS GUILTY OR NOT. Holy ****ing Jesus, how many times do I have to repeat that? I'm sure I repeated it since page friggin' 1 what is wrong with you?

I'm replying to you because you pretend to wield perfect certainty when you're claiming Wade and James are liars "based on the facts" (which aren't facts, as I have shown). I'm not attacking Michael, I'm attacking you guys for being absolutely delusional and completely off-base not just about this particular case but about child abuse in general.

15 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

This is the first time I read this, can you please provide your source?

Why do I have to do that when you're attacking everyone for not arguing based on the facts You've been wrong countless times and you've never acknowledged it. From the "receipts" you're posting it's beyond obvious you're just copying **** from fan sites, blogs and YouTube video's, it's embarrassing.

Just look at the official reports of the trial, come on, dude. Look here, at The Guardian's live report on the trial. What does it say?

"One of the key elements to the prosecution's case is that Jackson showed the boy at the centre of the allegations ****ographic material. Explicit magazines were found with the accuser's fingerprints and one magazine had the fingerprints of Jackson and the accuser. Mr Mesereau offered a possible explanation for that, saying Jackson had once caught the boy reading his magazines and had taken them away and locked them in a briefcase."

This has always been Mesereau's final answer on the issue. And instead you fans are spreading this completely different story about how Mesereau caught Sneddon planting false evidence in court as if that wouldn't have made headline news (it didn't, try to find me one news article about it, you will fail), it's laughable, especially for people who are calling out other people for not relying on factual evidence.

[Didymus 34,379]

14 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

And the jurors themselves DENY your claim and actually admit they lost faith in the prosecution after it turns out that they contaminated the only tangible evidence (that particular magazine you're talking about).

Source pls

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

37 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Source pls

There you go: 

https://360.articulate.com/review/content/376fe218-c017-4644-9697-4f263dea953b/review

You should really watch this documentary which focuses on what happened inside the trial, with the jurors themselves explaining.

I just continue to believe that MJ was a victim of one of the biggest injustices in our recent history. It was genuinely a witch hunt considering how Sneddon had a vendetta against him since the early 90s and even traveled abroad to try to find victims of MJ in other countries.

He started this entire trial based on a documentary about MJ lol...

And instead of accusing fans of spreading lies, fact check yourself. Because I just gave you the strongest evidence out there that this magazine bullshit lies is false (by the jurors themselves who were in the trial).

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Didymus said:

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.

Read it completely.

A lot of their parents tried to scam MJ for money

A lot of them been caught in their own lie.

Also the claim that Mccauley cukin was molested, a lot of them said that yet he denies it. If it was true he would've said yes, so then if they been caught in that lie isnt it logical to think all of their other claims could be lies too? 

[Didymus 34,379]

34 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

There you go: 

https://360.articulate.com/review/content/376fe218-c017-4644-9697-4f263dea953b/review

You should really watch this documentary which focuses on what happened inside the trial, with the jurors themselves explaining.

Well, I can't watch it can I if you only show that little clip It seems that the most important info comes exactly when the clip stops. I've tried searching for it but I can't watch it anywhere for free.

In any case, that clip is weirdly put together. The magazine that had the fingerprints on them was not the one that was printed after the boys had left, that was different material from what I read, one that had fingerprints on them but not Michael's ánd the boy's, but only the latter Looks like they conflated two different court events.

The grand jury hearing controversy was never settled before the jury as the defense and prosecution kept talking next to each other, with the prosecution insisting with various testimonies that the boy never touched either the magazine or the briefcase while the defense kept repeating their own two narratives about the prints, as was reported in every contemporary news article of 2005:

"Jurors heard that detectives wore gloves when taking and processing the prints but that a clerk who checked the material into the court vault was not wearing gloves at all times when handling the evidence. One of Jackson's lawyers, Robert Sanger, also got one expert to admit that the fingerprints on the magazines could not be dated." (Source)

"MJ and the accuser kid may well have touched the same magazine—but they also could have touched it months apart. In his opening statement, in fact, defense attorney Mesereau set up this alternate scenario: The two boys snuck into Michael’s secret **** stash while Michael wasn’t looking." (Source)

"Mr Jackson's lawyers tried to undermine their case, arguing the fingerprint evidence was unreliable. It emerged that labels on fingerprint evidence were switched and some of it was handled without gloves. This has been a detailed, at times complex, area in which both legal teams have found it difficult to hold the attention of the jury." (Source)

"the defence claims Jackson caught the boy rifling through a briefcase stuffed with his private collection of adult material and took them away. They have also suggested the magazines could have been marked by the youngster when they were presented as evidence before the grand jury last year." (Source)

"The defence claims Jackson caught the boy rifling through a briefcase stuffed with his private collection of adult material and took them away. They have also suggested the magazines could have been marked by the youngster when they were presented as evidence before the grand jury last year." (Source)

"the defense noted that only one magazine submitted in court has a single fingerprint each from Jackson and his accuser. And that magazine was shown to the boy on the witness stand during grand jury hearings and was not tested for print until after the grand jury returned an indictment. Prosecutors insist the boy did not put his fingerprint on it at the grand jury." (Source)

Clearly the defense had two different explanations for why the fingerprints weren't credible and no conclusion was ever presented to the jury that it was either one, nor was the prosecution ever caught for "not doing their homework" There is simply no conclusive proof to conclude from that the evidence was "contaminated", the argument wasn't that the evidence was contaminated but that it was just inconclusive no matter what the reason

In any case, the idea that Sneddon intentionally put the magazine in the boy's hand is fan-invented theory that neither the live reports of the case or even that video you posted corroborate lol.

[Didymus 34,379]

54 minutes ago, kyanewest said:

Read it completely.

A lot of their parents tried to scam MJ for money

A lot of them been caught in their own lie.

Also the claim that Mccauley cukin was molested, a lot of them said that yet he denies it. If it was true he would've said yes, so then if they been caught in that lie isnt it logical to think all of their other claims could be lies too?  

In the words of Dan Reed:

"What is the other side of the story? That there were people that Michael did not abuse? I’m not quite sure of the logic of what they’re saying. If they’re saying, ‘You should’ve interviewed people who were not abused by Michael Jackson,’ I would ask why, because this is a story about two young men who were abused by Michael Jackson. You can always find people who were not harmed by an individual who has done harm.”

(Source)

There is no "logic" to be followed here. Just because some people lie about being abused doesn't mean everyone who does is a liar

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

19 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well, I can't watch it can I if you only show that little clip It seems that the most important info comes exactly when the clip stops. I've tried searching for it but I can't watch it anywhere for free.

It's pretty low to insinuate that I cut the video right before they'd say the defense changed their line or something. No I cut it right before they moved on to another topic. You have to understand that the media wanted Jackson guilty so bad, so take everything they say with a grain of salt. It's confirmed by the jurors here that Gavin and MJ couldn't have possibly touched the same magazine since it was published 6 months after Gavin left Neverland. You'll have to live with the facts which come straight out of the trial itself:

https://360.articulate.com/review/content/08694967-6231-409c-949d-98a8e9f1d073/review

I don't know how reliable these articles are, but all I know is, at the end it was established that the magazine was not evidence of anything, since it turns out that he touched it during a hearing in 2004 and it was published 6 months after he and his mother were asked to leave neverland in March 2003.

So let's stop beating a dead horse. It looks like nothing will convince you, not even statements from the jurors who saw everything first hand.

You are free to continue believing whatever you wanna believe in, but I'm not going to continue wasting time.

[Aga Gydal 3,157]

I just wanna say to the people in here who shared their personal trauma to help educate the OP, you have my respect and thank you for making a very real point about the complex aftermath of sexual abuse. 

OP, instead of perching up high yelling about how you don’t understand, maybe listen to people who’ve been through this experience first hand and learn some compassion and empathy. Your first post obviously showed that you don’t understand, so the least you can do is show some respect to the people who went out of their way to help enlighten. They don’t even know you, they didn’t even need to do that. Show kindness. 

[Villanelle 1,247]

MJ is innocent, and most people know this.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

11 minutes ago, Aga Gydal said:

I just wanna say to the people in here who shared their personal trauma to help educate the OP, you have my respect and thank you for making a very real point about the complex aftermath of sexual abuse. 

OP, instead of perching up high yelling about how you don’t understand, maybe listen to people who’ve been through this experience first hand and learn some compassion and empathy. Your first post obviously showed that you don’t understand, so the least you can do is show some respect to the people who went out of their way to help enlighten. They don’t even know you, they didn’t even need to do that. Show kindness. 

Why are you speaking in a definitive tone? Are you 100% certain that these two men are saying the truth? And why should they be compared to actual trauma and sexual assault survivor stories, if their story doesn't feel authentic at least to me?

Does this mean every sexual assault story is true? Because I gave a couple examples the other day of two falsely accused people. Such things do exist, and you'd be naive if you think we need to believe everyone even if their story doesn't make sense.

If you are a fact-finder, you have to set aside emotions and focus more on facts. My analysis is fact-driven. I give every alleged victim the benefit of the doubt. I hear their story (I watched the documentary and 2 of their interviews (Oprah and CBS). 

After I did some research on them, I just changed my mind and I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the contradictory facts just because the current crime at hand is sexual assault. I'm not going to fall for the exploitation of the #MeToo either. It would be a disservice to sexual assault victims if we put them in the same bag with potential hoaxers. 

These two men are suing MJ estate for 100M$. We have every right to scrutinize their claims and determine whether there's a financial interest that's making them say these things. 

[Didymus 34,379]

2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

It's pretty low to insinuate that I cut the video right before they'd say the defense changed their line or something. No I cut it right before they moved on to another topic.

I didn't even know you cut it I thought you just found that clip on some blog or whatever, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. The beginning of that next sentence just sounds like more info was coming our way about that particular subject. Anyway, thanks for posting the longer clip.

6 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

You have to understand that the media wanted Jackson guilty so bad, so take everything they say with a grain of salt.

They don't try to say anything though. They just describe what happened that day in court in perfectly neutral language Besides, why can't I trust newspapers and why can you trust The Jury Speaks lol, why isn't that "media" too?

8 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

I don't know how reliable these articles are, but all I know is, at the end it was established that the magazine was not evidence of anything, since it turns out that he touched it during a hearing in 2004 and it was published 6 months after he and his mother were asked to leave neverland in March 2003.

Nope. You're wrong. That was never established There was never proof of that. Try all you want to find it (I did), it's not there. The jury simply had to believe either the account of the defense or that of the prosecution, there was no conclusive end to that story.

11 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

So let's stop beating a dead horse. It looks like nothing will convince you, not even statements from the jurors who saw everything first hand.

Oh, you mean like these?

"No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson’s toy." (Cook) "The thing that really got me the most was the fact that people just wouldn’t take those blinders off long enough to really look at all the evidence that was there." (Hultman) "During an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with five other jurors in June, Cook was one of three who raised their hands when asked if they thought Jackson may have molested other children but not the 13-year-old boy."
Source

"We couldn't weigh that with this case in particular. We all felt that he was guilty of something. But we feel that if he didn't learn from this experience, then it's up to another jury to convict him." (Rodriguez)
Source

Nothing should convince me, either of his innocence or guilt. I wasn't there, neither were you, neither were the jurors. I believe they did their job and voted innocent based on the fact that there was no conclusive evidence. That does not mean I should be persuaded by you to believe that I should be convinced that Michael was innocent across the board

Again showing off how much you're obviously lying (or are deluded) about your law studies I mean, the two statement just have nothing to do with each other and even some of the jurors understand that...

[Didymus 34,379]

3 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

My analysis is fact-driven.

Yet you've shown to be completely ignorant about the details of the case. Ridiculous.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

10 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Nope. You're wrong. That was never established There was never proof of that. Try all you want to find it (I did), it's not there. The jury simply had to believe either the account of the defense or that of the prosecution, there was no conclusive end to that story.

What are you talking about? Do you even know how burden of proof works? The burden of proof lays on the claimant. If the prosecution makes a claim that a magazine was used to entice Gavin and both DNAs existed on it. They'll have to prove it or it'll be invalid. They tried, but it turned out that the magazine was published 6 MONTHS after Gavin left Neverland. 

So you still continue to believe that there's "no conclusive end to the story". Did Gavin teleport to Neverland to touch it? The jurors dismissed that claim, including the 3 jurors who were against MJ.

Also by the way, it's nothing new that 3 out of the 12 jurors had feelings against MJ. Even in the documentary I showed there was one of them that really dislikes him and always thought his behavior is suspicious, but he concedes that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him and that he has a real doubt about the allegations, hence why he voted not guilty.

So even jurors who were against MJ ended up voting not guilty because of the flaws in the prosecution evidence. Just deal with these facts.

It's funny how you cherrypick who you want to quote and generalize as if all jurors felt that way.

In case you didn't, 3 of the 12 jurors initially voted guilty and then changed to not guilty because of reasonable doubt. Those are the same who still feel MJ is somewhat guilty to this day (why? They simply believed the boy's testimony, nothing more. It's a matter of how you feel about it and it can be subjective). After all the media storm and witchhund, 9 out of 12 believe MJ is innocent, that's a win for him regardless.

 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

MJ apologists would defend him even if the video tapes the maid saw would be discovered... They are ignorant and blind. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

18 minutes ago, Didymus said:

showing off how much you're obviously lying (or are deluded) about your law studies I mean, the two statement just have nothing to do with each other and even some of the jurors understand that...

What is that I don't understand? The statement from the jurors who were hearing the case at the time and explained that the magazine argument just didn't work because the dates did not add up? Maybe let's try simple math: August 2003 - March 2003 = 6 months. It was established in the trial that the magazine was published 6 months after Gavin left. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts please.

How does that confirm that I'm "lying" about my studies? What an interesting argument to make.

You're attacking me about my studies yet you don't understand the fundamental principle at stake here: every defendant accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Can you even comprehend that? It means that even if something can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean that we have to question their innocence. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

You can have your own opinion about their guilty. But you can't question the finding of the court because of the burden of proof used. That's the burden of proof used at every criminal case. If not guilty, they are legally presumed to be innocent. Deal with it.