Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Didymus 34,379]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

You're conflating the events related to different magazines and related materials like the p-rn dvd's though Not all of them were published after Gavin left Neverland. If it was proven that the magazine we're talking about was published six months after Gavin left Neverland the defense would never have argued that Gavin might have put his fingerprints on it while breaking into Michael's bedroom, obvi What is it you don't understand about this?

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

Did I not just literally write above that I think the jurors did their job and concluded (rightly) that there wasn't enough evidence? Did I not just do that? Why don't you start ****ing reading what I'm saying instead of continuing to quote me with fictions about my writing

I never said the jury should've convicted him. Ever.

So this whole parade:

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

is pulled out of your ass and you know it I'm dealing just fine with the sentence, like how are you coming up with this ****? I'm the one who said that even though in this particular case there wasn't enough evidence (I literally admitted that, what's wrong with you) that shouldn't have to persuade me (like you and your buddies are arguing) to believe that Michael is innocent completely. Like, I can't believe you're forcing me to rewrite something I posted literally above here  

This is becoming crazy man.

[Didymus 34,379]

How many friggin' times have I posted throughout this thread: "I don't know if Michael is guilty or not" ****ing seriously, man  

And these MJ fan bots are still accusing me of "ignoring the evidence" in claiming that Michael is a rapist pedophile even though I literally never said that and seem to know more details about Michael's court cases than they do

Apart from it being a nice illustration of how these anti-doc delulus are absolutely impossible to have a normal conversation with it's pretty darn frustrating.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

In a court of law, not the court of public opinion. OJ was found not-guilty in a court of law, but everyone knew that he got off due to having good lawyers, being a celebrity and other factors at that time. Guilty people go free every day of the week, especially ones that can hire good lawyers. 

 

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

Wrong. You can very much question the finding of the court. They won’t be sent to jail, if found innocent, but public opinion is an entirely different thing. Bill Cosby wasn’t found guilty in his first trial, but that didn’t mean he was innocent. In the eyes of the court, yes. In the eyes of the public, it was a different story. Same goes for R Kelly, OJ and countless others. 

[MyQueen 2,409]

The "King" is dead, long live the Queen

 

[Chromatislaps 34,758]

1 hour ago, MyQueen said:

The "King" is dead, long live the Queen

 

Latoya was known to have been abused by her husband at the time, she divorced him because the man forced her to say thing she didn't want to say in a later interview after she divorced.

dig deeper before you post

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

8 hours ago, Whispering said:

In a court of law, not the court of public opinion. OJ was found not-guilty in a court of law, but everyone knew that he got off due to having good lawyers, being a celebrity and other factors at that time. Guilty people go free every day of the week, especially ones that can hire good lawyers. 

 

Wrong. You can very much question the finding of the court. They won’t be sent to jail, if found innocent, but public opinion is an entirely different thing. Bill Cosby wasn’t found guilty in his first trial, but that didn’t mean he was innocent. In the eyes of the court, yes. In the eyes of the public, it was a different story. Same goes for R Kelly, OJ and countless others. 

I agree. There's always the court of public opinion which has no standards whatsoever. It's based on speculation, media manipulation and interpretation of the law and the facts by incompetent triers of fact (average people who have no legal studies background).

I didn't say you can't have your opinion about the finding of the court. As stated obviously I did say "you can have your opinion about his guilt", but you can't question the finding based on the burden of proof used. You can't say "the court is erroneous because the burden of proof is too high/beyond a reasonable doubt etc.." because that's the standard in every criminal trial. And that's a moot argument.

For Bill Cospy please do not confuse mistrial with acquittal. Mistrial means a unanimous verdict could not be reached, so the trial restarts again. He was not acquitted. 

For R Kelly, as I said the sole evidence was a video where the female could not be identified by the jury so they could not determine her age. But as you see, predators have a pattern. They repeat the same offenses and get caught again. So new concrete evidence emerged again (new footage).

For MJ, it wasn't the case. Two decades under a microscope and nothing found. If he was a serial pedophile he would've most likely repeated the same offense over and over again and get caught.

 

[Whispering 18,865]

5 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

I agree. There's always the court of public opinion which has no standards whatsoever. It's based on speculation, media manipulation and interpretation of the law and the facts by incompetent triers of fact (average people who have no legal studies background).

I didn't say you can't have your opinion about the finding of the court. As stated obviously I did say "you can have your opinion about his guilt", but you can't question the finding based on the burden of proof used. You can't say "the court is erroneous because the burden of proof is too high/beyond a reasonable doubt etc.." because that's the standard in every criminal trial. And that's a moot argument.

For Bill Cospy please do not confuse mistrial with acquittal. Mistrial means a unanimous verdict could not be reached, so the trial restarts again. He was not acquitted. 

For R Kelly, as I said the sole evidence was a video where the female could not be identified by the jury so they could not determine her age. But as you see, predators have a pattern. They repeat the same offenses and get caught again. So new concrete evidence emerged again (new footage).

For MJ, it wasn't the case. Two decades under a microscope and nothing found. If he was a serial pedophile he would've most likely repeated the same offense over and over again and get caught.

 

That’s where you are wrong. I can question the findings. People do so on a regular basis. 

I know that Cosby had a mistrial. After the declaration of a mistrial, prosecutors may choose to retry the case with a different set of jurors, or they may cut their losses. Prosecutors stated that the case had little forensic evidence, and legal experts said it fit the "he said-she said" dynamic that is common to sexual offense cases. They could have easily decided to to move on and Cosby would have remained a free man. That wouldn’t mean he didn’t drug and rape women. In fact, he was only found guilty of the drugging and raping of one woman. That doesn’t mean that people don’t believe the 49 other women who have come forward with rape accusations. I believe he is just as guilty of those crimes.

R Kelly paid off her family. They said they didn’t recognize her in the video and she wouldn’t say it was her. That’s how he got off. 

There are thousands of cases where guilty people were found not guilty...especially for the wealthy and the famous and connected. 

With MJ, there is the testimony of four victims and their siblings and mothers. He groomed his victims and their families over and over until he died. There is a pattern of behavior that he was unwilling and unable to stop, even when everything was on the line. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

In Bill Cosbey's case, it seemed that you insinuated that he was let off the hook by the court. It wasn't the case. It was a mistrial, so the trial starts over. Yes the prosecution can drop the case, but they can do the same with any other case. Heck they could even drop MJ's case after presenting all the evidence if they wanted to. So that's another moot argument. In R Kelly's case, if the victim and the main witness themselves become complicit, that's not on the court anymore. What is the court supposed to do? So it was not like the jury let him off the hook despite strong evidence either.

Back to the point about the alleged "victims".

Why are you ignoring the financial interest/demand of every single accuser? Don't you think it's relevant to the credibility of the "witness" as well?

58 minutes ago, Whispering said:

With MJ, there is the testimony of four victims and their siblings and mothers. He groomed his victims and their families over and over until he died. There is a pattern of behavior that he was unwilling and unable to stop, even when everything was on the line. 

Hearsay is not even evidence. Wade and James testimony is hearsay. So calling them "witness" is wrong from a legal perspective, because they aren't under oath, and they aren't being cross-examined. Are you ignoring the fact that both lied under oath in MJ trials, and in their trials in 2013 and 2014 against MJ Estate. Are you aware that the judge in the case said "No rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson's sworn statement" after he provided yet again what seemed to be another untruthful sworn statement to the court about his previous interactions with MJ Estate. Why are we supposed to ignore all of these facts that undermine the credibility of these two men? Is it because the crime at stake here is sexual assault, so it becomes a special class and the media tells us to believe them all?

Why are we supposed to ignore the fact that in the case of Gavin? His mother was found unreliable in the eyes of the jury especially when she had an ongoing lawsuit involving shoplifting, and his brother was caught lying under oath when he claimed he entered MJ's room (but it turned out there were security alarms that would go off if anyone tries to enter his room)? The entire family seemed unreliable to the jury especially when other celebrities testified that they went after them for money including Tucker.

Long story short, testimony should be heard yes, but it must be also cross-examined and analyzed. And big part of whether to believe a testimony or not comes down to the credibility of the "witness". We can't deny that.

I'll give you a couple of recent examples: Dr. Ford's testimony could be believable.. Why? Because republicans went so hard after her and found nothing that undermined her credibility or any contradictory sworn statements from the past. Wade? Unfortunately he seems to have very questionable credibility issues. I just can't bring myself to believing him. Yes he gave a compelling testimony. But when there's 100M$ at stake, mankind can do the worst of the worst. We can't ignore the financial interest at hand.

[Whispering 18,865]

35 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

In Bill Cosbey's case, it seemed that you insinuated that he was let off the hook by the court. It wasn't the case. It was a mistrial, so the trial starts over. Yes the prosecution can drop the case, but they can do the same with any other case. Heck they could even drop MJ's case after presenting all the evidence if they wanted to. So that's another moot argument. In R Kelly's case, if the victim and the main witness themselves become complicit, that's not on the court anymore. What is the court supposed to do? So it was not like the jury let him off the hook despite strong evidence either.

Back to the point about the alleged "victims".

Why are you ignoring the financial interest/demand of every single accuser? Don't you think it's relevant to the credibility of the "witness" as well?

Hearsay is not even evidence. Wade and James testimony is hearsay. So calling them "witness" is wrong from a legal perspective, because they aren't under oath, and they aren't being cross-examined. Are you ignoring the fact that both lied under oath in MJ trials, and in their trials in 2013 and 2014 against MJ Estate. Are you aware that the judge in the case said "No rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson's sworn statement" after he provided yet again what seemed to be another untruthful sworn statement to the court about his previous interactions with MJ Estate. Why are we supposed to ignore all of these facts that undermine the credibility of these two men? Is it because the crime at stake here is sexual assault, so it becomes a special class and the media tells us to believe them all?

Why are we supposed to ignore the fact that in the case of Gavin? His mother was found unreliable in the eyes of the jury especially when she had an ongoing lawsuit involving shoplifting, and his brother was caught lying under oath when he claimed he entered MJ's room (but it turned out there were security alarms that would go off if anyone tries to enter his room)? The entire family seemed unreliable to the jury especially when other celebrities testified that they went after them for money including Tucker.

Long story short, testimony should be heard yes, but it must be also cross-examined and analyzed. And big part of whether to believe a testimony or not comes down to the credibility of the "witness". We can't deny that.

I'll give you a couple of recent examples: Dr. Ford's testimony could be believable.. Why? Because republicans went so hard after her and found nothing that undermined her credibility or any contradictory sworn statements from the past. Wade? Unfortunately he seems to have very questionable credibility issues. I just can't bring myself to believing him. Yes he gave a compelling testimony. But when there's 100M$ at stake, mankind can do the worst of the worst. We can't ignore the financial interest at hand.

The Jury was split, therefore the prosecutors decide if they have enough to warrant a new trial. Often times, they don’t bother. It’s a gamble. It just happened to pay off this particular time. Since it was a “he said-she said” case, it could have easily been dropped. 

They are victims. One was paid off, one was out lawyered by high price attorneys and a media spectacle and two are now telling their full stories. Besides those four, there are other spend the night/hold hands/sit in the lap “friends” of Michael’s that were along the way. I’m sure you won’t believe them either, if they ever find the courage and strength to tell of their abuse. 

If a grown man had taken away seven years of my life, destroyed my childhood, my family, ruined my relationship with my mother and siblings, messed up my sense of trust and self-worth...all so he could feed his sexual fantasies with elementary school children - I would sue him and his f*cking estate for every penny I could squeeze out of the money hungry enablers! 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

2 minutes ago, Whispering said:

They are victims. One was paid off, one was out lawyered by high price attorneys and a media spectacle and two are now telling their full stories. Besides those four, there are other spend the night/hold hands/sit in the lap “friends” of Michael’s that were along the way. I’m sure you won’t believe them either, if they ever find the courage and strength to tell of their abuse. 

If a grown man had taken away seven years of my life, destroyed my childhood, my family, ruined my relationship with my mother and siblings, messed up my sense of trust and self-worth...all so he could feed his sexual fantasies with elementary school children - I would sue him and his f*cking estate for every penny I could squeeze out of the money hungry enablers! 

So you ignore every credibility issue they have?

You just believe what you wanna believe? I mean many people are like that so I don't blame you. But I beg to differ. When someone is making an allegation, I also take into consideration their past statements, their history, their potential motives and their credibility. As a result Wade and James did not convince me at all. 

Moving on...

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

Maybe people will finally denounce the Catholic Church since we're so high on going after the accused. Can someone please list the new allegations in the doc? And how does it differ from what happened at the trials and all the inconsistent reporting.

[Didymus 34,379]

17 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

So you ignore every credibility issue they have?

You just believe what you wanna believe? I mean many people are like that so I don't blame you. But I beg to differ. When someone is making an allegation, I also take into consideration their past statements, their history, their potential motives and their credibility. As a result Wade and James did not convince me at all. 

Moving on...

But when will you ever look at Michael with that same scrutiny  I’ve asked you before but you still won’t acknowledge the part played by Wade and James’ family because it undermines your argument. How is that believing in cross-examination? 

I mean, you’re the one saying Michael is innocent because his songs are all about love and therefore he shows no malicious intent  Can you stop acting like you’re the reasonable, fact-driven one? If you were you would just throw your hands up and say we might never know. Instead you’re posting embarrassing clichés like ‘Michael didn’t have a childhood so he’s a kid in an adult body’ (clinically untenable), ‘kids don’t lie about abuse because they know it’s wrong’ (contradicts all available data), ‘child molesters always get caught eventually’ (contradicts all available data), ‘the media is stimulating people to believe everyone coming forward about abuse’ (very problematic and definitely no objective statement), ‘money brings out the worst in people’ (yet you won’t apply that to Michael, his family and entourage or the estate)

You’re not fooling me. Posing as a detached, rational law student is just transparent and laughable at this point. Your own posts undermine any air of credibility and sense of informedness you wanna give them.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

But when will you ever look at Michael with that same scrutiny  I’ve asked you before but you still won’t acknowledge the part played by Wade and James’ family because it undermines your argument. How is that believing in cross-examination? I mean, you’re the one saying Michael is innocent because his songs are all about love and therefore he shows no malicious intent  Can you stop acting like you’re the reasonable, fact-driven one? If you were you would just throw your hands up and say we might never know. Instead you’re posting embarrassing clichés like ‘Michael didn’t have a childhood’ (clinically untenable), ‘kids don’t lie about abuse because they know it’s wrong’ (contradicts all available data), ‘child molesters always get caught eventually’ (contradicts all available data), ‘the media is stimulating people to believe everyone coming forward about abuse’ (very problematic and definitely no objective statement), ‘money brings out the worst in people’ (yet you won’t apply that to Michael, his family and entourage or the estate)

You’re not fooling me. Posing as a detached, rational law student is just transparent and laughable at this point. Your own posts undermine any air of credibility and sense of informedness you wanna give them.

What part about James' family? I didn't say Michael Jackson is innocent because of his songs.

But I used his art, his interviews, his lyrics (he expresses himself through them) as a way to understand his mindset and mentality. Yes it is relevant, since as I've explained to you many times, determining whether someone has a criminal mind or not is key to determining guilt (mens rea). So in order to understand why he was around children a lot one has to have a bit of insight into his way of thinking to see if there's a malicious intent or not.

You clearly don't understand anything about law so I'm kinda tired of wasting my time with you, especially when you keep making it all personal.

Michael Jackson wasn't caught lying under oath several times to the point that a judge said [no rational trier of fact could've believed his testimony]. 

[PunkTheFunk 123,473]

22 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

To understand Michael's mentality, you have to start with his art. This is someone who wasn't writing about sex like your average singer. Almost most of his discography is about spreading good in the world from earth song, to They Don't Care About Us, to Healing The World to Black and White. He believes in love. He wanted to help children have the childhood he never had. And it was a mistake. He was unaware of how evil human beings can be. He opened his mansion's doors to all of them and their families and even if they wanted to sleep in "Michael Jackson's room" he let them, which is again a mistake. Maybe he was just too innocent and loving to see how people can add an evil twist to that. 

I read through this whole thread @nicolasrumet and it's very clear that you're neither a psychological nor legal expert  You are just a fan desperately clinging onto the hope that Michael Jackson wasn't an abuser.

It is one thing to believe he is innocent; it is another to completely invalidate the experiences of victims for the sake of preserving your idol. Just sad.

[Wasabi 0]

I watched this documentary and didn't anyone else find it extremely strange that the ring James Safechuck supposedly received from Michael was a full sized adult ring? He said he would go with Michael and pretend they were buying a ring for a young woman and that's why they would try the ring on James' small hand since he was what 12 years old or so. That ring he pulled out of that jewelry box was not a small ring.. It's a ring for an adult man. That right there raised a huge red flag with me!