Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Didymus 34,379]

4 minutes ago, Wasabi said:

That ring he pulled out of that jewelry box was not a small ring.. It's a ring for an adult man.

Then why didn't it fit on his finger?

[Akiki 3,900]

16 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

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. 

First of all, Money won't heal their wound if any of this is true. This case is so old by now that it all seems a scam. These men are just trying to get rich at all cost. Why would a victim of sexual abuse would need 100 million dollars? 

I have to laugh. People believe so easily on unproved victims. claiming that there is no perfect victim and whatever while to them the rapist molester are all the same. It just doesn't make sense. Each case is a case indeed, but people are not the same and that works for both sides. 

 

 

 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

18 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

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.

When did I claim that I was a psychologist or legal expert?

All I said is that I'm currently studying law in school. And everything that I said about legal maxims and standards is actually true.

Instead of talking **** about someone's qualifications maybe point me to one single legal detail that I mentioned that isn't true? I'm waiting.

[Didymus 34,379]

35 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

What part about James' family?

It's Wades' (specifically his) and James' family's testimonies that have convinced a lot of people who watched the film that there was more to it exactly because they don't seem to have a clear motive for straight-up lying to a professional filmmaker for four hours on end.

But yet you haven't mentioned them in relation to Wades' and James' credibility once.

35 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

But how are his publicly released songs (many of which he did not write) which were part of his public persona created and managed by music industry execs clear insight into his inner life?

I already told you: we would need to look at private poetry, drawings and sketches, short films,... things he made for himself for no other purpose than to express himself. I honestly can't listen to Michael's songs and watch his video's and even connect it slightly to the way he acted in interviews or how people who have known him have described him. That means there's a disonnect between his public stage persona and his "natural" expression around children and their parents. Which means you can't just review his songs and conclude things about Michael's psychology

35 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

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.

But what's the benefit of knowing anything about law (and I still don't believe that btw as you show no aptitude whatsoever for remaining neutral and fact-oriented) when you know absolutely nothing about child abuse?

I don't want a law student handling abuse cases in the future who thinks that children will automatically confess their victimhood simply because they naturally understand that abuse is wrong People like you should be banned from those cases because your interpretive framework is entirely inappropriate and simply factually incorrect.

The law card will not work for this subject.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

 

But how are his publicly released songs (many of which he did not write) which were part of his public persona created and managed by music industry execs clear insight into his inner life?

I already told you: we would need to look at private poetry, drawings and sketches, short films,... things he made for himself for no other purpose than to express himself.

LMAO tell that to Sneddon. Because he started the entire trial based on Bashir's documentary and interviews with Michael Jackson as a public persona/figure.

So yeah isn't it interesting that the prosecution gets to use Michael Jackson's public interviews as a singer, yet I can't use them?

Maybe you should lead the case next time.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Also a fully self-written song like this one is definitely personal and can give insight into what he's trying to express, just like the prosecution used his public interviews in their case. There's nothing wrong with it:

 

[Didymus 34,379]

8 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

LMAO tell that to Sneddon. Because he started the entire trial based on Bashir's documentary and interviews with Michael Jackson as a public persona/figure.

So yeah isn't it interesting that the prosecution gets to use Michael Jackson's public interviews as a singer, yet I can't use them?

Maybe you should lead the case next time.

I don't give a **** about Sneddon though Why are you bringing that up out of everything I wrote in my post, it's not even barely relevant to anything I said.

Stop acting like a child. It's equally absurd for you AND Sneddon to rely on Michael's stage persona and the creative works that poured out of it. I never defended Sneddon's rhetoric in court. I only referred to him when we were discussing the magazines with fingerprints on them.

[Didymus 34,379]

6 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Also a fully self-written song like this one is definitely personal and can give insight into what he's trying to express, just like the prosecution used his public interviews in their case. There's nothing wrong with it:

He's a pop star These releases are friggin' calculated, everybody knows that. And don't act like Michael's allegations against his parents, which are reflected in that particular song, are corroborated by his siblings, they are not.

So no, you can't use that unproblematically. These things offer no unambiguous insight into Michael's psychology. Instead of focusing on his songs maybe we should focus on the fact that he felt the need to wire the hallway to his bedroom so he would know if people were approaching, or his immense p-rn collection at home, or the fact that he had a ball-gagged woman statue on his desk in plain sight of the kids staying there,... Now what do you think that tells us about his psychology? Any thoughts?

If you wanna focus on a bunch of songs you have to focus on EVERYTHING that can tell us something about Michael's inner life and intentions. Yet you show such furiously selective focus to secure Michael's innocence that you just end up undermining your twists and turns every step of the way.

[PunkTheFunk 123,507]

23 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

When did I claim that I was a psychologist or legal expert?

All I said is that I'm currently studying law in school. And everything that I said about legal maxims and standards is actually true.

Instead of talking **** about someone's qualifications maybe point me to one single legal detail that I mentioned that isn't true? I'm waiting.

Hasn't @Didymus meticulously picked apart all of your arguments for the past 13 pages? Do you really need me to do it again? 

[PunkTheFunk 123,507]

16 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Also a fully self-written song like this one is definitely personal and can give insight into what he's trying to express, just like the prosecution used his public interviews in their case. There's nothing wrong with it:

 

Which law class did you learn this in?

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Just now, PunkTheFunk said:

Hasn't @Didymus meticulously picked apart all of your arguments for the past 13 pages? Do you really need me to do it again? 

Nope. I have yet to be corrected on a single legal detail (that would question my legal knowledge).

You seem to conflate disagreement as an opinion with poor legal knowledge. 

So yeah, I'm waiting, give me one example where I spoke about a legal maxim, standard or anything in inaccurate ways? 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

28 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Instead of focusing on his songs maybe we should focus on the fact that he felt the need to wire the hallway to his bedroom so he would know if people were approaching, or his immense p-rn collection at home, or the fact that he had a ball-gagged woman statue on his desk in plain sight of the kids staying there,... Now what do you think that tells us about his psychology? Any thoughts?

As usual, you speak mistruths.

Where is this ball-gagged woman statute on his desk?

How many times do I have to correct you and fact check you a day? You claimed yesterday that the defense argument about the magazine changed 180 and whatever nonsense you were claiming, I literally had to record a screencast for you to show you how the jurors were saying the magazine argument fell apart after it turned out the prosecution intentionally or accidentally tempered with the evidence.

Now since you don't fact check yourself, here's a list of seized items and they were admitted in trial (unlike what some of you guys say): http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

Go read and fact check yourself because quite frankly I'm tired of doing it for you. AGAIN TABLOIDS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. RANDOM PUBLIC STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. GO CHECK THE COURT PAPERS.

A collection of **** isn't evidence of guilt. You tried to inaccurately claim they had children fingerprints on them. They didn't. And the only one that did turned out to be tempered with.

And having an alarm in the stairs leading to his room isn't incriminating either. This is the most famous person on earth. Who knows whatever security measures there are in place in the mansion. Are you a security expert?

But yeah, please fact check yourself. I'm tired of wasting my time.

[PunkTheFunk 123,507]

14 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Nope. I have yet to be corrected on a single legal detail (that would question my legal knowledge).

You seem to conflate disagreement as an opinion with poor legal knowledge. 

So yeah, I'm waiting, give me one example where I spoke about a legal maxim, standard or anything in inaccurate ways? 

I'm not talking about your legal knowledge. I can look up a legal glossary and throw some fancy terms at you too.

I'm talking about you using the songs "Heal the World" and "Black or White" as evidence for his innocence  That alone undermines your credibility.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 hour ago, PunkTheFunk said:

I'm not talking about your legal knowledge. I can look up a legal glossary and throw some fancy terms at you too.

I'm talking about you using the songs "Heal the World" and "Black or White" as evidence for his innocence  That alone undermines your credibility.

Oh so now you're deviating. I see... Nice 180° turn there... I was so ready to rebut anyone who questions my knowledge .

If you read again, I didn't say those songs prove his innocence in his trial. You see. You're not a good reader, are you? Let's read again, shall we?

"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 was talking about his mentality and why he was around children a lot. I never said his songs proved his innocence, and they don't need to, because he has the presumption of innocence. What you need to prove is the malicious intent

And that's when you need to take a look into his way of thinking to determine whether there is a malicious intent or not, whether he was luring children or simply hanging out with them in an innocent non-sexual way? And why is he around children all the time? Is it for a malicious intent or was he genuinely helping them?

 

[Didymus 34,379]

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

How many times do I have to correct you and fact check you a day? You claimed yesterday that the defense argument about the magazine changed 180 and whatever nonsense you were claiming, I literally had to record a screencast for you to show you how the jurors were saying the magazine argument fell apart after it turned out the prosecution intentionally or accidentally tempered with the evidence. 

 

When did you ever have to fact check me? It's been the other way around, actually. You came with that fake ass story about how Sneddon intentionally contaminated the evidence (which you literally only find on Michael fan blogs) and I was the one who corrected you with information from the legal papers you now claim you're an expert in Hilarious.

That screencast proved nothing though wtf It conflated two magazines with fingerprints on them and left out a crucial element of the defense's argumentation How hysterical is it that you're now pointing the finger at me for relying on "tabloids" (the shared information of about 10 quality newspaper reports that were written in 2005 are now tabloid trash? ok) when you're desperately trying to present a 2017 tv show of 40 minutes as a complete, objective source? You never fail to amaze.

That brings me to this:

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Where is this ball-gagged woman statute on his desk?

This is like literally the replay moment of you asking me for the source for the bloodstained bed sheets and male underwear hidden in a bag, telling me I shouldn't trust tabloids and rumors, after which I directly quoted the legal papers to reveal that they were actually found, and this ball-gagged woman statue is no different which means you still haven't looked at what the detectives found in Neverland Yet you're playing the smartass here, claiming I'm the one who's grounding his arguments on rumors and tabloids and not the legal papers How can you take yourself seriously, even?

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Now since you don't fact check yourself, here's a list of seized items and they were admitted in trial (unlike what some of you guys say): http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

That just takes the cake. This is not a list of seized items WTF man

This is a list of seized items which the procution wanted to introduce in court This is just a fraction of what they found in total, as the court testimonies of the detectives, their filming of the raid itself, and their own interviews to the press show plainly   You really did your research lol, I referred to this list myself in these pages when I was discussing Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy: A Photographic Essay and you think you've discovered some smoking gun. Ridiculous.