Slate: "Michael Jackson defenders are starting to sound like flat-earthers"

[dlioncourt91 765]

3 hours ago, Andy McQueen said:

...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6673973/amp/Michael-Jacksons-former-maid-says-pedophile-boys-underwear-Jacuzzi.html

https://www.indy100.com/article/latoya-jackson-michael-children-sexual-abuse-interview-israel-finding-neverland-8823326 

 

 

The maid was fumbling over her own lies and couldn't answer some questions put to her. Some merit in some allegations and others reek of an easy cash grab.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

3 hours ago, Andy McQueen said:

...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6673973/amp/Michael-Jacksons-former-maid-says-pedophile-boys-underwear-Jacuzzi.html

https://www.indy100.com/article/latoya-jackson-michael-children-sexual-abuse-interview-israel-finding-neverland-8823326 

 

 

Aw...

Isn't she the one that also happened to be suing him for money for "wrongful dismissal" after she was fired?

I have yet to find alleged victim or witness who didn't have a financial interest or a beef with MJ.

Really odd that money seems to have to do with every single accusation of them.

Also she was ordered by the court to pay 35,000$ to Michael Jackson after stealing his items, hence why she was dismissed.

I really have to laugh at what kind of evidence you're putting up.

[Adakam 2]

22 hours ago, Andy McQueen said:

None of the MJ fans have even watched the documentary... They just remain biased. 

I watched it, didnt change my opinion at all.

Next empty attack?

[Adakam 2]

Ironic how this article says that the pro-evidence side is like flat earthers, while the side that believes words over due process are the good ones.

[SilkSpectre 114]

17 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

 

Come on... hundreds of times? Yet not a single bit of evidence? No discovery by anyone? 

 

 

I’ve asked you in another thread what evidence would be enough for you and you avoid the question. What proof do you expect someone to be able to provide to show they were abused? abuse rarely has witnesses, so you’re basically saying you’ll never believe someone who says they were abused unless they have wounds or a witness?

[PartySick 134,077]

9 minutes ago, SilkSpectre said:

so you’re basically saying you’ll never believe someone who says they were abused unless they have wounds or a witness?

Believe and support people who claim to be victims.

Destroy lives and legacies when there's proof that the accused did it.

When Kesha made her accusations, we supported her emotionally but only the fools went after Luke with no ammo or proof that he was guilty. You can support James and Wade as victims of sexual assault all you want, it's human, but until they provide something more than inconsistent stories as proof that Michael attacked them, it makes you a fool to claim he's guilty.

How many time do we have to prove his innocence?  A settlement with the first one said he didn't do what he was accused of and the "victim" admitted that his father lied. He was found innocent in court after a family tried to get him for whatever they could. Journalists have admitted they played up the allegations for hits. He was investigated by police and the FBI and found innocent. Not a SHRED of evidence in nearly 30 years of allegations but two shmucks lie their way through a mockumentary and suddenly he's guilty?

I have to laugh. Y'all are being played.

[SilkSpectre 114]

1 minute ago, PartySick said:

Believe and support people who claim to be victims.

Destroy lives and legacies when there's proof that the accused did it.

When Kesha made her accusations, we supported her emotionally but only the fools went after Luke with no ammo or proof that he was guilty. You can support James and Wade as victims of sexual assault all you want, it's human, but until they provide something more than inconsistent stories as proof that Michael attacked them, it makes you a fool to claim he's guilty.

How many time do we have to prove his innocence?  A settlement with the first one said he didn't do what he was accused of and the "victim" admitted that his father lied. He was found innocent in court after a family tried to get him for whatever they could. Journalists have admitted they played up the allegations for hits. He was investigated by police and the FBI and found innocent. Not a SHRED of evidence in nearly 30 years of allegations but two shmucks lie their way through a mockumentary and suddenly he's guilty?

I have to laugh. Y'all are being played.

That’s still not answering my question though, you said until they provide something more and I’m just interested to know what “more” would be for you? As every time I ive asked an ardent MJ defender that I’ve never got an answer of what would be enough for them personally.

I’ve Not been posting disrespectfully that MJ is guilty or calling him names, ive said that I found wade and James’s and their families to be sincere and that circumstances add weight to their stories for me. I don’t think there is any need for name calling whether you believe them or not, the same way I wouldnt support someone calling Michael something disrespectful. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

32 minutes ago, SilkSpectre said:

I’ve asked you in another thread what evidence would be enough for you and you avoid the question. What proof do you expect someone to be able to provide to show they were abused? abuse rarely has witnesses, so you’re basically saying you’ll never believe someone who says they were abused unless they have wounds or a witness?

At the very least the person making the accusation has to be credible. That doesn't need witnesses right? How do you expect me to bring myself to believing this Wade guy?

When Oprah asks him why he kept defending MJ in his 20s, 30s, he responds that because he "didn't realize it was sexual abuse until he had a child"... Really? Since you guys like to compare this case to other cases let's do, shall we?

Did Dr. Ford claim such things or continue to defend her accuser up until he was nominated? No.

What about Kesha? Did she claim that she lied under oath because she loved Dr. Luke and didn't know it was abuse? No. She lied under oath because she was under duress and that's a reasonable defense.

And even if I were to believe him okay? Let's blame it on trauma and the "bond that exists between the abuser and the abused" like the director claims.... Why does it have to have such suspicious timing? Why was this "bond" only broken in 2012 when he was denied the job to work as lead choreographer for MJ show? How come that only few months before he was still praising MJ? Is that to be blamed on trauma too?

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

17 minutes ago, PartySick said:

When Kesha made her accusations, we supported her emotionally but only the fools went after Luke with no ammo or proof that he was guilty.

I disagree with this. Kesha indeed had enough evidence to at least being given the benefit of the doubt.

It wasn't enough evidence to send Dr. Luke to jail. But that wasn't what Kesha was asking for. She was asking to have her career back. She wasn't a gold digger like Wade and James. And the fact that Dr. Luke wouldn't even let her go is a sign of his abusive behavior. And those emails where he was forcing her to lose weight and all that kind of controlling behavior.

 

[SilkSpectre 114]

2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

At the very least the person making the accusation has to be credible. That doesn't need witnesses right? How do you expect me to bring myself to believing this Wade guy?

When Oprah asks him why he kept defending MJ in his 20s, 30s, he responds that because he "didn't realize it was sexual abuse until he had a child"... Really? Since you guys like to compare this case to other cases let's do, shall we?

Did Dr. Ford claim such things or continue to defend her accuser up until he was nominated? No.

What about Kesha? Did she claim that she lied under oath because she loved Dr. Luke and didn't know it was abuse? No. She lied under oath because she was under duress and that's a reasonable defense.

And even if I were to believe him okay? Let's blame it on trauma and the "bond that exists between the abuser and the abused" like the director claims.... Why does it have to have such suspicious timing? Why was this "bond" only broken in 2012 when he was denied the job to work as lead choreographer for MJ show? How come that only few months before he was still praising MJ? Is that to be blamed on trauma too?

Okay great finally an answer. I perfectly understand your issue with Wade, if you don’t find him sincere then yes his past will also make it very hard for you to find him credible. Out of interest, do you find James credible? If not I’m not going to argue with you that he is but I’m intersted to know because ive only seen you discuss your thoughts on Wade. Also, hypothetically, does  that mean if a new accuser with no experience of defending Jackson came out and they hadn’t had any of wades credibility issues (i.e. the previous court cases) that you would believe them as a victim of being abused by MJ without needing anything more? 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

11 minutes ago, SilkSpectre said:

Okay great finally an answer. I perfectly understand your issue with Wade, if you don’t find him sincere then yes his past will also make it very hard for you to find him credible. Out of interest, do you find James credible? If not I’m not going to argue with you that he is but I’m intersted to know because ive only seen you discuss your thoughts on Wade. Also, hypothetically, does  that mean if a new accuser with no experience of defending Jackson came out and they hadn’t had any of wades credibility issues (i.e. the previous court cases) that you would believe them as a victim of being abused by MJ without needing anything more? 

First of all, Wade and James have the same lawyers and are filing the same claims.

James did also lie under oath. I think the main issue with his credibility that he's associated with Wade who I really think is lying here. So I find it hard to believe that one of them is lying and the other is not, especially when they both share the same financial interest here.

And yes, I'm more inclined to believe people who have a credible past and don't have a suspicious financial interest at stake. So if tomorrow another victim emerges that doesn't have any ulterior motives and makes their allegations public and they are believable, of course I'll reconsider.

But the issue with MJ has been people trying to get money from him. Have you seen his maid that they invited to 60minutes to corroborate these allegations. This is a woman that the court ordered to pay 35,000$ for stealing Michael Jackson items (hence why she was fired). And on top of that she'd sue him for wrongful dismissal trying to get money (her case was of course dismissed). And she still owes MJ his money TO THIS DAY. How do you expect me to believe this? The media is gone mad. How can they even invite such people to publicly slander MJ without  even researching their history?

[Catnikko 11,508]

1 hour ago, SilkSpectre said:

so you’re basically saying you’ll never believe someone who says they were abused unless they have wounds or a witness?

How can something be proved undoubtedly without either? I get what your saying but so many people also get wrongfully accused for the same reason? (Im not posting this in defense or whatever to anything i just wanted to respond to this particular statement.. 

[Prada 1,200]

Kinda true. Because he is the king and amazing performer we kinda believe that he cant do all the stuff he s accused of. We should be %50 in the between. But it is seem people are %100 of his side. 

[SilkSpectre 114]

1 hour ago, Unbeweavable said:

How can something be proved undoubtedly without either? I get what your saying but so many people also get wrongfully accused for the same reason? (Im not posting this in defense or whatever to anything i just wanted to respond to this particular statement.. 

Well it’s a small small minority that get falsely accused, the same amount as are falsely accused of all other crimes. We allow victim testimony as evidence in a court and it’s up to a jury to decide if they believe that testimony is true beyond a reasonable doubt, and circumstances would play a role in that. If there is circumstantial evidence for example, a pattern of behaviour of the accused or a change in behaviour/mental health of the accuser then this may sway the jury’s decision buts it’s not always needed as testimony is legitimate evidence. This isn’t just the case for sexual assault cases, there are lots of crimes that can’t be undoubtedly proved, that’s why they’re only asked to judge beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise people can rarely be proved 100% innocent and no one is declared innocent in court, just not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[SilkSpectre 114]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

First of all, Wade and James have the same lawyers and are filing the same claims.

James did also lie under oath. I think the main issue with his credibility that he's associated with Wade who I really think is lying here. So I find it hard to believe that one of them is lying and the other is not, especially when they both share the same financial interest here.

And yes, I'm more inclined to believe people who have a credible past and don't have a suspicious financial interest at stake. So if tomorrow another victim emerges that doesn't have any ulterior motives and makes their allegations public and they are believable, of course I'll reconsider.

But the issue with MJ has been people trying to get money from him. Have you seen his maid that they invited to 60minutes to corroborate these allegations. This is a woman that the court ordered to pay 35,000$ for stealing Michael Jackson items (hence why she was fired). And on top of that she'd sue him for wrongful dismissal trying to get money (her case was of course dismissed). And she still owes MJ his money TO THIS DAY. How do you expect me to believe this? The media is gone mad. How can they even invite such people to publicly slander MJ without  even researching their history?

Thank you! That’s all I really wanted to know was if you could believe another accuser or if you weren’t inclined to believe anyone that would accuse MJ, which can be the case for some people.