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

[PfefferSalz 67]

I haven't seen the documentary yet, but with this much of a higher picture, why is a documentary more relevant than a long and elaborated FBI investigation?

[Regina George 59,387]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

At your current age, do you sleep in the bed with elementary school age children that are not related to you. Do you hang around this same second grader like they are your bf? Hold hands? Travel together? Hold them in your lap? 

No BUT then again I had my childhood, I was not abused by my father and I’m not mentally a child like MJ was. Also WHEN did MJ hang around those children like they are his boyfriends? That’s just ridiculous. 

[Didymus 32,703]

8 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I’m not mentally a child like MJ was.

This really is not a psychological reality though There are no case studies that show there are or have been people like this. Peter Pan syndrome is a only a pseudo-scientific concept that has never been scientifically acknowledged.

And as Michael Borack, forensic psychiatrist at the University of Cincinnati Medical School (expert in pedophilia) pointed out to ABC News: even if Michael suffered from "psycho-emotional retardation" due to his traumatizing (lack of) childhood, "Jackson is an adult with an adult's sex drive" nonetheless (Source).

And his very extensive p-rnography collection does attest to that...

I still maintain that even though Michael could very well be innocent, I still don't understand why he didn't realize himself that sleeping with underage children was a problem, even though he might consider it to be innocent. I wonder how he compared himself to other adults. Would he let his own child sleep with Michael Jackson, that kind of thing.

[Didymus 32,703]

13 hours ago, HangWang said:

In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

Is there any other source of this besides the MJ fan blogs, video's,...? All I can find in terms of official sources is that both lawsuit judges refused to comment on the credibility of the claims as the reason for their dismissals was technical and not related to the content of the accuser's claims So that seems like a possible fan invention tbh. I've tried to look for some objective backing, but all I can find is MJ fans spreading that exact same post you copied and pasted.

13 hours ago, HangWang said:

Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

Again, is there any objective source for this? I'm trying but I can't find anything.

13 hours ago, HangWang said:

Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

This is not valid imo. James never said he knew he was "abused" in 2005. The thing many MJ fans don't understand about James and Wade's testimonies is that they didn't "remember" the abuse events. They always remembered them and knew they were sexual acts. What they didn't know is that this was in fact abuse. Huge difference.

What James means when he says he refused to defend Jackson is that he didn't want to lie about Michael never having touched him at all again (like he said he already did in 1993). This is also what Wade means when he says he lied under oath. He didn't lie when he said Michael never abused him (because they did not see Michael's behavior as abuse, as most kids who are victims of abuse don't) but he did lie when he said Michael never touched him or never engaged in sexual conduct with him.

It's the subtleties there that matter.

13 hours ago, HangWang said:

But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

This is... not true

The judge ruled that the prosecution could use the testimony of five children who were related to past allegations, but the judge put no limits on the number or identity of witnesses for the defense... (see BBC and CNN).

See, this is the problem with simply sharing posts all over the place. Nobody's fact checking them. You can already remove half of the content there as it's simply wildly inaccurate. I'll have to look into the other half but yeah... posts like this really are not impressive. It's like the "10 year FBI investigation" fable which is denied by the FBI's own official website. A lot of fans really have to start working a little harder on their "research" if they're even missing such a simple fact as that...

[RudraCNG 13,373]

I mean, I'm not defending nor accusing MJ of anything, but if people choose to believe any sensationalist **** that big corporation want them to believe without doing proper research on their own, no wonder why Trump is the president of the US.

[SilkSpectre 114]

1 hour ago, ReginaGeorge said:

No BUT then again I had my childhood, I was not abused by my father and I’m not mentally a child like MJ was. Also WHEN did MJ hang around those children like they are his boyfriends? That’s just ridiculous. 

When he as a grown man and a young boy are holding hands with the boy laying his head against Michael and gazing up at him? Most children that age won’t even hold onto a parent like that in public let alone on TV. I know it isn’t PROOF of anything untoward but the visual is definitely uncomfortable. And if we saw any other 40 something year old man sitting with a child on him like that we would not defend it as much as people do with Michael. 

[Didymus 32,703]

19 minutes ago, RudraCNG said:

I mean, I'm not defending nor accusing MJ of anything, but if people choose to believe any sensationalist **** that big corporation want them to believe without doing proper research on their own, no wonder why Trump is the president of the US. 

Are you talking about the completely unknown, independent documentary company Amos Pictures which produced Leaving Neverland or the $2 billion value Sony/ATV Music Publishing (the MJ estate) representing Michael?

Who wants who to believe what and for what purpose?

If we're talking big money, according to your own argument we should automatically reject whatever the estate is claiming, since they are most at risk to lose money. And what they're saying is that Wade and James are out for money. So who's least trustworthy in this scenario?

(My answer would be that the estate simply has nothing relevant to say about either Wade or James. They have no info or knowledge about anything that is related to Michael possibly abusing children. Sadly, they are at the front of a MJ fan army which does exactly what they want: discredit Wade and James before their claims have been taken seriously and have been investigated properly. So again: who should we trust? Definitely not the estate and definitely not the MJ fan army representing their voice.)

[RudraCNG 13,373]

9 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Are you talking about the completely unknown, independent documentary company Amos Pictures which produced Leaving Neverland or the $2 billion value Sony/ATV Music Publishing (the MJ estate) representing Michael?

Who wants who to believe what and for what purpose?

If we're talking big money, according to your own argument we should automatically reject whatever the estate is claiming, since they are most at risk to lose money. And what they're saying is that Wade and James are out for money. So who's least trustworthy in this scenario?

(My answer would be that the estate simply has nothing relevant to say about either Wade or James. They have no info or knowledge about anything that is related to Michael possibly abusing children. Sadly, they are at the front of a MJ fan army who does exactly what they want: discredit Wade and James before their claims have been taken seriously and have been investigated properly. So again: who should we trust? Definitely not the estate and definitely not the MJ fan army representing their voice.)

Hm? I didn't say any of that. Only thing I'm saying is people have to learn to think by themselves and to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I mean, it's not even related to this whole MJ topic, it's a general thought.

[Didymus 32,703]

5 minutes ago, RudraCNG said:

Hm? I didn't say any of that. Only thing I'm saying is people have to learn to think by themselves and to do some research before jumping to conclusions. I mean, it's not even related to this whole MJ topic, it's a general thought.

You're absolutely right. All I meant to say was that in this case it's not obvious which of the two parties is trying to do the sensationalist "believe what we tell you to believe" strategy. In the Trump case it's obvious but this is far more difficult because we have a $2 billion company telling the public that other people are out for money when they simply collaborated with a documentary production company that no one's ever heard of. The "the MJ accusers are trying to become rich off of this case" is logical but then it's also logical that the MJ estate is simply trying to protect its profits. So that doesn't help us.

[MarriedToMusic 110]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Again, is there any objective source for this? I'm trying but I can't find anything.

Go direct to the court documents.

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/339-excerpts-from-wade-and-joy-robson-depositions-and-emails

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/343-robson-ordered-to-turn-over-unredacted-emails

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/338-busted-wade-robson-got-caught-hiding-evidence-and-shopping-a-tell-all-book

[Didymus 32,703]

4 minutes ago, MarriedToMusic said:

Go direct to the court documents.

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/339-excerpts-from-wade-and-joy-robson-depositions-and-emails

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/343-robson-ordered-to-turn-over-unredacted-emails

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/338-busted-wade-robson-got-caught-hiding-evidence-and-shopping-a-tell-all-book

Thank you! Got a lot of reading to do

[Didymus 32,703]

Not impressed so far It's basically digging for inaccuracies and mistakes (which are there, not gonna lie) and then saying stuff like this:

"And if Wade is lying about these things above what should make us think he is not lying about the sexual abuse part? This is a man who is willing to make any false claim to get around legal obstacles, and get the money he wants. That is not a sign of someone speaking “his truth,” let alone fighting for justice. The only thing that Wade is fighting for here is money, not the truth."

That's always the recurring logic and it just doesn't sit well with me. Like, why not just point out the inaccuracies and let them stand on their own, all of this "see?! he's a vicious liar" conclusions are what make these sites so annoying and questionable in terms of objective research.

[MarriedToMusic 110]

1 hour ago, SilkSpectre said:

When he as a grown man and a young boy are holding hands with the boy laying his head against Michael and gazing up at him? Most children that age won’t even hold onto a parent like that in public let alone on TV. I know it isn’t PROOF of anything untoward but the visual is definitely uncomfortable. And if we saw any other 40 something year old man sitting with a child on him like that we would not defend it as much as people do with Michael. 

Just to give some context to that clip, Martin Bashir who made the documentary set that scene up with an agenda, he told Michael to invite someone he had helped (the kid stayed at Neverland two years prior while fighting cancer) to be interviewed and show "the world what a wonderful person you are".

Martin was the one to place that boy's head on Michael's shoulder and ask them to hold hands (!!!)
 

Unfortunately Michael was high as a kite during the filming of the entire special and had very poor judgement so he went along with it. The boy and his mother actually later on mocked the scene itself when they were defending Michael after the backlash:

Michael had originally wanted to bring Dave Dave to be interviewed, a burns victim he helped in the 80s. But Martin declined as it didn't fit the narrative that MJ liked little boys because by then Dave Dave was an adult.

Martin Bashir admitted after Michael died that he wanted to cash in on the narrative that Michael was a pedo and abused his trust, he also said he never saw any inappropriate behavior while he was at Neverland. 

0:35

 

[MarriedToMusic 110]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Not impressed so far It's basically digging for inaccuracies and mistakes (which are there, not gonna lie) and then saying stuff like this:

"And if Wade is lying about these things above what should make us think he is not lying about the sexual abuse part? This is a man who is willing to make any false claim to get around legal obstacles, and get the money he wants. That is not a sign of someone speaking “his truth,” let alone fighting for justice. The only thing that Wade is fighting for here is money, not the truth."

That's always the recurring logic and it just doesn't sit well with me. Like, why not just point out the inaccuracies and let them stand on their own, all of this "see?! he's a vicious liar" conclusions are what make these sites so annoying and questionable in terms of objective research.

Honestly I just posted that site because it does have links to the court documents directly (click the scribd links in the first link). No other site online has the actual documents because they cost $$$.

[Didymus 32,703]

Just now, MarriedToMusic said:

Honestly I just posted that site because it does have links to the court documents directly (click the scribd links in the first link). No other site online has the actual documents because they cost $$$.

That really is a treasure trove, indeed. I really thought we just didn't have access to them at all.