Jump to content
celeb

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

Featured Posts

Didymus
1 minute ago, AgusPop said:

the same answer: that sales better because people believe MJ was gay.  and I know that gay is not equal to pedophilia. but that's what stupid people believe. 

But... what is there to report about Michael and girls? :shrug: Nothing much, right? What is there to report about Michael and boys? More, obviously. He slept with them, had two books in his home that were dedicated to young (nude) boys specifically, and some of them claimed Michael had abused them.

Why wouldn't that be reported? :rip:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didymus
4 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I think the real reason is because rumors of him being gay is probably more controversial topic so those boys were just great opportunity to sell more. Also it didn’t help that only boys accused him. Girls also slept on the bed with him and even Wades sister did (she said that in the documentary). 

Possible. It's true that almost every good-looking male celebrity has gay rumors about him some time, and people love that **** :air: And yes, I also heard Wade's sister claim she was invited to sleep in Michael's bedroom and was just as excited about that as Wade.

I'll need to look into it some more, especially who he invited to Neverland etc. Even though I'm inclined to believe Wade and James' stories, I have to admit (and I'm sure this goes for most people who watched the documentary) I don't really know that much about Michael and his activities with children in general.

Edited by Didymus
  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReginaGeorge
1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Possible. It's true that almost every good-looking celebrity has gay rumors about him some time, and people love that **** :air: And yes, I also heard Wade's sister claim she was invited to sleep in Michael's bedroom and was just as excited about that as Wade.

I'll need to look into it some more, especially who he invited to Neverland etc. Even though I'm inclined to believe Wade and James' stories, I have to admit (and I'm sure this goes for most people who watched the documentary) I don't really know that much about Michael and his activities with children in general.

I have to be honest. At first I was disgusted by the documentary and I believed them 100% because it was probably the first time I watched MJ related stuff BUT after reading about him, his story, watching other documentaries about him - I’m on his side. I researched everything about him and was completely speechless when I heard about his humanitarian work and how gracefully he handled negativity in his life. There’s a lot of “plot holes” in that documentary. 

  • Like 8

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolve
3 hours ago, ReginaGeorge said:

Doing “creepy stuff” doesn’t mean you are having sex with them and forcing them to do anything. Playing with unrelated children when you are 50 is considered “creepy” but that doesn’t mean that that person is doing ANYTHING illegal. 

It makes you a creepo, which is what he was. That sustains the accusations more than defenses. He was an abuser and a rapist. Case closed.

  • Sad 3
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
monster4life231
29 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That is low-key very creepy though :lmao:

As much as I don't technically disagree with you, I believe the documentary's director is also right when he says that even an overwhelming majority of positive stories about an abuser still doesn't mean that one story about abuse is wrong :shrug:

You're right though, things like the love letters etc. don't prove anything in and of themselves. But that also means that it might not be that relevant to point out that other kids said Michael never touched them. That in and of themselves also does not bear on Michael's guilt in the case of other children. We just don't know.

Yes, I see what you mean. The MJ case is one of those where nobody will ever know for sure, and it's up to people to make their own mind up with the evidence that is available.

spread peace.
  • YAAAS 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didymus
2 minutes ago, Evolve said:

It makes you a creepo, which is what he was. That sustains the accusations more than defenses. He was an abuser and a rapist. Case closed. 

:madge:

1 minute ago, monster4life231 said:

The MJ case is one of those where nobody will ever know for sure, and it's up to people to make their own mind up with the evidence that is available. 

:applause:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReginaGeorge
3 minutes ago, Evolve said:

It makes you a creepo, which is what he was. That sustains the accusations more than defenses. He was an abuser and a rapist. Case closed.

I will gladly apologize to everyone when we all get some valid proof. Him being “creepo” is not one. I’m sorry. It’s just not valid proof. Gaga was “creepo” at the begging of her career, they called me “creepo” in my middle school - so does that mean we rape children? Does that mean we are criminals? 

Edited by ReginaGeorge
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
monster4life231
1 minute ago, Evolve said:

It makes you a creepo, which is what he was. That sustains the accusations more than defenses. He was an abuser and a rapist. Case closed.

You know, I've been called weird, strange, loads of stuff, through my life. If somebody accused me of beating somebody up, would you conclude that it's true, just because I'm weird? 

To declare somebody guilty because they're "weird" is very immature.

spread peace.
  • Like 6

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering
6 minutes ago, monster4life231 said:

You know, I've been called weird, strange, loads of stuff, through my life. If somebody accused me of beating somebody up, would you conclude that it's true, just because I'm weird? 

To declare somebody guilty because they're "weird" is very immature.

If you are a thirty to forty year old adult man who holds hands with, travels with, and sleeps with little boys that aren’t related to you...you are a creepo. 

He has six accusers. That’s what moved me from creepy to molester. 

The pattern, optics and history back up the testimonies. 

 In years to come, I expect we will hear more stories as these boys grow older. 

  • Like 5

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
monster4life231
1 minute ago, Whispering said:

If you are a thirty to forty year old adult man who holds hands with, travels with, and sleeps with little boys that aren’t related to you...you are a creepo. 

He has six accusers. That’s what moved me from creepy to molester. 

The pattern, optics and history back up the testimonies. 

 In years to come, I expect we will hear more stories as these boys grow older. 

The facts is what prove to me his innocence. 

spread peace.
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antichrist
26 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

I will gladly apologize to everyone when we all get some valid proof. Him being “creepo” is not one. I’m sorry. It’s just not valid proof. Gaga was “creepo” at the begging of her career, they called me “creepo” in my middle school - so does that mean we rape children? Does that mean we are criminals? 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Love 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
AgusPop
31 minutes ago, Evolve said:

It makes you a creepo, which is what he was. That sustains the accusations more than defenses. He was an abuser and a rapist. Case closed.

Gaga is called weird too. that's not proof of anything

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HangWang

The majority of people are not saying he is innocent because they enjoy his music so stop spouting that drivel please.Its because of stuff like this,which isn't even all of it.If you are so adamant on him being guilty,then PLEASE try to explain all of this instead of going over the same " oh he hung out with boys so hes automatically 100% a pedo" bullshit.

"Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

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.

Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

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.

Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

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.

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.

Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

[Robson’s claim that he was abused in the recording studio while Jackson was working on his Dangerous album is completely refuted by Brad Sundberg who was present in the studio every single time Jackson was and witnessed absolutely no suspicious behaviour.] (Added by u/Catch-up)

Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public."

 

Edited by HangWang
  • Like 3
  • Shook 2
  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HangWang

Also I keep seeing the "love notes" being brought up,uh he gave those to E V E R Y O N E .So unless he was grooming adults as a child,I don't see how in the absolute hell these confirm anything.

 

Edited by HangWang
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
monster4life231
15 minutes ago, HangWang said:

The majority of people are not saying he is innocent because they enjoy his music so stop spouting that drivel please.Its because of stuff like this,which isn't even all of it.If you are so adamant on him being guilty,then PLEASE try to explain all of this instead of going over the same " oh he hung out with boys so hes automatically 100% a pedo" bullshit.

"Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

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.

Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

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.

Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

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.

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.

Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

[Robson’s claim that he was abused in the recording studio while Jackson was working on his Dangerous album is completely refuted by Brad Sundberg who was present in the studio every single time Jackson was and witnessed absolutely no suspicious behaviour.] (Added by u/Catch-up)

Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public."

 

 

6 minutes ago, HangWang said:

Also I keep seeing the "love notes" being brought up,uh he gave those to E V E R Y O N E .So unless he was grooming adults as a child,I don't see how in the absolute hell these confirm anything.

 

Thank you.

spread peace.
  • Like 5

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...