Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 16 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: I'm not going to waste 30mins of my time watching someone who shows me right off the bat that they didn't do their homework (these are two guys who are from the opposite sides of the world and never met each other telling the same story) just lol... Regarding Wade, he wanted to direct MJ show, but they ended up picking someone else (I guess that's when his feud with MJ estate started). Of course he'll lie about it. But here's Branca's sworn testimony in 2017 deposition: And to answer your question. First he came up with these allegations BEFORE he lost his courtcases. Second, they have an appeal coming up later this year. So it'd make sense for them to try to sway the public opinion in their favor, to try to win their 100M+ courtcase against MJ estate. If you really think that human beings aren't willing to do anything for that sum of money, then what can I say... The world isn't the innocent peaceful rainbow you think it is. Okay, but the Cirque du soleil show as a potential turning point doesn’t automatically mean that Wade is lying? That’s a huge leap of logic, it could have been that he was fired and then realized that he had lost his childhood only to be rejected by the Jacksons later. The case against the MJ estate might damage their credibility on some level, but they still have to win the case? The court doesn’t just hand out money, and I’ve never seen an exact dollar amount, but again they could want money and also have been abused. It seems like this would be an incredibly convoluted longcon for them to lie to their families, take acting lessons, research sexual abuse, find a director to try and sway public opinion and win a court case. That’s an insane amount of foresight and were they planning this since 93 when James Safechuck Sr. testified in Michael’s defense that he saw Michael kiss his son on the lips? I think the idea that the world isn’t all rainbows and unicorns could also be applied to MJ, a pedophile hiding in plain sight behind the guise of helping children and being a child at heart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ayria said: Okay, but the Cirque du soleil show as a potential turning point doesn’t automatically mean that Wade is lying? That’s a huge leap of logic, it could have been that he was fired and then realized that he had lost his childhood only to be rejected by the Jacksons later. The case against the MJ estate might damage their credibility on some level, but they still have to win the case? The court doesn’t just hand out money, and I’ve never seen an exact dollar amount, but again they could want money and also have been abused. It seems like this would be an incredibly convoluted longcon for them to lie to their families, take acting lessons, research sexual abuse, find a director to try and sway public opinion and win a court case. That’s an insane amount of foresight and we’re they planning this since 93 when James Safechuck St. testified in Michael’s defense that he saw Michael kiss his son on the lips? I think the idea that the world isn’t all rainbows and unicorns could also be applied to MJ, a pedophile hiding in plain sight behind the guise of helping children and being a child at heart. Let me explain something to you, In my eyes, I'd like to give people the presumption of innocence. I don't want them to prove their innocence, especially if they're dead, and were already tried and acquitted for these charges. I want their guilt to be proven, not the other way around. All I'm asking is that, people prove by even a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that MJ is guilty of these things. All of these credibility issues they have, suspicious timing and financial stake just makes it worse for their case to be believed. It's as simple as that. I'm pretty sure if tomorrow a credible victim comes out with credible verifiable account of events or evidence that shows that MJ is guilty, 99.99% of these forums memebrs will be canceling MJ. But don't get angry at people if they have a problem with hearsay from admitted perjurers being used to destroy the legacy of a dead man who was ALREADY tried and acquitted of these things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, nicolasrumet said: Let me explain something to you, In my eyes, I'd like to give people the presumption of innocence. I don't want them to prove their innocence, especially if they're dead, and were already tried and acquitted for these charges. All I'm asking is that, people prove by even a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that MJ is guilty of these things. All of these credibility issues they have, suspicious timing and financial stake just makes it worse for their case to be believed. It's as simple as that. I'm pretty sure if tomorrow a credible victim comes out with credible verifiable account of events or evidence that shows that MJ is guilty, 99.99% of these forums memebrs will be canceling MJ. But don't get angry at people if they have a problem with hearsay from admitted perjurers being used to destroy the legacy of a dead man who was ALREADY tried and acquitted for these things. How is James not credible though? How is Terry George not credible? How is this couple on a train that was in Jackson’s FBI file not credible: “[Witness] called from Toronto Canada. She and her husband work in Children’s Services. On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand canyon. Train continued to CA. They had a compartment on [carriage?] that Jackson had four compartments. Jackson had a [male?] juvenile 12/13 [years old] with him along with adult staff. Boy was ID’d as Michaels “cousin”. Jackson was very possessive of boy. At night, [witness] heard questionable noises through wall. She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 12 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said: Let me explain something to you, In my eyes, I'd like to give people the presumption of innocence. I don't want them to prove their innocence, especially if they're dead, and were already tried and acquitted for these charges. I want their guilt to be proven, not the other way around. All I'm asking is that, people prove by even a PREPONDERANCE of evidence that MJ is guilty of these things. All of these credibility issues they have, suspicious timing and financial stake just makes it worse for their case to be believed. It's as simple as that. I'm pretty sure if tomorrow a credible victim comes out with credible verifiable account of events or evidence that shows that MJ is guilty, 99.99% of these forums memebrs will be canceling MJ. But don't get angry at people if they have a problem with hearsay from admitted perjurers being used to destroy the legacy of a dead man who was ALREADY tried and acquitted of these things. Also calling Wade and James perjurers implies that they are telling the truth now. James only testified in favor of MJ at a young age, that’s not something to hold against him, and MJ settled out of court for over 20 million in the 1993 civil case, he was not acquitted. Calling alleged child sex abuse victims perjurers is damaging because they can’t actually be tried for perjury for lying about it because it is so common for young children and even teens and adults to want to protect their abusers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 15 minutes ago, Ayria said: Also calling Wade and James perjurers implies that they are telling the truth now. James only testified in favor of MJ at a young age, that’s not something to hold against him, and MJ settled out of court for over 20 million in the 1993 civil case, he was not acquitted. Calling alleged child sex abuse victims perjurers is damaging because they can’t actually be tried for perjury for lying about it because it is so common for young children and even teens and adults to want to protect their abusers. No. I'm calling them perjurers based on the finding of a judge in their 2013 and 2014 cases. A judge explicitly said "no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson's sworn statements." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, nicolasrumet said: No. I'm calling them perjurors based on the finding of a judge in their 2013 and 2014 cases. A judge explicitly said "no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson's sworn statements." I need to see a receipt on this. From the research I’ve done the judge made no comment on the validity of their claims and the case was thrown out due to the statute of limitations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 14 minutes ago, Ayria said: How is James not credible though? How is Terry George not credible? How is this couple on a train that was in Jackson’s FBI file not credible: “[Witness] called from Toronto Canada. She and her husband work in Children’s Services. On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand canyon. Train continued to CA. They had a compartment on [carriage?] that Jackson had four compartments. Jackson had a [male?] juvenile 12/13 [years old] with him along with adult staff. Boy was ID’d as Michaels “cousin”. Jackson was very possessive of boy. At night, [witness] heard questionable noises through wall. She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.” Okay so now you're using a random call from a random person (which qualifies as hearsay) as evidence to conclude someone is pedophile? You realize that document comes from the FBI. So if even the FBI with all of its investigative tools didn't find that actionable, you should let go.. That goes to show the depth of the FBI investigation into MJ. They even unearthed the slightest things that could be used as evidence. So yes, if the FBI couldn't find any evidence on this man, I'm not going to be suddenly convinced by hearsay. I'm actually studying law, and I'd be disappointed in myself if that's what it comes down to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ayria said: I need to see a receipt on this. From the research I’ve done the judge made no comment on the validity of their claims and the case was thrown out due to the statute of limitations. https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf "The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jacksonthemed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations. Yet in his efforts to try to sue the Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars, Robson had no problem lying under oath about the key issue, as the trial judge found. HBO and Reed interviewed no other witnesses, despite the fact that several witnesses have contradicted Robson’s and Safechuck’s claims." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: Okay so now you're using a random call from a random person (which qualifies as hearsay) as evidence to conclude someone is pedophile? You realize that document comes from the FBI. So if even the FBI with all of its investigative tools didn't find that actionable, you should let go.. That goes to show the depth of the FBI investigation into MJ. They even unearthed the slightest things that could be used as evidence. So yes, if the FBI couldn't find any evidence on this man, I'm not going to be suddenly convinced by hearsay. I'm actually studying law, and I'd be disappointed in myself if that's what it comes down to. Eheksnjaalaj hearsay? Eyewitness accounts now qualify as hearsay? How many accusers need to come forward before you believe anything? And also what reason would Terry George have about lying about Jackson masturbing while talking on the phone with him while he was only 13? It doesn’t add up that every eyewitness is “hearsay” or a liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf "The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jacksonthemed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations. Yet in his efforts to try to sue the Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars, Robson had no problem lying under oath about the key issue, as the trial judge found. HBO and Reed interviewed no other witnesses, despite the fact that several witnesses have contradicted Robson’s and Safechuck’s claims." Again Robson does have credibility issues, but James really doesn’t and you can’t possibly think Jackson was falsely accused again and again as part of some huge conspiracy plot can you? He owned books of child nudity, had hidden rooms and alarms outside of his room, and video footage surfaced corroborating James story of him buying rings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, Ayria said: Eheksnjaalaj hearsay? Eyewitness accounts now qualify as hearsay? How many accusers need to come forward before you believe anything? And also what reason would Terry George have about lying about Jackson masturbing while talking on the phone with him while he was only 13? It doesn’t add up that every eyewitness is “hearsay” or a liar. Do you understand what hearsay is? Hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law". Look it up... Hearsay isn't allowed in court because: (1) it's not sworn testimony subject to perjury penalties if proven to be a lie (2) unlike actual trial witnesses, it cannot be cross-examined by the opposite side of the case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Just now, nicolasrumet said: Do you understand what hearsay is? Hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law". Look it up... Hearsay isn't allowed in court because: (1) it's not sworn testimony subject to perjury penalties if proven to be a lie (2) unlike actual trial witnesses, it cannot be cross-examined by the opposite side of the case Girl you’re missing the forest for the trees though. You said Jackson accusers had credibility issues and are in it for money, and then switched the argument to hearsay when confronted with two accusers who had no credibility issues or anything to gain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolve 571 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 All the MJ fans should've left their kids to live with him honestly. Idiots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickens in Malibu 7,873 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Ayria said: Girl you’re missing the forest for the trees though. You said Jackson accusers had credibility issues and are in it for money, and then switched the argument to hearsay when confronted with two accusers who had no credibility issues or anything to gain. I don't know if it's worth it to continue arguing with you. You claimed that this "witness testimony" from this random caller isn't hearsay. When I explained to you why it's hearsay, you failed to even acknowledge it and kept diverting the discussion to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayria 463 Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said: I don't know if it's worth it to continue arguing with you. You claimed that this "witness testimony" from this random called isn't hearsay. When I explained to you why it's hearsay, you failed to even acknowledge it and kept diverting the discussion to avoid admitting that you are wrong. Okay but why did this couple report this then? Why did Terry George claim Jackson masturbated while on the phone with him at age 13? Don’t you think the picture becomes clearer when we look at everyone who has ever accused him and seeing a pattern of behavior starting in the late 70s? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.