Wade Robson and James Safechuck for BB

[Bellatrix 34,772]

4 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Nice logic you have you and Oprah. Very convincing!

"How can you see clearly when you're looking into the sun?" xD

Very convincing analysis of the facts.

I think it describes it pretty well though. You see this perfect legend and it blinds you so hard that you can't even for five seconds think of the possibility that he might be guilty.

I'm not trying to convince you. The MJ fans are never gonna cave on this, so that would just be a waste of time.
 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

2 minutes ago, Bellatrix said:

I think it describes it pretty well though. You see this perfect legend and it blinds you so hard that you can't even for five seconds think of the possibility that he might be guilty.

I'm not trying to convince you. The MJ fans are never gonna cave on this, so that would just be a waste of time.
 

I am not a MJ fan. When did you ever see me talking or praising him before Leaving Neverland. As someone who's studying law, I feel that I have a duty to be less naive than the average person. I'd feel ashamed of myself, if I were to believe hearsay as evidence to condemn someone as a pedophile, especially after they were investigated for such crimes TWICE, even tried and acquitted.

And in case you didn't read this, I'll post it here again. This guy summarizes my points perfectly:

Justin Schawtz, a lawyer and ex-law professor:

"I don't have a dog in this fight. I like Jackson's music and have fond memories of listening to it with my first GF at age 13, but I can live with a great artist being a monster as a person. I like the novelist Louis-Ferdinand Celine, raving racist, anti-Semite and Nazi collaborator; I love Picasso, a Stalin apologist who treated women like toilet tissue; and other horrible geniuses. But it grates my soul to see Jackson condemned as person on the basis of totally unsubstantiated accusations.

Any lawyer would take the two compromised protagonists of the Leaving Neverland documentary apart at the joints. They have a long history of contradictory statements (prior inconsistent statements, we call them). They had cases against the Jackson Estate dismissed, and owe it over $100K in attorneys fees, so they have interest in making money at the Estate's expense. They are making uncorroborated claims (which, as noted, they previously repeatedly denied) charging a dead man with offenses for which he was actually tried and acquitted.

In addition, the FBI conducted a decade-long investigation into similar claims and came up with goose egg, nothing, nada, zip. And probable cause is a low standard. The documentary is deliberately one-sided, telling only the men's stories in the most sympathetic possible way and not subjecting them to any critical interrogation.

Pardon me if I'm less than impressed. You should be unimpressed too. I'll believe it if is there is real evidence. A preponderance, even. The problems with this documentary, which I have barely scratched here, indicate that the evidence doesn't remotely support its claims.

So, to answer the question, if the question is whether Jackson molested the protagonists of Leaving Neverland as children, the answer is, on the evidence of the film, probably not."

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

9 hours ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Acquittal =/= innocence. OJ Simpson was acquitted. George Zimmerman was acquitted. R Kelly was acquitted. Casey Anthony was acquitted.

You do realize what acquittal means right? It doesn't go inside the heart of somebody and determine whether they're guilty or innocent. It simply means that there wasn't enough evidence put forth by the prosecution to strip said person of their presumption of innocence.

You don't prove someone's innocence. It is presumed. You prove someone's guilt. So trial's verdicts were never designed to prove someone's innocence (acquittal).

Oh and do I love seeing the use of the "hasty generalization" fallacy on these forums:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization

Just because there were few controversial trials in history (sometimes the fault can be attributed to the prosecution or lack of evidence), doesn't mean that our judicial system is overall flawed. That's as fallacious as saying that a medical treatment is a viable solution just because there's still a 0.01% chance of unsuccessful outcome.

And instead of throwing those examples, examine them one by one:

1. OJ Simpson's case: lack of evidence. Evidence that simply didn't add up. And jurors had a reasonable doubt. Do we throw "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard out of the window, just because the court of public opinion thinks so? This is not the standard of preponderance of evidence. This is a higher standard. If we lower it so that people like O.J Simpson can be found guilty, then you'll be sending hundreds of thousands of innocent people to jail every year.

2. George Zimmerman: The prosecution filed the wrong charges. Instead of filing "manslaughter" charges. They filed "Second degree murder" which stipulates that someone carried out a murder with hatred or ill-will.And at that point, if the hatred or ill-will element could not be proven, then the charge overall could not be proven.

3. R. Kelly: Umm isn't this one simple? He was acquitted because the main alleged victim stopped cooperating and the girl in the video could not be identified by the jury.  So what do we do? We find him guilty anyway, even though the alleged girl now denies the claims and stops cooperating? Get real.

Now, I'm done debunking your fallacies

[Ayria 463]

The justice system fails, at the end of the day the truth will come out in the end. Leaving Neverland is unbothered with 97% on rotten tomatoes and 7.1 on IMDb. The people who watch it are moved by it and it’s having a positive effect on the world. MJ defenders will see the light one day, but today might not be that day. 

[PunkTheFunk 124,404]

2 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Nice logic you have you and Oprah. Very convincing!

"How can you see clearly when you're looking into the sun?" xD

Very convincing analysis of the facts.

Nice logic you had in your original "Here's Why Leaving Neverland is a lie" thread when you put forward this fanfiction:

"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. "

Very convincing analysis of the facts!

2 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Lol what? You can't settle out of a criminal case. Settling their civil lawsuit has nothing to do with the criminal process. The prosecution actually said they'll keep the criminal case open. But the chandlers stopped cooperating with the authorities after they got the money, which shows that it was a moneygrab nothing more nothing less. Back then, the authorities interviewed many other children in 1993/1994, including James Safechuck, found no incriminating evidence, and with Chandler refusing to cooperate, they simply had no choice but to close the criminal investigation.

Get your facts straight

"You can't settle out of a criminal case." I never said you could? 

I'm  confused. You came at me with "Get your facts straight" but nothing in your post contradicts what I originally said.  Jordan Chandler never retracted or changed his claims. 

"which shows that it was a money grab nothing more nothing less" -- was this the official conclusion of the investigation?

2 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

You do realize what acquittal means right? It doesn't go inside the heart of somebody and determine whether they're guilty or innocent. It simply means that there wasn't enough evidence put forth by the prosecution to strip said person of their presumption of innocence.

You don't prove someone's innocence. It is presumed. You prove someone's guilt. So trial's verdicts were never designed to prove someone's innocence (acquittal).

Oh and do I love seeing the use of the "hasty generalization" fallacy on these forums:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/100/Hasty-Generalization

Just because there were few controversial trials in history (sometimes the fault can be attributed to the prosecution or lack of evidence), doesn't mean that our judicial system is overall flawed. That's as fallacious as saying that a medical treatment is a viable solution just because there's still a 0.01% chance of unsuccessful outcome.

And instead of throwing those examples, examine them one by one:

1. OJ Simpson's case: lack of evidence. Evidence that simply didn't add up. And jurors had a reasonable doubt. Do we throw "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard out of the window, just because the court of public opinion thinks so? This is not the standard of preponderance of evidence. This is a higher standard. If we lower it so that people like O.J Simpson can be found guilty, then you'll be sending hundreds of thousands of innocent people to jail every year.

2. George Zimmerman: The prosecution filed the wrong charges. Instead of filing "manslaughter" charges. They filed "Second degree murder" which stipulates that someone carried out a murder with hatred or ill-will.And at that point, if the hatred or ill-will element could not be proven, then the charge overall could not be proven.

3. R. Kelly: Umm isn't this one simple? He was acquitted because the main alleged victim stopped cooperating and the girl in the video could not be identified by the jury.  So what do we do? We find him guilty anyway, even though the alleged girl now denies the claims and stops cooperating? Get real.

Now, I'm done debunking your fallacies

Once again, you are arguing with me about points I never made. All I said was "acquittal does not mean innocence", i.e. just because someone has been acquitted by a court doesn't mean that they didn't do it. It just means that you can't prove they did do it using the evidence provided. I think we agree on that.

You seem to think that I want to throw MJ in jail without due process when I don't  If he was still alive, I would absolutely want him to go through a proper trial. It is simply my (and many other's) interpretation  of the information  surrounding the case that he was probably a pedophile. As I think @Ayria  mentioned before, the legal system is not some god-ordained institution. It is a flawed system run by human beings. He can be "innocent" in the eyes of the law, but he doesn't have to be in the eyes of the general public.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Adarsh Soni said:

I feel bad for them tbh. Imagine when he’s proven guilty, what will they have left to say? 

If he's proven guilty we'll accept it, bcs there is proof.

 But when there is inconsistency and proof of some parents being scammers, thieves etc the trials resulting in NOTHING, no. Trial by MEDIA is not justice 

I wonder why they left out that brandi jackson dated wade time when alleged abuse took place....and that MJ wanted them to date

[Ayria 463]

4 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Nice logic you had in your original "Here's Why Leaving Neverland is a lie" thread when you put forward this fanfiction:

"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. "

Very convincing analysis of the facts

Omg but we’re gullible for believing a vetted, acclaimed HBO documentary that’s endorsed by Oprah Winfrey and respected documentarian Louis Theroux. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

On 3/21/2019 at 10:21 PM, BLACKOUTbritney said:

Gaga promoted and campaigned for TIHTY. Does that mean she was lying too? Does that destroy the powerful message behind the song? Does that tarnish the #Metoo movement? 

Do I believe the allegations? Yes.

Do I also believe these guys want to make a buck? Hell yes.

Both can be true especially with people who love fame. Wade Robson, (the guy who bragged about sleeping with Britney Spears and caused the break up between her and Justin) loves being famous. 

 

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, kyanewest said:

If he's proven guilty we'll accept it, bcs there is proof.

 But when there is inconsistency and proof of some parents being scammers, thieves etc the trials resulting in NOTHING, no. Trial by MEDIA is not justice 

I wonder why they left out that brandi jackson dated wade time when alleged abuse took place....

Any notion of a guilty verdict is over though? What inconsistencies exist in Wade and James accounts? 

Maybe because Brandi isn’t relevant? She wasn’t in hotel suites with James or in bed with Wade and Michael. Wade and Brandi began having sex four years after Michael last molested Wade anyway. Here’s a good response to Brandi: 

 

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Do I believe the allegations? Yes.

Do I also believe these guys want to make a buck? Hell yes.

Both can be true especially with people who love fame. Wade Robson, (the guy who bragged about sleeping with Britney Spears and caused the break up between her and Justin) loves being famous. 

 

Even if they want money it’s not like it’s a surefire paycheck from the estate, they’d still have to win the case. And it’s odd that James would be after  fame since he’s been very low key since becoming an adult and works in web development. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Any notion of a guilty verdict is over though? What inconsistencies exist in Wade and James accounts? 

Maybe because Brandi isn’t relevant? She wasn’t in hotel suites with James or in bed with Wade and Michael. Wade and Brandi began having sex four years after Michael last molested Wade anyway. Here’s a good response to Brandi: 

 

Yeah, you really don't get it. Brandi's relationship with Wade should not have happened if MJ wanted Wade all to himself like Wade claim he did...

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, kyanewest said:

Yeah, you really don't get it. Brandi's relationship with Wade should not have happened if MJ wanted Wade all to himself like Wade claim he did...

Michael moved on from Wade and only abused him occasionally after he turned ten? Then Jordan Chandler was his favorite. And why is Michael setting up children anyway? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Michael moved on from Wade and only abused him occasionally after he turned ten? Then Jordan Chandler was his favorite. And why is Michael setting up children anyway? 

he met Brandi when he was 9-10, they started dating when they were 12 (at least according to Brandi). Wade said he was abused by MJ from 7 to 14

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, kyanewest said:

he met Brandi when he was 9-10, they started dating when they were 12 (at least according to Brandi). Wade said he was abused by MJ from 7 to 14

And why can’t that all be true? ☠️ Wade and Brandi were childhood sweethearts and didn’t actually “date” in an adult way until years later. MJ abused Wade most frequently from the time Wade was 7-9 and then it was very occasional with the last incident occurring when Wade was age 14. Nothing about Brandi’s claim contradicts that timeline. We’re supposed to believe MJ made a 7 year old perform oral sex but drew the line at sharing with his niece? ☠️

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Ayria said:

And why can’t that all be true? ☠️ Wade and Brandi were childhood sweethearts and didn’t actually “date” in an adult way until years later. MJ abused Wade most frequently from the time Wade was 7-9 and then it was very occasional with the last incident occurring when Wade was age 14. Nothing about Brandi’s claim contradicts that timeline. We’re supposed to believe MJ made a 7 year old perform oral sex but drew the line at sharing with his niece? ☠️

Doesnt make sense with his claim that he  had to be  all his and no one else's

Alot of people forget Michael had his neices and nephews there all the time. Every one who work with Michael said the same thing, Michael wasn't really there at Neverland. Both his ex wife said the same thing. Wade and the other guy time line just doesn't match.