Wade Robson and James Safechuck for BB

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Nothing about that audio proves extortion. ☠️

You are ignoring facts that don't follow ur narrative

[Ayria 463]

Just now, nicolasrumet said:

Nice Conway move. Didn't you claim that James Safechuck was lying when he told detectives that nothing sexual occured between him and MJ when he was interrogated alone by detectives in 1993?

Or do you believe his account? 

I believe he was lying to protect Michael and admitted the kiss because his dad saw it. Conway vs. Nambla member I guess. 

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, kyanewest said:

You are ignoring facts that don't follow ur narrative

No I’m not that audio could be an angry stepdad who wants Michael destroyed for touching his son, nothing about it has him admitting to an extortion plot.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ayria said:

No I’m not that audio could be an angry stepdad who wants Michael destroyed for touching his son, nothing about it has him admitting to an extortion plot.

The other facts Ive written. You didnt comment about them

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, kyanewest said:

The other facts Ive written. You didnt comment about them

Repost them I’m busy

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

7 minutes ago, Ayria said:

I believe he was lying to protect Michael and admitted the kiss because his dad saw it. Conway vs. Nambla member I guess. 

Oh I see you're nowing using Kellyanne Conway tactic #4: If you can't come up with an answer, make up something.

Where did you come up with "his dad saw it" from?

The transcripts of the interrogation clearly say that his dad was informed by detectives AFTERWARDS that his son indicated that he was kissed by MJ when he was alone with detectives.

So no, the kid wasn't lying and admitted the kiss only because his dad saw it.

 

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

Oh I see you're nowing using Kellyanne Conway tactic #4: If you can't come up with an answer, make up something.

Where did you come up with "his dad saw it" from?

The transcripts of the interrogation clearly say that his dad was informed by detectives AFTERWARDS that his son indicated that he was kissed by MJ when he was alone with detectives.

So no, the kid wasn't lying and admitted the kiss only because his dad saw it.

 

I don’t know why he admitted it? What do you want me to say about it? It’s still inappropriate, and doesn’t mean James wasn’t molested.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

6 minutes ago, Ayria said:

I don’t know why he admitted it? What do you want me to say about it? It’s still inappropriate, and doesn’t mean James wasn’t molested.

Okay so the bottom line is:

James Safechuck was interrogated by Detectives ALONE IN THE ROOM (not in the presence of his parents). When asked about what type of interactions that he had with MJ that would be inappropriate he said only a kiss.

I agree, it would've been inappropriate to kiss a child that is not your own. But that goes to show that if something wrong happened between James and MJ, I don't see why he'd lie about it, especially when he didn't lie about the kiss?

So all of the stuff that Safechuck is claiming now "oral jobs" and "attempted **** sex" etc is most likely false.

As you see from the transcripts, Safechuck was interrogated by detectives, but also by his own parents. I find it hard to believe that he could lie effectively to both at a young age, and yet somehow doesn't lie about the kiss.

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

Okay so the bottom line is:

James Safechuck was interrogated by Detectives ALONE IN THE ROOM (not in the presence of his parents). When asked about what type of interactions that he had with MJ that would be inappropriate he said only a kiss.

I agree, it would've been inappropriate to kiss a child that is not your own. But that goes to show that if something wrong happened between James and MJ, I don't see why he'd lie about it, especially when he didn't lie about the kiss?

So all of the stuff that Safechuck is claiming now "oral jobs" and "attempted **** sex" etc is most likely false.

As you see from the transcripts, Safechuck was interrogated by detectives, but also by his own parents. I find it hard to believe that he could lie effectively to both at a young age, and yet somehow doesn't lie about the kiss.

I believe he could at that age (young teen). And him admitting MJ crossed one boundary means he must’ve also admitted to any other inappropriate boundaries he crossed? That logic doesn’t add up to me. 

[Ayria 463]

Shame and fear are great motivators for lying. Look at gays who don’t come out of the closet for years and claim to be straight. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Just now, Ayria said:

I believe he could at that age (young teen). And him admitting MJ crossed one boundary means he must’ve also admitted to any other inappropriate boundaries he crossed? That logic doesn’t add up to me. 

Again you're cherrypicking. You're not looking at the whole picture. Unless the young SafeChuck said that MJ molested him, he must've been lying according to you. Same with all the other children that were interrogated alone by detectives.

The admission of kiss follows a logical pattern: if you are trying to cover up for a sexual assault, you don't give detectives something to be suspicious about. So if he was trying to cover up, he wouldn't have said anything about the kiss either, especially when according to the documentary, MJ apparently told them "they'd go to jail forever if anyone hears about this". So if they were so scared of that, it doesn't make sense that they weren't scared of mentioning the kiss.

I could be a delusional MJ stan and say that he was lying about the kiss too, or I could be a delusional MJ hater and claimed he was lying about everything except the kiss. But no, for me, I don't see any reason for him to lie.

And the conclusion is, what he said is 100% true. MJ overstepped by kissing children not of his own, perhaps because he thought he could treat them like his own children, reading them books in his bedroom etc.. That definitely fits the narrative that I have come to understand about him based on the accounts and the evidence available in the public domain.

But does that mean he's a pedophile? No. Did he perform Oral Sex with James? No. Did he attempt any other thing that's sexual? No.

And James Safechuck own interview with detectives prove that.

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Again you're cherrypicking. You're not looking at the whole picture. Unless the young SafeChuck said that MJ molested him, he must've been lying according to you. Same with all the other children that were interrogated alone by detectives.

The admission of kiss follows a logical pattern: if you are trying to cover up for a sexual assault, you don't give detectives something to be suspicious about. So if he was trying to cover up, he wouldn't have said anything about the kiss either, especially when according to the documentary, MJ apparently told them "they'd go to jail forever if anyone hears about this". So if they were so scared of that, it doesn't make sense that they weren't scared of mentioning the kiss.

I could be a delusional MJ stan and say that he was lying about the kiss too, or I could be a delusional MJ hater and claimed he was lying about everything except the kiss. But no, for me, I don't see any reason for him to lie.

And the conclusion is, what he said is 100% true. MJ overstepped by kissing children not of his own, perhaps because he thought he could treat them like his own children, reading them books in his bedroom etc.. That definitely fits the narrative that I have come to understand about him based on the accounts and the evidence available in the public domain.

But does that mean he's a pedophile? No. Did he perform Oral Sex with James? No. Did he attempt any other thing that's sexual? No.

And James Safechuck own interview with detectives prove that.

I disagree that James admitting the kiss means he is lying now. I don’t understand why he’d present himself so vulnerably if he was only after money. I reject the idea that victims can’t take time to reveal their truth. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

7 hours ago, Ayria said:

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. 

It's a surefire paycheck from HBO, and as much as I love MJ, I do believe the allegations too. 

[Ayria 463]

16 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

It's a surefire paycheck from HBO, and as much as I love MJ, I do believe the allegations too. 

Honestly though HBO picked the doc up later, it was originally made on a very low budget so I doubt they were paid much initially. But that doesn’t exclude the possibility of a backend deal. 

[Akiki 3,900]

I think the whole "It takes time" is bullshit. People deal with worst things in life than this and they don't need 10 years to overcome it or speak about it. 

Some therapy and a year or later its reasonable, but a decade... That's messed up. 

There are many weird things and lost information in this case. People keep bringing that MJ had nude kids photos and stuff but that never went nowhere in trial.