Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

[adam cool dude]

Also, if it was about money... Why would they not get paid for appearing in the documentary.. and why would they burn this memorabilia given to him by Michael?

Why would they burn it now and not throw it away ages ago? Small price to pay for some $$$$$$$$. All done for effect. It is weird that he even had kids for sleepovers but then he wasn't a normal person but the problem you have and always have is they have changed their story. When Michael Jackson died in 09 he had nothing but praise for him. He wasn't a child then but a 27 year old man and could think for himself.

 

[Tek81]

The documentary is fabricated beyond belief, there is no hard evidence, hasnt Dan Reed also not allowed anyone else to take part in this documentary who may shine a different light on this matter? Also MJ's nephew is making a Counter Documentary apparently.

What would constitute hard evidence, in your opinion? There was no hard evidence against Jimmy Savile beyond witness testimony, speculation and accusations from victims. Yet he is now universally recognised as one of the most prolific sex offenders of all time. And rightly so.

Hard evidence, such as blood stained underwear, with the combined DNA of the accused and the victims (for example), just isn't going to happen. In many situations like this, the guilt of an individual is assumed if trial isn't viable, or proved beyond reasonable doubt in court, based up a significant account of corroborating witness testimony. Although I'd like to emphasize that I'm still undecided as to Jackson's guilt, I would argue that even with the lack of physical, tangible evidence, the accusations raised prior to and during this documentary, do raise the possibility of him being a sexual predator. And, if other people come forward with similar accusations, as I speculate will happen, then that possibility is increased further.

 

[IvanDobskey]

The Jackson fans just refuse to believe he was capable of doing any wrong.

I'm sorry, but there is just too much smoke to be no fire.

Fans are just blinded by loyalty to him.

 

[jpaul]

producing tv biopics like that does nothing for the credibility of the prosecution, even a Louis Theroux investigation would be more objective,
(remember he was conned by Saville, to his shame) but have to accept that is how the Americans do things - a Sun / tabloid lcd presentation technique.

The cynical simu-broadcast uk & usa, is also to maximise broadcaster revenue, like for low quality stuff at the cinema.

If you want to evaluate the nephews's case/credibility listen back to 5L interview yesterday at 2pm, that was very incoherent ... why do they need crowd funding ?

I'm not sure which is the definitive broadcast analysing Saville, but I don't think bbc or c4 would ever fund a similar style of broadcast, even, for the USA market.
(the usa lapped up the brexit movie, the crown etc) . The BBC still seem unable to acknowledge their own role in Saville, which does not help.

Have American streamers now stopped broadcasting the House of cards series too ?

 

[MookJong]

Lie detectors are the way forward, if I was them and had actually be abused I would be more than happy to take one.

Refuse to do so and everyone else should remain skeptical.

 

[VincentHanna]

They are about 80% accurate, so there is a good reason they generally aren't admissible in a court of law.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

The Oprah Winfrey interview with the two blokes is an eye opener.
The audience is full of child abuse experts and child abuse victims who can empathise with all those fine details us 'normal' folk can't pick up on.
Both of the lads also haven't forgiven their Mothers for letting it happen.
They were both asked why they lied in court and why they have come forward now and their answers are from the heart.

 

[mmj_uk]

So what was there any actual hard evidence or was it all just #metoo stuff with stories about wild sex orgies and anyone who doesn't believe them is an evil Nazi?

 

[SC0TTRS]

So both Wade Robson and James Safechuck in there 20's back in 2005 stood in high court and said Micheal Jackson did not molest them, but now years later do a complete 180%?...sounds very fishy to me.

Also James Safechuck is a professional Actor so knows how to come across on film.

 

[Nasher]

If he was still alive, we'd be seeing something like this:

 

[mmj_uk]

The Jackson fans just refuse to believe he was capable of doing any wrong.

I'm sorry, but there is just too much smoke to be no fire.

Fans are just blinded by loyalty to him.

You're meant to prove it to them, stories that could have been manufactured aren't enough to convict a person in any civilised society. His behaviour towards children was dodgy AF but you still need to prove he's a paedophile before writing history that way.

 

[the_r_sole]

I watched it with a completely open mind - tbh I'm absolutely amazed at some of the opinion in here about it being completely fabricated

 

[SexyGreyFox]

So both Wade Robson and James Safechuck in there 20's back in 2005 stood in high court and said Micheal Jackson did not molest them, but now years later do a complete 180%?...sounds very fishy to me.

Explained from the heart in the Oprah interview

 

[SC0TTRS]

Explained from the heart in the Oprah interview

I'll have to watch it.

 

[IvanDobskey]

I watched it with a completely open mind - tbh I'm absolutely amazed at some of the opinion in here about it being completely fabricated

This

 

[Neoni]

This

Why? The rings for example wheres the evidence they were from MJ and not costume jewelery bought and a story made up purely for the documentary? Same as the MJ jacket he burned a replica? Same as them saying he was circumscised yet his autopsy says different?

 

[IvanDobskey]

Those two guys just don't come across as lying. What they are saying all fits with how paedophiles operate. You can hear it in their voices, see it in their faces, what they have been through. I just can't believe they are making it all up, putting it on.

 

[Mark Holder]

Your friend needs to listen to both sides to form a proper opinion, unless he personally knows or knew Jackson or someone close to him.
Personally I've never liked him and was not surprised to hear the original accusations.
I was a Gary Glitter fan back in the day and I still like his music but I don't like him. However I still maintain that if glitter was as wealthy as Jackson he would never have faced charges, Jackson's offences are far worse and I wonder what he got away with because he paid off his victims. I did work as security for one glitter gig and there was nothing that even in hindsight seemed suspicious. Many years ago I spent a lot of time with someone who was close to cliff Richards and he had nothing nice to say about him and accused him of some seriously dodgy behaviour. We put it down to professional jealousy and thought nothing of it until recently.
A bit off of your question but my point is fame and fortune can still buy you out of some very serious crimes but it can also be a long fall from grace. In my opinion Jackson was a dangerous and serial pedophile, abuse isn't always physical but it is always plain wrong. It's very sad that like saville he had the power to protect himself all the time he was alive. There is a lot we will never hear about I'm sure

 

[mmj_uk]

So now we have safe spaces on the radio... oh joy living in a country where corporations dictate our lives.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ld-ban-Michael-Jackson-wake-abuse-claims.html

 

[the_r_sole]

Why? The rings for example wheres the evidence they were from MJ and not costume jewelery bought and a story made up purely for the documentary? Same as the MJ jacket he burned a replica? Same as them saying he was circumscised yet his autopsy says different?

do you think they've got together and fabricated the story for fame/money? what do you see as their endgame?
concentrating on the fine detail is all very well but it seems there is a consistent pattern of grooming which is a much more mental thing than physical

The flip side is of course, if they are lying and have fabricated it all - why would they have any detail wrong, I'm sure they could have found a lot more convincing detail in the lead up to the documentary if that was the intention