• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

'We had a wedding ceremony in his bedroom': Michael Jackson accuser reveals he 'married the singer when he was ten!

Status
Not open for further replies.

PanzerAzel

Member
Then come back to me when you study the facts and stop blaming everything on childhood trauma. I'm here to discuss facts and not make excuses for their behavior.
Sure thing, after you answer me this. I’ll save myself the effort:

“Absent forensic certainty establishing guilt, which we do not have, explain to me on what basis I should believe those testifying in defense of MJ over those testifying against him? If you’re going to argue there’s proof that they lied previously so are not credible, alright…..do you think I wouldn’t be able to find deceit or something that compromises the integrity of those who defend MJ in order to pull their credibility into disrepute? Or discover an agenda or ulterior motive somewhere? Why should that not discredit them equally?”

Stop acting like MJ’s innocence is iron-clad, irrefutable, scientific, forensically-established fact, and it’s only my supposed ignorance that is the issue. It’s not. Something doesn’t suddenly become factual just because it serves your interests, y’know (testimonials), and inconsistencies can easily be attributed and understood in the light of what I’ve already noted.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Sure thing, after you answer me this. I’ll save myself the effort:

“Absent forensic certainty establishing guilt, which we do not have, explain to me on what basis I should believe those testifying in defense of MJ over those testifying against him? If you’re going to argue there’s proof that they lied previously so are not credible, alright…..do you think I wouldn’t be able to find deceit or something that compromises the integrity of those who defend MJ in order to pull their credibility into disrepute? Or discover an agenda or ulterior motive somewhere? Why should that not discredit them equally?”

Stop acting like MJ’s innocence is iron-clad, irrefutable, scientific, forensically-established fact, and it’s only my supposed ignorance that is the issue. It’s not. Something doesn’t suddenly become factual just because it serves your interests, y’know (testimonials), and inconsistencies can easily be attributed and understood in the light of what I’ve already noted.

You don't get it.

These lies are from their OWN testimonies. You're brushing it off as if it's one's person's account versus another.

I'll make it simple for you.

Answer all 3 questions one at a time. I want you to explain in detail why they shouldn't be considered liars.



Wade Robson said during this dinner is what built his conviction up to testify for Micahel Jackson in 2005 because he didn't want to see his children grow up without a parent.

Sadly for Wade, this dinner happened AFTER he testified.

This scene was REMOVED from the Leaving Neverland documentary.

QUESTION 1: If he wasn't lying, then why was it removed from the Documentary?

In the documentary, Wade Robson's wife said she knew nothing about sexual abuse and she was completely naive about the subject.




However, on their family website, she says that she's a survivor of child sex abuse.

People pointed this out and it was removed from the website.

D1Jy0q_XgAUpjMA


If you think this is photoshopped then you can easily check the website's archives for proof.

QUESTION 2: Did she lie about being a survivor of sexual abuse?

In the documentary, James Safechuck said he was pressured by Michael Jackson's lawyers to testify in 2005. He said this happened DURING the trial.

EaZ3MzvX0AQAlJ8


In a pre-trial hearing, anything regarding Safechuck will not be permitted during the trial.

If they wanted to bring Safechuck in, then they would've subpoenaed him.





QUESTION 3: Did Safechuck lie about being pressured by MJ lawyers to testify knowing the fact that I stated above? Without the pre-trial motion, they could've given him a subpoena to testify.



Answer 3 questions and answer them all directly. If you keep making excuses and refuse to answer these questions directly, then I'm going to put you on ignore.
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
Used to be a big MJ fan but i just dont know what to think about all this. I can def see both sides of the argument.
For me, i just cant get my head around why a man as famous as him would be so open about all this if he actually was secretly abusing children. I know the argument can be made that he's covering hmself but when i put myself in his shoes, imagine i'm a pedo, i just cant get my head around why i would be so open and public about all this if i really was a pedo, you know what i mean?, i'd be scared to death.

Also i know some people think his whole 'he had no childhood and now thats why he acts like a kid' image is fake but i have read and watched so many vids and articles about his silly behaviour over the years. I mean anyone ever hear Russel Crowe tell his story about how MJ would ring up the hotels Crowe was staying at, call his room, act like someone else, then when Crowe would start getting mad, MJ would start giggling on the phone and say its only Michael Russel, silly' lol. Crowe had never even met MJ.:messenger_tears_of_joy:

I still dont know what side i fall on, but i do believe him helping sick children etc wasnt some facade to get his hands on kids. I also believe that he probably does prefer the company of kids over adults.
I appreciate posts like these, where there‘s actual healthy discussions and speculations made, not positions so strictly beholden to forensic analysis that one is unwilling to go any further if not abided by. Leave that shit to the courtroom, I say,……it’s no debate to relitigate.

As to your point, I think it was probably a prime case of hiding in plain sight. MJ framed himself as Peter Pan, he surrounded himself with youth. That is a perfect cover that has the ability to alleviate suspicions should they arise, and all MJ had to do past that was get children alone late at night, lock the door after the 100th pillow fight, and let his hand wander under the sheets while singing sweet lullabies about “pure love” into their ears. It wouldn’t have been difficult, and being such a superstar and person of public exposure, if he were wishing to molest, how he did was the perfect methodology. Had he kept it on the DL, that would’ve been far more damning if discovered. But swim in an ocean of innocence? Who’s then going to believe tales of a bite here and there?

While if pushed to a choice I’d have to side on the position of culpability, I don’t believe MJ was a prolific abuser. I think he targeted only a small handful of children, showering them with attention and building trust. Doing so would serve his desires while at the same time creating an army of other children who would proclaim, truthfully, that he never touched them.

Either way, inappropriate.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Have to add PanzerAzel to the list who hide or dodge whenever they're asked to answer questions directly. :messenger_grinning_smiling:

The fact that you guys are ignoring questions only proves that you guys know they lied.
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
You don't get it.

These lies are from their OWN testimonies. You're brushing it off as if it's one's person's account versus another.
When you say this to me,

“I BARELY used ANY testimonies from people who vouched for Michael Jackson.”

In general understanding of the English language I take that to mean one against another, and I replied in kind. I know of the inconsistencies in testimonies that contradict themselves, I’ve addressed this more than once.…it is my entire position thus far, which you’ve continually ignored. And I’m not “brushing it off”. I‘m asking a simple question in order to establish a sound epistemological foundation for a debate, not going forward with one that will inevitably be whittled down to “facts”, that in reality, are nothing more than what testimonies we choose to cite while dismissing the ones we don’t because someone lied in the past and granted semblances of impropriety.

An absolute waste of my time.
I'll make it simple for you.

Answer all 3 questions one at a time. I want you to explain in detail why they shouldn't be considered liars.
*Sigh*

Alright, I’ll humor you here just this once so we can get past this.
QUESTION 1: If he wasn't lying, then why was it removed from the Documentary?
I don’t know.
QUESTION 2: Did she lie about being a survivor of sexual abuse?
I don’t know, I don’t know her. It’s very possible.
QUESTION 3: Did Safechuck lie about being pressured by MJ lawyers to testify knowing the fact that I stated above?
I don’t know, it’s very possible.
Answer 3 questions and answer them all directly.
Done.

Now, to your question as why shouldn’t they be considered liars if they’ve told a lie? They should, about that particular lie. But just because someone has told a lie, or even told a few, doesn’t mean everything that they say henceforth is a falsehood, nor that they are to be classified as pathological in their deceit, and to base your position contingent upon such an uncompromising premise in the face of how abuse victims live and come to terms with their past circumstances is asinine, unrealistic and unbelievably myopic. At best, all you can do by citing their inconsistencies is present a probability assessment that they will lie again in the attempt to undermine the credibility of their claims. It is not an automatic exoneration as you are framing it to be. It’s remarkable how you want to ascertain Jackson’s responsibility in the abuse of minors without taking into account the human and psychological factors when it comes to the subject. Yet you apparently have no trouble highlighting them when it’s convenient to your position (the fact that people deceive) but when it comes to any others, such as growth and acceptance that has them reverting their claims, then suddenly it’s “making excuses”. Right. 🙄

I‘ve answered your questions, now answer just one for me: why do you refuse to accord any concessions to those human factors? Going to be inevitably ignored no doubt, but worth a try.

Even were I to concede to every point you present, it would do nothing to change the fact of how Michael, explicitly and brazenly, inappropriately conducted himself around children. Not one iota, and I’m not going to sit here and mire myself in a few specifics and technicalities (only the very tip of an undoubtedly very large mountain of unacceptable behavior with minors over many years) to try to pathetically and disgustingly obfuscate and/or justify that reality. It places too many innocent at risk.

If you keep making excuses and refuse to answer these questions directly, then I'm going to put you on ignore.
It’s not unexpected, and truthfully no loss to any form of discussion so futile I care to partake in.

If you must.

Aloha.
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
Have to add PanzerAzel to the list who hide or dodge whenever they're asked to answer questions directly. :messenger_grinning_smiling:

The fact that you guys are ignoring questions only proves that you guys know they lied.
I’m not hiding, my response to you was more elaborate and required more time to formulate (my other response was made on the go). But this is a highly ironic post considering you STILL cannot admit that MJ’s behavior around children was despicable.

Have at it.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force

Now, to your question as why shouldn’t they be considered liars if they’ve told a lie?

LOL

No, you didn't address the answers directly. It's a dodging tactic people use. You guys know they lied, but you're afraid to admit it because it would minimize your child abuse trauma excuse. Actual victims don't lie. Gavin, Wade, and James have told false stories. Jordan Chandler was manipulated by his father. The entire plan of extortion was caught on tape, but you think his son is a real victim.

Real victims don't tell this many false stories and don't need to be pressured by their parents to lie.

I’m not hiding, my response to you was more elaborate and required more time to formulate (my other response was made on the go).

Have at it.

You're doing the same thing as you usually do. Ignore the facts and want people to listen to your excuses without actually having any knowledge of the case. You also made claims without any facts. lol.

Your inability to answer the questions directly is a good response to me. You know they lied and you don't want to admit it, so you refuse to acknowledge the evidence at hand. I'm ignoring your replies because I'm not here to play games.
 

Sentenza

Member
I like this Dforce-inspired style of discussion of just throwing a lot of random shit in and check what comes off as more damniing.

For instance, here's La Toya pretty much calling out her own brother as a pedophile on TV:



Transcription found on the internet for people who can't open a video for whatever reason:

‘Geraldo’
February 21, 1994

Episode: "La Toya Jackson Strikes Back"



Geraldo: The outspoken, often outrageous, independent, sometimes sad,
sometimes shocking, definitely defiant, always unpredictable,
undoubtedly interesting--ladies and gentlemen, welcome La Toya Jackson.

Geraldo: Hi.

La Toya Jackson: Hi.

Geraldo: Sounds like they're going to give you a fair shake today.

La Toya: We'll wait and see, huh?

Geraldo: We'll wait and see.

La Toya: Yeah.

Geraldo: So why? Why? Why? Blood is thicker than water. Why? Why would
you...

La Toya: Yes, it is.

Geraldo: Why would you come public and say things that were so damning
to your brother?

La Toya: You know, Geraldo, this has been going on for several months
now. And I've been asked repeatedly about the situation with Michael.
And, of course, he's my brother and I love him a great deal--more than
anything else. But when they ask me questions about him, I always say,
No comment, no comment, no comment,' because I was torn. And when you're
torn like that, and you know what's really going on, you don't know what
to say or what to do because you don't want to hurt him. However, at the
same time, you don't want to see these victims hurt either. And you have
to remember that I come from a family that's very dysfunctional. And I
was sexually abused--mentally, physically, when I was a child. And that...

Geraldo: By your father.

La Toya: By my father, yes.

La Toya: (Voiceover) And I know what it feels like to be a victim and to
be abused. And it's a scar that's left on you for a lifetime, and it's
something that you cannot help and that you cannot control. And it's
very damaging, especially to young children. And it happened to me when
I was a little girl. And I don't want to see that happen to anyone else.
And I'm not saying this to hurt Michael in any way, so I don't want the
people to get the wrong impression, but when the press asks me a
question, eventually I had to answer them. And I said, I refuse to be a
silent collaborator in his crimes.' And that was my answer.

Geraldo: In his crimes'--so inflammatory. Aside from the fact that it
sounds like you think he is guilty, and--and we'll get to that--was
there a specific catalyst, a specific reason for speaking out as you did
in early December from Tel Aviv in Israel?

La Toya: Yes, there was. They repeatedly asked me questions about him,
which I avoided.

La Toya: (Voiceover) I didn't want to answer them. Of course, you don't
want to.

But it comes to a point where they're just bombarding you with
questions, and you eventually say OK.' And that's when I did it. And
just before I had gone there--the night prior to that--I had seen the--I
don't know if they're familiar with it, but the priest who had actually
abused all these children, and they were very young.

Geraldo: The case in Massachusetts. Yes.

La Toya: In Massachusetts. And now they're adults. They're grown human
beings. They have no identity. They don't know who they are. They're all
confused. Some of them are drug addicts. They're just totally confused.
Their lives are totally destroyed. They don't know. And that's what
happens when you're abused as a child. And now these people are grown men.

Geraldo: OK.

La Toya: They're nearly 40 or more.

Geraldo: So is it--let me stand by your side for a minute--is this a
case of La Toya, the victim of child molestation, speaking out on behalf
of victims of molestation everywhere?

La Toya: Absolutely. Because it's important to let them know that if
you've been touched or hurt or anything, speak out and let someone know.

Geraldo: OK. Now you know that that sounds like you believe Michael to
be guilty of the allegations that he molested...

La Toya: I would say that for anyone, even if Michael wasn't my brother.

(Photo of Michael Jackson)

La Toya: (Voiceover) I would say that to anyone because it's so
important. They have no idea.

I think people who have been abused would understand it more clearly
than those who haven't been.

Geraldo: OK. Let's...

La Toya: You don't live a normal life. You can't function normally.

Geraldo: OK. We--we accept that, and we understand and feel it very
deeply. We've done more shows on victims rights on this program...

La Toya: Mm-hmm.

Geraldo: ...than any other talk show...

La Toya: Mm-hmm.

Geraldo: ...more programs about molestation and the perpetrators, et
cetera. What evidence is there, in your mind, La Toya, to lead you to
believe that Michael Jackson, your brother, is guilty of the allegations
that he molested this 13-year-old youngster? Let me take it
step-by-step. During the years that you lived with the family, did
Michael bring young boys to the house more often than would seem normal
to you?

La Toya: Repeatedly, yes. Definitely.

Geraldo: OK. What exactly did you see? Explain it, if you would.

La Toya: Constantly, there were always young boys at the house. And when
I say young boys, I don't mean groups of boys together. There was always
one. And he would spend time with them--and when I say time, he would
spend perhaps maybe a week, a month or longer, until they reach a
certain age. And when I say spend time with them, they would stay in his
room. You have to remember, to anybody out there, we're speaking about a
guy who's 35 years old. And these little boys--well, this...

La Toya: ...at a time, not in a group. But these little boys are
sleeping in his room with him. And sometimes they don't leave the room,
Geraldo, in three days. They stay in the room for three days. What could
they possibly be doing in a room for three days, sometimes a week? And
when they did ask for food or anything, the cooks would bring the food
to the door, and he would reach out and grab it, and he would close the
door. And you begin to wonder and think, What's going on?'

I have seen so many kids come to the house, and they're just overwhelmed
by what we had. They were overwhelmed by just the toy store, the candy
store, the game machines, and all these different things, and just the
rides and things of that sort. They were overwhelmed by these things.
And they were taken in by these things. And he would watch them play,
and he would single out certain ones, and he would have that look on his
face, that glazed look. And I stopped and asked him one time, Why are
you looking at them that way? What is it?' And he just laughed, and
said, Well, I'm just looking. I'm looking at them play. I enjoy it.'
Which, in fact, I'm sure he does enjoy it sometimes--them playing. But
when you single out one guy like that, and that's the guy that you see
that stays over, and he's there for the next several months or
whatever--until he reaches a certain age or whatever, that's the guy
that you see. And that's that kind of--you know, it puzzles you. What's
going on? What's happening here?'

Geraldo: Describe that glazed look.

La Toya: And you see this guy playing, and all of a sudden when you
knock on Michael's bedroom door, and you walk in the room...

Geraldo: Mm-hmm.

La Toya: ...the child is entirely different. He's not the same little child.

Geraldo: He's not the same innocent child?

La Toya: No. He's not the same little child anymore.

Geraldo: Was the glazed look a predatory look? What is a look of, I am
attracted to that one? I want that one?'

La Toya: I hate to sit here and say yes, but that's the impression I
got. That's the impression I would always get. And that's the impression
I didn't like. And that's what I didn't like seeing. And if you must
remember, I wrote a book a couple of years ago...

La Toya: (Voiceover) ...because I wanted to put a stop to this. Because
I knew it would come to this. And I didn't want to see Michael hurt.

I thought, eventually, perhaps he would stop this. But when you're
raised like we were in a dysfunctional family, perhaps he couldn't stop.
He had nowhere to turn. He was confused.

Geraldo: So in your heart of hearts, you believe...

La Toya: But this boy totally changed. You have to remember he was just
playful and just--whatever, and you come in the room and he's like this,
all of a sudden. I go, What's wrong ...(bleeped out). What's wrong with
you?' Nothing.' The same little boy that was jumping up and down on the
bed and bouncing around and having fun, Oh, let's go to the candy store.
Let's do this and let's do that,' was entirely different. You would see
him sneaking there, and looking around, and running to the store after a
while. That was part of the property when I say store, so they won't get
the wrong impression.

Geraldo: Right. The private stock of candy and other goodies.

La Toya: It was just a big store that had everything you ever wanted, as
far as candies for kids.

Geraldo: OK. You say that at the age of 13, he then rejected the children?

La Toya: That was basically the--the oldest.

Geraldo: And the youngest?

La Toya: As far as nine years old--eight or nine years old. From
what--from what I've--I've seen at home.

Geraldo: OK. From what--your own eyes--you are now saying, testifying in
a way, that you saw your brother with eight- and nine-year-olds in his
bedroom, staying over night after night after night. You saw that?

La Toya: Yes. And not coming out of the room. Yes.

Geraldo: Did you ever see Michael behave--other than the glazed look,
the predatory look that you described--did you ever see him behave in an
untoward or improper manner? Did he, for instance, fondle the children
in your eyes?

La Toya: No, I've never seen him do that. No. No.

Geraldo: So you'd have to say you've never actually seen him molest a child?

La Toya: No. I've never seen him do any of that. Absolutely not.

Geraldo: Why then are you so convinced in your heart that he's guilty?

La Toya: Because of what I've seen. Because of what I know. Because of
what my mother has done. Because of what she showed me.

La Toya: (Voiceover) Because of the things that she said to me about
Michael, that I refused to believe at the time.

I would--I refused to believe my mother. My mother actually was
screaming at me one day, and I ran to the room. I--frantically--I
thought something was wrong, something had happened. And she was showing
me this check and I said, Yeah, so. What about it?' And she says, Well
look at it.' And the check, of course, was a one and lots of zeroes
behind it. And she says, La Toya, this is $1 million.' I said, So?' And
she goes, But look who it's written to.' And, of course, at that
particular time it was...written to, the last name of the little boy
that he was with all that time. But it was written to the father, and
not the little boy. It was in the father's name. And she called him a
very bad name after that--Michael. She called him a very bad name. There
was another check behind that. And I said, Mother, please. Let's leave.'
I said, We shouldn't be in here. I don't want this.'

Geraldo: You were in Michael's room?

La Toya: Yes, she was in his--actually, his closet. It was his closet.

Geraldo: And the two of you were in Michael's room and you--and she
removed a canceled check and showed it to you?

La Toya: She was in his closet, that--which is in his room, yes.

Geraldo: And you recognized the name?

La Toya: Yes.

Geraldo: All right. Don't tell us the name, but describe the person to
whom it was written--the father.

La Toya: I don't know the father.

Geraldo: Was he a show business person?

La Toya: No. The father, supposedly, is a garbage collector--or, was a
garbage collector, I should say, at that particular time.

And here's the interview with her former husband ten years later when she retracted the entire story and started defending MJ unconditionately:

A relevant portion:

COOPER: So you still say you think he's a pedophile?

GORDON: Oh, absolutely. Not even a question.

COOPER: I guess I don't understand quite on what you base that?

GORDON: Well, first of all you have to understand that I was there. I was Michael's brother-in-law. I stayed at that house often and I stayed there more than a couple of years. I saw and witnessed a lot of small little boys. I never saw a little girl. I used to ask the question, why are there all little boys here and no little girls? I never got an answer. I would ask LaToya, I would ask Janet, Michael, Joseph, Kathryn and nobody ever responded to that question.

COOPER: Let me ask you Jack, in 1993, your then wife LaToya Jackson said, "I cannot and will not be a silent collaborator of his crimes against small innocent children. I think Michael needs help." Basically she saying what you are saying now. She has since backed off that, I think recently on Larry King, she said that it was basically your fault. She blamed it on management that she was being controlled to say those things. Why do you think she has backed off?

GORDON: Well, LaToya, let me make a response. LaToya has to forget about me and kind of put me in the background and go on with her life. I never told LaToya to say anything at all. In fact, LaToya, if I recall, I watched Larry King too and said I had written down that entire speech. If I had written down that entire speech it would be as big as this television studio.

COOPER: Why do you think she's backed off these allegations why she once made?

GORDON: Well, I think Michael is supporting her. I feel very strongly Michael supports her.

COOPER: Is that the case you think ith with other family members as well?

GORDON: I think every single one of them. The only monies coming into that family are through Michael Jackson. The rest of them certainly aren't earning anything at all.

COOPER: So, you are saying you think Michael Jackson is paying his family members and you believe that is why they are supportive of him?

GORDON: I believe that Michael supports the entire family, Jackson family, including the mother, the father, the brothers and the sister, other than Janet.

COOPER: I just want to jump in. We are looking at live pictures right now of Michael Jackson's Lincoln Navigator as it is stuck in traffic heading towards somewhere in Las Vegas. I imagine some hotel where he is staying at. Describe if you will the inner circle that this man lives in, or lived in at the time you were associated with the family. The people he has around him, is he in control of things?

GORDON: Michael used to be. When I knew him, very much in control. Nothing ever happened to Michael Jackson unless Michael Jackson had absolute control over everything that was going on. And that means everything.

COOPER: Jack Gordon, appreciate you joining us tonight, adding your perspective.

We could go with more stuff, like the shady things Anthony Pellicano had to say about his former client; the way Jermain Jackson used to be A LOT less confident about his brother's innocence in 1994, before being generously rewarded for his loyalty over the years, etc, etc.
But let's not oversaturate this post and savor things one sweet taste at the time.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
This is how easy it is to respond.



She was abused and admits her husband forced her to make those claims.

- LaToya claimed Michael Jackson paid their parent's hush money but later admits she didn't know what the checks were for.

Katie Couric: Do you know what these checks were for?

LaToya: I don't know what they were for, but they were written to the parents of the little boys that would sleep over.

Katie Couric: You're just assuming then that it's hush money? Did your mother ever tell you that this money was being given to the parents of the alleged victims to keep them quiet?

LaToya: That's why I can't say it was hush money, apparently, it was given for some reason and I don't know why.

LaToya says she didn't witness anything in this interview



She also mentions Safechuck.
Safechuck said he didn't know he was abused until 2013. His mother claims she found out he was abused in 2005 (which is a contradiction) and never brings up LaToy's story. Their stories don't match and they all lied.

To go even further, Safechuck claims to have been abused from 1988-1992. LaToya is claiming this happened BEFORE 1988.

In this same interview, her abusive husband is listening on the phone.

This is an example of how you dispute claims, something people in this thread cannot do.

People want a one way conversation. They want their questions and posts answered while ignoring any shred of evidence proving that these people have lied.

I can probably say that I'm finally done replying to the same people who ignore facts.
 
Last edited:

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
This is how easy it is to respond.



She was abused and admits her husband forced her to make those claims.

- LaToya claimed Michael Jackson paid their parent's hush money but later admits she didn't know what the checks were for.



LaToya says she didn't witness anything in this interview



She also mentions Safechuck.
Safechuck said he didn't know he was abused until 2013. His mother claims she found out he was abused in 2005 (which is a contradiction) and never brings up LaToy's story. Their stories don't match and they all lied.

To go even further, Safechuck claims to have been abused from 1988-1992. LaToya is claiming this happened BEFORE 1988.

In this same interview, her abusive husband is listening on the phone.

This is an example of how you dispute claims, something people in this thread cannot do.

People want a one way conversation. They want their questions and posts answered while ignoring any shred of evidence proving that these people have lied.

I can probably say that I'm finally done replying to the same people who ignore facts.

You are trying to gaslight everyone in this thread who is not a pedo defender. We've answered many many questions all the while you refuse to answer hardly any questions. Pages ago you said you weren't going to make excuses for the victims' behavior yet you you've got plenty of excuses for all of the dead pedo's behavior. You conveniently ignored that post. Double standards much? We've admitted that the victims lied and gave reasons as to why but mental midgets cant get past that part. It doesn't mean that they weren't abused.

One has to wonder why someone would defend a dead pedo so fanatically. Maybe they're on the spectrum or possibly some deep seeded shame. I don't know
 

Sentenza

Member
By the way, can you even imagine appealing to the credibility of other people crying that some of them lied in some circumstances when defending Micheal “I never made any plastic surgery except for my nose once” or “I never did anything to change my skin” Jackson.

The man was a compulsive liar and if there’s ever been anything child-like about him was how incapable he was to realize the transparency of his lies.
Same goes for its exceptionally dysfunctional family. All people who changed their version of the story according to their mood (and paycheck) several times across the years.

Also, since we are on the topic of saying (and in fact REITERATING) lies on a regular basis: Safechuck said that he realized (and flat out said to his mother) MJ "wasn't a good person" WAY before his death, at the time some of the public accusations emerged.
 

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
By the way, can you even imagine appealing to the credibility of other people crying that some of them lied in some circumstances when defending Micheal “I never made any plastic surgery except for my nose once” or “I never did anything to change my skin” Jackson.

The man was a compulsive liar and if there’s ever been anything child-like about him was how incapable he was to realize the transparency of his lies.
Same goes for its exceptionally dysfunctional family. All people who changed their version of the story according to their mood (and paycheck) several times across the years.

Also, since we are on the topic of saying (and in fact REITERATING) lies on a regular basis: Safechuck said that he realized (and flat out said to his mother) MJ "wasn't a good person" WAY before his death, at the time some of the public accusations emerged.
Yeah he lied about not bleaching his skin and how much plastic surgery he had but those lies are acceptable because reasons to the dead pedo defenders. I know several people with vitiligo and they have splotches of white skin. It doesn't cover their entire body from head to toe.
 

Sentenza

Member
This is how easy it is to respond.
With hilarious made-up bullshit?
Super-easy, barely an inconvenience.

In fact, in this case the "explanation" was even addressed before the claim was made.

I wonder why aren't the obvious "second motives" questioned in this case.
 
Last edited:

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
"He's guilty because I feel he's guilty." Is not a valid argument.
Very telling that you edited out the part of him sleeping with boys in your quote of my post. Care to address why you think sleeping with boys is ok? "He's not guilty because I like Billie Jean" is also not a valid argument. I choose to believe the numerous victims over one pedo.
 
Last edited:
No one is going to believe you are being held hostage while you are on a Toys R US shopping spree and getting spa treatments. At least those of us in our right mind wont.

No one is going to believe you, if your abuse needs a time machine to have occurred.

I'll make you disappear in a hot air balloon said no criminal ever.

I'm not believing you if you only come up with a claim after being turned down for a job or your family is millions in debt.

Who opts for money over criminal prosecution of someone who supposedly hurt your kid. Who tries to rangle money to make a movie from someone who abused your kid?

Who drags innocent people into the scam to create a narrative of abuse that did not occur.

Where are the hundreds of molestation victims, instead we got a few scammers and tons of boys and girls that said MJ never did anything to them?

No jury or judge believed the clowns, not like they didn't get a day in court. One may say everyone has lied, but in court lies are put to examination, these people did not lie once or twice, they were found not reputable because of their culture of lying was exposed. The foundation of their case was built upon lies. We do not have a crystal ball to see every moment at one time, we can only examine testimony, facts, inconsistencies and render a verdict. The lies of these victims made any scenario where MJ could have done wrong doing astronomically unlikely. If you accuse me of something and its your word against mine, we have to examine facts, character etc.
 
I remember when the Me too stuff started hitting and initially its like this is great, they are going to get some of these rapists, molesters whatever, but then a funny thing happened. An allegation automatically meant guilt, no day in court nothing. Instant hanging in the court of public opinion. We were told we should just believe, despite how many people have been wrongly imprisoned over false accusation. The words my truth replaced the truth. And that is beyond problematic. I believe you enough to give you your day in court, to examine the facts. Thats all I owe you.
 

Batiman

Banned
LOL

No, you didn't address the answers directly. It's a dodging tactic people use. You guys know they lied, but you're afraid to admit it because it would minimize your child abuse trauma excuse. Actual victims don't lie. Gavin, Wade, and James have told false stories. Jordan Chandler was manipulated by his father. The entire plan of extortion was caught on tape, but you think his son is a real victim.

Real victims don't tell this many false stories and don't need to be pressured by their parents to lie.



You're doing the same thing as you usually do. Ignore the facts and want people to listen to your excuses without actually having any knowledge of the case. You also made claims without any facts. lol.

Your inability to answer the questions directly is a good response to me. You know they lied and you don't want to admit it, so you refuse to acknowledge the evidence at hand. I'm ignoring your replies because I'm not here to play games.
You’re pathetic at this point.
 

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
Your is possessive, meaning that something belongs to you or the person you are speaking to. For example, “What is your name?” Or, “Are these your car keys?” You're is a combination of the words, you and are. This is called a contraction.

#Facts
Your pedantry is just a distraction from you being a pedo defender. Is that better troll?
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
No one is going to believe you, if your abuse needs a time machine to have occurred.
…..and many will be skeptical of your claims of innocence when you envelope yourself in children, do ridiculous shit like talking about how sharing your bed with them is the purest form of love, and conduct yourself as a groomer. Which is exactly what Michael Jackson did, for YEARS, and everyone defending him cannot get past this.…..they cannot even bring themselves to concede the point this was inappropriate, which is disturbing.
Who opts for money over criminal prosecution of someone who supposedly hurt your kid. Who tries to rangle money to make a movie from someone who abused your kid?
This is a valid point, and one that I actually agree with. But, to each their own, I’ll not blame someone seeking monetary compensation for the abuse of their child. I wouldn’t personally as it assigns value, I’d be pursuing criminal liabilities, but I can understand it. And while it probably wouldn’t have held so much impact to MJ’s financial condition, it is nevertheless punitive.
Where are the hundreds of molestation victims, instead we got a few scammers and tons of boys and girls that said MJ never did anything to them?
It’s almost as if hiding one’s illicit activity in a sea of similarity is a viable tactic to avoid detection when one lives so publicly, while also establishing alibis respective to the behavior suspected and ultimately evading culpability by citing the many against the few, both of whom are telling no lies yet who nevertheless stand on opposing sides of a claim.

If you can point out to me a better method of someone so exposed to the public sphere as MJ was to gain such proxy in abundance to be able to take advantage of children, then I’m all ears. The man positioned himself perfectly in the candy store by the narrative he propagated to create an environment flawlessly conducive to his desired ends. Any pedophile on the planet could have not dreamed up a better situation to satiate their cravings.
No jury or judge believed the clowns, not like they didn't get a day in court. One may say everyone has lied, but in court lies are put to examination, these people did not lie once or twice, they were found not reputable because of their culture of lying was exposed. The foundation of their case was built upon lies.
And it failed, as by such standards of jurisprudence, it should have.
We do not have a crystal ball to see every moment at one time, we can only examine testimony, facts, inconsistencies and render a verdict.
…..and that examination is just that: a strict, forensic scrutinization of specifics stagnant in time, which renders the verdict strictly beholden and immutable to the pertinent point. It speaks on nothing more. Finding someone not guilty in a court of law is in no way synonymous to proclaiming them innocent, it only means the burden of proof was not met. To which I agree, to what was presented, MJ should not have been convicted. That in no way means he wasn't actually guilty.

But if one is genuinely interested in discovering the truth when it is in dispute past our institutional discretions, then I find it an imperative to view facts not ascertained strictly within the merit of their own confines, but applied to broader contexts that are not so dogmatic to standards required by judicial metric. Such as examining these facts over the passage of time, especially when it comes to abuse and crimes concerning the young and involving manipulative behaviors. The human element HAS to be factored in.

Yet apparently this is not allowed, and I don’t know why. This isn’t a courtroom, it’s a debate forum. It is a viable argument. If we’re only to abide the forensic, impervious and immutable in our conversations, what’s the point?
 
Last edited:
Well see your first line is where we differ immediately, if you think that being around children facilitates grooming. In these cases all of them have something that most of us agree on. Though we agree on little else, terrible parents. Then could it be true that MJ who felt mistreated by his father, mistreated by the business and the things he saw as a kid, was actually not grooming these kids, but trying to protect them from their own families, the industry etc. I truthfully believe that MJ did nothing with kids and most of this came about because Evan Chandler thought his wife was in love with Michael Jackson. He admitted out of his own mouth to Carrie Fisher, nothing ever happened when his son was in Michael Jackson room, because his wife ....was always there too" LOl

And further " In the book, Fisher refers to Chandler as "strange", referring to him as "this freak", saying Chandler told her in the privacy of a dental visit that "My son is VERY (unsettling smile, raised eyebrows, maybe even a lewd wink) good looking...It was grotesque. This man was letting me know that he had this valuable thing that Michael Jackson 'wanted'". She describes how shortly afterwards, he reversed himself and in 1993 told Fisher he was bringing charges against Jackson, and at that time was "shocked with moral indignation". Fisher then states, "This was the time I knew I had to find another dentist. No drug can hide the feeling of one's skin crawling...I never thought that Michael's whole thing with kids was sexual. Never. As in Neverland. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn't normal doesn't mean that it had to be perverse. Those aren't the only two choices for what can happen between an adult and an un-related child hanging out together...and yes, he had an amusement park, a zoo, a movie theatre, popcorn, candy and an elephant, but to draw a line under all that and add it up to the assumption that he fiendishly rubbed his hands together as he assembled this giant super spiderweb to lure and trap kids into it is just bad math"

There is no truth beyond the institution, only more disprovable lies. The facts beyond the institution of forensic evidence further suit Michael Jackson overwhelmingly and cast more doubt on the accusers. The things outside of the facts presented in this case are even more Laughable. Lets take the easily debunked Arviso absurd behavior, Leaving Neverland or The Chandlers behavior.

Are we to believe he'd only start abusing someone when an intense spot light is on him. For those who would say yes then you also must admit that he can not control himself, but if so you have to admit that the cunning and calculating goes out the window then. So this planning and all that makes no sense, He molests no family members, highly unlikely. He doesn't take opportunity to molest a kid staying in a hotel with him alone in Corey Feldman or at his house. Now Corey would have been the model victim, he has family that doesn't care. If I recall he even accuses them of pushing him on actual molesters. So his desire to molest is so intense and yet controlled, but he just had to molest Gavin when the worlds eyes was on him?

The laugh factory begged him to see Gavin. My degrees are in Psychology and Social ethics criminal justice. I have had to study molesters and while they widely vary, there should be more victims than scammers, people that were pushed upon MJ, as I stated earlier in the thread, he wouldn't even take Gavins calls initially. Actions of no molester ever.
 
Last edited:
And could he have realize that he ruined all of their lives in the end. Son refusing to associate with him, Wife gone and Michael Jackson dead. "Evan Chandler committed suicide (via self-inflicted gunshot) on November 5, 2009, in his luxury apartment in Jersey City, New Jersey, four months and eleven days after the death of Michael Jackson. He was 65 years old when he died.[16]"
 

Sentenza

Member
Yeah, and retarded Stan’s since then tried their best to paint it like the man suicided out of guilt for MJ when in reality he was dying of a neuro-degenerative illness and losing control of his body and mind, which is what ACTUALLY pushes him into suicide.
 

Sentenza

Member
Also, take a long look at how these mentally impaired pedo apologists love to twist any circumstance out of shape to fit in their narrative and then copy-paste the same retarded crap over and over everywhere.

Everyone concedes that Evan Chandler was a bit of a crook, more interested in getting personal benefit out f the situation (namely, a big bag of cash and having exclusive custody of his son over his wife) than in making justice, but that absolutely does not mean that he "forced his son to lie" or that he "planted the story in him". And everyone claiming that there's evidence of it is completely full of shit.

He just suspected something was wrong in his son's behavior and relationship with the superstar and he tricked the boy into an initial confession under sedatives, that only later would expand in greater detail talking to a psychiatrist.
 
Last edited:

22:22:22

NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Hollywood and the music Industry is full with child abuse. Most "stars" (why star?) are or get fucked up when being around the upper echelon of this elite circle
 

PanzerAzel

Member
As in Neverland. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn't normal doesn't mean that it had to be perverse. Those aren't the only two choices for what can happen between an adult and an un-related child hanging out together...and yes, he had an amusement park, a zoo, a movie theatre, popcorn, candy and an elephant, but to draw a line under all that and add it up to the assumption that he fiendishly rubbed his hands together as he assembled this giant super spiderweb to lure and trap kids into it is just bad math"
Not to bring too much of my personal life into this, but I was a victim of grooming by a pedophile in my youth. It’s why I’m biased to certain predispositions, but I do not believe unfairly so. And yes my own experiences doesn’t prove anything, it is not my intention, perhaps only to give a little insight as to why I’m sitting on one side of the fence, but I know grooming behavior when I see it, I can see it a mile away. The effusive attentions, the lavishings, the intense concentrations on the specific, making you feel like the center of the world, transitioning those attentions closer and closer into intimacy and proximity. Until payment is expected in turn.

That may not add up the math to you, it does for me. What is bad math is to grant such behaviors the benefit of the doubt. Which thankfully, our judicial system didn’t. That’s the best that can be hoped for. If MJ wasn’t guilty and didn’t want to be treated like a pedophile and have his legacy so tarnished, then he shouldn’t have fucking acted like one.

No sympathy.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry that happened to you. I do feel like its biased you. The problem is most of the so called lavishing etc were lies. For instance that Carrie Fisher book was referenced by a media outlet, but it left out anything she said about Evan Chandler being a freak and disgusting etc and only left in parts that made MJ look bad. The media so carefully created his image, that if you took them at face value anyone would believe he harmed kids. There lies the problem for people who believe he is innocent, we are fighting decades of lies and misrepresentations. I remember once having a conversation with someone who had watched a TV show about Noah, they told me they didn't believe in the Bible I asked why and they said, because I just dont believe that part about Noah fighting pirates. LOL. I said that was a TV show that is not in the bible. One TV show had changed their perceptions.. With MJ its been years of false claims, manipulating every story.

MJ was a giving person, he was not grooming those inner city kids, he was barely around, he was not grooming the kids he paid for medical bills, he was not grooming those burn victims. He wasn't grooming Ryan White.
And to bring personal stuff in, two of my cousins were molested by one of their fathers, he's no relation to me. We spent years in court trying to get custody from a molester, which finally happened, so I take this stuff serious.
 
Last edited:

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
I'm sorry that happened to you. I do feel like its biased you. The problem is most of the so called lavishing etc were lies. For instance that Carrie Fisher book was referenced by a media outlet, but it left out anything she said about Evan Chandler being a freak and disgusting etc and only left in parts that made MJ look bad. The media so carefully created his image, that if you took them at face value anyone would believe he harmed kids. There lies the problem for people who believe he is innocent, we are fighting decades of lies and misrepresentations. I remember once having a conversation with someone who had watched a TV show about Noah, they told me they didn't believe in the Bible I asked why and they said, because I just dont believe that part about Noah fighting pirates. LOL. I said that was a TV show that is not in the bible. One TV show had changed their perceptions.. With MJ its been years of false claims, manipulating every story.

MJ was a giving person, he was not grooming those inner city kids, he was barely around, he was not grooming the kids he paid for medical bills, he was not grooming those burn victims. He wasn't grooming Ryan White.
And to bring personal stuff in, two of my cousins were molested by one of their fathers, he's no relation to me. We spent years in court trying to get custody from a molester, which finally happened, so I take this stuff serious.
I just want to say I don't believe in the bible no matter what but that's neither here nor there.
 

Neff

Member
The most interesting and telling thing here isn't whether Jackson's guilty or not, it's that there forever remains a lynch mob high on medieval justice which is more than willing to overlook facts and instead subscribe to fruitlessly scrutinised conjecture and hearsay because it allows them to pat themselves on the back for five minutes for taking the moral high ground. And by an astonishing coincidence they don't seem to care for literacy much either...
 

Sentenza

Member
That conversation about the bible didn't even make any sense.
The most interesting and telling thing here isn't whether Jackson's guilty or not, it's that there forever remains a lynch mob high on medieval justice which is more than willing to overlook facts and instead subscribe to fruitlessly scrutinised conjecture and hearsay because it allows them to pat themselves on the back for five minutes for taking the moral high ground. And by an astonishing coincidence they don't seem to care for literacy much either...
If you keep trying really hard, with the power of delusion and self-suggestion you'll finally manage to bend reality out of shape.
 

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
This is all you've pretty much contributed to this thread anyway, why expect any sensible contribution at this point. Soon you're going on ignore, think you'll be like only the 3rd person I put on ignore all the years I been here.
Please do me the favor. We've pointed out why victims of abuse defend their abusers, we've pointed out how Wacko's behavior was textbook grooming and all you and your buddy have done is bend over backwards and jump through hoops to give pedo the benefit of the doubt.
 
Please do me the favor. We've pointed out why victims of abuse defend their abusers, we've pointed out how Wacko's behavior was textbook grooming and all you and your buddy have done is bend over backwards and jump through hoops to give pedo the benefit of the doubt.
The only way I'd be a pedo defender if I defended you. Talking to you and Satanza, like I get more enjoyment watching turds flush down the toilet. Its not any bending when all the facts are on your side. Atleast the other poster admitted that, MJ easily wins the case. so now we move on to abstract arguments outside of whats been proven in court. But I suggest you provide something of substance or just leave the thread. That might be the only way you save face.
 
Last edited:

Days like these...

Have a Blessed Day
The only way I'd be a pedo defender if I defended you. Talking to you and Satanza, like I get more enjoyment watching turds flush down the toilet. Its not any bending when all the facts are on your side. Atleast the other poster admitted that, MJ easily wins the case. so now we move on to abstract arguments outside of whats been proven in court. But I suggest you provide something of substance or just leave the thread. That might be the only way you save face.
Hahahaha you're accusing me of being a pedo? Oh wow you all are really delusional calling the people who are denouncing the actual pedo pedos? Hahahahahahaha 🤡
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom