Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

LOL - yes I click on tracked links ...

so no one else thought Wades testimony was significantly undermined by Brandis' statement/revelation ?
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Well after Googling I'm not so sure anyone could buy them - https://www.google.com/search?safe=...22i10i30j33i22i29i30j33i160j33i21.b3tRu-nMaQ4
Click to expand...

The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

Taken from the above link:

"These art books, as they were written up and described in the original police reports, were clearly stated as not being pornographic in nature but as items that could “possibly” be used as part of a “grooming” process (however, it is important to note that this was not a claim the prosecution was able to successfully prove in court)."

"The problem is that, in the absence of any truly hardcore evidence, it becomes increasingly difficult to try to convince a jury of what someone’s “intentions” are with a particular photo or art book. You can’t second guess what is in someone’s head, or if they are using certain materials ― legal or otherwise ― for sexual gratification. That is getting into the realm of “reasonable doubt” and is not something that can be proven. "
 
Last edited:
I watched the whole documentary yesterday.

I've become extremely skeptical of US documentaries recently, mostly due to the way a few very popular ones have intentionally misled and altered facts to propagate conspiracies and lies.

That said, whilst we'll never be able to corroborate what the two 'plaintiffs' are saying in the MJ documentary, I think it's reasonably likely that MJ did commit some naughty sex acts and I whilst I can't prove it, I think some of what the two victims say, isn't that far fetched in terms of the veracity of their claims.

Reasons why I think this;
  • The two victims were definitely heavily involved with MJ and his public/private life (living with him, performing with him) so in my opinion - they're as well placed as anybody to make an allegation, they're not just some people who saw him once or twice.
  • There have been a considerable number of allegations over the years and two court cases involving sexual offences (regardless of verdicts) one involving an out of court settlement
  • The amount of information in the documentary, the number of scenarios that apparently occurred, the details which were given from both individuals, it's pretty difficult to say 'everything is lies'
  • I'm struggling to see any real reason why they'd make up the allegations,
Some youtube 'experts' have pointed out at inconsistencies with the versions given by the victims, however I think you have to allow for variation - many of these offences occurred decades ago, so to expect these individuals to provide exact dates, times, locations for things is going to be impossible - you have to allow for that.

Ultimately there's no real evidence, so I'm not going to argue if anyone disagrees with my view because I can't - but my gut feeling tells me that MJ probably did carry out some of the things that are alleged.
 
I've only ever heard two songs from him: Beat it and Thriller, which are mediocre. I personally think he was a nonce (and was protected similar to Jimmy Savile and many other powerful people) and I'm glad that I'm not a fan of his music.
 
Finally got around to watching it, it's an incredibly tough one to call.

Both were very convincing in their detailed accounts and there were similarities between the two. However MJ has been investigated intensely and no actual real evidence has ever been found. I also find the fact that Macauley Caulkin, and dozens of others, deny him ever acting innapropriately difficult to overcome. This was in the era of Corey Haim, Corey Feldman abuse. If you watch new interviews with Caulkin, he doesn't give two *****. He doesn't seem like he would cover anything up now.

A few things really made me take notice when Wade was speaking. As soon as he spoke about Caulkin coming on the scene you could see a real spiteful jealousy. Obviously MJ was the kind of person to form intense relationships and then drop like a stone. It felt like the mask slipped a bit. The bit with the Jewellery felt very strange too.

I also wouldn't have assumed MJ would ask Wade to be his character witness if there was risk of all this coming out. Talk about brass neck if he did. The behaviour of the mother's also led to more questions than it answered. The history of them suing MJ makes it even muddier.

If it is false it's one hell of a lie
 
Thecaferacer said:
Finally got around to watching it, it's an incredibly tough one to call.

Both were very convincing in their detailed accounts and there were similarities between the two. However MJ has been investigated intensely and no actual real evidence has ever been found. I also find the fact that Macauley Caulkin, and dozens of others, deny him ever acting innapropriately difficult to overcome. This was in the era of Corey Haim, Corey Feldman abuse. If you watch new interviews with Caulkin, he doesn't give two *****. He doesn't seem like he would cover anything up now.

A few things really made me take notice when Wade was speaking. As soon as he spoke about Caulkin coming on the scene you could see a real spiteful jealousy. Obviously MJ was the kind of person to form intense relationships and then drop like a stone. It felt like the mask slipped a bit. The bit with the Jewellery felt very strange too.

I also wouldn't have assumed MJ would ask Wade to be his character witness if there was risk of all this coming out. Talk about brass neck if he did. The behaviour of the mother's also led to more questions than it answered. The history of them suing MJ makes it even muddier.

If it is false it's one hell of a lie
Click to expand...

"I also wouldn't have assumed MJ would ask Wade to be his character witness if there was risk of all this coming out. Talk about brass neck if he did".

I was thinking this too. Surely he wouldn't have had him as a character witness if he did all this with him..
 
VortexA1 said:
"I also wouldn't have assumed MJ would ask Wade to be his character witness if there was risk of all this coming out. Talk about brass neck if he did".

I was thinking this too. Surely he wouldn't have had him as a character witness if he did all this with him..
Click to expand...

Unless he was confident his control of his victims was strong. Which is typical peado behaviour.
 
TMZ are reporting that Paris Jackson has been in and out of hospital after a suicide attempt even though I think she has denied that's the reason.

If it's true I'm sure convicting someone via social media based on a documentary has absolutely nothing to do with it, so rest easy everyone.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
The abusers control over a victim can last a lifetime.
Jackson at that point could be 100% confident, remember he told Wade he would go to prison also.
Click to expand...

If I'm remembering the documentary correctly he hadn't seen Wade for quite a while and contacted him out of the blue. He had no idea who Wade had been in contact with or speaking to in that time. That's one hell of a gamble.
 
Who here would pimp their kid out to a female pop star on the promise of a cut to the subject, and then sue for millions (genuine question)? Yes, I know MJ was male, but the question itself is revealing

I for one wouldn't, even for all the money in the world.. but unfortunately there will be people out there who will. In my area for example, the men/ladies of the night sadly sell themselves at £10 a pop, in Greece £2.50 during the 2008 recession. Add in a x100000 multiplier and you have fireworks. Even famous movie stars have offered themselves at no cost for bit parts so why the surprise, or does everyone put a theme park aimed at children on their front lawn :p I worked it out from day 1, even when I was a child (and yes, I had a happy childhood) ;) As far as evidence goes e.g. the old OJ glove not fitting trick - the system can be worked, and judges can be paid off as in Columbia for example, plus there will be NDAs in place as well.
 
Last edited:
This is a quote from the guy behind the Neverland documentary:

What is the journalistic value of interviewing someone who says well Michael was a really nice guy and he'd never do anything to a child, particularly if that person has a gigantic vested interest in your financial interests.
Click to expand...

...and yet his whole documentary was based around interviewing people who have vested financial interests (suing the MJ estate) in talking badly about him and not only that but they are people who have previously lied under oath and changed their stories multiple times.

It's all just an extension of the "we must believe victim" mentatity even though there's no evidence apart from a story that they're even a victim.
 
This is my personal option based on information available.

MJ was a weird person and did a lot of strange things which as a adult you cant understand.


I feel for MJ, I think he had a hard life, everyone used him, His parents only thought of his as a tool, he was mostly isolated and used.
I don't think he could really grow up, because of how rich he was he never really had to. he was Isolated he never really had anyone so he did not know what is normal till it was too late to learn. so he was very childish if you can see it and could act like a child because of who he was.

I suspect he was also manipulated a lot of time to do things.

I think we still dont know a lot of what happened to him in his life, example we only found out he head was burnt and he was wearing wigs after his death.
I also think his plastic surgery started out to fix the burn issues but he got addicted, I can also see from some points why he would want to be white. ( even if he was famous, he was still a target for racism)

I also have suspicions like some others he may have been Castrated due to his high pitched voice and how he acted and never really been interested in having a partner and how he was treated by his parents.
So I don't think his so called kids are his own, he never really had anyone in his life so I always had my suspected before we saw them, he may have been able to pass the other as his own but look at paris you will see what i mean. Which is why I think we may not know about a few other secrets

I can see why he did a lot of things,
Create neverland, hand out with with kids, friendship with macaulay culkin ect,

I also dont understand why he would do somethings,
Covering his kids faces and holding them outside a window, as a grown man sleeping in the same bed as someone else's kid ect.


As for the people accusing him, I think they made most of MJ when he was alive using him, I think everyone of the people that have been close to him kids or not have used him to the limit, other then a handful of people.

My questions to them and everyone is
Why would you allow your kid to stay or sleep with a grown man and if you did why did you not stay with them ?
What did you get out of MJ ?
why has it took you so long to come out with it, why now ?
Why now after he is dead ?
What will you get out of it now

did the kid from the 93 settlement not come out after and state it was false accusation after his farther committed suicide or is that just a rumor ?

1. why did it take them so long to come out ?


I dont really feel much for families in this issue mostly because the used MJ as well and if its true did you have your eyes closed because he was rich ?
 
This is a very interesting video. I'm curious about his facial expression at 6:08. He genuinely looks totally surprised at the accusation. If it's as genuine as it looks, then it would suggest he's innocent.

 
You can't read too much into reactions. Some people who actually believe they haven't don't anything wrong will actually be surprised at the fact they've been accused rather than the accusation itself. It's why polygraphs aren't widely accepted as evidence.
 
Merlin5 said:
This is a very interesting video. I'm curious about his facial expression at 6:08. He genuinely looks totally surprised at the accusation. If it's as genuine as it looks, then it would suggest he's innocent.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense - he's there for a deposition, why would he be surprised at an accusation like that? He knows why he's there, he's been prepared for it by his legal team etc...

Pulling a facial expression in response to a question/accusation that is rather on topic in a deposition I don't think really gives much information either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom