Support NeoGAF

[Days like these...]

This alone PROVES Safechuck is utterly full of shit. I challenge anyone to make a valid argument to explain this.
But no, watch it go completely ignored, just all the other facts you've presented, by those in here who are calling MJ a pedo.

Lol, fucking savage.

Lol all you want pedo defender. Its all you guys have left while your world crumbles and the world sees your idol for the sick fuck he actually was.

 

[Days like these...]

Double post

 

[Sentenza]

You keep pushing the fuzzy memory narrative argument but the timeline matters.

I'll ask you again. Given that it is know for a fact that "child Safechuck" was in Neverland several time and spent a lot of time following around Michael Jackson in some of his tours, why are we even pretending to paint him like someone who's speculating about a place that he never witnessed first-hand?

What seems more likely to you? That he confused something about his childhood's timeline (which, I'll stress it again, is not some rare "fancy weird thing that only few unlucky can experience", as you are trying to paint it, but something that is true for virtually anyone, yourself included) or that despise being somewhat familiar with the place he decided to completely make up memories of a place he never saw?

When I was a teen at some point I was almost every day in my neighbor's apartment (which was also my classmate) playing Amiga videogames with the excuse of studying together before going out with other friends.
Now, let me stress again: 1-I was a teen (13-14) not a small child and 2 -I was there almost everyday.
Would you believe that today I couldn't describe you that apartment if my life depended of it? And I can vaguely collocate it temporally only because we've been in the same class only for that one year.
But according to your logic that would be strong proof I've never been there in a court. FUCK if I care, by the way.

 

[LMJ]

If they were only calling MJ a "pedo" it wouldn't be so bad, it's the fact DForce and others are being called "pedo defenders etc that's the real issue

 

[DForce]

I'll ask you again. Given that it is know for a fact that "child Safechuck" was in Neverland several time and spent a lot of time following around Michael Jackson in some of his tours, why are we even pretending to paint him like someone who's speculating about a place that he never witnessed first-hand?

What seems more likely to you? That he confused something about his childhood's timeline (which, I'll stress it again, is not some rare "fancy weird thing that only few unlucky can experience", as you are trying to paint it, but something that is true for virtually anyone, yourself included) or that despise being somewhat familiar with the place he decided to completely make up memories of a place he never saw?

When I was a teen at some point I was almost every day in my neighbor's apartment (which was also my classmate) playing Amiga videogames with the excuse of studying together before going out with other friends.
Now, let me stress again: 1-I was a teen (13-14) not a small child and 2 -I was there almost everyday.
Would you believe that today I couldn't describe you that apartment if my life depended of it? And I can vaguely collocate it temporally only because we've been in the same class only for that one year.
But according to your logic that would be strong proof I've never been there in a court. FUCK if I care, by the way.

Yeah, he didn't remember he Train Station there when he was a kid, which means he lied about being molested by Michael Jackson several on the second floor of that Train Station.

He knew it was there when he was a teenager, when making up his lie, he didn't realize it wasn't built until after his alleged abuse happen.
1988 - 1992 was when the alleged abuse happen.

You should listen to your own words.....you're in denial. You will make excuses for their lies no matter what.

In James' own words he didn't know it was abuse until 2013 (he was an adult) but some how his mother knew in 2009 when James Safechuck allegedly told NO ONE abuse his abuse.

These are one of many lies that have told. Even the "small" lies ones goes against his credibility.

 

[gamerMan]

Here's a great documentary that shows what a fraud this documentary is

 

[DForce]

Was James Safechuck's memory failing him here, too?

 

[cryptoadam]

You keep pushing the fuzzy memory narrative argument but the timeline matters. The documentary describes a cycle of abuse that ended with Jackson replacing the boys once they hit puberty. If the fucking happened. Safechuck would have been 16. By then, Jackson would have moved onto Brett Barnes.

How did Safechuck know about the train station?I don't know. Maybe you should ask Dan Reed who had plenty of drone shots to back up the claim.

Neither Barnes nor Culkin (the other kid alluded to as the replacement) have claimed being abused by MJ, and actually both defended him.

But thats how Dan Reed, Robson, and Safechuck have manipulated you with a slick 4 hour one sided documentary. They paint MJ as a serial pedo using boys like tissue paper but that couldn't find anyone else to hop onto their accusation train, neither in the film or attached to their lawsuit. There is only a Jane Doe who came in and out of the picture so fast no one knows a thing about her. Would of been nice for Dan to do some "investigating" during his "documentary" and follow up on this Jane Doe.

And even Wade said he was still friends with MJ even when he was in his 20's. And Safechuck and MJ started drifting apart only when Safechuck went to college (which in his suite he blamed MJ for him doing bad in college).

You know what, I could believe MJ molested other kids, but I don't believe he molested these 2. They are just liars out for money. Robson tried to sell 2 BOOKS, and his first lawuite was filed under seal, meaning it would never go public. Why would he file under seal outside of trying to extort money?

If I made a poll would you do X for 500 Million $ I am sure 90% of people would say they would do X. Its much easier for me to believe that these guys are lying for the money, over that they spent their entire lives, even as adults into their 30's defending MJ and denying he ever did anything sexual to them. Even after he died they still didn't come forward right away. Robson was trying to go to MJ's funeral, danced in tributes to him, and wanted to direct his cirque to soleil show. So I should believe that its more likely they would lie for 20+ years to protect MJ even after he is dead, over them lying for a payout of up to 1 billion dollars?

 

[DForce]

Here's a great documentary that shows what a fraud this documentary is

I really need to watch this.

 

[DForce]

 

[cryptoadam]

Its still needs to be explained why Jackson and his Defense team would use Wade as their first witness in 2005 trial? So neither Jackson's team or the prosecution were able to unearth any evidence of Wade being abused mulitple times?

And lets keep in mind that Jackson knew he abused Wade, but still put him on the stand as an adult. Jackson had Barnes and Culkin to testify. Why would he put Wade on the stand and risk his entire life and legacy on someone he abused over and over again?

Because MJ was so sure of his grooming powers that he knew Wade would never break even under cross examination and even under the threat of perjury and going to jail? It really makes sense that this guy would risk everything on someone who he supposedly lost contract with and replaced with another boy to start butt fucking?

Just think about that for a minute. Jackson has to be one of the stupidest or most confident abusers around. To put his victim on the stand as his DEFENSE, and his first DEFENSE witness to boot. Now does that make sense, or does it make more sense that MJ was confident to put Wade on the stand because he never abused him?

 

[Shodan09]

This might be the most damning inconsistency yet. So now there's hard evidence to show that at the very least, the alleged abuse didn't start the way that's portrayed in the documentary.

 

[womfalcs3]

Got banned at shit era for saying I’m not watching the doc cause why should I believe a doc when Investigations found no evidence. You really gotta agree with the mods or you get the boot. Fucking sensitive terds.

That creates a monolithic community, and not a good discussion.

 

[DForce]

The fans are doing a great job doing their research.

 

[gamerMan]

It's so great to see Dan Reed, aka Dr. Evil, get fucked harder than anybody ever did at Neverland Ranch.

 

[Falcs]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet. I found this video which is pretty interesting.
Really shows you how full of shit these two are just based on their behaviour, aside from the mountain of evidence that suggests they are full of shit anyway.

 

[Shodan09]

Not sure if this has been posted here yet. I found this video which is pretty interesting.
Really shows you how full of shit these two are just based on their behaviour, aside from the mountain of evidence that suggests they are full of shit anyway.

I don't believe the two of them for a second. However, the really sad thing about this video and what it shows is that even if they were telling the truth, thanks to Dan Reed's direction, lighting/angles/music Neverland looks more like a film production than a candid interview and therefore automatically less believable.

 

[sol_bad]

Its still needs to be explained why Jackson and his Defense team would use Wade as their first witness in 2005 trial? So neither Jackson's team or the prosecution were able to unearth any evidence of Wade being abused mulitple times?

And lets keep in mind that Jackson knew he abused Wade, but still put him on the stand as an adult. Jackson had Barnes and Culkin to testify. Why would he put Wade on the stand and risk his entire life and legacy on someone he abused over and over again?

Because MJ was so sure of his grooming powers that he knew Wade would never break even under cross examination and even under the threat of perjury and going to jail? It really makes sense that this guy would risk everything on someone who he supposedly lost contract with and replaced with another boy to start butt fucking?

Just think about that for a minute. Jackson has to be one of the stupidest or most confident abusers around. To put his victim on the stand as his DEFENSE, and his first DEFENSE witness to boot. Now does that make sense, or does it make more sense that MJ was confident to put Wade on the stand because he never abused him?

Let's not forget that the prosecution would have absolutely smashed and grilled Wade during cross examination. They could have psychologically broken him down.

Is there a transcript for that cross examination online?

 

[mckmas8808]

Wow Vost is banned? Well...

What does the BBC banning MJ songs mean? Aren't they a news station?

 

[cryptoadam]

Let's not forget that the prosecution would have absolutely smashed and grilled Wade during cross examination. They could have psychologically broken him down.

Is there a transcript for that cross examination online?

Found this

https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/wade-robsons-testimony-may-5-2005.pdf

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/the-2005-court-transcripts-selection/

Other transcripts from the trial

 

[sol_bad]

Found this

https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/wade-robsons-testimony-may-5-2005.pdf

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/the-2005-court-transcripts-selection/

Other transcripts from the trial

Thank you, reading through this now. Only on page 6, with his current rape allegations, doesn't he mention specific dates?

In the transcript from 2005, he can't specify exact dates of when he saw and met Jackson or when he went to the Ranch.

I think that also shows that he is lying now, you generally are more descriptive when making up a story, to try and make it more believable.

 

[DForce]

That creates a monolithic community, and not a good discussion.

I just looked at the thread and it's now closed.

But this is what they have on there.

This topic is especially hard to adjudicate given the long and tortured history of the cases, the outcome of previous trials, and the fact that Michael Jackson is deceased. That said, we've been actioning members who attacked the accusers as liars etc. A number of posts are still being reviewed to ensure consistency.

Because this thread's discussion has been played out and devolved into metacommentary, we will be leaving it locked.
For future Michael Jackson threads please observe these rules of engagement:
* You are free to presume MJ's guilt and address him accordingly.
* You can reference inconsistencies in testimony and past acquittals.
* You cannot label the accusers as liars or frauds or similar.
* If you can't observe these rules or can't accept them, do not participate. Metacommentary derails will be banned.

You can call Michael Jackson a child molester, pedophile etc. but you cannot label the accusers as liars and frauds? lol

 

[cryptoadam]

Thank you, reading through this now. Only on page 6, with his current rape allegations, doesn't he mention specific dates?

In the transcript from 2005, he can't specify exact dates of when he saw and met Jackson or when he went to the Ranch.

I think that also shows that he is lying now, you generally are more descriptive when making up a story, to try and make it more believable.

i wonder if Dan Reed even read that website.

 

[Chandler55]

I just looked at the thread and it's now closed.

But this is what they have on there.



You can call Michael Jackson a child molester, pedophile etc. but you cannot label the accusers as liars and frauds? lol

yeah the bias is ridiculous. it seems like they have a lot of victims over there and they prefer it to be a safe space rather than a place of debate, I guess thats understandable.

 

[Tesseract]

you are free to presume what we tell you

welcome to city 17

 

[InterMusketeer]

A 10 meter high statue of Michael Jackson was removed from the McDonald's restaurant in the Dutch town of Best. The removal is a reaction to the documentary Leaving Neverland, in which two men accuse the American singer of abusing them when they were children, Omroep Brabant reports.

"We think it is important that all guests feel comfortable when visiting our restaurants. The statue of Michael Jackson could evoke unpleasant feelings among our guests", the restaurant said to the broadcaster.

The statue has been standing in front of the McDonald's in the Noord-Brabant town since 1996.

The franchisee understands why the statue had to be removed, according to the broadcaster. He donated the statue to the Dutch Michael Jackson fan club. A new location for it is being sought.

I actually visit this McDonald's every once in a while, and it's a real shame such a unique landmark is removed.

 

[gamerMan]

I'll ask you again. Given that it is know for a fact that "child Safechuck" was in Neverland several time and spent a lot of time following around Michael Jackson in some of his tours, why are we even pretending to paint him like someone who's speculating about a place that he never witnessed first-hand?

Perhaps you should ask Dan Reed who lifted the drone footage of the train station straight off Youtube from the real estate company that is selling the ranch. Can you spell f-r-a-u-d?

 

[cryptoadam]

I actually visit this McDonald's every once in a while, and it's a real shame such a unique landmark is removed.

So it was built 3 years AFTER his first trial, and was still up for 14 years AFTER his second trial, and now they take it down? They didn't think about how people would feel when MJ was alive and there was like 2 decades of accusations and jokes about him being a pedo?

This is stupid. They are free to do what they want but taking it down now after these frauds made their fake doc is just retarded when MJ has been dodging these accusations for 2 decades.

When these 2 guys get exposed they will have egg on their face.

 

[cryptoadam]

Perhaps you should ask Dan Reed who lifted the drone footage of the train station straight off Youtube from the real estate company that is selling the ranch. Can you spell f-r-a-u-d?

Drone shots stolen from Youtube, accusations stolen from Guiterez disproven book, fake memrobilia burned when the real stuff was auctioned off.

Wonder if Dan has anything real in his "documentary".

 

[Airola]

I've been going through this a lot.

First of all, I'm a huge MJ fan, been one since I saw Thriller when I was about 4-5 years old. That video made me interested in music, movies and horror, and made me a major Michael Jackson fan. So there definitely is a big part in me who'd love this to be 100% a lie.

I have been going back and forth since the first accusations in the 90's. Didn't quite know what to believe but would always end up thinking he's innocent. Especially after the 2005 trial I became increasingly more positive he was innocent what came to sexually abusing children.

With this documentary I first thought this is really kinda as if there would be a trial and people would be brought in to testify, but that there wouldn't be any cross examination or any chance to even look at those accusations and that both the audience and the jury would have to take all the accusations at face value. This isn't a documentary. This is a chance to prosecute without an actual trial.

Then I looked at the H3H3 discussion about it and gave the first real thought of Michael actually being guilty. I thought he had lots of good points in his video.

Then I checked out some videos that tried to show the documentary is false and I took a few steps back into thinking, "hey, there's a lot of things wrong in the documentary - maybe MJ still was innocent."
And sure as hell, what comes to Safechuck there really is a lot of inconsistencies in his and his mother's story.

But now as I'm watching the documentary, I'm again taking a few steps into thinking, damn, this could be true. At least for Robson's part it could be.

With Safechuck's story there's the train station problem and his mother claiming she danced with joy when she learned Michael was dead REALLY rubs me the wrong way, and knowing they've changed their story several times doesn't help it at all.

That said, Robson's story on the other hand is mainly "unbelievable" just because of him continuously defending Michael. When I started to think about that more I realized that if there are people who are willing to rape kids and hide it for the rest of their lives, it's isn't hard to believe there could be people who would lie about being sexually abused for the rest of their lives either. People have gone to their graves with far tougher secrets before. If one thinks some secret is too big of a secret to reveal even under oath, they will continue keeping it a secret. I mean, people do lie in the court all the time with bigger and smaller secrets.

What comes to Safechuck, I think there is a chance that he is completely lying and trying to take advantage of the situation, but then again it's not unheard of that people would exaggerate true things that have happened to them because they might want to make the reality sound more exciting/terrible than it is or if they are afraid the real story doesn't make as good of a case. So it could be Safechuck tells the truth in that Michael abused him, but has decided to try to make his story more credible and/or interesting by peppering it with a bunch of lies.

Then I have to think that if I know suddenly believe the victims, could there be a chance that Jordan and Gavin were in fact real victims too. Every combination is possible. It's possible Michael never did anything to anyone. It's possible he did it to Jordan but not Gavin, Wade and James. It's possible he didn't do it to Jordan and Gavin but did it to Wade. Who knows. But I have to think about the possibility of Michael doing it to them all. I know the evidence and counter evidence from the 2005 trial and I have believed Michael was innocent in that case. But then again, maybe the prosecutors and the Arvizo family just went way overboard trying to put everything on the table with a pinch of pure fantasy and deliberate included in order to try to convince the jury of the crime he did. Maybe Michael really did abuse Gavin too but their case was destroyed because of them being too cocky about it. While I still believe he didn't do it to Gavin, it's really tough to think that if he and Jordan really were victims after all, it must've been really really REALLY tough life after being told they are liars for the things they know are true.

So now I'm starting to think Michael really had this one huge skeleton in his closet even though I kinda also still hold my judgment because of lots of inconsistencies.
From the start I have thought it's bullshit when people said "Michael did this and that good thing so he couldn't have done this" and when Michael himself said "if I'm guilty of something I'm guilty of helping children." If there's something I know for sure about people it's the fact that people who do a lot of good can do bad things too, and people who do a lot of bad things can do good things too. Appealing to people's past good or bad deeds to prove a current situation doesn't work because of our human nature that is a mixture of good and evil in each one of us. A child molester might also very well believe he isn't doing any harm to anyone if he really believes it's a showing of love to share sexual experiences with others. So sure, when Michael said he would never harm a child, he might've actually 100% believed it himself even if he had just had a sexual encounter with a kid an hour ago.

I really hope Michael wasn't guilty but I'm not sure about that anymore. That's a hard pill to swallow not just because as a huge fan of his but also as a person who has to go through the years of believing the accusers have had to be liars. Not only I would have to come to grips with one of my entertainment and art heroes be a massively troubled predator but also with there possibly being kids who never got justice but instead were blamed as liars.

But then again, the thought still lingers in my head that when someone is as famous as Michael was, things will be different all around and it would not be a surprise if there were people who were willing to lie about subjects this sensitive either. People have made false claims to regular people too so it wouldn't be a wonder if someone would do that to a megasuperstar too.

 

[sol_bad]

Airola
Check out the video in post #66, let me know your thoughts on that.

 

[Sentenza]

Perhaps you should ask Dan Reed who lifted the drone footage of the train station straight off Youtube from the real estate company that is selling the ranch. Can you spell f-r-a-u-d?

I can also spell "AUTISM".
You are basically clinging to the same inaccuracy for a week at this point, and mentioning over and over as if in itself would amount to a mountain of evidence and disprove EVERYTHING about all the claims against MJ.
What's even funnier, apparently the time window in which Safechuck was subject to abuse goes narrowing down every time you people enter in sperg defense mode )it used to be roughly 4 years, now it's down to two apparently.

You don't even realize that a valid counterargument has been presented by your own side with that infamous image "Oh, so MJ didn't ditch his children lovers as they reached 14 as the movie claims, here's a photo of sixteen years old Safechuck with Michael!!".
Apparently 16 y.o. James hanging with Michael disproves he was EVER abused, but it doesn't disprove he's been in the train station to do who knows what. SOMEHOW, because selective filtering of the truth is totally not a thing from you creepy freaks.

Yeah, he didn't remember he Train Station there when he was a kid, which means he lied about being molested by Michael Jackson several on the second floor of that Train Station.

He never said they did it SEVERAL times in the train station, he was listing several places where they did, and he listed the train station among the places, followed by another separate claim ("We did it every time we were alone"). it's in these very clips you guys are posting over and over, so you could at very least pay attention to them.

 

[DForce]

He never said they did it SEVERAL times in the train station, he was listing several places where they did, and he listed the train station among the places, followed by another separate claim ("We did it every time we were alone"). it's in these very clips you guys are posting over and over, so you could at very least pay attention to them.

"Would happen every day" seems pretty clear to me.

You have to stop being in denial. He lied about the event and there's no way around it.

 

[Sentenza]

"Would happen every day" seems pretty clear to me.

"Would happen everyday" was said about having sex in general, not about having it in the train station.
Don't try too hard with the mystification.

 

[DForce]

"Would happen everyday" was said about having sex in general, not about having it in the train station.
Don't try too hard with the mystification.

No, this was after he talked about the train station. Also, every day is not to be taken literally.

You're trying to hard to cover for their lies, which is hilarious.

You call people delusional but you cannot answer direct questions.

James Safechuck said hew as abused from 1998-1992.

How was he abused in the train station?

 

[Sentenza]

No, this was after he talked about the train station. Also, every day is not to be taken literally.

It was said after, it was not said in reference to it specifically.
There's no use in lying to serve an agenda, the clip is there for everyone to watch.

The whole conversation went basically like this;
"We had sex in X. We had sex in Y... At the train station ,there's a room upstair, we had sex there too. It happened everyday, It sounds sick, but..."
To assume "It happened everyday" is referred to the train station specifically is a leap of logic.
Playing by these rules, you could do the same leap assuming that on the other hand "There's a room upstair. We HAD sex there too" could mean "just once".

James Safechuck said hew as abused from 1998-1992.

How was he abused in the train station?

By getting the timeline wrong? It's not that hard, given that you people provided the proof he hanged around MJ past his fourteens yourselves.

 

[DForce]

It was said after, it was not said in reference to it specifically.
There's no use in lying to serve an agenda, the clip is there for everyone to watch.

The whole conversation went basically like this;
"We had sex in X. We had sex in Y... At the train station ,there's a room upstair, we had sex there too. It happened everyday, It sounds sick, but..."
To assume "It happened everyday" is referred to the train station specifically is a leap of logic.
Playing by these rules, you could do the same leap assuming that on the other hand "There's a room upstair. We HAD sex there too" could mean "just once".


By getting the timeline wrong? It's not that hard, given that you people provided the proof he hanged around MJ past his fourteens yourselves.

See, that doesn't work.

He specifically mentions being pushed out more and more when Brett Barnes came into the picture. This was BEFORE the train station was built.

In 1994, he married Lisa Marie and James Safechuck was 16.

So, it's not merely a "he just got the timeline wrong" because it would cause more problems for his story. This is just an excuse people are making because they don't want to admit that these two have lied.

 

[DForce]

It was said after, it was not said in reference to it specifically.
There's no use in lying to serve an agenda, the clip is there for everyone to watch.

The whole conversation went basically like this;
"We had sex in X. We had sex in Y... At the train station ,there's a room upstair, we had sex there too. It happened everyday, It sounds sick, but..."
To assume "It happened everyday" is referred to the train station specifically is a leap of logic.
Playing by these rules, you could do the same leap assuming that on the other hand "There's a room upstair. We HAD sex there too" could mean "just once".

No one is lying but Wade and James.


Every evidence so far you have either completely ignored or just brushed it off as some memory issue. And who said it was referencing just the train station. He was talking about different locations, one of which included the train station. If you name specific places and said it happened very day, then you had sex up there more than just once based on his story.

Look, I know you think MJ is a pedophile, but try not to ignore obvious lies.

 

[Sentenza]

Oh yes, Lisa Marie, the wife he never had sex with.
Sounds like a solid rebuttal to the proposition that he probably liked to fondle kids.

 

[DForce]

Oh yes, Lisa Marie, the wife he never had sex with.
Sounds like a solid rebuttal to the proposition that he probably liked to fondle kids.

Lisa Marie

, now 51, allegedly said she and Michael first slept together during a weekend at Donald Trump's Florida mansion and how the singer preferred having sex standing up.

"It was absolutely wild. He was slow getting started, then he just wanted more and more," she reportedly said.

LINK: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8454379/michael-jackson-lisa-marie-presley-screeched-sang-orgasm/






I guess responding with a lie is solid rebuttal, eh?

 

[Sentenza]

Ah yes, that "magical first time" that changed at every retell until the day she slipped (also easily available in video).
It's hilarious in context that every alleged "body language expert" was putting Robson and Safechuck under scrutiny (except the actual ones, like Janine Driver, who thought they were extremely believable), but you suddenly think that clip is convincing evidence, when it's notorious for how clearly uncomfortable and insincere she looked there.

Look, I'm done with this thread. We are going in circles at this point. Feel free to be a child molester apologist for all I care, but don't even expect for A SINGLE SECOND to have my approval about this delusional apologetic crap.

 

[DForce]

Ah yes, that "magical first time" that changed at every retell until the day she slipped (also easily available in video).
It's hilarious in context that every alleged "body language expert" was putting Robson and Safechuck under scrutiny (except the actual ones, like Janine Driver, who thought they were extremely believable), but you suddenly think that clip is convincing evidence, when it's notorious for how clearly uncomfortable and insincere she looked there.

Look, I'm done with this thread. We are going in circles at this point. Feel free to be a child molester apologist for all I care, but don't even expect for A SINGLE SECOND to have my approval about this delusional apologetic crap.

Calls people delusional but excuses every single documented lie as foggy memory. Lol.

 

[Shodan09]

Ah yes, that "magical first time" that changed at every retell until the day she slipped (also easily available in video).
It's hilarious in context that every alleged "body language expert" was putting Robson and Safechuck under scrutiny (except the actual ones, like Janine Driver, who thought they were extremely believable), but you suddenly think that clip is convincing evidence, when it's notorious for how clearly uncomfortable and insincere she looked there.

Look, I'm done with this thread. We are going in circles at this point. Feel free to be a child molester apologist for all I care, but don't even expect for A SINGLE SECOND to have my approval about this delusional apologetic crap.

Nobody needs your approval to have a discussion on a discussion board.

 

[Sentenza]

Nobody needs your approval to have a discussion on a discussion board.

No one said it's needed.
You have issues with reading comprehension.

 

[gamerMan]

Ah yes, that "magical first time" that changed at every retell until the day she slipped (also easily available in video).
It's hilarious in context that every alleged "body language expert" was putting Robson and Safechuck under scrutiny (except the actual ones, like Janine Driver, who thought they were extremely believable), but you suddenly think that clip is convincing evidence, when it's notorious for how clearly uncomfortable and insincere she looked there.

Look, I'm done with this thread. We are going in circles at this point. Feel free to be a child molester apologist for all I care, but don't even expect for A SINGLE SECOND to have my approval about this delusional apologetic crap.

Thanks for providing a counter argument, which I think is important to have a discussion. I respect your opinion. No contradiction will ever convince you something about this story doesn't add up. At the very least, you have to admit that the Safechuck inconsistency is a big problem for the documentary in two ways:

• The documentary claims that Jackson replaced boys when they were teens. By shifting the date, the entire narrative is starting to fall apart. We were also led to believe that Barnes replaced him.
• Why haven't we heard from Safechuck and are instead hearing from Dan Reed? Reason: Safechuck testified under Oath that the abuse stopped in 1992 and he can't use grooming as an excuse.

Even Dan Reed is spinning in circles because of the train inconsistency. He said that Jackson was not interested in teens. Here is what he said straight from the horse's mouth.




What I don't agree with is the name calling. We all have different perspectives and experiences in life. Your's is not more valid than others. When I was small, I suffered a major facial burn. Because it was such a traumatic experience, I remember every detail of it. I remember my age. I remember where I was. I remember the time of day. I relive it everyday in my mind. I will never forget it.

I wasn't always the biggest Jackson fan but when I saw how he treated burn victims, I had witnessed compassion on another level. Something out of this world. Something I have never experienced. It was genuine. Jackson could be a child molester, but he could also be the most compassionate human being on Earth. He could be both. Until I see evidence of wrongdoing, I choose to believe that he was good. I choose to believe that there is good left on this Earth. I choose to believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Ellis]

I actually visit this McDonald's every once in a while, and it's a real shame such a unique landmark is removed.

Fulham FC also recently relegated their MJ statue due to the documentary.

 

[cryptoadam]

So why are Safechuck and Robson more believable than Jordi Chandler and Gavin Arvizo? Especially considering that Robson testified under oath he was never abused.

I guess when someone has the chance to defend themselves they get the benefit of the doubt, but if they are dead then all bets are off.

 

[Airola]

Airola
Check out the video in post #66, let me know your thoughts on that.

I'm sure you mean post #566.

Just watched it and it was REALLY good.

I think there is always the possibility that they were molested but talk the way they do because of perhaps a mixture of not being that traumatized (as the video's creator also points out, not all victims are traumatized), having talked about these things before, rehearsing what to say for a documentary, taking more takes etc. That said, the video really does a good work in showing how little both of them really show visible signs of being an abuse victim. It's really odd that some real hard emotion mostly come out from their siblings. When you compare Wade's and especially James' reactions to theirs it's like night and day how different they are.

Seeing Wade with Jimmy Kimmel was also a bit of an eye-opener too. He felt super honest in that video.
And it was good to know about the Rodney Allen case too.

 

[sol_bad]

I'm sure you mean post #566.

Just watched it and it was REALLY good.

I think there is always the possibility that they were molested but talk the way they do because of perhaps a mixture of not being that traumatized (as the video's creator also points out, not all victims are traumatized), having talked about these things before, rehearsing what to say for a documentary, taking more takes etc. That said, the video really does a good work in showing how little both of them really show visible signs of being an abuse victim. It's really odd that some real hard emotion mostly come out from their siblings. When you compare Wade's and especially James' reactions to theirs it's like night and day how different they are.

Seeing Wade with Jimmy Kimmel was also a bit of an eye-opener too. He felt super honest in that video.
And it was good to know about the Rodney Allen case too.

Yep, it is a very interesting video. Even though they don't show any of the signs of trauma there is still always that chance that they were abused.
If they were abused, they don't look to be traumatised and so it seems like they are only doing it for the money.
I said at the start of the thread that I could understand someone who was abused but not traumatised by Jackson going after Jackson if he were still alive. Keep the dangerous man away from the children, make sure there are no more victims. But Jackson is already in the ground and no children need protecting from his predatory actions if he was a predator.

 

[Chandler55]

I'm sure you mean post #566.
Seeing Wade with Jimmy Kimmel was also a bit of an eye-opener too. He felt super honest in that video.

its crazy but this was a very big clip for me in believing he's lying right now. I could feel his energy and spirit in that video, that 100% felt like a genuine person.