nush
Member
The optics to the wider general public on settling out of court on a child sex abuse case are absolutely fucking terrible.
If he cared about optics he would not have been having sleepovers with kids, also he was rich.
The optics to the wider general public on settling out of court on a child sex abuse case are absolutely fucking terrible.
Sorry for the length.<snip>
Pretty sure anyone would give a shit about being thought of as a child molester.If he cared about optics he would not have been having sleepovers with kids, also he was rich.
Pretty sure anyone would give a shit about being thought of as a child molester.
Sorry for the length.
I’m not really interested in the specifics of the case, as it’s ultimately he said/she said. It’s an unproductive and a tired relitigation.
You're predicating your entire argument on any little incongruence that has arisen between adulthood and childhood memories without affording any type of leniency or concession to how people actually function. I don’t see the changing of stories, dates, etc as a weakness of the accusers’ case, I see it as perfectly reasonable aligned with basic human nature and an examination of memories over an extended time period. It’s to be expected. Especially considering the circumstances where these children were highly vulnerable, prone to manipulation, under the influences of power and the height of superstardom, and wooed by the magical aura of a man who was arguably the most famous person on the planet at the time these supposed occurrences happened. And further, IF they were being molested, undoubtedly filled with a plethora of confusing and conflicting emotions, which is directly going to fuck with their recall.
As such, I’m much more prone to believing the children were initially lying in protecting MJ back then given the world they inhabited, the sick grooming stories they were fed that it was some “special pure love” between them that the world wouldn’t understand and that would ruin both their lives if exposed, than as adults who are finally physically, psychologically, and emotionally distanced enough from that whirlwind of a situation where the’ve had time to reflect, process, and finally feel comfortable opening up to the truth of their past. Will there be discrepancies in that process? I’ve no doubt, and if there weren’t, that might convince you of MJ’s culpability, but not me. It would be raising far more red flags that they were fabricating falsehoods to financially exploit their relationship to MJ if there was perfect congruence in their claims, because a good indicator of a lie is how uncompromising and strict it is to a chosen narrative. Which stands antithetical to, again, human nature and its failings where the truth often errs when held closely to the specific…..but nevertheless is accurate in its broader generalities.
With that understanding, I look at footage of MJ with these children. Holding hands, the kid leaning his head lovingly against MJ’s shoulders…..that shit felt to me to far trespass past platonic expressions of love as they were innocuously proclaimed to be, into the realm of the creepy, and as I’ve previously argued, certainly inappropriate. The man pushed it so far that only dropping his pants and pushing the kid’s head down to his lap on camera was missing. I mean, ffs.
Is that what is required?
If you don’t believe MJ is guilty of these molestation accusations, can you at least concede this inappropriateness in conduct that arose such suspicions in the first place?
With that understanding, I look at footage of MJ with these children. Holding hands, the kid leaning his head lovingly against MJ’s shoulders…..that shit felt to me to far
Michael knew that truth would eventually outlast the lies and that the truth would eventually win after a long time. Yeah its true, most of the public including myself did not understand at the time, why settle. That was what was so great about the 2005 trial, they changed the law so they could bring in the 1993 trial, oddly enough what first seemed like it might be damaging was a blessing in disguise. Because then people began to see that 1993 was full of holes and issues just like 2005 and MJ was absolved of both trials."Just when I thought I was out, they go ahead and pull me back in" LOL
Its doesn't matter WHY they paid out a settlement. The optics to the wider general public on settling out of court on a child sex abuse case are absolutely fucking terrible. As far as the general public are concerned its as close to an admission of guilt as your going to get.
Especially for 20 million big ones.
When the prosecution rested, the media seemed to lose interest in the trial. The defense case was given comparatively little newspaper space and air time. The Hollywood Reporter, which had been diligently reporting on the Jackson trial, missed out two whole weeks of the defense case. The attitude seemed to be that unless the testimony was graphic and salacious – unless it made a good soundbite – it wasn’t worth reporting.
I didn't need you to explain anything, That's not what I'm talking about. I was simply stating how settling in a case like this looks to the general public, people read headlines, maybe an article or two and move on. Hence why i said he might as well as admitted guilt as far as the wider public are concerned.Michael knew that truth would eventually outlast the lies and that the truth would eventually win after a long time. Yeah its true, most of the public including myself did not understand at the time, why settle. That was what was so great about the 2005 trial, they changed the law so they could bring in the 1993 trial, oddly enough what first seemed like it might be damaging was a blessing in disguise. Because then people began to see that 1993 was full of holes and issues just like 2005 and MJ was absolved of both trials.
"The fifth ‘victim’ was Jordy Chandler, who fled the country rather than testify against his former friend. Thomas Mesereau said in a Harvard lecture later that year, “The prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldn’t. If he had, I had witnesses who were going to come in and say he told them it never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say. It turned out he’d gone into court and got legal emancipation from his parents.”
June Chandler, Jordy’s mother, testified that she hadn’t spoken to her son in 11 years. Questioned about the 1993 case, she seemed to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. At one point she claimed she couldn’t remember being sued by Michael Jackson and at another she said she’d never heard of her own attorney. She also never witnessed any molestation.
When the prosecution rested, the media seemed to lose interest in the trial. The defense case was given comparatively little newspaper space and air time. The Hollywood Reporter, which had been diligently reporting on the Jackson trial, missed out two whole weeks of the defense case. The attitude seemed to be that unless the testimony was graphic and salacious – unless it made a good soundbite – it wasn’t worth reporting.
The defense called numerous fantastic witnesses; boys and girls who had stayed with Jackson time and again and never witnessed any inappropriate behavior, employees who had witnessed the Arvizo boys helping themselves to alcohol in Jackson’s absence and celebrities who had also been targeted for handouts by the accuser. But little of this testimony was relayed to the public. When DA Tom Sneddon referred to black comic Chris Tucker as ‘boy’ during his cross examination, the media didn’t bat an eyelid.
When both sides rested jurors were told that if they found reasonable doubt, they had to acquit. Anybody who had been paying attention to proceedings could see that the doubt was so far beyond reasonable it wasn’t even funny. Almost every single prosecution witness either perjured themselves or wound up helping the defense. There wasn’t a shred of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime and there wasn’t a single credible witness connecting him to a crime either."
Have you read this thread … at all?I know I said I was done but I just can't with the defense of this monster.
Fact: he slept in the same bed as young boys who are no relation to him.
Fact: He is on video tightly clutching the hand of a teenage boy who is doting on him acting like lovers
Fact: He paid one of his victims off to the tune of $20 million
Fact: Victims of abuse are often protective of their abusers, yes even as adults. That's why they lie.
Fact: You yourself said you wouldn't allow your children to sleep in bed with the pedo.
And all you have is "but but but they lied" mental gymnastics and twisting yourself into a pretzel giving this sick pedo the benefit of the doubt because Billie Jean or something
Sadly yes.Have you read this thread … at all?
Holy cow.
It doesnt stick in your mind, the public is smarter than you give them credit for. It wasnt just about the train station, it was about the numerous lies they told. The sneaky underhanded way they put their so called documentary together. They were rooted out as liars before the train station, that was just the icing.I didn't need you to explain anything, That's not what I'm talking about. I was simply stating how settling in a case like this looks to the general public, people read headlines, maybe an article or two and move on. Hence why i said he might as well as admitted guilt as far as the wider public are concerned.
-Sleeping with young boys alone? Check.
-Multiple, multi-million dollar settlements out of court? Check.
-Accusers coming forward to tell their stories years later? Check.
This is the stuff that sticks in peoples minds and forms opinion, not that a young boy got the dates when a train station was built wrong.
The majority of the public don't give a shit about inconsistencies and lies, and certainly won't go to the lengths you guy are obviously invested in MJ to try and prove he's not guilty. Apart from this thread I'd pegged him as a peado long ago and forgot about him. Just like everyone else.
I'm invested in truth and fact.
About fucking time.Putting Sentenza on ignore, since it has provided nothing relevant to this conversation, but silly lies and juvenile antics.
For all the facts and evidence you could present, so could I. Like the testimonies of the abused. You’d dismiss that under the rationale they’ve changed their stories, so they’re untrustworthy, which I’ve just presented a counter argument for in my prior post. Which, thus far, you’ve failed to address at all in the attempt to hold me to your standard. Specifics and facts are not the sole determinant in this ascertainment. You can adhere strictly to timelines, inconsistencies, and testimonials in coming to your beliefs about MJ’s culpability, but I find this a very myopic method of coming to a measured and reasonable take. It’s not that I’ve not looked at the specifics, it’s that I tend to pull back and view those things within the framework of human nature, power dynamics, the influence and allure of stardom, the naïveté of childhood, peer pressure, the process of growth, the stages of dealing with such a profound life event as abuse, denial, acceptance, etc. The entire picture extrapolated over a broad timeframe and held in the light of how humans operate…..not just selectively picking shit like, “He said this back then and look! A train wasn’t built until years later! See? LIAR!! Ergo, MJ’s innocent!”.You're admitting that you didn't look at the specifics of the case and then begin to explain what could've happened.
I‘ve no doubt that some of these parents humored a possible meal ticket from Jackson, and that some were even willing to expose their children to potential abusive situations to enable being in a position advantageous to claiming he was exploiting them for monetary gain. But whether parents desired to leverage their children in proxy to MJ to cash out on his dime is an entirely different issue from whether or not MJ actually did exploit children. As fucked up as it is, I wouldn’t put it past people to utilize their kids in such ways when they recognize fortuitous circumstances towards their potential financial betterment.The first accusers father is the one who came up with the false allegations. He was an adult. He was recorded planning the entire thing before he coerced his son to come up with the allegations. There are PAGES of transcripts of the entire recording and there are also witnesses, too . Remember, this conversation happened BEFORE the alleged "confession" took place. He also allegedly tried to drug his own son to come up with the allegations. The person who recorded the conversation was by Jordan Chandler's Stepfather and he gave the recording to Michael Jackson.
What are you referring to here, fear of what?How is it fear when Gavin saw him probably 4 times before that documentary happened? How is it fear when Martin Bashir told Gavin to put his head on his shoulder and hold Michael Jackson's hand, even though Jackson didn't want to do it and only agreed to it because he didn't want to make it seems like he didn't care about he kid. Gavin wasn't the kid Michael Jackson wanted to appear on the documentary, it was a kid who suffered severe burns. There's one instance where Jackson slept in the same room with Gavin. Gavin approach MJ and asked him if he could stay in this room, which MJ was reluctant to do. MJ agreed to do it only if his assistant was with him. In the room was MJ, his assistant and his two children slept on the bed with Gavin and his brother Star. This is what MJ mean when he said he would share it bed with Gavin. His parents are frauds. They tried to get money from Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, and George Lopez. Their mother won a JC Penny settlement after she accused a security guard of assaulting her. She admitted under oath that it was false and it was her husband who abused her. There's far more to this case and the fact of the matter is, MJ barely saw the family. Gavin admitted under oath why hew as upset at Michael Jackson. He said because MJ ignored him and took things away from him. He never once mention molestation or any kind of assault.
Yours is not the only basis upon which a case can be substantiated towards a belief of MJ’s guilt or innocence. I know the facts, my argument isn’t contingent upon them, nor does it need to be.If you can't look up the facts of this case, then I don't know why you would even discuss this topic and argue about it.
or all the facts and evidence you could present, so could I. Like the testimonies of the abused. You’d dismiss that under the rationale they’ve changed their stories, so they’re untrustworthy, which I’ve just presented a counter argument for in my prior post. Which, thus far, you’ve failed to address at all in the attempt to hold me to your standard. Specifics and facts are not the sole determinant in this ascertainment. You can adhere strictly to timelines, inconsistencies, and testimonials in coming to your beliefs about MJ’s culpability, but I find this a very myopic method of coming to a measured and reasonable take. It’s not that I’ve not looked at the specifics, it’s that I tend to pull back and view those things within the framework of human nature, power dynamics, the influence and allure of stardom, the naïveté of childhood, peer pressure, the process of growth, the stages of dealing with such a profound life event as abuse, denial, acceptance, etc. The entire picture extrapolated over a broad timeframe and held in the light of how humans operate…..not just selectively picking shit like, “He said this back then and look! A train wasn’t built until years later! See? LIAR!! Ergo, MJ’s innocent!”.
Sorry, this doesn’t convince me for reasons aforementioned, reasons you’re ignoring because it undermines the foundation your argument relies upon to be credible. Humans aren’t perfect, and it’s untenable to predicate a position on such premise.
I‘ve no doubt that some of these parents humored a possible meal ticket from Jackson, and that some were even willing to expose their children to potential abusive situations to enable being in a position advantageous to claiming he was exploiting them for monetary gain. But whether parents desired to leverage their children in proxy to MJ to cash out on his dime is an entirely different issue from whether or not MJ actually did exploit children. As fucked up as it is, I wouldn’t put it past people to utilize their kids in such ways when they recognize fortuitous circumstances towards their potential financial betterment.
Which is exactly why MJ was a complete twit in allowing himself to be placed into a position so compromised and exploitable……unless he was making a calculated risk doing so for a reason past a simple “I want my childhood back”.
What are you referring to here, fear of what?
As for Bashir’s demands, please, MJ was an adult. It was his responsibility to set boundaries in appropriate conduct with minors. And he could’ve easily told that absolute walking shitstain cockhead of a “journalist” to take a long walk off a short pier (which I wish he had) and invited any other hundreds more of far more respectful reporters waiting in line to be catching such a scoop, and if needs be, apologize and explain to Gavin later as to why.
You’ll get no argument from me that people wanted to take advantage of and exploit Michael, but, irrespective of his guilt, I refuse to stand in defense of a man who exercised extremely poor discretions in making it ridiculously easy to do so. But let’s not pretend that MJ didn’t surround himself and didn’t demonstrate a highly questionable degree of intimacy, both physically and verbally, with these kids. I get disgusted in seeing some of the footage out there, which is another thing you’ve not addressed: do you find his conduct appropriate, regardless of how you feel about his guilt?
You told me you're not interested in the specifics of the case and now you want me to believe you know the facts.Yours is not the only basis upon which a case can be substantiated towards a belief of MJ’s guilt or innocence. I know the facts, my argument isn’t contingent upon them, nor does it need to be.
I’ve looked, I’ve just not seen any facts that are ironclad absolvements of MJ’s overall actions respective to the claims of child abuse. It’s debatable, and it’s ongoing.
Yeah, when I saw that kiss between pedo and Presley I knew he was a pedo. He was extremely uncomfortable kissing her, too bad for him it wasn't little kid bootyhole.Surprised there are no interviews with past girls friends with Mj. Specifically one that felt like a plant during a time where allegations came out during the 90’s.
Like out of no where he had a close engagement with Presley.
She felt like a paid plant.
Of course she was.Surprised there are no interviews with past girls friends with Mj. Specifically one that felt like a plant during a time where allegations came out during the 90’s.
Like out of no where he had a close engagement with Presley.
She felt like a paid plant.
Michael loved women, especialy slender, classy and simultaneously tomboyish women.
He always treated all women with dignity. He admired them, respected them, and idealized them.
He never really had a chance to see closely how a real relationship works. Due to performances and traveling, his parents weren´t together much when he was young. From an early age, he was exposed to nightclubs and sex - he saw striptease girls, he saw people throwing themselves on each other, and was a witness of sexual contact of his brothers and father with their fans. That was way too soon, much sooner that anybody should have seen that. It alone affects a child very negatively for the rest of their life. But there was also a big confict between this lifestyle and Michael´s religious upbringing and his ideals.
He didn´t like to see women undersell themselves, he wished dignity for them. But he watched women closely.
When he saw unfunctional relationships of his brothers, he stayed focused on his career.
He longed for a partner but for intimacy not that much. He would have only gotten serious with someone he would consider marrying. Even then, he prefered flirting and giving gifts instead of surrendering himself completely to someone. He didn´t use to open his heart and soul for discusion and dealt with those common partnership disagreements.
If by women you mean little boys then I agree.Michael loves women, :Uncle pervy loves girls. This guy has always took advantage.
That made me cringe so hard.Jesus Christ, this is precisely the same video I was MOCKING few posts above (it's part of the article I linked).
Seeing a grown "redblooded" man hitting on women makes you cringe, but you've enjoyed all of the booty talk about little kids from your boy Satanza or whatever the hell his name is. I think I see how this works now.That made me cringe so hard.
Seeing a grown "redblooded" man hitting on women makes you cringe, but you've enjoyed all of the booty talk about little kids from your boy Satanza or whatever the hell his name is. I think I see how this works now.
"Father always told me you wont live a quiet life if your reaching for fortune and fame"
"you pay a price for fame"
I'll ask one more time.The wheels of justice work slow, the great thing now is there is so much information and truth people can discover for themselves. Rumors can no longer go unchecked, the media gets called out on bull crap. Its a beautiful thing. If things were like they are now and people could easily share their stories about liars and conmen, I do not think MJ would have had to suffer all those years. When he was just trying to help children be children. We can look at every situation and see how it was manipulated.
You mention boys, but whole families stayed in his rooms. I think he should have said no, no to the pushy kids and no to their families about sleeping in his room. Its been established that Gavins family begged Michael to stay, not the other way around. To me that is a smoking gun or should be. If he ever really slept in the bed with anyone, he should have realized how people might interpret it. Even with other adults around. Even if no one ever stayed there alone.You have so many occasions of people saying he slept on the floor. If he was doing anything I think it would be more than a few scammers accusing him. I think he would have gotten Brett Barnes all the Culkin kids, Corey Feldman and Haim. Not just kids whose families were accused of scamming before they met Michael. Michael trusted kids too much, in doing so he did a poor job of protecting himself. He didn't think kids were capable of evil, but he should have considered they were capable of being manipulated by their parents. Although the Arviso kids treated Neverland staff like crap, stole booze, crashed golf carts and abused the animals. Spied on their own mom nude. But MJ thought Gavin had cancer, so he chose to leave NL and let them stay there because he didnt trust the mom.I'll ask one more time.
You have absolutely no issues with MJ sleeping in bed with young boys then?
" If he ever really slept in the bed with anyone" I think that's pretty nailed on, he even admitted it himself.You mention boys, but whole families stayed in his rooms. I think he should have said no, no to the pushy kids and no to their families about sleeping in his room. Its been established that Gavins family begged Michael to stay, not the other way around. To me that is a smoking gun or should be. If he ever really slept in the bed with anyone, he should have realized how people might interpret it. Even with other adults around. Even if no one ever stayed there alone.You have so many occasions of people saying he slept on the floor. If he was doing anything I think it would be more than a few scammers accusing him. I think he would have gotten Brett Barnes all the Culkin kids, Corey Feldman and Haim. Not just kids whose families were accused of scamming before they met Michael. Michael trusted kids too much, in doing so he did a poor job of protecting himself. He didn't think kids were capable of evil, but he should have considered they were capable of being manipulated by their parents. Although the Arviso kids treated Neverland staff like crap, stole booze, crashed golf carts and abused the animals. Spied on their own mom nude. But MJ thought Gavin had cancer, so he chose to leave NL and let them stay there because he didnt trust the mom.
Once again I dont think you guys want the truth, or you just skip everything thats been presented. Shared my bed has another definition. To Michael if Clarky comes over and Michael gives Clarky his bed and sleeps on the couch, he's just shared his bed. Also there was always someone there. You'd have to be insanely bold to molest someone with their parents in the room." If he ever really slept in the bed with anyone" I think that's pretty nailed on, he even admitted it himself.
Just a yes or no will suffice. Thanks.
We've already know he slept alone with these kids. IOnce again I dont think you guys want the truth, or you just skip everything thats been presented. Shared my bed has another definition. To Michael if Clarky comes over and Michael gives Clarky his bed and sleeps on the couch, he's just shared his bed. Also there was always someone there. You'd have to be insanely bold to molest someone with their parents in the room.
Kids who slept in the rooms stated that someone was always there. Parents or other adults.We've already know he slept alone with these kids.
Your saying parents were present in the same room at all times? Never alone with these kids ever?
We are going round in circles here thought we established that pages ago?