Footage of Michael Jackson ring shopping with a young boy resurfaces

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
I have seen the documentary (haven't seen Oprah yet).
And what came out of it was just what I thought it would, and also why I really dislike such documentary's.
There are now so many stories that are floating around that you don't know what is true and false anymore (that is not alluding to those that gave there stories which to me are crucial).
Let me explain.
-In the first thread I read that the story of the fingerprints of Gavin on the porn was fake. Now I hear that it is used in evidence here.
Now what is the truth? Did they together watched at the magazine or not? Was that evidence tainted?
-The evidence where he admitted about sleeping with children: I have given my stance on that very clearly in the last thread. And that is very important to know. Otherwise this post can come over as weird.
- Then I hear that they use the alarm of the bedroom as admitting guild. And then here theysay it is a red flag. And yes it can be, but how many of these stars have an alarm? You can't say that Michael was a normal Joe. His house or ranch was like a fort just like all the other stars. So yes it definitely a red flag. But it could also be normal for stars. Also because it is not crucial in the story. Because they say that they had sex everywhere. But I would like more information on that. Because it could be used to see how MJ used this security. There must be other people (children or adults) how he used that system.
- Now the faxes, I don't see a problem with the faxes they have shown unless" little one" means more in America then here (which could change my mind completely if it meant something like my lovely or something like that), also did he send the same sort of faxes to other people? What did all those faxes say?
-Again with the rings (Safechuck said that he liked jewellery) in that way it would be not of a big deal if MJ bought him rings. But the whole story changes if it is for a wedding. I have heard that other can corroborate that Safechuck loved jewellery. What can other people around the victims and MJ say about that? Again we are missing information that could be helfpfull.
-The books that MJ had, I read that he had many art books with children. That could be a major red flag. But then I heard that the man had more then 10000 books or more and that he got some of these art books from his fans. So again I would want much more information of others that were there and how much he used them, etc...
Maybe I am just a naive fool that doesn't see the obvious. Maybe I am to biased by growing up besides my older sister (I was more a fan of Sheila E and Prince although I was to little to be a real fan of anyone yet ) who was a massive MJ fan.
I rather would liked that the documentary was 10 hours long and explained everything from A to Z. And after that they would show the testimonies of Robson and Safechuck. That wouldn't have left me be so confused.
So in my mind it would have been great if they showed a documentary that showed all the evidence and all the facts one by one. Asked everyone in the MJ camp and everyone on the other side. Just present all the facts. And then after that they could show the original documentary of the two victims.
But there sure is much much smoke to be there not even a little fire. But those 4 hours was to little in my opinion. There is just to much information in the open. I hope that whole the story will come out and to see if he made much more victims like Saville.
This is such a confusing case to me.
 
Last edited:

Silencio

Member
Oct 25, 2017
176
So we have:
Multiple men who have accused Jackson of grooming and molestation (4 I think?), whose stories are all incredibly similar
Workers for Jackson who claim they saw him abusing children in some way
A man who claims Jackson never molested him but would rub up against him in bed in a sexual manner, and also once invited him to get nude in his hot tub
A British journalist who claims Jackson tried to have phone sex with him when he was 13 years old
Multiple books and photos of nude boys found in Jackson's house
Am I missing anything?

If you think this fucker is still innocent, you're saying that everyone in the above is lying, the material found in his home is just a coincidence and Jackson liked to sleep with young boys just because he had some made up Peter Pan illness.
 

halfbeast

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,083
So we have:
Multiple men who have accused Jackson of grooming and molestation (4 I think?), whose stories are all incredibly similar
Workers for Jackson who claim they saw him abusing children in some way
A man who claims Jackson never molested him but would rub up against him in bed in a sexual manner, and also once invited him to get nude in his hot tub
A British journalist who claims Jackson tried to have phone sex with him when he was 13 years old
Multiple books and photos of nude boys found in Jackson's house
Am I missing anything?

If you think this fucker is still innocent, you're saying that everyone in the above is lying, the material found in his home is just a coincidence and Jackson liked to sleep with young boys just because he had some made up Peter Pan illness.
his sister called him a pedophile.

so, clearly he's innocent! /s
 

HardRojo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,955
You do realize you just called a grown ass man and a child "friends" in your defense?
I believe MJ's action to be despicable, especially now that we're learning about more stuff in this documentary, but believing a child and an adult can't be friends without any other kind of interest from the adult is a very sad thought.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
So we have:
Multiple men who have accused Jackson of grooming and molestation (4 I think?), whose stories are all incredibly similar
Workers for Jackson who claim they saw him abusing children in some way
A man who claims Jackson never molested him but would rub up against him in bed in a sexual manner, and also once invited him to get nude in his hot tub
A British journalist who claims Jackson tried to have phone sex with him when he was 13 years old
Multiple books and photos of nude boys found in Jackson's house
Am I missing anything?

If you think this fucker is still innocent, you're saying that everyone in the above is lying, the material found in his home is just a coincidence and Jackson liked to sleep with young boys just because he had some made up Peter Pan illness.
That is why they should have made another documentary before this one. Maybe a longer one. And lay out the case one for one.
Because by now I sure can't follow anymore.
Some say that he paid millions so he is guilty. The other side says that he paid but that it meant a whole different thing.
Then you hear this story about Jordan Chandler, then you hear all the contra stories.
There are now so much stories going round that I don't know what is fact and fiction anymore.
And this would have been a great opportunity to set the record straight.
Let both sides show their story. Let every record show.
There is just to much now that my head is spinning from all the stories that are going round.
 

TheFuzz

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,477
I believe MJ's action to be despicable, especially now that we're learning about more stuff in this documentary, but believing a child and an adult can't be friends without any other kind of interest from the adult is a very sad thought.
Do you know a lot of adults who say their best friends are young children?

How THE HELL are people normalizing this?
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
MJ defenders have been deflecting the 1993 evidence for a long time, they know their talking points well. "Those were gifts given to Michael" and "See, look at all that straight porn they found."

The straight porn probably wasn't for MJ. People need to think a little bit about how pedophilia works.
And WHY is all that porn in his bedroom and bathroom when he has the little boys staying in there!? How is that even close to being appropriate?!
 

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,571
That is why they should have made another documentary before this one. Maybe a longer one. And lay out the case one for one.
Because by now I sure can't follow anymore.
Some say that he paid millions so he is guilty. The other side says that he paid but that it meant a whole different thing.
Then you hear this story about Jordan Chandler, then you hear all the contra stories.
There are now so much stories going round that I don't know what is fact and fiction anymore.
And this would have been a great opportunity to set the record straight.
Let both sides show their story. Let every record show.
There is just to much now that my head is spinning from all the stories that are going round.
The man admitted under oath that he shares his bed with children. Literally any other person on this earth saying that would be instantly condemned as a pedophile, just from that. But Michael Jackson put out some great music so how can we ever possibly know the truth????
 

Mahonay

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,058
Lancaster, PA
That is why they should have made another documentary before this one. Maybe a longer one. And lay out the case one for one.
Because by now I sure can't follow anymore.
Some say that he paid millions so he is guilty. The other side says that he paid but that it meant a whole different thing.
Then you hear this story about Jordan Chandler, then you hear all the contra stories.
There are now so much stories going round that I don't know what is fact and fiction anymore.
And this would have been a great opportunity to set the record straight.
Let both sides show their story. Let every record show.
There is just to much now that my head is spinning from all the stories that are going round.


Time to check the hell out of this thread
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
What would that achieve other than to give a platform to people that are happy to drag the abuse victims through the dirt?
Why not.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what Janet Jackson has to say?
What would Latoya Jackson say? Would she go back to her first story or say that he was innocent. And why would she say it then? Does she have a different view now.
Why not hear from the Jackson that dated with Robson?
What does his nephew has to say?
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
One thing is clear - nothing will convince his creepy fans of any of this. Little boys from his “inner circle” tell their story and it’s “I need more info, maybe they’re lying!”. There’s a massive list of porn and books filled with naked kids taken from his bedroom. Another boy has just come out claiming inappropriate conduct and you still want more evidence? I can’t imagine what it’s like to defend an actual pedophile with such bad faith arguments. He just wanted his childhood back :( :( A bunch of pedophile supporters.

Why not.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what Janet Jackson has to say?
What would Latoya Jackson say? Would she go back to her first story or say that he was innocent. And why would she say it then? Does she have a different view now.
Why not hear from the Jackson that dated with Robson?
What does his nephew has to say?
Who cares what they have to say? They weren’t there. How is Janet an authority on anything?
You guys pretend you’re impartial then bring up all the defence force talking points. Stop defending a child fucking pedophile.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088


Time to check the hell out of this thread
Either you must be someone that has followed everything around MJ to a tee. Because I see so much information flying around that it is so hard to know the facts anymore.
Is the whole story and I mean not his guilt or not but all the stories clear to everyone?
 

Foxtastical

Member
Oct 27, 2017
301
Having a discussion about video games is at time almost impossible on here so I'm not sure why I keep forgetting that having discussions about other topics is many many levels beyond impossible.

If any of you seriously want to have a rational and civil discussion then I'm more than happy to have one. But I'm not going to have what's already starting to descend into a mindnumbing arguments strewn with petty insults, stupid accusations, completely mischaracterizations of points and just outright strawmen. If that's what you want to have then well done you've succeed in shutting down another discussion just like you wanted to from the start.
So you'd let your children become friends with an adult stranger, hang out with them, and then sleep in their bed with them?
 

saenima

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,490
I'm just gonna assume going forward that anyone defending Michael Jackson is a fucking pedo as well.

Makes more sense than them actually believing it.
 

Kyuuji

Member
Nov 8, 2017
5,000
UK
..because as I said it just gives a platform for people looking to drag the abuse victims through the mud.

That family members think a member of their family was kind, sweet, caring and loving has no bearing on their ability to commit atrocious acts, from child rape to murder.

Hearing about how nice he was to family members and loved by them would be insulting alongside the testimony in the documentary. To then have them say they're lying, in it for the money and the like would be repugnant and disrespectful.
 

CrazyDude

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,626
One thing is clear - nothing will convince his creepy fans of any of this. Little boys from his “inner circle” tell their story and it’s “I need more info, maybe they’re lying!”. There’s a massive list of porn and books filled with naked kids taken from his bedroom. Another boy has just come out claiming inappropriate conduct and you still want more evidence? I can’t imagine what it’s like to defend an actual pedophile with such bad faith arguments. He just wanted his childhood back :( :( A bunch of pedophile supporters.


Who cares what they have to say? They weren’t there. How is Janet an authority on anything?
You guys pretend you’re impartial then bring up all the defence force talking points. Stop defending a child fucking pedophile.
If this was anybody else, they wouldn't be defending them.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
One thing is clear - nothing will convince his creepy fans of any of this. Little boys from his “inner circle” tell their story and it’s “I need more info, maybe they’re lying!”. There’s a massive list of porn and books filled with naked kids taken from his bedroom. Another boy has just come out claiming inappropriate conduct and you still want more evidence? I can’t imagine what it’s like to defend an actual pedophile with such bad faith arguments. He just wanted his childhood back :( :( A bunch of pedophile supporters.
Do you say that I am a fan? Or is this the same like some say that some say it because he wrote some hits.
I already said a thousand times that he was guilty of abusing children.
Does that mean that it is wrong to want the full story.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
If this was anybody else, they wouldn't be defending them.
It’s actually completely weird. The circular arguments and disingenuous calls for more evidence, the focus on Wade and ignoring James’ story, the ignoring of all the porn found, the pattern of behaviour. My blood pressure is through the roof reading this stuff. Those poor kids he took advantage of and then some creep fan is desperately justifying it all because he made some cool pop songs. Makes me want to vomit.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
Do you say that I am a fan? Or is this the same like some say that some say it because he wrote some hits.
I already said a thousand times that he was guilty of abusing children.
Does that mean that it is wrong to want the full story.
Janet can release a statement anytime she wants. She fact she isn’t, is telling IMO.

Also on your point I feel like we will never get the “full” story, that’s not how it works. All we have is the piles of damning evidence that has come out so far and the multiple boys claiming he abused them.
 

saenima

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,490
Does that mean that it is wrong to want the full story
That's none of your business though. You are owed nothing. That's between the victims, the abuser and the law. Thankfully the abuser is dead and gone and the victims can share what they want to share and hopefully move on.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
..because as I said it just gives a platform for people looking to drag the abuse victims through the mud.

That family members think a member of their family was kind, sweet, caring and loving has no bearing on their ability to commit atrocious acts, from child rape to murder.

Hearing about how nice he was to family members and loved by them would be insulting alongside the testimony in the documentary. To then have them say they're lying, in it for the money and the like would be repugnant and disrespectful.
But please adress my points clearly. About Janet Jackson (who has been silent till now) or Latoya Jackson.
Couldn't this get interesting.
Let's say that Latoya comes out and she states that she has evidence of the payments and that she chooses the victim side.
Or that Janet comes out and says that she won't defend MJ anymore. Wouldn't that be a major bombshell. And this would be the death to all the fans that defend MJ. Also why not interview the Jackson that was with Robson. She has a meaningfull story to.
 

Isilia

Member
Mar 11, 2019
185
US: PA
Probably asked a hundred times so I'm sorry, but are the specials still on HBO only? (I may be wrong about this, too)

I don't have the service, but I really want to watch these.
 

Kyuuji

Member
Nov 8, 2017
5,000
UK
But please adress my points clearly. About Janet Jackson (who has been silent till now) or Latoya Jackson.
Couldn't this get interesting.
Let's say that Latoya comes out and she states that she has evidence of the payments and that she chooses the victim side.
Or that Janet comes out and says that she won't defend MJ anymore. Wouldn't that be a major bombshell. And this would be the death to all the fans that defend MJ.
Also why not interview the Jackson that was with Robson. She has a meaningfull story to.
Nothing is stopping them from doing this, or has been stopping them from doing this.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
I'm just gonna assume going forward that anyone defending Michael Jackson is a fucking pedo as well.

Makes more sense than them actually believing it.
I don't know if you find my take as defending Michael Jackson. But if you find I do (I already said many times he is guilty of abusing children but I don't know if he molested them). Then calling me a pedo is one of the most vile things I read on the internet and should not be tolerated in my opinion.
 

HardRojo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,955
Do you know a lot of adults who say their best friends are young children?

How THE HELL are people normalizing this?
I didn't say best friends, simply friends. And I already mentioned how terrible MJ's pedophilia and actions toward children were, so just in case you were planning to, don't try to paint this as me defending him. That statement I made above about adult and children being friends is completely separate from my thoughts about the horrible events we're learning more about.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
I don't know if you find my take as defending Michael Jackson. But if you find I do (I already said many times he is guilty of abusing children but I don't know if he molested them). Then calling me a pedo is one of the most vile things I read on the internet and should not be tolerated in my opinion.
Are you seriously making a differentiation between abuse and molestation?

Your arguments are completely disingenuous. Again, you guys claim you’re impartial then bring up bullshit like the niece who was supposedly dating Wade as if that’s proof of anything at all. No rebuttal for James or the new one, Michael? Just more of the MJ pedo defence squad talking points.
 

Remember

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,445
Chicago, IL United States
Question for the thread: Does putting the title 'footage of ____ resurfaces/is uncovered' basically mean that the writer went on a searching binge to find a youtube clip that was uploaded years ago? Or is there a clip that was uploaded to youtube recently that I'm missing in this thread?

Just wondering why doesn't the article(and OP for that matter) honestly just say 'hey I went and found this old youtube vid of MJ, let's have a discourse about it' instead of acting like this was hidden footage found in a bunker and leaked?
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,698
Are you seriously making a differentiation between abuse and molestation?

Your arguments are completely disingenuous. Again, you guys claim you’re impartial then bring up bullshit like the niece who was supposedly dating Wade as if that’s proof of anything at all. No rebuttal for James or the new one, Michael? Just more of the MJ pedo defence squad talking points.
But did you hear that Britney Spears cheated on Justin Timberlake with Wade Robson???

That totally proves MJ didn't molest him!
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
Nothing is stopping them from doing this, or has been stopping them from doing this.
That is true. And you are right. But if I was a documentary maker I would have made such a documentary first to educate the audience fully. And shown all the evidence against MJ first also about his first trial. Also all the other evidence.Because to many are to young to know how it all went. And their are to many stories that are going round the internet.To me the documentary was to fast (weird because it was four hours).
If then the Jackson that dated Robson or Latoya or Janet wouldn't want to respond to a making of the first documentary. Then they could say so. Then they got their chance.
 

saenima

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,490
I don't know if you find my take as defending Michael Jackson. But if you find I do (I already said many times he is guilty of abusing children but I don't know if he molested them). Then calling me a pedo is one of the most vile things I read on the internet and should not be tolerated in my opinion.
If you're not defending him then i'm not talking about you. Pretty clear cut. And what do you mean by him being guilty of abusing children but not molesting them? Can you be more specific?

As an aside, i think relentlessly defending confirmed pedos is worse than calling a random stranger on the internet a pedo. But maybe that's just me.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
That is true. And you are right. But if I was a documentary maker I would have made such a documentary first to educate the audience fully. And shown all the evidence against MJ first also about his first trial. Also all the other evidence.Because to many are to young to know how it all went. And their are to many stories that are going round the internet.To me the documentary was to fast (weird because it was four hours).
If then the Jackson that dated Robson or Latoya or Janet wouldn't want to respond to a making of the first documentary. Then they could say so. Then they got their chance.
It’s not the directors responsibility to seek comment from the Jackson camp, who have a vested legal interest in keeping his legacy afloat. He filmed the documentary to show James and Wade’s stories. Now you want to know what his family thinks? Who gives a fuck?
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
Are you seriously making a differentiation between abuse and molestation?

Your arguments are completely disingenuous. Again, you guys claim you’re impartial then bring up bullshit like the niece who was supposedly dating Wade as if that’s proof of anything at all. No rebuttal for James or the new one, Michael? Just more of the MJ pedo defence squad talking points.
Are you really saying to me that abuse is not different then molestation?
In my opinion you can abuse your children by being an alcoholist and tainting your children for life. But you can molest them sexually and that to me is another level altogether. I would kill someone if I knew that someone molested my children. But I know alcoholist and I would condemn him or her to what they did to their children. But I wouldn't kill him. This is an example of course.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
Question for the thread: Does putting the title 'footage of ____ resurfaces/is uncovered' basically mean that the writer went on a searching binge to find a youtube clip that was uploaded years ago? Or is there a clip that was uploaded to youtube recently that I'm missing in this thread?

Just wondering why doesn't the article(and OP for that matter) honestly just say 'hey I went and found this old youtube vid of MJ, let's have a discourse about it' instead of acting like this was hidden footage found in a bunker and leaked?
It’s a valid title given the relevance of the video to the documentary.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,698
It’s not the directors responsibility to seek comment from the Jackson camp, who have a vested legal interest in keeping his legacy afloat. He filmed the documentary to show James and Wade’s stories. Now you want to know what his family thinks? Who gives a fuck?
The director even directly responds to this point in part 3. Like, directly this point. He said, behind these closed doors, there were only ever 2 people present. One of them is dead. So he interviews the only other person who was in the room. He doesn't go and talk to anybody else about what was going on in the room. He doesn't ask the mothers about how MJ sexually abused them, because they wouldn't know. He doesn't ask the Jackson family, because they wouldn't know.

He interviewed the only people in the entire world who were there and can talk about it. There is no fucking point to interview the Jackson clan.
 

rude

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,764
Children and adults can’t be friends. There’s a power dynamic and maturity imbalance that prevents this. Mentor? Sure. Acquaintance or even business associate if they’re famous? Ok. But a 35 year old and a 7 year old being friends sounds ridiculous.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
It’s not the directors responsibility to seek comment from the Jackson camp, who have a vested legal interest in keeping his legacy afloat. He filmed the documentary to show James and Wade’s stories. Now you want to know what his family thinks? Who gives a fuck?
I give a fuck. Because it would corner Latoya and Janet. The empire would crumble very quick if they came out in favor of the victims.
Are you so sure that Latoya hasn't got evidence on how Michael Jackson operated?
 

saenima

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,490
Are you really saying to me that abuse is not different then molestation?
In my opinion you can abuse your children by being an alcoholist and tainting your children for life. But you can molest them sexually and that to me is another level altogether. I would kill someone if I knew that someone molested my children. But I know alcoholist and I would condemn him or her to what they did to their children. But I wouldn't kill him. This is an example of course.
Jackson was not acused of drunkenly hitting children though. He was accused of sexually abusing and molesting them.

But keep up with the disingenuous argumentation.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
If you're not defending him then i'm not talking about you. Pretty clear cut. And what do you mean by him being guilty of abusing children but not molesting them? Can you be more specific?

As an aside, i think relentlessly defending confirmed pedos is worse than calling a random stranger on the internet a pedo. But maybe that's just me.
I made a whole response what I meant by that in the Finding Neverland thread
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
I give a fuck. Because it would corner Latoya and Janet. The empire would crumble very quick if they came out in favor of the victims.
Are you so sure that Latoya hasn't got evidence on how Michael Jackson operated?
She could release a statement saying as such right now. Why would she need a camera in her face to do it?

Like I said earlier I think you are feigning impartiality but you just want comment from the niece or more statements from the family to murky up the waters more. Janet and Latoya could easily say anything right now via a newsroom or twitter if they felt the need.

The director even directly responds to this point in part 3. Like, directly this point. He said, behind these closed doors, there were only ever 2 people present. One of them is dead. So he interviews the only other person who was in the room. He doesn't go and talk to anybody else about what was going on in the room. He doesn't ask the mothers about how MJ sexually abused them, because they wouldn't know. He doesn't ask the Jackson family, because they wouldn't know.

He interviewed the only people in the entire world who were there and can talk about it. There is no fucking point to interview the Jackson clan.
It’s just another cheap way to claim they don’t have “all the info” so they can paint the documentary as suspect or biased. Like you said the director made his focus clear, and it’s obviously still not enough for these people.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
Jackson was not acused of drunkenly hitting children though. He was accused of sexually abusing and molesting them.

But keep up with the disingenuous argumentation.
May I ask you why you call me disingenuous. I was banned three days for disingenuous.
And I don't want to repeat that. So what do you mean by that? It would be great if you could say that. So I can avoid that.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
May I ask you why you call me disingenuous. I was banned three days for disingenuous.
And I don't want to repeat that. So what do you mean by that? It would be great if you could say that. So I can avoid that.
Its arguing in bad faith, pretending you know less about a subject than you do, to stir up discussion. It’s (IMO) claiming a distinction between abuse and molestation, it’s claiming we don’t have all the info when the masses of evidence we have shows a clear pattern of sexual abuse, it’s the “i never said im a fan, but....”
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
She could release a statement saying as such right now. Why would she need a camera in her face to do it?

Like I said earlier I think you are feigning impartiality but you just want comment from the niece or more statements from the family to murky up the waters more. Janet and Latoya could easily say anything right now via a newsroom or twitter if they felt the need.
That's the least I want. I want to be everything crystal clear. That is what I am struggling with. With all these stories.
If they had pointed the camera on them they would need to give a statement. Now people are going back to where Latoya gave these stories about Michael Jackson and then retracted it. It would pressure them. Just like I would that they would pressure them now.
I don't know why no one hasn't got a response of these two.
About the other Jackson I don't agree with you.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,698
It’s just another cheap way to claim they don’t have “all the info” so they can paint the documentary as suspect or biased. Like you said the director made his focus clear, and it’s obviously still not enough for these people.
You listen to the shit the niece is coming out about and it's just an attempt to smear the victim's character. It's this:



It's always the bottom 3 rungs of the pyramid. "He broke up Justin and Britney, he's objectively a bad person, and for that reason he couldn't possibly have been molested at 7 years old." Here's the thing -- James Safechuck and Wade Robson could be assholes in private, and still be telling the truth. MJ could have been a nice dude in private, and still a monster behind closed doors. Attacking these victim's character does nothing to refute their claims, except in the minds of the super easily manipulated. The kind who think disses have a place in a debate.
 
Nov 7, 2017
456
That's the least I want. I want to be everything crystal clear. That is what I am struggling with. With all these stories.
If they had pointed the camera on them they would need to give a statement. Now people are going back to where Latoya gave these stories about Michael Jackson and then retracted it. It would pressure them. Just like I would that they would pressure them now.
I don't know why no one hasn't got a response of these two.
About the other Jackson I don't agree with you.
No statement from any of the Jacksons would clarify anything. You already have interviews with Latoya from the 80s or 90s making these claims about knowledge of payoffs. I’m not sure what revisiting them will achieve.
 

Bliman

Member
Jan 21, 2019
1,088
Its arguing in bad faith, pretending you know less about a subject than you do, to stir up discussion. It’s (IMO) claiming a distinction between abuse and molestation, it’s claiming we don’t have all the info when the masses of evidence we have shows a clear pattern of sexual abuse, it’s the “i never said im a fan, but....”
I said that I wouldn't react in the previous thread anymore because it seemed like I can't express myself.
Then I read this thread and again I get suckered in.
I don't know how much I know about this subject. The most I know is by reading the previous thread. Which had conflicting posts. You agree with that I think.
I give my opinion but how do I stir up the discussion? I just give my honest take about it, I can't control how other's react to it. I knew it is not really popular to not just come out and say burn him to the stake. But that doesn't mean I am trolling or such things.