• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,085
I just want to step in for a moment and point something out:

This is a grown man who willingly admitted to sleeping in the same bed with children.
People who keep saying this? 80% of you wouldn't be saying this about a woman who said she slept in the same bed as kids.

It's coming from that same part of your lizard brain that society has trained to flinch any time you see a grown man alone with a little girl.

And you're going to deny it now that I have pointed it out, but there is a reason so many people keep phrasing it "a grown man" and so few "an adult".
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,612
Good post. Unfortunate it won't be read. Many in this thread already made up their minds.
I don't know why everyone seems to ignore this and your other post.
Thanks, I appreciate it.

From Michael's niece who Wade dated for seven years:





What about all those women Donald Trump didn't rape though??????? Checkmate, atheists.
Now you're just being disengenuous.
 

ZeroDS

The Fallen
Oct 29, 2017
3,414
In addition to this post which I hope people would read, here's some more.

All of Wade Robson's lawsuits were dismissed not just because of statue of limitations but also perjury, lying under oath during the proceedings.

D0bpe3PWsAEM5_D


The court found, as I had said in the previous post, that he had lied about not trying to find a publisher for a book deal. All the publishers had turned him down.

D0bpvwqXgAIoozo


Wade's book contradicting his sworn deposition due to memories having "evolved' doesn't sound sketchy at all.

He claimed that the allegations came completely from his own memory and he didn't speak to anyone else about it, but the court found that he had exchanged dozens of e-mails with his mother Joy Robson, who I also talked a lot about in the other post and whose story continuously and seriously contradicts Wade's. For example, Joy said it was her husband's idea that the family move to America, Wade said MJ's company organized that they move to America. According to Joy, they had asked Michael for sponsorship.

Everyone knows by now about his denial of very specific questions in court in 2005, and now he's saying that Michael's lawyers intimidated him to not say anything. No evidence, of course.

The last appeal on his lawsuit is happening this summer. Just after Leaving Neverland will air. Previously, Wade's testimony had focused very much on MJJ Productions, which he alleged found him to meet MJ in a story that contradicts what actually happened, and he also named specific people in the company. That didn't work and the companies could sue him for defamation, and now Leaving Neverland focuses basically exclusively on allegations against Michael personally. Of course, he's not here to sue for defamation like his company or other people involved.

Also interesting that Wade sold all his MJ memorabilia in 2011, before he apparently realized there was abuse. Again, his lawsuit only happened after he failed to get a book publisher, and his allegations only started after he couldn't get a job on MJ One.

EDIT: What's also interesting is that Safechuck and Robson are the only people to alleged anal sex with Jackson. This wasn't alleged by the Chandlers or the Arvizios in the 1993 and 2005 cases respectively. Wade and James Safechuck also claim that they never talked about their stories together, IIRC they said at the premiere that this was the first time they were meeting or talking in decades. Wade's own deposition in 2016 refutes this:

wade-and-james-2014.jpg


Safechuck was putting together his lawsuit in 2014, and they're both represented by the same law firm.
Good post
 

Biggersmaller

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,966
Minneapolis
I just want to step in for a moment and point something out:


People who keep saying this? 80% of you wouldn't be saying this about a woman who said she slept in the same bed as kids.

It's coming from that same part of your lizard brain that society has trained to flinch any time you see a grown man alone with a little girl.

And you're going to deny it now that I have pointed it out, but there is a reason so many people keep phrasing it "a grown man" and so few "an adult".

This is a new one. Michael Jackson was not just "some man" who innocently shared a bed with a kid once due to happenstance (i.e. no room, the kid had a nightmare, etc). Rather he was a deeply troubled addict who repeatedly shared his bed and celebrated the act as "one of the most beautiful things you can do" after luring kids he never met with his celebrity and gifts.
 

OG Kush

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,690
Yeah, it's disturbing to see the amount of posters even just brushing it aside like "yeah I guess liking to sleep with kids is pretty weird..." Like...it's beyond weird. Seeing that video where he's reminiscing about himself sleeping in between two boys is straight up creepy and disgusting. It's not just "weird."
Got a link for this? Also anyone else got a source for him saying he slept IN the bed with them? All I can find on YouTube is him saying he slept in a sleeping bag on the floor next to the bed
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,085
This is a new one. Michael Jackson was not just "some man" who innocently shared a bed with a kid once due to happenstance (i.e. no room, the kid had a nightmare, etc). Rather he was a deeply troubled addict who repeatedly shared his bed and celebrated the act as "one of the most beautiful things you can do" after luring kids he never met with his celebrity and gifts.
'Instead of addressing the actual post, allow me to sidestep it, add a qualifier you never used, and.paint the most lurid picture possible so I don't have to self-examine why I'm using acts I wouldn't be troubled by one type of person doing to bolster my argument against another type of person.'

You want to accuse the man of wrongdoing, feel free. But responding to people trying to discuss the evidence of the whole thing one way or another with 'but he was a grown man who shared a bed with kids' isn't providing evidence. It relies on the assumption of predatory intentions that most folks are ascribing due to the sex of the person doing the action and not the action itself.
 

Halbrand

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,612
No, I'm not, your logic is insanely bad to the point of where you fucking freak me out.

Rapists don't rape literally everyone they see.

How does this need to be explained.
Ok, let's just assume for a minute that Michael was as guilty he's said to be in this documentary. I don't, but hypothetically.

Neverland was a place specifically designed to groom young boys. Neverland, Michael's idea of Peter Pan, his relationship with kids, none of that was innocent at all. His Peter Pan image was a facade.

But then you have Macaulay Culkin, who had, according to Macaulay himself, a perfectly innocent relationship with Michael for years and stayed at Neverland often. There are several home videos of them together online. According to Macaulay, in contradiction to Wade Robson, Michael was just trying to enjoy his childhood, and the Peter Pan personality was no facade.





So forgive me if I can look at his relationship with Macaulay and think it could be an incredibly high risk situation if MJ was actually a pedophile.

Would I say it's weird that some random woman wouldn't have been raped by Trump? No. Would I suspect that Trump would have raped someone if it was a young girl on Jeffrey Epstein's island after a trip on the Lolita Express? Yes.
 

yado

Member
Oct 25, 2017
477
I just want to step in for a moment and point something out:


People who keep saying this? 80% of you wouldn't be saying this about a woman who said she slept in the same bed as kids.

It's coming from that same part of your lizard brain that society has trained to flinch any time you see a grown man alone with a little girl.

And you're going to deny it now that I have pointed it out, but there is a reason so many people keep phrasing it "a grown man" and so few "an adult".


Um, yeah I would consider it extremely fucking weird for any adult to invite kids over for sleepovers.
 

SolidChamp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,867
In addition to this post which I hope people would read, here's some more.

All of Wade Robson's lawsuits were dismissed not just because of statue of limitations but also perjury, lying under oath during the proceedings.

D0bpe3PWsAEM5_D


The court found, as I had said in the previous post, that he had lied about not trying to find a publisher for a book deal. All the publishers had turned him down.

D0bpvwqXgAIoozo


Wade's book contradicting his sworn deposition due to memories having "evolved' doesn't sound sketchy at all.

He claimed that the allegations came completely from his own memory and he didn't speak to anyone else about it, but the court found that he had exchanged dozens of e-mails with his mother Joy Robson, who I also talked a lot about in the other post and whose story continuously and seriously contradicts Wade's. For example, Joy said it was her husband's idea that the family move to America, Wade said MJ's company organized that they move to America. According to Joy, they had asked Michael for sponsorship.

Everyone knows by now about his denial of very specific questions in court in 2005, and now he's saying that Michael's lawyers intimidated him to not say anything. No evidence, of course.

The last appeal on his lawsuit is happening this summer. Just after Leaving Neverland will air. Previously, Wade's testimony had focused very much on MJJ Productions, which he alleged found him to meet MJ in a story that contradicts what actually happened, and he also named specific people in the company. That didn't work and the companies could sue him for defamation, and now Leaving Neverland focuses basically exclusively on allegations against Michael personally. Of course, he's not here to sue for defamation like his company or other people involved.

Also interesting that Wade sold all his MJ memorabilia in 2011, before he apparently realized there was abuse. Again, his lawsuit only happened after he failed to get a book publisher, and his allegations only started after he couldn't get a job on MJ One.

EDIT: What's also interesting is that Safechuck and Robson are the only people to alleged anal sex with Jackson. This wasn't alleged by the Chandlers or the Arvizios in the 1993 and 2005 cases respectively. Wade and James Safechuck also claim that they never talked about their stories together, IIRC they said at the premiere that this was the first time they were meeting or talking in decades. Wade's own deposition in 2016 refutes this:

wade-and-james-2014.jpg


Safechuck was putting together his lawsuit in 2014, and they're both represented by the same law firm.

Based on the information presented by Drewton in this thread, I don't believe either of these two guys. It smells rotten to the core.

If the documentary focuses primarily on the accounts of these two men, then I have very little reason to believe it's credibility.
 

Biggersmaller

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,966
Minneapolis
'Instead of addressing the actual post, allow me to sidestep it, add a qualifier you never used, and.paint the most lurid picture possible so I don't have to self-examine why I'm using acts I wouldn't be troubled by one type of person doing to bolster my argument against another type of person.'

You want to accuse the man of wrongdoing, feel free. But responding to people trying to discuss the evidence of the whole thing one way or another with 'but he was a grown man who shared a bed with kids' isn't providing evidence. It relies on the assumption of predatory intentions that most folks are ascribing due to the sex of the person doing the action and not the action itself.

Fair enough. Let me address the point of gender more plainly:

It would also be equally shitty if a woman acted in the same manner Michael Jackson has already been unequivocally proven to behave.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,085
Um, yeah I would consider it extremely fucking weird for any adult to invite kids over for sleepovers.
That's weird on its face, I agree. But it's not the sleepover part that posts like that are pointing out.

"This is an adult who invited children over for sleepovers and then slept in the same bed as them"

That's an argument from a completely rational position and it's weird as fuck. Michael was weird as fuck. But it's not a phrase that packs the same lurid punch as

"This was a grown man who slept in same bed as children."

Which gets its punch from the aforementioned association of dudes around kids being assumed to be predatory.
 

SolidChamp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,867
The big problem I have with the MJ accusations vs the MeToo movement can be summed up thusly:

MeToo: "We just want the truth to be heard so that people don't have to suffer through the same thing we did. We don't want him to hurt anyone ever again."

MJ accusers: "We just want to get as much fucking money from that golden egg laying goose as possible so that we can finally start healing."
 

Replicant

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,380
MN
It's funny... for years, hell, decades, MJ fans have portrayed MJ as a man stuck in a kid phase, that having kids sleep in his bed is the same as kids having a sleepover party. Yet not a single one can show evidence he had any sort of mental disorder or issue that corroborates that he was stuck in some sort of phase. Because that narrative is utterly false.
The man is guilty and the fact he was paying hush money for decades is proof of that. No innocent man would do that.

When you add it all together, their just being blinded by the cult of personality around him.
Imagine the thought of saying allowing a catholic priest to allow kids into hos bed is fine because "he's pious" or whatever. No one would say thats normal or innocent.
So why do the rules not apply to MJ? Maybe because his fans dont want to see the truth.

I go back and fourth a lot on M.J. and what he did and didn't do. The man was clearly deeply disturbed and he was by no means normal. The shit he has said or had done would make anyone with half s brain think he molested those kids.

But there are also two of those kids who spent an enormous amount of time with the man and is well documented.

McCulley Culkin and Corey Feldman. Both children and now men have led difficult and troubled times as adults and have struggled with addiction. But both of them have said Michel Jackson never did anything for them to think he was a molestor.

Feldman in particular who has raised the issue in his own career about being abused has said Jackson was innocent. He clearly liked Jackson. He still mimicks his style in performances.

So my point is, the man was creepy to us for good reason. But being creepy isn't 100% proof. There were hundreds of kids around Jackson.
 
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
MJ already stood trial

SPOILER ALERT

Another spoiler alert, you are very bad regarding language context.

What protections does Michael Jackson need in the Criminal Justice System right now.

Does he need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in all future allegations for people to be able to believe he's guilty.

What can Michael Jackson gain.

He's a dead person.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,085
Fair enough. Let me address the point of gender more plainly:

It would also be equally shitty if a woman acted in the same manner Michael Jackson has already been unequivocally proven to behave.
And if that's your point of view you're not at all wrong to have it.

My entire objection isn't that 'it's not weird that an adult sleeps in the same bed as kids'. Just that there is a more visceral reaction to it being a man and that, as evidence of Jackson's wrongdoing, thay reaction is doing the heavy lifting in the 'he was a grown man' posts.
 

Swiggins

was promised a tag
Member
Apr 10, 2018
11,442
The big problem I have with the MJ accusations vs the MeToo movement can be summed up thusly:

MeToo: "We just want the truth to be heard so that people don't have to suffer through the same thing we did. We don't want him to hurt anyone ever again."

MJ accusers: "We just want to get as much fucking money from that golden egg laying goose as possible so that we can finally start healing."
While I get the gist of what you're saying, I think asking to be compensated for pain and suffering is a pretty terrible way of divining guilt from innocence.

Not every person who was sexually assaulted is going only want justice in lieu of financial compensation; nor should they.

I'm not saying that it applies in THIS case, but I don't bat an eye when victims demand financial compensation from their attackers; nor should anybody, if you've been wronged take what you're owed.
 

Meia

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,015
Another spoiler alert, you are very bad regarding language context.

What protections does Michael Jackson need in the Criminal Justice System right now.

Does he need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in all future allegations for people to be able to believe he's guilty.

What can Michael Jackson gain.

He's a dead person.


So the second someone dies, it's cool to smash his reputation for something he's already been found innocent over?


That's an....interesting take.
 

HustleBun

Member
Nov 12, 2017
6,075
"Believe victims" does not mean to ignore all available information that might go against what the victims are claiming. There are three decades of information on the Michael Jackson situation to look at, take in and then base an opinion on.

"Believe victims" means that when someone makes an accusation, they deserve to be listened to and not brushed aside.
Thank you. This is one of the most reasonable statements I've seen in this entire thread.

I do not yet have an opinion on whether or not Michael is guilty, but it's wild to me that everyone already has selected a "truth". It is indeed difficult to live in the unknown, but we have:

GUILTY: Decades of sketchy and bizarre behavior from Michael Jackson including his own insane and weirdly proud admission to sharing beds with children
vs.
INNOCENT: Decades of investigations, raids and shady revelations that have either debunked or called his accusers into question.

There's a reason why the debate still lives on and it is not solely due to his music. I find myself unable to dismiss these purported victims just as I find myself unable to brand him as a confirmed molester.
 

uncelestial

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,060
San Francisco, CA, USA
ITT we have people openly pretending not to understand what "believe victims" means. no warnings, bans, anything. openly accusing them of faking it for money? perfectly fine. totally normal.and cool.
So, can you name another case where the alleged victim is seeking $1.62 billion dollars, has multiple holes in their story, has testified under oath about their supposed attacker's innocence as a grown man, and is accusing someone who was subjected to a 10 years of FBI investigation that turned up nothing? Are you under the impression that accusing someone of something automatically shields you from people raising an eyebrow at those circumstances?
 
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
So the second someone dies, it's cool to smash his reputation for something he's already been found innocent over?


That's an....interesting take.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be extremely bad at reading.

The context of the conversation:

Him: "ASSUMING JACKSON IS GUILTY BECAUSE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS IS BAD, INNOCENT UNTIL 100% PROVEN GUILTY."
Me: What does criminal justice standards have to do with this, Michael Jackson is dead and will have nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

Do you believe innocence in every single interaction you have in life until it's 100% proven that they did not act innocently.

Of... Of course not. The criminal justice system has actual serious penalties involved with people so the standard of evidence needs to be much higher.
 

SolidChamp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,867
So, can you name another case where the alleged victim is seeking $1.62 billion dollars, has multiple holes in their story, has testified under oath about their supposed attacker's innocence as a grown man, and is accusing someone who was subjected to a 10 years of FBI investigation that turned up nothing? Are you under the impression that accusing someone of something automatically shields you from people raising an eyebrow at those circumstances?

I love that people are ignoring these facts.
 

Hokahey

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
2,288
Another spoiler alert, you are very bad regarding language context.

What protections does Michael Jackson need in the Criminal Justice System right now.

Does he need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in all future allegations for people to be able to believe he's guilty.

What can Michael Jackson gain.

He's a dead person.

You do realize that these individuals were around when the trial occurred right? And that one even spoke to his innocence? Your posts are fairly incoherent.
 

Cordy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,303
Jackson is very lucky he missed MeToo

The first accusation would've ended his career today.
Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Shit, that man was being hounded in the NEW JACK SWING ERA. Think about that lol. That was then, I can't even IMAGINE how it would be if this dude was around during Me Too. That would be the biggest Me Too case by FAR.
 

tuna_love

Alt Account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17
can we get a poll asking who would have let their kids spend a night with michael jackson
 
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
You do realize that these individuals were around when the trial occurred right? And that one even spoke to his innocence? Your posts are fairly incoherent.

This entire conversation is about this one sentence which you are completely ignoring to try to talk about other things.

"Having proof of what you accuse someone of is sort of the cornerstone of the criminal justice system."

People's opinions aren't the criminal justice system.

Okay.

Do you get it now.
 

J.W.Crazy

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
34
So, can you name another case where the alleged victim is seeking $1.62 billion dollars, has multiple holes in their story, has testified under oath about their supposed attacker's innocence as a grown man, and is accusing someone who was subjected to a 10 years of FBI investigation that turned up nothing? Are you under the impression that accusing someone of something automatically shields you from people raising an eyebrow at those circumstances?

This is NOT true! Please stop perpetuating an obvious falsehood! If you genuinely believe in his innocence you are only doing more harm than good by pointing to an easily refutable lie to defend him.

He was never investigated by the FBI. There was no investigation of him that went on for 10 years.

https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson
 

SolidChamp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,867
Love to be attacked by Jackson Stans for deflecting and then this is literally the very next post I encounter.

Drewton is not well.

I'm sorry. Regardless of what Drewton is or is not, what he has posted happens to be things that are easily corroborated by a simple Google search. So, yeah. I'll defer to THAT information which tells me Wade Robson is a fucking opportunistic liar. That's the perspective I'm coming at this from. I maybe listen to one MJ song a year (I really dig "The Way You Make Me Feel").

That's what I believe. Am I unwell?
 
Oct 26, 2017
20,440
I'm sorry. Regardless of what Drewton is or is not, what he has posted happens to be things that are easily corroborated by a simple Google search. So, yeah. I'll defer to THAT information which tells me Wade Robson is a fucking opportunistic liar.

That's what I believe. Am I unwell?

Have you posted something like this

"This was a letter MJ sent to a relative when he was worried about his nephew being molested. He clearly did not think child molestation was ok. "
 

SolidChamp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,867
Have you posted something like this

"This was a letter MJ sent to a relative when he was worried about his nephew being molested. He clearly did not think child molestation was ok. "

I realize Drewton posted that, and that it is purely circumstantial. That doesn't negate the fact that pretty much everything else Drewton has posted is fact.

I don't understand why you're so preoccupied with attacking another posted rather than sticking to the discussion at hand. How about you just stick to what you know and what you believe and try to counter some of his points with other facts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.