By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - "Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

 

Thriller and Invincible or Bad and Dangerous

Good guy, wrongly accused 55 51.89%
 
Talented Bad guy 28 26.42%
 
A little of both. 23 21.70%
 
Total:106

When will prosecutors sue the two for perjury? Because their claim now (real or not) contradicts what they testified under oath. Or have the allowed timewindow for the accusation ended?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
3sexty said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

Assumptions to be made from a book that isn't illegal? Not really unless you're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, just because Jackson settled didn't mean criminal charges couldn't have been filed as well. Once the Chandlers got what they wanted ($20 million), they had no interest in pursuing a criminal case. It's also speculated that Jackson was too sick at the time to have undergone a civil trial. It's known he was battling an addiction to pain medication at the time and his advisors at the time didn't want him to go through with it. As regards to Jordan accurately describing Jackson's genitals, that's a bit of revisionist history. There are conflicting accounts on how accurately he described them, one account stating Jordan claimed Jackson was circumcised when he in fact was not. A grand jury felt there was no clear match with Jordan's descriptions. 

Yes the book is a piece of anecdotal evidence and as we both have stated it is not illegal. I still agree on. This. But let's make one thing  clear if we have a collection of this type of evidence even if it cannot corroborate a position of guilt, one would still be strongly inclined to make assumptions in regards to the type of behaviour on display. It's human nature to do so. Let me ask, in knowing these details would you be comfortable leaving your child unsupervised with MJ. Good human judgement would err on the side of very strong caution here and I know I wouldn't. That's for sure. As a parent if you see smoke in a direction, you would steer clear of it even if there is by small chance no fire there. The anecdotal evidence makes a strong case for at least  somekind of judgement call.Again its an opinion which many people share based on what we know. 

To be honest, before the show aired (refuse to call it a documentary) I had doubts about MJ because yes the situation is weird. It wasnt until I started digging deeper in the last week where I see just how much scum MJ had surrounded himself. From maids, to security guards, families of fans, even LaToya betrayed him at one point. He lived a super sheltered life, never got to associate with kids outside of his siblings. I truly believe he was only able to be comfortable around children, and yes our tainted minds lead us to believe he's a sicko because of it. However, no one knows what it's like to be Michael Jackson except, Michael Jackson.



DonFerrari said:
When will prosecutors sue the two for perjury? Because their claim now (real or not) contradicts what they testified under oath. Or have the allowed timewindow for the accusation ended?

I was wondering the same, but apparently sex abuse victims can recant their stories later without risking a perjury charge. 





PortisheadBiscuit said:
DonFerrari said:
When will prosecutors sue the two for perjury? Because their claim now (real or not) contradicts what they testified under oath. Or have the allowed timewindow for the accusation ended?

I was wondering the same, but apparently sex abuse victims can recant their stories later without risking a perjury charge. 

Statute of limitations has passed. Either by coincidence or by plan.



Twitter: @d21lewis

Around the Network
d21lewis said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

I was wondering the same, but apparently sex abuse victims can recant their stories later without risking a perjury charge. 

Statute of limitations has passed. Either by coincidence or by plan.

This whole thing seems so calculated, and especially now that MJ's estate has increased in value the last few years after the sale of his stake in Sony/ATV. 

What's crazy to me is to think these two dweebs feel theyre entitled to over a billion dollars. Lets say God forbid MJ did do something to these boys, they're not punishing a dead MJ, but rather his kids, mother, and whomever else is tied to the estate. None of which had anything to do with it. 



Michael Jackson was definitely eccentric, but I don't think he was ever a pedophile. I thought the allegations would stop after the 2005 trial, but it turns out I was wrong. I hope Taj Jackson (MJ's nephew) gets to make his documentary series soon.



PortisheadBiscuit said:
3sexty said:

Yes the book is a piece of anecdotal evidence and as we both have stated it is not illegal. I still agree on. This. But let's make one thing  clear if we have a collection of this type of evidence even if it cannot corroborate a position of guilt, one would still be strongly inclined to make assumptions in regards to the type of behaviour on display. It's human nature to do so. Let me ask, in knowing these details would you be comfortable leaving your child unsupervised with MJ. Good human judgement would err on the side of very strong caution here and I know I wouldn't. That's for sure. As a parent if you see smoke in a direction, you would steer clear of it even if there is by small chance no fire there. The anecdotal evidence makes a strong case for at least  somekind of judgement call.Again its an opinion which many people share based on what we know. 

To be honest, before the show aired (refuse to call it a documentary) I had doubts about MJ because yes the situation is weird. It wasnt until I started digging deeper in the last week where I see just how much scum MJ had surrounded himself. From maids, to security guards, families of fans, even LaToya betrayed him at one point. He lived a super sheltered life, never got to associate with kids outside of his siblings. I truly believe he was only able to be comfortable around children, and yes our tainted minds lead us to believe he's a sicko because of it. However, no one knows what it's like to be Michael Jackson except, Michael Jackson.

To be fair, La Toya was going through an abusive relationship with her then husband, Jack Gordon, at the time. He forced her to betray her brother.

Last edited by Mr.GameCrazy - on 15 March 2019

d21lewis said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:
Honestly before the documentary I was on the fence about MJ, afterwards and doing a bit of research on guys making the claim (who happen to being suing the estate for 100s of millions) I now believe he's innocent. The documentary was extremely one sided and if you were to only watch it and not do any further digging, its easy to fall prey to their compelling and graphic story.

There are so many holes in their story upon further research. One factoid that sticks out in my mind is Safechucks's mother claiming she was so happy when she learned MJ passed. "I was so glad he wouldnt be able to hurt anymore children". Um yeah MJ died in 2009, but Safechuck claims he didn't realize he was abused until 2013. Is she a time traveler?


His mom said that, during the 2003 trial, her son told her what Michael did but he still love him. He made her swear to be quiet. It's all in the doc. Safechuck thought it was love, not abuse. Even when Michael died, he still loved him.

And people are quick to forget that it was partly these guy's testimony on behalf of Michael that kept him out of prison in his other cases.

What kind of Mom, swear to a child that was molested by a grown ass man, not to reveal such a thing in a court of law.  That story in itself sounds off the charts crazy.  I cannot think of any parent caring if their child believes being molested by a grown ass man is OK.  Unless, MJ dropped some millions for them to keep quite that whole story doesn't hold up at all.



Machiavellian said:
d21lewis said:

His mom said that, during the 2003 trial, her son told her what Michael did but he still love him. He made her swear to be quiet. It's all in the doc. Safechuck thought it was love, not abuse. Even when Michael died, he still loved him.

And people are quick to forget that it was partly these guy's testimony on behalf of Michael that kept him out of prison in his other cases.

What kind of Mom, swear to a child that was molested by a grown ass man, not to reveal such a thing in a court of law.  That story in itself sounds off the charts crazy.  I cannot think of any parent caring if their child believes being molested by a grown ass man is OK.  Unless, MJ dropped some millions for them to keep quite that whole story doesn't hold up at all.

She said he bought them a house, too. After the 2003-2005 trial. Just like with the other documentary, "Abducted in Plain Sight", the alleged offender is dead. The parents are acting so innocent and naive (kinda like MJ) but they had to have some idea. They just gained from their child's suffering.

Again, let me reiterate that I'm a huge Michael Jackson fan. I don't think I will ever change--but I'm trying to stay open minded. A lot of people are like "Michael is Innocent and pure" while others are like "Michael is the devil". There truth is likely somewhere in the middle.



Twitter: @d21lewis