Forum menu
“… I’m just going to make something up anyway”?
They were holding his hand, not his winkie. Sure, it’s odd behaviour, but as I said at the start that doesn’t mean we can automatically conclude that he’s a nonce just because he’s a bit odd.
I didn't say anything about what happened in private. I'm not making anything up, and I don't know what others have or have not made up. I'm commenting on what everyone can see as public behaviour, and in my opinion that sustained pattern of behaviour was beyond a bit odd.
For some reason, this reminds me of Alan Dershowitz's defence of OJ Simpson...
Oh, and Jeffrey Epstein:
https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1101609160653848577
in my opinion that sustained pattern of behaviour was beyond a bit odd.
And you're welcome to your opinion. I don't overly disagree. I don't fancy your chances in a court of law either though. The logical leap that he must be a kiddie fiddler because he was "beyond a bit odd" still doesn't butter any parsnips.
For some reason,
I think we all know the reason.
Cougar,
Maybe not behaving like a child and family grooming pederast would be a start.
Think of all the ways in which MJ could have put his detractors to shame by saying, "the parents were always in the room" or "of course I didn't spend the night alone with someone elses children, and here are the parents to back that up" or "heres the CCTV".
But he did none of that. So on balance I'll believe the accusers for now.
I don't think its cut and dried, and if this was just one accuser with a clear financial motive (like operation midland) I'd be a bit more reticent, but we are where we are.
For what its worth the most f'ed up thing about it, for me, was that the accusers came across like they still love him despite everything. He really did a job on them.
His behaviour being seemingly to enjoy the company of children? Better round up all the parents and teachers whilst you’re at it too, then.
I think you might question the behaviour of a teacher who devotes large amounts of time to a one to one relationship with one specific child, in preference to other relationships, or even a parent who repeatedly takes a selected child off on extended business trips?
I think we all know the reason.
Steady on, next you'll be saying this is relevant:
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/895372199787474950
Think of all the ways in which MJ could have put his detractors to shame by saying,
So, he should've lied?
I think you might question the behaviour of a teacher who devotes large amounts of time to a one to one relationship with one specific child, in preference to other relationships, or even a parent who repeatedly takes a selected child off on extended business trips?
I might well indeed, yes. But I'd then consider the evidence before reaching for the pitchforks.
he was weird, but that doesn’t automatically make him a criminal. Smooth or otherwise.
Well played sir.
So obviously the very strong circumstantial evidence of his behaviour throughout a large part of his life
Indeed it is literally not enough because there was a trial that went on for 18 months which found him not guilty and provided literally no physical evidence whatsoever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson
We're not going to see a better test of the evidence than that.
In other (uncorroborated) news,
Just finished the first half. Powerful stuff, gives a real insight into how children and parents are groomed.
Luckily I’m estranged from my parents so don’t have to groom them. I find a good, sturdy boar hair brush, followed by some pomeade with good hold does a fine job on the children though.
In other (uncorroborated) news
Speaking of unjustified "logical leaps", that FB post jumps from alleging Wade Robson is an abuser to the hash tag #MJInnocent!
I don't know whether Robson is guilty of inappropriate behaviour, but it's not unknown (for obvious reasons) for victims of abuse to become abusers themselves.
Luckily I’m estranged from my parents so don’t have to groom them. I find a good, sturdy boar hair brush, followed by some pomeade with good hold does a fine job on the children though.
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
What about horses?
Should add I Used to work in criminal justice. Yes, grooming of parents.
What about horses?
Well, there was one offender, liked horses, whilst wearing women’s knickers and toothpaste...
Well Corey Feldman, who says that he was abused by people in the industry when he was younger, says that MJ never touched him. Seems strange for MJ to miss an opportunity if he was actually like that :
Can you seperate the art from the artist?
If Jacko was guilty should we still listen to his fantastic music?
Can you seperate the art from the artist?
If Jacko was guilty should we still listen to his fantastic music?
Personally, I can.
And long term VW Beetle sales didn't suffer too much from being designed by Adolf H. so I guess most other people can too.
Lost Prophets, anyone?
It's quite easy to forget about the Lost Prophets as they weren't greatly popular... likewise the collective works of Rolf Harris was quite easy to ignore.. some kids cartoon shows in the 80s, a bad painting of the Queen and a daytime programme about sick pets. Gary Glitter.. some reasonable pop songs from the 70s... very easy to forget. Gets a bit harder to erase the works of Jimmy Savile but the BBC have been quite successful not repeating any of his topofthepops episodes or his Saturday show.
But it's not going to be quite so easy to make Billie Jean disappear which comes from the greatest selling music of all time! I don't want to forget about his music...the songs are great.
Well watched this back to back last night and I was completely convinced by it up until the point where he mentioned suing and money. Why on earth if he wanted to convince people and do it for purposes of healing and getting the truth out for the sake of others that had gone through this did he bring money into it which just gives any defence /media/fans the ammunition to say he's just doing it for money. He could have just given all the info to media outlets and police and refused any kind of money for interviews or documentaries and certain not pursued money from the Jackson family. Why would he want any connection to them after everything that happened and everything his family were already bought off with? I'm now just really confused and unsettled as I'd rather believe their story than believe that both those men could speak about all that stuff in such a genuine and upsetting way if it was all made up to get money.