MovieChat Forums > Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion > Imagine actually defending an alleged ch...

Imagine actually defending an alleged child sex abuser


Imagine actually giving him the benefit of the doubt because you like his singing and dancing (LOL).

Let's look at the hard facts.

He played with other people's children in his bedroom with no other adults around *FACT*
He was himself abused as a child *FACT*
He quite clearly had emotional problems *FACT*
Bondage pornography was found in the very room where children played with him *FACT*
At least 2 of the former children he played with have described in detail the ways in which they were abused *FACT*

Imagine looking at these facts and still defending the guy. How sick can you be?

reply

Indeed.
How many people are they going to call liars

reply

It's amazing how many people gloss over the facts because they madly idolize someone, all this outrage from fans defending Jackson reminds me of Muslims defending Muhammad insisting the six year old child he wed at fifty was really eighteen or that he didn’t order the beheading of Jews etc

Both camps are deluded, due to their love for their hero/prophet.

reply

Good exhibits.

Which is why I cant believe in Muslims yet they are the no. 1 religion in the world.

People will bypass anything if they are attracted enough to it.

reply

[deleted]

The fact remains that you wouldn't write this s_t if you weren't a fan, so you are deplorable.

reply

I didn't even claim their statements were true. I simply described the claims they made. Everything I said is an undisputed fact and together they form a pretty telling picture. Even just the fact that a grown adult male is playing with other people's children in his bedroom alone at night is enough to see MJ as a deplorable individual and the fact that this is dismissed as "Oh he just loves children" is really scary

reply

There are never going to be any absolutes in this case. Any crimes that took place were only witnessed by small children, and a man who is now dead. So unless someone digs up a cache of Jackson's kiddie-porn sex tapes, there's never going to be any more proof than who said what - and it seems that Jackson wasn't stupid enough to tape himself diddling those boys. So there is never going to be absolute proof of what happened when, no absolute guilt or innocence, but then this isn't a jury trial so nobody is required to hold out for proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Anyone who can't tell that Jackson was a pedophile is seriously lacking in perception.

reply

Gotta love the logic. Fittingly the same logic used by the original white supremacist lynch mobs.

"Evidence? Screw evidence! My white supremacist mind "perceives" that n***er as guilty now string em up!"

reply

Like I said.

reply

What a wonderful cop-out. Now you don't even need those pesky facts and evidence. Subjective conjecture based on a subjective analysis of subjective behaviour predicated on subjective standards of subjective culture is good enough, because facts are difficult to get a hold of.

You seriously lack critical thinking skills.

reply

In a previous post I have questioned the use of the word *FACT* in asterisks.
Its a FACT that accusations were made but not a FACT that they are true.
This is the point were critical thinking takes place.
People here are not interested in critical thinking unless the thinking is in line with their own train of thought. Presenting opposing evidence or thoughts makes us the "bad guys" who would defend abuse and abusers and perhaps be abusers ourselves.
I hate child abuse. I dont defend all of Jacksons actions which do lead us to believe there was plenty of opportunity for abuses to occur but it doesnt mean that they DID occur.
There are too many holes in this "story" and these one sided testimonies. They go against testimonies they made AS ADULTS, UNDER OATH as as well as voluntarily that NOTHING inappropriate happened.
A glaring example is the abuse that happened in "TRAIN STATION, which happened 3 years BEFORE the train station existed. But these little inconvenient facts get in the way of the supposed "truthfulness" of their stories and are not part of what the story needs to engage critical thinking.

reply

You're correct that it's a fact that accusations have been made; whether or not it's a fact that they're true can't be proven to be a fact unless there's video tape of the abuse. Which rarely happens in sexual abuse cases, and less so in child sexual abuse cases.

This is the point were critical thinking takes place.
People here are not interested in critical thinking unless the thinking is in line with their own train of thought.


I agree with this, however I don't see critical thinking being applied on the part of MJ defenders, and I see them uninterested unless it confirms their bias. Those of us who bring opposing evidence are considered by defenders to be the "bad guys" as well.

I don't see holes in their stories, and remind you that MJ actually paid for and televised his one-sided story, when his accusers were unable to do that. Few people have the means to do that.

The facts are Wade testified when he was only 11 years old, and James was around the same age. Both children. Later Wade testified again, when he was 22, only a couple of years as a legal adult. James never testified as an adult.

Defending one's abuser is very common in the instances of child sexual abuse. That too is a fact.

The train station fuss is a red herring, because it was only one of many locations in Neverland James was listing as where MJ abused him. Realising this is part of critical thinking.

However, MJ had his photographer take videos of his property, primarily animal sculptures that were around it, and told the photographer to not include the train station because he hadn't gotten the permits for it from the Santa Barbara County.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=SRE8MH8PDbs

Santa Barbara County is notorious for making it difficult to get building permits. It's not unusual for people who live there to go ahead and build anyway, and get the permits later.

But, again, the train station is meaningless.

reply

"I'm not an attorney and I'm not paid to be on his defense team.
I'm not going to engage in verbal badminton of point and counterpoint. There is NO end to it.

What I DO know is THIS: you cant justify or make excuses for ADULTS who had every opportunity as ADULTS to bring forth charges against Jackson while he was alive. Robson testified in Jackson's DEFENSE; IN COURT, UNDER OATH as an ADULT! In a real world which we live in, his statements to the contrary are null, void and invalid out of court and against a dead man. He had his chance, he made his choices and ITS OVER. DONE. You cant take your words back.

People who want to cater to and entertain this stuff thrive on tabloid journalism and fake news stories. There are plenty of them. the ONLY thing that matters is what can be PROVEN in COURT.

Jackson went through 2 court trials. BOTH were extensive and intense. There were MULTIPLE charges against him. Prosecution was unrelenting. The results were NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES! Not even ONE!
There was a lack of credibility of the testimonies. Little to NO evidence.

In a court, people hear and see ALL of the evidence. WE DON'T!
Youtube videos of unknown people baking statements means NOTHING. Not until they are presented in court as testimony under oath and cross examined.

I should have known better than to get involved in this crap. Nobody will "win" the debate. Nobody can.

I am not a "defender". I defend the rights of a person to have a fair trial.
I defend the right of a deceased person to rest in peace.
I defend the rights of a family to NOT have their loved ones who are gone; have these loved ones dragged through the mud by tabloid smut.
That's what this is!




reply

You *are* a defender of MJ, there's no denying that.

What is the point of saying you're not an attorney or paid to be on his defense team? Did you think I or anyone else here thought otherwise?

You don't want to discuss what you don't want to discuss, because it shows MJ and Wade and James in a light that's contrary to your narrative. When I brought up that MJ paid to televise nationally (perhaps it was international, I don't know, but definitely national) HIS one-sided story, you have nothing to say about that and ignore it.

I don't even know how it was legal for him to do that, but obviously it was. He was testifying, claiming he was innocent, while a trial was pending, without any cross examination. It's ok with you when he did it, but not when Wade and James do, and they didn't pay for it nor were they paid for it. The director sought *them* out, after investigating them for truthfulness. Which of course he'd do. He's a known, award-winning documentary maker who usually dealt in documentaries about terrorism.

reply

"What I DO know is THIS: you cant justify or make excuses for ADULTS who had every opportunity as ADULTS to bring forth charges against Jackson while he was alive. Robson testified in Jackson's DEFENSE; IN COURT, UNDER OATH as an ADULT! In a real world which we live in, his statements to the contrary are null, void and invalid out of court and against a dead man. He had his chance, he made his choices and ITS OVER. DONE. You cant take your words back."

I don't believe that by now you don't know that children who were sexually abused commonly defend their abusers, and that it commonly takes many years for them to speak up. Some never do. So their actions are entirely consistent with their allegations. They committed perjury. They freely admit this. Does this *prove* what they're saying is true? No. But it is consistent with their telling the truth.

You have not done your research. If you had you'd have known James did not testify as an adult and that there was only ONE trial. He was acquitted on all charges, that's true. It's also true that the jury foreman and 3 of the jurors have said they believe he was guilty, but the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are the people who heard ALL of the evidence. (I have, BTW, read the trial transcripts. Have you?)

The video of MJ's photographer saying MJ contacted him and told him to not shoot the train station because he hadn't gotten permits was posted several years ago, by a MJ FAN YouTube channel. It only means nothing to you because you don't want it to be true, despite concrete evidence that it is.

reply

The FBI only aided in the investigation, they did not investigate him. Here is a Reddit with the truth of this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverland/comments/axvihu/the_fbi_never_investigated_mj/

Page from the actual file:

Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.[/quote]

From the Reddit:

[quote]When Truthers say "they inspected all of MJ's computers and every page has NOTHING written on it," this is also false. The relevant FBI file with a page dedicated to each computer is missing 3 pages - page 4, 5 and 6. There are another 120 pages redacted from this file. That is not to say MJ had child porn on his computers - he would have been arrested for that if there was - but it is impossible to say whether there was anything shady on his computers or not as we cannot view the complete, unredacted file.


So those "truthers" are part of a continued cult of lies.

reply

If you, me or anyone else had sleepovers with 12 year old boys we would probably be in prison.*FACT*

reply

That’s what I say!
MJ was having sleepovers with pre pubescent boys for most of his adult life.
Nuff said

reply

As an adult male I would NEVER have "pajama parties" with children and think any adult that does should have said adult's head examined.

reply

His defenders are either fanatics who cannot be reasoned with or former fans (such as myself) who liked his music way back when and still do. Myself, I like his music but not his lifestyle.

reply

I never heard of "bondage pornography being found in the very room children were playing with him", as you put it. I have heard, though, of other instances in which people were paid hush money after questionable relationships with Michael Jackson.

reply

The *FACT* is that you have capitalized FACT and put asterisks around it. You give us no indication of what the asterisks mean. You later state that you dont know if these are TRUE but yet they are *FACTS*.
So does this mean that if a person makes a statement be it true or false, its a *FACT* that the statement was made but not a *FACT* that its actually TRUE?

reply

Sorry, but all of the points in the OP are undisputed facts.

But I don't agree that anyone defending him is doing it because they're sick, or just because they like his singing and dancing.

reply

YOU ARE A LIAR!
I will have NO further conversations with you

reply

What a bizarre response.

Which of the things listed in the OP is *not* an undisputed fact??

reply

"People cant, dont, wont, or dont want to, take the time to seek out opposing information. They simply look at what confirms their own way of thinking."

This is what you wrote just 3 days ago. You also criticised those who believe MJ was a pedophile by saying they don't engage in critical thinking. You didn't even have to seek out opposing information, it was right here in the OP.

Yet your response to my mild post pointing out that everything listed in the OP is undisputed is to flip out, attack me, and say you'll have "NO further conversations" with me? W.T.H.?

reply

You are still waiting for him to reply, aren't you? Hehe.

reply