TGM

movies often have reshoots, edits, and continuity errors. they rearranged the furniture and this proves MJ didn't suck on preteen cock how?

dhmac

It proves Dan Reed is a shitty filmmaker.

Decker

Alright, I was going to let this die, but whatever :
dhmac, you watched the film. What do you make of the "Food Truck" story? The single moment where Wade broke down and admitted to his wife and family that he had been abused for years by Michael Jackson. It's a compelling, specific story. As I see it there are only three possibilities :
1) The story is true and his reaction is consistent with many other victims of childhood sexual abuse
2)Wade got together with his wife, brother, sister, sister-in-law and mother and got them all coached up so that their stories would all corroborate and be believable. Maybe they all went to acting class. All in an effort to embarrass the Jackson family.
3) Wade made up the story at the time and then decided that was the perfect moment to act out a scene that they all would remember and cause them personal pain in an attempt to drive a wedge through his family.

Which of those three is it?

And I keep coming back to this : You are awfully quick to dismiss each and every case of sexual misconduct against Jackson, on the basis that he was famous and people wanted money from him. But a lot of people were rich and famous at that time and almost none of them were even once charged or accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Even eccentrics like Madonna, Tom Cruise, Prince. Rich, famous people. Nobody is accusing them. Why do SO MANY BOYS with known histories of close personal contact with Jackson keep accusing him of this? Pile-on effect? Years after he already died, and the statute of limitations for liability has expired? I suppose, but that doesn't seem very likely

Will any claim of sexual abuse short of documented video evidence ever rise to your level of scrutiny? If you want to, I suppose you could dismiss every single claim of rape ever made. (To be clear : Not saying that YOU would, but theoretically one could). Doesn't mean it never actually happens. I have a patient who was sexually assaulted by her friend's father during a sleepover and I can see how it kind of destroyed her. She will never be the same. The way she views men, views the world. All I'm saying is let's not be so quick to dismiss every claim and try to poke holes in every detail to find "proof" that it didn't ever happen. Kids are naive, impressionable, naturally trusting. And sometimes they make mistakes.

tanman

Your wife's BFF's grandfather is Ward Kimble?! Wow that's so cool!

dhmac

There are probably other better options, especially given how one-sided the "documentary" is. For example, one thing that was discovered in his 2012-and-onward lawsuit was that Wade Robson was tabloid-diving with his mother working together with him on it. He was researching old tabloid articles and asking his mother for feedback on them. How do we know he did this? Because the court subpoenaed his email records and it was there. There was a pattern of him sending a old tabloid story to his mother and ask her about it. She would then email back her opinion.

So... what DO YOU think about this?

Who goes through old tabloids and then lifts salacious stories from them to put into a lawsuit? And who has to ask his mother what she remembers from back then?

You can either believe:

(a) he was actually abused but doesn't remember it

(b) he was never abuse, but was searching for salacious stories to put into his civil lawsuit


People try to sue rich celebrities all the time. They do this not because the claim *must be true* but because the people are rich and they want to get a payout. A lot of these lawsuits aren't well-known about (including Robson and Safechuck's lawsuits, which weren't well known until this "documentary"). Are you really that naive?

You need far better supporting evidence than any of Michael Jackson's accusers have produced. With all the gifts, fax messages, and voicemails they retained, non of which indicate anything bad going on, they all somehow don't have anything they claim he send or gave them that would back up their claims? Don't you think with all the stuff they did save, the incriminating stuff is what's missing. Isn't that odd? My standards of evidence goes beyond just someone claiming something is true. That's all. If someone claims they saw Bigfoot, I don't believe them just on that alone. They need to produce some compelling evidence to backup that claim. I hold these accusers to that same standard.

So I'll ask you a question: will any evidence of clear monetary motives ever convince you that the accusers are not being honest in what they say?

And why are you so willing to believe everything you hear in a clearly one-sided propaganda film? Are you that easy to persuade?

Decker

Thank you for literally not answering a single question that I just asked you. That is some MAGA-level whataboutism right there.
So your proof is that this sort of thing with pedophilia and sexual abuse claims happens to all sorts of celebrities all the time but we just don't know about it? Really???


No, this is odd.

Oh yeah, buying the Safechucks a house was also a little strange.


We live in a country where the only form of remuneration for personal pain and suffering is often monetary via civil lawsuits. Don't love it, but I hardly find it a reason to dismiss all claims. Do you think people who sue after a car accident are making it up? I mean they want money, right?
I agree it was one-sided. But it's not the first time I've heard claims like these. Or the second. After a while, with enough smoke, I start thinking that there probably was a fire somewhere. Still baffled why you are so quick to defend this guy, as if there is NO WAY this adult who actively sought out the companionship of little boys and slept in bed with them every night (and whose second wife swore under oath that she never had sex with him) could possibly have an impure thought regarding them sexually.

dhmac

You found Safechuck's adult-sized ring convincing. Why?

You do know the ring wasn't in the initial filming. That part was filmed months later and sloppily edited in. So it was something that they decided to add later as an afterthought. They also claim that when he opens the box with the ring in it on camera, it's the first time he opened that box. Do you believe that too?

And Safechuck claims they exchanged adult-sized rings and wrote marriage vows, so why didn't he have those vows he claimed they wrote too in addition to the ring? And doesn't it seem odd that the whole marriage and ring story seems like it was lifted wholesale from a pro-NAMBLA novel by Victor Gutierez that's been completely discredited? Doesn't it seem odd that a lot of Safechuck's allegations seem like they were lifted from that same novel with him simply changing the stories to be about him? Isn't it possible that he read that novel and then lifted stories from it to come up with his allegations?

Also Michael Jackson didn't buy a house for the Safechucks. He agreed to loan them the money to buy a house and, years later, they defaulted on paying him back. So instead of foreclosing on them, he forgave the debt. Twisting that into "he bought them a house" is ridiculous. He expected them to pay him back and was too nice to evict them when they failed to do so.

Sonny Corinthos

Let's just say there was no sex involved. Do you find it strange or odd that a man in his 30's and 40's spent so much time with little boys and shared his bed with them?

Coral

I'm just glad dhmac doesn't have kids, since he thinks it's perfectly fine for 30+ year old men to sleep with children.
We don't need more kids getting raped by monsters like MJ.

He fucked little boys - accept it and move on with your life.

dhmac

Rob Ager of Collative Learning explains why he finds Robson and Safechuck unconvincing in "Leaving Neverland" and illustrates the differences in behavior between actual trauma victims and fakers based on his years of experience in the area

Decker

That wedding ring story if from a novel, huh? So any 1989 video footage of him buying the wedding ring with the boy is probably made up as well, right?


Hey, at least Jackson isn't the creepiest guy in that second video.

The Questyen

The way that dhmac is blindly protecting a child molester that he has no connection to and keeps bringing up blatantly one-sided articles to defend him all the while protesting the onesideness of the doc is pretty disturbing. I hope no one who knows him in real life trusts him around their children.

DVD Polizei

It's pretty normal for children to lie about somebody doing sexually explicit things to them, only to tell the truth about it much later in life. Examples? Catholic Church victims. Most have never ran to the police immediately or anyone. They keep it inside.

No offense to the guy making that video, but he needs to widen his experiences with sexual abuse victims instead of just grabbing clips of people who have been abused. Coming from a family where my sister was abused, as well as a friend of mine, the MJ documentary came across as legit to me. Hard to explain but the eyes gave it away. It's an observation of violation. And yeah they denied it happened over and over and are only admitting it today, but I'm more sure than not, sexual abuse happened. We can criticize why or if they want money, but the evidence, even circumstantial, points clearly to MJ abusing children. Male children.

There's too much circumstantial evidence pointing to sexual abuse...than away from it. It's just common sense here. The art. The things MJ said himself that are a matter of public record, etc. They way the money was paid to the parents to keep them silent, etc.

The author of the video also forgets something very key here where his other video clips do not...a relationship that lasted years. Mutual affection. His video clips deal with traumatic incidents of unwanted sex. In MJ's case, it's just the opposite. This is why the two MJ victims come across as a little callus because they had actual relationships with MJ, and it was not forced per se, and they even said they thought it was natural due to their inexperience with sex altogether, etc.

If we only had their conversations, I'd be more skeptical. We've seen accusations in other events where no evidence exists and without evidence (i.e., other than the accuser and 2nd hand rumors, etc), there is just no case to move forward. But in MJ's case, we do have the evidence. It is not normal behavior for a man of his age. It is not normal for a male to sleep with children, and it is not normal for male to make comments such as the ones he did on several media interviews.

DVD Polizei

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside...leged-sex-tape

Finisher

Eagerly awaiting the dhmac spin on this one.

Decker

I'll give you a preview : "They're lying. They want money. What about this one time where somebody else said one thing in court but another thing in an email? Here's a You Tube clip of some angry borderline insane guy who agrees with me."

Decker

I was curious about this guy's qualifications as a mental health expert, so I checked the FAQ section of his website :

So it seems he's a poorly educated failed filmmaker with no formal training at all. He volunteered in the field of social work. And HE'S the expert you go to in order to prove that Safechuck and Roberson are liars? I'm a US-trained MD physician, board certified in Pediatrics, chairman of my department, with over 20 years experience in the field. I'm not an expert in the field of sexual abuse, but I am undoubtedly more qualified than he is to tell you that these two men may have been, and probably were, sexually abused as children. But that's not what you want to hear, is it?

Finisher

Al Jean on Removing Jackson Simpsons episode

Not sure if this has been posted, saw this after reading article above. Al Jean seems pretty convinced Jackson used his Simpsons episode as sort of a PR tool, which seems par the course for him.

dhmac

Predictably, a moral supremacist of course has to post here (see my earlier posting, #39 in this thread )

Sonny Corinthos

Why won't you answer the question several people, including myself has asked you numerous times? If you had sons of your own, would you allow them to spend the night, weekends with Michael Jackson?

Decker

He did answer that. He's totally fine with it. Why not?

Here's his direct, unedited response :

Sonny Corinthos

Thanks for sharing that, I must have missed his response. All I can say is hot damn!, I wouldn't let my cat spent the night with MJ, let alone one of my sons. (I don't have a cat or a son, but if I did, there's no chance in hell either one would spend one second with MJ)

Coral

You admit to not having a problem with your hypothetical under-aged child sleeping in the same bed with an non-related adult behind closed doors and without supervision.
At best, you'd be a pimp to a pedophile... at worst - you could be hiding something even more sinister about yourself.

Like I said earlier - I'm VERY glad you don't have kids. VERY glad.

You might want to bail on this thread - you're probably giving everyone the heebie jeebies.

dhmac

You know the original news story from 1989 is still out there, right? ( LINK )

And the original story includes this sentence:
Michael Jackson bought toy figurines and a pair of sunglasses. And that's all he bought. No rings.

dhmac

The "fire" that started this was Michael Jackson's business interests back in the '90s opting to settle a couple of civil lawsuits instead of fight them in court. The reason why they settled was to avoid bad press but it was shortsighted and a side effect of doing it was stting a template on how to made millions of dollars: make allegations and then get rich with a settlement.

And THAT'S the actual pattern. Because every allegation since then is a direct result of this business decision and all of them sought a financial settlement first. This is not a pattern of abuse, it's a pattern of claiming abuse in order to get a multimillion dollar settlement. The fact that a con artist family such as the Arvizos (who at the time had recently scammed JC Penny's for a settlement) would show up could've been predicted.

However, it's also easy to now understand why they opted to settle back in the '90s instead of fight it out in court. The Michael Jackson estate could've settled with Wade Robson back in 2013 when he first filed his lawsuit, which was then private not public. If they had settled with him then, that would've been it and no one outside of the parties involved would've known about it. But instead, the Michael Jackson estate opted to fight Wade Robson in court. That's when Robson went public and Safechuck then joined in, something that wouldn't have happened if Robson's lawsuit stayed private. The Michael Jackson Estate won in court but now that the allegations are public, the bad press is everywhere.

So the Robson/Safechuck allegations are a good illustration of why settling out-of-court happens, even when innocent, because sometimes it's better to payout to avoid bad press. People like you think Michael Jackson is guilty either way: if his estate settles, then it's because Michael Jackson's guilty. But if his estate doesn't settle and instead fights back in court and wins, Michael Jackson is still guilty. No matter what happens, you always thinks he's guilty. Nothing will ever change your mind.