Watched Part 1 of the HBO Documentary last night detailing how Michael Jackson sexually abused two kids. It was disturbing and sickening listening to these stories. What I do not get is why these parents let their child sleep with a grown, adult man.
this is the best defense of Jackson that I have seen. and yeah, I watched all those vids of Bret Harts rebuttals. Ziegler claims Wade Robsons last civil suit was dismissed because he perjured himself in emails and in court. [Reply]
I'm not sure Michael Jackson actually did it. For the longest time I thought he did. Before I actually looked into it and heard the other side of the story. Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised either way. He's a massive pedo who diddled 3 dozen children over his lifetime = not shocked. People got their kids to wrongfully accuse him so they could then sue him and others piled on once they found out what was happening = not shocked. [Reply]
this is the best defense of Jackson that I have seen. and yeah, I watched all those vids of Bret Harts rebuttals. Ziegler claims Wade Robsons last civil suit was dismissed because he perjured himself in emails and in court.
John Ziegler also staunchly believes Jerry Sandusky is innocent. It's like he's never met a pedo he couldn't defend. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lcarus:
I'm not sure Michael Jackson actually did it. For the longest time I thought he did. Before I actually looked into it and heard the other side of the story. Who knows. I wouldn't be surprised either way. He's a massive pedo who diddled 3 dozen children over his lifetime = not shocked. People got their kids to wrongfully accuse him so they could then sue him and others piled on once they found out what was happening = not shocked.
That's where I am.
I always assumed he did it; the guy's weird as fuck and on its face it passes a sniff test. But then I started taking some trips to Latin America where the guy is essentially still revered as a god. And down there you'll still hear about all the good he did for people.
So it makes you give it a second look and start to dig into some of the rebuttals a little more. And once you give it any kind of analysis similar to an adversarial process, you start to see where some of these claims really just fall apart.
And that's why I'm always far harder on the 'he did it' documentaries - they NEVER explore any of that. They always engage in empty chair interviews and give all inferences the light least favorable to Jackson. So if you're gonna get anything from them, you have to do the attacking on your own.
And pretty much across the board, they turn into hatchet pieces.
Now if I got to heaven and was given complete knowledge of all things and learned 'Oh hey, MJ absolutely diddled those kids...' well I wouldn't be stunned. But at the same time, I wouldn't be stunned if he didn't either.
I just think more people need to view those 'documentaries' with a jaundiced eye because they aren't even remotely close to evenhanded. They work backwards from their conclusion every single time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
One of my issues with this is that Robson testified on Jackson's behalf in 2005 as an adult that nothing was done to him...He was singing Jackson's praises all the way up until 2011..
It just comes off really strange that everything was great until his career went in the tank.
One of the wives states that children are often in denial that something that happened to them is bad, so they quash it until they are adults. In Robson's case, he had publicly lied for so long that it was hard to go back. The other, who chose not to testify in the latter trial, spoke of how angry Michael became with him.
In the second part of the documentary, it basically took both of these guys having kids of their own before it really started to affect them. One of them states that he dreamed Michael was doing those things to his toddler son, and how angry and disgusted it made him just to think of it. Yet, he never saw it as wrong while it was happening to him. I think that ate at him until he just had to eventually tell someone. [Reply]
Just my opinion, but, after watching this and thinking about it, if I had watched only Wade Robson, I would still have doubts. Watching James Safechuck is what tipped me over to the "he did it" side. [Reply]
Originally Posted by luv:
One of the wives states that children are often in denial that something that happened to them is bad, so they quash it until they are adults. In Robson's case, he had publicly lied for so long that it was hard to go back. The other, who chose not to testify in the latter trial, spoke of how angry Michael became with him.
In the second part of the documentary, it basically took both of these guys having kids of their own before it really started to affect them. One of them states that he dreamed Michael was doing those things to his toddler son, and how angry and disgusted it made him just to think of it. Yet, he never saw it as wrong while it was happening to him. I think that ate at him until he just had to eventually tell someone.
But you also have to realize that these folks and their FAMILIES start to make up entire back-stories around it and have to apply them retroactively. For instance, one of their mom's says she celebrated after Jackson died - meanwhile that guy was still defending Jackson at the time (I think it was Robson).
Now if you're going to go with the 'doubling down on a story' angle, that's one approach, but that's not what Robson said. What Robson said was that he never realized he was abused until years after Jackson died. Nevermind the fact that he was the key witness in Jackson's trial in Jackson's defense. I mean he was an adult then and swore under oath despite being hit over the head with what exactly constitutes child abuse. He's really gonna claim he didn't realize it was abuse even after that? But again, nevermind that, his MOTHER said she celebrated when Jackson died....but the son steadfastly maintained he wasn't abused until several years later? So...uh...what was the mother celebrating for?
The problem is the inconsistencies and how virtually impossible it is to reconcile them to each other. Somebody on that side of the ledger is lying - period. Not confused, not bringing up buried memories - just flat ass lying.
There's not a way to explain away the inconsistencies. The very best you can do is do something like concede that the mother is full of shit but call it effectively 'harmless error'. But even that requires that you approach it from the position least favorable to Jackson to begin with.
There's this rush to believe one half of the argument and say shit like "what do they have to gain?" as though they don't all have book deals in the pipe or haven't all taken shots at tens of millions in civil damages. They have a ton to gain, they're nearly as vested as Jackson was. And yet they don't even face a modicum of scrutiny. It's just a wildly unfair approach to this and it's common in the court of public opinion.
And less so in an actual court, which is why those cases simply never held up. When you couldn't just hand-waive all the counter-narratives, suddenly it became a lot harder to take all the allegations at face value. [Reply]
Originally Posted by luv:
Just my opinion, but, after watching this and thinking about it, if I had watched only Wade Robson, I would still have doubts. Watching James Safechuck is what tipped me over to the "he did it" side.
Safechuck is the more credible accuser, for sure.
But my trial practice professor always hammered home a point to us and it was that any argument that you make that isn't actively helping your case is actively harming it.
Robson's credibility is just so shot to hell that Reed's decision to make him 1/2 of the entire foundation of this movie makes you question every motive he has. When you have to lean that heavily into someone that really has credibility problems, it makes me wonder just how good you thought your 'case in chief' really was. Why use such a shoddy source to bolster a case that was seemingly so obvious. And if you'll gloss over his clear credibility issues, why should I trust anything you have to say. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
But you also have to realize that these folks and their FAMILIES start to make up entire back-stories around it and have to apply them retroactively. For instance, one of their mom's says she celebrated after Jackson died - meanwhile that guy was still defending Jackson at the time (I think it was Robson).
Now if you're going to go with the 'doubling down on a story' angle, that's one approach, but that's not what Robson said. What Robson said was that he never realized he was abused until years after Jackson died. Nevermind the fact that he was the key witness in Jackson's trial in Jackson's defense. I mean he was an adult then and swore under oath despite being hit over the head with what exactly constitutes child abuse. He's really gonna claim he didn't realize it was abuse even after that? But again, nevermind that, his MOTHER said she celebrated when Jackson died....but the son steadfastly maintained he wasn't abused until several years later? So...uh...what was the mother celebrating for?
The problem is the inconsistencies and how virtually impossible it is to reconcile them to each other. Somebody on that side of the ledger is lying - period. Not confused, not bringing up buried memories - just flat ass lying.
There's not a way to explain away the inconsistencies. The very best you can do is do something like concede that the mother is full of shit but call it effectively 'harmless error'. But even that requires that you approach it from the position least favorable to Jackson to begin with.
There's this rush to believe one half of the argument and say shit like "what do they have to gain?" as though they don't all have book deals in the pipe or haven't all taken shots at tens of millions in civil damages. They have a ton to gain, they're nearly as vested as Jackson was. And yet they don't even face a modicum of scrutiny. It's just a wildly unfair approach to this and it's common in the court of public opinion.
And less so in an actual court, which is why those cases simply never held up. When you couldn't just hand-waive all the counter-narratives, suddenly it became a lot harder to take all the allegations at face value.
I think you have the moms confused. Robson's mom, her son still denying anything happened, said that she cried for a week holding a jacket that Michael had given her. Safechuck's mom, whose son did not testify in the latter trial and had told his mom not to either because Michael was not a good person (highly insinuating something happened without telling her), is the one who said she danced when Michael died. [Reply]