This kind of stuff makes us look crazy. He's gullable and foolish for sure, but we have no idea if he's "sinister".
One thing is for sure, his words about how Wade enjoyed it and a fulfilling sexual relationship etc is just SO damn off.
One thing is for sure, his words about how Wade enjoyed it and a fulfilling sexual relationship etc is just SO damn off.
Yeah, it's very weird. I would understand if he was saying wade told him he felt that way, but he's saying it as if it's a fact that it was a loving relationship. Just very weird.
Sorry for saying it this way guys, but of course this is weird. What did you expect ? We are talking about child sexual abuse. This is weird in itself, so anything around it has to be weird. When Dan Reed says Robson told him he loved Michael, and still loves him, you can't take that for something impossible to believe. You decide to believe it or not, but sadly, as weird, unbearable and out of this world as it can sound, this is classic stuff when you talk about child abuse.
This is all very complex.
You are talking about someone who claims he has been abused from the age of 7 to 14. If this is true, this is something complex he had to deal with every single day of his life and is still affected with it today. Therefore, how can you say that his behavour is not "what you would expect" ?
Excuse me but what do you know about how someone is supposed to act when having gone through these kind of experience, therefore with the biggest star that ever lived on this planet? When you have experienced such weird things, don't you think it results in being weird yourself ? Sometimes irrational ? Contradictory ?
The fact that he sued the Estate in a civil case, which means asking for money in compensation, does not mean that all he is after is money. And that does not mean he is lying. Of course, it does not mean he's telling the truth either.
I just don't understand how it is possible, in such a complex story, to be absolutely certain of anything. Nobody here knows the story but some act just as if they do. This is the real disturbing thing to me.
Sorry for my English, this is not my native language.
You cant prove a negative. Prove you arent a mass murderer? Can you? Sneddon claimed that interms of "we know theres victims out there we just cant find them" how do you counter thatMichael Jackson has been judged non guilty of all charges he was accused of in the 2005 case. He has never been proven being a pedophile, but unfortunately he has never been proven not being one either.
As for Wade Robson testifing under oath and contradicting his testimony years later, I don't know the American law about that either.
Michael Jackson has been judged non guilty of all charges he was accused of in the 2005 case. He has never been proven being a pedophile, but unfortunately he has never been proven not being one either.
This kind of stuff makes us look crazy. He's gullable and foolish for sure, but we have no idea if he's "sinister".
There's a difference between a pedophile and child molester. What you've described is a pedophilia: a mental state/disorder/whatever you want to call it, it's a different subject. If pedophile makes his dirty fantasies come true, then he's a child molester. It's not illegal to be a pedophile: if you'll come to a specialist with this problem, nobody's gonna arrest you.barok232;4238607 said:Ok then, following your own logic, you are a Satan worshipper. And it doesn’t matter that we have absolutely zero clues for that. This simply may not prove that you are BUT STILL IT DOESN’T PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT! If you want to call this precision then I don’t know what else to tell you
You have to understand that this is why situations like these are socially sick/problematic, because they get expressed. If you fantasize little children sexually and NEVER express it, then you are typically NOT a pedophile, get it? The rest is just smartass talk
She is still hurting...
Michael Jackson has been judged non guilty of all charges he was accused of in the 2005 case. He has never been proven being a pedophile, but unfortunately he has never been proven not being one either.
As for Wade Robson testifing under oath and contradicting his testimony years later, I don't know the American law about that either.
I try to explain the thing that Wade Robson still loves Michal with repeating my own Quote...The more often Wade says that MJ is dead and in the way he said that I get the feeling that he is somtimes maybe scared that MJ could be alive.^^
Cause when Wade still loves him somwhere like most of his fans do, he knew he could not stand one minute repeating his lies in front of Michael!
You are SO wrong. I hope google translator did a good job as I will now send you a greek law term translated to English: res judicata
In free terms, this means that a court verdict should have effect and prevail by future actions on the same matter by the same parties AND other parties
The era of investigation when these 2 punks claim to have been molested has already been investigated thoroughly. Unless Michael would have molested them AFTER the 2005 trial, there is no case to discuss
Wow. I assume you have heard of the phrase innocent until proven guilty? Michael had never been proven guilty of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt. No one needs to "prove" their innocence. How is that even possible? How does MJ "prove" he never abused these people? You can't.
Somebody asked about Victor: he basically went after every family that accused Michael Jackson. He wrote a book "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" back in the day about Chandler and Michael full of sick fantasies and pushing the idea how it's OK if a man has a loving relationship with a child, which is NAMBLA agenda exactly and it's what Dan Reed is trying to promote now. All the graphic stuff (I'm not going into details) which Safechuck now claims happened to him, have been in the book already. When Michael found out, he sued Victor for defamation and won millions of dollars. Victor fled the country and never paid. You can read about him here, if you want to know more.https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/c...a/victor-gutierrez-and-the-nambla-connection/
It is not proven that he is a NAMBLA member, but he attended the conferences and he is certainly pushing their agenda.
His sick, twisted reasoning was that, if they could get the star as big as Michael Jackson to be the part of their team, then people would be more accepting towards that.
You are talking about someone who claims he has been abused from the age of 7 to 14. If this is true, this is something complex he had to deal with every single day of his life and is still affected with it today. Therefore, how can you say that his behavour is not "what you would expect" ?
Excuse me but what do you know about how someone is supposed to act when having gone through these kind of experience, therefore with the biggest star that ever lived on this planet? When you have experienced such weird things, don't you think it results in being weird yourself ? Sometimes irrational ? Contradictory ?
The fact that he sued the Estate in a civil case, which means asking for money in compensation, does not mean that all he is after is money. And that does not mean he is lying. Of course, it does not mean he's telling the truth either.
I just don't understand how it is possible, in such a complex story, to be absolutely certain of anything. Nobody here knows the story but some act just as if they do. This is the real disturbing thing to me.
Sorry for my English, this is not my native language.
Somebody asked about Victor: he basically went after every family that accused Michael Jackson. He wrote a book "Michael Jackson Was My Lover" back in the day about Chandler and Michael full of sick fantasies and pushing the idea how it's OK if a man has a loving relationship with a child, which is NAMBLA agenda exactly and it's what Dan Reed is trying to promote now. All the graphic stuff (I'm not going into details) which Safechuck now claims happened to him, have been in the book already. When Michael found out, he sued Victor for defamation and won millions of dollars. Victor fled the country and never paid. You can read about him here, if you want to know more.https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/c...a/victor-gutierrez-and-the-nambla-connection/
It is not proven that he is a NAMBLA member, but he attended the conferences and he is certainly pushing their agenda.
His sick, twisted reasoning was that, if they could get the star as big as Michael Jackson to be the part of their team, then people would be more accepting towards that.