Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson, a new trial to be held

MJImpeccable said:
This 'his behaviour was not illegal' is not a great argument though..
Click to expand...
It was not criminal, is what I thought to say.

Its not an argument, because its basic facts. He did not break the law and it was never found he did break laws. He didn't even invade a consent of the adults present in these times. Arguing back and forth about what he did and if hanging out with children is barely relevant even, because he has been accused of having sex with children. Which doesn't even require a prior relationship or prolonged contact, they're simply indecent acts that you commit. The same as befriending children is just an act that you can just go out and do, no real, impetus necessary. It's just basic logic. A man can assault a random woman on the street or get to know her and then do it. They're both criminals. If they're accused and innocent though, does dating the woman and being attracted to her make it more suspicious and likely he'd assault her? I'm pretty sure that he is (supposedly) just a sicko who wants his kicks and either will or won't do it.
That's a rhetorical question. Anyway.

And for many predators, they go hand in hand, sure, but befriending children goes hand in hand with parents, teachers, and most other community figures. There's plenty of ways to invade a child's boundaries other than staying with them excessive amounts of time. And here I go again writing another essay.
 
Last edited:
Looking back LN did change my opinion and made me question what really went on.

I felt physically sick listening to what was said during that documentary. The graphic details about the sex acts that were carried out.

It made me SICK at the thought of this happening. Now I've read stuff in the past about MJ and Chandler sharing baths and him describing his private regions etc.

Timelines and not putting every part of the puzzle together doesn't bother me, who in their right mind would describe such vulgar acts between a man and children. Unfortunately it has stuck with me ever since.

I know that the documentary was supposed to shock people and that was the whole point but still.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
It was not criminal, is what I thought to say.

Its not an argument, because its basic facts. He did not break the law and it was never found he did break laws. He didn't even invade a consent of the adults present in these times. Arguing back and forth about what he did and if hanging out with children is barely relevant even, because he has been accused of having sex with children. Which doesn't even require a prior relationship or prolonged contact, they're simply indecent acts that you commit. The same as befriending children is just an act that you can just go out and do, no real, impetus necessary. It's just basic logic. A man can assault a random woman on the street or get to know her and then do it. They're both criminals. If they're accused and innocent though, does dating the woman and being attracted to her make it more suspicious and likely he'd assault her? I'm pretty sure that's he just a sicko who wants his kicks and either will or won't do it.
That's a rhetorical question. Anyway.

And for many predators, they go hand in hand, sure, but befriending children goes hand in hand with parents, teachers, and most other community figures. There's plenty of ways to invade a child's boundaries other than staying with them excessive amounts of time. And here I go again writing another essay.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but buffalo was talking/asking about 'behaviour' not the question 'guilty/not guilty' or 'breaking laws', so in that sense when something is not illegal doesnt mean its right to do. Bullying is not illegal but (in this example) it is not right or not accepted.
 
MJImpeccable said:
[...] Suing the production company is the only and hopefully last way Wade and James can try to earn the big bucks in court because all their trials direcly on Michael have been thrown out.
Click to expand...
The lawsuits haven't been about Michael directly, though. WR's first lawsuit named Michael and it was dismissed very quickly bc Michael was dead and you can't bring a lawsuit against a dead person. All of the lawsuits that got rejected were all about the same thing - the claim that Michael's companies had a duty of care to WR and JS as kids.

MJImpeccable said:
Its also so obivous that they are trying all possible was to sue Michael to earn some money, how does the court not see it.
Click to expand...
Bc that hasn't been the question for the judges to consider. They haven't been hearing the case itself. So far, they have been deciding whether the case had any merit and could go forward to trial. Every judge decided that Michael's companies did not have a duty of care to the kids. Now the Court of Appeal has said, yes, it is reasonable to claim that the 2 companies did have a duty of care.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Looking back LN did change my opinion and made me question what really went on.

I felt physically sick listening to what was said during that documentary. The graphic details about the sex acts that were carried out.

It made me SICK at the thought of this happening. Now I've read stuff in the past about MJ and Chandler sharing baths and him describing his private regions etc.

Timelines and not putting every part of the puzzle together doesn't bother me, who in their right mind would describe such vulgar acts between a man and children. Unfortunately it has stuck with me ever since.

I know that the documentary was supposed to shock people and that was the whole point but still.
Click to expand...
In a sense youre right about this, if something happend a lot time ago it can be difficult to remember everything.

The problem here is the scale in which Wade and James cant puzzle every part together and also that they (sometimes) claim they do know all the stories almost completely. For some reason in LN they remembered everythin in detail!

One important example is the train station story. In the movie James talks very detailed about this 'train station' abuse as if he remembered everything little thing. But is simply couldn't have happend, which would mean that he (1) lied and (2) wrote this very graphic story himself. Which if you think about it, is fucking sickening.
 
MJImpeccable said:
In a sense youre right about this, if something happend a lot time ago it can be difficult to remember everything.

The problem here is the scale in which Wade and James cant puzzle every part together and also that they (sometimes) claim they do know all the stories almost completely. For some reason in LN they remembered everythin in detail!

One important example is the train station story. In the movie James talks very detailed about this 'train station' abuse as if he remembered everything little thing. But is simply couldn't have happend, which would mean that he (1) lied and (2) wrote this very graphic story himself. Which if you think about it, is fucking sickening.
Click to expand...
Yeah the train station story obv blows everything out because it didn't exist during this particular moment? something like that anyway.
 
zinniabooklover said:
The lawsuits haven't been about Michael directly, though. WR's first lawsuit named Michael and it was dismissed very quickly bc Michael was dead and you can't bring a lawsuit against a dead person. All of the lawsuits that got rejected were all about the same thing - the claim that Michael's companies had a duty of care to WR and JS as kids.


Bc that hasn't been the question for the judges to consider. They haven't been hearing the case itself. So far, they have been deciding whether the case had any merit and could go forward to trial. Every judge decided that Michael's companies did not have a duty of care to the kids. Now the Court of Appeal has said, yes, it is reasonable to claim that the 2 companies did have a duty of care.
Click to expand...
Thank for the correcting me. But then the question again arises, can the company be responsible or have duty of care for something that 'probably' didnt happen..
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Yeah the train station story obv blows everything out because it didn't exist during this particular moment? something like that anyway.
Click to expand...
I remember you said in another threat, 'If michael lied once about his surgeries, what else did he lie about?'

You now comfirmed the train station story is indeed fake (and in a sickening way written and made-up), then the critical question arises:
'If James (proven) lied once in LN, what else in LN died he lie about?'

James was able to write a fabficated detailed horrifying detailed story, whats says that about the credibility of all the other parts of LN? Did he lie there too?
 
filmandmusic said:
How come this didn’t get any traction in the 80s? I very vaguely reading about it.
Click to expand...
Based on the reading I've done this particular story isn't true. Looks like people bought it bc the FBI gets mentioned and so everyone just assumes that it must be true. Think about this, though. When Michael went to court in 2005 Sneddon - somehow, god knows how - was able to persuade the judge to allow him to mention the Chandler stuff as part of his prosecution. When a person goes to court for a criminal trial, if they have previously been charged with similar crimes, that is NOT mentioned in the course of the current trial. Bc that would influence the jury. So it is off the table. Every time.

Yet, somehow, Sneddon gets permission to include the Chandler stuff in his prosecution case. This is the 'prior bad acts' part of the Arvizo case. It didn't help him but that's not the point, that material should never have been admitted into court.

OK, so if the story re the Mexican boys was true, Sneddon would have included that too. Wouldn't he? Pile it on and get that jury behind your story. But it wasn't included. I think that tells us everything we need to know.
 
Does anyone know if the estate or a publisher have the script of the "tell all book" by WR? I'm sure it's full of contradictions too.
 
BuffaloBill87 said:
Looking back LN did change my opinion and made me question what really went on.

I felt physically sick listening to what was said during that documentary. The graphic details about the sex acts that were carried out.

It made me SICK at the thought of this happening. Now I've read stuff in the past about MJ and Chandler sharing baths and him describing his private regions etc.

Timelines and not putting every part of the puzzle together doesn't bother me, who in their right mind would describe such vulgar acts between a man and children. Unfortunately it has stuck with me ever since.

I know that the documentary was supposed to shock people and that was the whole point but still.
Click to expand...
Well, I ask you again, Elvis has been documented sleeping over with under age girls. Why does no one seem too particularly stressed about that statement. You don't even have to answer me, please don't actually. It's rhetorical, to make you think.

A more obvious example, R.Kelly. his crimes are very well documented. There's very literal video evidence of how sordid and sick he was. Why did we not only not care, but they actually dare to make jokes about it? Even portray it on the Boondocks lol.

It's about mental association, and unspoken bias. Because MJ is accused of sodomy and being a Gay Pedophile, there's an undercurrent of homophobia involved outright. If even MJ was accused of exploting a girl, how would people take it? Would it depend on her race as well. Just really think about what makes you uncomfortable. If it is as simple as sleepovers then maybe, I won't say I don't get it, I'll begrudge you that.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Well, I ask you again, Elvis has been documented sleeping over with under age girls. Why does no one seem too particularly stressed about that statement. You don't even have to answer me, please don't actually. It's rhetorical, to make you think.

A more obvious example, R.Kelly. his crimes are very well documented. There's very literal video evidence of how sordid and sick he was. Why did we not only not care, but they actually dare to make jokes about it? Even portray it on the Boondocks lol.

It's about mental association, and unspoken bias. Because MJ is accused of sodomy and being a Gay Pedophile, there's an undercurrent of homophobia involved outright. If even MJ was accused of exploting a girl, how would people take it? Would it depend on her race as well. Just really think about what makes you uncomfortable. If it is as simple as sleepovers then maybe, I won't say I don't get it, I'll begrudge you that.
Click to expand...
I don't really like your reasoning on this. This has nothing to do with Elvis or R.Kelly. I was also extremely put of by the chock value of LN (and the R.Kelly doc as well by the way, the dude IS canceled so you can't say nobody cares). First after I did my research I saw how everything was manipulated. These things are disgusting to the world no matter if its a boy or a girl. Teenage (or preteen) girls have been over sexualized in the past (Taxi driver, Pretty Baby etc.) so this is probably one of the reasons why people like Elvis back in the day didn't draw that much attention to their misconduct.
 
Last edited:
filmandmusic said:
How come this didn’t get any traction in the 80s? I very vaguely reading about it.
Click to expand...

A few pages back by Lightbringer, this is about the Mexican boys bullshit.

https://www.mjjcommunity.com/thread...-trial-to-be-held.201974/page-15#post-4584479


And I see LN being called a documentary, but it really, really isn't one. It's a horror movie, it's pure fiction. A lot of it is either taken straight from Victor Guitterez sick book or based on it. Why this sick fuck hasn't been investigated yet is beyond me. He still owes MJ a lot of money, so does Adrian McManus monstrous ass.

It's a horror movie disguised as documentary with the sole intention to shock, to disgust and gross people out. It's an emotionally manipulative hit piece. It's a....mockumentary.
 
librariangirl:) said:
I don't really like your reasoning on this. This has nothing to do with Elvis or R.Kelly. I was also extremely put of by the chock value of LN (and the R.Kelly doc as well by the way, the dude IS canceled so you can't say nobody cares). First after I did my research I saw how everything was manipulated. These things are disgusting to the world no matter if its a boy or a girl. Teenage (or preteen) girls have been over sexualized in the past (Taxi driver, Pretty Baby etc.) so this is probably one of the reasons why people like Elvis back in the day didn't draw that much attention to their misconduct.
Click to expand...
Of course they are disgusting, and I would never dare say otherwise. It's just such an intense disgust I'm registering when people talk about MJ. He is larger than life in truly so many ways, and that includes even when people may dislike or are out off by something involving him.

I do also refuse to Not speak on the double standards that, not even has anything to do with race, but pretty much any "respected" artist gets in the face of accusations versus MJ from the tabloid media. It's only recently that these things have changed. Starting to swing the other way really, too condemning of anyone even accused of things. It may have been a different time but it's not the same treatment every different time.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Of course they are disgusting, and I would never dare say otherwise. It's just such an intense disgust I'm registering when people talk about MJ. He is larger than life in truly so many ways, and that includes even when people may dislike or are out off by something involving him.

I do also refuse to Not speak on the double standards that, not even has anything to do with race, but pretty much any "respected" artist gets in the face of accusations versus MJ from the tabloid media. It's only recently that these things have changed. Starting to swing the other way really, too condemning of anyone even accused of things. It may have been a different time but it's not the same treatment every different time.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right that people (especially the tabloids) love to hate on MJ (except when he passed away).
 
It might be fair to do research on how often a child predator even wants to have a sleepover with kids. To see if that's even a method they use that much
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
It might be fair to do research on how often a child predator even wants to have a sleepover with kids. To see if that's even a method they use that much
Click to expand...
Also that is not a very good argument.. even if its not a regular method used, it still doesnt mean it happened or not..

I think I have seen some indept analysis of Michaels behaviour with certrain professionals (on discovery or someting), I think these professionals were analyzing Michaels behaviour, body language in depositions and background of his life, I think their conclusion was he probably wasnt a child predator.

I will try to find it, it was pretty interesting.

Edit found it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14834114/
 
MJImpeccable said:
Also that is not a very good argument.. even if its not a regular method used, it still doesnt mean it happened or not..

I think I have seen some indept analysis of Michaels behaviour with certrain professionals (on discovery or someting), I think these professionals were analyzing Michaels behaviour, body language in depositions and background of his life, I think there conclusion was he probably wasnt a child predator.

I will try to find it, it was pretty interesting.
Click to expand...
Dr Dieter Speck a German psychologist made a very interesting analysis.
 
Last edited:
MJImpeccable said:
Also that is not a very good argument.. even if its not a regular method used, it still doesnt mean it happened or not..

I think I have seen some indept analysis of Michaels behaviour with certrain professionals (on discovery or someting), I think these professionals were analyzing Michaels behaviour, body language in depositions and background of his life, I think their conclusion was he probably wasnt a child predator.

I will try to find it, it was pretty interesting.

Edit found it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14834114/
Click to expand...
If it's not a method, then that pretty much eliminates it as being relevant in my mind. Maybe it crosses different boundaries, warranted discussions. But MJ overall does not fit the MO of anyone who wants something other than to, really, stick it to the media, exert his image and his triumph over the enemies. Have his jollies, enjoy his fun, his one sort of fun, with young people, away from the prying tabloid eyes, and just massage that wounded soul who was made to be obscenely famous from a young time. There was a need for MJ to hear No, but it really should have stayed long before Thriller, Off the Wall, any of it. After all, he was once a kid too, but made to feel like a grown man and a recording art genius. Which he was, but what a contradiction.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
If it's not a method, then that pretty much eliminates it as being relevant in my mind. Maybe it crosses different boundaries, warranted discussions. But MJ overall does not fit the MO of anyone who wants something other than to, really, stick it to the media, exert his image and his triumph over the enemies. Have his jollies, enjoy his fun, his one sort of fun, with young people, away from the prying tabloid eyes, and just massage that wounded soul who was made to be obscenely famous from a young time. There was a need for MJ to hear No, but it really should have stayed long before Thriller, Off the Wall, any of it. After all, he was once a kid too, but made to feel like a grown man and a recording art genius. Which he was, but what a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Wait what do mean as method? Like sleepovers as general behaviour for child molesters or the method of researching his psychology? I dont really understand 😅.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
The former, I mean the former.
Click to expand...
Ah yes sorry, thanks for the clarification. I think most child predators dont even get close to being able to have (friendly) sleepovers.. most probably would want one, cause it brings them closer to them. Basically the same as you'd like to be with a woman or man because you are interested in that sex, when its a man or woman you are interested in. But I'd think its a difficult method to achieve, because I dont think a lot of people will let an adult male have a sleepover with a kid. But I'm no psychologist.
 
MJImpeccable said:
Also that is not a very good argument.. even if its not a regular method used, it still doesnt mean it happened or not..

I think I have seen some indept analysis of Michaels behaviour with certrain professionals (on discovery or someting), I think these professionals were analyzing Michaels behaviour, body language in depositions and background of his life, I think their conclusion was he probably wasnt a child predator.

I will try to find it, it was pretty interesting.

Edit found it: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14834114/
Click to expand...
I saw it at the end it got angry when everyone was convinced by robson safechuck's statements, the woman said there should be a process for the truth, and we have it now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top